Sitting of 3 December 1908

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 AND 1903.
  Copy presented, of Order No. 7619, dated 28th November, 1908, permitting the landing at a Foreign Animals Wharf in Great Britain of Animals carried on board the ss. "Titian" [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS, 1877 AND 1907.
  Copy presented, of an Order dated 27th November, 1908, entitled the "American Gooseberry Mildew (Wisbech and District) Order of 1908 "[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  LUNACY.
  Copy of Return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made, the number of patients seen, and the number of miles travelled by the Visitors of Lunatics during the six months ending on 30th September, 1908 [by Act.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Irish Land Purchase.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say what steps tenants on an estate may take to enable them to purchase their holdings where the lease under which the middle landlord holds from the head landlord has not a sufficient number of years to run to entitle him to sell under the Land Act, 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Where in the case of a sale of an estate, lands held by a middleman are in the exclusive occupation of one or more sub-tenants, and the provisions of Section 15 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, apply, the Estates Commissioners have power to redeem the intervening interest when dealing with the estate under that Act.

  Women Clerks and Inspectors in the Home Office,
  MR. COOPER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there are any women clerks or inspectors in his Department, and, if any, will he give the numbers in each division.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The Answer is in the affirmative. The numbers and positions occupied are as follows: Fifteen inspectors of factories and workshops; six clerks in the factory department; one sub-inspector of reformatory and industrial schools; one inspector of prisons and inebriate reformatories.

  Loss of the "Spartan Prince."
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the loss of the steamer "Spartan Prince," and if he can state why no inquiry has been held with reference to the loss of this vessel; and whether he is aware that some of the crew have made lengthy affidavits stating that the circumstances under which this vessel foundered were not satisfactory.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) My attention has been called to the loss of the steamer "Spartan Prince" after collision with the ship "Timandra," but, in the absence of the latter vessel from this country, I have not considered it desirable to order a formal investigation which, in the circumstances, must be of an ex parte character. No affidavits have been received from the crew, whilst the preliminary inquiries made at Ceara, Barbados, and in this country do not seem to call for further investigation; but I shall be prepared to consider any fresh information that may be brought to my notice with a view to any further action that may be found desirable.

  Spanish Crew of the Steamer "Carts-dyke."
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it has been brought to his notice that the owners of the steamer "Carts-dyke," now bound from Bilbao, Spain, to Ayr, Scotland, is carrying a number of Spaniards who are to be engaged as the crew of the "Cartsdyke" in place of the men now serving on the vessel; whether he will take steps to insist that the language test will be applied to the Spaniards so as to see that they can comply with the requirements of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906; and whether, in view of the number of unemployed in the United Kingdom at present, he will bring to the notice of the shipowners generally that by bringing in foreign labour numbers of our own countrymen are being thrown out of employment.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The "Cartsdyke" arrived at Ayr on 24th November. Inquiry has been made into the matter referred to in the Question, and I am informed that no foreign seamen have been brought to this country in the vessel as passengers for the purpose of being engaged in place of the men serving during the recent voyage. The provisions of Section 12 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, will be enforced in this and all similar cases, but I do not see my way to issue a general communication to shipowners in the sense suggested by my hon. friend.

  Evicted Tenants—Delay in Reinstatement of Mrs. Margaret Rice.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will ascertain from the Estates Commissioners the cause of the delay in the reinstatement of Mrs. Margaret Rice in her old holding of Coole Upper, near Fermoy, on the M'Causland estate, County Cork.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have made a formal offer for the purchase of Mrs. Rice's former holding. This offer has been accepted by the owner, and it is expected that Mrs. Rice will be reinstated at an early date.

  Illegal Trawling in Dundrum Bay.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland has been called to the injury caused to the fishing industry in Dun-drum Bay, County Down, by illegal trawling; whether he is aware that the matter was brought under the notice of the Council of the Department at the last meeting; and what steps are being taken to deal with the subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Department are aware that illegal trawling has been in progress by local boats in Dundrum Bay. Since March last the Department have instituted legal proceedings for this offence in ten cases. Three more are pending. The Department will spare no effort to capture offenders, and hope that the local magistrates will inflict such penalties as may prove effectual in stopping illegal trawling. I understand that the matter was discussed at the meeting of the Council of Agriculture on the 24th ultimo, when, after the Department's explanation, the resolution of Colonel Sharman-Crawford' dealing with the matter was not pressed.

  Privileged Cabs at Woolwich Station.
  MR. CROOKS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will inquire of the Woolwich police as to the working
  1624
  of the privilege cab system at the Arsenal Station; whether it would be in the interest of the travelling public to declare the station an open one; and whether friction is caused by the privileged cabmen taking the outside stands in. addition to the privilege stand.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The inquiry which, as I informed the hon. Member last Monday, I am making into this matter is not yet completed. I hope to be able to inform him of my decision very shortly.

  Compensation under Licensing Act, 1904.
  MR. CAVE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now prepared to consider favourably any application by the Quarter Sessions of a county for his consent to the borrowing on the security of the compensation fund of any sums required for the purpose of paying compensation under the Licensing Act, 1904.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) In my Answer on this subject on 12th April last I gave an anticipated change in the law as my reason for limiting to the present year the period of repayment of loans applied for under the Act of 1904. In the absence of this reason I should, of course, not think it necessary to impose such a limit.

  Procedure in County Courts.
  MR. T. R. BETHELL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Lord Chancellor has appointed a Commission to advise him as to the procedure of the County Courts and as to improving that procedure, or what is the nature of the Commission now inquiring and to whom will its Report be made; and whether it will, as soon as practicable, be issued to the Members of this House or brought to the attention of the House; and whether the inquiry will extend to the question of the fees charged in the County Courts and to the complaint that they are excessive, and to the working of the system of administration orders.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The Judicature Committee (presided over by Lord Macnaghten) in their

  1625
  Report, recently presented, recommended amongst other things, that: "The Lord Chancellor be requested to appoint a Committee to consider the relations now subsisting between the High Court and the County Courts, and to report whether any and what alteration or modification should be made in those relations, and consequently in the jurisdiction and practice of the County Courts." In pursuance of that recommendation, the Lord Chancellor has invited a Departmental Committee, with Sir J. Gorell Barnes as chairman, to consider and advise him on the subject.

  Wages Dispute at Grangemouth.
  MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that a Grange-mouth employer of dock labour has dismissed certain men because they have instituted legal proceedings against him to secure the short payment of wages which he has withheld from them on the piece work system; and if he contemplates any action to prevent employers taking such action against men who are demanding simple justice.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have seen the letter which the hon. Member has been good enough to send me on the subject of the case referred to in the Question. The matter is outside the powers conferred by the Factory Act, and there is no action which it is possible for me to take to protect workmen, but the question of checking piecework wages in dock labour has been the subject of inquiry by a Departmental Committee, who have now reported, and I hope next session to introduce legislation which will place the workers in a different position in this matter.

  The Press and Coroners' Courts.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to the exclusion of the accredited representatives of the Press agencies and of the daily papers from the coroner's Court of St. Giles's, London, on the 21st ultimo, whether his attention has been called to the fact that one of those representatives was in Court before the coroner arrived and was
  1626
  requested to leave, and that the other representatives arrived before the inquest opened; whether he is aware that the Press box was almost empty; whether, in face of those statements, he has any further information as to why these Press representatives were excluded; whether he can explain why the written protest from the journalists was not at once delivered to the coroner; and whether the coroner's officer has been admonished.
  MR. BYLES: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home. Department, in reference to the exclusion of certain recognised Press representatives from the coroner's Court of St. Giles's, London, on the 21st ultimo, whether he has been made aware that the reporters who were excluded had not arrived late; that one of them at least was actually inside the Court when the coroner arrived, and was ordered out by the coroner's officer; that there Was no overcrowding in the Court, inasmuch as a solitary police inspector was occupying the Press box; in the light of this fresh evidence will he renew his inquiries into the matter of complaint; and will he take such measures as will insure the publicity, in conformity with immemorial usage, of coroners' quests.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I beg leave to answer this and the next Question together. I have again -communicated with the coroner, and I learn from him that a gentleman who had entered the Court before the coroner had arrived was requested to leave until the Court was open. The coroner regrets that any representative of the Press should have been excluded, and assures me that such a thing has not happened before and is not likely to happen again. His officer states positively that he received no written communication, and that he was not aware of its existence. I do not think that the incident calls for any further action on my part. I have no authority to issue instructions to coroners in this matter, and it is clear from the coroner's statement that he is anxious to give full facilities for the presence of the Press in Court.

  Case of J. J. Jelly, of Workington.
  MR. CROOKS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of John James Jelly, heard at the Workington Police Court on 25th November, who was proved to be in great poverty from unemployment and had a dying child, and that there was neither fire nor food in his house, who was sentenced to fourteen days imprisonment for stealing coal of the value of 2s. 2d., the defence being that he could not get a ticket for work and wanted the coppers to buy milk for his child; and will he take steps to reduce the sentence.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have made inquiry into this case, but I have found no ground for intervention on my part. The prisoner has been discharged on part payment of the fine. This was his third conviction of stealing during the present year.

  Rent of Teacher's House in Elementary Schools.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDY: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether the word "schoolhouse," in the Elementary Education (No. 2) Bill, does or does not include the teacher's house in those public elementary schools where rent is now paid by the local authority to the trustees of the school.

  England and Wales.

  Administration.

  Loan Charges.

  Total.

  Per Child.

  Total.

  Per Child.

  £.

  s.

  d.

  £.

  s.

  d.

  London

  237,894

  7

  2

  757,002

  22

  1

  County boroughs

  303,438

  3

  10

  757,257

  9

  8

  London and county boroughs

  541,332

  4

  10

  1,514,259

  13

  7

  Total—England and Wales

  1,093,879

  4

  1

  2,420,582

  9

  1

  Cost of Medical Inspection of Schools.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: To ask the President of the Board
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the provisions in regard to the teacher's house which are proposed by a Government Amendment to Clause 5 which is on today's Paper.

  Cooper School, Marston Sicca.
  MR. ESSEX: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether a settlement has been made of the affairs of the Cooper School at Marston Sicca, Gloucestershire; and, if so, what are its terms.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The Board have consented to postpone further proceedings in this case pending a joint meeting of parish councils and other local bodies interested which, it is understood, is being convened to consider the terms of the draft scheme.

  Elementary Education—Administrative and Loan Charges.
  MR. JAMES HOPE: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he can state what was the average sum per child spent by local education authorities on administration and loan charges during the year ending 31st March, 1907, in London, the county boroughs, London and the county boroughs taken together, and throughout the country.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.)—
  of Education whether he has received representations from local authorities drawing his attention to the expense

  1629
  of medical inspection provided for by the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act of last year; and whether any further assistance is to be provided from the Exchequer so as to enable this inspection to be carried on efficiently.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I have already stated that there is, in my opinion, the strongest objection to giving special grants for specific purposes in connection with elementary education, but under the financial proposals in connection with the Bill now before the House local education authorities will receive a large additional grant to assist them in carrying out medical inspection and their other duties in respect of elementary education.

  Secondary Schools and Training Colleges
  SIR PHILIP MAGNUS: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he intends the education settlement to be produced by the Education Bill to include a settlement of the difficulties that have arisen in the last three years in regard to secondary schools and training colleges; and, in particular, whether, in that event, he intends to make the requisite modifications in the secondary schools and training college regulations so that denominational schools and colleges shall receive grants from the Board of Education equivalent to the grants for those provided by the local authority, as will be the case in regard to elementary schools under the settlement embodied in the Bill.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The various points referred to by the hon. Member do not arise under the Education Bill, which deals only with elementary education. If the Bill now under discussion is passed, the position of Nonconformists and others who are now under disabilities in other parts of the public educational system will no doubt be affected thereby, but the hon. Member's Questions are hypothetical, and it would be premature for me to give him a definite reply at present.

  Out-Relief Administration at Wavertree.
  MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: To ask the President of the Local Government
  1630
  Board if his attention has been directed to the practice of paying outdoor relief on the premises of a political club at Wavertree, Liverpool, though the town hall is situated nearly opposite the club in question; whether he can state to what extent this practice prevails; if it meets with his sanction; and, if not, will he take steps to end it.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am informed that under agreements dating from 1889 the guardians have the use of a large room as a pay station at the Conservative Working Men's Club at Wavertree. The rent paid is £7 a year, which includes heating, cleaning, and accommodation for about 100 persons. The room is used for a short time once a week, and is then exclusively in the occupation of the guardians. No sanction on the part of the Local Government Board has been given in this matter. As regards the town hall, I am informed that it is improbable that any application by the guardians to the corporation for the hire of a room large enough for the purpose for which it would be required would be acceded to.

  Law Officers of the Crown and Old-Age Pensions.
  MR. SNOWDEN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board when he hopes to receive the opinions of the Law Officers on the points which have been submitted to them arising out of the Old-Age Pensions Act.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have submitted two cases to the Law Officers on questions arising out of the Act. I have received their opinion in one of the cases, and as regards the other I have asked them to let me have their opinion at the earliest date practicable.

  Distress at Grays Thurrock.
  MR. WARDLE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received an. application from the Grays Thurrock Urban District Council for sanction to create a distress committee; and whether, he is prepared to grant the application.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I received an application for this purpose

  1631
  on Tuesday last, and I have referred it to the inspector of the district to report to me upon it.

  Loughborough Distress.
  MR. CLYNES: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received an application from the town council of Loughborough for sanction to create a distress committee; and, if so, whether he is prepared to grant the application.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have received the application referred to, and have decided to comply with it.

  Wimbledon Distress.
  MR. CLYNES: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any application has been made to his Board by the town council of Wimbledon for sanction to appoint a distress committee; and, if so, whether he can state the nature of the reply given.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) No actual application for the establishment of a distress committee has been made by the town council of Wimbledon this winter, but they have applied for a contribution from the Parliamentary grant. I wrote on 4th November, asking for particulars of unemployment, schemes of work, etc., but I have not so far received any reply beyond an acknowledgment.

  Chiswick Distress.
  MR. O'GEADY: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether an application has been received from the urban district council of Chiswick for sanction to appoint a distress committee; and whether his Board is prepared to grant the application.
  (Answered by Mr. John Bums.) I have received an application in the sense referred to in the Question. As the district council have arranged contracts for the execution of works estimated at cost in the aggregate over £26,000, all of which will contain a clause that local labour shall be employed, I have suggested that the question of
  1632
  establishing a distress committee might be deferred.

  Brentford Distress.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his Board has received an application from the urban district council of Brentford for sanction to create a distress committee; and whether his Board is prepared to grant the application.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have received the application, but in view of the small population, and of the other circumstances, I do not think I should be justified in acceding to it.

  Harrogate Distress.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received an application from the town council of Harrogate for sanction to create a distress committee; and whether he is prepared to grant the application.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I do not find that I have received any such application from the town council of Harrogate since 1905.

  Stoke-on-Trent Distress.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is in receipt of an application from the borough of Stoke-on-Trent for sanction to create a distress committee; whether two previous applications have been made and sanction has been refused; and whether, in view of the desire prevalent in Stoke for a distress committee, he is prepared to grant the present application.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have not hitherto seen my way to establish a distress committee in the borough of Stoke-on-Trent. I have now a renewed application from the town council before me which I am considering.

  Folkestone Distress.
  MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any reply has yet been

  1633
  given by his Board to the application of the town council of Folkestone for sanction to create a distress committee; and if so, will he state the nature of the reply.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have not seen my way to establish a distress committee at Folkestone at the present time.

  Memoranda on Fiscal Policy.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consent to issue an official Memorandum by Professor Hewins on the Fiscal Policy of International Trade in the same way as he has issued a Memorandum by Professor Marshall on the same subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) As my Tight hon. friend stated in reply to the hon. Member for Dulwich on the 24th ultimo, Mr. Marshall's Memorandum was prepared for and on the invitation of the late Government, and was only published owing to the hon. Member's own request. He at the same time explained why he considered it undesirable to issue a rejoiner at the public expense.

  Irish Old-Age Pension Claimants.
  MR. KETTLE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the official estimate of the number of persons in Ireland over seventy years of age in 1908 is 184,000; whether he is aware that the official estimate of the numbers of the same class of persons in 1907 was 173,359; whether the wide discrepancy between these two estimates casts doubt on the accuracy of both; and will he take steps to obtain a less speculative estimate.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The estimated number of persons in Ireland of the age of seventy years and upwards in the middle of the year 1908 was 183,639. For the middle of 1907 the estimate was 183,876.

  Registration of Births in Ireland.
  MR. KETTLE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the system of registration of births in Ireland is of
  1634
  much more recent origin than the corresponding system in Great Britain; whether, consequently, the materials available for forming an estimate of the numbers of the population over seventy years of age are much less adequate in Ireland than in great Britain; and whether the figure, 184,000, is in fact anything more than a rough approximation founded largely on guess-work.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The system of registration of births in Ireland is of much more recent origin than the corresponding system in Great Britain, but this fact has no relation to the question of estimating the number of persons of the age of seventy years and upwards at the present time. The figure 183,639, or in round numbers 184,000, is not a guess but a fairly approximate estimate, obtained by applying the percentage of males and females, aged seventy years and upwards, as ascertained at the census of 1901, to the estimated total number of males and females in the middle of the year 1908.

  Pensions and Profits on Small Holdings.
  MR. KETTLE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether private instructions have been issued to pension officers prescribing the mode in which they are to calculate the profits derived from small holdings in Ireland; whether he is aware that in many cases the pension officers estimate these profits as being twice the Poor Law valuation; and, if private instructions have been issued, will he communicate them to the House.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) My right hon. friend cannot add anything to the replies which he has already given on this subject. As he has already explained, each case has to be dealt with on its merits. Confidential instructions have been given to pension officers as to the general lines upon which they should guide themselves in their reports to the committees; but these instructions do not—nor is it in his opinion desirable that they should—bind the committees, or (upon appeal) the Local Government Board., whose duty it is to exercise an independent discretion in the matter. For this reason, it does not appear to him

  1635
  to be desirable to publish the confidential instructions in question.

  Irish Taxation.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: To ask Mr.. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can form any estimate of the probable amount of extra taxation that will be imposed upon Ireland in respect of old-age pensions.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) It is not possible to answer this Question until the amount of the extra taxation (if any) required has been determined, the precise taxes to be imposed have been decided on, and their incidence as between Great Britain and Ireland has been ascertained.

