Sitting of 2 April 1908

Preamble
House met at a quarter before of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Bromley and Crays Gas Bill; Glyncorrwg Urban District Council Bill; Lincoln Corporation Bill.—Read the third time, and passed.
Dover Graving Docks Bill; Louth and East Coast Railway (Transfer) Bill; Dundalk Urban District Council Bill.—Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie on the Table, and to be printed.
Knott End Railway Bill.—Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Herne Bay Pier Bill [Lords].—Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read a third time.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP E).
  Colonel SEELY reported from the Committee on Group E of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at Twelve of the Clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions against: From Liverpool; and, Mining Association of Great Britain; to lie upon the Table.
  EARL, WILLIAM ROBERT ALBERT.
  Petition from William Robert Albert Earl, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions from Westhall, against; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Truro; and, Yeovil; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against: From Bath; Billinghurst; Birmingham; Bradford; Colgate; Easebourne; Eccleshall; Greasborough (two); Hemmingfield; Kilnhurst; London and other places; Middlesbrough; North Bucks; Rawmarsh; Rotherham (four); Sheffield (eight); Swinton (twelve); Thornhill; West Sussex (three); and Woking and Cranleigh; to lie upon the Table.
  Petititions for alteration; From Colne and Nelson; Daventry; Helidon; Sunday School Union; Truro; and, Wigston Magna; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour; From Ardwick; Barrow-in-Furness (two); Batley (three); Belper; Bridport; Berry (three); Caersalem; Canterbury (three); Coppington; Coppenhall; Cramlington Colliery; Crewe; Didmarton; DobwailsDurham; East Looe; Eccles (two); Garstang; Glasgow; Halifax; Highara; Kelvedon; Lancaster (seven)Liskeard (four); Littlehampton; (seven); Liskear; Llangristiolus; Luddenfoot; Motherwell; New Delaval; New Kilpatrick; Northowram; North Salford; North Shields; North Walbottle; Ossett; Pendleton; Pensilva; Polruan; Ringwood; Rothesay (two); St. Andrews; St. Helens; St. Hilary; St. Mary's (Scilly); Sheffield; Shotton; Southsea; Streatham (two); Street; Thornby; Timsbury; Tunbridge Wells; Waring Green; West Dulwich; and, Yeovil and Sherborne; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL AND LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Stranraer, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Paisley, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  OUTDOOR RELIEF FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACTS, 1894 AND 1904.
  Petitions from Bothwell, for extension to Scotland; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Middlesbrough, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOP BILLS.
  Petition from Westminster, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CROWN'S NOMINEE ACCOUNT.
  Abstract Account presented, of receipts and payments of the Treasury Solicitor, in the year ended 31st December, 1907, in the Administration of Estates on behalf of the Crown, and Alphabetical List of Intestates' Estates in respect of which Letters of Administration were granted to the Treasury Solicitor as Crown's Nominee, and of other cases (partial intestacies, &c.) in which accounts were opened in the Books of the Treasury Solicitor in the same year, in respect of moneys received by him as Crown's Nominee [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 113.]
  SUPERANNUATION ACTS, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 30th March, 1908, declaring that Mr. George Samuel Newth, Lecture Assistant, Normal School of Science, Board of Education, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Report, Annual Series, No. 3967 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889 (ORDINANCE).
  Copy presented, of University Court Ordinance No. XXIV. (Aberdeen, No. 2) (Regulations for Degrees in Arts) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 114.]

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889 (ORDINANCE).
  Copy presented, of University Court Ordinance No. XXV. (Aberdeen No. 3) (Regulations as to Bursaries, &c.) [by

  641
  Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 115.]

  UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.
  Copy presented, of Abstract of Accounts of the University of Glasgow for the year ending 30th September, 1907 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 116.]
  PAPER LAID ON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Criminal Appeal Rules, Copy of the Criminal Appeal Rules, 1908 [by Act].
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Bonlahy Letter Arrangements.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether any petition has been received by him from the inhabitants of Bonlahy, County Longford, and neighbourhood, for an evening as well as a morning clearance of the pillar-box there; and will he direct that this be done.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The petition to which the hon. Member refers has been duly received, and inquiry is being made. I hope shortly to be able to send a reply.

  Coventry Post Office Medical Officer.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the medical officer of the post office at Coventry is about 85 years of age, and that many of the staff at Coventry attend other medical men at their own expense, owing to their dissatisfaction with the medical officer's treatment; and whether, in view of his advanced age, steps will be taken to appoint another medical officer.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am having inquiry made, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  Dudley and Birmingham Post Office Scale of Wages.
  MR. STAY ELEY-HILL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he aware that the employees in the post office at Dudley
  642
  receive 12s. a week less than those employed at Birmingham, and that the employees at Dudley are compelled to pass an examination in telegraphy and postal work, which test is not required pf those employed at Birmingham; and whether he will state the reason for the difference in remuneration.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that there are officers in the Dudley post office with thirty years service who are receiving 44s. per week, while those similarly employed at Birmingham, with a less amount of service, are receiving 56s. per week; and whether he can state the reason for this difference.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I will answer the two Questions together. Under the recommendation of the Select Committee on Post Office Servants the new classification of towns in respect of scales of pay is to be based primarily on the volume of work modified where necessary by the cost of living. The unit of work at Birmingham is 7,400, which places it in Class I. The index number of the cost of living at Birmingham, as ascertained by the Board of Trade, is 96. The unit of work at Dudley is only 168, and the index number of the cost of living 90, the average being 100. Sorting clerks and telegraphists at all provincial offices are liable to be employed on sorting or telegraph work as the exigencies of the service may require; but at the large offices, though the work is more trying, the conditions are nearly always such that officers are, in practice, employed exclusively on sorting or telegraph duties, as the case may be, and it is not, therefore, necessary to train them all fully on both classes of work.

  Postal Officers and Territorial Force Camps.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state whether postal servants who are members of the Territorial Forces will have leave of absence from official duties to attend camp; if they will receive their Civil Service pay during these periods; and whether he can state the regulations issued by the Post Office dealing with this subject.

  643
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The regulations authorised by the Treasury provide for the grant of special leave up to a maximum of fifteen days in such cases. The Treasury Regulations as regards pay will be published immediately.

  Dundee Telegraphists' Wages.
  MR. WILKIE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the maximum wages of male telegraphists at Dundee, as a result of the departmental interpretation of the Hobhouse award, remains at the figure fixed in 1890; whether the maximum at Edinburgh is 4s. per week higher than at Dundee; whether the recent Board of Trade Returns show that Dundee is the city in Scotland in which the cost of living for the working classes is highest; and whether he will investigate the position of affairs at Dundee.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) In 1890 there were two classes of sorting clerks and telegraphists at Dundee. The first-class had a maximum of 50s., and the second-class a maximum of 40s. The classification of Dundee has been determined on the lines recommended by the the Select Committee on Post Office Servants, that is to say, primarily on volume of work modified where necessary by cost of living. The volume of work at Dundee is represented by about 1,120 units which places it in Class II., the range of which is from 800 to 1,700 units, and as the cost of living is not exceptionally high, it remains in Class II. On the same principle Edinburgh with about 4,780 units of work, and with the cost of living practically the same as in Dundee, remains in Class I.

  Naturalisation Fees.
  MR. BYLES: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the expectations held out by the Prime Minister to an important deputation several months ago, he is yet able to promise a reduction of the fee charged for naturalisation in this country, so that it may conform more nearly to the smaller fees charged in foreign countries.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The question has been very fully and
  644
  carefully considered, and it has been decided not to make any reduction in the fee.

  Tipton Death Inquiry.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the death of a man named David Pearson, at Tipton, in Staffordshire, upon whose body an inquest was held and a verdict returned of death from natural causes, accelerated by excessive drinking and exposure; whether he is aware that it is alleged that anoxious drug had been given this man; whether, under the circumstances, the authorities had taken the necessary steps to elicit the true cause of this mans death; and whether he intends to take any steps towards making further inquiries into this case.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have no information as to this case save that contained in the newspaper report which the hon. Member has kindly sent me, but I am making inquiries and will communicate the result to him.

  Children in Public Houses.
  MR. FIENNES: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether in view of the widespread interest taken in the question of women taking infants and young children to public-houses, he will circulate to all Members the Home Office Report on this subject [Cd. 3813].
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The Paper in question has been laid upon the Table, and has been dealt with in accordance with the usual rule as to the distribution of Command Papers. Copies can be obtained by any Member interested on application at the Vote office.

  Religious Instruction in Training Colleges.
  LORD R. CECIL: To ask the President of the Board of Education, in how many, and which of the training colleges no religious instruction is given; and how many students are provided for at such colleges.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Board have not hitherto made inquiries as to the religious instruction given in training colleges, and I regret, therefore,

  645
  that my information is confined to the colleges provided by the London County Council, to which I referred in my answer to the noble Lord on the 20th March.

  Egyptian Administration.
  MR. KETTLE: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, according to the present political arrangements in Egypt, it is within the competence of the Khedive to grant a constitution or representative legislature to the people of Egypt.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) Under present conditions, it would be necessary that if any step of the nature referred to were taken, it should be only in consultation with His Majesty's Government.

  Mandi Chiefship.
  MR. MICKLEM: To ask the Secretary of State for India, whether there is any record of the grounds upon which the memorial of Raja Dusht Nikandan Sen, Chief of Sukeh State, Punjaub, presented in 1904, and praying that the Raja's claims to the chiefship of Mandi might be inquired into and considered, was rejected by the then Secretary of State for India; and if so, whether he will state the reasons for such rejection, and whether the Raja was informed why he was not accorded a hearing.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The proceedings of the Secretary of State in Council, which resulted in the rejection of the memorial referred to, are on record. The reason for the rejection of the memorial was that it established no ground for interfering with the orders passed by the Government of India in 1897, recognising the adoption, by the late chief, of a son who is the present chief. The memorialist was duly informed that the Secretary of State, after fully considering all the circumstances of the cases, saw no reason for interfering with the orders of 1897.

  Select Committee on East India Finance.
  SIR H. COTTON: To ask the Secretary of State for India, if he is aware that on page 909 of the Third Report of the Select Committee on East India Finance, ordered by this
  646
  House to be printed on 28th July, 1873, a table is given showing the average effective strength of the European army in India from the year 1862–3 to the year 1871–2; that in that table the following totals for the years specified are given: 1862–3, 69,732; 1863–4, 67,712; 1867–8, 55,237; 1868–9, 55,756; 1870–1, 56,694: 1871–2, 58,437; that the figures now given for the same years are as follows: 1862, 73,174; 1863, 76,085; 1867, 65,467; 1868, 61,897; 1870, 56,954; 1871, 58,368; and will he state the reason for these discrepancies.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I do not know how the figures printed in 1873 wore arrived at, but they appear to be averages for several months of each year, with the omission of commissioned officers. The figures given by me on the 26th March included commissioned officers, as requested by the hon. Member, and, as I then stated, represented the established and not the actual strength.

  Defence of India.
  SIR H. COTTON: To ask the Secretary of State for India, if he will state in what year the Report of the Royal Commission which sat shortly after the Mutiny to consider the question of the forces necessary for the protection of India, and advised that 80,000 British troops were required, was presented to this House; and what is the reference number of the Command Paper in which that Report was published.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The Report was presented in 1859. The reference number of the Command Paper is Cd. 2515.

  British Garrison in India.
  Sir H. COTTON: To ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he is aware that in answer to a question put on 13th March, 1906, by the hon. Member for North Camberwell the following figures were given by the Secretary of State for War of the total strength of the British forces serving in India in the years specified: January 1897, 76,995; January 1900, 66,581; January 1901, 63,623; January 1902, 63,958; January 1903, 75,740; October 1903, 76,380; October 1904, 76,938; October 1905, 78,061; and that the figures now given

  647
  for the same years are as follows: 1897–8, 76,376; 1900–1, 65,581; 1901–2, 62,999; 1902–3, 59,497; 1903–4, 74,709; 1904–5, 74,872; 1905–6, 77,268; and will he state the reason for these discrepancies.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The figures given by me on the 26th of March last were then stated to be for the 1st of April in each year. The reason of the discrepancy between those figures and those which the Secretary of State for War gave two years ago for January and October, is to be found in the fact that the numbers vary at different times of the year according to the relief movements of troops between India and this country.

  Women Clerks at the Post Office.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will state the respective numbers of women clerks from each branch of the Post Office in London whose names are noted as desiring transfer to Dublin; and seeing that junior members of such clerks, to the exclusion of their seniors, are about to be transferred to Dublin, will he say whether all future transfers will be regulated according to seniority and equality of efficiency.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The total number of women clerks who have applied for transfer to Dublin is fifty-eight, of whom eighteen are employed in the Accountant-General's Department, twenty-nine in the Savings Bank, and eleven in the Money Order Department. Priority of application is the governing factor in the case of transfers.
  MR. FIELDTo ask the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that a number of Savings Bank women clerks were asked by the Savings Bank authorities, either privately or officially, sometime before the present Government came into office, if they would serve in Dublin, that the percentages of Irish deposits and withdrawals made through British deposit hooks and vice versa, as worked out by the Savings Bank, either privately or officially, show only one per cent. approximately on the totals, that, apart from the enormous inconvenience to Irish depositors, Ireland loses £30,000 per annum by having the Irish Savings Bank accounts kept in
  648
  London, that 99 per cent. of the manufactured stuff used in the Post Office in Ireland is not manufactured in Ireland, that clerical work can be as efficiently, and, having regard to the cost of housing accommodation, more economically performed in Dublin than in London, and that it would be more in conformity with Irish ideas if the Irish Savings Bank accounts were kept in Dublin, he will further consider the advisability of transferring the work of keeping these accounts from London to Dublin.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am afraid I have nothing to add to the replies I gave my hon. friend on the subject last session.

  Permanent Assistant Secretary to the Treasury.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will explain, in reference to the promotion of Mr. Blain over Mr. Crowly as Permanent Assistant Secretary to the Treasury, who was the official responsible for this selection, and what proof did he put forward as to Mr. Blain being more meritorious than Mr. Crowly for the superior appointment.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) This appointment was made by the Board of Treasury.

  The Assistant Comptroller and Auditor.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the number of months sick leave the late Mr. Gleadowe had during the year immediately preceding his appointment as assistant comptroller and auditor; for what length of time did he occupy the latter position, and what sick leave did he have during this period; and whether, contrary to the Exchequer and Audit Department Act, he was selected for the position of assistant comptroller and auditor by the permanent officials of the Treasury.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) Mr. Gleadowe has been dead more than four years, and in these circumstances, I am not prepared to make inquiries as to the amount of his sick leave. His appointment was made in accordance with the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Department Act.

  Prevention of Railway Accidents.
  MR. ELLIS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any special appointments of persons have been made under Section 15 of The Railway Employment (Prevention of Accidents) Act, 1900; and whether any inquiries have been held and experiments have been made under the same section.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The two assistant inspecting officers of railways, who have conducted practically all the inspections made under the Act of 1900, were added to the staff of the department in January 1901. An additional sub-inspecting officer was also appointed in March 1904. In addition to the inquiries which are continually being held, where necessary, by these officers into the causes of accidents to railway servants, and to numerous inspections under Section 13 of the Act, special investigation has been made in some cases where a railway company has objected to a rule proposed by the Board under the Act for reasons connected with special circumstances on a railway. The Railway Employment Safety Appliances Committee, who were appointed in April 1906, were also directed, inter alia, to make with the co-operation of the railway companies such experiments as they deemed expedient. From the Committee's Reports it appears that they have made experiments with either-side brakes for waggons, and have also examined many inventions and appliances.

  Railway Waggon Couplings.
  MR. ELLIS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any committee has been appointed by him to consider and report upon the matter of automatic couplings of railway waggons, of whom it is composed, has such committee carried out any experiments, has it reported; and, if so, what is the nature of such report, and, if not, how soon is it likely to report.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The Railway Safety Appliances Committee (consisting of Colonel Yorke, the hon. Member for Derby, and Mr. Turnbull) have considered, among other matters, the question of automatic couplings. They reported, after very full consideration, that it appeared to be impracticable to fit
  650
  such appliances to existing waggon stock, and that consequently any extensive tests of automatic couplers under present conditions would be of no value.

  Prevention of Railway Accidents—Rules.
  MR. ELLIS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether rules have been made, and are now in force, with respect to all the twelve subjects mentioned in the schedule to The Railway Employment (Prevention of Accidents) Act, 1900; if not, which of the subjects are still without rules, and at what stage is the action necessary to make or complete the rules respecting it or them; whether any rules have been made under Section 1, Sub-section (2), of the Act, and, if so, what is their nature; whether any rules have been made under Section 1, Sub-section (3), of the Act, and, in that case, what is their nature; and whether any specific order has been made under Section 8 of the Act, and, if so, what is its nature.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) Rules are now in force with regard to nine of the twelve subjects scheduled to the Act of 1900, and a proposed rule was published last August with regard to a further subject, brake levers on both sides of waggons, and has now been modified in view of certain objections received thereto. It has not yet been thought necessary to make rules with regard to No. 7, position of offices, etc., or No. 8, marking of fouling points, as such matters can be more conveniently dealt with, should occasion arise, than by general rule under Section 1 (1). No rules have been made under Section 1 (2) and (3) of the Act, nor have any specific orders under Section 8 been found necessary.

  Irish Provident Assurance Company.
  MR. N. J. MURPHY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention, or the attention of the Law Officers of the Crown, has been drawn to the position of affairs of the Irish Provident Assurance Company, Limited, and to the fact that thousands of pounds of the policy-holders' money have been spent by the directors in various schemes with the object of making profits for themselves; and also that the funds of the company are not properly safeguarded in the interests of the policy-holders, which makes it

  651
  possible for the directors to use the funds of the company for their own personal purposes, without any power of control being accorded to the members of the company; and will the Government consider the desirability of having an investigation made into the working of the Irish Provident Assurance Company, Limited, to follow on the investigations which were conducted by the Law Officers of the Crown, but were discontinued in consequence of the, proposed amalgamation of the Irish Provident with the National Standard Corporation, Limited, and which amalgamation was not carried out.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The attention of the Board of Trade has been called from time to time to the affairs of the Irish Provident Assurance Company, Limited, but I am not aware of the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member. As stated in the Answers given on the 23rd April last to the hon. Member for West Kerry, and on the 22nd August last to the hon. Member for Limerick, the only power vested in the Board of Trade is that, under Sections 56 and 57 of the The Companies Act, 1862, of appointing an inspector upon the application of members holding not less than one-fifth of the share capital of the company for the time being issued. I may remind the hon. Member that by the Companies Act of last year, which will collie into operation on the 1st July next, the proportion of members required for the purposes of an application will be reduced from one-fifth to one-tenth.

  Peterborough Railway Station.
  Loan J. JOICEY-CECIL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will use his influence with the directors of the Great Northern Railway Company in order to induce them to construct at Peterborough, with as little delay as possible, a subway for luggage and passengers, and by so doing reduce the constant risk to life and limb to which their servants are exposed by having to carry luggage, etc., over the permanent way.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The Board of Trade communicated with the railway company in this matter on receiving notice of the noble Lord's Question, and are informed that there is already a
  652
  bridge for passengers at Peterborough station, and that the company do not consider a subway for luggage necessary.

  Ordnance Survey Maps.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Ordnance Survey maps were formerly printed in Ireland from copper-plates, and are they at present printed in England from zinc-plates; are maps printed from zinc-plates inferior to copper-plate maps; and will he have the recent Survey maps, for example, the six inch maps for county Leitrim, compared by an expert with the maps of the former Survey, and ask for his report whether the old standard of excellence, either in printing or paper, is maintained in the new Survey.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The maps on a scale of six-inch to a mile were formerly engraved on copper, but they have been printed by means of zinc-plates for very many years past both in England and Ireland. The processes adopted give a good clear result, they are far cheaper and more rapid than engraving, and the maps can, by this means, be placed in the hands of the public within a reasonable time of the survey or revision. In the case of the county of Leitrim, the maps published in 1882–6 were drawn on stone as an experiment. Various causes contributed to the deterioration of the stones, and within the last few years it has been found necessary to reproduce by helio-zincography twenty-two out of thirty-eight sheets comprising the county, so as to bring them up to the standard of other six-inch maps. The county of Leitrim is now being re-surveyed on the twenty-five-inch scale, and within the next few years existing maps will be superseded. There is no necessity to resort to expert advice outside the Ordnance Survey in the matter.

  Herefordshire Hill-Climbing Contests.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether his attention has been directed to the hill-climbing contests which the Herefordshire Automobile Club propose to hold on Cockshut Hill; whether, as promised

  653
  by him on the 27th May, 1907 in this House, he communicated with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the subject of such contests; and whether, having regard to his own opinion expressed on the same date, he will consider the advisability of now taking steps either to prohibit such contests on public roads altogether, or at least to confine them to such times and places as will ensure the public safety.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) My attention has not been called to the first matter referred to in the Question. The Answer as regards the second part of it is in the affirmative. As I pointed out, in replying to my hon. friend's Question of the 27th May last, the administration of the law relating to the use of the highways by motor cars is practically in the hands of the local police, and I am not myself in a position to take action in cases of this kind.

  Imported Kidneys.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether a quantity of preserved kidneys imported from America have been seized in the City of London as unfit for human food; what quantity of boric acid or other preservative they contained, and what quantity of such preservative per gallon and per pound is considered deleterious to health; and when the promised regulations dealing with the importation and sale of unsound food will be issued.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The answer, as regards the first point in the Question, is in the affirmative. Two samples were submitted to the public analyst. In the first case he reported that the fluid in which the kidneys were preserved and the kidneys themselves each contained 2·1 per cent. of boric acid, which was equivalent to 1,470 grains per gallon of the fluid, and 147 grains per pound of the kidneys, respectively. In the other case the analyst's report showed that the kidneys contained 1.46 per cent. of boric acid (equivalent to 102·2 grains per pound), whilst the fluid contained 1.7 per cent. of boric acid (equal to 1,190 grains per gallon). The answer, as regards the third point, depends on a number of considerations which cannot conveniently be discussed in reply to a
  654
  Question. I may, however, say that the presence in imported kidneys of proportions of boric acid so large as those given above is decidedly objectionable from the point of view of public health, and I am advised that it is wholly unnecessary. I propose to give special attention to imported preserved kidneys in the regulations referred to in the last part of the Question. These regulations are in an advanced state of preparation.

  Scottish Slaughter-houses.
  MR. WATT: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that it is the practice of some local authorities in Scotland to let the burgh slaughter-house to yearly tenants, who reimburse themselves by the collection of dues from butchers for the use of the slaughter-house, and that these tenants perform the duty of meat inspectors; and will he say what control the local authorities have over the yearly tenants Of the burgh slaughter-houses to insure the proper discharge of their duties as official moat inspectors, and do the local authorities demand that these tenants should have the qualifications for meat inspectors specified under Recommendations, Meat—B, by the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis, 1898.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I am aware that in several burghs the slaughterhouse is lot to a local butcher who, in some instances, reimburses himself by the collection of dues; that in one or two instances known to the Local Government Board the tenants are understood to report diseased or unsound carcases to the sanitary officials: but that, in the majority of burghs with public slaughterhouses, the sanitary inspector and veterinary surgeon visit daily or at such other intervals as may be necessary for effective supervision. So far as I am aware the local authorities do not demand that the tenants of their slaughter-houses shall possess the qualifications specified by the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis.

  Education Grants.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether the contemplated increased grants to be made under the Education Bill will involve an additional charge on the Exchequer of £1,400,000,

  655
  apart from and independently of the proposed increase in the scale of grants to be made to contracted-out schools; and whether any estimate has been formed by the Department as to what the increase in these last-named grants is likely to amount to.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) No, Sir. The estimate of £;1,400,000 represents the total increase in the Exchequer grants in aid of elementary education under the Bill. No estimate of the amount of grant payable to voluntary schools can be formed until the approximate number of children attending those schools is known; but, as the average rate of grant per child throughout the country will amount to 47s., the total cost to the Exchequer will not he materially affected by the number of voluntary schools or of children attending them.

  Privately-Owned Voluntary Schools.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether the Department would sanction, as within Clause 3, Sub-section 3, of the Education Bill, an arrangement whereby, as a condition of the transfer of a privately-owned voluntary elementary school, a local education authority gave an undertaking to the owner of the school that the school-house should be placed at the disposal of such private owner on schoolday evenings and during holidays.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The arrangement referred to in the Question would not be possible as a condition of transfer under Clause 3 (3).

  Sales of Liquors in Public-houses and Hotels.
  SIR HENRY KIMBER: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion does the quantity and value of excisable liquor sold through the channel of public-houses and hotels bear to the whole amount distributed or consumed throughout England and Wales respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) No statistics are available.

  The Budget.
  MR. HORNIMAN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether
  656
  he can yet fix the date on which he will introduce the Budget.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I am not yet able to fix a definite day.

  Licensing Reduction Period.
  MR. BARNARD: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, in reference to Sub-clause (1) of Clause 1 of the Licensing Bill, relating to the reduction period of fourteen years, such reduction period or time limit, in view of the provisions of Clause 3, was based upon any statistical or actuarial data; whether such data are available to Members of the House or general public, and where; and, if not, whether he will lay a Paper containing the information referred to.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The reduction period of fourteen years was adopted as being of a reasonable length, regard being had to all the circumstances of the case, many of which are not of such a character that they could be given any precise mathematical expression. It is not founded upon any statistical or actuarial data.

  Hill Estate, Doneraile, County Cork.
  MR. FLYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners are aware that the tenants on the Hill, otherwise Del Re, estate, Kilcoleman, Doneraile, county Cork, signed the purchase agreements in May, 1906, and, consented to pay interest at 4 per cent. on the purchase money on the understanding that the transaction would be completed within six or twelve months, whereas it is not yet completed; and whether, in view of the burdensome nature of the interest, the Commissioners will take steps either to complete the sale immediately or to reduce the interest to the normal rate of 3½per cent.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The agreements for the sale in this case were lodged with the Estate Commissioners in August 1906, and some considerable time must elapse before the estate reaches its turn to be dealt with. The rate of interest in lieu of rent is a matter of arrangement between the parties, and the Commissioners are bound by statute to collect

  657
  the interest mentioned in the purchase agreement. The Commissioners have no power to reduce the rate of interest, and they do not consider that they would be justified in taking the case out of its proper turn.

  Whalley Estate Evicted Tenant.
  MR MURNAGHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have yet satisfied themselves as to the claim of Robert Patterson for reinstatement in his former holding on the Whalley estate in the townland of Striff; near Mountfield, county Tyrone; and, if so, can he state their decision.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners regard Robert Patterson as a suitable person to receive a holding, and the case has been referred to an inspector with a view to providing him with one if possible.

  Irish School Accommodation.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can explain what is meant by the Commissioners of National Education by the expression adequate accommodation of a satisfactory kind in Rule 1276; and if he is aware that in many schools, without any addition to the out-offices, the junior boys are packed into the girls' schools; and whether, in view of this fact, he will have the rule referred to carried out in every school.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that in applying Rule 127b they have not considered it necessary to define the character of the accommodation which should be afforded in a girls' school, further than that it should be adequate and satisfactory. Before enforcing the rule in any case, the Commissioners obtain their inspector's report upon all the circumstances, and having regard to the conditions of both the boys' and girls' schools, they then determine which of these schools should be attended by the infant boys. Objections to the application of the rule on sanitary or other grounds are fully considered, and the enrolment of infant boys in girls' schools is not insisted upon in all cases.

  Rockhill Untenanted Lands.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners have purchased the untenanted lands of Stylepark, Rockhill, in the county of Limerick, the property of Mr. F. H. Wise; if so, will they take steps to have them divided amongst the small holders and labourers in the district; and whether, in the event of their not having purchased the lands, will they take steps to do so.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have had the lands in question inspected, and the owner has instituted formal proceedings for the sale of these lands to the Commissioners, who will deal with the matter with as little delay as possible.

  Bruree Evicted Farms.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say who is the person in occupation of the holding from which the Dunworth family was evicted at Garryfine, Bruree, in the county of Limerick; what is the date and nature of the alleged tenancy; and have the Estates Commissioners made any inquiry as to whether the alleged tenant is willing to give up the place to the Dunworth's, and, if so, with what result.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners understand that the farm formerly held by the Dunworth family is now in the possession of Messrs R. and C. Saunders. The Commissioners consider Robert and Jeremiah Dunworth to be suitable persons to receive holdings if such can be provided for them. The file of papers referring to the case is at present in the hands of an inspector for the purposes of an inquiry, and the Commissioners are therefore unable to give the other details asked for in the Question.

  Rockhill Untenanted Land.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say what steps the Estates Commissioners have taken to purchase the untenanted lands at Ballyclough, Rockhill, in the county of Limerick, the property of Mr. Patrick Carroll, with the view to have them

  659
  parcelled out into small holdings amongst the labourers and for the purpose of enlarging the small holdings there.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners are unable to identify the lands referred to in the Question, but if the hon. Member will furnish them with the name and address of the agent they will make inquiries in the matter.

  Knockaderry Evicted Tenant.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say why the Estates Commissioners are not reinstating Mrs. Scanlan, of Knockaderry, in the county of Limerick, in the holding from which herself and her husband, since deceased, were evicted at Kilgulban and which is in the landlord's hands; and whether the Estates Commissioners will put the Evicted Tenants Act into force in this case.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners consider Mrs. Scanlan to be a suitable person to work a holding, and they have referred her case to an inspector with the object of providing her with a farm if possible.

  Blake Estate, Mayo.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether negotiations have been entered into by the Congested Districts Board for the purchase of the Blake estate, in the Claremorris union, county Mayo; is he aware that die need exists for the improvement of the condition of the tenants on this estate owing to the smallness of their holdings, the inferior quality of the land, and the loss sustained yearly in consequence of the harvest flooding of an adjoining river; that these negotiations appear to have been broken off by the Board, although the landlord and tenants have agreed to leave the matter in their hands; and, if so, why; and when will they reopen them with a view to completing a sale that would bring immediate relief to a body of impoverished tenantry.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The estate in question has been offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board, but the Board have been obliged to suspend the negotiations for the purchase of this and
  660
  other tenanted estates, the reason being that the funds of the Board are at present insufficient for the execution of the necessary improvement works. For a full statement of the case I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer to the Question of the hon. Member for East Mayo on 4th March last. The Board cannot at present say when it will be possible to resume negotiations for purchase.