  London Education Grant.
  MR. W. PEARCE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as London receives from existing grants payable in respect of elementary education a lower grant than the rest of England and Wales, he will exempt London from the proposed limitation of 6s. per child under the new grants A, B, and C contained in the financial proposals in connection with the Education Bill.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The question of these grants is being very carefully considered, but my right hon. friend is not in a position to make any announcement at present.

  Pension Regulations.
  MR. SNOWDEN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have given instructions to the pension officers that when the officer has reported to the committee that the claimant is entitled to a pension, and the committee consider that the claimant is disqualified, the appeal, if any, should be made by the claimant; and whether, seeing that such instructions deprive the pension officer of a statutory right given to him by the Old-Age Pensions Act, he will have this instruction at once withdrawn.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The Answer to the first part of the Question is, in the affirmative. The circumstances in which a pension officer should or should
  1636
  not exercise the rights he possesses under the Act appear to my right hon. friend to be a proper subject for the issue of directions by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under Article 34 of the Regulations, and the instruction itself seems to him to be a proper one, since, if the claimant is satisfied with an adverse decision of the pension committee, he can see no reason why the pension officer should seek to interfere. He does not, therefore, propose to take any action.

  Poor Relief Disqualification.
  MR. SNOWDEN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have instructed the pension officers that receipt of poor relief by a husband will not in their opinion disqualify his wife for receipt for an old-age pension; is he aware that this is one of the points on. which the Local Government Board has not made up its mind; and will he say if the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or the Local Government Board is the authority for deciding points of law under the Old-Age Pensions Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) Neither the pension officer nor the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have any power to decide questions under the Old-Age Pensions Act. The decision upon all such questions, whether of law or facts, rests under the Act with the local pension committee subject to appeal to the Local Government Board. As regards the particular point raised in the Question I understand that my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board is advised that, in cases in which a husband has received poor relief for, or on account of, his wife, the wife as well as the husband is disqualified. Pension officers have now been instructed accordingly.

  Census of Production Returns.
  MR. RENDALL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Excise officers recently made old-age pension officers had placed upon them the duty of collecting the census of production returns; whether agriculturists in many oases objected to make such returns, and even refused to make their ordinary agricultural returns, thus causing the necessity

  1637
  of personal visits and inquiries by the officer; and what payment for these extra services and out-of-pocket expenses will be made to such officers, and when.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) My right hon. friend is informed that the Board of Inland Revenue are not aware that greater difficulty than usual has been experienced by the officers in collecting the agricultural returns. The question of the additional remuneration to be paid to officers for collecting the census of production returns is now being considered by the Board.

  Pay of Old-Age Pension Officers.
  MR. RENDALL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer when a definite statement will be made by him to old-age pension officers as to the rates of remuneration to be paid them for their work; what number of hours they are supposed to work daily; whether Sunday work is invited, expected, allowed, or disallowed; and what extra rates of pay will be paid them for weekday and Sunday overtime.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The question of remuneration will be considered at as early a date as is compatible with the obtaining of full materials for a decision, after the close of the exceptional work for which a gratuity is contemplated. The nature of the duties does not admit of rules being laid down as to daily hours of work, nor have any instructions been given as to work on Sundays.

  Fruit Tree Washes.
  MR. COURT HOPE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the value of nicotine washes for spraying fruit trees and the present high cost of such washes, he will take steps to remit the Excise Duty on all tobacco grown in the United Kingdom which is manufactured for horticultural or agricultural purposes.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) All nicotine is already manufactured from duty-free tobacco.

  Fines on Pension Officers.
  MR. SNOWDEN: TO ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the Board of Inland Revenue
  1638
  have inflicted a fine of £10 on each of a number of pension officers who have innocently made public the number of claims for pensions received in their districts; that when the attention of the officers was called to the statement that their action was a breach of official regulations they readily admitted their fault and expressed regret; and whether he will take action to modify the severity of the punishment.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) My right hon. friend is aware of the action taken by the Board of Inland Revenue in punishing certain Excise officers who violated the regulations against communicating to the public Press information derived from official sources. If the officers in question had not expressed their regret for their action, a more severe view would necessarily have been taken of conduct which is subversive of all discipline and tends to bring discredit on the public service. He is not prepared to modify the punishment imposed in these cases.

  War Office Tailors.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the War Office forward to each officer about to join his regiment a list containing the names of several tailoring firms, to one of whom he is recommended to go for his outfit, to the exclusion of other Army outfitters; and whether this form of preferential treatment has received his sanction, and can he state on what grounds.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) All officers on being gazetted to commissions are furnished with the price lists of the tailors and outfitters who furnish price lists for this purpose. No particular firm is recommended by the War Office and no firm is precluded from being placed on the list.

  Volunteer Decorations.
  MR. C. B. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the enhanced value likely to be placed upon the Volunteer officers'

  1639
  decoration and the Volunteer long-service medal, he will take steps to secure. that officers, non-commissioned officers, and men who have transferred from the Volunteer Force to the Territorial Army receive the Volunteer officers' decoration or the Volunteer long-service medal in lieu of the corresponding decoration and medal instituted for the Territorial Army, provided that the officers, non-commissioned officers, and men fulfil the conditions of service which governed the Volunteer decoration and the Volunteer long-service medal.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) In view of the fact that the conditions attached to the grant of the Territorial decoration and efficiency medal are more stringent than those formerly called for in respect to the Volunteer rewards, I cannot concur in the opinion expressed by my hon. friend as regards the latter, and I am not prepared to take the steps suggested in the Question.

  Territorial Efficiency Medal.
  MR. C. B. HARMSWOETH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the conditions governing the Territorial efficiency medal have been so framed as to exclude from the conferring of this distinction officers who have previously served in the ranks; whether he is aware that an officer of the Volunteer Force who had served in the ranks became eligible for and received the Volunteer long-service medal; and whether he will take steps to secure that officers of the Territorial Army shall be treated in the same way as regards the Territorial efficiency medal as were officers of the Volunteer Force as regards the Volunteer long-Service medal.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The medal was granted to Volunteer officers on retirement after twenty years service if they had served in the ranks, but had not served long enough to earn the decoration. The efficiency medal is granted to the Territorial Force after twelve years service, while the decoration is granted after twenty years service, and, therefore, the proposal of my hon. friend does not appear to be practicable.

  Re-enlistments.
  MR. COURTHOPE: TO ask the Secretary of State for War whether men of the Territorial Force, who reengage at the end of the period of service for which they enlisted, must under existing conditions be enlisted and attested a second time; and, if so, whether he will take steps to obviate the annoyance and inconvenience which this will inevitably cause before the first year of service in the Territorial Force expires.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) A man of the Territorial Force who, on the termination of his current engagement, desires to continue has only to sign the re-engagement paper. It is not considered that this procedure can cause annoyance or inconvenience.

  Musketry Training Committee.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War who were the expert officers of the Regular and Territorial Forces who are stated, in paragraph 8 of Circular Memorandum, No. 111 of 13th November, 1908, to have brought out the new musketry course and instructions after much careful consideration.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The Committee on the musketry training of the Territorial Force was composed as follows: Lieutenant-General Mackinnon (Chairman); Brigadier-General Murray (Director of Military Training); Colonel Egerton (Commandant School of Musketry); Colonel Cotton Jodrell; Colonels Fremantle and Wilson, and Major Gosling, representing the Territorial Force; Majors Shute H. C. Hill, and Kirwan, with Captain T. H. Davidson as Secretary.

  Army Boot Contracts.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of pairs of Army boots and shoes obtained during the years 1898–9, 1900–1, 1901–2, the names of counties or towns from which they were obtained, and the number of pairs each town or county supplied.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.)

  Statement of the Number of Army Boots and Shoes (machine made and hand sewn) received during the years 1898–9, 1900–1, 1901–2, and the County or Town from which they were obtained.

  Aberdeen.

  Bristol.

  Chesham.

  Ipswich.

  Leeds.

  Leicester.

  London.

  Mansfield.

  County of Northampton.

  Norwich.

  Total

  1898–9

  Boots

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  107

  —

  585,825

  —

  585,932

  Shoes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16,931

  3,287

  —

  54,669

  —

  74,887

  1900–1

  Boots

  —

  51,890

  1,100

  —

  50,430

  6,550

  51,610

  —

  1,060,999

  —

  1,222,579

  Shoes

  —

  15,050

  —

  34,480

  2,000

  57,299

  94,857

  2,000

  411,012

  13,120

  629,818

  1901–2*

  Boots

  —

  122,856

  3,146

  —

  106,478

  11,200

  82,120

  —

  1,043,567

  —

  1,369,367

  Shoes

  4,854

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13,050

  —

  47,951

  —

  65,855

  *During this year an order was placed through the Government of India for the delivery of 100,000 pairs of boots direct to South Africa.

  Musketry Practice.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War under what conditions the grouping practices of the new musketry course will be carried out on the; numerous ranges on which, owing to the shooting taking place across a valley or ravine, firing at 100 yards range is impossible, and the approach from the firing points to the targets long and difficult, and, on the large ranges, such as Bisley and Wraysbury, where, owing to the large number of targets in use, great delay would be caused by the necessary interruption of firing while those who had fired on other targets were inspecting their group of shots.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The instructional practices are to act as a guide, and need not be rigidly adhered to. The whole object of the scheme is to enable commanding officers to make use of such facilities as are within their reach, placing a pattern before them to guide them on the right lines. On large ranges grouping practices can be commenced at the same time, and no great delay should occur. It is impossible to legislate for every class of range and every circumstance. I hope hon. Members will not prejudge this scheme before it has been put to a full test.

  Territorial Ranges.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War in view of the fact that most ranges of the Territorial Force are open for class-firing at least twice a week during the spring and summer, what steps will be taken to secure the attendance of officers and details of other corps to carry out the marking and supervision as required by paragraph 8 of the musketry course.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Supervision and marking will only be performed by officers and men of other units during the annual test. The necessary arrangements will be made by the general officers commanding divisions of the Territorial Force and by officers commanding mounted brigades.

  Use of Wind Gauge in Musketry Practice.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, owing to the extreme frequency with which the force of the wind changes in this climate, he will withdraw paragraph 18 of the new musketry instructions, which prohibits the alteration of the wind gauge after the first shot of a classification practice has been fired.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) It is owing to the extreme frequency with which the wind changes in this climate, and to the difficulties and inaccuracies which would arise on active service from frequent alteration of the wind gauge, that it is considered more advisable to practice making allowance for wind in this country by "aiming off."

  Hayti Revolt.
  MR. GLENDINNING: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Afsairs if it is the intention of the Government to send a man-of-war to Port-au-Prince, seeing the danger to which the lives and property of British subjects are exposed.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Grey.) I beg to refer the hon. Member to the Answer returned to-day to the hon. Member for North-Western Lanarkshire.

  Grehan Estate, Banteer.
  MR. FLYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have gazetted the holding on the Grehan estate, Banteer, County Cork, formerly in the occupation of Mr. Timothy Barrett; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that the land is untenanted, the Commissioners are taking steps to procure the reinstatement of the tenant with the least possible delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have notified in the Dublin Gazette their intention to acquire this holding under the Evicted Tenants Act, and are using all despatch in their proceedings under the Act.

  Dublin Assistant Teachers.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the average salary of trained assistant teachers in ordinary national schools in Dublin city, model schools not included; why are assistant teachers in Dublin schools paid smaller salaries than assistant teachers in London, Edinburgh, or other English or Scottish towns, if they perform equally efficient work; is he aware that no assistant teacher in an ordinary national school in Ireland receives promotion, that is, he is placed in the lowest or third grade and must remain there, no matter what his qualifications and length of service, or how effective his work may be in the school; is he aware that married assistant teachers in Dublin pay from one-third to one-half their salaries for house rent alone, and cannot possibly live up to that standard of decency and respectability expected from those who educate the children of the citizens of Dublin, while unmarried assistants have to pay such high rents for rooms and board that they have not a living wage; and will he recommend the promotion of assistants to the higher grades, according to efficiency and length of service, as they receive the same training, pass the same examinations, possess equal qualifications, and with equal service are quite as efficient as principal teachers.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the average salary of the assistant teachers referred to in the Question is £79 17s. for men and £71 5s. 5d. for women. I am not in a position to compare the salary and work of assistant teachers in Dublin with that of assistant teachers in English and Scottish towns. Assistant teachers rank as a rule in the third grade, but there are exceptions to this rule. None have as yet been promoted to a higher grade since 1900. I have no means of ascertaining what house rents they pay. The Commissioners' rules provide for increases of salary to assistant teachers and for their promotion in exceptional circumstances, but it was never contemplated nor would the Commissioners consider it desirable to give assistants the same rights as principals in regard to promotion. The
  1646
  Commissioners desire that principals should, as a rule, be recruited from experienced assistants, but few assistants would be willing to undertake the responsibilities of principals if they could do as well from a monetary point of view by remaining assistants.

  White Estate in Leitrim.
  MR. F. MEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the White Estate at Newtownmanor, North Leitrim, having been offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners; and whether, having regard to the fact of a large portion of this estate being waste land, he would urge upon the Commissioners the necessity of purchasing this estate in order to enlarge the many small uneconomic holdings in the district.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) This estate is pending for sale in the Court of the Land Judge. The Estates Commissioners have already intimated to the Judge their estimated price for the untenanted land.

  Longford Pass Evicted Tenants.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps have been taken towards the reinstatement of the evicted tenants on the Langley Estate, Longford Pass, County Tipperary, named respectively Michael Morris, Laurence Duggan, Edmond Kealey, William Bartley, Pat Leahy, James Bartley, Pat Ryan, and Thomas Maher.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have had this estate inspected and the owner is willing to accept their estimated price. Formal proceedings for sale to the Commissioners have been instituted and the Commissioners are about to make a formal offer in compliance with Section 6 of the. Irish Land Act, 1903. Until this offer has been accepted the Commissioners will not be in a position to allot the lands.

  Knockaderry Evicted Tenant.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant

  1647
  of Ireland if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners have taken any steps to reinstate the widow Browne in the farm from which her husband was evicted about fifteen years ago, known as the Glebe, situate near Knockaderry, in the County of Limerick; whether he is aware that the farm is at present under the representatives, or Commissioners, of the late Established Church, who are paying £1 per week to a caretaker for herding it, without getting any return for the outlay; and will he see that the Estates Commissioners reinstate her without further delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Land Commission inform me that an advance for the purchase of this holding was made to the late "William Brown by the Church Temporalities Commissioners in 1877. Owing to his failure to pay the purchase annuity, Brown was dispossessed in 1894. Since then several attempts to sell the holding have failed. The provisions of the Evicted Tenants Act do not apply to such a case.

  Indian Army Charges.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India, with reference to the agreement arrived at between the Secretary of State for India and the Secretary of State for War that an additional payment of £300,000 a year shall be made from 1st May, 1908, from the Indian revenues to cover the cost of the training of troops and other services connected with the maintenance of the British establishments in India, whether the Indian Government recently sent a despatch to the Secretary of State setting forth objections to that arrangement; whether he can state the nature of those objections; whether the Indian Government was consulted or previously apprised of the proposed terms of that agreement before it was concluded; and whether he will lay a copy of the despatch upon the Table.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) A despatch has been received from the Government of India setting forth certain objections of a detailed and technical character which cannot well be summa-
  1648
  rised. As I informed the hon. Member, in answer to a Question on 19th October, the arrangement between the Secretary of State for India and the Secretary of State for War was arrived at on the basis of the recommendation of the Romer Committee, on which the Government of India were represented by Lieutenant-General Sir B. Duff, Chief of the Staff in India. I have already stated that the Secretary of State does not think it would be in the public interest to present Papers on the subject.

  Irish Railways—Cattle Transit.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he can state the number of adverse reports that have been made to him by his inspectors regarding the indequate loading accommodation and irregular cattle transit of the various Irish railways; and whether he will state what steps he intends to take to act on these reports and remedy the existing state of cattle transit in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) Inspectors of the Department are constantly visiting railway stations to report on the animal transit arrangements. A numerical statement of the nature suggested in the Question would not be of any real value, and might lead to erroneous inferences. The Department are in frequent communication with the railway companies on matters arising out of the inspectors' reports; and by this procedure, coupled with, when necessary, consultation with the railway officials, improvements in the accommodation for animal traffic have been brought about at many stations. At some others improvements are known to be contemplated, while in further instances consideration is pending, and the matter will not be lost sight of by the Department.

  Railway Coupling Accidents.
  MR. MADDISON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents caused by the coupling and uncoupling of vehicles on the railways of the United Kingdom

  1649
  during each of the months of 1905 and 1906.

  Number of Servants of Railway Companies killed and injured whilst engaged in coupling and uncoupling operations in each month of the years 1905 and 1906.

  Month.

  1905.

  1906.

  Killed.

  Injured.

  Killed.

  Injured.

  January

  —

  37

  1

  38

  February

  3

  44

  —

  50

  March

  1

  66

  —

  53

  April

  —

  33

  —

  43

  May

  2

  46

  1

  49

  June

  1

  38

  1

  39

  July

  2

  40

  1

  46

  August

  —

  36

  —

  38

  September

  1

  50

  1

  50

  October

  —

  41

  1

  60

  November

  —

  48

  3

  50

  December

  2

  44

  —

  56

  Total

  12

  523

  9

  572

  Poor Belief and Pensions.
  MR. VERNEY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the case of a married woman, aged seventy-four, and living with her husband, who is in receipt of 4s. 6d. per week parish relief, 2.of which is refunded to the guardians by their son, the woman, who has had no parish relief, is entitled to a pension.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) If the relief is given solely for the support of the husband, the wife would not be disqualified. If it is given towards her support as well as that of her husband, she would be.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The figures are as follows—

  Hampstead Town Hall.
  MR. COOPER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been directed to the. recommendation now before the council of the metropolitan borough of Hampstead to expend £192 in furnishing a robing room in the town hall for the mayor; Whether this council recently refused to increase the wages of its dustmen, amounting to £162, because the rates of Hampstead are 7s. 2d. in the pound; whether any application has been made by this council to his Board for a grant to help the unemployed in this borough; whether the sanction

  1651
  of the Local Government Board has to be obtained before expending this sum of money on a robing room; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of refusing to sanction it.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I understand that a recommendation was made to the borough council by their works committee, to the effect that a sum of £192 should be spent in adapting and furnishing the existing robing room for use as a mayor's parlour, but that the council referred the matter back to the committee, who now recommend that a sum of £10 should be spent on doing up the robing room. This recommendation will come before the council at their meeting to-day. No sanction on the part of the Local Government Board to the expenditure is necessary. I am informed that the wages of the whole of the staff of the borough council are considered by the council in January of each year, that in 1906 the wages of the dustmen were increased and that no proposal to increase their wages has been before the council since that date. I understand that the borough council are expending a sum of about £3,300 upon work for the unemployed. No application has been made to me for a payment from the grant in respect of this work. The cost is being defrayed by the borough council themselves.