  Officers of Disbanded Militia Battalions.
  SIR T. GLEN-COATS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether officers of Militia battalions ordered to be disbanded who have elected to transfer to other units may be transferred now and receive, after the next training of their new unit, the uniform allowance of £40 alluded to in special Army Order of 23rd December last.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) These officers cannot be transferred at present. They must be attached to another unit until it is converted into a reserve battalion at the end of the annual training of 1908, when they will be posted to it and receive the actual expenses involved by the change of uniform not exceeding £40.

  Retired Volunteers Officers.
  MR. LAMONT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether retired officers of Volunteers, who retain their rank and uniform, will be given the same privilege in the Territorial Army.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) In accordance with paragraph 60 of Part I. of the special Army Order of the 18th March (Scheme for the Transfer, etc.) an officer of the Territorial Force resigning with not less than fifteen years commissioned service will, on the recommendation of his commanding officer, be eligible to retain his rank and wear the prescribed uniform.

  Volunteer seniority.
  MR. SEAVERNS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether a Volunteer, being a member of a battalion which has been either disbanded or amalgamated under the new scheme, may join a regiment other than the one with which his old corps has

  661
  been amalgamated, and retain his rank and seniority, should the commanding officer of such regiment be prepared to accept him on those terms.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The regulations permitting such Volunteers to join other units and retain their rank on transfer are set forth in paragraphs 80 and 81, Part I., of the Special Army Order of 18th March (Scheme for the transfer, etc.). The question of seniority is left to the commanding officer and association to decide. In case of a difference of opinion the officer commanding the brigade will decide.

  Volunteer Long Service Medal.
  MR. SEAVERNS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether a Volunteer or non-commissioned officer with nineteen years and six months service, who may be unable to accept service in the. Territorial Force, will be allowed to attach himself to a Territorial regiment for six months only and fulfil the requirements of the Volunteer regulations, and thereby qualify for and receive the long service medal; and whether the Volunteer so attached for six months to a Territorial regiment will be allowed to retain his present rank of non-commissioned officer, and at the end of the period retire with all the privileges now in force according to his rank.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The reply to the Question is in the negative. Special consideration, will, however, be given to Volunteers unable to join the Territorial Force, and instruction will shortly be issued in regard to the grant of the long service medal and any privileges on retirement.

  Case of John Killeen, Royal Munster Fusiliers.
  MR. JOYCETo ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of John Killeen, reserve man, No. 4134, late Royal Munster Fusiliers, whose reserve pay was stopped for 1907, owing to his failing to comply with regulations as to his putting in one day's firing in each year; is he aware that this man's excuse is that, through lack of employment at home, he had to go to Glasgow and Liverpool to look for work and so missed his one day's musketry drill, and
  662
  that he is willing to make up for this by doing one more day's drill as may be ordered; and whether under those circumstances, he will now receive the pay that was stopped from him.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Nothing is known of this case in the War Office. The general officer commanding-in-Chief concerned will be asked to report.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  British Material for Admiralty Contracts.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will consider the desirability of asking contractors, when tendring for large contracts for Admiralty works, to state whether they propose to employ British or Foreign granite or cement.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): I think the hon. Member's suggestion may quite reasonably be included in the category of questions which, in debate on the 10th March, I undertook to consider in connection with the contract for Rosyth.

  Cost of British and Foreign Granite for Admiralty Works.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether he is now in a position to give information with regard to the relative cost of British and Foreign granite, delivered at Portsmouth, Haulbowlino, and Rosyth, respectively.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: This Question should be addressed to the Board of Trade.

  Speed of British Torpedoes.
  CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the torpedoes used in the British Navy are from eight to ten knots slower than those used by foreign fleets; whether the Bliss-Leavitt apparatus would remedy this defect; whether, owing to this slowness, the bow tube cannot be installed in our destroyers or fast craft for fear of the vessel overrunning the torpedo; and whether the use of the

  663
  bow tube would enable the destroyer to attack with least risk to herself and most effect on the enemy.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Answers to all four of the hon. and gallant Member's Questions are in the negative.
  CAPTAIN FABER: Is it not the fact that the Japanese suffered severely at Port Arthur through not having at that time the bow tubes?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: That is a question of which I think I ought to have notice.

  Stonemasons' Hours on Dockyard Works.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the hours worked in the construction of the dockyards at Keyham and Haul-bowline by the stonemasons are 10 per day and the wages paid 6d. per hour; and if these are the trade union rates of wages in the respective districts.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The stonemasons employed by the contractor at Haulbowline work fifty-three and a half hours weekly—six hours on Saturdays, and nine and a half other days. Their weekly wage is 36s., which equals 8d. per hour, the current rate for Queenstown. The only stonemasons employed by contractors at Keyham are on piecework. The current rate for stonemasons in the Devonport district is 8d. per hour.
  MR. FELL: And are not the wages paid in Norway at the rate of 6d. an hour as against 8d. in Cornwall?
  [No Answer was returned.]
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the name of the Norwegian firm who supply this granite?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The only firm we deal with is an English firm.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman get the name of the Norwegian firm from which the patriotic British firm get their granite?
  MR. WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that all stones for Government dockyards are bought in the cheapest markets?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Has the right hon. Gentleman never heard of the Donegal quarries?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Artillery Militia Staff.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now inform the House what proportion of the staff of the Artillery Militia are to be abolished in the different ranks under the new regime.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): There will be a total decrease in the staff of the Artillery Militia of thirty sergeant-majors, 422 staff sergeants and sergeants, 166 other ranks. These must either be absorbed in the Regular Garrison Artillery, or, if suitable, used as permanent staff in the Territorial Artillery. Further it is possible that some of them may be utilised as permanent staff for the Reserve Field Artillery.

  Irish Militia.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many towns in Ireland are affected by the change of the local Militia depot under the new Territorial Army Act; and can he give details of the central depots to which Militia recruits are in future to be moved, and the old depots which they are to be compelled to leave.
  MR. HALDANE: All the recruits for the Special Reserve will drill on enlistment at the depots, but if accommodation proves insufficient it may be necessary to use some of the old Militia barracks at detached stations. The central depots are the depots of the regimental districts. By reference to the Army List the hon. and gallant Member will therefore be readily able to obtain the detailed information he desires. It may be added that several Militia units did not drill recruits at their detached headquarters.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Is it the fact that fourteen towns will be affected by the change?
  MR. HALDANE: Quite probably; I cannot say.

  Irish Militia and Yeomanry Officers.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state exactly the status of Irish Militia and Yeomanry officers under the new Territorial Army scheme; how far such scheme extends to Ireland; whether he could lay upon the Table a short statement of the conditions under which officers and men joining the Militia and Yeomanry in future will be recruited; and whether existing officers and new ones joining are liable for compulsory service abroad in time of war.
  MR. HALDANE: There is no Territorial Force in Ireland. The conditions under which officers and men of the Irish Militia may join the Special Reserve are shown in detail in Special Army Order of 23rd September, 1907. A similar order as regards the Irish Yeomanry will shortly be issued. Both officers and men of the Irish Militia who join the Special Reserve at the present time or officers and men who do so in the future will join with a liability to serve abroad in the event of war. A similar condition will be imposed upon the Irish Yeomanry.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGasked what course was open to the officers of the Irish Militia.
  MR. HALDANEsaid they could join the Special Reserve.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: But if they do not want to join the Special Reserve?
  MR. HALDANE: The Militia as such ceases to exist, and the Special Reserve takes its place.

  Bushmills Postmaster and Pension Warrant.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the action taken by the postmaster, Mr. Alexander Park, at Bushmills in respect of the pension warrant of Mr. Hugh M'Fall, by refusing
  666
  as postmaster to deliver the pension warrant to Mr. M'Fall unless he assented to the deduction by the postmaster of a debt of 17s. due to him in his private capacity as a draper; if the postmaster was justified by the rules of the department in so acting; and, if not, what steps will be taken to secure that pensions in Bushmills and elsewhere will reach those entitled without illegal deductions.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. I am making inquiry in the matter, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  Cordite.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what were the terms of reference to the conference of experts who recently inquired into questions affecting the durability and safety of cordite.
  MR. HALDANE: It is not in the interests of the public service to state at present the terms of reference to the Conference held under the presidency of Lord Rayleigh.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Will the report be made public?
  MR. HALDANEI am not at all sure.

  Case of Daniel Gallagher, late of the Inniskilling Fusiliers.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the case of Daniel Gallagher, who served in the Inniskilling Fusiliers from 12th July, 1893, till his discharge on 10th April, 1905, his character being described on his discharge paper very good; whether he is aware that out of his total service of eleven years and nine months, Gallagher served ten years and six months continuously abroad, was on active service in India and South Africa, is the holder of two medals and six clasps, but on his discharge only received an allowance of 6d. a day by getting attached to the Army Reserve, and that this allowance must soon cease; and whether, having regard to the fact that Gallagher is in rapid

  667
  consumption and has been discharged as incurable from the Ballyshannon Union Hospital, what steps, if any, will the authorities take to secure him from destitution for the residue of a life which is drawing to a close from hardships sustained in military service.
  MR. HALDANE: Inquiry is being made into this case, and the hon. and learned Member will be duly informed of the result.

  Instruction in Indian Vernacular Languages.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is prepared to suggest to the Indian Government that instruction in its schools, following the practice which has proved so successful in Japan, should be given, as far as possible, in the vernacular languages of different parts of the Indian Empire.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,): It has always been the policy of the Indian Department of Education to adopt the vernacular languages as the medium of instruction in the primary schools, and to a large extent in the secondary schools. The Government of India are well acquainted with the methods in use in Japan, and I hardly think it is necessary for me to call their attention to the subject.

  Indian Tea Exports.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether any figures are available showing the export of tea from India by the Quetta-Nushki route; and whether he is aware that the export of indifferent tea from India by this route has prejudiced the development and the sale of Indian tea in Persia and Beluchistan.
  MR. MORLEY: The reports on the Quetta-Nushki route do not give the figures of tea carried. The returns of trade by land between British India and foreign countries show exports of Indian tea to Persia, value £512 in 1904–5, £641 in 1905–6, £157 in 1906–7. I have seen a reference in the Indian Trade Journal to the inferior quality of the tea found in the bazaars
  668
  in Seistan and Kain, but I have no other information.
  MR. O'GRADY: Can the right hon. Gentleman account for this diminution?
  MR. MORLEY: No, Sir; I am afraid I cannot.

  Pensions of Indian Army Officers.
  MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether Lord Kitchener, the Commander-in-Chief in India, recommended last year that the previous commissioned service, out of India, of officers of the Indian Army up to a period of five years be allowed to reckon as service towards Indian pension; whether this recommendation was supported by the Government of India; and whether it has been accepted by the Secretary of State.
  MR. MORLEY: Proposals to the effect stated in the Question were made by the Government of India last year, subject to a proviso that the charges entailed should be borne by the Home Government. A decision has not yet been arrived at on these proposals.

  Indian Whipping Act.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the fact that Sir Harvey Adamson, at a sitting of the Council of India, announced that the Amendment to the Whipping Act would reduce the number of stripes for juveniles and tend to limit the number in other cases of violence; and whether, having regard to the statement made in this House that juveniles should be exempt from whipping for political offences, he can now assure the House that at least in this particular the Act shall be amended in accordance with the pledge given.
  MR. MORLEY: I see no inconsistency between the two statements quoted, and I have no reason to doubt that; the Bill as it stands exempts juveniles from whipping for political offences; but if it does not, I can assure my hon. friend that the necessary Amendment will be made.
  SIR H. COTTON: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to get a copy of the Bill—by the next mail?
  MR. MORLEY: I cannot say when it will arrive.

  Defence of the North West Frontier of India.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the movable columns on the North West frontier of India are fully equipped with transport, commissariat, and medical services, and ready to march immediately in case of need.
  MR. MORLEY: The movable columns on the North West frontier of India are all ready to march at a moment's notice. The staff and various units are detailed and schemes exist for the immediate mobilisation of the columns when required. The additional supplies, etc., necessary to enable them to keep the field are so located as to be obtainable at short notice.

  Mails to Tristan da Cunha.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is intended to send a mail in the course of this year to Tristan da Cunha, and when the last mail was sent.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,; for Mr. CHURCHILL): I cannot say when the next mail will be despatched. The last mail left the Cape in February of last year. A ship left the Cape on 29th February last for Tristan and inquiry was made in January with regard to this ship, but the information was not received in time to despatch mails from this country.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTEIER-GRAY: Is the House to understand that the despatch of mails to and from this island is entirely guided by chance?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I believe the despatch is distinctly irregular.

  Cingalese and Indian Railways.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies
  670

  whether imperial sanction has been solicited for a scheme of linking up the railway systems of Ceylon and India by means of a bridge over the Palk Straits via the islands of Manar and Ramswaram; and whether His Majesty's Government are favourable to this project.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN (for Mr.CHURCHILL): No, Sir.

  Martial Law in Zululand.
  MR. G. GREENWOOD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the number of natives arrested or detained in custody under martial law in Zululand and the northern territory of Natal since the 9th December last, the number of natives tried or still awaiting trial, the number convicted, and the number sentenced to imprisonment or fines; and if he can state the number of natives who have been flogged since that date under sentence of any magistrate or by order of any other person claiming to exercise the powers of martial law.
  MR.RUNCIMAN (for Mr. CHURCHILL): Sir Duncan McKenzie reported that during his operations in Zululand five natives wore tried and flogged. Two magistrates were deputed to administer martial law, one of whom tried no cases and the other tried twenty-six cases, punished five persons, and discharged a considerable number left in prison by Sir Duncan McKenzie. The Secretary of State for the Colonies has no information of any further cases, and the Governor has informed him that he came across little evidence of use of the powers conferred by martial law during his visit to the divisions of Zululand most affected by the operations of the Militia and police. No complaints were made to Sir M. Nathan by the Zulus of harsh treatment under martial law.

  Csernova and Slovak Riots.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has obtained any report from any of our Consuls in Austro-Hungary as to the riots and massacre at Csernova, or as to the trials of and sentences passeu on the Slovak rioters; and, if so, whether he will lay them before this House.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): The incident referred to has been fully reported in the Press, and the despatches on the subject which have been received from His Majesty's representatives at Vienna and Budapest do not add anything material to the information so published.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: In view of the friendly relations that obtain between this country and the Magyar Government, could not the right hon. Gentleman call for some official report from the Magyar Government on this subject?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: To call for official documents respecting internal affairs of another country is not calculated to conduce to friendly relations.

  Irish Lace Frauds.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the prosecution and fining of La Samaritaine, a French firm trading in Regent Street, London, for exposing and selling as Irish lace a French-made crochet blouse; whether he is aware that numbers of American and other visitors have made similar purchases in the belief that they were obtaining lace made in Ireland; and whether, with a view to putting on their guard American visitors to London and other places where this dishonest form of trading has been carried on, he will convey to the proper authorities in the United States a notification of the fact that such practices exist and of the damage thereby caused to an important Irish industry.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I am aware of the facts mentioned by the hon. Member; but so far as I can gather the representatives of the Irish lace industry are in a position to protect their own interests, and I do not see on what ground I could ask authorities in the United States to take action in the matter. I hope the publicity which has been given to the matter already will be beneficial.
  MR. BOLAND: But cannot the right hon. gentleman utilise machinery at his disposal—the British Consuls in the
  672
  United States—to circulate the information?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Yes, I am quite willing to communicate any information to the British Consuls; I thought the hon. Member referred to the United States Consuls.

  Cruelty to Animals in Egypt.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will call the attention of the British Agent-General in Egypt to grave complaints which have been made as to the recent neglect of regulations for the prevention of cruelty to animals in Cairo and elsewhere since the retirement of Major Jarvis, and urge upon him the importance of enforcing, and, if necessary, strengthening, such regulations.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no official information that complaints have been made such as those described by the hon. Member. But I will inquire of His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General, and bring to his notice the complaints referred to. It is, of course, very desirable that adequate precautions should be taken to prevent cruelty.

  British Advisers to Egyptian Government.
  MR. KETTLE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is contained in the instructions issued to the English advisers to the various ministries of the Egyptian Government, or in any other official document, any definition of the power possessed by these advisers of enforcing their views; whether the advice tendered by them is rather in the nature of a command which must be obeyed; and whether, in case of a conflict of opinion between a Minister and his advisers, the view of the former or that of the latter prevails.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I am not aware of any official instructions to the British advisers defining their duties. All questions of importance are discussed between the Minister and his adviser, and if the Minister's views are in conflict with those of the adviser and no agreement can be arrived at, the matter would be referred to His Majesty's Agent and

  673
  Consul-General who, if necessary, would take the instructions of His Majesty's Government.

  Police Weekly Rest-Day.
  MR. REMNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State fur the Home Department when he proposes to move for a Select Committee to deal with the question of granting a weekly rest-day to the members of the police forces of this country.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLAD-STONE,): As soon as possible.
  MR. REMNANT: Can the right hon Gentleman give a more definite answer, seeing that the matter has been before the House so long.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Really the hon. Member is asking, only in other words, exactly the same Question as has been answered by the right hon. Gentleman.

  Peckham Election.
  CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the number of daily police court charges for drunkenness in Peckham during the ten days previous to the late election at that place?
  MR. GLADSTONE: During the period referred to there were in all ten cases. There was the same number of cases at Peckham during the corresponding period of the year 1907.
  CAPTAIN FABER: May we, therefore, take it this was a sober election?
  MR. COLLINS: May I ask if the Home Secretary will endeavour to procure a return showing how many barrels of beer and how many gallons of spirits were consumed at Peckham during those ten days?
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Having regard to the reckless charges made by His Majesty's Ministers and others in regard to this election—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. That is a matter for argument—on the platform.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: How many of the persons arrested were Peckham residents, and how many came from other parts of London?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot say.

  Suppressed Licences in Newcastle-under- Lyme.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the number of houses closed in Newcastle-under-Lyme under the Licensing Act of 1904; what was the sum paid in compensation; what proportion of the compensation was paid to the tenants; and whether there is any record of any compensation paid to the workmen or servants who lost situations through the closing of houses.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The volumes of Licensing Statistics show that twelve licensed premises in Newcastle-under-Lyme have been closed under the compensation provisions of the Licensing Act, 1904. A total sum of £4,045 was paid in compensation, of which £255, or rather more than six per cent., went to the licence-holders. I have no information on the last point in the Question. Compensation under the Act is limited to persons (including the licence holder) interested in the premises.

  Motor 'Bus Noise and Vibration.
  SiR HENRY CHAIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether expert opinion shows that deterioration of the machinery of motor omnibuses, such as produces excessive noise and vibration, occurs in a much shorter period than a year; what limit upon noise and vibration is adopted as the standard for licence; and what officers are entrusted with the duty of periodically making those reports upon motor omnibuses in consequence of which many of them have had to be ordered off the road.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The machinery of a motor omnibus may deteriorate in less than a year owing to wear and tear, and neglect to remedy defects as they occur. In such cases, if noise and vibration result, the omnibus is reported by officers of the Public Carriage Staff, a department of the Metropolitan Police, and is removed front the streets until the

  675
  defects are remedied. In the absence of any scientific standard for noise and vibration caused by omnibuses the police have to be guided by common sense in deciding whether an omnibus is fit for licence in these respects. The cases are dealt with by a small committee, not selected from the Public Carriage Staff, which consists of an Assistant Commissioner, a chief constable, and a member of the Commissioner's staff.

  Coal Mines (Eight Hours) (No. 2) Bill.
  MR. LEVERTON HARRIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can now state upon what date before Easter the Second Reading of the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) (No. 2) Bill will be taken.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am afraid not before Easter.

  Unemployment in Berlin.
  MR. GOULDING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the 93,000 people out of work in Berlin in 1901 included those who were altogether without work and those employed for a few hours at reduced wages, and also included males and females.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,): His Majesty's Consul General in Frankfort in his Report for 1901 states that an inquiry into unemployment in Berlin, undertaken by the Statistical Secretary of the Berlin Board of Statistics in conjunction with the Corporation of the Trade Unions, showed that on 1st November, 1901, "as many as 93,000 hands were either altogether without work or were only employed for a few hours at reduced wages." He adds, "Of the unemployed, 72,116 were males, and 20,884 females."

  Shipping Rings.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, when lie expects to receive the Report of the Royal Commission on Shipping Rings.
  MR. KEARLEY: I understand the Royal Commission hope to issue their Report by the end of the year.

  Cornish and Aberdeen Granite Quarries.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, what are the hours worked and the wages paid in the Cornish and Aberdeen granite quarries which have failed to compete with the Norwegian quarries in the supply of granite for the Government dockyards.
  MR. KEARLEY: The summer hours of labour at Aberdeen granite quarries are 56 and 57 per week, and the average weekly earnings of quarriers for a full week about 25s. 6d. As regards Cornwall the information is not yet available.

  Import Duties.
  MR. J. F. MASON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can name any European country which derives more revenue per head of its population from import duties than the United Kingdom.
  MR. KEARLEY: Yes, Sir. Norway and Denmark.
  MR. J. F. MASON: Are those the only two countries?
  MR. KEARLEY: As far as I know.

  Imported Hops.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the s.s. "Adriatic" has arrived or is expected in a British port with a cargo of hops; and, if so, where such hops were produced, how many hundredweights of hops the vessel contained, what is their declared value, and at what price they have been advertised for sale on the British market.
  MR. KEARLEY: This vessel is, I understand, expected to dock at Southampton to-day. The Board of Trade can give no information as to her cargo.
  MR. COURTHOPE: Will the hon. Gentleman get the information?
  MR. KEARLEY: It is not, the practice of the Board of Trade to seek out to give publicity to individual consignments, The total imports, country of origin, and values and quantities appear in the annual Returns.

  Compensation for Slaughtered Tuberculous Cattle.
  CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, seeing the loss which is now borne by breeders and butchers through the frequent slaughtering of fat cattle on account of disease, he can see his way to recommend substantial compensation for them, and also a uniform system of inspection of meat by qualified men.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): My hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. I presume that the disease referred to in it is tuberculosis. If so, I would point out that the slaughter of animals suffering therefrom is seldom effected at the instance of local authorities. Their duties are in the main confined to the examination and seizure of unsound meat intended for the food of man, and hence they do not commonly arise until after the animal has been slaughtered. I cannot make any promise with regard to compensation, but I may state that the Local Government Board have issued more than one circular with a view of securing uniformity in the methods of inspection and seizure of meat, and they believe that the views expressed in those circulars are usually acted upon by local authorities.

  Excessive Motor Speeds.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the risk to life and limb by the speed at which motor cars are driven on the roads belonging to the public, and to the damage done to the roads by heavy cars being driven at an excessive speed; and whether he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation to stop racing on public roads.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: My attention has been called to the matters referred to in the Question. I am considering whether anything can be done to prevent damage to roads by heavy motor cars. Driving motor cars at excessive speed is forbidden by law now. The administration of the law is practically a matter for the local police.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member who asked the Question was himself heavily fined for exceeding the speed limit?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: That knowledge would not affect my interpretation of the law on the subject.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: Has the right hon. Gentleman no jurisdiction about racing on public roads?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The question of racing on roads is entirely within the jurisdiction of the local police.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: Where is there any racing on roads?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Poor Law Chaplains.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board how many Poor Law Unions pay Nonconformist ministers and Catholic priests for clerical services.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Appointments of this kind do not require the sanction of the Local Government Board, and I am unable to say in how many cases they have been made. Some information was obtained on the subject in 1901 as regards the Metropolis. There were then in London, forty-six workhouses and twenty-four workhouse infirmaries. It appeared that Roman Catholic instructors had been appointed at twenty-five workhouses and sixteen infirmaries, whilst there were Nonconformist instructors at six workhouses and three infirmaries.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman extend his survey to Ireland, where in 162 workhouses nearly all controlled by Catholics, we pay both Catholic and Presbyterian chaplains?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Ireland is without my pale.

  Post Office Telegraph and Telephone Accounts.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether

  679
  he has yet completed his examination into the accounts of the Post Office telegraphs and telephones, with a view to presenting them to the House in such a form as to show the net annual profit or net annual loss to the taxpayer after allowing for depreciation of plant, for interest upon loans, and for compound interest upon payments made out of the Exchequer, to meet capital expenditure or to meet losses in previous years; and how soon he will he able to publish such accounts.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): As my hon. friend is aware, last autumn I appointed a Committee to consider the various accounts and returns presented to Parliament in connection with the telegraph and telephone services, and to report in what manner those accounts and returns can be modified or supplemented so as to show more clearly the financial results of those services. The Committee consisted of Mr. C. A. King, the Comptroller and Accountant-General of the Post Office, Mr. Blain, Assistant-Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Bromley, Accountant-General of the Board of Education, and Mr. Peat, President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. I have received a preliminary Report from the Committee, and in the Estimates for the year 1908–9 a separation has been made in the manner recommended by the Committee, between telegraph and telephone expenditure; and the telephone revenue will be shown separately. The Committee are now examining the further question of the preparation of accounts so as to show the profit of loss to the taxpayer on each service. The points mentioned by my hon. friend will no doubt be considered by them.

  G.P.O.—Overwork in the Secretary's Office.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that the practice of working beyond the prescribed hours in the Secretary's office has become usual, arising from pressure of work; whether two members of the staff of this office are at present absent on prolonged sick absence through nervous breakdown arising from overwork; whether the chief medical officer has made any report to him upon the subject; and, if the chief
  680
  medical officer has not reported, why he has not reported, and, it he has reported, what steps the Postmaster-General intends to take.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am aware that there has been great pressure of work in several branches of the Secretary's office for some time past, mainly in connection with the recent Select Committee on Post Office Servants and the changes which are now being carried out in consequence of its Report; and I highly appreciate the zeal and willingness with which the staff of that office of all grades have met the demands upon them. No members of the staff are at present away on prolonged sick absence from the causes stated, and, in any case, it would not be part of the duty of the chief medical officer to have cognisance of such a case, if one existed.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Have any officers been absent on sick leave, having broken down through over-work.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: From time to time officers are absent through illness, but I am glad to say none are at present.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Have they recently been?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  The Postmaster-General and the Earl of Granard.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether fines, reductions in rank, and dismissals of Post Office officials, ordered in the name of the Postmaster-General but actually approved under the authority of the Earl of Granard, are valid; if so, what is the authority that makes them so; and, if not, what course he proposes to take as regards these cases.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I found, soon after coming into office, that the mass of detail for which I was responsible was so great that, as I did not enjoy the advantage of an Under-Secretary, I required the assistance of a Parliamentary colleague. I represented the matter to the Prime Minister, and requested him to give me the assistance of some member of the Government who was not occupied with Departmental work. The Prime

  681
  Minister kindly assented to this course, and appointed Lord Granard, a member of the Government, to perform on my behalf and on my responsibility such duties as I might assign to hint, and to represent the Post Office in the House of Lords. I accept, of course, full responsibility for every act done by Lord Granard, with whom I am in daily communication and in whose judgment I have full confidence. I should like to add that I am much indebted to Lord Granard for the valuable assistance he has given me, without which I should have found it difficult adequately to fulfil my official duties during the past two years.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: While I should be the last to question the capacity of the noble Lord, I must ask will the right hon. Gentleman state under what statute he has power to depute his responsibility to another?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have power under various statutes, and under my warrant, or whatever it is called—the document I signed when I came into office—I have power to do what I have done in Lord Granard's case.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman power to depute to another the responsibility of signature?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Certainly. I am, of course, responsible in the last resort.

  Confidential Reports in the Post Office.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he feels bound by the recommendation made in the 74th paragraph of the Report of the Hobhouse Committee, in which the Committee recommend that every reasonable opportunity should be afforded of bringing the accuser and accused face to face, and that every charge made in connection with secret reports should be communicated in full to the accused, and every opportunity afforded of procuring rebutting evidence and of proving his innocence; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to secure that his approval, of this recommendation be made known to all members of this staff and to secure that it is fairly and freely carried out.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have given the recommendation contained in Paragragh 74 of the Report and the other paragraphs, referring to the question of confidential reporting, etc., careful consideration. But I have promised to discuss the question with some of the associations representing the postal servants, and I desire to hear what they may have to say on the matter before laying down definite instructions in regard to the matter.

  Cardiff Postmen as Sorters.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that several postmen at Cardiff, who have been employed since April, 1906, as an experiment on minor sorting duties, for which allowances of 4s. per week were paid them, with the understanding that if the scheme was not finally adopted these allowances were to cease, are now being deprived of the allowances, although the scheme has been finally adopted in accordance with the Hobhouse Committee's recommendation that minor sorting duties should be performed by postmen; and will he say what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The scheme of employing postmen on full indoor duties was an experiment and is not being adopted as a permanent arrangement, and the allowances paid during the experimental stage of this scheme for exceptional work will disappear as the duties are rearranged. I am adopting the recommendation of the Select Committee (Paragraphs 328 and 341) that primary sorting should be one of the recognised duties of postmen.

  Teachers' Registration Council.
  SIR PHILIP MAGNUS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the registrar of the old Teachers' Registration Council was, appointed in 1902 from among a large number of candidates for the post, under an agreement approved by the Board, which stated that, whilst the engagement was terminable by six months notice on either side, the age of retirement should be sixty years, or, by the consent of the council, sixty-five years; whether, having regard to the fact that the appointment

  683
  was formally approved by the Board and was accordingly regarded as an ordinary official appointment, the Board will endeavour to secure the continuance in his office under the new council of the present registrar, or give him compensation for dismissal; and whether he will similarly take into favourable consideration the position of other members of the staff of the old council.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,): The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The appointment of officers of the new council will rest with that body when constituted. In view of the terms of the agreement I do not think any case for compensation can be established, and indeed the Board in any case have no funds from which such compensation could he payable. The position of the remaining members of the staff is under consideration.
  SIR PHILIP MAGNUS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he can now say what arrangements will be made for continuing the work of the Teachers' Registration Council, which ceased to exist on the 31st March, and what sum of money was handed over to the Board as the balance in hand from the old council.
  MR. MCKENNA: I can add nothing at present to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University on the 25th March. The balance handed over to the Board was £2,971 8s. 7d.

  Suspected Rabies at Northampton.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he can give any further information with regard to the outbreak of rabies at Northampton; and whether it has proved conclusively, by experimental inoculation or by other tests, that the cases reported as rabies were actually cases of that disease.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg also to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the Board of Agriculture,
  684
  whether the two suspected cases of rabies at Northampton have, on investigation, proved to be cases of that disease.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,): The results of the inoculative tests made in connection with the suspected cases of rabies were, I am glad to say, negative, and the Muzzling Order was revoked on the 31st ultimo by an Order which conies into operation to-morrow.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDY: Then is it the opinion that these were not cases of rabies at all?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Yes.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease in Holland.
  Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that when he was at the International Dairy Congress at the Hague the wide prevalence of foot-and-mouth disease in Holland was an admitted fact; if so, whether he inquired what became of the milk from the infected dairies, and can he state the result of his inquiries; and whether he is aware of the statement made at a recent meeting of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture by Mr. J. Spier to the effect that he, Mr. Spier, when in Holland on the same occasion, ascertained that 300 farms were declared as infected centres.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: On one farm I visited I was informed that the milk from affected cows was sterilised before sale. The reply to the other inquiries of the right hon. Member is in the affirmative.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Are any steps being taken to prevent the importation of produce from that infected area into this country—produce such as meat, butter, and cheese?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman, who was at one time associated with the Local Government Board, that that is a Question which should be addressed to that Department.
  Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: Then may I put it to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I must ask for notice.

  Swine Fever.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board of Agriculture have received any report or information upon the recent developments of science with reference to the micro-organism of swine fever.
  The following Questions on the same subject also appeared on the Paper.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the recent scientific discoveries in connection with swine fever show that the present methods of dealing with this disease are entirely wrong.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board of Agriculture are preparing the new Swine Fever Orders in accordance with recent scientific investigation.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, when the new Swine Fever Orders will be issued.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The veterinary officers of the Board are in possession of full information as to recent scientific work in connection with swine fever, in which those officers themselves have taken an active part. The results obtained do not materially alter the views previously entertained either as to the manner in which the disease is spread or as to the method of dealing with it. Recent discoveries have of course been borne in mind in framing the new Swine Fever Orders, which will be issued as soon as possible.

  Small Holdings.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as
  686
  representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, with regard to land purchased by county councils and let in small holdings under the Small Holdings Act of last year, the county councils are required to charge such rent as will include, not only interest on the purchase money, but also a yearly sum as a sinking fund sufficient to recoup the whole cost of the land, seeing that the county councils would thus become owners of property the whole cost of which has been paid by the small tenants in hard cash.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The intention of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act of last session is that the charges to which the right hon. Gentleman refers should be included in the rent, but so far as the Board are concerned they will offer no objection to the exclusion of these charms in the calculation of rents where a county council is itself willing to defray them. The matter was fully discussed, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, when the Bill was under consideration last year.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Then I take it the Answer to my Question is in the affirmative, qualified by the statement that the county council can if it likes defray those charges?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I have already told the right hon. Gentleman that the county council if they think fit can include them in the rent.

  Ealing County Court Work.
  MR. NIELD: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General if he is aware of the inconvenience occasioned to the inhabitants of the Borough of Ealing by reason of their having to walk upwards of two wiles to transact County Court business for the want of direct communication between Ealing and Brentford; and whether he will advise the establishment of a registrar's office to be opened at least three days a week for the issue of process and transaction of the ordinary routine business connected with the County Court, having regard to the large population and rapidly increasing importance of the borough.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROESON,): The means

  687
  of direct communication between Ealing and Brentford are, I am informed, a little out of date, but during the last year tramcars have been running to within a short distance of the Brentford Court. The question of establishing a branch office has been carefully considered, but at present it is not thought advisable to incur that expenditure.

  Vivisectors and Dog Licences.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is customary for the authorities of laboratories, licensed for vivisection, to pay the tax on the dogs which they keep for that purpose; if so, will he state the number of licences issued by the Inland Revenue to such authorities during the last two years; if it be the fact that no such taxes are paid, what is the ground of such exemption; and whether applications for such exemptions are made in those cases as provided by Sub-section 1 of Section 5 of the Dogs Act of 1906.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: Licence duties are paid on all dogs used for the purposes stated, but no separate record is kept of the precise number of licences thus issued.

  Small Holdings in Scotland.
  MR. AINSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will consider the advisability of amending and extending the powers of the Congested Districts Board for Scotland by legislation, so as to enable thorn to create and increase small holdings in Scotland, and so moot the demand existing in the Highlands and elsewhere on the part of cottars, crofters, and others to obtain land for their support and to prevent the exodus of families to the large towns and to the Colonies and America.
  MR WEIR: At the same time, may I ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will consider the expediency of introducing an Amendment of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act to enable the Board to acquire land compulsorily for the creation of new holdings.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The sug-
  688
  gestions of my hon. friends are not new and, as they are aware, received the sanction of this House as part of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill. That Bill expresses the policy of the Government. It has been rejected by the House of Lords, and I am unable to make any further statement upon the subject at present.

  Norwegian Trawlers.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that during the year ending 31st December, 1907, as many as 123 prosecutions were instituted against foreign trawlers for illegal trawling around the coast of Scotland, will he state how many of these vessels were flying the Norwegian flag.
  MR. SINCLAIR: Seventeen.

  Chairmanship of the Crofters Commission.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state who is now acting as Chairman of the Crofters Commission.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The appointment is now vacant, and will be filled up shortly.

  Protection against Illegal Trawling.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, having regard to the fact that the interests of line fishermen suffer through illegal trawlers sweeping the fishing beds off the coast of Scotland, will he state whether the funds at the disposal of the Scottish Fishery Board are yet sufficient to admit of the sea police being strengthened by the purchase of another fishery cruiser; and, if not, will he state what sum has been accumulated for this purpose.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I am informed that after the beginning of the financial year the Fishery Board will be in a position to acquire an additional cruiser, according to the arrangement made some time ago.

  Foreign Trawlers—Destruction of Fishermen's Nets.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that there have been many instances recently whore fishermen's nets have been destroyed by foreign trawlers; and, seeing

  689
  that the fishermen have no funds with which to set the law in motion, will he take such action as may be necessary to enable the Fishery Board to conduct prosecutions in the interest of the fishermen.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I am aware of the facts to which my hon. friend draws attention, and I regret to have to say that the remedy which he proposes is not considered practicable.
  MR. WEIR: Can the right hon. Gentleman suggest any other remedy for this great evil?
  MR. SINCLAIR: I shall be glad to consider any suggestions that may be sent me.

  Scottish Education Bill.
  SIR HENRY CRAIK: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland when the Scottish Education Bill which was read a first time last Thursday will be printed and distributed.
  MR. SINCLAIR: It is hoped that the Bill will be printed and in the hands of Members by to-morrow, and at the latest by Saturday.
  SIR HENRY CRAIK: Will ample time be allowed for the consideration of the Bill by the people of Scotland before the Second Reading?
  MR. SINCLAIR: I think that is very desirable.

  Alleged Death through Eating Sweets at Stranraer.
  MR. GULLAND: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he has made inquiries into the circumstances attending the recent death of a boy at Stranraer, which has been attributed to poisoning due to chocolate sweets eaten by him; and, if so, whether the inquiries throw any light on the cause of death.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,): Full inquiries have been made regarding this case. The contents of the boy's stomach and intestines have been subjected to analysis without the slightest trace of poison being
  690
  found. The Answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative.

  Ballycastle Pier, Mayo.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether any plans have been submitted to his Department for the erection of a pier at Ballycastle, County Mayo; and, if so, have any plans been approved; and is the Department yet in a position to set the work on foot in this very backward district where employment is at present badly wanted, and the necessity for a sufficient pier to enable the coasting steamers to call has been recognised by every person who knows the north coast of County Mayo.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The question of the erection of a pier at Ballycastle, County Mayo, was under the consideration of the Department in the year 1906. The cost of constructing a suitable work at this place (estimated by the county surveyor at £15,450) is greatly in excess of that to which the Department could offer a relatively adequate contribution. In any case a steamer could only approach the pier, if built, in perfectly fine weather.

  Whaling off the Irish Coast.
  MR. HUGH LAW: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether the proposed Bye-Law No. 2, dealing with whaling on the West Coast of Ireland, permits the towing of whales captured beyond the three-mile limit to any place south of Downpatrick Head; how it is proposed to guard against an infringement of the three-mile limit; whether he is aware that, in the opinion of persons interested in the herring fishery, any whaling off the Irish Coast, even under the restriction of a three-mile limit, would be destructive of the existing fisheries, upon which numbers of families depend; and whether in his proposed legislation on this subject the Department will seek powers to forbid whaling altogether off the West Coast of Ireland.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The second of the bye-laws affecting whaling

  691
  off portion of the Irish Coast which the Department propose to submit for the approval of the Lord-Lieutenant in Council does not prohibit the towing through territorial waters to a factory that may be situate to the westwards or southwards of Downpatrick. Head of a whale killed on the high seas. Should the proposed bye-laws be approved of, their provisions will be enforced by the cruisers at the disposal of the Department. The Department cannot take steps to banish from the country an industry which may be of advantage to certain poor districts, unless clearer evidence than is at present forthcoming can be produced as to its injurious effects on the fisheries. The Department will see that no injury is done to the local fisheries by the prosecution of the whaling industry.
  MR. HUGH LAW: Is it a fact that the Scottish fisheries are very much dissatisfied with the Act passed last year, and will not the Government make the Bill promised much stronger than that Act?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I am aware of the dissatisfaction. I announced the other day that in the Bill I was going to introduce the Government would take power to grant licences in districts where the industry will do no harm.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is an abuse of terms to call these operations an "industry," and that the operations in Scotland are entirely ruinous to the fishing industry?
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: How many whales are caught off the coast of Ireland?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I do not know, Sir.

  Summerhill Police.
  MR. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the number of police stationed in Summerhill, County Meath, and what are their duties; whether one of the constables stationed in Summerhill is a native of Meath; and is it in accordance with the rules of the force to have a policeman acting in his native county.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The number of policemen stationed at Summerhill is seven, which includes three extra men. The temporary increase in the number is due to the necessity of taking measures to prevent cattle-driving. One of the extra men who was recently transferred to Summerhill from an adjoining county is a native of County Meath, but this was not known when the transfer was made. When the facts came to the knowledge of the police authorities, this man was at once sent back to County Louth.

  Labourers' Cottages in the Belfast Union.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that five applications for labourers' cottages in Hannahstown and Englishtown have been lodged with the clerk of the Belfast Union for the last two years in respect of labourers in No. 1 Rural District Council, Belfast; whether repeated letters to the council with regard to these applications have failed to elicit any definite reply; and whether he will direct the Local Government Board to inquire into the matter.
  MR. BIRRELL: The fact is as stated in the first part of the Question. The Local Government Board have no information as to any default of the council in replying to letters addressed to them on the subject. The Board, however, are about to communicate with the council with a view to having the proceedings expedited.

  Croker Estate, Limerick.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he say whether, among the tenants on the Croker estate in Moohawn, Herbertstown, County Limerick, Michael Power, so long evicted, has as yet been reinstated in his holding; have the Estates Commissioners sent an inspector to report Oil Power's case; can he say whether the inspector at any time found the landlord, Mr. Croker, or his agent, Mr. John Barrington, disposed to remove from Power's farm Kirby the planter; or does the Evicted Tenants Act of last session empower the landlord or agent, if so disposed, to remove him

  693
  by giving him land elsewhere on the estate or by giving him compensation in money.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners understand that Kirby, the present occupant of the evicted farm, has held the same for many years as a yearly tenant, but that he is willing to surrender provided that he does not incur loss by doing so. The Commissioners have no power to dispossess Kirby against his will, but they are at present negotiating for the purchase of certain untenanted lands on the estate, and if they succeed in acquiring these lands they will endeavour to effect the reinstatement of Michael Power in his former holding.

  Lord Cloncurry and his Tenantry.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether negotiations for sale and purchase as between landlord and tenants are in progress in and around the parish of Murroe, County Limerick, between Lord Cloncurry and his tenants; is he aware that there are on this estate a number of what are commonly called future or excluded tenants who, in the arrangements between the landlord and themselves in the campaign over twenty-five years ago, were allowed back on ruinous terms; and will the Estates Commissioners, when prices are being fixed, interpose and fix the prices impartially between both parties, or is there in the immediate future a likelihood of legislation dealing with cases of the kind all over Ireland.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have no knowledge of any negotiations for sale between Lord Cloncurry and his tenants, and have no information as to the nature of the tenancies on the estate. The Commissioners have no power to interpose and fix prices. The hon. Member is, of course, aware that the Land Act of 1903 is based upon the principle of voluntary sale and purchase. I am not at present in a position to indicate the details of the Government's proposed measure for amending land legislation in Ireland.

  Erasmus Smith's Schools Estate.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that the governors
  694
  of the board of the Erasmus Smith's Schools are selling to the tenants their holdings on the estate around Pallasgrean and Doon, County Limerick; is he aware that three tenants for a very long period have been evicted, namely, John Harty of Garranmore, Timothy Burke of the same place, and Joseph Ryan of Knockderk, and that their farms have been taken up by planters respectively, Lane, Griffin, and Doherty; and can he say whether the Estates Commissioners have under the Evicted Tenants Act of 1907 the power of removing those planters and providing them with either compensation or land elsewhere.
  MR. BIRRELL: No proceedings for the sale of the estate in question have yet been instituted before the Estates Commissioners. Applications have been received from the three evicted tenants named and are being inquired into. The Commissioners cannot say what the facts are or what action they may take in these cases until they have received and considered their inspector's report.

  Ventry Estate.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in accordance with the promise that the Ventry estate would be purchased by the Congested Districts Board, and seeing that processes and writs are being served by the agent and that the tenants refuse to pay, steps will be taken immediately by the Board to reopen negotiations with the owner for the purpose of completing the purchase.
  MR. BIRRELL: Although it is inaccurate to say that the Congested Districts Board promised to purchase the Ventry estate, it is the fact that the Board opened negotiations for the purchase of the estate, and I hope that it may be found possible to proceed with those negotiations without much delay.

  Irish School Teachers' Pensions.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the case of Irish male teachers in national schools in that country under the age of forty-eight years, with a constant service from the age of eighteen, the maximum pension

  695
  obtainable is only £10 a year, no matter how highly classed such teachers may be; and, if so, whether the Government propose to deal with the matter in the present session.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: An Irish male teacher cannot retire on pension until he has reached the age of fifty-five, unless he can satisfy the Commissioners of National Education that he has become permanently incapacitated for further service, in which case his disablement pension would depend on his age and the amount of his contributions to the Pension Fund, accumulated at coin-pound interest—these contributions, etc., being repayable to him at the same time. The minimum disablement pension for a male teacher of the first division of the first class, aged forty-seven, is £8 18s. 8d., with a sum of £48 15s. repayable as premiums, etc. It is impossible to state what the maximum pension would be. The Answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative.

  County Westmeath Valuation.
  SIR WALTER NUGENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the correspondence between the Westmeath County Council and the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury, if he will state how the sum of £170 a year applied for in respect of the cost of the annual revision of the valuation for the County Westmeath was arrived at; and if he will furnish the Westmeath County Council with any other information they may require in order to ascertain if the charge is, or is not, excessive for the work required to be done.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The annual sum payable by the various counties of Ireland in respect of annual revision is fixed by the Valuation (Ireland) Act Amendment Act, 1874, subject to necessary adjustment under the Local Government (Adaptation of Irish Enactments) Order in Council, 1899. The Commissioner of Valuation informs me that he has no information as to how the amount was determined. As regards the last part of the hon. Baronet's Question, the county council have been
  696
  on several occasions officially informed that it is not possible to obtain the information they require.

  Embossed Stamps in Ireland.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether a person or firm in Dublin or elsewhere in Ireland desiring to have stamps embossed by the Inland Revenue authorities on envelopes, wrappers, and other papers is obliged to get this operation performed in London, with the result that such persons or firms have to pay carriage to and from Ireland on the material to be embossed, or to buy the material in London and so deprive Irish manufacturers and workmen of work which they would otherwise be paid for doing; and, if so, whether an arrangement could be made by which the stamping could be done in Dublin.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: There are no facilities for stamping envelopes, wrappers, etc., at the Dublin and Edinburgh Stamp Offices, or elsewhere than at Somerset House; and under existing arrangements all material which it is desired to have embossed with postage stamps has to be sent, whether from Ireland or elsewhere, to and from London, and at the expense of the public for carriage. Without in any way pledging myself to any change, I will cause inquiry to be made into the general question of embossing postage duties.
  MR. CLANCY: Would it not be possible to arrange to have the stamping done both in Dublin and Edinburgh?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: That is one of the points we are considering.

  Irish Land Purchase Agreement.
  MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that there is any case on record where an agreement arrived at between landlord and tenant, and sanctioned by the Estates Commissioners, has fallen through; whether the position of the tenant-purchaser as a borrower is much safer than under the old title; and can he explain why the Board of Works hesitate to advance money for the building of hay-barns,

  697
  etc., in cases where the tenant-right and freehold would be practically security for the amount asked for.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I have no information as regards the first part of the hon. Member's Question. A purchasing tenant is not an owner in fee simple until the holding has been legally vested in him by the Land Commission, and can therefore only be treated by the Board of Works as a tenant. The Board cannot regulate their practice in cases of this kind by probabilities; the question of the ownership of the land is one of fact, and in the matter of the security of their loans the Board must have regard to facts. Applications for hay barns are treated in the same way as applications for loans for other purposes, and the Board inform me that they do not hesitate to make loans to purchasing tenants for these purposes provided that they satisfy the conditions referred to in my Answer to the hon. Member of the 31st ult.

  General Post Office, Belfast.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the distress in the building trade in Belfast at present, he will consider the advisability of making a start with the new building which is to be erected in connection with the General Post Office, Belfast.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The plans of the extension of the head Post Office building at Belfast are under consideration. I regret, however, to say that I cannot name any definite date for the commencement of the building.

  Bruckless Railway Station, Donegal.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the general defects and lack of accommodation at the Bruckless station on the Killybegs Railway, County Donegal; whether he is aware that there is no goods store, no proper passenger accommodation, no sanitary arrangements, but there is a dangerous and neglected crossing, and neither telegraphic nor telephonic communication with anywhere; and whether he will take steps
  698
  at once to force the joint committee to provide some reasonable accommodation at this station for the travelling public.
  MR. KEARLEY: The Board of Trade are in communication with the County Donegal Railways Joint Committee in this matter, and will inform the hon. Member of the result.

  The Law Courts.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that proposals are being made to build additional Courts over the open space adjoining the existing Law Courts; and whether, instead of further blocking up the Metropolis with Law Courts, he will promote legislation for extending the jurisdiction of County Courts, so that a large part of the legal business now brought to London may be disposed of in the towns where it arises.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): I do not that think the question of additional accommodation at the Law Courts, which is one of immediate and pressing importance, should be made dependent on the prospects of general law reform, and, further, it is unlikely that the particular reform suggested by my hon. friend would enable us to dispense with the new Courts required in London.

  Excise Officers and Politics.
  MR. COWAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the case of Frederick Farrington, an excise officer of Guildford, who has been transferred to Glasgow by the Board of Inland Revenue, as a punishment for contravening Paragraph 1150 of the general instructions (which prohibits membership of any political association), by taking part in certain political meetings at Guildford during February last; whether he is aware that various officers of the Inland Revenue Department are members of a political association known as the Primrose League; and whether he proposes to take similar disciplinary measures against such persons, or whether he will take steps to have the regulations so amended as to enable Parliamentary electors to enter

  699
  the service of the Crown without forfeiting their elementary political rights.
  MR. ASQUITH: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the case referred to by my hon. friend. If the attention of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue is drawn to any similar infringement of their instructions, no doubt they will take similar action.
  MR. SNOWDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say where any authority is given to impose such restriction?
  MR. ASQUITH: Under the Statutes.
  MR. SNOWDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1870 the Lord Chief Justice Coleridge stated that there was no right or authority to impose any such restriction?
  MR. ASQUITH: I was not aware of it, but I will look into the matter.
  MR. WATT: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the insinuation in the Question, that being sent to live in Glasgow is recognised as a punishment in the Department?
  MR. ASQUITH: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that Question.
  MR. COWAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my Question?
  MR. ASQUITH: I will consider the question of the amendment of the regulations.

  Sales of Intoxicants in Parliament Buildings.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce a provision into the Licensing Bill to relieve the officials and Members of the House of Commons from the penalties they may be under for allowing illegal sales of intoxicating liquor on its premises.
  MR. ASQUITH: The Bill does not alter the law in this respect, and I am
  700
  not aware of any sufficient reason for making a change.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the action of the officials and Members of this House finds a parallel in the action of certain clubs?
  [No Answer was returned.]
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: That is too recondite.

  Clerks to Surveyors of Taxes.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is in a position to state what was done in the matter of the case presented on behalf of the clerks to the surveyors of taxes.
  MR. ASQUITH: I have now arrived at a decision upon the various questions raised, and directions will be given accordingly by the Board of Inland Revenue with as little delay as possible. I will communicate to the hon. Member the details of the scheme, which are too long to set out in reply to a Question.

  Import Duties.
  MR. J. F. MASON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the amount derived from import duties of all kinds per head of the population is 50 per cent. higher in the United Kingdom than in Germany, and that, in the case of the United Kingdom, they are raised wholly on articles of general consumption, he will consider the desirability of reducing the taxes on food in this country and of making up the balance by levying duties on manufactured articles coming from abroad.
  MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir.

  Elementary Education (England and Wales) Bill.
  MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Second Reading of the Elementary Education (England and Wales) Bill will be taken before the Easter recess.
  MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir.
  MR. LANE-FOXasked whether there was any truth in the report which was being circulated that the Government were considering the advisability of dropping the Bill.
  MR. ASQUITH: There is as little truth in that report as in most of the others on the same subject.

  Mail Steamers at Kingstown.
  MR. MOONEY: I desire to ask the Postmaster-General a Question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he has received a telegram to the effect that when the Royal Mail Steamer "Ulster" was leaving Kingstown the harbour authorities did not provide for the keeping clear of the way out of the harbour, the result being that a collision was only averted by the mail steamer slowing down and altering her course, and whether he will give instructions to the harbour authorities to control the way for the mail steamers in the future as in the past.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have not received such information since I left the office. As to the latter part of the Question I should not like to answer it until I know what my powers are.
  MR. MOONEY: Has not the right hon. Gentleman received a telegram to the effect stated?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: It had not arrived at the office when I left.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Can the Chief Secretary tell us by whose instructions His Majesty's police interfered with those who were carrying His Majesty's mails, and in favour of another company.
  MR. BIRRELL: I know really nothing about this particular dispute. Happily it does not fall within my province. I heard late last night that a man had been arrested, as I understand, in consequence of obeying his proper officer. I at once telegraphed that if that was so he should be immediately released. I understand that he was
  702
  never in custody. He was arrested but bail was at once forthcoming. He appeared this morning before the Magistrates and after a protracted hearing, at his own request, I believe, in order that an appeal might be lodged, he was fined 40s., to be reduced to 1s. should no appeal be entered. That is all I know about the matter. The police have to be on Carlisle Pier and always have to be there to maintain order. How far they took part in this dispute I do not know. Nobody has been under arrest.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that a Petition of Right is actually pending in the King's Courts, and, that being so, by what authority the Treasury ordered police to the number of a dozen to appear on the Royal pier at Kingstown, apparently on the side of the view that the Treasury has taken up on this matter?
  MR. BIRRELL: Kingstown is a Government harbour, and I do not know that I am prepared to give any further answer. The police are there in sufficient number to prevent any scuffle or undue trouble during this unfortunate business. It is quite true that a Petition of Right has now been filed and the proceedings will be settled in a Court of Justice. I trust that in the meantime there will be no further trouble.
  MR. CLANCY: May I ask whether the Postmaster-General has any statement to make as to the events which occurred yesterday at Carlisle Pier in reference to this matter and regarding the arrangements that have been made for the London and North Western steamers going to Carlisle pier?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Last night in consequence of information received from the Harbour Commissioners a telegram was sent by the Post Office urging the Company to comply with the Harbour Master's orders. My position in the matter is this. It is no part of my duty as Postmaster-General to intervene in any dispute between the Harbour Com missioners and the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company. Therefore in this matter I am glad to say that it appears

  703
  from information received by telegram this morning from an official in Dublin that no delay to the moils has taken place. That may have been, however, before the information received by the hon. Member for Newry.
  MR. CLANCY: I wish to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it was by the order of the Treasury that the porter of the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company was arrested when he attempted to obey the orders of his captain.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I need hardly say that the Treasury knew absolutely nothing about any intention to arrest or that any arrest took place. The first intimation we had of that was the telegram which the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to show me last night.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: How much is Ireland being robbed of by this sucessful manœuvre?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The hon. Gentleman says he knows absolutely nothing of what has been occurring at Carlisle Pier: may I ask who is the responsible official controlling the executive action of the police when this occurred, and what subordinate took such high-handed action?
  MR. BIRRELL: I cannot answer the specific question at this moment, but I expect to have information in an hour or two.
  MR. CLANCY: Is it denied or not that the Treasury authorised the steamers of the London and North Western Company to go to Carlisle Pier although at the time a Petition of Right was pending to try the question whether they had a right to go there without permission?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. The arrangement made with the London and North Western Company was made several months ago; the petition was only filed three weeks ago.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: How much have you gained by the transaction?
  MR. CLANCY: I must press for an answer to my Question. The arrangement was no doubt come to several months ago, but the question is, did the Treasury know that this Petition of Right was to be filed, and whether they will not now suspend the right of the London and North Western steamers to go to the pier in view of the fact that this very question whether they have the right to go there or not is pending in the Courts?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: That is not the information which I have. The City of Dublin Steam Packet Company applied for an interim injunction, and that application was refused. I am not prepared, therefore, to arrive at a different decision from that arrived at by the Courts.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Was not the application refused on the ground that the Judge was in a position to fix an almost immediate hearing, and that it was adjourned at the request of the Attorney-General, and, pending the decision of this case, will not the Government suspend the operation of their order whereby the very point at issue is prejudged?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid my information does not tally with that of the hon. Member. If the hon. Member wants further information he had better put down a question.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chairman of the London and North Western Railway Company is himself an ex-Treasury official?
  MR. CLANCY: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the answers I have received I have to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., "the action of the Government in compelling under threats of force, the removal of the Mail Steamers from the Carlisle Pier, Kingstown, at a time when the trial of a Petition of Right is actually pending in the High Court of Justice in England to try the very question of the legality of such removal."
  The pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a quarter-past Eight this evening.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the business of next week. I understand the first three days are to be devoted to the Licensing Bill, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman not to come to any decision as to taking Supply on Thursday next until he sees what is the desire of Members on both sides of the House in regard to the prolongation of the debate.
MR. ASQUITH: I think the request of the right hon. Gentleman a perfectly reasonable one, and we will wait to see what is the general state of opinion in the House on the matter.

"Ordered, That Mr. Munro Ferguson be added to the Committee of Selection."—(Sir William Brampton Gurdon.)

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A. (in respect of the Education (Local Authorities) Bill): Dr. Shipman; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Education (Local Authorities) Bill): Sir George White.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A.: Mr. McKillop (in respect of the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Bill) and Mr. Field; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Bill): Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Mr. Thomas O'Donnell.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee;
706
That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A. (in respect of the Registration of Clubs (Ireland) Bill and of the Ferries (Ireland) Bill): Mr. Secretary Gladstone, Mr. Attorney - General, and Mr. Herbert Samuel; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Birrell, Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, and Mr. T. W. Russell.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee A. the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Registration of Clubs (Ireland) Bill and of the Ferries (Ireland) Bill): Mr. Sloan, Mr. Wolff, Mr. Fetherstonhaugh, Mr. Barrie, Mr. Patrick White, Mr. Crean, Mr. Nannetti, Mr. Mooney, Mr. Hart-Davies, Mr. Watt, Mr. Hazleton, Mr. Gwynn, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Farrell, and Mr. MacVeagh.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B. (in respect of the Children Bill): Mr. Burns, Dr. Macnamara, Mr. Paulton, and Mr. Austin Taylor; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Children Bill): the Lord-Advocate, Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. Secretary Gladstone, and Mr. Herbert Samuel.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee B. the following Fifteen Members, (in respect of the Children Bill): Mr. Parker, Mr. Richardson, Mr. Hugh Law, Mr. John Roche, Mr. Hay, Lord Edmund Talbot, Viscount Morpeth, Sir Henry Craik, Mr. Acland Allen, Mr. Atherley Jones, Mr. Williamson, Mr. Tennant, Mr. Maclean, Mr. Gulland, and Mr. Whitehead.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had selected the following Member to serve on the Unopposed Bill Committee, under Standing Order No. 109, in place of Mr. Crombie, deceased Mr. Munro Ferguson.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Lotteries and Advertisements.—That they have appointed a Committee consisting of Five Members to join with a Committee of the Commons to consider and inquire into the Law as to Lotteries and Advertisements, and propose that the Joint Committee do meet in the Chairman of Committees' Committee Room on Tuesday next, at Three of the Clock.
NEW BILLS.
  TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  "To promote arbitration in Trade Disputes," presented by Mr. Cleland; supported by Mr. Walker, Mr. Parker, Mr. Whitwell Wilson, Mr. Findlay, Mr. Dalziel, Mr. William Jones, and Mr. T. P. O'Connor; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 187.]
  BANKRUPTCY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To consolidate and amend the Bankruptcy Laws of Scotland," presented by Mr. Cleland; supported by Mr. Bonar Law, Mr. Watt, Mr. Dundas White, Mr. Menzies, Mr. M'Callum, and Mr. C. E. Price; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 188.]
  VIVISECTION (ABOLITION) BILL.
  "To provide for the total Abolition of Vivisection," presented by Mr. Hodge; supported by Mr. Brace, Mr. Macpherson, Mr. Lupton, Mr. Charles Duncan, Mr. Collins, Mr. Parker, Mr. John Wilson, Mr. Thorne, and Mr. John Johnson; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 5th May, and to be printed. [Bill 189.]
  INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  "To amend the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893," presented by Mr. Dickinson; supported by Viscount Morpeth, Mr. Maddison, Mr. Samuel Roberts, Mr. Rowlands, Mr. Fletcher, and Mr. Vivian; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 190.]
  PUBLIC HEALTH (MARKETS IN RURAL DISTRICTS) BILL.
  "To make the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1875, with respect to the provision and regulation of Markets, applicable in Rural Districts," presented by Mr. Burns; supported by Dr. Macnamara; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 191.]