  Poor Relief and Pensions.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state whether a man and his wife, aged respectively seventy-seven and seventy-four years, who at present are living with a son who is a humble worker, and who are in receipt of a sum of 4s. 6d. per week through the guardians, such money being contributed by three sons at the rate of 1s. 6d. each per week, are either jointly or individually entitled to the receipt of an old-age pension.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) If in fact relief is given by the guardians for or on account of these poor persons they would both be disqualified for receiving an old-age pension, although the amount of the relief is repaid to the guardians by the sons.

  Parliament Buildings.
  MR. WATT: To ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will say how many rooms in the Houses of Parliament are utilised for all purposes by the Commons, how many by the Peers, and how many by the members of the Press.
  (Answered by Mr. L. Harcourt.) The Answer is: Peers, 113; Commons, 204; Press, 25.

  Assistant Surveyors of Taxes.
  MR. CAVE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in September last, while an examination of candidates for the post of Assistant Surveyor of Taxes was actually proceeding, nineteen vacancies in the office were filled by the appointment of candidates who had previously sat for junior appointments in the Admiralty and other offices; whether such appointments were a breach of one of the conditions governing the examination in question, namely, that candidates passing the examination would be appointed to fill such vacancies as might exist at the date of the examination or within six months after its commencement; and whether it is possible, in order to satisfy those who were disappointed by reason of these appointments, to offer to the first nineteen of the candidates who were unsuccessful at the examination the first nineteen vacancies in the office of Assistant Surveyor of Taxes or other equivalent appointments.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply given by my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the 24th ultimo, to the hon. Member for North Fermanagh. I will send him a copy.

  H.M.S. "Barfleur."
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what were the dates of the successive appointments of six captains to H.M.S. "Barfleur" and the changing of five crews in the twenty-four months ending 19th March, 1907, as stated to have taken place in the official Answer to a Question on 19th March, 1907.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The six captains were: Captain C. H. Adair, appointed 18th February. 1905; Captain Leslie C. Stuart, 4th April, 1905; Captain E. S. Fitzherbert, 10th May, 1905; Captain Claud A. W. Hamilton, 16th November, 1905; Captain Hugh H. D. Tothill, 19th March, 1906; Captain Peyton Hoskyns, 25th February, 1907. The crews were changed on 4th April, 1905; 10th May, 1905; 28th November, 1905; 20th September, 1906; and 5th March, 1907.

  Servian Parcels Post.
  MR. B. S. STRAUS: To ask the Postmaster-General whether parcels containing samples of merchandise sent by parcel post to Servia in strict conformity with the regulations are being detained on the Austro-Hungarian frontier by the Austrian postal or customs' officers; if so, whether the latter have any power to open hampers or parcels sent from the London Post Office; whether this is contrary to the International Parcels Post Convention; and what steps do His, Majesty's Government propose to take to put an end to such interference with international trade.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) No information has reached me as to irregular treatment of articles sent by parcels post to Servia. Direct parcel mails for Servia are not despatched from this office, the parcels being sent in mails for Germany or Austria. The United Kingdom is not a party to the special convention of the Postal Union relating to the parcel post; but the Anglo-Austrian Parcel Post Agreement provides, in the same way as the international convention, that the internal legislation of each country is applicable generally to parcels sent through that country. Parcels for Servia sent from England are therefore liable in the Austrian service to the Austrian regulations.

  Schedule A and Rating Valuations.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what is the general proportion between the annual values of properties as adopted for Schedule A of the Income-Tax Acts and
  1654
  the annual values of the same properties as adopted for rating; and whether in any places the same valuations are adopted for both purposes.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) In England and Wales (excluding the Metropolis) the aggregate values for Schedule A are about 10 per cent. in excess of the values for local rating purposes. In the Metropolis and in Scotland and Ireland the valuations for either purpose are practically identical.

  Valuation of Securities of the Post Office Savings Bank.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a valuation, at market values, of the securities held against the deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank would show a deficiency of approximately £15,000,000; and, if so, has he considered the question of taking measures to charge this deficiency upon the Consolidated Fund, in accordance with the provisions of 26 and 27 Vict., c. 25.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I beg leave to refer to the Answers given to previous Questions of my hon. friend on this subject on 9th and 18th July, 1907, and 24th February last. To those Answers I have nothing to add, except to point out that the Act quoted in the present Question relates to Trustee Savings Banks, not to Post Office Savings Banks, and that Section 7 of the Act, authorising in certain circumstances a charge on the Consolidated Fund, was repealed by Section 15 of the Savings Banks Act, 1904.

  Infantry Battalions.
  MR. GODFREY BARING: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the existing number of battalions of Regular infantry on the Home, Indian, and Colonial establishments, respectively; what are the the peace and war establishments of a battalion in each category; and with this establishment what would be the number of infantry soldiers in the Army Reserve, irrespective of Special Reservists, on 1st January, 1920.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) At the end of the trooping season there Will be seventy-four battalions at home, twenty-two in the Colonies and Egypt, and fifty-two in India. The peace establishments (excluding officers) are—

  Home

  777

  Colonies and Egypt

  904

  India

  1,004

  and the war establishments are—

  Home

  979

  Colonies and Egypt

  979

  India

  816

  These figures are exclusive of the details left at the base, amounting to 104.

  Great Britain.

  Military Expenditure (Army Votes and Loans), 1899–1900 to 1908–9.

  —

  Peace Expenditure, including Loans.*

  War Expenditure

  Total

  £

  £

  £

  1899–1900

  21,317,399

  22,790,000

  44,107,399

  1900–1

  27,163,671

  65,261,000

  92,424,671

  1901–2

  30,033,605

  64,132,300

  94,165,905

  1902–3

  30,101,623

  40,146,900

  70,248,523

  1903–4

  34,411,334

  5,241,700

  39,653,034

  1904–5

  31,147,183

  412,455

  31,559,638

  1905–6

  29,129,574

  —

  29,129,574

  1906–7

  28,365,987

  —

  28,365,987

  1907–8 (Estimate)

  27,326,718

  —

  27,326,718

  1908–9 (Estimate)

  27,109,101

  —

  27,109,101

  * i. e., Loan expenditure and interest on loans.

  Germany.

  Military Expenditure for 1899–1900 to 1908–9.

  (Includes the Votes for Military Administration, Pensions, Tribunals, East Asian Detachment, and Colonial Forces.)

  Year.

  Estimates.

  £

  1899–1900

  36,348,438*

  1900–1

  37,887,872

  1901–2

  44,522,011

  1902–3

  40,833,306

  1903–4

  38,818,105

  1904–5

  42,736,259

  1905–6

  45,013,226

  1906–7

  49 881,790

  1907–8

  49,297,331

  1908–9

  51,437,636

  * Colonial Estimates not shown here, not being available.

  Assuming that no further changes in establishments and terms of service are made, the Reserve on 1st January, 1920, would be at about the normal, i.e., 63,370.

  Military Expenditure of the Great Powers.
  MR. MADDISON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he Will state what are the total aggregate amounts which have been devoted to military expenditure during the last ten years (1899–1900 to 1908–9) by Great Britain, Germany, France, and Russia respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.)

  France.

  Military Expenditure, 1899–1900 to 1908–9.

  —

  Army.*

  Colonial Military Expenditure.†

  £

  £

  1899–1900

  26,576,673

  3,146,006

  1900–1

  26,931,262

  3,899,769

  1901–2

  29,173,398

  4,007,746

  1902–3

  29,268,464

  3,512,854

  1903–4

  28,248,826

  3,283,243

  1904–5

  28,096,753

  3,330,935

  1905–6

  27,393,379

  3,723,077

  1906–7

  28,747,635

  3,716,906

  1907–8

  31,199,445

  3,678,061

  1908–9

  31,195,004

  3,172,294

  *In addition to above expenditure on Army £92,763,947 were expended on improvement of armament between 1898 and 1906.

  †Does not include the cost of that portion of the Colonial Army which is stationed in France; this is included in the Army Budget.

  The Colonies contribute annually about £500,000 towards the Colonial military expenditure.

  Russia.

  Military Expenditure, 1899–1909.

  (Exclusive of Expenditure in connection with Russo-Japanese War.)

  £

  1899

  36,483,000

  1900

  36,838,000

  1901

  36,067,000

  1902

  35,849,000

  1903

  36,647,000

  1904

  38,380,000

  1905

  38,841,784

  1906

  39,677,880

  1907

  41,887,977

  1908 (Estimate)

  50,227,935

  1909 (Estimate)

  57,343,855

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Contract for Protected Cruisers.
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admir-
    1658
    alty whether all the orders for protected cruisers of the improved "Boadicea" type which the Government intend placing at this time have now been placed; if so, will he say how many have been ordered from Clyde shipbuilders; are these vessels to be fitted with Yarrow or with Babcock boilers; and will he state the comparative merits of the type of boiler chosen.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): The reply to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. Three of the vessels ordered are to be built on the Clyde. The ships will be fitted with Yarrow boilers. It is not desirable to make such a statement as is suggested in the last part of the Question.

    Unarmoured Cruiser Contracts.
    MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty

    1659
    whether the order for the fifth cruiser has been placed; and, if not, will he again consider the claim of London and place it on the Thames to be built.
    MR. MCKENNA: All the six un-armoured cruisers of this year's programme have been ordered. Five have been placed with private firms, and the sixth was laid down last June at Pembroke.

    Anti-Torpedo Destroyer Armaments.
    MR. MIDDLEMORE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty propose taking steps to improve the anti-torpedo destroyer armament on His Majesty's ships "Natal," "Achilles," "Cochrane," and "Warrior."
    MR. MCKENNA: The Admiralty do not propose to make any change.
    MR. MIDDLEMORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the armaments of these vessels are 9·2 and 7·1, and that they are incapable of rapid action?
    MR. MCKENNA: I am aware of that.

    The New Destroyers.
    MR. MIDDLEMORE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state definitely the size, horse-power, anticipated speed, and armament of the sixteen destroyers of the 1908–9 programme; and to state the size, horsepower, speed, and armament of the "Tribal" destroyers.
    MR. MCKENNA: The figures for the sixteen destroyers of the 1908–9 programme are: Displacement, 930–1,030 tons; speed, 27 knots; armament, 5–12-pounder guns, two torpedo tubes. Those for the early "Tribal" destroyers are: Displacement, 950–975 tons; speed, 33 knots; armament, 3–12-pounder guns, two torpedo tubes. Those for the later "Tribal" destroyers are: Displacement, 1,050–1,100 tons; speed, 33 knots; armament, 2–4-inch guns, two torpedo tubes. The figures with regard to the displacement of the later "Tribal" class and the new programme destroyers, and the speed of the latter, are estimates
    1660
    only. The estimated horse-power for the 27-knot destroyers is 12,000, the contract conditions for the "Tribal" destroyers did not provide for the horsepower to be measured, and no official record of the power on contractors' trial was obtained.
    MR. MIDDLEMORE: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for this very full information.

    Trials of New Destroyers.
    MR. MIDDLEMORE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the negotiations have now been completed for the purchase of the two destroyers to replace the lost "Gala" and "Tiger," and, if so, can he give particulars of their dimensions, their speed, and their names.
    MR. MCKENNA: The negotiations, referred to have not been completed.
    MR. MIDDLEMORE: When are they likely to be completed? I first asked this Question seventeen days ago.
    MR. MCKENNA: The negotiations have been protracted because the trials have not been quite satisfactory. That is not the fault of the Admiralty, of course.
    MR. MIDDLEMORE: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be in a position to give the information before the end of the present session?
    MR. MCKENNA: It does not depend on me.

    Admiralty Contracts.
    MR. W. THORNE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will have printed with the Votes the names of the firms that contracted for the cruisers and destroyers; and the amount of each tender.
    MR. MCKENNA: The tenders for the cruisers and destroyers have only been provisionally accepted, and the tender prices cannot, therefore, be given. It is not in accordance with usual practice to publish in the Navy Estimates the total cost of ships during the first year of

    1661
    their construction, and therefore it would be undesirable to give this information in another form.
    In reply to Mr. CURRAN (Jarrow),
    MR. MCKENNAsaid the orders had been allocated with due regard to the interests of the Navy, the prices tendered, and the desirability of distributing the work. It was not the custom to place orders without regard to cost.
    MR. JENKINS: Are the lowest tenders accepted?
    MR. MCKENNA: Yes, so far as is consistent with the other considerations I have mentioned.
    MR. CURRAN: Do the Admiralty also investigate whether the firms tendering pay trade union rates of wages?

    Yard.

    Week ended 19th November, 1898.

    Week ended 21st November, 1908.

    Portsmouth

    8,268

    10,609

    Devonport

    6,879

    8,999

    Chatham

    6,770

    8,767

    Sheerness

    2,045

    2,031

    Pembroke

    2,495

    2,064

    West India Docks

    235

    217

    Haulbowline

    217

    792

    Total

    26,909

    33,479

    The only men who would be entitled to pension are those on the established list.

    MR. T. F. RICHARDSpointed out that the right hon. Gentleman had not stated how many of the hands were on the established list, neither had he given the figures for certain victualling yards.
    MR. MCKENNA: I regret I am unable to give the information.
    MR. LUPTON: How far is the right hon. Gentleman's Answer consistent with the under-
    MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the Question on the Paper.

    Dockyard Employees.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give the number of men employed in the dockyards and victualling yards, casually and permanently, during the last weeks in November, 1898, and the last week in 1908; and whether all the permanent men are entitled to pensions as a condition of their employment.
    MR. MCKENNA: The number of men employed in the Home Dockyards at the end of November, 1898 and 1908, were as follows:—
    taking of Ministers to reduce the extravagant expenditure on our armaments?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Anarchist Outrages in India.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can inform the House what action has been taken upon representations by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, the Calcutta Trades Association, and the European Anglo-Indian

    1663
    Defence Association, urging upon the Government of India the necessity for the immediate establishment of a special tribunal of High Court Judges to deal summarily with all persons convicted of Anarchist outrages, and recommending certain additions to the existing laws of British India in order to the suppression of sedition.
    THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,: The whole subject is being considered with the care that it demands. The Secretary of State is unable at present to say anything further.

    Tampering with Indian Native Troops.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether a Brahmin was lately charged at Jhansi with tampering with the loyalty of the native troops at that station; and, if the answer be in the affirmative, whether the accused was convicted; and, if so, what punishment was inflicted.
    MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State has seen in the newspapers the report of such a case, in which the accused was ordered to find sureties for good behaviour, but he has no official information on the subject.
    MR. REESasked whether the Secretary of State would cause inquiry to be made with a view of taking due notice of the conduct of a magistrate who awarded so trivial a punishment for so heinous an offence as suborning troops to treason.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Will the Under-Secretary also undertake to inquire as to the nature of the evidence?
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he if. aware that all these troubles have come upon India since the Member for Montgomery Boroughs left; and whether he will consider the advisability of sending him back again?
    Mr. REESrose to put a further Question.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.
    MR. BUCHANAN: It is not in our power to take that drastic action to which
    1664
    allusion has been made. It would be, I think, very unwise now to express any opinion upon this case, when we are not in possession of the details of the evidence; but I might point out that, after all, it is a serious offence with which this man was charged—namely, actively tampering with the Sepoys, and that he was turned out of the cantonment with contumely by a native officer.
    MR. REES: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will advise the hon. Member—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order

    Indian Army Pay.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the increased rates of pay for the Indian Army foreshadowed in the King's Message will apply to all ranks and to the British officers serving in that force as well.
    MR. BUCHANAN: The precise nature of the increase of pay referred to in the King's Message will very shortly be announced by the Government of India, and the Secretary of State is unable to make any statement at present.
    MR. ASHLEY: Will the increase apply to all ranks?
    MR. BUCHANAN: I am unable to make any statement on the subject.

    Indian Army Charges.
    MR. HART-DAVIES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India has protested against the increase of £300,000 a year to the Home charges of the Indian Army; and whether, if so, the despatch embodying their objections will be laid upon the Table of the House.
    MR. BUCHANAN: The Answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. As I stated on a former occasion, the Secretary of State has decided not to lay the Report of the Romer Committee before the House, and the Government of India's despatch could not be presented separately.

    South Nigerian Expedition.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, with the intention of opening up the whole of the hitherto unexplored regions of South Nigeria, a force of 800 men will start operations under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Trenchard, D.S.O., in a few weeks, and that the work of bringing the districts under control is expected to last six or seven months; whether he can give any account of this projected expedition and the arms and ammunition with which the explorers will be equipped; and whether he can say in how many small wars against native tribes this country is at present engaged, and why this intended expedition has not been communicated to Parliament.
    THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,): As I explained in the Answer which I gave to my right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean on 24th November, no military expedition is contemplated; I then explained the action which is being taken in the territory in question.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Perhaps the Secretary of State will answer the last part of my Question as to how many small wars against natives tribes this country is at present engaged in?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): It does not apply to my office.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Small wars do apply to your office. I am speaking with reference to the Soudan expedition and others, of which this Parliament has been kept in ignorance.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to put Questions on any particular points, I shall be glad to answer them, but I cannot answer general Questions.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: That is very good of you.

    Boycotting of British Indians in the Transvaal.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for India whether he is aware that British-Indian traders are being systematically boycotted by their white rivals in the Transvaal, the boycott extending to Dutch farmers who prefer to deal with Indians in preference to European traders; and whether the Secretary of State proposes to take any action in the matter.
    COLONEL SEELY: No, Sir, the Secretary of State has no official information of any such boycott as that described in the Question.

    Colonial Immigration Regulation.
    MR. R. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any official information showing the practice in the various British Dominions as to sums of money required to be possessed by immigrants; and whether there is any preference or relaxation in favour of emigrants from the United Kingdom.
    COLONEL SEELY: Information on the subject of the sum which emigrants are required to possess before entering the Colonies was given in my reply on 24th November to a Question put by my hon. friend the Member for the Cirencester division. So far as I know, there is no preference or relaxation in favour of emigrants from the United Kingdom.

    Sleeping Sickness in Horses.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the alleged discovery of a successful treatment for sleeping sickness in horses; whether he has any information as to the details of a case at Sierra Leone in which this treatment is alleged to have been successful; and whether, in view of the importance of the subject, he will endeavour to secure that the matter shall receive careful investigation.
    COLONEL SEELY: The attention of scientific men in this country and elsewhere is being continually directed to

    1667
    this matter, but the Secretary of State is advised that no successful treatment for trypanosomiasis in horses has yet been discovered. We are in possession of information which leads us to believe that there is a form of trypanosomiasis affecting animals in the neighbouring Colonies to Sierra Leone from which they may recover without any treatment. If, however, the hon. Gentleman will forward me the information on which he relies, we shall be glad to investigate the matter fully.

    British-Indians and Transvaal Registration Laws.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many British-Indians of all classes have been imprisoned with and without hard labour for offences against the registration laws of the Transvaal since February last; and whether any more protests have been received from India in the matter.
    COLONEL SEELY: I am not in a position to give the figures required, but inquiry shall be made of the Governor. The answer to the last paragraph is in the affirmative.
    MR. REES: Do not the British-Indians place themselves in this position voluntarily?
    COLONEL SEELY: That is a very nice question as to their actual position.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: May I ask whether the harsh treatment meted out to British-Indians in South Africa is not creating great indignation in India?
    COLONEL SEELY: I do not think it would be wise to make any general statement. It is a difficult situation.
    MR. LUPTON: Would the condition of these Indians be better if India was not under the British Government?
    COLONEL SEELY: No, Sir; certainly not.
    MR. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention
    1668
    has been drawn to the case of Hira Mulji, a boy of twelve, who was recently sentenced to fourteen days imprisonment for entering the Transvaal with his father, and subsequently sentenced to a further month's imprisonment for the same offence; and whether he proposes to take any steps in this matter, and to prevent the further imprisonment of British-Indian children in like circumstances.
    COLONEL SEELY: No, Sir. Inquiry shall be made into the facts.

    Hong Kong Riots.
    MR. ROBINSON (Brecknock): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any information regarding the banishment without trial of the manager and editor of a Chinese newspaper and five prominent Chinese merchants from Hong-Kong; and if he is able to state to the House the nature of the offence for which they have been deported.
    COLONEL SEELY: The Governor has informed the Secretary of State by telegram that in consequence of the riots of 2nd November, he used the authority of the local laws to banish three persons not British subjects. The action was taken after careful inquiry in accordance with the advice of the Executive Council. The men are stated to be leaders of the movement for a Japanese boycott which culminated in local disturbances and outrages.
    MR. ROBINSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can give any information regarding the anti-Japanese riots which have occurred in Hong Kong during the last two or three weeks.
    COLONEL SEELY: I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. friend any further information on this subject beyond that contained in the telegram to which I referred when answering his last Question.

    British-Indians in the Transvaal.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the case of four British-Indian boys who were punished as

    1669
    prohibited immigrants for entering the Transvaal with their parents, three to a fine of £15 or two months imprisonment and one to a fine of £5 or fourteen days hard labour; whether he is aware that three of the boys were ten, eleven, and twelve years of age and that they were all sent to gaol; and whether he can state the number of British-Indian children that have been sent to gaol for a similar offence.
    COLONEL SEELY: NO, Sir, but inquiry shall be made.

    Shanghai Opium Conference.
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British representatives to the Opium Conference in Shanghai are already in possession of strong views on the subjects to be discussed, and have committed themselves to these views in public; and, if so, will he say what useful purpose can be served by a Conference in the East if there is no member open to conversion.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I am not aware how far any of the British representatives have expressed themselves publicly on the subjects to be discussed at the Opium Conference; but as British delegates they will be guided at the Conference by the instructions which they will receive from His Majesty's Government, due regard being had to the state of facts brought as a whole before the Conference.

    Disturbances in Hayti.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to give any further information as to the cause of the disturbances in Hayti, and the position of British subjects there.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: No details as to the course of the present revolution in Hayti have been received by His Majesty's Government of later date than 30th November, when the insurgents were reported to be marching on the capital. No confirmation has been received of the reports in the Press that Port-au-Prince is now in the hands of
    1670
    the revolutionaries. H.M.S. "Scylla," was ordered on 30th November to proceed from St. Lucia to Port-au-Prince, where she was expected to arrive on the 2nd instant. The "Scylla" will, of course, give protection, if it is required, for British subjects in Hayti.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to whether any troops have been landed there from the ships of any other Powers?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: No, Sir. I have not heard that any troops have been landed except the crews of two American war vessels which have been there for some days.

    The Lado Enclave.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the wholesale destruction of the elephants in the Lado enclave will give rise to claim for waste and damage to that territory on the termination of the lease to His Majesty the King of the Belgians.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: In the event of any proceedings which are likely to injure the leased territory permanently, representations will be made at Brussels.

    Destruction of African Wild Game.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Soudan Government have made regulations respecting the destruction of wild game in the Soudan; and if that Government can prevent the export through the Soudan of the proceeds of unauthorised destruction of such game in territories at present outside the Soudan but coming within the provisions of the International African Game Convention.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Government of the Soudan have issued regulations for carrying out the stipulations of the International Game Convention of 19th May, 1900. I am not aware whether the Government of the Soudan possess the power referred to in the second paragraph of the Question, but I will make inquiries.
    MR. FELL: If the Government of the Soudan has power to carry out the Convention, would it not follow that it has the power suggested in the Question?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: That is what I wish to ask about.

    Colonel Liakhoff's Position at Teheran.
    MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a statement recently made by the Russian Minister in Teheran to the effect that Colonel Liakhoff had been acting under the orders of the Russian Minister of War, directions being sent to him by the military government of the Caucasus; and whether he is now prepared to modify the Answer given to the hon. Member for the Ripon division, and repeated in effect on subsequent occasions, that this Russian officer in Persian employ was acting independently of the Russian Government.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I have noticed the report in the Press of an alleged interview with the Russian Minister in Teheran; but even if the statements imputed to the latter are authentic I see no reason to modify the reply given to the hon. Member with regard to Colonel Liakhoff's action in the coup d'etat in the summer.

    British Ports.
    MR. VERNEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can furnish information, in a tabular form, for purposes of comparison, showing the increase in the last twenty years of the numbers, tonnage, and draft of individual ships making use of the Port of London and of the other principal British and Continental ports, differentiating steam and sailing ships.
    The following Questions also appeared on the Paper in the name of the hon. Gentleman:—
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can lay before the House of Commons proposals made by local bodies in England for improving
    1672
    in the near future waterways, harbours, and docks for the better accommodation, of ships of large size and of heavy draft,, showing the amount of expenditure, proposed and the objects for which the expenditure is intended; and similar information respecting the proposed improvements to be undertaken either by central or local governments in the rivers, ports, and docks of Continental countries.
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can furnish to the House of Commons in a tabular form statistics showing the expenditure during recent years on the principal ports and docks, including the Port of London, at home, and on the Continent of Europe, and the result of such expenditure in. regard to the increase of accommodation for ships, whether in docks or alongside of quays, or in deepening waterways; whether further information can be, given showing the depths at high and low tide during spring and neap tides at the entrances to the various docks situated on the River Thames, and of the shallower parts of the waterways leading to those docks; and whether, for the purposes of comparison, similar information can be given in regard to the chief Continental rivers, ports and docks.
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any record is kept of the demurrage caused to ships of heavy draft making use of the Port of London by reason of shallow waterways in the River Thames at low tide; if so, whether he will give to the House of Commons information showing to what extent demurrage has occurred during recent years; and, if there is no such record, will it be possible to take steps for keeping such a record in future.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): If my hon. friend after conferring with the officials at the Board of Trade will move for a Return giving in a suitable form such of the desired particulars as can be furnished or readily obtained by the Department, I will endeavour to meet his wishes so far as practicable, but I ought to warn him that the work of the Department is very heavy at this season

    1673
    of the year, that the preparation of such a Return will take a considerable time, and that it could not possibly be ready during the present session. Meanwhile he will find a good deal of information bearing on the subjects in which he is interested in certain publications of which I am sending him a list.

    Political Contributions by Railway Companies.
    MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the contribution of railway companies for 1907 to ratepayers' associations and muncipal alliances amounting to £336 19s. 9d., to labour protection associations £35, to the free labour association £341 13s.; and whether he intends to take action, under Section 17 of the Act of 1844, to restrain these companies from making these contributions.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I am aware that the amounts mentioned by the hon. Member were contributed by certain railway companies during 1907, but I do not think that I could usefully take any action in the matter under the statutory provision referred to.

    Illegal Insurance Policies.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade with reference to the Circulars which he recently issued to insurance companies and friendly societies on the subject of illegal policies, whether he has received any assurances from any of the companies or societies that the practices complained of have been definitely abandoned, or whether he has reason to believe that the warning has been absolutely ignored.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Circular issued by the Board of Trade to insurance companies did not ask for a reply, but replies have been received from a large number of companies. From the nature of these replies I may say that the companies either intimated that their practice was in accordance with the views expressed in the Circular, or that their agents would be instructed in the terms thereof, or that due con-
    1674
    sideration would be given thereto. As regards the Circular issued by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies to friendly collecting societies I am informed that the societies generally have warned their collectors not to issue policies which are not in accordance with law.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: Has it not come to the knowledge of the Board of Trade officials that the companies chiefly complained of are to-day still carrying on the very practice of issuing policies on lives in which the person paying has no insurable interest?
    MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.

    Port of Liverpool.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any record is kept of the demurrage caused to ships of heavy draft making use of the Port of Liverpool by reason of shallow waterways in the River Mersey at low tide; if so, whether he will give to the House of Commons information showing to what extent demurrage has occurred during recent years; and, if there is no such record, will it be possible to take steps for keeping such a record in future.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board inform me that they have not received any complaints that ships of heavy draft have been delayed in the Port of Liverpool owing to insufficient depth of water. They think it can hardly be said that there are any shallow waterways in the River Mersey at Liverpool, inasmuch as since 1890 the Dock Board have dredged the Mersey Bar so that now there are twenty-eight to twenty-nine feet of water at low water of ordinary spring; tides, while in the anchorage ground between the Seaforth Battery to the north and Rock Ferry Pier to the south there is a depth of from forty to seventy-eight feet at low water of ordinary spring tides. In these circumstances the necessity for keeping such a record hardly appears to arise.

    North Ronaldshay lighthouse.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has

    1675
    received the account of the total wreck of the "Isle of Erin," and the loss of many valuable lives, given by the lighthouse-keeper, North Ronaldshay, Orkney, suggesting that if there had been telegraphic communication the ship and crew might have been saved; and if, in view of the fact that no portion of His Majesty's Dominions containing such a population is so disadvantageously situated as regards communication with the outside world, he will confer with the Post Office and Scottish Office with the object of extending the telegraph to North Ronaldshay.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I have seen a newspaper extract containing a letter sent to the owner of this vessel by the lighthouse-keeper at North Ronaldshay, and I have received a letter from the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses urging the desirability of telegraphic communication between the island and the mainland. I have ordered an inquiry into the circumstances which attended the presumed loss of the vessel, and the lack of such communication will, no doubt, form one of the points to which the attention of the Court will be directed. His Majesty's Government will give their most careful consideration to any recommendation which may be made by the Court as well as to that of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses.

    Colonial Tariffs.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is able to state what fiscal advantages are now given in the Colonial possessions of France, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, and the United States to goods imported from the Mother Country over goods imported from foreign countries, and what advantages are in return conceded by the same countries to goods imported from their own Colonies instead of from other countries; and if he will cause a Return to be prepared on this subject, in continuation of Commercial Paper, No. 5, of Session 1895.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to Memorandum No. XI., included in the first volume of
    1676
    Memoranda relating to British and Foreign Trade and Industrial Conditions (Cd. 1761 of 1903). The only change in this matter which has since taken place is in regard to the treatment in Spain of the products of Fernando Po and other Spanish possessions in Africa and vice versa. The list of articles the produce of these Colonies which are exempted from duty on importation into Spain has been somewhat extended whilst Spanish goods imported into these Colonies now enjoy preferential treatment only if imported under the Spanish flag. If the hon. Member, after considering the information given in the Memorandum referred to, requires fuller details on the subject, and will move for a Return, I will see what can be done to furnish him with the information he desires.

    British Magazines for Canada.
    MR. KING: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can give any figures to show the increase in the postage of British magazines to Canada since the reduction in the postal rate in such articles.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I am glad to say that the Canadian magazine post instituted last May is fully realising the objects for which it was instituted. It has lead to a remarkable increase in the number of British magazines, periodicals, and trade journals sent from the United Kingdom to Canada. It is estimated that the increase in the yearly number of British publications sent to the Dominion is some six millions per annum. I am, moreover, informed, on good authority, that the increase has been greatest in the case of magazines of high class. This is, I think, not the least satisfactory feature of the new post.

    Christmas Pay in the Post Office.
    MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the men employed at the Post Offices of Leicester, Birmingham, Liverpool, and Birkenhead to meet the Christmas pressure are, under the new order he has issued, to be paid less per hour than in former years; and whether

    1677
    he would state the pay this year and that of last year at these offices.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to refer my hon. friend to my Answer to his Question on the 23rd ultimo with regard to the general basis upon which the rates for the Christmas casual force in the different districts have been fixed. In most cases the payments are increased. I am sending him a statement of the rates paid in 1907, and those to be paid this year at the particular offices to which he refers.

    Telephone Communication in Gloucestershire.
    MR. ESSEX: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the inhabitants of Naunton, Upper Slaughter, and Lower Slaughter, and the surrounding country in the County of Gloucester, are wholly without telegraphic communication; whether he will at once proceed to give such facilities to these districts; and whether, if he gives such communication, he will consult the local councils as to the routes to be chosen for his wires so as to to do as little hurt to the beauty of these places as may be.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have recently authorised an extension of the telegraph system to the village of Upper Slaughter, which is only about three-quarters of a mile from Lower Slaughter. Telegraph offices at both villages would not be warranted, and Upper Slaughter appears to be the better centre. A local landowner and the local authorities concerned have granted the way leave required, so that I may assume that the route chosen is satisfactory to them. A telegraph office at Naunton was offered under guarantee three years ago, and I am prepared to renew the offer if desired.

    The New Education Bill.
    MR. STUART WORTLEY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the case of the teachers likely to lose their situations under the system of transfers proposed in the Education Bill; and whether, in view of the limited
    1678
    powers of private Members with regard to any Amendment suitable to this case, he will cause to be put down on behalf of the Government an Amendment or new clause, such as will give the House an opportunity of doing justice in the matter before the Committee stage is closed.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN,: My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. It is impossible to say what is covered by the sentence in the right hon. Gentleman's Question, "teachers likely to lose their situations under the system of transfers proposed in the Education Bill." But I am considering carefully some proposals which have been presented to me on behalf of the teachers, and I will be in a position to make a statement on the matter on Clause 8 or on some other suitable occasion.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the exception at the end of subsection (3) of Clause 1 of the Education (No. 2) Bill applies to the case of a prosecution under bye-laws of the local education authority, or whether it applies only to the case of an attendance order under Sections 4 and 11 of the Elementary Education Act, 1876.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The exception (with respect to the schools selected by the parent) applies only to attendance orders, and is not applicable to prosecutions under bye-laws.

    Co-operative Societies and Small Holdings.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will state the extent of the land which each of the four co-operative societies has acquired from the county councils; and whether the land so acquired is by purchase or hire; if the latter, for how many years is the land hired, if the former, what price per acre have the societies agreed to pay.
    MR. FULLER (; for Sir EDWARD STRACHEY): The

    County.

    Co-operative Society.

    Area of land let to the Society.

    Terms of lease under which the Society have hired the land.

    Average rent per acre agreed to be paid by the Society.

    a.

    r.

    p.

    Years.

    s.

    d.

    Bedfordshire

    Biggleswade

    271

    1

    19

    21

    31

    3

    Northants

    Clipston

    107

    —

    —

    7

    27

    —

    Northants

    Rushden

    264

    —

    —

    14

    21

    6

    Wiltshire

    Mere

    443

    3

    24

    21

    18

    —

    English Agricultural Grant.
    MR. ESSEX: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what is the total sum allocated by the Board of Agriculture from the last Vote for the promotion of the interests of English agriculture.
    MR. PULLER: Of the net expenditure of the Board during the year ended 31st March, 1908, the amount allocated to England and Wales was approximately £123,000, of which about £8,000 was expended on matters connected with the fishing industry.

    American Gooseberry Mildew.
    MR. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether there have been outbreaks of American gooseberry-mildew notified from Sussex and Bedfordshire; and, if so, whether the Board intend to issue an order scheduling these counties under the Insect Pests Act.
    MR. FULLER: An outbreak of American gooseberry-mildew has been discovered by one of the Board's inspectors in Sussex. As the occupier of the premises is adopting the measures required by the Board, and as this disease does not spread during the winter months, a special order for the county is unnecessary for the present. The Board have no official information as to an outbreak in Bedfordshire.
    following table gives the information for which the right hon. Member asks—
    MR. COURTHOPE: What grounds have the Board for saying the disease does not spread during the winter months?
    MR. FULLER: I will inquire.

    Inspectors under the Insects and Pests Act.
    MR. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, how many counties have appointed inspectors, and in what numbers, under the Insects and Pests Act; and whether, in all cases of such appointments, efficient expert inspectors have been selected.
    MR. FULLER: According to the information of the Board one expert inspector has been appointed by each of the following local authorities:—Gloucestershire, Worcestershire, Herefordshire, Warwickshire, Leicestershire, Derbyshire, Norfolk, the Isle of Ely, Huntingdonshire, Cambridgeshire, and two by the Kent County Council. In Essex no expert inspector has, so far as the Board are aware, been appointed, but police officers have been appointed to carry out the work.
    MR. LAURENCE HARDY: Who looks after the inspection in the counties of Surrey and Sussex?
    MR. FULLER: I will inquire.

    Carnarvon Farmers' Association.
    MR. ELLIS DAVIES: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in reply to an application from the Carnarvon Farmers' Association for a grant for the purpose of improving the breed of cattle, the Board informed them that they had no fund for the purpose; and whether, in view of the fact that the country's meat supply now depends largely on foreign cattle, the Board will reconsider the question.
    MR. FULLER: The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The Board as at present advised are not satisfied that any action on the lines suggested is necessary.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: Are there any funds available for the improvement of cattle-breeding either in this country or in Ireland?
    MR. FULLER: I cannot say.
    MR. WATT: Will the hon. Gentleman introduce legislation in order to provide funds?
    MR. FULLER: No, Sir, I can make no such promise.