PORT OF LONDON.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,), in asking leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the improvement and better administration of the Port of London, and for purposes incidental thereto, said:—I have to ask leave to introduce a Bill to set up a public authority for the Port of London and for other matters incidental thereto. There have been in the last six years many Bills dealing with the state of the Port of London, showing considerable uneasiness about the Port, an uneasiness which was quite justified by the actual circumstances of the case. There is no doubt it is a very urgent problem. The Port of London has to compete not merely with other ports in this Kingdom, but it has three or four very formidable Continental rivals—rivals backed up by lavish national and municipal subsidies, whereas London, on the other hand, is in a state of practical stagnation as far as the expenditure of money upon the accommodation and facilities of the Port is concerned. That is a very serious condition of things. At the present moment London is the first port in the world, but unless something is done to strengthen its condition it will not long maintain that supremacy. I propose in this Bill to set up a public authority to control the Port, an authority in the main chosen by those trading in the Port. There will be a municipal element and a public element, but in the main it will be an authority chosen by the payers of dues and others interested in the Port itself. The duties of the authority will be, first of all, to take over the functions of the Thames Conservancy from Teddington Lock downwards, and there will be a separate body for the river above that point. I do not think that at the present stage I need give any particulars in regard to that, because I

709
propose to circulate in the course of the day a statement giving full details on the point. The new authority will also take over the functions of the Water-men's Company in so far as they affect the river. In addition to that it will be the duty of the Port authority, as soon as may be after the appointed day, to take into consideration the state of the river, the accommodation and the facilities afforded, and immediately to take steps to effect improvements, if necessary, by moans of constructing new docks or improving old ones, with quays or wharves, and generally to improve the condition of the river to make it fit to compete with any other port in the world. That will be the first duty of the new authority. In order effectively to discharge this function, it must have an adequate revenue. The present revenue raised by the Thames Conservancy will be transferred, but that will be insufficient. If the channel is to be deepened and accommodation is to be provided there must be sufficient revenue for the purpose. I propose by this Bill that there shall be additional power for charging dues on goods. I hope it will not be necessary to make them very heavy. A schedule will be prepared by the Board of Trade and will be subject to the decision of the House by means of Provisional Order. The House of Commons will have full opportunity of being heard upon that particular point. There will be a registration fee on barges.
I should like to point out, if I may, the main points in which the Bill which I shall introduce now differs from the Bills which have been introduced before and notably by the late Government. The first point is that there will be no municipal subsidy. I offer no comment upon that at this stage; I may have something to say about it on the Second Reading. The second thing is that I think on the whole it is better to have a small body than a large one. The Royal Commission recommended a body of forty, and the Bill of the late Government followed its recommendation. Having very carefully considered the matter and looked at the precedents of Liverpool and other ports which have been very successful, I have come to the conclusion that it is better to have a small body rather to transact business than to discuss it. Not only that, but I think on the whole you get a
710
better body of men. Good men are rare. I do not know that London could not provide forty, but at any rate it is much more likely to provide twenty-five good men, and I propose therefore that the body shall consist of twenty-five. The other difference is in regard to the municipal element. Instead of providing that it shall choose all its members from amongst itself, I provide that the London County Council shall have three from amongst its own body and that it shall have, in addition, the power of choosing two from outside its own body, so as to have men who are interested in the river, leaving it to the local municipality to choose men who they know will have an excellent knowledge of the conditions of the river. Another point is that in the old Bill there was sectional representation of all the interests of the river. The wharfingers appointed one or two members, the shipowners appointed a certain number, and so on. I think that is a bad principle. If you have sectional representation these men will go there to fight for their own section. I think it is infinitely better that you should have a general register upon which all these bodies will have a voice, and the men who are chosen by that body, although, they may be chosen from sections—I hope they will be, so that every section may be fairly represented on the body—they will be answerable to all those who are interested in the river, and their main concern will be to look after the interests of the river as a whole, and not of any one particular section. Therefore I have provided for a general register and not a sectional one. In addition to that, I have provided for a summary and cheap process of acquiring land for extension and development. I think it will be unfair to inflict upon this Port Authority the burden of coming to Parliament whenever it wants an additional acre of land. It wastes time, and time is of great importance, and it adds enormously to the cost of the Port, whereas there is really nothing to be gained except that those interested get extravagant prices. Therefore I provide a cheap and summary method for acquiring and assessing the value of land between certain points—from Barking Reach downwards, because practically it is waste land in the main. Another point is that I have some provisions for the housing of those who will be engaged in any work of the kind. The Port Authority is

711
to see that there is proper accommodation for those who are occupied in new docks, if there are any new docks at all set up in any part of the river. I have also a provision for dealing with casual labour in the docks, which is a very fruitful source of unemployment and distress at the present moment. I have special provision to deal with that in order to regularise the labour in the docks. The next point of difference is that there is no compulsory purchase of the docks. There was a very general feeling against a compulsory arbitration. It has been rather a bitter pill in London in one or two instances, and the traders of the river fear that they might have to pay five or ten millions more than the concerns were really worth. That would inflict a burden for all time on the trade of the river. They said "We would like to buy, but we would like to know what we were buying, and what price we were paying." I have had negotiations with the docks, after having their accounts examined by one of the most expert accountants in the City of London. He subjected all their accounts to a very careful investigation, and as a result of the negotiations up to this morning, about seven-eighths of the dock accommodation in the river was prepared to come in on terms which I think are fair to all parties, and then, just before I came into the House, I am very glad to state, the remaining dock came in and accepted our terms. The particulars will be supplied to the House and circulated with all the figures, and I think it will be found that we have treated them very fairly. The main principle which I laid down was that we should not purchase the docks at a price which would leave a burden on the trade of the port, but that the revenue of the docks should be such as would adequately pay the interest upon the stock. I think the House will find that in the main we have been able to adhere to that principle, and at the same time to treat the shareholders quite fairly and equitably. That is all I shall be able to say at the present moment. I will circulate a full statement as to what we have done. We have had every help from all the interests concerned. I have consulted them all, and the interests in the river have been extremely helpful. It is a very difficult problem, as everybody who has attempted to deal with the matter will admit.
712
Nobody knows that better than the right hon. Gentleman opposite who sat on the Commission which reported and which went into the question very carefully. He knows how many conflicting interests there are, and how very delicate it is to try and negotiate between them. But I must say that they have been very helpful in the main, and I trust that as a result of this settlement, which has enabled us to incorporate the whole of the docks—because the Commission reported that no scheme would be complete which did not include the docks under the jurisdiction of the Port Authority, and I have been acting under the principle which was laid down by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on that Commission—they have all now come in; and I trust that with an authority of this kind something will be done and done quickly to improve the Port of London, to improve its facilities, and above all, to improve its equipment, so as to enable it to compete with any port in the world. I beg to move.
Motion made, and Question, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the improvement and better administration of the Port of London; and for purposes incidental thereto,"—(Mr. Lloyd-George)—put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lloyd-George, Mr. Burns, Mr. Buxton, Mr. Harcourt, and Mr. Kearley.

PORT OF LONDON BILL.
"To provide for the improvement and better administration of the Port of London; and for purposes incidental thereto," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 13th April and to be printed. [Bill 192.]
ABSENCE OF THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence, owing to indisposition, of the Chairman of Ways and Means from this day's sitting.

SUPPLY [5TH ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, N.) in the Chair.]

SUPPLY [5TH ALLOTTED DAY].

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1908–9.
  1. £473,000 to complete the sum for Revenue Buildings.
  SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)said he had a few questions to ask upon this Vote, but before he did so be would like to recommend that the Paper containing the details of the Votes would be more strongly stitched together, because his copy was falling to pieces and he could not find the place he wanted although he had marked it. He saw that there was an increase of £62,850 for new works, alterations and additions, and Although he did not say it was not necessary he would like to have some explanation of it. He saw at the same time that while there was this large increase of £62,850 for now buildings there was also an increase in the items for maintenance and repairs. He could not see why with such a large amount of new works there should be such an increase for maintenance and repairs. He noticed that in regard to the General Post Office, called King Edward VII. building, the original estimate was £316,000, the expenditure up to 31st March was £60,000, and the Vote required for this year was £85,000, leaving a sum of £171,000 unexpended. He would like to know whether it was necessary to spend so large a sum as £316,000 upon King Edward VII. building which, he gathered, was the General Post Office in the City. He thought he was right in saying that that £316,000 did not include any expenditure on the land, but merely money spent on the building, and that was an exceedingly large sum to spend on bricks and mortar. He did not know exactly whether the item "Blackfriars new power station" meant an electrical station, but if so he would like to know whether the Post Office made their own electricity, and whether they had considered if it would not he more economical to purchase it from a company. He had had some experience of the making of their own electricity by a large company
  714
  in London, and they had come to the conclusion that it would have been much cheaper if, instead of putting down their own plant, they had gone to an electric supply company. Very favourable terms could be obtained from the electric supply companies for a large supply, and he suggested that it would have been wiser to endeavour to obtain electricity from a private company than to spend a large sum of more than £40,000 on a new power station. He quite admitted that if a large amount of money had already been expended on buildings and plant it might be, unless there was an opportunity of using the building for some other purpose, more economical to go on in the old way. He would like to know whether that subject had been considered and whether an estimate had been obtained from any company for the supply of electricity; whether there had been any comparison made between that estimate and the cost of the production of electricity by the Post Office; and whether an estimate had been prepared of the loss that might accrue if the existing building and plant had practically been scrapped. The original estimate for the power station was £40,000, the revised estimate was £48,500. That was an increase of 20 per cent. on the original estimate, and he would like to know why the increase was so exceedingly large. The Post Office was accustomed to spend large sums of money every year, and it was somewhat surprising with the very large experience they had they should not have been able, with the very efficient staff they possessed, to have prepared a closer estimate. He was sorry to say that the thing which had been chiefly drawn to his notice in the cursory examination which he had been able to make of the Estimates was that in many instances there had been a very considerable increase on the original estimates, and he proposed, where they had been considerable, to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the reasons. He did not wish to cast any reflection whatsoever on the gentlemen who prepared the Estimates, but he would point out that unless some vigilance was exercised by the House of Commons the natural tendency was to allow things to be taken somewhat easily, and to rectify the errors by increasing the Estimates in the hope that no notice would be taken of

  715
  them. The original estimate for the new Post Office at South Kensington was £18,700, the revised estimate £21,670, an increase of £3,000. The amount expended, however, was only £1,000 up to March, 1908, and he would like to know why so small a sum had been spent. Of course, if the building had only recently been commenced there was nothing further to be said. In the case of the Post Office at Blackpool the original estimate was £15,680, the revised estimate £20,500, and the expenditure up to March, 1908, only £500. If they were really to have a Post Office at Blackpool the work ought to be set about in a businesslike manner, and so small an expenditure should not be made on a building which was to cost £20,500. In the case of Bristol also the estimate had been increased from £36,780 to £40,810, and there again only £1,000 had been spent. He would like to know the reason for this small expenditure on all these big Estimates. Had it anything to do with the alteration of the policy of the Government with regard to loans? Was it due to the fact that while they were going to undertake large works they were not able to get the money? If that was so, was that the most economical way of doing business? The whole of the staffs that would inhabit the new post offices when completed must be housed somewhere, and the consequence was that they were paying rents which it would not be necessary to pay if those post offices were complete. At the same time the sites had been bought and the interest of that money was running with no advantage to the nation. That was not a wise, economical, or businesslike policy. Hull was a groat example. The estimate in that case was increased from £40,000 to £58,000, an increase of over 40 per cent. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give a good explanation with regard to it It was not open to the same objection as the others he had mentioned, upon which only a little had been spent, because in this case £36,000 was spent up to the end of last year. With regard to Edinburgh there had been no increase. In that case the estimate was £62,000, but that was a large amount to spend on additional post offices in Edinburgh, and he would like to have some explanation with regard to that.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASdid not complain of the class of Votes that had been placed upon the Paper, or the order in which they were placed. The right hon. Gentleman was quite right in endeavouring to secure the principal building Votes that night. Although he might not be able to obtain all the Votes on the Paper experience had shown that in the Post Office great difficulties occurred. Either they had to spend money which Parliament had not authorised or else they were delayed in starting on contracts for large works which, in consequence, might be set back owing to the bad days of the winter. He would go further and ask that in future the numbers of the Votes might be altered so that the principal building Votes might stand first on the list of the Estimates of Clause 1. The House would then always know that the principal estimates would be taken first. This particular Vote showed an increase of £86,000, and in it was the sum included for the post office in King Edward VII. Street, which was to cost £316,000. Last year, out of the sum taken, £60,000 was spent, and he would like to know whether the building was proceeding more rapidly, and whether the £85,000 taken this year was likely to be expended. He was not one of those who thought that the expenditure was excessive, but he desired to call attention to the large amount which was being re-voted, by which he meant that money already voted but not spent was re-voted. In regard to that particular building £316,000 had been sanctioned, and he would like to feel sure that the money was going to be spent this year, because they would then be able to draw their own conclusions as to the rapidity with which the building would reach completion. He noticed that in respect of these two Votes alone the amount to be re-voted this year was no less than £86,000. He did not, of course, accuse the Department, to which he was sincerely attached, of having made any wrong estimate, but he would like to see this practice of re-voting altered. The right hon. Gentleman was anxious, doubtless, to get on with the building as fast as possible, and probably he put down a larger amount of money than was likely to be

  717
  spent during the current year. The re-voting was in regard to the Blackfriars Power Station and several new post offices in London, and it had also reference to buildings in course of construction in country districts. The re-voting had not been confined to this year; last year there were twenty-eight items in which re-voting was necessary. With regard to the post office at Canterbury, he should like to know what progress was being made with the building, and how soon the public might expect to have an uninterrupted use of it. It was at present being used in a condition of only partial completion; there were scaffolding and other structures about, the site being occupied by the post office and the Inland Revenue office. The total amount sanctioned was £1,700, and it appeared that of that sum the amount of £1,370 was wanted for 1908–9, and that no further sum would be required; therefore, he concluded he might congratulate himself on the fact that the buildings would be finished during the current year. He noticed that there was an increase of £7,000 under the head of maintenance for the increased cost of fuel. He took it that the right hon. Gentleman in making his contracts had not only borne in mind the present rise in the price of coal, but the possible addition which might have to be made supposing the Bill now before Parliament was likely to obtain the Royal Assent. He thought that it was a very good object lesson as to the increase that must be occasioned not only to public authorities, but to poor private consumers. He desired to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman had considered the prospective rise in the price of coal in making his estimates.
  MR. ASHLEYsaid he had not understood the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London to say that £25,500 was too much for the Post Office at Blackpool.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he did not know whether it was or was not; all he objected to was an estimate for £20,000 when it should be over £25,000. It was a bad business principle not to make the estimate correspond more or less with the amount to be expended.
  MR. ASHLEYsaid that if the hon. Baronet visited Blackpool he would find that £25,500 was not too much. What he protested against was that the original estimates were very much too small, and that they had then to ask Parliament to sanction a larger expenditure. Surely there must be some great carelessness on the part of the people responsible for drawing up the Estimates. Of course, the circumstances of Blackpool were rather different from those of inland towns, and it might be that the estimate had grown owing to the enormous increase of the population of Blackpool during the summer season; still, there must be great carelessness on the part of officials in not drawing up the Estimates for the proper amount. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the inhabitants of Blackpool when they would get their post office? The plans were begun some two years ago, and last year the right hon. Gentleman, who had been most sympathetic, told them that the post office would be commenced early in the year, but in February nothing had been done. The first work was done some four days before the end of the financial year, and £500 put down in the Estimates had not been expended; therefore practically nothing had been done during some months. If the amount taken was to be £7,500 out of the total of £20,500, then he could not see how, at the very earliest, the new post office at Blackpool would be open before 1911; it might be finished at the end of 1910. What was really wanted at Blackpool was a post office in the summer time. At present the normal population of Blackpool was 50,000, and in the summer it was 150,000; often that number came on a day trip; and if the right hon. Gentleman could only go into the present post office and see how great was the absolute confusion which existed, despite all the efforts of the officials and of the local authority to keep order, he was sure he would do all he could to expedite the work. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give him some assurance that the work would be pressed forward rapidly.
  *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,)said he hoped the Committee would pass all these Votes, with the exception of Vote 25, which included his own

  719
  salary, and which would enable Members to examine him further in Committee during the currency of the present session. In regard to other departments it was immaterial whether the Estimates were passed at the moment or not, because when the discussion was over, a Vote need not be carried, but might come under the guillotine at the end of the session. But in his Department he was concerned with building operations, and in the case of new buildings he was most unwilling to proceed without definite Parliamentary authority. It was desirable that he should get the Votes as early as possible after the close of the financial year, because in England the summer was the most valuable period for building operations, and it was on that ground he wanted Parliament to give a him the authority for which he was asking that night. During the three years he had been responsible he had always taken the Votes at the earliest possible moment after the close of the financial year, and he was happy to say that in consequence there had been a great gain of efficiency in the work of the Office. He was glad to be able to assure the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, having just got the figures for the close of the financial year, that the surrenders on the whole of the Votes last year was 1¾ per cent. He was sure that this did great credit to the staff who so ably carried on the work. The House of Commons had enabled them to start early by giving them the Votes early last year. The hon. Baronet had asked why there was an increase in new works generally. There had been a progressive increase for many years, owing to the great growth of the postal service throughout the country—an increase, however, he was happy to say, which led to a large increase of revenue, though it did not come to the Office of Works, but went to the general service of the country. With regard to maintenance, it applied not only to new buildings projected, but also to the larger public buildings erected in the last few years. The cost of maintenance, therefore, was greater than it had been in the past. Maintenance did not mean repairs, which were a very different thing; it meant the maintenance of furniture, the electric lighting—
  SIR F. BANBURY: Electric lighting is in another Vote.
  *MR. HARCOURT: Yes; but it came under maintenance. With reference to King Edward VII's. building, which the hon. Baronet rightly assumed was the new General Post Office in the City of London, the plans were decided upon, and he thought rightly decided upon, by the late Government. In the hon. Baronet's view of the extravagance of the late Government, he differed less from him than in regard to many other questions. He held that the building was absolutely essential to the proper conduct of the postal business of the country, and he was glad to see that rapid progress was being made with it owing to the method of construction, and he had very little doubt that the money provided in the Estimates would be spent by the end of the financial year. As to the Blackfriars Power Station, on full consideration of all the circumstances it was considered that the supply of electricity by the Post Office itself was by far the most economical arrangement that could be come to. The hon. Baronet would remember that the work of the post offices involved the use of a far larger proportion of electric light than any other kind of work. Their work was done largely at night, and, indeed, many post offices never closed day or night. The hon. Baronet had referred to the difficulty of arriving at an accurate estimate of what these buildings would cost. It was quite true that he had given a pledge to the House of Commons last year which he hoped they would see at the end of twelve months, whether he was there or whether he was not, had been faithfully observed. In the past these Estimates which had been put down in order to obtain the authority of Parliament had been conjectural Estimates before the plans and specifications had been prepared. He did not think that had been a good plan, but it had been followed by many Governments for a great length of time. The Post Office stated their wants, and generally the Office of Works made conjectural Estimates, and having obtained the authority of Parliament, they then proceeded to obtain detailed plans. In future he would not not put forward an Estimate

  721
  until he had more definite plans, and something in the nature of a specification which would enable him to come to the House of Commons with a formal Estimate which would be more closely adhered to. Of course that would necessarily mean delay in the case of certain post offices, and that they would have to wait another twelve months, because he had not been able to get the plans at the last moment which would satisfy the limitations which he had laid down. The hon. Baronet had asked a question with regard to South Kensington post office. In that instance there had been an extension of the plans originally prepared. There was a difficulty in supplying plans, because they had combined with the post office the Meteorological Office on the same site. That accounted for the delay. In regard to Bristol, the original Estimate did not provide for the fittings and furniture which wore necessary, because it was not possible to to arrive at a specification of those at the time the Estimate was put in. On a revision of the plans an additional story was required for the completion of the whole building. As to the charges as to economy and extravagance he would not interfere with quarrels between the hon. Baronet and the hon. Gentleman, but he sympathised with him in the accusation, unfounded he was quite sure, made against him by his colleague, that he was unpatriotic in his extravagant ideas. The excess on the building at Hull was assented to by the House last year. It had arisen mainly because the foundations were found to be more expensive than had been anticipated. The hon. Baronet knew how difficult it was before the ground was opened to know what would be found underneath it. There were difficulties in all building operations in which a state of affairs was discovered under-ground which necessarily added to the cost of the foundation. Unfortunately that was the case in this post office. There was also the enlargement of the scheme, and again Hull was one of the post offices which was down on the original rough estimate and not on the ultimate plans. That was a system which he promised should be changed in the future. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Augustine's had suggested that there should be a re-numbering of the Votes. He thought there might be something to be said for a re-numbering in the future, though the actual numbering
  722
  of the Estimates made very little difference as the Minister in charge could put the Votes down in whatever order he liked, and occasionally it might be necessary to put first a Vote which was not the most urgent in point of view of authority to commence building, but urgent owing to some special question which excited the attention of the House. For instance, in previous years he had put early in the list the Vote for the Houses of Parliament, because there was interest in the ventilation question, although it was quite impossible that he could spend the money until the recess, and it might well have come at the end of the Votes. The money taken for the General Post Office he could assure the right hon. Gentleman was not a token figure, but the figure which it was hoped to be able to expend in the year. There would be closer Estimates in future on the definite plans. With regard to the post office at Canterbury, in which the right hon. Gentleman was interested, there was a delay first of all as to the proposed accommodation for telephones which had not been foreseen by the Post Office when the plans were made. Then the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that ancient light difficulties arose, and if there was any difficulty in the world which was more obstructive to building, and indeed to all progress, it was the question of ancient lights. There was a slight added difficulty in the case of Canterbury due to the contract being carried out in three sections, owing to three offices being erected on the same site. As to the fuel contracts, they had been made after full consideration as to all circumstances which were likely to occur and to affect the price. The hon. Member for Blackpool had referred again to a matter which he had had very present in his mind, in fact which the hon. Member would not allow him not to have present in his mind. It was the office in the hon. Member's constituency, which was one in which he also took a very great interest, because so many of his own constituents spent their holidays there. The delay was mainly owing to difficulties with the Post Office in settling the building scheme. As the hon. Member knew no telephone exchange was included in the post office, but it was specially necessary in a place of that kind where people went for a short time, and a telephonic exchange was now being added

  723
  to the post office. That had necessitated the whole building being recast and enlarged, and he was glad to say the final plans had now been approved, the drawings were with the quantity surveyors, and the work would go on rapidly. He hoped the hon. Member would not assume that the future progress would be as slow as might be indicated by the amount which they thought it necessary to take this year. In the following year the progress with that post office would be much more rapid.
  MR. ASHLEY: Could the right hon. Gentleman say if there is any chance of the post office being ready by the summer of 1910?
  *MR. HARCOURTsaid he should certainly think so, but he hoped the hon. Member would not consider that he had given a definite pledge, because he had no fairy wand which would effect its completion.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYasked how it came about that out of £15,700 voted last year for the new post office at Sheffield, only £8,300 had been spent, and what special circumstance had intervened to prevent the more rapid progress of the work. It was some time ago since he had introduced a deputation to the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in office, and persuaded his Department to buy the site and commence the work. At that time they were able to convince him that a new Post Office was urgently needed because the old one was insanitary to the officers and the public. How much more must this be the case now after these years had elapsed.
  *MR. HARCOURTwas sorry to say that there had been a very unfortunate delay over the preparation of the second contract for that post office. He very much regretted it, and the matter would now go on much more rapidly.
  MR. HOWELL DAVIESurged the desirability of pushing on with the post office at Bristol. He found himself encouraged by the hon. Member for the City of London to ask why it was that only £1,000 had been spent in the last Estimates upon the City of Bristol. The
  724
  ground for the extension of the post office was bought several years ago, and the then occupiers had removed and built elaborate offices elsewhere. For some years the work of the Bristol post office had been most inconveniently carried on. Throughout the whole history of the post office at Bristol there had been on the part of successive Governments a parsimony which had been its own enemy in the long run. The post office, as it was first built, was built very much too small, and two or three additions had been made to it already. He was not at all surprised at the explanation which the First Commissioner had given for the increase in the Estimates that a new floor had had to be built. If the extension took as long as former extensions had taken they would be wanting an additional extension as soon as it was finished. He hoped the matter would be pushed on with all speed now. They had waited for several years, and the necessity, as the Postmaster-General knew, was very great indeed.
  LORD BALCARRESdesired to say a word on the Parliamentary aspect of the discussion as put before the House by the right hon. Gentleman. He had appealed to the Committee to give him the Votes during that sitting. So far as he and his friends were concerned they did not intend to stand in the way of that, but he must remind the right hon. Gentleman that in past years when he (Lord Balcarres) had been responsible for the Votes the House had not given the Votes of Class I. in a single day. He did not remember a single case in which they had done it. He did not object, but especially on a day when probably the whole of the evening would be occupied by an alien subject owing to a Motion for Adjounrment it might well be difficult for the Votes to be granted. If the Votes were not granted and they could not get another day for their discussion, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not take that as the verdict of the House that he was not entitled to go forward with the rest of his Votes. The right hon. Gentleman had indicated clearly enough that if he could not get the Votes of this Class it might check building operations all over the country, and that would be an unfortunate thing.

  725
  He quite agreed that it would be unfortunate if that were the case, but he did not admit for a moment that because the House from one cause or another found itself unable to pass all the Votes on one day, the Department was debarred from continuing the Votes. That was financial purism carried to a ridiculous extent. If he thought that danger really existed he was entitled to take a larger Vote on Account than had hitherto been the practice of the Department, and in that way he could obviate the difficulty if it ever arose. The building operations now in progress were being carried out from the money of the Vote on Account. If that money proved insufficient for the three or four months or whatever the period might be, he hoped next year the sum taken would be increased in order to prevent the anomaly of a suspension of the building operations under Class I. until Supply had been guillotined at the end of the session. Again he would make an observation not directly connected with any special item in the Estimate, but with regard to the right hon. Gentleman's general explanation. He had told them that he had given a pledge to Parliament to provide firm estimates, and that by so doing he would not have to vary the Estimates so much as in past years. He did not object to that at all, but he would rather that a fluid Estimate was presented to Parliament, an Estimate subject perhaps to large variations, than that necessary public works should be delayed. He had said that to carry out his pledge that nothing but firm estimates should be presented might delay the beginning of new public buildings. Assuming for instance that a firm Estimate only arrived in the middle of March, it would be impossible to incorporate it in the Estimates for the forthcoming year, and consequently the building would have to be delayed. There again he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman was not going to carry technical compliance with that admirable principle too far. No doubt if the Estimates were fluid and subject to large variations, hon. Members like the hon. Member for the City of London might claim that they had been carelessly drawn up, but the public service would stop if owing to the desire for that precision the Office of Works found itself debarred from presenting a general
  726
  Estimate such as they now presented, for instance, in the Diplomatic and Consular Vote. In foreign works it was obviously necessary that general sums should be voted owing to the impossibility, many of these places being weeks and months away from home, of getting accurate figures in time for the printing of the estimates. Sums of money were voted year after year although no specific estimate had been supplied. He was prepared to support the right hon. Gentleman in extending that principle to Votes within the United Kingdom, because although there might be technical and possibly financial objections the interest of the public service demanded that the buildings should be begun at the earliest possible opportunity. One of his hon. friends thought the Estimates were liable to increase owing to carelessness in the Department of the Office of Works. Those who made charges of that kind did not realise the difficulties which had to be faced by architects and surveyors in preparing estimates for buildings. As a rule it was the tyranny of the Treasury and financial purists who made enormous difficulties which greatly increased the Civil Service Estimates. When the Office of Works felt itself obliged to present an Estimate it had to do so subject to Treasury control, and they would probably be told that they were proposing to spend £5,000, £10,000 or £20,000 too much. Of course, the Office of Works had to acquiesce. The building would be started, and later on it was often found that the requirements of the public service demanded a building of the dimensions set forth in the original Estimate, and a revised Estimate had to be presented. Often in that way the Office of Works was blamed, whereas nobody was really to blame but the Treasury. He hoped, therefore, that hon. Members would lay the blame on the right shoulders. He urged the right hon. Gentleman in the event of his Votes not being passed—a Parliamentary contingency which might happen to the right hon. Gentleman or to any other Minister—he would not necessarily, on that account, suspend building operations in connection with works which ought to be undertaken at the earliest possible moment.
  *MR. HARCOURTsaid he would push on the building operations with all

  727
  possible rapidity. The noble Lord the Member for Chorley had expressed some doubt as to the likelihood of his getting his Votes that night before 8.15. Last year the House was good enough to give him these Votes before 8.15, with the exception of the Vote for his salary, and he hoped they would do the same again upon that occasion. Many of the works which had been referred to had already been authorised by Parliament, and it was on those works that the Vote on Account was spent. It was most unusual for the Office of Works or any other Department to commence new works in anticipation of the decision of Parliament. That would be an unfortunate rule to lay down, because Parliament was entitled to assert its authority before new works were commenced.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid he drew a clear distinction between new works and new services. The Office of Works would be justified in beginning new works, but not new services. They often began new works in anticipation of Parliamentary sanction.
  MR. WATTcalled attention to the small sum allocated to Scotland in this Vote. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had any Scottish blood in his veins, but he should imagine he had not, judging by the Vote. He hoped that in future he would keep in mind the fact that the population of the country north of the Tweed was about one-seventh or one-eighth of the United Kingdom and that that proportion of his expenditure ought to go to Scotland. He thought also that more of it should be spent in Glasgow; most of the money for Scotland in this Vote was being spent in Edinburgh, £62,000 for a post office there, and £22,000 for new Law Courts, while Glasgow had to be content with a paltry £1,850. He hoped the First Commissioner of Works would in future see that in giving Scotland money it was equally distributed.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTcalled attention to the fact that there were not forty Members present.
  House counted; and forty Members being found present,
  MR. HICKS BEACHsaid the speech of the hon.
  728
  Member for Glasgow was a most extraordinary one coming from a member of the party of economy. Here they had an hon. Member solemnly complaining that more money was not spent in the first place north of the Tweed, and, secondly, in his own constituency of Glasgow.
  MR. WATT: There is a constant demand for money in Glasgow.
  MR. HICKS BEACHsaid the hon. Member had argued that money ought to be spent in Glasgow because it was being spent in other parts of the country. He presumed that the Minister in charge of the Vote had selected the places where the expenditure was most needed. It was a most extraordinary thing for an hon. Member to upbraid a Minister for not spending more money in his own constituency. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question in regard to the new post office at Borden Camp, one of the military stations in Hampshire. What was the necessity for erecting a post office there? He would also like to know if the War Office was going to contribute anything towards the cost. Was the amount to come entirely from Post Office funds, or would any of it appear on the Vote for the War Office? He thought the War Office should contribute if the new post office was required entirely for the use of the military authorities.
  *MR. HARCOURTstated in reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow that his countrymen had in the past been so insistent and successful that they had obtained almost everything they wanted, and poor England was now trying to make up leeway. In regard to the Borden Camp post office, that was dealt with in the Estimates last year.
  MR. COCHRANEdesired to join his brother Scot in his protest that Scotland was most grossly neglected by the Treasury. They could vote handsome sums of money to Ireland, but their bowels of compassion did nut extend to Scotland. He would be able on another Vote to show how a most important building had been neglected by the Treasury.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid that the complaint of the hon. Member for Glasgow

  729
  was not that there was in Glasgow any necessity for a new post office or other new building. What he argued was that there was a given sum going to be spent in Great Britain, that Scotland contained one-seventh part of the population of Great Britain, and therefore the sum to be spent should be divided by seven, and one-seventh given to Scotland.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot debate a matter of that kind now.
  SIR. F. BANBURYsaid that that was what the hon. Member said, and it would be a very serious thing if they were going to spend money according to the population, and not according to actual requirements. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for informing the Committee that he intended to abide by the statement he made last year to the effect that, as soon as it could be done, the Estimates for buildings would be put upon a firmer basis. He approved of the promise that the Estimates should be put on something like an accurate basis. Unless that were done it was impossible for the Committee to know what amount of money was being spent, and he was sure that that was not at all in the interest of the House of Commons itself, or of the country. When he made a remark about the increase in the number of buildings for the post office, and that the time had arrived when it was unnecessary to spend more money on buildings, the right hon. Gentleman said that there had been a great increase in the post office work. He did not think that such an increase had been going on; there had been an increase in the post office expenditure, but not of the work.
  MR. HARCOURT: There has been a considerable increase in the revenue.
  SIR F. BANBURY: Not so great as in the expenditure. There had been also a great increase in the expenditure on the telegraphs. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had quite inadvertently omitted to answer an important question put by the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's division of Kent. The vote for fuel amounted to £52,000 compared with £46,000 last year. He would like to know the reason for that increase of £6,000, because it was well known that there had been a large fall in the price
  730
  of coal during the last few months. He himself had made contracts for coal recently at considerably lower prices than last year. His hon. friend near him pointed out that there was a large item for candles included in the Vote. Candles were an old-fashioned means of illumination—he used them himself. When they were spending £48,000 for electric apparatus and electric light in the General Post Office, and the sub-offices, why should they go back to candles?
  *MR. HARCOURTsaid that the estimates of the coal contracts were made not now, but in the end of the year—December; and probably the price of coal was higher last December than it was in December twelve months ago. There had also been a larger consumption of coal on account of the larger number of offices. It was a question of amount of coal consumed rather than an enlargement of price.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he was not aware that the coal contracts were made in December. It was quite true that in last December the fall in the price of coal had not taken effect. But he would say that December was the very worst month of the year in which coal contracts should be entered into.
  *MR. HARCOURTsaid he did not mean to say that the contracts were made in December, but that he had to make up his Estimates in December.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid the right hon. Gentleman did say that the contracts were entered into in December, but he now understood that the sum in the Vote was practically an estimate of what the cost of the coal would be and not an accurate statement of the cost.
  MR. HARCOURTassented.
  MR. C. E. PRICEsaid he did not know why the hon. Gentleman opposite should urge for a larger amount of money for Glasgow at the expense of Edinburgh. There was no capital in the Empire on which there was so small an expenditure of public money as on Edinburgh. Several hundred thousand pounds more had been spent in

  731
  Glasgow than in Edinburgh. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the choice of sites for the post office buildings in the provincial towns. Last summer he had been in Stornoway, and was bound to say that the new post office there had been placed on the most inconvenient site, far away from the business part of the town. He knew that the same complaint had been made in regard to various other towns in Scotland; and in choosing sites for new post offices greater attention should be paid to the convenience of the business part of the community.
  *MR. HARCOURT: I do not choose the sites. That is done by the Post Office authorities.
  Vote agreed to.
  2. Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £342,900, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909, in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes."
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he noticed that there was an increase on this Vote this year of £59,900. That increase was largely accounted for by expenditure on two or three large buildings. The first was for the buildings in Spring Gardens for the official residences of the First Lord of the Admiralty and the First Sea Lord. He wanted to know what progress was being made with those buildings and when they might look forward to the much desired and long expected opening from the Mall to Charing Cross. He saw that there was still £34,000 to be expended after this year for the completion of the buildings, but he supposed that most of that would be for internal fittings, and that it was possible that the roadway might be opened before the buildings were finally competed. He also asked whether any further negotiations had taken place with the London County Council in regard to the widening of the approach of the new roadway on the eastern side of Drummond's Bank. Six or seven years ago when he was at the Office of Works certain negotiations
  732
  were entered into with regard to the demolition of the buildings opposite Drummond's Bank. He asked whether there was any chance of a better approach being made than he was able to effect. The right hon. Gentleman had been so fortunate in the many negotiations he had conducted that he hoped he had had greater luck than he (Mr. Akers-Douglas) had in his dealings with regard to this site. He looked forward to the new Mall as being one of the finest additions ever made to the appearance of London. They knew what the effect would be inside the Park, and it would be a great pity if it was marred by the narrowness of the approach. He understood that the buildings when completed would be occupied by the First Lord of the Admiralty and the First Sea Lord, and that their present residences would be handed over for official Admiralty purposes. He took it that considerable alterations would be necessary, and he trusted that in the interest of the entrance to the Horse Guards Parade there 'would be some alteration so as to bring it into greater touch with the existing Admiralty buildings. He would like to see, if money were forthcoming, the removal of that very insignificant building alongside the Admiralty—the present Pay Office. The next item to which he wished to draw attention was the amount of £10,000 out of the required expenditure of £58,500 for the extension of the National Gallery, width he understood would cover only a portion of the site occupied by St. George's Barracks. That led him to ask whether those barracks were now empty, excepting that portion used, he believed, by the Recruiting Department. He took it that that was not yet empty, for there was an item down on the same page for £25,000 for the buildings in Great Scotland Yard for the new Recruiting Station. He might say that that was an admirable site for that particular purpose. The right hon. Gentleman could not have had a better. It would take some time to complete the new building, but when completed he understood that the whole of the barracks behind the National Gallery were to be taken over so that the National Gallery could be made secure from the risk of fire—a subject much discussed of late, and space would be found for very much needed extension. He wished also

  733
  to ask a question in regard to the proposed expenditure of £95,000—£5,000 of which was to be spent this year—for additional Courts of Justice in London to the west of the existing Royal Law Courts. That Vote of course committed them to the policy of building more Courts in London. He noticed that the hon. Member for Preston put a question that day to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether, in his opinion, it would not be more desirable to increase the powers of the county Courts in order to lessen the work of the Courts in London, but he did not get a specific answer. However that might be, he thought it was apparent that the site proposed was a reasonable and proper one on which to place the new Courts. When he was at the Office of Works great complaints were made against the idea of building on that space. Personally, he had never had any sympathy with those complaints, because that site was purchased for the purpose of building law Courts, and although the garden ground was extremely ornamental and desirable, considering the enormous cost of the land in that particular neighbourhood he did not think they would be justified in continuing to occupy it as an ornamental garden. Some day or other the new Courts would have to be built upon it. He asked whether the item included the cost of any temporary Courts which would be constructed before the permanent buildings were erected, or whether it was the total expenditure for the additional accommodation required for the Judges of this country. There was an item on the next page in regard to £3,000 for alterations in consequence of changes at the Treasury and the Home Office. He thought that that meant changes in respect to the occupancy of the Home Office and the Local Government Board, which latter Department was to be transferred to the new building in Parliament Street; and that the Home Office was to occupy the space thus vacated. Were there no other new dispositions in contemplation? It was in his recollection that the whole of that space would be wanted for the work of the Home Office, and that great inconvenience existed now in having some departments housed outside the present building. There was one item which he did not understand and he apologised for raising a question about it, because it was in
  734
  italics. In connection with the Stationery Office, £5,000 was voted on account last year for the erection of a warehouse. He would like to know what the actual sum spent was, because if the hon. Gentleman would look at the Estimates for last year he would see that in this respect he had a free hand, and he saw no further amount was asked for this year. He thought he was right in concluding, therefore, either that the work on the warehouse in question was concluded for the sum of £5,000, or else that the warehouse had been abandoned. Then, in regard to the Duke of York's military school, there was an item of £5,000 for the removal of furniture from the present school to the new school at Dover, and he would ask when the buildings would be completed, or whether they were completed. He took it that they were, at all events, to be completed this year, or otherwise this item for furniture would not appear on the Estimates. He would like to know, in addition to the time at which they would be completed, when it was expected that the transfer of the school would take place to much better and healthier surroundings, on a site adjoining Dover Castle. There was another question which he thought arose on this Vote, although he had not been able to put his finger upon the item which he understood was included in public works. It had reference to the maintenance of Walmer Castle. He thought that was transferred within the last three or four years to the Office of Works, and included in the Vote for it, but he did not see any item down for the maintenance of the house and grounds. The House would remember that on the resignation of Lord Curzon as Lord Warden the official residence was given up and the historic rooms were thrown open to the public, as were also the gardens, and they were, he understood, in future to be maintained by the Office of Works. But he did not see any item down with regard to the cost of maintaining the gardens, and he would like to know why it was. Further, he understood from the Press that the present Lord Warden was likely to occupy an official residence at Dover Castle. He did not know whether that was true or not, and whether, if so, that portion of the historic building

  735
  would come under the Office of Works or remain under the War Office. He would like to know whether any extension was contemplated in consequence of the Lord Warden taking up his residence at Dover Castle.
  SIR WILLIAM BULLasked, in regard to the extension of the Law Courts, whether it was intended to make any extension in the western area. He would be very sorry to see that piece of land built upon, not only because of the beauty of the grass and flowers and because it was one of the playgrounds of the children living at the back of St. Clement Dane in some of the slums, but because any building on the lawn would mask and hide that beautiful building, the Bankruptcy Court. He would like to be informed whether Street, the architect, knowing that extensions were contemplated, prepared any plans, and if not, whether the First Commissioner of Works had any idea of the kind of architecture which it was intended to adopt. It was a very important matter.
  *MR. HARCOURTsaid that he could not fix the exact time when the roadway through the new Admiralty buildings, which were to be put up at the end of the Mall, was likely to be open, but he thought in less than two years. The structure was going up now pretty rapidly, and he hoped they might open the road through into the Mall before the internal work of the buildings had been completed. Only one half of the buildings that were being erected would be devoted to the First Lord and the First Sea Lord; the other half would become part of the Admiralty buildings. When the residence at the old Admiralty had been vacated and adapted for Admiralty uses he would gladly consider the suggestion, which had been present to his mind, that the building linking the beautiful Horse Guards with the other block should be brought into a greater measure of harmony. It might be necessary to reface the Paymaster-General's office, and he did not imagine that the artistic value of that curious building would suffer thereby. With regard to the houses still standing, the right hon. Gentleman
  736
  would remember that the late Government considered that they had done their part in clearing the roadway through into the Mall and making way for the new Admiralty buildings. Any further development of the site on the Trafalgar-square side must be more in the nature of a Metropolitan improvement. With regard to the National Gallery extension, money was taken in the Estimates for building on part of the ground which had been already cleared, and, he was glad to say, he was just making arrangements by which at last the surrounding grounds would be finally cleared, so that the National Gallery should be isolated and danger from fire averted. The scheme for the Law Courts provided four new Courts. The gardens on the west of the Law Courts had always been looked on as a necessary site for further buildings; from the very first that had formed part of the scheme, and they had, therefore, never been occupied by anything in the nature even of permanent garden decorations. The late Mr. W. H. Smith generously bore the expense of laying out those gardens, but when it was suggested that there should be a fountain put up, the proposal was resisted on the ground that it might hinder the subsequent use of the gardens for building purposes. The changes in the Treasury and Home Office were perfectly simple. The Home Office required a great deal more accommodation, and it would take over a large part of the Local Government Board offices. He hoped it would be possible to house under one roof all the departments of the Home Office, which it was necessary and desirable to have together. The Duke of York's School would be completed at the end of the year. Walmer Castle had now become an historic building, and did not appear specifically, but in the general provision for ancient monuments and historic buildings. He understood privately that the Lord Warden did not intend to occupy premises in Dover Castle.
  SIR C. SCHWANN, who was indistinctly heard, was understood to comment on the unsightly appearance of the Museum in Cromwell Road, and said that the two small and insignificant towers on it spoilt the

  737
  effect of the domes. The figures which surrounded the building appeared to be on very slender stems, and always gave one the impression in wet weather that they were trying to protect themselves from the rain.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid that some mention had been made of the new Duke of York Schools at Dover, but there was a question hardly less interesting to those who lived in London, and that was what was going to become of the old Duke of York School buildings in Chelsea, and the extensive and beautiful grounds surrounding them. London Members, especially, would be interested to hear what was going to be done with that important national asset. He hoped it was not to be handed over to the speculative builder, which would be in his opinion a very great misfortune.
  *MR. HARCOURTsaid that the site would be sold, but it might be sold with conditions as to the style and value of the buildings to be erected upon it.
  MR. LANE-FOX, who had given notice of an Amendment to reduce the Vote by the sum of £4,524, the amount of the rents paid for the offices of the Department of the Board of Agriculture, said he had no desire to reduce the Vote, but wished to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of replying. He desired to draw attention to the inadequacy of, the premises of the Board of Agriculture. The situation of those offices was absolutely unsuited to the very important work which the Board had to carry on. The importance of the work was very great and would become greater. He had great sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman who must, in the great experience he had had of small holdings, have seen the inadequacy of this small holding. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give some assurance as to his intentions with regard to future accommodation for the Board of Agriculture. Everybody who went to the Board of Agriculture knew how difficult it was either to find the official required, or to transact business there. He had occasion to go
  738
  to the Board for some information, and went to St. James' Square, where he was informed that the official he desired to see was at Whitehall Place. He went to Whitehall and found the official, but was told that the information he required was at St. James' Square and Delahay Street. He had either, therefore, to go back for the information or wait until a messenger could go to St. James' Square and Delahay Street and bring it back, so that he might discuss the matter in company with the official he was dealing with. Let hon. Members consider what such an experience would mean to an unfortunate and perhaps elderly agriculturist who made a great expedition from the country believing that the question in which he was interested was the one question in the world. If he had to tour around in that way, it would be impossible for him to do anything. But if it was inconvenient to the public it was even more so to those engaged in the Department itself. The Intelligence Department had been driven out to make room for the new Small Holdings Commissioners, and it was only recently that the right hon. Gentleman who represented the Board of Agriculture in the House of Commons had been given accommodation at Whitehall Place. It was a scandal that for all these years the representative of the President of the Board of Agriculture had had no place where he could do his business, either in this House or at the Board of Agriculture. Thanks to the right hon. Gentleman some accommodation had now been provided somewhere in the roof of the building and a room secured for his accommodation at Whitehall Place. But other accommodation was lacking, and the whole thing required revision. The legal adviser to the Board was housed in St. James' Square, and his understudy at Whitehall Place. There were no doubt many occasions under the Small Holdings Act when they might require the attendance of their legal adviser at the head office of the Board, and many occasions when the officials there would not have the time or opportunity of consulting him. Then there was the question of the typists. At the present time the typists of the Fisheries Department

  739
  were compiling the records in Delahay Street, another set of typists were compiling other records at Whitehall Place, and it was quite impossible to interchange these typists, although in the Fisheries Department there might be great pressure whilst in other Departments the typists were doing nothing. The work of the Board of Agriculture was increasing every day, and the difficulties involved correspondingly increased. It was obvious if they compared the expenditure of this country upon agriculture with that of other countries they would before long be bound to increase the British expenditure. Under present conditions agriculture was put in the background. The offices of the Board were most inadequate, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee some idea of what were the proposals to remedy that state of things. What was wanted was a central office in connection if possible with the Department of Woods and Forests with which in the near future there would be a considerable interchange of work. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would realise the difficulties of the present situation, difficulties which were felt, not only by the public, but by the officials of the Board of Agriculture, who were greatly hampered in their work, although they were not allowed to say so.
  *MR. HARCOURTsaid the hon. Member in moving to reduce this Vote had taken a course necessary under the procedure of the House in order to extract the statement he desired. He moved to reduce the Vote by the amount of the whole of the rents of the offices of the Board of Agriculture. His arithmetic was not, however, quite correct. The real rent paid was £3,870. The hon. Member had not the least wish to reduce the rent, but rather to obtain a building which would cost a great deal more. The hon. Gentleman had spoken with some justice of the small holding of the Board of Agriculture being inconveniently placed. He himself admitted the inconvenience of the arrangement. It was one of the many inconveniences which he had inherited from his predecessors. But it had been his object during the last two years to en-
  740
  deavour to remedy those inconveniences, and he had been looking about in order to find a way of bettering the Board of Agriculture in this respect. He recognised the enormous inconvenience of the present distribution of the offices of the Board of Agriculture and had every intention of re-housing the Board at the earliest possible moment. He had various sites in his mind, but the hon. Member would quite understand that it would be most unwise to make any statement as to them at present because that would only put up the price against him. The hon. Member, might, however, rest assured that everything that it was possible to do would be done.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAYunderstood that the new Duke of York's School at Dover would cost something like £300,000. They had not been told what the estimate as to the value of the old school was, but it was presumably a good deal more than that. The point he wanted to make was that whatever sum was realised over the £300,000, the cost of the new school, ought to be devoted to the orphans of soldiers and not taken for any other purpose. If the right hon. Gentleman could give them that assurance it would be a source of great satisfaction to all who were interested in the matter.
  MR. C. E. PRICEcalled attention to the condition of the buildings opposite Downing Street, occupied by the Board of Trade. Two houses had been recently cleaned and greatly improved in appearance, and if that could be done with the Board of Trade buildings they might greatly add to the beauty of the street. He was not quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman could do anything to effect alterations in the War Office, but the passage which had been built across the front greatly detracted from the appearance of the interior the moment the door was opened. It destroyed the appearance of the staircase and the whole effect which the architect intended in designing that staircase. A wall which faced right opposite the door-way was a great blot on the appearance of the building on entering. He was not sure whether it could be made better by

  741
  placing a clock on the wall, but certainly at present the appearance on entering was disappointing in the extreme. The right hon. Gentleman's attention, he believed, had been drawn to the danger likely to arise by placing a light opposite the statute of the Duke of Cambridge. He regretted that the Westminster authorities had not agreed to place a light on the other side, for it would certainly preserve the monument from the risks which might be run in time of excitement. The chance of a bomb or something of that kind being placed in the neighbourhood of the monument under shelter of the darkness would, in his opinion, be a very serious thing. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had been past the place at night time, but he could assure him that at present it was a very serious defect. With regard to the suggestion of placing new buildings on the green spot next to the Law Courts, he thought that it would be indeed a pity to cover that open space, which was a welcome relief to the eye, and certainly the Royal Courts of Justice would not be made less impressive by leaving that ground untouched.
  *MR. REESsaid that on page 49 of the Estimates he found that the provision for coal and firewood for England and Wales and Scotland was £2,000 more than was provided last year, while gas, the manufacture of which was not indirectly I connected with coal, was £500 less. He did not quite know whether the higher amount of coal was in consequence of our having more public offices, or whether it was in anticipation of the increased price, resulting from the Eight Hours Bill, or the fear thereof which, he saw, was taken into account in letting offices in the City, in which firing was included in the rent. If the right hon. Gentleman could kindly explain that, he would be grateful. As to the open space on the west of the Law Courts, it was a comfort to people going to and from the City to see the refreshing green area. It was a place of light, refreshment, and peace. If that could be spared it certainly would I a source of enjoyment to many, though it might be that it was inevitable that
  742
  it should be built upon. He thought it was extremely probable that the Marble Arch did not come under this Vote, but he would welcome a statement from the right hon. Gentleman as to what was happening there, because it was rather difficult to follow what was intended in the present state of progress.
  *MR. FELLsaid it should be remembered in connection with the new Law Courts, that a great number of tall buildings had been erected in the vicinity of the open space proposed to be built upon, and that questions of light and air rights might be raised. He saw that a small amount was asked for this year, which looked as if the new buildings were not going to be pushed forward with all speed. The necessity for the new buildings would be admitted by anyone who saw the loose horse-box which was put up in the Central Hall, and where a Judge of the High Court sat. Anyone who had seen that structure must have come to the conclusion that the sooner that state of things was remedied the better. He hoped that the £5,000 they were now voting would enable the new Law Courts to be commenced-this year. The lofty buildings to which he had referred overlooked the open space, and he was afraid that, unless some great care had been taken to preserve rights of air and light, some difficulty might be experienced with regard to those rights. He hoped, however, that care had been taken, and that it would be all right. He hoped the buildings would be rapidly completed. He knew they were comprised in the original design, and he had sufficient faith in the great designer of the Courts to believe that he had arranged that any additional Courts which might be erected should not spoil the harmony of his design.
  *MR. HARCOURTsaid the Question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Andrews Burghs as to the value of the old Duke of York's School was one which the hon. Member would forgive him if he said that, even if he knew the value accurately, he would not state it,

  743
  when the Government was going into the market to sell it.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAYsaid he had not asked the right hon. Gentleman to state the value, but to say that any surplus which there might be over the £300,000 should be devoted to the orphans of soldiers.
  *MR. HARCOURTsaid he had thought that the hon. Member was objecting. As to the disposal of the surplus, that was entirely a matter for the Treasury, subject to the Acts which governed the ownership of the site and school. The hon. Member for Edinburgh had asked him a Question with regard to the buildings of the Board of Trade. As soon as he had put up the new buildings the present ones would be dealt with. As to the passage at the War Office, they attached value and importance to it, and the plans of the architect had been faithfully carried out. A clock was being prepared under his direction to be placed on the blank wall on the staircase, to which the hon. Member had alluded. As to the lighting of Whitehall, that was not a matter within his control; it belonged to the City Council, and he could not interfere with them. The hon. Member for the Montgomery Boroughs had asked him as to the item for coal. There had been an increase in the number of larger buildings, and the item included the prisons of England. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth had referred to the question of the Law Courts. He could assure him that the buildings would be pushed ahead with the greatest possible speed, and that no trouble would arise with regard to light and air rights. As to the loss of a pleasant garden, he was very conscious of that fact, but if the use of a plot of vacant ground for twenty years as a garden was to be made the foundation of a claim that it should not be used for building purposes, it would not encourage them in similar circumstances to lay out vacant spaces temporarily for purposes of pleasure, if, at the end of twenty years, that very fact was to be advanced as a reason for not building on them according to original intentions. They would simply put up hoardings as was done in Leicester Square for many years.
  MR. HICKS BEACHhoped that the right hon. Gentleman would within the next twelve months be able to lodge the Board of Agriculture in one building. It was very inconvenient to the officials of the Board of Agriculture to have their offices in four separate places in Whitehall and St. James's Square. It was also very inconvenient for agriculturists who came up from the country not to be able to find the office of the Board of Agriculture. The fact of a visitor from the country having to run backwards and forwards between Whitehall and St. James's Square was not calculated to put him in a good temper with the Board or enable him to do his business within a short time. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell them, now that various departments were to be housed in the new block in Great George Street, whether it would be possible to give the Board of Agriculture either the existing Home Office or the existing Local Government Board office? If he could not do that, what use was it intended to make of the old War Office in Pall Mall? Was it intended to use it in future as a Government Office, or to sell it, or what was proposed to be done with it? The hon. Member for one of the Scottish constituencies had complained that more money was not voted for Scotland in the present Estimates. He wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that there was an increase in the amount of money to be spent in Scotland in the present year, under various heads of this particular Vote. For instance they would find that on page 48 the amount for maintenance and repairs of public buildings in Scotland was £2,000 more in the coming year than it was last year. Under Sub-head 5, there was an increase of £300 for coal and firewood.
  *MR. REES: It is only a thirtieth of the whole.
  MR. HICKS BEACHsaid there was an increase under Sub-head 6 of the same Vote of about £230. If, again, they turned over the page, there was a large increase under Vote G, Sub-head 7, of about £400 for furniture; and he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman why it had been necessary to increase

  745
  these various items in the current year in the case of Scotland alone.
  *MR. MORTONwas sorry to notice that there was a considerable increase in the total Vote notwithstanding their pretended economy, and a very large part of it, £14,250, was for furniture. When they were well off, and had plenty of money, they might be extravagant in regard to furniture which they ought to curtail when there was need for economy. He was afraid waste was going on somewhere, especially in regard to this item. He quite admitted that it was necessary that they should look after their public buildings, but there was no occasion that he knew of to be extravagant. Although they had not the details which would enable them to criticise the Vote very closely, he was afraid there was apparent extravagance when they had to pay in the coming year over £50,000 more than last year. In regard to Scotland they paid too much towards the revenue of the country generally, and did not get their fair share back. They did not get anything like the proportion they were supposed to have on what was called the equivalent grant, viz., that they ought to have 11 per cent.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order; that cannot be discussed on this Vote.
  *MR. MORTONwas very sorry the hon. Member opposite was allowed to allude to the expenditure in Scotland.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member opposite alluded to items on the Vote.
  *MR. MORTONsaid he wanted to say, with regard to those items, that they did not get their fair share as regarded public buildings and other matters, and he did not think, therefore, there was any reason to complain that on this Vote Scotland had too large an amount. He would like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would give a little more information with regard to the new Law Courts in the Strand. He was as much in favour of open spaces
  746
  as anyone, but they could not have open spaces everywhere, or they would have no property to pay rates and taxes. That part of London was provided fairly well with open spaces, and he was not anxious to preserve the Law Court gardens as an open space. But the item was new, and it had never been explained what was going to be done eventually with the £95,000, of which £5,000 was on the Vote as a commencement. He would like to know what was the scheme that the right hon. Gentleman expected to carry out. Could the plans be seen of what was proposed? Did they want four new Law Courts? He dared say that even £95,000 would not complete the scheme. They seldom had a scheme without having a revised estimate. With regard to the item of £14,210 for the maintenance and protection of ancient monuments, £3,935 of that was appropriated to Scotland. They had not much information as to how that money was to be expended. He did not think they did enough in maintaining those old monuments, but he would like to know what was going to be done so that they might see whether the money was properly spent or not. A certain sum had already been spent on the Law Courts at Edinburgh, and a further sum was now asked. He thought part of that was for the acquisition of ground, as well as for the buildings. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell them what was the present position of things, whether the building was being gone on with and whether it was likely to be completed within a reasonable time. At present before the alterations were made there was no doubt that the building was a disgrace to the country, to civilisation, and to such a handsome city as Edinburgh, and he trusted that something would be done to give them a decent and respectable Court. He was aware, of course, that all these matters cost money, but it was their duty to find out as much as they could with a view to letting people know that they did a least attempt to know somethin about the way the people's money was being expended. They did not get many opportunities of discussing these things and perhaps if they did not discuss them

  747
  now they would not have another opportunity, because the Government would take care that the Vote for the right hon. Gentleman's salary would never come on for discussion; it would be no doubt guillotined in accordance with the new but not improved procedure. Therefore it was their duty to take that opportunity of discussing the Vote as well as they were able and to get as much information as they could. The right hon. Gentleman knew that he took an interest in these buildings and that he had no desire at all to be offensive to him personally in making these inquiries, but he was cure that people of Scotland, especially in regard to the matters he had mentioned would be obliged to him if he would give them the fullest possible information.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid he did not intend to raise again the absorbing topic which was of interest to Scotland or to congratulate the hon. Member for Gloucestershire for his exceeding industry in going through some of the items in which he had discovered that a few hundreds had been spent in Scotland that were not spent last year. He observed that the hon. Member included in Scotland Great Scotland Yard which also appeared on the same Vote, but he could assure him it was an entirely different place. He really desired to recall the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to his eagerness in closing up the open spaces in London under his charge. He could only presume that he had one eye on the Land Values Bill which the Government intended to prosecute to its success or failure. He seemed to want to cover over with buildings that part of the garden connected with the Law Courts which had been open some twenty-five years. That appeared to be a question which legal Members were more qualified to deal with than he was. He could only think the right hon. Gentleman, in desiring so speedily to build over that ground, had some idea that taxation would be imposed on unoccupied spaces which would touch the pocket of the Treasury of which he was so close a guardian. He desired to ask a question connected with a point the right hon. Gentleman had raised himself,
  748
  which had filled him with some alarm, viz., the question of the Duke of York's School. For the first time, he thought, the Committee had been informed that that school, not only the buildings he understood, but the admirable open space which surrounded them, would be put up for sale. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to measure them that it was not his intention to let out as building lands, possibly for the erection of streets and houses or factories, that open space which had been a great pleasure as a health resort to the whole of the somewhat crowded neighbourhood of Chelsea. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman in his eagerness to cover the ground with buildings would spare at least one or two of those open spaces and that the ground surrounding the Duke of York's School would remain an open space for the benefit of the public.
  *MR. HARCOURTsaid the new public offices at the corner of Whitehall had been allotted a long time ago, and would shortly be occupied by the Board of Education and the Local Government Board. The accommodation vacated by the Local Government Board would then be occupied mostly by the Home Office and partly by the Colonial Office, but it was all required for the extension of these two offices. Immediately the old War Office building in Pall Mall ceased to be a Government office it passed out of his control to the office of Woods and Forests who were proposing to let it out on building leases. The whole policy for many years had been to concentrate Government offices in the neighbourhood of Whitehall and the Houses of Parliament. The hon. Member for Sutherland had complained of the increase in this Vote by £14,000 for furniture, and certainly if it had been a normal year he would be with him. But this happened to be a year in which they were occupied with a new block of public offices, and he was sure the hon. Member's tender heart would not wish to turn even his colleague of the Local Government Board into an unfurnished office. £13.000 for furnishing a great block of public offices and £5,000 for the Duke of York's school furniture removal made £18,000, although the increase on the