    The Spraying of Fruit Trees.
    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 will issue a leaflet dealing with the regulations for the spraying of fruit-trees now in force in British Columbia and with the mixtures used for spraying in that country.
    MR. FULLER: The Board have issued numerous leaflets dealing with the spraying of fruit crops but they do not think that any useful purpose would be served by the issue of one on the lines suggested, and they are not able, therefore, to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.
    MR. COURTHOPE: Are the Board aware that in British Columbia the
    1682
    growers years ago gave up the system recommended now?
    MR. FULLER: The hon. Gentleman must remember the difficulty arising from the difference of climatic conditions.

    Fruit Tree Pests.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board have considered or will consider the regulations enforced in British Columbia and other fruit-growing Colonies for the destruction and prevention of fungus and insect pests, with a view to adopting similar regulations in this country.
    MR. FULLER: The Board have carefully studied the regulations to which the hon. Member refers. In preparing regulations suited to the particular conditions of this country it is their practice to make such use as may seem desirable of regulations based upon the experience of other countries.

    Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Small Holdings.
    MR. ROGERS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Crewe Division, as Ecclesiastical Commissioner, whether the first offer of all vacant farms the property of the Commissioners will, in future, be given to the small holdings committee of the county in which they are situate.
    MR. TOMKINSON: The Commissioners' practice has been and is to endeavour to utilise for small holdings and allotments all vacant farms which in their opinion are at all suitable for that purpose. They have also, since the Act, endeavoured by arrangement with their tenants to provide land when it is required for small holdings or allotments in localities where they have no vacant farms. A large number of small holdings and allotments have been and are being thus provided, in some cases by lettings to county and parish councils, and in others by direct lettings to the applicants.
    MR. ROGERS: What proportion of the quarter-million acres owned by

    1683
    the Commissioners has been dealt with in this way?
    MR. TOMKINSON: I cannot reply to that definitely, but I can inform the hon. Member that in and since 1906, forty-seven new lettings have been effected for small holdings and allotments comprising 1,606 acres upon the Commissioners' estates, the tenants being in twenty cases local authorities, and in the remaining twenty-seven cases individual tenants or bodies of tenants, in some cases very numerous. In addition there are now under consideration twenty-seven offers of, or applications which they expect to satisfy for land for the same purposes amounting to 1,430 acres. Quite recently 87 a. 1r. 31p. of land at Tarvin (Cheshire) has been sold by the Commissioners to the Chesshire County Council for this purpose.
    MR. WINFREY: And in how many cases has there been an increase of rents to small holders as compared with previous rents?
    MR. TOMKINSON: I must have notice of that Question. Personally, I have no knowledge of any case.

    Sheriff-Substitutes
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will say how many solicitors have been appointed in Scotland to the positions of sheriff-substitutes; daring how many years has it been open to solicitors to be so appointed; and whether in view of the facts that solicitors are drawn from all classes of society and are many in number, whereas advocates are drawn from the wealthy classes and are few in number, he will in future appointments give preference to the solicitor's branch of the profession.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,): As the office of sheriff-substitute has been open to all branches of the legal profession since the year 1825, when a legal qualification was first required and appointments to the office were for over fifty years made by the sheriffs-depute, I cannot give my hon. friend the information he desires in the first part of the Question. As regards the latter part I do not think
    1684
    it would be in the interests of the public service to discriminate between branches of the legal profession in the sense suggested by my hon. friend.
    MR. WATT: Has the right hon. Gentleman appointed any solicitors to these posts since he has been in office, and will he in future see that the solicitors, who constitute the larger branch of the service, get their proper share?
    MR. THOMAS SHAW: The Answer to the next Question covers that, I think.
    MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he can say how many appointments to the office of sheriff-substitute have been made since the nominations to such office rested with him; and if he will give the names and callings of those so appointed and the places of appointment.
    MR. THOMAS SHAW: In the period referred to there have been six such appointments. Of those appointed one was an advocate and King's Counsel, the other five were advocates. If my hon. friend desires it I shall be glad to furnish him with a list of the names of the gentlemen appointed, the dates of appointment and the sheriff-substituteships referred to.

    Depute Sheriff Clerks.
    MR. SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that, at a meeting on the 4th instant, the sheriffs - principal of Scotland were unanimously of opinion that better provision should be made in regard to the tenure of office, appointment, and remuneration of depute sheriff clerks; whether he will deal with the matter in the Summary Jurisdiction Bill; and, if not, what steps he proposes taking in order to secure to depute sheriff clerks an improvement and more certain permanency in their official appointments.
    MR. THOMAS SHAW: An excerpt from a minute of meeting of the sheriffs of Scotland has been sent to me. It contains a number of suggestions with

    1685
    regard to the deputes to the sheriff clerks, very justly distinguishing between their various positions and, while generally favouring better provision, suggests guarantees as to suitability, criticises the depute sheriff clerks' proposals and indicates that safeguards might be provided by the approval of the sheriffs themselves. The matter is not within the scope of the Summary Jurisdiction Bill. There is a likelihood of a Commission or Committee being appointed to consider various points as to minor legal appointments in Scotland and I am favourably disposed to have this matter, including the suggestions made by the sheriffs, some of which are novel, brought into the scope of the inquiry.

    Dunleer Allotments.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners fixed 1st November last as the date on which they would announce to whom allotments would be made of land in their hands for that purpose in Dunleer, County Louth, and that so far nothing has been done; whether he is aware that discontent exists in the neighbourhood on account of the delay; and whether he will hasten the allocation of allotments, and take steps to ensure that no preferential treatment is accorded to nominees of the United Irish League.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The Estates Commissioners inform me that they did not fix 1st November as the date for the allotment of these lands. The allotment will be made when the Commissioners have completed their arrangements for the resale of the lands.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the Question which deals with the preferential treatment accorded to nominees of the United Irish League?
    MR. BIRRELL: No such preferential treatment is ever accorded.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Since when has that been the regulation?
    MR. BIRRELL: From the beginning.

    Mearscourt Estate, Westmeath.
    SIR WALTER NUGENT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have as yet compulsorily acquired, under the Evicted Tenants Act, that portion of the lands of Mearscourt, near Mayvore, County Westmeath, of which public notice was given on 15th August; and, if so, when Mrs. Wynn and Mrs. Winkel, the tenants evicted from that land, are likely to be reinstated.
    MR. BIRRELL: The lands on the estate of General Devenish Meares, which the Estates Commissioners propose to acquire compulsorily under the Evicted Tenants Act, have been inspected, and the Commissioners hope to be in a position to make an offer for them at an early date. The Commissioners are not in a position, at this stage of the proceedings, to say when the lands will be acquired or the evicted tenants reinstated.

    State Purchase of Irish Railways.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has asked Mr. Gerald Balfour if, when Chief Secretary for Ireland, he asked Mr. Thomas Robertson, then Chairman of the Board of Works (Ireland), for estimates, first of the cost of purchase of the railways of Ireland by the State, and, secondly, of the cost of guaranteeing dividends by an arrangement securing the control of the Government; and, if so, whether he can state the estimate in each case.
    MR. BIRRELL: As I have already stated, there is no record, either in the Irish Office or in the Office of Public Works, of any such estimate having been asked for or received. If Mr. Gerald Balfour received such an estimate, he must, I presume, have obtained it for his personal information. I do not think it would be regular that I should address any inquiries on the subject to Mr. Balfour. I will, however, send him a copy of this Answer.

    Fuge Estate, Cork.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates

    1687
    Commissioners have yet made any definite offer of purchase of the un-tenanted lands of Garryduff and Gurrane on the Fuge estate near Kilbrin, County Cork, and for the purchase of the demesne lands at Templemary, near Buttevant, with a view to the reinstatement of evicted tenants and the enlargement of uneconomic holdings, if so, with what result; and whether, in the event of the acquisition of these lands or portion thereof, the Commissioners will take all possible steps to give a preference in the occupation thereof to the families who formerly occupied and tilled them or to their representatives.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have published in the Dublin Gazette a notice of their intention to acquire the lands of Garryduff and Gurrane compulsorily under the Evicted Tenants Act, and have had the lands i inspected with a view to making an offer for them. If acquired, the lands will be utilised to provide holdings for the classes of persons mentioned in the Act. No formal proceedings are pending before the Commissioners with regard to the demesne lands at Templemary, but the Commissioners have had an inspection made, and will intimate to the owner the price which they are prepared to advance if proceedings for sale are instituted. It is not possible to make any statement, at this stage, as regards the allotment of these lands if acquired.

    Edenderry labourers' Cottage Scheme.
    MR. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the case of the application of two labourers for a house and acre and an additional half-acre in No. 3 district council of Edenderry by Mr. Hope and Mr. Durgnan, being granted by the inspector, Mr. Fitzpatrick, and the landlord, Mr. Langan, having appealed to the Local Government Board, a second inquiry was held by another inspector, Mr. Kelly, who decided against the applications; on what grounds was Mr. Kelly's decision upheld and Mr. Fitzpatrick's rejected; and how much land has Mr. Langan in his possession.
    MR. BIRRELL: The facts are as stated in the Question. The further
    1688
    inquiry held by Mr. Kelly was ordered by the Local Government Board in pursuance of section 6 (4) (6), of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906, the owner having presented a petition to the Board against the order made by Mr. Fitzpatrick. The Board, on consideration of Mr. Kelly's report and all the evidence, decided to accede to the petition in the two cases referred to. The grounds of objection relied upon by the petitioner, Mr. Langan, were set forth in his petition, copy of which was sent to the rural district council prior to the further inquiry. The Board are unable to say definitely what quantity of land Mr. Langan has in his possession, as he holds more than one farm. I understand that another appeal presented by him at the same time was disallowed.

    Waterville Lake Fishing Industry.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that representations have been made by those engaged in the lake-fishing industry at Waterville, County Kerry, against the system lately practised of putting down the weir during the close season for the purpose of capturing spawning fish for the hatchery; and whether, in view of the opinion held locally that fish thus handled will not take a fly or bait in the following season, he will have inquiries made with a view to allowing a free passage for spring salmon in the Waterville River and safeguarding the interests of at least 100 persons whose means of livelihood is being seriously jeopardised.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. I am assured that there is no foundation for the belief that the handling of salmon at a weir interferes with their subsequent susceptibility to capture by angling. The weir is fished under proper supervision, and all clean fish are passed over the weir without injury. It would be impossible to stock the hatchery without fishing the weir.

    Caldbeck Estate, Queen's County.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what

    1689
    is the cause of the delay in making the final distribution of the untenanted land on the Caldbeck estate, Ballacolla, Queen's County; whether the Estates Commissioners have approved of the allotments made by their inspector, Mr. Booth, in which the bailiff of the estate and a wealthy merchant in Ballacolla, who also keeps the post office, are apportioned two of the largest holdings on the untenanted land, to the exclusion of the small holders in the locality; and can he say when the inspector proposes again visiting Ballacolla.
    MR. BIRRELL: The allotment of the untenanted land cannot be made by the Commissioners until their formal proposal to purchase has been accepted by the owner, and this proposal cannot issue until title has been proved. The Commissioners cannot say when their inspector will again visit Ballacolla.

    Irish Landlords' Sporting Rights.
    MR. MEAGHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the case of tenants who have purchased under the Land Purchase Act of 1903, and in which purchase sporting rights have been reserved to the landlord, such reservation will give the landlord the right of taking any persons he likes along with him over the grounds of the tenants without his having first received permission from the tenants to take such persons with him.
    MR. BIRRELL: The answer is in the affirmative. I would refer the hon. Member to subsection (4) of Section 13 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, which expressly empowers the landlord to authorise any persons to exercise the right of sporting.

    Warning to Nationalist Newspapers.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to state that, as a result of the warning given to certain newspapers against the publication of intimidatory resolutions of the United Irish League, there has been any material diminution or increase in the number of such resolutions published.
    MR. BIRRELL: I understand that there has been some diminution recently in the publication of these notices. The Law Officers have under consideration some cases in which the warning has produced no effect.

    Poor Law Reform (Ireland) Bill.
    MR. MEAGHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland on what day he intends introducing the Poor Law Reform (Ireland) Bill; whether it is the intention of the Government to adopt the recommendations of the Vice-Regal Commission as the basis of the Bill; and whether he has entrusted the preparation of the Bill to persons who have practical experience of the working and administration of the Irish Poor Laws.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and Relief of Distress is expected to report before the end of the year, when the whole question of Poor Law reform will have to be considered. The recommendations of the Vice-Regal Commission generally will form the basis of legislation for Ireland, but it remains to be seen how far the Royal Commission may adopt similar recommendations. I cannot yet say at what date it will be possible to introduce a Bill on the subject. The Irish Government, will, of course, have the assistance of its most experienced officers in the preparation of the Bill.

    Irish Workhouse Teachers' Salaries.
    MR. MEAGHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the salaries of teachers in Irish workhouses, though being paid in the first instance from the local rates, are subsequently refunded by the Government to the local authorities; and, if so, whether he can see his way to have this class of teachers included for a share in the supplementary grant in aid of National teachers.
    MR. BIRRELL: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the Question, the supplementary grant of July last was in aid of the Vote for public education. No charge in respect of the

    1691
    salaries of teachers of Poor Law union schools has ever been borne on that Vote.

    Irish Local Government Auditors.
    MR. MEAGHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the new rule made by the Irish Local Government Board with reference to the appointment of auditors will have the effect of debarring Poor Law officers from ever being promoted to these positions; and whether, if that be so, such a rule is against the principles of promotion in all public services.
    MR. BIRRELL: Poor Law officers are not debarred from being appointed auditors if they possess the prescribed qualifications. These qualifications are held to be necessary to enable the auditors to perform their duties efficiently.

    Ballyscullion Police Hut.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention of the police authorities to discontinue the police hut or barrack at Ballyscullion, near Toomebridge, County Antrim; and, if so, on what grounds.
    MR. BIRRELL: The question of discontinuing this police hut is under consideration.

    Illicit Distillation in County Antrim.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many prosecutions for illicit distilling and how many convictions there have been at Toome, in County Antrim, during the last five years.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary informs me that there has been no conviction or prosecution for illicit distillation in the Toome Petty Sessions district during the past five years.

    Alleged Malicious Burning at Knockmay.
    MR. PATRICK MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a youth named Thompson has been returned for trial on a charge of perjury in connection
    1692
    with the alleged malicious burning at Knockmay, Queen's County; whether the county-inspector, with the knowledge that Thompson's statement was false, ordered his statement to be taken on oath with the object of obtaining warrants to arrest three men who had been proved innocent; whether an inquiry will be held into this officer's conduct; and whether it is part of a police officer's duty to order statements to be taken on oath which, as in this case, he knew had been deliberately concocted.
    I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on 24th July, at a special Court held at Maryborough a summons was issued by order of the presiding magistrate; that County-Inspector Sweedy retained the summons in his office; that the magistrates had to order the return of the summons; and can he say by what authority the county inspector refused to execute a legal order of a magistrate made in Court.
    I beg further to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Sergeant Monahan received information of the alleged malicious burning at Knockmay, Queen's County, at 8.30 p.m. on 20th May last; whether he immediately reported the matter to his superior officer and visited the scene of the burning within an hour; that Sergeant Monahan has been censured and punished for alleged remissness in discharge of his duty; will he place the official Reports in this case upon the Table of the House or state in what particular Sergeant Monahan showed remissness in his duty; and whether there is any rule in the Police Code enabling a superior officer to punish men for an imaginary fault or through caprice.
    MR. BIRRELL: As stated in my reply to a previous Question on this subject, asked by the hon. Member on the 25th ultimo, proceedings are pending against Joseph Thompson for perjury in connection with this case, and it is not, therefore, desirable to enter into further particulars of the matter. I have nothing to add to my previous reply with regard to Sergeant Monahan. The official police reports are confidential documents, and

    1693
    it would be contrary to practice to lay them on the Table.
    MR. KILBRIDEasked was the Chief Secretary aware that County-Inspector Tweedy had ordered Thompson's statement to be taken on oath although he was aware that the previous statement was false; and was not that suborning perjury, and was not Thompson insane?
    MR. BIRRELLsaid he could not answer for Thompson's state of mind.
    MR. DELANYasked did it not seem as if there were other Sergeant Sheridans in the police force.
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Land Purchase in Munster.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the average number of years purchase paid in each county of Munster under the Ashbourne and Balfour Acts, and the average number of years purchase paid under the Land Purchase Act, 1903; and whether Ashbourne purchasers who accepted an extension of time of repayment became entitled to decadal reductions of 10 per cent. or more at the end of the first ten years, another 10 per cent. or more at the end of twenty years, and a further reduction of more than 10 per cent. at the end of thirty years, thus making their average annual payment the same as if their annuity had been originally calculated at the rate of 3¼ per cent.
    MR. BIRRELL: The particulars of the average number of years purchase paid in each county in Munster under the various Land Purchase Acts have appeared from year to year in the Annual Reports of the Land Commission and of the Estates Commissioners, to which I would refer the hon. Member. A purchaser under the Land Purchase (Ireland) Act, 1885, who accepted decadal revisions, and whose annuity in each decade was punctually and fully paid up, is liable to pay for each £100 advanced during the first decade, £4; during the second, £3 11s. 10d.; during the third, £3 4s. 6d.;
    1694
    and thereafter for forty-nine years, £2 17s. 11d. per annum. A purchaser under the Irish Land Act, 1903, is liable to pay £3 5s. for each £100 advanced throughout a period calculated to be sixty-eight and a half years. The systems are entirely different, and the average annuities can hardly be compared.
    MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Is it not the fact that this decadal reduction was strongly recommended by the Land Conference, and strongly objected to in influential quarters in Ireland owing to the fact that it added 25 per cent. to the tenants' payment, and is it not also the case that at the old purchase rate it would take at least seventy years to make as many peasant proprietors as has been made in the last five years under the present Act?
    MR. BIRRELL: I must have notice of a Question of that character.
    MR. FLAVIN: Was not the deduction 10 per cent. for three periods of ten years under the Act of 1896, whereas the tenants now get a further reduction of 15 per cent.?
    MR. BIRRELL: One can hardly thus discuss the respective merits of different schemes.

    Holycross Disturbances.
    MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether eight men, who had been arrested in their beds at two o'clock in the morning, at Holycross, County Tipperary, and charged with riot and unlawful assembly, were then taken to a police barrack and tried before a resident magistrate, no local justice being permitted to take part in the proceedings; whether eighteen men subsequently arrested were tried in the same way, and returned for trial at Cork Winter Assizes without the option of bail; whether it is the practice in other parts of the United Kingdom to exclude the public from trials of this kind and to take the evidence in police barracks before a removable magistrate; and will he state under what law these proceedings have been carried out.
    MR. BIRRELL: These men have been returned for trial at the Cork Winter Assizes, and I understand that the trial is actually proceeding. In these circumstances it is undesirable to make any statement on the subject.
    MR. BELLOC: But surely this is a case for administrative action?
    MR. BIRRELL: Pending the trial, I think I should abstain from answering these Questions.
    AN HON. MEMBER: Is it the practice in England or Scotland for people to be taken into private buildings and tried by a magistrate without the option of defending themselves?
    MR. BIRRELL: I daresay not.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What is the object of arresting people between two and three in the morning? Why cannot the arrests be made at a reasonable hour?
    MR. BIRRELL: I have done my best, being myself very much averse to interference with sleep, to get the arrests made at reasonable hours, but I rather gather the difficulty is that of finding these people at home.

    Intermediate Education Inspectors.
    MR. KETTLE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state how many new inspectorships are to be created by the Commissioners of Intermediate Education in Ireland; what will be the duties, powers, and emoluments of the inspectors; and how many women inspectors will be appointed.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of Intermediate Education have now been authorised to appoint six inspectors, and propose to exercise that power. They inform me that they do not intend to include women among the first six appointments. A statement of the powers, duties and emoluments of the inspectors cannot well be compressed within the limits of an oral reply, but
    1696
    I will communicate with the hon. Member on the subject.
    MR. HAZLETON: Have the Board given any reasons for not appointing any women inspectors among the first six?
    MR. BIRRELL: I do not think they have. Everybody knows that this is a controversial subject, although I take the view that women should, as far as possible, be appointed to inspect girls' schools. Still, I cannot enforce my views on the Board.
    MR. HAZLETON: Wills the right hon. Gentleman ask the Board for the reason?
    MR. BIRRELL: Yes, I will.
    MR. KETTLE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state now whether certain memoranda were presented by persons connected with intermediate education in Ireland to the Commissioners of Intermediate Education demanding the appointment of men only to the new inspectorships; if so, by whom were these memoranda presented; and whether the Commissioners of Intermediate Education propose to entrust male inspectors with the duty of inspecting girls' schools.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of Intermediate Education inform me that they have received no demand such as is referred to in the Question. A communication has been received from the principal of one of the leading girls' intermediate schools in Ireland expressing great satisfaction that men only are to be appointed inspectors at first. The Board propose to entrust male inspectors with the duty of inspecting girls' schools. The Board have already for two years entrusted temporary male inspectors with the inspection of girls' schools, and for the past six years the inspection of all girls' schools in connection with the science courses of the Board's programme (domestic economy alone accepted) has been carried on by male inspectors of the Department of Agriculture and

    1697
    Technical Instruction. No objection has been received from the authorities of the girls schools to either of these cases of inspection by men.

    Firearms in Ireland.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received information of a case of shooting at a herdman at Ballyogan, County Clare, on Saturday; and whether anyone has been arrested.
    MR. BIRRELL: On the occasion in question, the herdman, accompanied by a constable who was protecting him, was driving some cattle to water when four shots were fired from a thick hazel cover. The herdman was struck with one grain of shot under the right eye. Subsequent examination showed that an ambush with retreats had been carefully prepared in the cover. The person or persons who fired the shots were thus enabled to escape, and no arrests have been made.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any precautions to see that firearms do not fall into the hands of irresponsible persons?
    MR. BIRRELL: I do not think that I have now any power.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman legislate for power to prevent firearms falling into the hands of irresponsible persons?
    MR. BIRRELL: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is exceedingly difficult in Ireland, or in any other country, to keep firearms out of the hands of people who want to obtain them.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Is it not the fact that there was no difficulty whatever before the right hon. Gentleman repealed the Act?
    MR. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House the number of revolvers in the possession of Orangemen in the North of Ireland, and how many shots are fired?
    MR. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that.
    MR. FLAVIN: I speak from personal experience.

    Attack on Gurteen Police Patrol.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is in a position to give particulars of the attack made upon a police patrol at Gurteen, County Gal-way, on Saturday night, by a party of armed men in ambush; what injuries were inflicted upon the police; and how many arrests were made.
    MR. BIRRELL: Two arrests were made in this case, and the prisoners have been returned for trial. The case is, therefore, sub judice, and it is not desirable to enter into particulars.

    Irish Education Grant.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has been stated that the recent grant of £114,000 was to be shared among all the national teachers in Ireland; and, if so, can he state why the workhouse teachers who are subject to the same rules as to classification and training, and who must teach the same subjects as ordinary national teachers, have received no share of this grant.
    MR. BIRRELL: No provision was made for the teachers of workhouse schools in connection with the supplementary grant of 24th July last. As stated in my reply to a Question asked by the hon. Member for West Belfast on 29th July last no charge in respect of the salaries of teachers of these schools has ever been borne on the Vote for public education. Such teachers are in the service of the boards of guardians.

    Sales under the 1903 Land Act.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state when exactly in the normal course of a sale under the 1903 Land Act the Estates Commissioners give their decision as to whether or not the property proposed to be dealt with is an estate,

    1699
    distinguishing, if necessary, between direct and indirect sales; whether there has been any change in this practice; and, if so, when.
    MR. BIRRELL: Having regard to the decision in the case of Weir's estate, the Commissioners do not now provisionally declare lands to be an estate. The declaration is made when the Commissioners have completed their inquiries and before the lands are vested in the tenants, and the purchase money advanced.

    Ormaithwaite Evicted Tenants.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what is the cause of the delay in reinstating Thomas Walsh and the other evicted tenants on the Ormaithwaite property in North Kerry; whether compulsory powers have been taken by the Estate Commissioners for their reinstatement; and, if so, with what result.
    MR. BIRRELL: In this case, the owner has lodged a petition praying that the lands be not compulsorily acquired at the price offered without further inquiry. Judgment has not yet been delivered in the matter.
    MR. FLAVIN: Seeing that these tenants have now been out sixteen years, is it not time they were reinstated?
    MR. BIRRELL: The land cannot be compulsorily acquired until judgment has been delivered.
    MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the receiver of this particular estate in London told me this tenant would never put his foot inside the evicted holding?
    MR. BIRRELL: I cannot say anything as to that,

    Ardfert Estate, North Kerry.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. Linsey Talbot Crosbie, of Ardfert, has sold his estate in North Kerry to the tenants; whether the Estates Commissioners were aware
    1700
    that when the estate was being sold that Mr. Crosbie had in his possession, outside of his demesne land, nearly 400 acres of grazing land; and whether the Estates Commissioners sanctioned the sale of the tenanted land without acquiring the grazing land for the enlargement of uneconomic holdings on the estate.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the tenanted portion of this estate was purchased and vested in the tenants in 1906. The owner applied to be allowed to re-purchase some 850 acres of demesne and other lands in his own occupation, but this was not sanctioned. He has since arranged to sell over 300 acres to persons coming within Section 2 of the Irish Land Act, 1903.
    MR. FLAVIN: Have the Estates Commissioners acquired this estate at their own price, and do they intend to divide it themselves?
    MR. BIRRELL: I must have notice of that.
    MR. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to them to take care in dividing the land to bear in mind the needs of the poor people of the neighbourhood?
    MR. BIRRELL: That is one of the objects of acquiring the estate.
    MR. FLAVIN: But it is not done.

    Cavan and Leitrim Railway.
    MR. F. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of resolutions passed at a meeting of district councillors representing the ratepayers in the guaranteeing area for the Cavan and Leitrim Railway, held at Keshcarrigan, in the county of Leitrim, on 3rd October, 1908; and whether, having, regard to the facts contained therein and the grievances of the ratepayers of these districts, he will grant a sworn inquiry into the management and working of the said railway since it was opened for traffic.
    MR. BIRRELL: The resolutions referred to were received on 30th November. The Irish Government are in correspondence with the Board of Works on the subject.

    Dundrum Bay Fisheries.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is aware that illegal trawling and trammel-net fishing is being extensively carried on in Dundrum Bay, County Down, to the detriment of the line fishermen of Newcastle and other villages on that coast; and will he say what steps his Department intend to take to put a stop to it.
    MR. BIRRELL: My hon. friend has asked me to reply to the Questions addressed to him to-day. As regards illegal trawling in Dundrum Bay, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply just given to a Question asked by the hon. Member for South Down†. The use of trammel-nets during the day is, in the absence of a bye-law, illegal. From some cause the fishermen have been under the impression that the practice was legal in Dundrum Bay. The Department are about to submit a bye-law making the use of these engines legal during the day in the place in. question, and meantime they have felt hesitation in directing that prosecutions should be instituted against persons for following a practice which has been many years in operation.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Has the Fishery Board steamer for the protection of fisheries patrolled this portion of the coast for the last five years?
    MR. BIRRELL: I will inquire.

    Irish Trade Frauds.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) in reference to his statement at the Council meeting on the 24th instant that the Department intend to increase the number of inspectors with a view to the detection of fraud and adulteration practised by
    † See Questions and Answers circulated with the Votes this day.
    1702
    traders in Great Britain to the detriment' of Irish manufacturers and producers, whether he will consider the advisability of appointing one or more qualified lady inspectors in connection with the lace, crochet, and textile industries of Ireland.
    MR. BIRRELL: The statement made at the meeting of the Council of Agriculture was to the effect that during the past six months the staff employed by the Department in Great Britain, for the detection of frauds had been increased by three assistants, and that a linen expert already in the Department's service had been detailed to deal specially with the question of frauds in linen goods. It is not proposed further to increase the staff at present. The Department have in their employment a lady inspector who is qualified to give expert evidence on samples of crochet, lace and other work of the kind.
    MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was largely owing to inspection by a lady that huge frauds in connection with Irish lace were detected in London and a heavy fine inflicted on the offender
    MR. BIRRELL: I will communicate that lamentable fact to the Vice-President.

    Irish Agricultural Grant.
    MR. ESSEX: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) how much of the last Vote granted to the Board of Agriculture and Techincal Education (Ireland) was devoted to the sole furtherance of Irish agricultural interests.
    MR. BIRRELL: If the hon. Member is referring to the Department's Endowment Fund, established under Sections 15 and 16 of the Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899, the present sum available for agricultural purposes as defined in Section 30 of that Act is £106,000, all of which is practically devoted to the furtherance of Irish agricultural interests. If, on the other hand, he is alluding to the annual Parliamentary Vote for the Department, it is obvious that it would not be possible accurately

    1703
    to state what amount thereof is solely devoted to those interests.

    The Gurteen Disturbances.
    MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. Martin Finnerty, of Gurteen, County Galway, was arrested on Sunday last charged with a serious offence, and on yesterday returned for trial to Limerick Assizes which were then proceeding, and if Mr. Finnerty's trial is forced on by the Crown will he not be deprived of reasonable opportunity to prepare his defence.
    MR. BIRRELL: Martin Finnerty was, as I am informed, returned for trial in custody to the next Assizes for the County of Galway, but as the commission for the Winter Assizes is one of gaol delivery, I am advised that he must be brought up before the Judge presiding at Limerick Winter Assizes, and that any other course would be a violation of the law. It will be open to him to make any application for the postponement of his trial which he may be advised to make, and such application and the grounds of it will no doubt be fully considered by the Judge.
    MR. JOHN ROCHEfurther asked if on the previous day at Limerick thirty-one jurors were not ordered to stand aside by the Crown, and was not that a violation of the pledge given by the Attorney-General for Ireland?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. Notice must be given in the usual way. The Question ought, under the Standing Orders, to have been submitted to me before being asked in this way.

    Irish Stationery Office Contracts.
    MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the condition is attached to tenders for book-work printing for the Irish Stationery Office, that the contract must be executed in the City of Dublin; if so, will he state the reasons for such stipulation; and whether he will consider the advisability of allowing other Irish firms to tender for Government printing.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,): I am informed that of the seven book-work printing contracts made by the Stationery Office in Ireland five must be executed in Dublin. This restriction is imposed in the interests of the Irish Public Departments who consider it necessary that the printer should be close at hand. The two remaining contracts may be executed in any part of Ireland. I understand that the same necessity is felt in London and Edinburgh, and that it is met in the same way, namely, by confining the execution of certain contracts to those cities.

    Rathmoyle Letter Delivery.
    MR. MEAGHER: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will reconsider his decision of not granting to Messrs. James Hogan and Patrick Kennedy, of Gaulstown, Rathmoyle, Kilkenny, a daily delivery of their letters from Tullaroan; is he aware that Mr. Hogan, who is a horse and cattle doctor, and known as Mr. Hogan of Tullaroan, suffers, as well as the farmers of the surrounding districts, inconvenience by reason of their letters going to the office of that place and being redirected; and, seeing that the Tullaroan postman in the discharge of his duties passes the doors of Messrs. Hogan and Kennedy every day, thereby rendering it of no cost or inconvenience, will he recommend that this grievance be removed.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have again considered the matter but I regret that, for the reasons which I recently explained to the hon. Member, I am unable to comply with his request. The Rathmoyle office is only one mile from the houses in question whereas the Tullaroan office is three miles.
    MR. MEAGHER: Does the Post Office study the convenience of a single individual rather than that of the people of the district?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: This matter has been considered from the point of view of the general convenience.

    Kilmessan and Robinstown Postal System.
    MR. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether

    1705
    he is aware that the post leaves Kilmessan at 5.25 p.m. for Robinstown to connect with the post car from Trim, which arrives at Robinstown at 9.45 p.m.; will he explain why almost five hours are taken to cover the distance from Kilmessan, which is only three and a half miles; will he consider the advisability of arranging for the post to leave Kilmessan at 7.30 p.m. to meet the mail car three and a half miles away at 9.45 p.m.; and, seeing that the bag containing the morning mails from Dublin reaches Kilmessan at 10.20 a.m. and is sent back empty by the 4.20 train, will he arrange for letters in reply to English letters brought down at 10.20 to be sent back in the bag that is now sent empty at 4.20.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The postman from Robinstown who serves Kilmessan is already absent from home for more than thirteen hours, and I do not think it right to extend the period of absence by making the hour of the evening collection later. The existing service is carried on at a loss to the revenue, and I regret I should not be justified in incurring additional expenditure on a day mail service.
    MR. SHEEHY: What would be the amount of the increased expenditure involved?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked for notice of that Question.

    The Archbishop of York.
    MR. MCARTHUR: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, when he recommended the Crown to prefer the Suffragan Bishop of Stepney to the Archbishopric of York, he was cognisant of the views which had been expressed by that prelate, in his evidence before the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline, with respect to the toleration of illegal and unauthorised ritual in the Church; and whether he was satisfied that the said Bishop, in his new office, would respect the law as declared by the Courts which have jurisdiction in matters ecclesiastical.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Before the Prime Minister answers the Question,
    1706
    may I ask whether in future in making recommendations to the Crown for high ecclesiastical preferment he would see that the gentleman he intends to recommend has a certificate of proficiency in faith and morals under the hand and seal of the hon. Gentleman?
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): The answer to both branches of the Question is in the affirmative.

    Poor Law Relief Disqualification.
    MR. ROGERS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the work of pension committees is being delayed by the want of an authoritative interpretation of the clause relating to the Poor Law disqualification in so far as it applies to married couples in receipt of outdoor relief; and whether, as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and the Local Government Board are seemingly not agreed as to the precise effect on the status of the wife of the legal rule, which enjoins that all relief, for whomsoever granted, shall be considered as relief given to the husband, he will state which party is disqualified in the three following cases: where the husband receives relief for his own benefit, where the husband receives relief for the benefit of his wife, and where the husband receives relief for the benefit of himself and wife.
    MR. ASQUITH: I am advised that in the first case the husband alone would be disqualified; in the last two cases both the husband and the wife would be disqualified.

    Clergy in Parliament
    MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in the scheme of electoral reform which he has promised to submit to Parliament, he will include a revision of the statutes which forbid ministers of the Established Church to sit in the House of Commons.
    MR. ASQUITH: I am afraid that I am not in a position at present to make any statement as to the provisions of the Bill in question.

    Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Bill.
    MR. GLOVER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can state the date when the Report stage of the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) (No. 2) Bill will be taken.
    MR. ASQUITH: Owing to my having given two more days to the Committee stage of the Education Bill, I regret that I am unable to find a day next week for the Report stage of the Eight Hours Bill, but I am hoping to take it on Monday and Tuesday week.

  ADMISSION TO THE GALLERIES.
  SIR G. MCCRAE: I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you have arrived at any decision in regard to the admission of strangers to the galleries of this House, and whether in your opinion any restrictions or regulations are necessary to safeguard the proper conduct of the business of the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: The House seems to regard with satisfaction the absence of strangers of both sexes; but I think it is obvious that the period of rest cannot continue for ever. It has occurred to me that probably the best way of solving the difficulty, if difficulty there be, is that the House should consent to the appointment of a small Committee for the purpose of considering under what new arrangements and conditions, if any, the galleries might be thrown open to the public at the commencement of next session.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDY: Cannot the restrictions as to the admission of strangers be relaxed so as to allow Members to introduce experts for advice— as has been done in the case of Ministers.
  MR. SPEAKER: Experts named by the leaders of the respective parties have been admitted.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make
1708
in regard to the course of business in the immediate future?
MR. ASQUITH: First of all, with regard to the business of to-day, I have a very important statement to make to the House, which is that the Government do not intend to proceed to-day with the Committee stage of the Education Bill. I need not give any special reasons for that, except to say that as we are now approaching, or should approach in accordance with the allocation of time, under the Closure Order, the consideration of Clause 3, which is the clause dealing with contracting-out, we feel that in the existing conditions, and until some settlement has been, as I hope it may be, arrived at, it might be a waste of Parliamentary time, and perhaps I may add that it might lead to the interposition of unnecessary difficulties in the way of approaching a settlement, if we were now, at this moment, to take up the discussion of that particular part of the Bill. I shall therefore propose, when the Order comes on, to postpone it until to-morrow. To-day we shall take the Poisons and Pharmacy Bill—which is the sixth of the Orders of the day—the White Phosphorous Matches Prohibition Bill, and other Bills which stand later on the Paper. Tomorrow and Saturday we shall go on with the consideration of the Education Bill in Committee and also on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. On Thursday I propose to move the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule for the remainder of the session and to make a statement in regard to public business. That will be followed by a Motion to allocate the time for the Report stage of the Education Bill, and after that the first Order will be the Report stage of the Port of London Bill.
MR. LONSDALEasked when it was intended to take the Second Reading stage of the Irish Land Bill.
MR. ASQUITH: I cannot at present fix a date, but I hope to be able to take it before the session ends.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYasked whether it was possible for them to go on with any other business on an allotted day for the Education Bill.