  749
  Vote was only £14,000, so that in other directions he had made an economy of £4,000 in order to meet the special demands made on him in connection with these new buildings. The extension of the Law Courts had been discussed for a great many years, and he and many of his predecessors had convinced themselves that the accommodation was urgently required owing to the fact that two new Judges had been appointed. It was proposed to carry the thing out as a continuation of the original plans. Judges, Bar, solicitors, suitors, and officials were all agreed as to the necessity of the Courts, and there was no other place to put them except this vacant space.
  *MR. MORTON: Do you want four new Courts?
  *MR. HARCOURT: Yes, Sir. The hon. Member would be pleased to know how far he was making sixpences go in Scotland.
  *MR. MORTON: What about the bawbees?
  *Mr. HARCOURT: The bawbees being distributed over some of these heads. He was spending a certain amount in the preservation of the historic parts of Edinburgh Castle, Arbroath Abbey, Dunfermline Palace, Dunblane Cathedral, Bothwell House, Stirling, Linlithgow Palace, Brechin Cathedral, Fort-rose Cathedral, Glasgow Cathedral, St. Andrew's Cathedral, St. Andrew's Castle, and some miscellaneous monuments, chiefly prehistoric.
  MR. COCHRANEasked what was to be the fate of the Duke of York's School?
  *MR. HARCOURTstated that he had already announced that the site was for sale. It would, of course, be sold, subject to existing Acts which affected it, and any conditions the Treasury might make as to the character of the buildings to be erected upon it.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid he desired to know if it was proposed to keep any part as an open space?
  *MR. HARCOURTreplied that he could not say what arrangements the Treasury might make.
  LORD BALCARREShoped that some portion of the site now occupied by the Duke of York's School would be preserved as an open space. The value of open spaces in the Metropolis increased every day, and if the First Commissioner would make representations in that direction to the Treasury, no doubt they would receive due consideration. With regard to the Paymaster-General's Office, it was a building with some historic associations, and he was not aware what could be put in its place which would more worthily occupy the ground. He hoped, however, that the right hon. Gentleman's improvements would be limited to removing anachronisms and excrescences without adding new masonry to old buildings. With regard to the National Gallery, he was ready to acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman was spending the money well. The hon. Member for Sutherland was surprised that the Estimate showed an increase. The hon. Member ought not to be surprised, because there was an increase of £1,000,000 on the Post Office Estimates, and £670,000 on the Civil Service Estimates. Next year there would be a gigantic increase on the Navy Estimates, and the same thing was going on all round. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the increase in this particular Vote, because there were few ways in which the money could be spent more profitably. One of the items set down in connection with the extension of the National Gallery, was the new site and buildings for the Recruiting Station in Great Scotland Yard, which was very suitable and extremely central. In a foot-note it was stated that the accommodation which this building used to have behind the National Gallery would in future be adapted to extend the National Portrait Gallery. Few public institutions were more valuable than that, and it was now in a very congested state. Therefore, he thought the right hon. Gentleman was doing well to make provision for its enlargement. He was a trustee of the National Portrait Gallery, which he

  751
  considered was a very important institution, and sadly needed extension. It was a sad thing, month after month, when interesting and valuable portraits were offered, that the trustees had to consider whether they were justified in accepting a picture which they could not exhibit to the public. He hoped that in deciding upon these extensions the claims of the National Portrait Gallery would not be overlooked. He was not pressing the right hon. Gentleman to make a grant at once or complaining of the amount being voted towards the National Gallery, but he urged that in complying with the demands of the National Gallery they should not encroach upon the space which would legitimately fall to the extension of the National Portrait Gallery, because there was plenty of room for both. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make an ample extension in that direction whenever the finances would permit.
  *MR. HARCOURTsaid that with regard to what had been said about preserving the open space in connection with the Duke of York's School he would see that the views which had been expressed were placed before the Treasury. In reply to the noble Lord the Member for Chorley he might say that he had neither the money for nor the intention of altering the Paymaster-General's Office. As for the National Portrait Gallery, no Vote was put down for its extension, but that had always been present to his mind and it was one of the objects for which he desired to clear the site behind the Gallery. All his plans for the extension of the National Gallery had always left a place for the extension of the National Portrait Gallery, which was greatly needed, and when he could get rid of the Recruiting Station and obtain the money from the Treasury or anybody else that would be done.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTexpressed his gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for what he had done in many ways to improve the accommodation for Members in the House. He had, however, risen simply for the purpose of asking what was the actual amount the right hon. Gentleman was going to spend on historic buildings and prehistoric
  752
  monuments in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman had read a long and startling list and he did not quite grasp what the amount was.
  *MR. HARCOURT: The amount is £2,935 for Scotland alone.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTasked what was going to be spent on the same kind of work in Ireland?
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That will not be in order on this Vote.
  MR. LANE-FOXsaid he understood the right hon. Gentleman to state when dealing with the question of ancient monuments in Scotland that certain sums had been spent in repairing cathedrals. His experience was that Scotland was very ably and thoroughly represented in the House, and generally she got a great deal more than she was entitled to. [Cries of "No."] Well, if she did not, that was not the fault of her representatives. He wished to know why cathedrals in Scotland should be repaired at the public expense, while English cathedrals were not. Two years ago he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a grant in favour of an English cathedral, and he received a point blank refusal. Why should there be any difference between Scotland and England in that matter?
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he did not see why public money should be spent on cathedrals in Scotland, while the same thing was not done in England. He wished to know when the entrance to Trafalgar Square, at the end of the road in front of Buckingham Palace, would be open for traffic. The road had been open for two years, and he could not see why the part to which he referred should not be made available for traffic, even though the official residences in connection with the Admiralty were not yet completed. It would be a great public convenience if the road into Trafalgar Square were open. It might not be possible to open the road in a finished state, on account of the building operations, but he did not see why there should not be a temporary opening for vehicular traffic. He

  753
  thought about £20 would do the whole thing. The proposed extension of the Patent Office might be necessary, but he wished to know why so large a sum as £90,000 should be spent upon it. He should think that owing to the protective policy of the President of the Board of Trade there would be an increase in the amount of work done under the new patents law, but the sum proposed to be spent in extending the office seemed to be very large. He could not join the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth in expressing confidence in the design for the extension of the Law Courts. He thought he was correct in saying that Judges, barristers, and suitors were agreed that the ventilation and accommodation in the Law Courts were unsatisfactory, although the outer shell was beautiful. The hon. Member had said that in the new building there would be light and air. That was exactly what he understood there had never been in the present buildings, and if there was the same error in the design of the new buildings they would be as unsuitable for their purpose as apparently the older buildings had turned out to be. As a protest against money being spent on Scottish cathedrals, he begged to move to reduce the Vote by £500.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £342,400, be granted for the said Service."—(Sir F. Banbury.)
  *MR. HARCOURTexpressed the hope that the hon. Baronet would not carry his protest further. The history of the responsibility of the Crown for the slight maintenance of certain ecclesiastical buildings was this. After the abolition of Episcopacy in the Established Church of Scotland the obligation of supporting certain collegiate and ecclesiastical buildings was transferred to the Crown. The expenses of these repairs were borne by the hereditary revenues of the Crown up till 1832, and then transferred to the Vote for public buildings on the recommendation of a Committee of this House which sat in 1831. The whole thing amounted to very little in money. It was an obligation which this country
  754
  took over with the Union, The road from Buckingham Palace to Trafalgar Square would be known as The Mall. It was not possible to open it in the way suggested by the hon. Baronet until the new buildings were nearer completion. The hon. Baronet would understand that if the road at that point were opened, traffic would have to go through what was practically a builder's yard when building operations were going on. It would be impossible for the contractor properly to carry on his work if traffic went through there, and in the event of accident to any member of the public he was not sure on whom the liability would fall. It was necessary to keep up the hoarding when the foundations were being put in. The superstructure was now going up which included the arches. The sum stated in the Vote for the Patent Office included the cost of the site as well as the buildings, and therefore the amount was not so large as it seemed on paper. The work of the Patent Office had very largely increased as the result of recent legislation, and the effect of that increase had been generally to the advantage of English trade.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid he would vote against the Amendment if there should be a division. The cathedrals in Scotland were great historic monuments. It was for want of a little money applied at the right time that these monuments were allowed to go to wreck and ruin. That was the case of a historic building for which a small sum was required at present in order to save the expenditure of a greater sum in future. The hon. Member for the Barkston Ash Division had stated that Scotland got too much and England too little.
  THE DEPUTY- CHAIRMAN: It is out of order on this Vote to discuss the general finances of the two kingdoms.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid that if it had been in order to read an official Paper which he held in his hand he would have been able to show that Scotland not only contributed more than her share, but that she did not get all she was entitled to.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid there were cathedrals in England of great historic interest which were in want of money. Winchester Cathedral was as great as any in Scotland, and it had fallen into decay. A short time ago he had, out of his slender means, contributed for the repair of that cathedral.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: So did I.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid that that was no reason why the Government should cut out the "predominant partner," and only give to the more importunate member of the Union. He was not aware of anything in the Act of Union which compelled Great Britain to undertake the repair of these particular places. He gathered that a certain number of buildings were taken over under the Act of Union. If they were bound under the Act of Union to maintain them he would not go to a division.
  *MR. MORTONsaid that in regard to the question of the repair of St. Andrew's Cathedral, although it was not specifically mentioned in the Act of Union, a bargain was made between the two nations that certain castles, palaces and other buildings were to be kept in repair at the national expense. He would be the last person in the world to vote public money for sectarian purposes, but he hoped they would still be allowed to carry out honestly a bargain made between the two countries at the time of the Union. He was astonished to hear that the richest Church in the world was allowing Winchester or any other cathedral in England to go to ruin. There was plenty of money belonging to that Church, so let the hon. Baronet appeal to them. He had always heard that whenever the disestablishment of the Church of England took place—he did not know when that was going to happen—the cathedrals would be claimed and preserved as public buildings.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order. That question does not arise on this Vote.
  *MR. MORTONsaid he was only trying to answer the hon. Baronet who repre-
  756
  sented the City of London; and to explain that the small sum asked for for the repair of St. Andrews Cathedral, was part of the bargain made at the time of the Union.
  *MR. HARCOURTsaid he wished to explain as to the Act of Union. He did not say that the maintenance of these buildings was specified in the Act of Union, but that the Act of Union set forth that Great Britain was to take over all the obligations of the Crown of Scotland, and the maintenance of this building was one of these obligations.
  MR. FELLsaid he was delighted to hear his hon. friend bringing up the question of the Board of Agriculture and he hoped before long to see all the departments of that Board under one roof. He saw that there was a considerable increase in the cost of electric current this year, and also that there was an item of £3,000 for carrying out alterations and changes in the Home Office. It seemed to him that that was rather a large sum, as he understood that it was the expense of interior decorations. If so, he hoped those responsible would have the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman's well-known artistic taste.
  *MR. HARCOURTsaid he was afraid those alterations were merely structural. If the hon. Member only knew the difficulty of making these internal structural alterations he would not say that £3,000 was too large a sum.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid that the hon. Member for Sutherland had stated that he would be the last man to agree to a Vote for sectarian purposes, and yet the hon. Member had voted the other night for what was clearly an Irish sectarian University. Before they went to a division on this very considerable. Vote for Scotland they were entitled to know whether Ireland was to have an equivalent grant given to her.
  *MR. HARCOURT: This Vote is entirely devoted to England, Scotland and Wales.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTthought that when voting large sums of money for pre-historic buildings and cathedrals Scotland they were entitled to know whether an equivalent grant was to be given to Ireland.
  *MR. HARCOURT: No.
  *MR. LUPTONsaid he wished to draw attention to the new vaccine-station at Enfield, which was built for the purpose of a cruel kind of vivisection. He understood that calves were at that institution strapped down to a table, and that 150 wounds were made with a knife in their skin for vaccination purposes. These wounds were then rubbed with some virulent matter. The calves were then removed to their stalls, and their heads strapped up to prevent them from licking their wounds. In a few days pustules developed, and the calves were then again strapped down on the table, and the pustules were scraped off to make what is called "vaccine lymph."
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. Gentleman say what item he is referring to?
  MR. LUPTON: Vote IX., A. 13.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That item is on last year's Estimates and not under the Vote for this year.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he wished to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation in regard to St. Andrews Cathedral. He understood that though that Cathedral was not mentioned in the Act of Union, it was a perfectly agreed understanding that that building was to be maintained. He would, therefore, ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £52,400 (including a Supplementary sum of £13,000), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of pay-
  758
  ment during the year ending on the 31st day of march 1909, for Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings, and for the maintenance of certain Cemeteries Aboard."
  *MR. HICKS BEACHmoved the reduction of the Vote by £100 in order to call attention to two items—£9,500 for the erection of a new Legation at Adis Abeba, and £4,500 for the erection of bungalows at Peitaho, the estimates for the total cost of these works being not yet fixed. Why should they be asked to make those Votes when the Estimates for the whole of the work were not yet settled? That was not a good way of doing business. He had no doubt that a new Legation at Adis Abeba was necessary, but he was not quite so sure about the bungalows at Peitaho, which he supposed were for the use of the students and members of the Legation during the hot season, and would consequently not be occupied all the year round. He quite realised the desirability of our representatives having a summer resort outside Peking, but if it were possible would it not be more economical to hire bungalows for the summer months than to build them Then he wished to draw attention to the new Consulates to be erected at Cairo, Port Said, Dakar, Mouravia, Stanleyville, Boma, and Seoul, and to the rebuilding of the Consulate at Nagasaki. No doubt new Consulates were necessary, but he asked whether the Government were taking any steps to improve the position and status of the Consuls in various parts of the world who were looking after the interests of British trade. Then as to the new Consulate at Mukden, he saw that the Estimate was £10,000, while only £1,000 was taken for this year. At that rate it would take ten years for the completion of the work, and he hoped that time would not be occupied as it was most important to British interests and commerce that we should have a Consulate in that part of Manchuria as soon as possible. The sooner it was in working order the better it would be for this country. The point in the Vote, however, that he particularly wished to draw attention to was the voting of certain sums of money for building at Adis Abota and Peitaho, when

  759
  the Committee were given no idea at all as to what the total expenditure on those two items are likely to be. That he considered to be a novel and undesirable method of controlling the expenditure of the country, and on that ground he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £52,300 be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Hicks Beach.)
  *MR. FELLsaid that he also had a notice down to reduce the Vote in order to call attention to the excessive cost of the Embassy at Paris, although it might seem a little invidious to do so, because the Vote showed a marked decrease from last year to the extent of £25,000. He considered that Consuls were required in a good many places where they were not now provided, although he could not touch upon those matters upon the present Vote. His reason for objecting to the large expenditure on the Paris Embassy was that there were not sufficient Consuls in these new and growing countries, while perhaps we were too well-supplied with Embassies and Legations in the old. No doubt the Cairo Consulate was commenced to be erected at an unfortunate time, as there had been a great development of the building trade in Egypt in the last few years which had doubtless added to the cost. The original Estimate was £6,000, but he saw the cost was now put down at £11,000. It might possibly be explained that the increased cost of building was the cause of the error in the Estimate, but things were duller at the present time in Egypt and there might be a saving next year. With regard to the Dakka Consulate he was glad to see that the final Vote they were asked for £3,000 would complete it. It was a very small place on the West Coast of Africa, and they were spending £10,000 upon it, which seemed to be a considerable sum for the kind of bungalow building which would be put up. Then with regard to Stanleyville, he viewed the proposals there with extreme pleasure, because it would give them some opportunity of getting information from that great
  760
  country, and of learning the truth about the Congo, apart from the pro and contra statements which were now put forward. At Teheran, the capital of Persia, they were spending £5,000 for the erection of houses for military attachés and student interpreters. He considered that that was a good sign as those student interpreters would be exceedingly valuable in the future in helping us in regard to the position which we should hold in that country. He would be glad to see a Consulate at Mukden, and his objection was that we had not enough of these Consulates, especially in new countries like the great territory of Manchuria, which would in time to come probably be a great place for the development of British trade. He could not help noticing that the £20,000 item of last year did not appear in this year's Estimates, so that it appeared that no further sites were to be acquired this year. That he regretted exceedingly. Reverting to the Paris Embassy he said it was the spoilt child of their Embassies, and the sum which the existing magnificent palace had cost was extremely great, and he feared from the way they were voting money on that Embassy from year to year, that they might be induced in the future to vote further large sums for beautifying that great palace and the gardens which made it certainly one of the most beautiful embassies in the world. It was quite true that it was necessary that we should have a great Embassy at Paris, but it must be remembered that now Paris occupied a very different position from what it did in the past. It was at one time the diplomatic centre of the world, but whether that attribute had passed to Berlin or the United States he would not stop to discuss. They ought, however, to consider whether they ought to spend much more on that gorgeous palace. He noticed a curious remark which had been made about that palace. It was said that Lord Rosebery found among the old furniture in the Foreign Office some old tapestries, which were sent over to adorn the Embassy in Paris. That was another example of that Embassy being the spoilt child of such institutions. They had not too

  761
  many old tapestries in England, and yet those were sent over to adorn the Embassy in Paris. Then as to the Chancery attached to the Embassy in which the official work was done, he had opposed the Vote of £5,000 last year, and he seemed to have done so correctly, because none of the money was spent during the year, and evidently none was wanted. Of course they voted it, but still it was not needed. In this year for the Chancery, however, there appeared an item of £5,400, and he could only regret that so much was being spent upon it. He supposed it was to be completed. But that was not the whole amount that they spent upon the Paris Embassy, because there was an item for electric lighting, and in another item of £28,270 for maintenance, repairs, etc. It was said that it included maintenance and repair of plate, and the State rooms and Chancery furniture and charges for maintenance, including those of the grounds and gardens. There was a note to the effect that it included the Paris Embassy, so that not only were we spending in the last two or three years great sums in repairs, and £5,400 on the Chancery, but an indefinite sum in this way. He considered that some drag must be put upon the expenditure in Paris, and he therefore supported the Motion for reduction.
  *MR. HARCOURTsaid that an hon. Member particularly wanted to know what would be the ultimate cost of the new legation house at Adis Abeba. He had carefully avoided putting any sum in the Estimates because he was not able to give what it would cost exactly, as he had not been able to get exact figures, but he believed it would cost £20,000, and he had sent a man out there to superintend the work. The building at Peitaiho was a necessary summer residence for the Minister and the Legation at Pekin, as they really could not remain in Pekin during the summer. That, he believed, would cost £8,000. Those were the latest Estimates, but they were not so closely trustworthy that he could put them in the Estimates. The Government did not provide all Consuls with houses, and they were only provided with them in distant places where it was difficult to get accommoda-
  762
  tion or where there were special causes. He had nothing to do with the status of the Consuls, as that belonged to the Foreign Office; he had only to get the Consul a house if he was asked to do so and when he could. As to the Mukden Capsulate, there was no intention to spread the cost over ten years, but he had taken only £1,000 of the £10,000 because that was all that could be spent this year. After this year the money would be rapidly spent, indeed very rapidly, and there was no intention of spreading the expenditure over ten years. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth asked about the Paris Embassy. The Chancery was very old and was very unfit for the amount of work that had to be transacted there. The increase at Cairo was due entirely to the fact that the original Estimate was merely a rough one which was sent him by the Consul, and he was endeavouring to avoid a similar thing occurring in future. An. hon. Member had referred to the sites. The House of Commons was good enough to give him £20,000 last year for the purchase of sites without his telling where he was going to buy them, because obviously if he stated where he was going to buy he would put up the price against himself. If none of that £20,000 was spent it was only because an agreement about one of those sites could not be made till after 31st March. If it had been paid over before the end of the financial year it would not have appeared in the Votes, but next week he would pay £13,000. In future he thought it was hardly worth while to ask for a Vote for a lump sum of which he could not give any details, but he could assure the Committee that if he had an opportunity during the year of purchasing suitable sites where they wanted them he should not hesitate to do so and come to the House for confirmation of his action. He might mention that a site for a new Legation had been given to them by the Bulgarian Government and he would proceed to erect the house as soon as possible
  MR. BOWLESsaid the right hon. Gentleman had stated that he could not put on the Estimate the cost of certain buildings because he had no idea of it, but if he would look at the Estimate as it stood he would see

  763
  that that was a very novel doctrine on his part and that of his office. The outstanding characteristics of the Estimates was that they never did know what the total cost of any one of these buildings was. He would take the new Consulate at Cairo. It was originally said it would cost £6,000. The House of Commons last year voted £4,000. £11,000 was spent and they were now asked for another £2,500. Having spent £11,000, that was to say £7,000 more than the House voted, and £5,000 more than the total Estimate, the right hon. Gentleman now asked for a further £2,500. In the face of such an Estimate as that it was somewhat courageous on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that he did not put in the departmental Estimate for big works because it was not close enough. If hon. Gentlemen looked at Item 8 they would find exactly the same thing. The right hon. Gentleman or his predecessor came down and asked for £7,500 for a new Consulate at Cairo. The House granted £5,000. The right hon. Gentleman spent not the £5,000 granted; not the £7,500 he said it would cost; but £9,000, and now came and asked for a further £700. The fact was that the right hon. Gentleman and his department had no notion what these works would cost. Hon. Members had only to look at the Estimate to see that the administration of the money voted for these purposes was in a most confused condition. What happened was that the right hon. Gentleman came down year after year with a long list of works and the amount he required for them, and directly he got the money the whole thing went by the board. He took money for various items and diverted it to some other purposes. He did not think any hon. Member could look through the Estimates seriously and without prejudice without becoming perfectly aware of the confused condition of them. If it was only to mark his displeasure and what ought to be the displeasure of the Committee at this continual upsetting and falsifying of the Estimates, on the faith of which the Committee granted continually these large sums, he should have no hesitation in following his hon. friend into the lobby.
  *MR. REESsaid it was not easy to get accurate Estimates from the uttermost ends of the world, and to his mind it was somewhat surprising that the Estimates were as accurate as they were. One hon. Member had drawn attention to the item for bungalows in China, but if he had seen the houses of Pekin in the summer he would acknowledge that these seaside bungalows were absolutely necessary in order that the officers who occupied stuffy houses in narrow streets in the capital, who suffered, and probably shortened their lives from the want of change of air, might do their work under better conditions. A little more familiarity on the part of hon. Members with these places would explain to them the increase in the Estimates, quite apart from the necessity of keeping up our prestige, which in these countries was closely bound up with the accommodation of our officers, which should h the best possible. He wondered if Sir N. O'Conor, whose death all deplored, would have lived longer, had he not been cooped up in Peking, in the quarters in which he (Mr. Rees) first saw him.
  *MR. MORTONgladly recognised that on this Vote as a whole there was a reduction. He quite agreed with the remarks that had been made about the Embassy at Paris. That Embassy had always been a spoilt child for various reasons, because, he supposed, Paris used to be regarded as the centre of the world and of fashion. But now that France was a Republic and was endeavouring to lead a democratic life we might surely manage the Embassy on democratic lines, and more economically. He did not think the Embassy was much use any way. If one wanted them to do anything they did not do it, and if one was in Paris he had far better apply to the municipal authority, who would always put themselves out to oblige one. A good deal of criticism had been passed on these Estimates and the right hon. Gentleman had said last year he was endeavouring to bring about a better system. But these blunders were not confined to works in foreign countries; some of them occurred with regard to

  765
  works in London itself. What happened in all public offices where it was easy to get and spend other people's money, was that a sort of Estimate was put before the House of Commons, which was thus persuaded to commit itself to the undertaking. Then the next year or the year after the Government came down and said they wanted more money, and the buildings having been commenced the House was driven to make additional grants. But considering that the officials who prepared these Estimates were properly paid, and the right hon. Gentleman was a practical man, he thought the gentlemen who got out the Estimates should be made responsible and should complete the buildings within the estimated sum. They had heard of cases where the Estimates had been made too low intentionally in order that the work might be started.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that these were questions which could not be discussed on this Vote. The method of dealing with Votes in future had already been explained.
  MR. MORTONsaid they were talking about a special Vote.
  MR. DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are on a special Vote, but the hon. Member is talking about the general principles of estimating, instead of confining himself to the particular Vote.
  *MR. MORTONsaid he would confine himself to the items on the Paper before him. The item first spoken of was the original Estimate of £6,000 for the erection of a building at Cairo. The item on the Paper before them had now been revised, and was put down at £11,000.
  THE DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is repeating arguments which have been already used on this Vote, and in regard to which an explanation has been given.
  MR. MORTON: I still hope that the right hon. Gentleman will adopt a better system in future.
  *MR. HARMOOD - BANNERsaid an abbreviation had been made by the right hon. Gentleman against which he must enter his strongest protest, and that was as to his intention to omit in future any reference to new sites, and buildings, and works in connection therewith. He was referring to page 29, and the omission of £20,000 which was entered last year.
  MR. HARCOURT: I have explained that just now.
  *MR. HARMOOD-BANNER: The right hon. Gentleman had explained it in his way. He was not going to put in an Estimate for the acquisition of sites, but was going to to treat them as the subject of Supplementary Estimates at the end of the year, and that was what he ventured to protest against. It deceived the public, as it had already deceived the hon. Member for Sutherland, who had congratulated the Government on the Estimates being £20,000 less this year than they were last year, whereas the £20,000 which had been omitted was exactly the sum which the hon. Member said had been saved. It was a wonderful method of financing. If they allowed the method of Supplementary Estimates to pass without protest, the right hon. Gentleman might next year spend £150,000 on sites at Pekin, Abyssinia, and other outlandish places, and then could come and say, from the way the House treated it to-day, that they had accepted the principle that he was to go about the world purchasing sites on undivulged Estimates, and that they would give Supplementary Estimates to confirm the action he had adopted. He hoped his protest would be observed, because he trusted that it was not the usual character of Government proceedings to omit such items in order to show economy in their administration, and then to bring them in as Supplementary Estimates. It was rather a bad precedent, and he hoped they would hear that the Government would not omit this Estimate, but would now include a sufficient sum for next year. He quite admitted the principle that they must not disclose the sites they were going to acquire, but here they were

  767
  giving a blank cheque to purchase property all over the world, to be dealt with in the form of a Supplementary Estimate. That was a proposal against which the House should protest, and should not accept in principle as regarded the future. Unionists were always being taunted by the other side with not being correct economists, but they had never done such an act as to omit an Estimate of importance, oft such importance as to lead the hon. Member for Sutherland to think that it was an economy when it was not an economy. It was a concealment of expenditure which they certainly ought not to approve.
  MR. ASHLEYsaid they were asked to vote £20,000 for the erection of an official residence at Addis Ababa. That was a large sum of money. Personally, he had every wish that the very distinguished diplomatist, Sir John Harrington, representing us, should have a proper house to live in. But there was, in his opinion, one great disadvantage—it was that the capital of Abyssinia was moved from one part of the country to another, perhaps to a place some 200 miles distant, and having spent £20,000 or £30,000 on a house, they might find that the expenditure was absolutely useless, owing to the diversion of the capital for a new one, settled upon by the Emperor of Abyssinia. That was well-known of the Abyssinian people, who were compelled to adopt the plan, because they had no fuel except wood. When all the wood was consumed, they
  moved the capital to some other part of the country. Therefore, he protested against sinking such a large sum of money in the present capital of Abyssinia, when they knew that very possibly in ten or fifteen years the money would be found to have been absolutely thrown away. No one grudged, he least of all, spending money on any reasonable accommodation that might be given Sir John Harrington, but he did not think they ought to enter upon an expenditure which in the long-run might mean the outlay of very much more money, because they might have to build another house when the capital was removed to another part of the country.
  *MR. HARCOURTsaid he was in close communication with the Foreign Office and Sir John Harrington as to the advisability of building, as to the particular plans, as to the cost, and as to the necessity of erecting a house. But he could not put forward any views of his own, even if he had any, or if he had the special knowledge of Abyssinia possessed by the hon. Gentleman. But as against the views of the hon. Member, he had the knowledge possessed by Sir John Harrington and the Foreign Office, and he was obliged to take their information in the circumstances.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 28; Noes, 189. (Division List No. 67.)

  AYES.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Balcarres, Lord

  Du Cros Arthur Philip

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fell, Arthur

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Valentia, Viscount

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hamilton Marquess of

  Younger, George

  Bull, Sir William James

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Cave, George

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Hicks Beach and Mr. Gibbs.

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

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  NOES

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bell, Richard

  Agnew, George William

  Barker, John

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

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Boland, John

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Branch, James

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

  Brigg, John

  Hudson, Walter

  Radford, G. H.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Reddy, M.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rees, J. D.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jowett, F. W.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Byles, William Pollard

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Cameron, Robert

  Kelley, George D.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Lamont, Norman

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rowlands, J.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Runciman, Walter

  Cleland, J. W.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Russell, T. W.