1709
There was certain business to be disposed of, and that being withdrawn, he should like Mr. Speaker's ruling as to whether that withdrawal came under the case of disposal of the business contemplated by the last two clauses of the Guillotine Order.
MR. SPEAKER: The business might be postponed, but that does not mean that it is disposed of. If the first Order is not proceeded with it does not count as an allotted day, and in that case the House can go through the Orders of the day.
MR. LAURENCE HARDY: Is this not an allotted day since the Education Bill is put down as the first Order?
MR. BOWLESasked whether, by the terms of the Closure Resolution, an allotted day was not defined to be a day upon which this Bill was put down as the first Order.
MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will look at the Closure Resolution he will see that it says: "Nothing in this Order shall prevent any business which under this Order is to be concluded on allotted days, being proceeded with on any other days."
MR. VIVIAN: May I ask whether, in allotting time for future business, the right hon. Gentleman, the Prime Minister will bear in mind the almost universal desire of this House to see the Housing Bill passed this session?
MR. ASQUITH: I will bear that in mind.
SIR GEORGE DOUGHTYasked if it was not highly probable that the Education Bill would be dropped.
[No Answer was returned.]

HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, ETC . BILL [TITLE AMENDED].
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 345.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 345.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 386.]

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish. Bills.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 346.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 346.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 387.]

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Ernest George Pretyman, esquire, for the County of Essex (Mid or Chelmsford Division).
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to: Children. Bill, with Amendments.

POISONS AND PHARMACY BILL [H.L.]
Order for Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,), in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said that the Bill which the House had expected to take that day was one of the chief measures of the session, while this Bill was of purely departmental importance. If this subject came before the House for the first time or if it raised any question of controversy, then some inconvenience might be caused by this sudden change of scene, but in view of the history and nature of the Bill, he trusted that the

1711
House would not be unwilling to consider its proposals. The Bill had three purposes. Clause 1 brought up to date the Schedule of poisons which was attached to the Pharmacy Act of 1868, in the light of the knowledge of medical and pharmaceutical science which had been acquired in the last forty years. Clause 2 would, he thought, be warmly welcomed by agricultural Members, many of whom he saw in their places. It dealt with the, supply of sheep dips, and weed killers, and preparations for the destruction of insects, which contained poisonous materials an which at the present time technically were under the provisions of the ordinary law. Much inconvenience was caused by the restriction on the sale of these commodities to persons who were chemists, and agriculturists had long desired that some other facilities should be given for obtaining these articles. In fact the present law could not be enforced, and these articles were largely sold by persons. who were not qualified under the Pharmacy Act. Clause 2 provided that where the existing facilities were insufficient—it was not intended to compete with the chemists where they were available to sell these articles —the local authorities might licence traders, other than registered chemists, to sell these articles subject to regulations which were to be made as provided in the Bill. This proposal followed the recommendation of a very strong Departmental Committee which sat on the subject in 1901, and which was appointed by the late Government, and which recommended the change of the law embodied in the Bill. With regard to these provisions, there was little difficulty, and he imagined that there could be no objection. There were also a few other minor matters embodied in the later clauses. But the third main provision of the Bill raised a point which had, in the past, given rise to some considerable controversy. It was found to be necessary that companies which conducted the business of drug stores should be made liable for offences against the Pharmacy Act committed by their agents. That was a proper change of the law which drug stores themselves conceded to be necessary. It arose out of a legal decision that where an unqualified person was selling poisons
1712
in a shop belonging to a drug store company that unqualified person was alone to be punished and the company could not be punished, because it was not a "person" within the meaning of the Pharmacy Act. When, however, it was proposed to amend the law and make the drug store companies liable in such cases, a kee controversy at once arose between the chemists and the drug stores, not on that particular point, but on another one, amely, whether or not drug stores should be allowed to use the title of chemists. On the one hand, the qualified chemist said that he had to undergo a prolonged training, that he had to pay for an expensive education, and that he ought to have a monopoly of this business of dispensing medicine. On the other hand, hon. friends of the drug stores pointed out that they for many yea's past had been carrying on their business without interference by the law, that they supplied a popular need, and that to deprive them of the title hev had long been accustomed to use, would practically destroy their business. On this point a keen controversy arose. There was a babel of tongues. The letter-boxes of Members of Parliament were filled with controversial pamphlets, and the advertisement columns of the newspapers were resplendent with manifestoes on the subject. When he first took up this subject, as representing in this House the Privy Council Office, in whose sphere the matter rested, he was told by both parties that there was only one point on which they were in agreement, and that was that any agreement between them was impossible. However, fortunately, now the case wore a different aspect. The Bill was introduced this year in the House of Lords in a non-controversial form, leaving open this vexed question in dispute between these two important trading interests. The Bill was referred to a Joint Committee of the two Houses, who heard evidence from! both sides, and who were thoroughly representative. This Committee reported the Bill to the House of Lords very closely in the form in which it now stood. Since that time there had been prolonged negotiations with the organised chemists, with the representatives of the drug stores, and with the representatives of the cooperative societies, and to-day he was

1713
happy to be in a position to state that all three parties were reconciled with one another, that they all accepted the Bill in the form in which it was now before the House, subject to some amendments of detail of a very technical character, which it would be his duty to move in Committee. Under these circumstances, as this long controversy was now at an end, he trusted the House would consider this a favourable moment to assent to the Second Reading of the Bill. He begged to move.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he had listened with interest to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, because he remembered the controversies to which he alluded which took place at the time of the last election. He recollected that he had a very long interview which chemists in his then constituency, and he came to the conclusion that while something could be said on their side of the question there was a good deal to be said on the other. There did not appear to him to be the slightest hope of any agreement being arrived at between the two contending parties, but now he understood that an agreement had been come to. He had, however, had two communications from different people interested in the Bill, and he would like to ask the Under-Secretary a few questions in regard to them. The first communication he had was from the Grocers' Association in London. They objected to certain provisions of the Bill, and regretted that grocers should be allowed to sell poisonous substances, provided they were wrapped in a label which bore the name of a certified chemist, and they asked him to move an Amendment to this effect when the Bill got into Committee This was an extremely technical Bill and he replied that he did not think that anyone who was not an expert in the question should move an Amendment dealing with such an important subject as the sale of poisons. He did not know whether the Grocers' Association was in the right or in the wrong, but what he wanted to ask the Under-Secretary was whether, in view of the fact that
1714
the sale of poisons was a very important matter to safeguard, there was any foundation for the complaint of the Grocers' Association, whether he had looked into the matter and whether any alteration should be made in the Bill. Then he had an appeal from the chemists in his constituency, in which they said that at last this matter had been agreed to, subject to an Amendment to be introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary. He thought, before they passed the Second Reading of the Bill, they ought to have some indication of what the Amendment was, because it seemed to him that the Bill at the moment was not an agreed one, but that it rather resembled the Education Bill, which was brought in as an agreed measure, but when they got into Committee they found that it was the reverse. This, therefore, was not an agreed Bill; that was to say, the chemists did not agree except on the understanding that the right hon. Gentleman would introduce an Amendment which would suit their aims and objects. He did not wish to say a word about the Amendment, he did not know what it was, but they ought to know. It must not be forgotten that no doubt there was considerable grievance on the part of the chemists, and while he quite agreed that a company could not be prosecuted for committing any offence committed by its servants, that commonly the servants would be prosecuted, and that that wanted altering, it seemed to him that nothing should be done which would prevent large chemist companies continuing a business which they had carried on for a considerable time. They had been a very great boon to the poorer classes on account of the high prices charged by chemists, whereas they could now go to places like Boot's Stores and get drugs at prices much more reasonable. While they ought to safeguard the rights of the chemists, they ought not to give them a monopoly which would allow them to charge excessive prices. He did not wish to offer any opposition to the Bill, and he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had been able to secure an agreement on the question. He hoped the Home Secretary, who had not spoken, would inform them what was the Amendment which it was proposed to move,

1715
so that before they went to a Second Reading they might have some knowledge of what they were assenting to.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid he only desired to add an observation to what had been said by his hon. friend, and the Under-Secretary would acknowledge that he was intervening in the debate with no desire to consume the time of the House, because a year ago he waited upon the right hon. Gentleman, as a member of a deputation which called attention to the undoubted grievance which was then felt by chemists. He only rose to ask how far the chemists the hon. Gentleman had mentioned could be relied on. He had heard some of the chemists in his constituency expressing a little doubt as to the Amendment it was contemplated to introduce in the Bill. He could not pretend that he was in entire agreement with what had fallen from his hon. friend as to the quarrel between the chemists and the corporate body, but he would venture to say, in qualification of what had fallen from his hon. friend, that chemists who had undergone a highly specialised education in order to fit themselves for their occupation felt it a very great grievance that they were not to enjoy the same status as medical and legal practitioners. The Government should indicate in a general way what the nature of the Amendment which it was proposed to put into the Bill would be, so that the House in giving it a Second Reading, should not be in the dark, but able to feel, having the advantage of the assurance of the Under-Secretary, that they were not failing in carrying out the pledges they had given to their constituents.
MR. WINFREYdesired to say, as the Member placed in charge of the Bill of the Pharmaceutical Society, that after the negotiations which had taken place with regard to the Government Bill the clause dealing with chemists was now considered quite satisfactory to the Pharmaceutical Society. The clause which it was proposed to introduce had been placed before the largest meeting of the Society that had ever taken place, and they expressed themselves as being quite satisfied.
MR. F. E. SMITHasked if the Amendment might be read.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the point was an extremely technical one, and not easy to follow. The effect of the clause as it would appear when amended was that a drug store must have a duly qualified chemist in charge of the actual dispensing of the medicines containing the scheduled poisons. That was the present law, and would be continued, but in addition to that a drug store company must also have a superintendent to manage the poisons department of the company. This superintendent must be a director of the company if the company wished to use the title of chemist and druggist. If the company had got only one shop, the superintendent and the dispenser would be one and the same person, but if the drug company had a number of shops, it must have a duly qualified chemist as dispenser in each shop to dispense such medicines, and must also have a general manager of the poisons department, who was a qualified chemist. The drug companies and chemists agreed to that as a reasonable solution of the whole question. The title pharmacist was limited to chemists and druggists individually registered, but the drug stores which conformed to all the conditions could still retain the title chemist and druggist.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYasked for a little more information on one or two points. Clause 2 had not been explained very adequately. The point he was anxious to safeguard was that no undue difficulty should be put in the way of agriculturists and horticulturists obtaining weed-killers and sheep dips, or whatever might be required for their purposes. It was also essential that no onerous conditions should be put upon those who sold these things. At present, these articles could be sold by anybody without a licence. The clause in question went further than was necessary in restricting the sale of these articles. Vendors had to get a licence from the local authority, and to conform to any regulations which the local authority made. The Bill said the local authority in granting

1717
a licence should have regard to the reasonable requirements of the public. He did not think that was quite a fair way of putting it. The local authority might say: "One very good sheep dip is being sold by so-and-so, therefore we will not give a licence to somebody else to sell another dip" which, in the opinion of some qualified to judge, might be just as advantageous. He did not think it should be in the power of a local authority to withhold a licence for such a reason as that. He thought a licence ought to be given whenever it was applied for. With regard to Clause 3 it was very satisfactory to hear that the quarrels between the retail chemists and the drug stores had been compromised. The compromise seemed very fair all round. With regard to Clause 5, the Home Secretary would remember that he addressed a Question to him recently with reference to the sale of vitriol, and the right hon. Gentleman assured him that the control of the sale of vitriol was a point that was going to be carefully safeguarded in this Bill. Subsection (2) undoubtedly dealt with the sale of vitriol, but at the same time he did not think that labelling it poison and taking the name of the purchaser would be sufficient to make the procuring of vitriol more difficult than it was at present. It would be of considerable advantage if the hon. Member would inform them what the regulations were likely to be under the proposed Order in Council. Outrages of vitriol throwing had been far too common of late, and he was sure that the House would be willing to adopt any method which was considered advisable to make the purchase of this substance as difficult as possible. If the answer of the hon. Member were satisfactory on this point, he would not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill.
MR. REESsaid this Bill had come on so suddenly that he had not had time to look up his papers dealing with two different interests the representatives of which had asked him to watch the Bill and see that certain guarantees, if possible, were given before it was passed. He was not opposing the Second Reading. Among the interests which were being touched by the Bill were those of the sellers of weed
1718
killers and sheep dips. These preparations were chiefly sold by ironmongers, and in his own district there was some feeling between the chemists and ironmongers in regard to this matter. In boroughs of the class which he represented, there was a large rural area together with an urban area, and there was an intimate connection between the surrounding country and the town. There was keen competition between the ironmongers and the chemists, and he should like to know from the Undersecretary whether, under the Bill, the sale of weed killers and sheep dips by ironmongers would be stopped. He was inclined to think that that would be a rather harsh measure which would be resented by agriculturists near country towns. He practically agreed with his noble friend opposite on this matter, and he would be greatly obliged if the Undersecretary would deal with the question he had put.
MR. HICKS BEACHsaid it was very important that agriculturists throughout the country should not be put to any kind of inconvenience in regard to obtaining weed killers, sheep dip, and similar preparations which they required. What would be the difference between the law as it now existed and as it would be made by Clause 2 in regard to the ordinary agriculturist? He was not a chemical expert, but he ventured to suggest that there were certain sheep dips and weed killers which contained substances other than "arsenic, tobacco, or the alkaloids of tobacco," mentioned in the clause, though he saw in the same clause that—
"His Majesty may by Order in Council amend this provision by adding thereto or removing therefrom any poisonous substance."
That seemed to him to be an unnecessary and possibly harsh restriction. Take his own experience. He had used a substance, which was composed of some poison or other, he did not know what it was, to rub on the backs of his cattle. This had the effect of preventing the water-fly settling upon them, thus giving the animals relief and preventing them from galloping about the field to escape the insect. It would be an unnecessarily harsh restriction if a farmer could

1719
not purchase the substance except at the place of a registered chemist. As he read Clause 2 he would not be able to purchase it elsewhere unless an Order in Council was obtained. That Order in Council, he presumed, would go to the county council, from the county council to the district council, and from the district council to the person who desired to sell the particular preparation. That was a very lengthy process, and it was hardly necessary to place a restriction of that kind in the Bill. He should like the Under-Secretary to tell them what would be the actual effect of this clause upon the agriculturists of the country, whether it would make any serious difference in their opportunities to purchase these necessary articles containing poisonous substances which every farmer had to use at some period of the year, and whether he could not see his way to removing or altering subsection (1) of Clause 2, by making it a little more feasible for agriculturists to obtain these preparations. Another point which he desired to raise was with reference to subsection (3) of Clause 3. He understood that chemists' companies were to be registered as chemists and druggists, and not as pharmacists, and that this had been agreed upon by all parties concerned, and therefore no objection was made to that provision.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELwas under-stood to indicate assent.
MR. SCOTTsaid they were told that this was an agreed Bill, but there was a clause in it the inclusion of which in the agreement he could not understand. He referred to subsection (4) of Clause 3, which insisted that before a business carried on by a company could be described as a chemists' business, there must be one director of the concern who was a duly registered pharmaceutical chemist. Take the position of Whiteley's Stores, or the Army and Navy Stores, or any other of those great organised businesses, each with a chemist and druggist department. How was one man, who had received a University education perhaps, and had become a qualified chemist, to take part in the administration of those huge businesses? He thought such a provision ought not to be forced on any concern. By all
1720
means let them provide further protection for the public, but in the carrying out of an organised business it was no part of the duty of the House to inflict such a condition upon these great business undertakings. They had some knowledge of the attitude sometimes taken by the Pharmaceutical Society, who caused to be inflicted on those who sold anything which came under Pharmaceutical Acts a fine of £5 or £10. There was no appeal against that. A person was at once brought up to the County Court. He had even known cases in which a fine had been inflicted though the article sold was not poisonous. Articles which usually contained poisons, in order that they might be sold by co-operative societies and stores had the poisons removed from them, but many people who carried on stores and had sold these preparations with the poisons removed had been unjustly fined because there could be no appeal, and the fines were collected by the County Court. He himself had considerable doubt about giving these societies increased powers. Let them give the public authorities or the public inspectors all the assistance they could, but they ought not to give over to committees of chemists or any other body the power to inflict penalties and administer the law of the country
LORD BALCARRESthought the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down were just. He understood that subsection (4) of Clause 3 was being modified, but he gathered that the change did not apply to the point raised by the hon. Member below the gangway. To require that a qualified chemist should be placed on the board of the Army and Navy, Harrod's, Parker's, Boot's or other companies' stores was to put upon them a very onerous obligation indeed.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: They are all agreed.
LORD BALCARRESasked whether the Army and Navy Stores had agreed to have a qualified chemist on their board because they had a chemist's department? They knew