  Clough, William

  Lough, Thomas

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

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

  Lupton, Arnold

  Seddon, J.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Shackleton, David James

  Crean, Eugene

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

  Crooks, William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Snowden, P.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  M'Crae, George

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Delany, William

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Stewart Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Dillon, John

  Marnham, F. J.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Massie, J.

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Duffy, William J.

  Meehan, Francis E.(Leitrim, N.)

  Summerbell, T.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Menzies, Walter

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Tomkinson, James

  Essex, R. W.

  Middlebrook, William

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Mond, A.

  Vivian, Henry

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Montagu, E. S.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Mooney, J. J.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

  Gilhooly, James

  Muldoon, John

  Waring, Walter

  Gill, A. H.

  Murray, James

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

  Glover, Thomas

  Myer, Horatio

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath

  Napier, T. B.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Grant, Corrie

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Nolan, Joseph

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Halpin, J.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Wiles, Thomas

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Harvey, W. E. (Dorbyshire, N. E.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  O'Dowd, John

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Malley, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Partington, Oswald

  Pease.

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Horniman, Emslie John

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

  And, it being after a quarter past Eight of the Clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, further proceeding was postponed without Question put.

MAIL STEAMERS AT KINGSTOWN.

  MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  MR. CLANCYsaid that in moving the adjournment
  770
  of the House in order to call attention to the state of affairs that had resulted from the permission given to steamers of the London and North Western Railway Company to use Carlisle Pier, Kingstown, he trusted he might be allowed to state briefly his own position in the matter and to make it clear beyond doubt. His object was to prevent Dublin Harbour from being cheated, as he held it was being cheated, out of a sum of

  771
  at least £5,000 a year, by the action of the Government. He desired in the second place to see fair play given to the Irish Steam Packet Company, and, in the third place, to say most emphatically that he had no objection whatever to a third service between England and Ireland by the Kingstown or Dublin route, provided it worked no such injustice to the Port of Dublin as that to which he had referred. He was in favour, in fact, of as many routes between England and Ireland as could be established under the conditions he had mentioned. Further he had no objection to the steamers of the London and North Western Railway Company sailing to Kingstown provided the result would not be to injure the Port of Dublin, and provided also that it would not involve an invasion of the legal rights of the Irish Steam Packet Company, and finally that it would not lead eventually, as he believed it would, to the creation of a monopoly in the hands of an English company, which, in his opinion, would be disastrous to the interests of Ireland. He had given notice of several Questions on the subject and they showed that the objects that he and, he believed, his hon. friends had in view, were those he had stated. He did not want to discuss the merits of the main question raised by the permission given to the London and North Western Railway Company to use the Port of Kingstown at a nominal charge, because he conceived that it was raised by the action which the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company had instituted. His contention was that the action of the Government, of which he most emphatically complained, amounted to prejudging that question, and to anticipating thereby the action of the Court a few days hence. It would, however, be necessary to give a short narrative of the facts, and he should state them with as little "comment as possible. The London and North Western Railway Company had for many years been using the port of Dublin and berthing their steamers in the Liffey, and up to 1902 had used rules of measurement in such a way that they reduced the registered tonnage of their vessels very considerably by what was, in his opinion, a trick. He felt all the more
  772
  free to use that language, because in 1902 the Port and Docks Board in Dublin came to Parliament with a Bill which proposed to put a stop to that practice of the London and North Western Railway Company. That Bill passed into law and enacted that the harbour authority in Dublin might fix a certain scale of dues. They did so, and every company, he understood, got six years, from 1902 to the present year, to prepare for the change. Every company fell in with the new arrangement except the London and North Western Railway Company, who, when they found they could not alter the views of the Dublin Port and Docks Board, had sought, and successfully up to the present, to evade payment of a portion of those dues. The means they had resorted, to were these. They went to the Government and asked them for leave to use the Government Harbour at Kingstown for 5s. a trip, and the Government—whether they knew all the antecedent circumstances or not he did not know—set up their own harbour, maintained out of the taxes of the public, as a competitor with the commercial harbour of Dublin. In other words they allowed the London and North Western Railway Company, one of the richest commercial corporations in the three kingdoms, if not in the world, to compete unfairly with the struggling Irish Steam Packet Company, and allowed them also to make use of their Government harbour at the expense of £5,000 a year to the poverty-stricken harbour of Dublin. That was a sample, and only a sample he regretted to say, of the mean and selfish preference given to English commercial interests. He did not want to comment upon the facts at all, because they were sub judice, but the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, thinking it had a right to the exclusive use of the Carlisle Pier after fifty years, presented, he supposed, after vainly remonstrating with the Government, a Petition of Right to the King. As every lawyer knew, that Petition of Right must have been examined by the Attorney-General. It could not come as a suit before a Court of Justice unless the Attorney-General certified that there was a real bona fide question of law to be argued. The petition then went

  773
  forward and came as an ordinary action at law before the High Court in London. The contention of the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company might be correct and well-founded, but the point he raised was the action of the Government in prejudging the question before it had been tried in the High Court. In order to prevent any such prejudging of the case the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company applied for an injunction to restrain the Government from continuing this permission until the question of law had been settled, and it came before the High Court on the 26th ult. and it was refused. He thought he was not incorrect in saying that the reason why the Judge refused an injunction immediately was that he understood that the action was to be tried at once. More than that the Judge said it was an urgent matter. But the Crown applied for an adjournment till 31st March, and when 31st March came they were not ready and they applied for another adjournment till 7th April. Now he understood the Crown would not be ready on 7th April, and that the action had been set down as late as 29th April. Every delay that had taken place in the matter had been due to the action of the law officers of the Crown. Under these circumstances was it not too bad to give an answer in the House of Commons as if it were all-sufficient that when on 26th March an injunction was applied for it was refused? It was refused because the Judge understood the trial was to come on on 31st March, and that the London and North Western steamers were not to go to Carlisle Pier until 1st April. He did not like to make a personal charge and he hoped the Attorney-General would not understand him as doing so, but it looked as if someone misled the Judge—at all events as if the Judge acted upon stated facts which did not exist. Surely the usual practice in these matters was to delay action until the question of law was decided. He admitted at once that if this were a frivolous action, if it were known universally that there was no substance behind it and that the question of law was a mere bogus question, the action of the Government might be justified. But that excuse was taken away by
  774
  what he had mentioned. Under these circumstances and seeing that the Attorney-General had certified that there was a real bona fide question of law involved, he held that it was a monstrous thing for the Government to anticipate the judgment of the Court by allowing the London and North Western steamers to go to this pier, with regard to the use of which the Dublin Steam Packet Company had challenged them to prove their right. The worst of the matter was that they need not break their contract, if they had made a contract, with the London and North Western Railway Company. No hardship would be done to that company by their being prevented from going to the Carlisle Pier; they could go to the Victoria Wharf where he had seen hundreds and thousands of soldiers embarking from the ship's side on to the quay. Under these circumstances there could not be any hardship. He had no objection to the London and North Western Company going even to Kingstown, provided they did not thereby rob the Port of Dublin. He believed the London and North Western Company by one of their Acts had the power to go into Dublin or Kingstown, but whenever they went to Kingstown or Howth they were to pay dues equal to those they were paying in Dublin. If that was true the Government were conniving at a violation of an Act of Parliament. But he challenged the Attorney-General to say whether what he had stated was a fact. If it was not, any argument he had based upon it fell to the ground. If it was true he repeated that the Government were conniving at the violation of an Act of Parliament, in the interest of an English commercial company, and to the prejudice of an Irish port. He begged to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Clancy.)
  MR. MOONEYrepudiated the idea that their interest in this debate was the interest of a private company. He was of the opinion that Kingstown ought never to come under the control of a private company, and it was for that reason they challenged the action of the

  775
  Government who, by that action, they submitted were prejudging the case, and attempting to create a monopoly in favour of a particular company. They would like to see far more traffic than there was in Kingstown, and instead of trying to keep the London and North Western Railway Company out they would like to see other companies come in. But they held that the public interest, the safety of the mail service, and the convenience of the public ought to be considered, and submitted that by their action the Treasury had acted in a manner calculated to create a prejudice in favour of one of the parties in the action now pending before the Court. They held also that the Treasury had prejudiced the speedy carrying of the mails, the safety of the ships, and the comfort of the passengers. He wanted to know who it was that gave orders to arrest the porter. The superintendent must have been acting under the orders of somebody. Who gave those orders, and who gave the authority to the police to take action which was prejudicial to the case now before the Court? The Chief Secretary knew nothing about it. The Treasury and the Postmaster-General knew nothing about it. On whose authority did the harbour authorities at Kingstown refuse to clear the way for the Royal Mail steamer that morning? Why was the launch not there on the previous day? It was a curious commentary that while the harbour launch refused to clear the way for the Royal Mail steamer she was in attendance and cleared the way for the London and North Western boat. Was that the action of the Treasury? The first duty of the Treasury was not to provide monopoly terms for any individual company, but to provide that the mails were carried in the best and safest manner. The other point he wished to take was this. When they were told, as they were told, that Mr. Justice Eve refused the injunction, he (Mr. Mooney) remarked that what was before Mr Justice Eve was that the London and North Western Railway Company could not use the harbour before 1st April. The application was made on 25th March and the learned Judge put it down for 31st March. It was then pointed out that the Attorney-General could not conveniently attend,
  776
  and it was again postponed until 29th April. The delays had taken place to meet the wishes of the Crown and not those of the Steam Packet Company. Their complaint was that the case of the company was undoubtedly prejudiced in the public mind. The Government, by their action, seemed to be taking the part of one side. To bring into play the Vice-Admiral and the Dublin Metropolitan Police, and to use them for one party against the other was distinctly to prejudice the case to be heard on the Petition of Right. The London and North Western Company under the Act of 1868, had a right to use the harbour. But was there no other place in the harbour? There was the Victoria Wharf to which they could go without inconvenience. That wharf was used for the landing of troops, it was used for the landing of the Queen the last time she went to Ireland, and it was also the place at which the King landed. There was very strong ground for complaint against the authorities for taking sides against the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company and with the London and North-Western. When the Dublin Port and Docks Board Bill was before the House, the London and North Western Company came before the Committee and objected, but the Bill was passed notwithstanding, and the London and North-Western Company were now attempting to get behind the decision of the Committee and of both Houses of Parliament.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,)said he did not propose to enter into any question on the merits of the case or as to the conduct of the Government in allowing the London and North Western Railway Company to go to Kingstown Harbour. That was a question as to which, for anything he knew, there might be a great deal to be said, but it was not a question which came within the terms of the Motion. It was not a question on which he possessed any information, nor was it one on which he was authorised to speak. The facts were these: A Petition of Right was presented to the King, and before it came on for hearing the suppliants, the Packet Company, asked for certain interim relief. What they asked for was an expression of opinion from the Court which would

  777
  have the effect of preventing, or would indicate to the Government that it ought to prevent, the use of the pier by the London and North Western Railway Company as from 1st April until the case was heard. They further asked for any other relief that might be proper in the circumstances. The substance of the application was that it invited an expression of opinion from the Court upon which the Government might act. The application was not made so early as it might have been, as the controversy had reached an acute stage before the petition was presented. There was an announcement in the Dublin papers on 14th February that the London and North Western Railway intended to run their steamers to the pier, and the Packet Company took no action until 17th March when the petition was presented, and shortly after the Packet Company gave notice of application for an interim injunction. That application was heard on the 25th, and the Company said they could not efficiently carry out their contract to carry the mails unless they were granted some relief. The learned Judge heard all the arguments on the application and gave judgment, and it was not true that the application was summarily disposed of. It was fully heard and adjudicated upon. He listened with surprise to the statement of the hon. Member that the Judge refused the application because he understood there was to be an early trial. The Judge knew perfectly well that the trial could not take place before 1st April, and there was not the slightest foundation for saving that the Judge was actuated by any such reason in giving judgment. He gave judgment on the merits of the application and not on any suggestion that there was to be an early trial.
  The Judge said—
  "In my opinion the suppliant Company have not made out such a case as entitles me to interfere either by granting an injunction or by expressing the opinion which I have been invited to express."
  Hon. Members would see that that was a very important factor in the case. Later, the Judge went on—
  "I say frankly that if there were, a case where, in my opinion, the burden cast upon the suppliant Company was being unreasonably increased, and certainly if it were a, case where
  778
  danger to life was involved, I should have no hesitation in expressing any opinion which would have assisted the suppliant Company in preserving the status quo until the petition has been disposed of. But, taking the view I do of the evidence, I think it falls far short of making out any such case as that. It undoubtedly does show, for the purpose of carrying out this contract, manœuvres and work would have to be done which hitherto the suppliant Company has not had to do. But beyond that it does not appear to me that it will inflict, or that it is calculated to inflict, any such injustice on the suppliant Company as to call for my interference at this stage of the proceedings. I, therefore, can make no Order, and express no opinion, as invited by Par. 1 of the Notice of Motion."
  And then Mr. Justice Eve went on to say—
  "With regard to the alternative relief claimed in the Motion, so far as the Court is concerned, any day which is convenient to the supliant Company and the Crown can be appropriated."
  What then took place? In behalf of the Crown he told the Court that he was very anxious to meet his learned friend, Sir Robert Finlay, with regard to the suggestion for an early and expeditious trial. He had no desire to delay the trial, and he discussed with Sir Robert Finlay in Court what day could be fixed. Of course, hon. Members would recognise that he could have got an adjournment on the ground that he had had no time to read the affidavits. He, however, made no such application, bat discussed partly in the hearing of the Court and partly in the way of a private conversation with Sir Robert Finlay to what day it was possible to fix the adjournment. In the hearing of the Court he said that he was engaged every day except one, which he mentioned to Sir R. Finlay, but that he would put aside these fixed engagements provided he got leave of the Court to do so, and that the other side should have the earliest day possible. That was left by the Court to be arranged between Sir Robert Finlay and himself. Unfortunately, immediately after that the harbour-master, the principal witness for the Crown, fell ill, and in order to prevent delay, to his very great regret, he came to the conclusion that it would be better to take his evidence by commission, so that so far as expedition was concerned he was quite sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would say there was no evidence of anything like a desire for delay. There had been no

  779
  delay, and so far as they were concerned there would be no delay. The case was an appeal by the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, by way of petition. The petition was presented and it proved to be a most remarkable claim on the part of the company. It was a claim that although there was no contract for the exclusive user of the port on their part and no restrictions, yet that they had by some amplification, which was not very clearly expressed, by some mysterious grant acquired the right to the exclusive user of the pier. The Packet Company added that that claim should be held as prima facie evidence to this extent, that as they had for fifty years employed this user, the London and North-Western Company should not be allowed to share that pier until after the hearing. That application was refused. The Court had full knowledge that 1st April might come and go, and the Judge said that the trial might not take place until after that date. He argued that the Packet Company had not shown a sufficient case for anything in the nature of an interim injunction which they applied for, and he pointed out that the Postmaster-General was as anxious as the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company not to interfere with that service. He further pointed out that in relation to this very point they had expert and authoritative advice, and that it was not to be supposed, if the London and North Western Company on 1st April came in for partial user of the pier it would be of any kind of use to the Postal Service. The Packet Company came into Court and their application was dismissed. What had they done? Had they obeyed the law? Had they decided to wait until the claim should be tried, whatever the result might be? Not at all. The Packet Company did not obey the law. The very people who came to the House and accused the Government of pre-judging the case had slighted and disregarded the law in a manner which, in a great commercial company of that kind, he could only describe as deplorable. It was very unusual to find this course being adopted by a Steam Mail Packet. Company, having been told by the learned judge that he would, grant them no interim
  780
  injunction. What was their duty? To obey the orders of the harbour master. The harbour master, in pursuance of his duty, and in exercise of his rights, proceeded to make arrangements for the user of the pier by the London and North Western Company; but the Packet Company refused to obey his orders. There was a daring, at all events a complete, defiance of the proper powers of the harbour master. Yet their friends came to that House and complained that the Government were pre-judging the case because they were compelled to obey the orders of the constituted authority. It had been said by the seconder of the Motion that the Government refused to allow the Dublin Steam Packet Company to use the harbour, and that there was very nearly an accident. He had received a telegram from Dublin in relation to that question. The person who sent the information was the proper person to do so.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The very fellow who is on trial.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The brother of the Treasury Remembrancer.
  SIR W. ROBSON: Oh, I am on my trial.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: We will find you "not guilty."
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid that the telegram had been received from Sir George Holmes, the proper person to send it. He would read what was said and then they could discuss it as much as hon. Gentlemen pleased. It was said—
  "This morning a collier was about to leave the harbour at the time when a mail steamer was due to leave. The collier was warned, but proceeded and the mail steamer had to stop. The delay was slight but a summons was taken out against the collier.
  That might or might not be a fact, it might be a little scrap of fiction telegraphed over to this country.
  MR. MOONEYsaid that all he did was to ask the Postmaster-General whether he had received a telegram to that effect, and he did not think it was fair to say that he made a statement of fact which was not a fact at all.
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid he was attributing a little accuracy to Sir George Holmes and there was no ground for the suggestion that there was any collision on the part of the Government in regard to the matter. It was said that the Government had been delaying litigation, but it was not the case, as they were doing their best to expedite it. The Dublin Steam Packet Company had, it seemed to him, been guilty of a most grave and lamentable disregard of the law, and the House would be ill-advised under such circumstances if it passed the Resolution.
  *MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney-General, who enjoyed the confidence of the House, would not suppose they were impeaching his action or throwing a shadow of blame upon him. There was, however, one remark in the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech which he regretted, and that was that in the attack which he made upon the Dublin Steam Packet Company he seemed to think that those who came forward on that occasion were the friends and representatives of that Company and the opponents of the London and North Western Railway Company. He had been criticising the Dublin Steam Packet Company all his life, and he had, to a great extent, often defended the London and North-Western Railway Company, because anybody who had crossed from England to Ireland, or vice versa, during the last thirty years must feel under a boundless obligation to the London and North Western Railway Company for the personal civility of every man connected with it, from the highest to the lowest; and the notion that they had come there to assail that Company, and as the advocates of the Dublin Steam Packet Company, was quite an erroneous view. They did not come there as friends and representatives of the Steam Packet Company, but they came forward because they conceived that there was a glaring injustice done to an Irish Company and not caring whether it was a Conservative or a Liberal Company. It was an Irish Company, and it was as such that they were defending it. He wished to make it perfectly clear that if the
  782
  London and North Western Railway Company had come into Kingstown Harbour in a proper and regular manner, he believed they would have been welcomed by that harbour, and he thought they were entitled to fair facilities for coming, and not one word that he uttered would be in depreciation of them, or used with a view of taking one side or the other. That was not their position, and he believed if the London and North Western Railway Company had got this concession from the Treasury in a proper and regular manner that every man in the House would have rejoiced. As far as they had been permitted to know the facts, as far as they had been able to open the local shutter of the Treasury for about the millionth part of a second, which was all the exposure they could get, the facts were these. He was not taking the side of the Port and Docks Board of Dublin. On the contrary, he believed that the London and North-Western Railway Company had not been fairly treated by that Board. What he complained of was that in one of the most delicate transactions affecting local life in Dublin the Treasury had thrown their sword into the scale to the damage of a local institution. As far as he understood the facts were these; for very many years the shippers of the three Kingdoms had an advantage over the port authorities. He remembered very well about twenty years ago, when the shipping interest was very strong in this House, a Grand Committee sat upstairs, and nobody that was not a shipowner could get listened to at all, and they prepared an Act of Parliament by which they "cheated the measurement" of the tonnage of vessels and thereby sent their ships into the various ports of the Kingdom, comparatively paying little or nothing for them, thereby diminishing to an enormous extent the dues which the port authorities received. The London and North Western Railway Company was in a very peculiar position, because by its passenger steamers there were scarcely any goods carried, and by its cargo steamers there were scarcely any passengers carried. It had to have three or four, passenger steamers get into the dock every day, and consequently they constructed ships by

  783
  which they ran a coach-and-four through the Act of Parliament. He did not blame the London and North Western Railway Company for trying to cut down their tonnage dues. But for the last twenty years the provisions in favour of the shipping interest of the three Kingdoms were found to be, too unfavourable to port authorities, and had been repealed, first by private legislation with regard to the different ports around the coast, and then, he thought, a public. Act was passed. But gradually, whether by private or public Act of Parliament, the ports got the better of the shipowners and were enabled to get a change in the measurement of tonnage, whereby a larger sum was extracted from the shipowners than hitherto, and the payment of a greater sum of port dues became necessary. The Dublin Port and Docks Board, a body with which they had not the least sympathy—at least he had not, and he had tried to reform it again and again, but in vain—began undoubtedly to squeeze the London and North Western Railway Company, and to extract from them, so to speak, the last drop of their blood. In so doing they declared they were legally advised that they had no option save to enforce the maximum dues. Still he did not hold with the port authority of Dublin in trying to put this pressure upon the London and North-Western Railway Company, but what did the Railway Company do? Under pressure of these exactions they thought of their contribution from the Treasury, granted years ago for their accelerated mail service, £4,000—[A NATIONALIST MEMBER: £6,000]—Well, £4,000, £5,000, or £6,000. He would say £6,000, and if he was wrong in the amount it was not his fault. If this had referred to Zululand they would have had a Blue-book about it. Immediately these astute men, because the men who conducted the great railways were almost as able as the Gentlemen who sat on the Treasury Bench, saw they could make their own advantage and get rid of this Dublin exaction, and get their ships into Ireland cheaper by dropping the gratuity from the Treasury, for what was called acceleration, and at once informed the Treasury Remembrancer of Dublin,
  784
  who was the brother of the head of the Board of Works which control Kingstown Harbour. That was the gentleman who went down into the kitchen and cellars of Dublin Castle, and other places, and inspected the coals and the cat's meat, and saw whether he could cut down expenses. These gentlemen cut down a messenger boy's salary from 5s. 6d. to 4s. 6d., with the result that a couple of hundred a year afterwards was added to their own. They said to him: "We will let you off this £4,000 or £5,000 if you will let us come into Kingstown free." Mr. Holmes, who cared no more about Ireland than he (Mr. Healy) cared about Roumania, who was one of those men who were only looking out for a C.B. or some other honour, saw he could make a deal, and said to himself that he would be a big man at the Treasury if he made this bargain with the London and North Western Railway by which the English taxpayers were let off whatever the sum was for the acceleration of the mails, and he made the bargain and the Railway Company deprived the Port of Dublin of the dues they should receive, and was allowed to come in free to the great harbour of Kingstown, which had cost the people something like £1,000,000. Why should the Port of Dublin be denuded of its dues from the London and North Western Railway Company because of some bargain which they struck with the Treasury. For that petty concession the Railway Company had conceded to the Treasury that which was granted by the Treasury for the carriage of the mails. Let the House remember that the extraordinary thing about Ireland was that when new men came into office they entirely forgot the continuity of policy. Was there a man on the Treasury Bench who remembered Mr Gladstone's action in 1883? Lord Richard Grosvenor was then the Chief Whip of the Liberal Party, a very faithful Whip to Mr. Gladstone. He was now Lord Stalbridge and Chairman of the London and North Western Railway Company. Mr. Gladstone sealed and signed a contract with that Company taking away in toto this mail contract from the Dublin Steam Packet Company. The

  785
  Irish Members without exception signed a memorial to Mr. Gladstone, and said that this was a poor Irish Company. It had had the carriage of the mails for fifty years, the shareholders were generally widows, parsons and small traders—he could assure the House that none of his friends had any shares in it—and the result was that Mr. Gladstone with the peculiar sense he had of public opinion, whether it was English or Irish, said to Lord Richard Grosvenor: "Let us defer to Irish opinion." Lord Grosvenor, to his eternal credit, although it was signed and sealed tore up the contract and gave back the mail contract to this little Company. That was the act of the liberals in 1883. They seemed to have travelled as far from 1883 in the matter of liberality, as they had from Mr. Gladstone in the case of home Rule. To gain £4,000 or £5,000 for the English Treasury the Port of Dublin was deprived of a much bigger sum in dues. They welcomed the London and North-Western Railway into Kingstown, but why should the Packet Company be inconvenienced? That company could surely take its steamers to the pier where the King went. The King went twice to the Victoria Pier, and Queen Victoria went once to the Victoria Pier. Were they now to be told that the pier that was good enough for Royalty, for Kings and Queens was not good enough for the third class passengers of the London and North Western Railway. The case was this, there was the Carlisle Pier at which the Packet Company had been in the habit of mooring their ships. He did not know much about nautical affairs, but he understood that these ships must, at a particular time of the day when they came in, damp down their fires to get their tubular boilers cleaned, and to swing round, and that unless they had the entire use of this pier they could not, as they said, carry out their service efficiently. But there was more than that in it. Let the House remember that this mail service between England and Ireland was the one thing in the British connection of which they might be proud, and accordingly they wished to do away with it. One could travel as regularly from England to Ireland as he could come down to the House in a cab from the Strand. They could travel
  786
  to the minute, the day, the hour, and why? Because in the days when there were statesmen in the land who, instead of building "Dreadnoughts" thought it wiser to build great passenger vessels. and more of maintaining commercial supremacy by that means than by shotted guns, the House voted £50,000 a year to maintain the service between England and Ireland. They could go back almost forty years in Hansard, and they would find speeches by Gladstone, Sir Robert Peel, and other great men upon this question of the mail service between England and Ireland. It was not until the Government took up with South Africa, and Wooloomooloo and all those great foreign places, that Ireland ceased to be of consideration to the House and Irish affairs ceased to be of interest. Great English statesmen in those days did not disdain to examine these small domestic questions which affected the lives of the Irish people. Now that they had to look after New Zealand and Jerusalem and Macedonia and all these other foreign places the Irish case was entirely neglected. What did they now propose? Mr. Gladstone's contract was made in 1883 and went up to 1893, when a fresh contract was made for twenty years. There was only a short time for this contract to run; and accordingly, with that eye for futurity which the gentlemen who looked after the cash-box so generally had, they wanted to rob Ireland of this little service. He knew the Treasury too well. What they were thinking about was something to help the "All Red" route to Canada. He called it the "all rot" route. They were looking for some foreign cows with long horns. They were looking for some route that would take them across the Equator or the North Pole or some other interesting part of the world and the idea was, that the Irish were not quite so watchful as they might have been and that this million of money that was given for twenty years was entirely too much—it was going to the Irish. The great thing would be to get it for the people in Vancouver, who paid no contribution to Imperial taxation. "Our Imperial souls, they said "are distending, and we cannot see anything nearer than Vancouver," and, accordingly, the Treasury were making, in this business, a reconnaissance

  787
  in force. The first thing to do was to jostle the Irish company out of Carlisle pier and bring in the London and North Western Company. Possibly the London and North Western Company would do this business rippingly and slappingly for five years for £5,000. The Irish company would be dead and wound up and there would be nobody left to compete in five years, and then the London and North Western Railway Company would talk to them. Let him remind the Postmaster-General what his predecessor Mr. Arnold Morley did when he was in office in 1893 when this contract was to expire. Mr. Sexton, then a prominent Member of the Irish Party, himself, and others of the Irish Party spent hours and days with Mr. Arnold Morley trying to devise something when the contract ran out that would keep this little company on its legs, and trying to do something not only to maintain the credit of the Post Office, but also this great international route. What they had to complain of was not of the Government's interfering with this question of the Petition of Right. It went deeper than that. It went really to the relations between the two countries, to the way in which Irish affairs were regarded by the Treasury. It was really part of the great case between Ireland versus England, that was their grievance. He did not know whether this company acted violently and illegally or not, and he was sorry to hear the Attorney-General, who was generally so scrupulous in giving an opinion, prejudge that matter. He did not know whether English Judges read the newspapers, he presumed they did not. He presumed that the Judge before whom the hon. Gentleman would appear would not read what he said in this House. Nobody ever did, nowadays, and so the Judge would not have read the statement of the hon. Gentleman, that this company had acted in an illegal manner. Therefore he would pass from that to the action of the Chief Secretary in lending the police to help one party to the dispute. He could only say that a very bad example had been given to the people in that country by reason of the attitude of the police and officials
  788
  in Dublin. What was the conclusion of the whole matter? What the London and North Western Railway Company wanted was to get better terms out of the Port of Dublin. He believed that they had not been well treated by the Port and Docks Board, and that they were fully entitled to better terms. The London and North Western Railway Company could not in one sense leave the Port of Dublin. They had built a magnificent hotel there, and all their plant was at the North Wall. So far as the London and North Western Railway Company were concerned, he believed their entry upon Kingstown was only tactics and manœuvres. If he was right, was it not deplorable that the Treasury, in order to gain some mean and paltry advantage in England, should have lent themselves to injuring Dublin, and interfered in a struggle of this kind? He thought they had good ground for raising the whole question. It was symptomatic of the state of Ireland and of the treatment which Irish affairs received from the Treasury. He believed the time would conic very soon when they would have to have a steadier method of checking the action of the Treasury, so that, whether by way of a Standing Select Committee or a separate Committee on Public Accounts for Ireland, or by some other means, the Gentlemen who joined the Treasury as apprentices, and who a day or two afterwards wanted to become great statesmen by showing a saving on Irish accounts, could be brought more readily to book.
  MR. MOOREsaid he wished to say a few words as a representative of the North of Ireland. The efficiency of the services which connected the two countries had been proved again and again by experience to depend upon the existence of competition, and the best services were those which the London and North Western Railway Company ran in competition with rival routes. He associated himself with the apprehensions of the hon. and learned Member for North Louth that the real object and final result in a few years of this manœuvre on the part of that company would be absolutely to extinguish

  789
  competition between Kingstown and England, and he believed it would be a very disastrous thing for Ireland. Every additional passenger service across the Channel was another bond of connection between the two countries and made for the commercial development and improvement of Ireland, and it would be a matter of regret to anyone interested in the welfare of that country if one of those services were wiped out. It was because he thought this link of competition in the direct service from London to Dublin was threatened by the action of the London and North Western Railway Company that he intended to vote for the Resolution. He thought the remarks made by the Attorney-General were over-critical. He could not see that the strictures which he passed upon the action of the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company were in any way justified from the legal point of view. As he understood the case, the company had possession of the pier for the purpose of their mail business under a licence from that branch of the Government represented by the Post Office and, being in possession of a licence under the Government, they went to an English Court and asked it to restrain the trespass and invasion of their rights by this foreign company, which it was true fortified themselves on the same ground of the grant of a licence. He could quite understand a Judge saying the granter was the Government and solvent, and it was not a matter for an interim injunction. They could carry on the business, with some inconvenience probably, but still without sufficient inconvenience to paralyse them, and he would leave the matter until the trial of the point at issue. It was not as if the London and North Western Railway Company had obtained an injunction preventing, under their licence, the Steam Packet Company interfering with them. If they had done that the Steam Packet Company would have flouted the authority of the Court and been guilty of contempt. Up to that time the London and North Western Railway Company had been so timid about the licence, they claimed from another branch of the Government that they had not gone to the English Court at all
  790
  for an injunction, and yet the Attorney-General had denounced the company as if the London and North Western Railway Company had obtained an injunction. He concurred with the opinion of the hon. Member for North Louth that it would be better if, while matters were sub judice, censure from the head of the English Bar and counsel in the case were not passed upon the action of either of the litigants. In the interests of the competition, which was vital to the maintenance of the excellence of the route, he would vote on this occasion with the hon. Members below the gangway.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that in 1902 the Manx Company asked for the same privilege with regard to the Carlisle Pier as had now been given to the London and North Western Railway Company. The Steamship Packet Company very much opposed that, on the ground of its interference with the mails, and also on the ground of their user of the pier being interfered with. Their objection prevailed, and the Manx Company did not get the privilege. What was the difference between the Manx Company and the London and North Western Company? He would never forget the scene created in the House when Mr. Hanbury, speaking from the Treasury Bench as the representative of the Government, said that it was hard to see when public interest ended and private interest began. The Manx Company had not the advantages of the London and North-Western Company. They had not a chairman who was for years a Treasury Whip. They had not a directorate including no fewer than four peers, of whom one was a duke, four sons of peers, two Members of the House of Commons, and a brewer. Could that be the reason for the difference? Of course not! The Attorney-General had alluded to Sir George Holmes. The London and North Western Railway Company was his alma mater. Sir George began life and was educated as an engineer.
  *MR. SPEAKER: An account of the life of Sir George Holmes is wholly irrelevant. The hon. Member must speak to the Motion before the House.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It is very interesting.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will write an account of it.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid Sir George Holmes began life as an engineer in the company.
  *THE SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to observe my ruling.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he would not say another word about it. There was a contract between the Manx Company which was refused and the London and North Western Company, which was granted the privilege. For the gain of a few hundreds to the Imperial Treasury this very severe loss might be sustained by an Irish Company to the benefit of an English Company, and above all the means of communication between England and Ireland might be impaired. He would be glad to hear from the Chief Secretary some account of the way in which he regarded the matter. His hon. friend had not yet told him what he had twice asked him. Under what authority were large posses of police brought down to Carlisle Pier on the previous night when the right hon. Gentleman knew nothing about it? It was done in the interests of a private company as against a public right and they ought to have some explanation of that.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): I think it is realised that my connection with this matter is of the very slightest. What we know about it is that this Carlisle Pier at Kingstown, which many of us know only too well, was on the 1st April the scene of a considerable amount of rivalry between two very powerful companies—the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company and the London and North Western Railway Company, each struggling for berths for their great steamers. Each of those companies have, as we know, followers of their own—men in their own service each eager to support the case of the Company who employs him. I do not think therefore
  792
  it is at all an unreasonable thing that persons anxious to maintain peace in the harbour, which is peculiarly unsuited for anything like a struggle, should look to it that there was a sufficient police force. With the single exception to which I have alluded, the police took no part whatever in this matter. They cannot be accused of being partisans or of having anything to do with the merits of this very complicated dispute. They simply stood by and did nothing, but their presence was supposed to prevent anything like a breach of the peace. I personally regret that in one case a porter was arrested, and, as I have already told the House, on hearing that he had been placed in custody, I immediately telegraphed that he should be released. Fortunately he was not in custody. He was on bail, and after protracted legal inquiry before a magistrate, which no doubt he thoroughly enjoyed, he was subjected to a fine of 40s. in order to enable him to appeal, but the fine was reduced to 1s. in case he did not avail himself of that legal privilege. I certainly regret very much that anybody should have been arrested, for, after all, obeying an order. I quite feel that that case was a departure from the rule. Otherwise the police, I am informed, behaved with perfect composure and took part in no way whatever in this affair, or expressed sympathy with one side or the other. My hon. friend asks me who informed the police that it was possible a disturbance might arise. That is a fair question. I am told the information came from Mr. Stevenson, who is a Commissioner of Public Works. He informed the police that it was quite possible that there would be a breach of peace, and accordingly the police who, naturally on an occasion of that sort, would not communicate with me, being satisfied that the request was made in good faith, sent a sufficient force to preserve order which I dare say would not have been broken if they had not been there. In these matters nobody can be expected to run any risks. I think, therefore, the House will apprehend that in the situation at the harbour—rivalry between the companies, great steamers coming and going, animated men anxious in one

  793
  case to delay the steamer from leaving its moorings, and in the other case anxious to assist it to do so—disturbance might very possibly have arisen. The police were demanded and they were there. Now I trust we will hear no more.
  MR. MOONEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, was the porter arrested for committing an act that might lead to a breach of the peace.
  MR. BIRRELL: We shall have a full account of the protracted proceedings before the magistrate. The charge made against him was, I believe, that he had obstructed the assistant harbour master in the discharge of his duty by loosening a hawser from a bollard on the pier. That was the charge preferred by the assistant harbour master, and that was the matter tried before the magistrate.
  MR. CLANCY: The debate having answered the object which my hon. friends and myself had in view, and no Minister—and I say this with some deliberation—having risen to defend the trick by which the Port of Dublin has been deprived of £5,000 a year, I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SUPPLY.
Postponed Proceeding on Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £52,400 (including a Supplementary sum of £13,000 be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909, for Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings and for the maintenance of certain Cemeteries Abroad," resumed.
Question again proposed.
SIR F. BANBURYasked for an explanation of two items in the Vote. The first was for the enlargement and adaptation of Madame Martini's house. He wanted to know who Madame Martini was and why her house had been adapted
794
at an expense of £6,950, of which £4,950 had already been spent and £2,000 was put down for this year. There was also an item of £14,000 for the erection of a new Consulate at Port Said. That was a new Vote and £2,000 was supposed to be required for it this year. He wanted to ask two or three questions upon that. He first wanted to know why it was necessary to erect a new Consulate at Port Said. He presumed there had been a Consulate at Port Said for many years. He did not grudge the Consul at Port Said proper accommodation, but as he had apparently been there for a great number of years and had existed during those years, as far as he knew without inconvenience to himself or the business which he carried out, why was this £14,000 suddenly required to be expended? In view of what had taken place earlier in the evening too, he would like to know whether this was merely a sketch Vote which would probably next year be enlarged, or whether it might be more or less adhered to. There was also an item for rebuilding the Consulate at Nagasaki and the original estimate was given as three noughts. He did not know what that meant.
*MR. HARCOURT: £5,000. The five is accidentally omitted.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid there appeared to be something unfortunate with regard to the printing of the Estimates this year, because the Memorandum which ought to have been circulated on 7th March was not presented until that morning. He had been, through the courtesy of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, given an advance copy about ten days ago, but that he thought was only because he happened to make some observations about it in the House of Commons. He had no wish to be put in a favoured position or to obtain an advantage over his fellow Members on that side of the House. He must ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would investigate the matter of the printing in order to ensure that in the future the proper figures were put in and that the Memorandum was circulated as the proper date and not at the last moment. At the same time,

795
he hoped that would not prevent him having the privilege of an advance copy if any were given to Members on that side of the House.
*MR. HARCOURTsaid the prosperity of Port Said was increasing, and it was considered advisable to rebuild the Consulate there. The hon. Member had complained that this item had appeared suddenly in the Estimates. Any item that was new must appear suddenly. The establishment of a new Consulate was necessary at Port Said because there was a larger population there than the hon. Baronet seemed to imagine. The hon. Baronet had asked a question about the wages, but he thought it would be better if at a later date he gave him a schedule of the wages after it had been translated into our currency. The Memorandum circulated by the Treasury did not concern him, although he was glad that the hon. Baronet had managed to get a copy before he did. He regretted that in the hon. Baronet's copy a blunder occurred in one of the figures.
MR. ASHLEYsaid that in reference to the Consulate at Port Said he could not regard the right hon. Gentleman's answer as satisfactory. The percentage of British vessels going through Port Said was less than it was ten years ago, and he was afraid that the trade of that port was not increasing. The increased trade to Egypt went almost entirely through Alexandria, and the amount certainly seemed a large sum to spend upon a port where the trade was almost stagnant. He thought £14,000 was a very large sum to spend upon a new building, for he understood that there was not a new site to be bought; the money was for the building only, to be erected on the old site. He agreed that our Consuls should be properly housed, but when the Government were trying to economise money in so many directions he thought £14,000 for this purpose was a very large and excessive amount. He also desired to call attention to a sum of £5,400 for reconstructing the Chancery in Paris. He hoped the exterior would not be interfered with. It was hardly necessary to spend £5,400 on reconstructing the interior.
*MR. REESsaid he had always understood that the Consulate at Port Said was combined not as regards the office, but as regards the occupant, for many years with the agency of the P. and O. Company. He did not understand the necessity for a new building although he did not agree with the contention of the hon. Member opposite that a Consulate was no longer required at Port Said. It would be required and very much required as long as the Suez Canal was in use, and we were the owners of India, and the carriers of the world.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his question as to why it was necessary to erect a new Consulate at Port Said. Had there been any increase of business there which made that step necessary? The only reason which had been given was that the old building was a bad one. He was glad that on this point they had the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire on their side. He understood that there was no question of acquiring land, and all the right hon. Gentleman stated was that the old buildings were going to be improved. The right hon. Gentleman in his reply was very amusing and said he would get for him the schedule of wages and have it translated into the English currency. That was not what he wanted at all. His point was that they were able to build more cheaply at Port Said than in this country because wages were lower, and he thought £10,000 was a very large sum to spend upon a house in Port Said. The right hon. Gentleman had given him no answer whatever to that question. He wanted to know whether it was not a Let that they could build more cheaply there, and whether it was not true that £10,000 spent upon a house at Port Said was probably equal to £15,000 spent in this country for the sine purpose. If he was right in that contention he wanted to know why in that part of the world it was necessary to spend such a large sum. If he did not get a satisfactory answer to those points he should certainly divide the House.
MR. T. L. CORBETTmoved to reduce the Vote by £200. Those hon. Members who cared so much about economy in these matters felt compelled,

797
after the very unsatisfactory answers they had received to the points they had raised, to divide the Committee upon this Motion. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London had appealed to him as one who had known Port Said for more years, perhaps, than almost any other Member of the House, to express his opinion on this point, and he could only say that he thought the expenditure of £14,000 on a Consulate there, without one word of explanation, was almost as remark-
able as the expenditure of £10,000 upon a Consulate at Mukden, which had been voted without one word of protest from hon. Members below the gangway, and those representing the Labour Party.
Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £52,200, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. T. L. Corbett.)
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 33; Noes, 190. (Division List No: 68.)

AYES

Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F

Forster, Henry William

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Balcarres, Lord

Gretton, John

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Guinness, Walter Edward

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Hamilton, Marquess of

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Valentia, Viscount

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

M'Arthur, Charles

Younger, George

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

Moore, Wiliam

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

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Frederick Banbury and Mr.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Ashley.

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Remnant, James Farquharson

Fell, Arthur

Renton, Major Leslie

NOES

Agnew, George William

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Henry, Charles S.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Higham, John Sharp

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Delany, William

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Duckworth, James

Horniman, Emslie John

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Duffy, William J.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Barnes, G. N.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Hudson, Walter

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hyde, Clarendon

Beale, W. P.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Illingworth, Percy H.

Beauchamp, E.

Erskine, David C.

Jowett, F. W.

Bell, Richard

Essex, R. W.

Joyce, Michael

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

Esslemont, George Birnie

Kearley, Hudson E.

Bowerman, C. W.

Everett, R. Lacey

Kelley, George D.

Brigg, John

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Bright, J. A.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Kilbride, Denis

Brodie, H. C.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Bryce, J. Annan

Gill, A. H.

Laidlaw, Robert

Burke, E. Haviland-

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Lamont, Norman

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

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

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Byles, William Pollard

Glover, Thomas

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Lehmann, R. C.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Grant, Corrie

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Gordon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Levy, Sir Maurice

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Lewis, John Herbert

Clough, William

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

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

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Lough, Thomas

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Lupton, Arnold

Cooper, G. J.

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

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

Haworth, Arthur A.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

MacNeill John Gordon Swift

Crean, Eugene

Hazleton, Richard

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Crooks, William

Healy, Timothy Michael

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Crosfield, A. H.

Helme, Norval Watson

M'Callum, John M.

Dalziel, James Henry

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

M'Crae, George

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

Pollard, Dr.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

M'Micking, Major G.

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

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Mallet, Charles E.

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Summerbell, T.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

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

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Marnham, F. J.

Radford, G. H.

Tennant Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Massie, J.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

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

Micklem, Nathaniel

Reddy, M.

Tomkinson, James

Middlebrook, William

Rees, J. D.

Verney, F. W.

Montagu, E. S.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Wadsworth, J.

Mooney, J. J.

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

Walters, John Tudor

Morrell, Philip

Ridsdale, E. A.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Waring, Walter

Muldoon, John

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Wason, Hon. E. (Clackmanan)

Myer, Horatio

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Waterlow, D. S.

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

Roche, John (Galway, East)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Norman, Sir Henry

Rowlands, J.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Runciman, Walter

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Russell, T. W.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Wiles, Thomas

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne

Wills, Arthur Walters

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Seaverns, J. H.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

O'Doherty, Philip

Seddon, J.

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Seely, Colonel

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

O'Dowd, John

Shackleton, David James

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

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

Yoxall, James Henry

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N

Simon, John Allsebrook

O'Malley, William

Snowden. P.

TELLER'S FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Stanger, H. Y.

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Partington, Oswald

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Pease.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Original Question again proposed.
MR. FELLcalled attention to an item of £815 for new boundary walls for the Consulate Gaol at Shanghai, and asked for an explanation. It was a singular thing that where the Chinese were concerned the House could not get away from walls and gaols and compounds. It puzzled him to understand why we should have a gaol of our own at Shanghai so extensive as to require a boundary wall which was to cost £815.
MR. GRETTONasked for information in regard to a sum proposed to be taken for the Embassy buildings at Madrid.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not in order now to discuss capital outlay. The item in the Vote is for maintenance and repairs.
MR. GRETTONsaid he wished to get information on that subject. A sum of money was put down last year and the work was not gone on with. He thought he would be in order in asking why, for the time being, the
800
proposal for renewing the buildings was not gone on with.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must see that maintenance has nothing to do with anything that has not been gone on with.
MR. GRETTONsaid they were now asked to vote money for buildings which were not satisfactory, and which ought to be renewed. He thought he would be in order in questioning the expenditure of money on such buildings.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is no charge for new buildings, and, therefore, there can be no discussion on that subject. You cannot discuss capital outlay on the question of maintenance.
MR. GRETTONsaid he bowed to the Chairman's ruling. He would put the matter on a, narrower basis and ask whether the sum of money to be voted for the maintenance of Embassies was adequate for the maintenance at Madrid of the dignity of the representative of

801
this country. The proper maintenance of the Embassy at Madrid was a matter of great interest to this country, and he desired to know whether it was proposed to expend any larger sum in any future year.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question whether there will be expenditure of a larger sum in any future year has nothing to do with this Vote.
MR. GRETTONasked whether he might point out that the sum taken this year was not sufficient. The sum which had been taken was not sufficient to maintain the Embassy in a condition worthy of the dignity of this country. There was some difficulty in obtaining any information that evening in regard to some of these smaller items. He thought it was absurd that the First Commissioner of Works should be responsible for this Vote, but he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would give all information in his power to the Committee.
*MR. HARCOURTsaid he was always glad to afford to hon. Members opposite any information in his possession. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth had asked a question as to the gaol at Shanghai. There had been a gaol at Shanghai for some time, as perhaps the hon. Member knew, but unfortunately it had been for many years surrounded by a wooden fence only. The Consul now thought it necessary to have a wall—a common thing in the case of a gaol—and he had given way to his representations. The hon. Member for Rutland seemed to take a great interest in the Embassy at Madrid, and to have been struck by its insufficiency. It was quite right that there should be appropriate accommodation for the representatives of His Majesty and this country at Madrid, but the hon. Member might not
802
be aware that last year they had completed the whole of the Embassy at Madrid; it vas in the finest quarter in the town, and was now absolutely finished and decorated. As a matter of fact he was attacked last year for the amount spent upon it. It was the absolute completion of the building that had kept it out of the Estimates his year, and the information of the hon. Gentleman must be somewhat out of date.
MR. GRETTONsaid he had not the honour of being present in the House, last year, and therefore could net share in the explanation Which the right hon. Gentleman had made on the last occasion. He saw that the Vote last year was only for £500. In connection with this subject might he ask what was the total amount expended on the Embassy?
MR. GOULDINGthought that the information given about the new boundary wall for the Consulate at. Shanghai was eminently unsatisfactory. Here was a sum of £800 spent in one year for a wooden paling. It was impossible to suppose otherwise than that that wooden paling had been grossly neglected, or else this hideous expenditure would not have been required. They had a Government in power uncommonly fond of cheeseparing of the most contemptible character, except with reference to certain jobs going on in Ireland. If a new paling was required, why not buy wood for it at home and send out to Shanghai, thus giving employment to British workmen? Why should they erect a big, clumsy wall which would give employment to Chinese instead of supplying from this country an unclimbable fence which would give the greatest satisfaction? He presumed it was a Consular Gaol, and that Englishmen were not confined there. They knew that Chinamen were not very active in their movements; they had the misfortune to have a pigtail which had

803
been of advantage to the Party opposite, and that pigtail often got in their way. They would be unable to get over an unclimbable fence; and if an order was given in this country for an unclimbable fence they would have the satisfaction of knowing that they had given English work to the English unemployed. He
begged to move that the Vote be reduced by £350.
Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £52,050, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Goulding.)
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 32; Noes, 188. (Division List No. 69.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F

Courthope, G. Loyd

Remnant, James Farquharson

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Renton, Major Leslie

Ashley, W. W.

Fell, Arthur

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gretton, John

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N

Guinness, Walter Edward

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hamilton, Marquess of

Valentia, Viscount

Bignold, Sir Arthur

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Younger, George

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

M'Arthur, Charles

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

Moore, William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

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

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Goulding and Sir Frederick

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Banbury.

NOES

Agnew, George William

Duckworth, James

Joyce, Michael

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Kearley, Hudson E.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Kelley, George D.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Erskine, David C.

Kilbride, Denis

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Essex, R. W.

Laidlaw, Robert

Barnes, G. N.

Everett, R. Lacey

Lamont, Norman

Barry, Redmond J.(Tryrone, N.)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Beale, W. P.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Bell, Richard

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lehmann, R. C.

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

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Bowerman, C. W.

Gill, A. H.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Brigg, John

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Lewis, John Herbert

Bright, J. A.

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

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Brodie, H. C.

Glover, Thomas

Lough, Thomas

Bryce, J. Annan

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Lupton, Arnold

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Grant, Corrie

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Burke, E. Haviland

Griffith, Ellis J.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Byles, William Pollard

Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Causton, Rt Hn. Richard Knight

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

McVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

M'Crae, George

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Harvey, A. G. C.(Rochdale)

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

Clough, William

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

M'Micking, Major G.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

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

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Marnham, F. J.

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Hazleton, Richard

Massie, J.

Cooper, G. J.

Healy, Timothy Michael

Micklem, Nathaniel

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

Helme, Norval Watson

Middlebrook, William

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Mond, A.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Henry, Charles S.

Montagu, E. S.

Crean, Eugene

Higham, John Sharp

Mooney, J. J.

Crooks, William

Hobart, Sir Robert

Morrell, Philip

Crosfield, A. H.

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Dalziel, James Henry

Horniman, Emslie John

Myer, Horatio

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hudson, Walter

Norman, Sir Henry

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hyde, Clarendon

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Delany, William

Illingworth, Percy H.

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

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

Jowett, F. W.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Runciman, Walter

Wadsworth, J.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Russell, T. W.

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

O'Doherty, Philip

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

Walters, John Tudor

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Waring, Walter

Parker, James (Halifax)

Seaverns, J. H.

Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

Partington, Oswald

Seddon, J.

Waterlow, D. S.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Seely, Colonel

Whitbread, Howard

Pollard, Dr

Shackleton, David James

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

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

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

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Snowden, P.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Stanger, H. Y.

Whitehead, Rowland

Rea, Walter Russell (Searboro'

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Reddy, M.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Wiles, Thomas

Rees, J. D.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

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

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Summerbell, T.

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

Roberts, Charles H.(Lincoln)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

Whiteley and Mr., J. A.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Tomkinson, James

Pease.

Rowlands, J.

Verney, F. W.

Original Question again proposed.
And, it being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Chairman proceeded to interrupt the Business.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 187; Noes, 32. (Division List No. 70.)

AYES.

Agnew, George William

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Worc'r.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Crean, Eugene

Harvey, A. G. C.(Rochdale)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Crooks, William

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

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Crosfield, A. H.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Dalziel, James Henry

Hayden, John Patrick

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Davies, Elis William (Eifion)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Barnes, G. N.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hazleton, Richard

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Healy, Timothy Michael

Beale, W. P.

Delany, William

Helme, Norval Watson

Bell, Richard

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

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

Duckworth, James

Henry, Charles S.

Bowerman, C. W.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Higham, John Sharp

Brigg, John

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Bright, J. A.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Hope W. Bateman (Somerset, N

Brodie, H. C.

Essex, R. W.

Horniman, Emslie John

Bryce, J. Annan

Everett, R. Lacey

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Hudson, Walter

Burke, E. Haviland-

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Hyde, Clarendon

Byles, William Pollard

Fuller, John Michael F.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Jowett, F. W.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Gill, A. H.

Joyce, Michael

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Kearely, Hudson E.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

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

Kelley, George D.

Clough, William

Glover, Thomas

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Kilbride, Denis

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

Grant, Corrie

Laidlaw, Robert

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Lamont, Norman

Cooper, G. J.

Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Lehmann, R. C.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Parker, James (Halifax)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Lewis, John Herbert

Partington, Oswald

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Lough, Thomas

Pollard, Dr.

Summerbell, T.

Lupton, Arnold

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

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

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

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Reddy, M.

Tomkinson, James

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Rees, J. D.

Verney, F. W.

M'Crae, George

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Wadsworth, J.

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

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

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

M'Micking, Major G.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Walters, John Tudor

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

Marnham, F. J.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Waring, Walter

Massie, J.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Waterlow, D. S.

Middlebrook, William

Roe, Sir Thomas

Whitbread, Howard

Mond, A.

Rowlands, J.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Montagu, E. S.

Runciman, Walter

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Mooney, J. J.

Russell, T. W.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Morrell, Philip

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Whitehead, Rowland

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Myer, Horatio

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Wiles, Thomas

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Seaverns, J. H.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Norman, Sir Henry

Seddon, J.

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Seely, Colonel

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

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Shackleton, David James

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Nussey, Thomas Wilians

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

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Simon, John Allsebrook

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Snowden, P.

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

O'Doherty, Philip

Stanger, H. Y.

Pease.

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F

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

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Remnant, James Farquharson

Ashley, W. W.

Fell, Arthur

Renton, Major Leslie

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gretton, John

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Barrie, H T. (Londonderry, N.)

Guinness, Walter Edward

Valentia, Viscount

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hamilton, Marquess of

Younger, George

Bignold, Sir Arthur

MacCaw, William J. MacCeagh

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

M'Arthur, Charles

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Moore, William

Courthope and Mr. T. L.

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Corbett.

Original Question put accordingly and agreed to.

Whereupon Mr. HARCOURT, rose in his place, and claimed to, Move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

LOTTERIES AND ADVERTISEMENTS.
Ordered, That so of the Lords Message as relates to the place and time of meeting of the Joint Committee on Lotteries and Advertisements be now considered.
Lords Message considered.
Ordered, That the Committee of this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.—(Mr. Whiteley.)
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
Adjourned at twenty-one minutes after Eleven o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Tramways Order Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.].—Committed.
Bromley and Crays Gas Bill; Glyncorrwg Urban District Council Bill; Lincoln Corporation Bill.—Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [H.L.].—Read 2a (according to order).
Bristol Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Bristol Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Keighley Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Wath-upon-Dearne Urban District Council Gas Bill [H.L.]; Ravensthorpe Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Bill [H.L.]; Leith Burgh Bill [H.L.]; Ammanford Urban District Council Water Bill [H.L.]; Llanelly and Burry Port Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Conway and Colwyn Bay Joint Water Board Bill.—Report from the Committee of Selection, that the Earl of Albemarle be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Verulam; read, and agreed to.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  PETITIONS.

    LAND VALUES (SCOTLAND) BILL —PETITION AGAINST.
    THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I beg to present a petition from the county council of the county of Forfar against the Land Values (Scotland) Bill. They say that, being entrusted with the administrative and financial business of that county, they have carefully considered the Bill, and are of opinion that it should not receive the sanction of Parliament for the following among other reasons—videlicet, that the Bill in requiring the capital land value of lands and heritages, not being lands and heritages falling to be valued by the Assessor of Railways and Canals,
    634
    to be entered in the Valuation Roll, would, if passed, entail enormous expense upon counties without conferring upon them any corresponding benefits, that the Bill does not state any purpose for which it is necessary or desirable that the said capital land value should be entered in the Valuation Roll; and that in any case no good purpose can be served. by entering in the Valuation Roll the capital land value of agricultural lands in counties where both the land and the buildings thereon belong to the same person.
    Ordered to lie on the Table.

    RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
      LOTTERIES AND INDECENT ADVERTISEMENTS.
      Message from the Commons that they have appointed a Committee to consist of Five Members to join with a Committee of this House to consider the said subject, and request this House to appoint an equal number of Lords to be joined with the Members of their House.

      TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
      No. 3967. Finances of Denmark.
      Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

      UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889.
      Annual Report on the state of the finances of the University of Glasgow under the provisions of Section 30 of the Act, for the year 1906–1907.

      SUPERANNUATION.
      Treasury Minute, dated 30th March, 1908, declaring that Mr. George Samuel Newth, Lecture Assistant, Normal School of Science, Board of Education, was appointed without a Civil Service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his department.
      Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

      UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889.
      University Court Ordinances—
      No. 24. (Aberdeen, No. 2.) Regulations for Degrees in Arts.
      No. 25. (Aberdeen, No. 3.) Regulations as to Bursaries, etc.
      Laid before the House (pursuaant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 45.)

    SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
    House in Committee (according to Order).
    [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
    Clauses 1 to 26 agreed to.
    Clause 27:
    LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved an Amendment to the effect that no land should be authorised by an Order under this Act to be acquired compulsorily which, at the date of the Order was being "used for drying or repairing fishing nets." He explained that land round a great many towns on the sea coast was very much used for this purpose, and the object of his Amendment was to safeguard that land in the interest of fishermen.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 18, line 32, after the word 'like,' to insert the words or being land used for drying or repairing fishing nets.'"—(Lord Saltoun.)
    THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he did not think it desirable to insert in the Clause more exceptions than were needed, but at the same time he was quite prepared to accept the Amendment which his noble friend had proposed.
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
    Remaining clauses agreed to, and Bill reported with an Amendment to the House and recommitted to the Standing Committee, and to be printed as amended. (No. 46.)

    SUNDAY CLOSING (SHOPS) BILL [H.L.]
    Amendments reported (according to Order); and Bill to be read 3a Tuesday next.
    POST OFFICE CONSOLIDATION BILL [H.L.]

      SECOND READING.
      Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
      THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, this is purely a Consolidation Bill, which, with the exception of certain Acts that have since been added, was submitted to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament in 1896. I trust your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
      Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Granard.)
      On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

    MUNICIPAL REPRESENTATION BILL [H.L.]
    Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
    COUNTY COURTS BILL [H.L.]

      SECOND READING.
      Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
      THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, I need say but very few words in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill. It deals with various points, not themselves connected, and it is the same Bill as your Lordships agreed to on the Motion of my predecessor. Last year the Bill was introduced by myself; it passed through this House, but, unfortunately, shared the fate of other measures which could not be disposed of elsewhere. I will only say that the Bill does not in any way represent my idea of what ought to be done in connection with an amendment of the law relating to County Courts. There are two important points which deserve attention. I referred to one last year—the character of the jurisdiction in regard to what I call imprisonment for debt, for in substance it is imprisonment for debt. I have been very anxious to make proposals in

      637
      regard to that; but I think a wise course has been taken in the appointment of a Select Committee of the House of Commons for the purpose of investigating the subject, for undoubtedly there is a controversial aspect. The second point is this. It is more than thirty years since the Judicature Commission recommended that the High Court of Justice and the County Court should form part of one system instead of being separate and independent, as they are now; and, although Lord Cairns did not approve of the recommendation at the time, he subsequently changed his mind and brought in and carried through this House a Bill for the purpose of giving effect to that recommendation I will not say that that ought to be done at once. I am satisfied that it cannot very well be done without some inquiry, and I intend to propose an inquiry. I ask to be excused for referring to those two matters even so shortly, because I do not wish it to be supposed that this Bill represents all that I think might be done, or, indeed, ought to be done, in regard to the business of, and arrangements relating to, County Courts.
      Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
      LORD ASHBOURNE; My Lords, I trust that there will be no difficulty about the passing of this Bill, and coming as it does with the recommendation of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I have no doubt your Lordships will be prepared to give it a ready acceptance. I presume that in the present state of public business it is not desirable to overload any Bills; but I hope I may ask for the assistance of my noble and learned friend in inserting an Amendment to allow the solicitor profession to be represented on the rule-making authority.
      On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
      House adjourned at twenty minutes before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.