1721
what compromises were in vague conversations and how different they were when they came to be reduced to the precise language of the draftsman in a Bill. The chemist's department in these big businesses represented an infinitesimal fraction of those businesses, and it was very unfair to ask those big companies to bring on to their boards men who very likely would be perfectly useless on general commercial questions in order to qualify for the term "chemists," which he should say those companies were as much entitled to use as any great firm. That was a point which required consideration. The Under-Secretary had revolutionised Clause 3 by Amendments proposed to subsection (4), but until those Amendments were on the Paper they could not know what their purport would be. There were two points to which he wished to advert. One was the effect of this proposal on the ordinary business man who sold these substances in the country districts; and, secondly, as to the extended powers which the Home Office was going to take upon its shoulders Tinder the Bill. Everyone knew that in agricultural districts these poisons were now sold by the local "vet.," and the veterinary surgeon, though not always qualified to take that title, knew what these articles were. He knew what the ordinary proportions were and he dealt in articles which were as a rule made up for him by some respectable chemist in a neighbouring town, and he almost defied the Home Office to say that the scandals which had been caused in the last few years by the illicit use of poison could in the smallest percentage of cases be traced to these country veterinary officers. It was not with them that the scandal began nor upon them that these severe measures should fall. The scandals began in the bogus urban chemist's shop. That was where poisons were improperly bought, and it was against them only that it was really necessary to invoke all these immense powers. As the Bill was drafted, the ordinary veterinary surgeon, who for years past had been in the habit of supplying sheep dip to farmers, would have to obtain a licence. He did not see why the local authority should be allowed to prevent
1722
this man from selling these poisons unless it could be shown, and it had not been shown, that it had been the cause of scandal in the past. His real objection to the way the Bill was drafted was that a general scheme was laid down by Parliament, and that actually within the four corners of the Bill the Government took to itself the right to abrogate all or any portions of the Bill. By subsection (3) of Clause 1 the Home Office was entitled to lay down the most minute conditions governing the trade of men who dealt in those poisonous substances.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Privy Council.
LORD BALCARRES: But that is under the Home Office.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Not at all.
LORD BALCARRESsaid then it ought to be.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Home Office has never dealt with the question of poisons or medical questions. They have always been the business of the Privy Council.
LORD BALCARRESsaid they had not the experts. The Home Office was the Department dealing with explosives. There were two items in Schedule 1 which were material ingredients of the most dangerous explosives in the world. He was not going to attack the Home Office. He was going to criticise the growing tendency of this Government to take the right in its Bills to abrogate what Parliament had settled. He thought the Home Office could make regulations of a far-reaching character. Apparently he was wrong, and it was not the Home Office but the Privy Council, but it made very little difference. Let the House consider the six sub-heads on which regulations were to be made: first as to the granting of licences and the selection of authorities which had that duty; then the duration, renewal, revocation, suspension, extension and reduction of such licences. That seemed to ensure that a poor man who had got his licence was to have no

1723
peace. It said that all kinds of regulations might be made about keeping, inspecting and copying the register of licences, and the keeping, transporting, and selling of poisonous substances. That really was giving a Government Department too much latitude. He was not opposed to making proper regulations for dealing with these poisonous substances, but he thought a Government Department at Whitehall, in drawing up its regulations, was often apt to overlook the difficulties. A man living in the country might safely keep his poisonous substances in a manner which would be intolerable in London. He knew cases where local authorities had! themselves kept substances of a highly dangerous character in a box by the side of the road for years, and no objection had ever been taken. It was known it was there, but it was not dangerous because it was in an out-of-the-way part of the country, and the material was concealed in a wood. Now they made a precise declaration which would apply to London just as much as to the wild lands of some country parish, and the regulations were bound to be harassing. The only safeguard that the public had was that the Order in Council was to be placed before Parliament, but what was the good of that? There was no protection in it. It was a purely nominal affair. Questions might be asked on it, but that was no check upon the Privy Council, which had not a representative in the House of Commons. But the Department also put restrictions in Clause 5 on the sale of certain mineral acids, which they said must have the word "poison" on the outside of the bottle, and the name of the person who sold it. That was a perfectly futile regulation. Everyone who had been interested in the cases which had recently occurred, and which had been wholly urban, knew that where a man had been charged with having failed to mark "poison" outside, the label had got wet and had come off. They should deal with these matters in a much more specific manner, and insist that the bottle itself should be marked and not a label stuck on which might come off in a moment. They had power to make new regulations. Clause 2 took special power at any time to revise or withdraw the regula-
1724
tions which had been made, and there was a penalty of £5. He had received a good deal of correspondence with regard to the Bill, and a good many of his correspondents were unaware that an agreement had been arrived at. They viewed the Bill, if not with hostility, certainly with some suspicion. If Clause 3 had been agreed to so much the better. It put a long and tiresome controversy out of the way. But he was quite sure the Under-Secretary ought to give adequate time before any further stage of the Bill was taken.
MR. IDRISsaid very little was obtained by the chemists on the joint committee, but having regard to the urgent need for legislation a compromise had since been arrived at with everybody concerned as far as he could judge. The Joint Stock Companies Association and the Co-operative Stores agreed to, and such companies as John Barker and Company strongly supported these restrictions. The regulations which might be made as to the substances which might be put in and taken out of the Schedule by the Government Department were objectionable to him, as also were a good many of the powers given under the Schedule, but to some extent he found in other countries, such as France and Germany, Government Departments undertook this duty and the work was done remarkably well. He had had as an interested party several times jointly with others to make representations to the Privy Council, and he had come to the conclusion that business was done there remarkably well, and the publication of these proposed regulations would certainly enable those who objected to them to make representations-to the Government Department, and in all probability they could obtain modifications if necessary in the public interest. The noble Lord had spoken of the licences applying in all towns, even in London. There were not many sheep in London. He believed they were intended to apply only to agricultural districts where it was said farmers found it difficult to obtain these poisons. The inspection of the books of licence-holders was an absolute necessity for the public safety in order to trace

1725
cases of criminal poisoning. In nearly all cases of poisoning by arsenic the poisoning went on until several members of a family had been killed before it was suspected. It was not until there had been a large number of deaths that the suspicion of neighbours was aroused and inquiries were made. In the country it was quite a common superstition among horse-keepers that arsenic gave horses a glossy coat. The present state of the law was simply chaos with regard to the sale of poisons. There was no sufficient check on anything, and the restrictions in this Bill were very much in the public interest. Some people were not satisfied with the measure—in fact, many chemists were far from satisfied with it. The only thing in the Bill in favour of chemists was that in future they would be able to call themselves pharmacists. Many of the details would be best threshed out in Committee. He could assure the House from a close study of this question that the Bill contained nothing prejudicial to the public interest, whilst on the other hand it was very necessary for the protection of the public. He hoped the Bill would receive a sympathetic reception. One hon. Member thought there ought to be a more stringent restriction on the sale of vitriol, but having regard to the many interests concerned he thought they had chosen the best compromise. They had given the makers of agricultural poisons and the purchasers of them every possible facility and they had protected the title of "chemist" to some extent.
MR. COURTHOPEasked the Government to make it quite clear that it was not intended by Clause 2 to make it more difficult but easier to obtain poisons necessary in agricultural pursuits, and he appealed to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office to see that the Orders in Council were issued with the utmost despatch. It Was, for instance, very important that fruit-growers should be able to get the materials for their spraying. Probably a great deal of the mixture used would be used this winter for winter spraying, and it was of the utmost importance that they should be able to obtain it before it was too late. He hoped also
1726
the Government Would see their way to extend somewhat the exceptions to the Act, because there were a variety of substances which, although not of general use, were very valuable in certain isolated cases. There were one or two diseases with which fruit-growers had to contend in which it was almost necessary to use cyanides of different kinds. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would bear that in mind and consider whether it was not also possible to extend the list to certain well-recognised animal medicines, which one found or ought to find in every well-conducted stable. He did not think it ought to be necessary to go to a chemist to obtain those things. It was sometimes difficult to obtain what one wanted, and it was inconvenient always to have to go to a registered chemist. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make this point quite clear, because the agriculturists of the country Were very eager to have Clause 2 placed upon the Statute-book this year, and that he would see that no undue delay occurred before the Orders in Council were issued and the advantages of the clause obtained.
MR. ANNAN BRYCEsuggested that in the exceptional circumstances the Under-Secretary to the Home Department should either put the terms of the new clause on the Order Paper or furnish them to the Press, so that everybody interested would see exactly how the matter stood. He thought the House would agree that some regulations in the way of licensing were necessary. In many part? of the country some of these poisons were kept by grocers and general storekeepers, and if the person who had charge of them was careless there was a danger of the bag containing the ingredients of sheep-dip, for example, bursting and the contents getting mixed with other goods sold in the shop. It was certainly necessary that the local authority, which was acquainted with the character of the persons who retailed those poisons, should be consulted as to whether they were suitable persons to hold a licence. The Bill was an immense improvement and produced some order out of chaos. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman had been able to announce an agreement on this long-argued question.
MR. ASHLEYsaid there were two reasons why he supported this Bill. In the first place it was a Bill that had come from another place, where he was sure it had received full and ample discussion and consideration; and in the second place no guillotine Motion had been put upon it. He also supported the Bill because he understood it was a compromise arrived at between the chemists and the drug store companies. Like other hon. Members, he had had during the last two years innumerable communications, not only from his own constituents, but from all parts of the country, urging him, on behalf of the chemists, to resist the Bill before the House; and he had also had representations from the companies, pointing out that their demands were just and asserting that the chemists were most unreasonable people. It was very difficult to know what was right and proper in these matters, but as they had been assured by the Under-Secretary and hon. Members opposite who spoke for the Pharmaceutical Society that the Bill was satisfactory, as non-experts they did not need to indulge in much criticism on the Second Heading. He did not think it was quite reasonable of the hon. Member for Ashton to state that he strongly objected because one director of these trading companies had to be a qualified chemist. This Bill was a compromise, and therefore, neither side could hope to get all they wanted. They had an instance of the difficulty of arranging a compromise in the case of the Education Bill, which was now in a very parlous condition. If the representatives of companies in the House were going to oppose the Second Reading or criticise it because they could not get everything they wanted, and refused to budge to meet the chemists, then he thought they must rather despair of getting any legislation on the subject. From what he had heard he thought this was a fair compromise, and therefore, he should support the Second Reading. As regarded Clause 2, subsection (1), which laid down that those who were to be allowed to sell certain poisons were to have a licence from the local authority, he most strongly supported that pro-
1728
posal. The people who sold those poisons ought to be under some supervision, and he could imagine no better body than the local authority to have the supervision of these people. He presumed that in towns the authority would be the borough council, and in the counties the county council. One hon. Member had urged that the list of poisons sold by these people ought to be extended, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be very careful in extending the list of poisons which might be sold by these more or less irresponsible people, because, although they were licensed, they were not like properly qualified chemists. He did not think that dangerous poisons should be put into the hands of inexperienced people in view of the risks which the last speaker had pointed out might arise if these people were allowed to continue as in the past to store and sell these things. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman in his reply would state why Ireland was to be treated differently from England and Wales in this matter. If he could explain subsection (a) of Section 6 he would be obliged, because a more outrageous instance of legislation by reference he had never read. The subsection was as follows:—
"For the reference to the Pharmacy Act, 1868, there shall be substituted a reference to the Pharmacy Act (Ireland), 1875, and the Pharmacy Act (Ireland), 1875, Amendment Act, 1890, and the reference to regulations made under Section 1 of the first-mentioned Act shall not apply."
Was it reasonable at five minutes notice to ask the House to criticise such a subsection as that? There was only one other point which he wished to raise. It was a point which, though it might be impossible to deal with it under this Bill, it would be advisable to include if time could be found to do so. He meant that some means should be found to deal with the extensive use of morphia and other drugs which had unhappily become very prevalent in this country, not only among men but also among women. He noticed that Section 5 of the Bill said—
"It shall not be lawful to sell any substance to which this section applies by retail, unless the box, bottle, vessel, wrapper, or cover in which the substance is contained is distinctly labelled with the name of the substance and the word 'Poison,' and with the name and address

1729
of the seller of the substance, and unless such other regulations as may be prescribed under this section by Order in Council are complied with … ."
Subsection (2) of the same clause said—
"The substances to which this section applies are sulphuric acid, nitric acid, hydrochloric acid, soluble salts of oxalic acid, and such other substances as may for the time being be prescribed by Order in Council under this section."
Though perhaps when this Bill was originally introduced the question which he raised now was not in the minds of the promoters, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could see his way to include in the list of substances, with respect to which regulations might be made from time to time by Order in Council, morphia and other things which were used in the drug habit. They had been trying to legislate about drinking, and they had not agreed as to the means to be taken to decrease it, but really the drug habit in this country was insidiously, and without the whole nation knowing, doing nearly as much harm as drinking. If the right hon. Gentleman could see his way, either in this Bill or in some other way, to introduce such measures as would diminish the facilities for obtaining these drugs from chemists and other people, he would do more than could be done by any Licensing Bill to promote morality and upright conduct in this country.
MR. VIVIANsaid the co-operative societies had for the last two or three years resisted the passing of this Bill, but what was called the compromise had given them all the satisfaction they required. There were just two points he wished to deal with. First of all the Bill did not prevent cooperative bodies from carrying on the business of chemists and druggists. The first portion of subsection (4) of Clause 3 gave ample power to carry on business. There was no restriction of any kind in that direction. The other point had reference to the question of title. There had been some difference of opinion on that point between the promoters of the Bill and the co-operative organisations. The chemists protested against the use of the personal title of chemists or pharmacists by corporate bodies, but they were willing that these bodies should use any title
1730
which would place before the public full information of the fact that they were carrying on this business. They might therefore adopt such names as "Drug store," "Drug selling department," "Pharmaceutical department," "Department of chemistry," "Dispensing department," "Sale of medicines and drugs departments," or even "Pharmacy and drugs department." The cooperative bodies said that that was sufficient to meet their views, and they had no desire to trench on the personal title, so long as they were able to carry on this particular business. The second portion of the subsection left them free to carry on business under such titles as he had mentioned. There remained, therefore, no substantial difference between the co-operative bodies and the chemists. Personally, he objected to all kinds of restrictions. He sympathised with the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London on that point. In what he had said he had expressed the views of 1,500 co-operative organisations. He believed he had also expressed the views of the Army and Navy Stores, and similar institutions. The powers contained in the clause would amply serve their purpose.
MR. FORSTERin supporting the Second Reading of the Bill said he especially favoured the measure because it dealt with the subject raised by his hon. friend the Member for Blackpool. It was most desirable that steps should be taken to remedy the evil which had come to be known as "the drug habit." He thought it would be some consolation to his hon. friend to know that this Bill did something to stiffen up the law with regard to the sale of morphia and other preparations.
MR. ASHLEY: Where is the provision?
MR. FORSTERsaid it was provided for in this way. Clause 1 said—
"Schedule A. to the Pharmacy Act, 1868 (which specifies the articles to be deemed poisons within the meaning of that Act), is hereby repealed, and the schedule to this Act shall be substituted therefor."
The schedule of the Act of 1868 did not contain any reference to opium

1731
or any of the preparations derived from opium. The schedule of this Bill included "Opium, and all preparations or admixtures containing 1 or more per cent. of morphine." Section 17 of the Act of 1868 stated the conditions under which it was unlawful to sell poisons, and by applying that Act, as amended by the Bill now before the House, to opium they were really making a very drastic alteration of the law which he most heartily welcomed. There was not the slightest doubt that the drug habit was largely on the increase. It was one of the most insidious and deplorable diseases to which man or woman could succumb, and anyone who knew of its ravages could not feel other than grateful to those who were making it possible to do something to deal with the question. He knew something of the evil of the drug habit. He happened to be a member of a voluntary committee which was formed to inquire into the genuineness of one of the cures for inebriety which had been established in the Metropolis. Their proceedings were full of interest. The committee had before them cases in which, so far as they were able to tell, an absolute cure had been effected. The stories of misery which were told by the people who had been cured almost brought tears to the eye, even of a hardened politician like himself. He, for one, would feel real gratitude for any opportunity of doing something to make more difficult the acquisition by those unhappy people of the drugs which they abused. That reason would make the Bill acceptable to him if there was no other. He supported the suggestion that vitriol should be included in the schedule. He would be very glad to see the conditions of the sale of these drugs stiffened.
MR. HEDGESwished to call attention to the latter part of subsection (4) of Clause 3, which he did not think was necessary. Chemists jealously guarded the use of the title "chemist," and it appeared from the speech of the hon. Member for Birkenhead that corporations and large companies who had been taking that title were no longer desirous of using it. Under the latter part of Clause 3, the monopoly of the use of the title "chemist" had been taken
1732
away, and the title of "pharmacist" was given instead. It was not altogether fair to men who had served a long apprenticeship and who had after study passed difficult examinations, to deprive them of this title of "chemist" and give them that of "pharmacist," a term which would be obscure to the man in the street.
SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid that the Bill had come on so suddenly that he had been unable to ascertain what was the full opinion of his constituents on the subject matter of the Bill, although he had had a great deal of correspondence about it. There were many more points of interest in the Bill than those to which the Under-Secretary had referred. He was not particularly interested in Clause 3, which seemed to him to deal with some compromise as to trade regulations between chemists and druggists. He was afraid that compromises were not much in favour just now; and they were apt to be made between two branches of a trade, as in this instance, without any real consideration for the interests of the public. The fact that a compromise had been made between the two branches of this particular trade—the chemists and the druggists—did not recommend the Bill to him. The really important part of the Bill was Clause 2. As he understood it, the clause did away with the restrictions that now existed with regard to the sale by tradesmen of sheep dips and other poisonous substances used for agricultural and horticultural purposes. Was there any other country in the world, except our own, which imposed so few restrictions on the sale of poisons of the sort referred to in the Bill? Why should the general health of the community be disregarded, and proper scientific precautions not be taken, and this widespread sale of poisonous substances be allowed, because it was a little more convenient to the farmer to get them from the nearest grocer's shop? It seemed to him that they were now proposing to give a very dangerous relaxation of the law with regard to the sale of poisons, such as would not be permitted in any other country, certainly not in France or Germany whose examples were so often quoted. A large class of

1733
people were required to qualify themselves by a long course of study and by obtaining University degrees after strict examination, before they could enter upon a certain business, in which they were entitled to certain privileges. Was it fair to those people to sweep away the whole system under which they had obtained those privileges simply because agricultural constituents of certain hon. Gentlemen Would find it a little more convenient to have free trade in poisons carried on by ignorant persons? After all, would other professional people, like his friends who Were members of the Bar, and their medical brethren who had passed severe examinations and qualified themselves for those professions, like the restrictions on the practice of their professions swept away, and be told that their work could be done equally well by unqualified men? Were these dangerous poisons to be spread over the country Tinder the guise that they were useful for agricultural or horticultural purposes? He felt very strongly that the restrictions instead of being relaxed should be carefully guarded so as to prevent the ordinary uneducated man selling dangerous poisons, even on the ground that it would be a benefit to a particular industry such as agriculture. Clause 4 interfered with the existing provisions relating to the Pharmaceutical Society; it considerably modified its power of granting their certificates; and it would be convenient to know what other changes were proposed. The scientific qualifications and tests of professional skill Were to be taken away, and instead, licences were to be granted by local authorities. Was it reasonable that the House should leave it to an Order in Council to say what was a local authority in which this very important power of granting a licence was to be vested? Parliament itself should lay down what Was the local authority whose licence Was to be in substitution for a scientific education. While he would not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give the House time enough to consider these matters before they took the Bill in Committee.
MR. B. S. STRAUSthought there were certain provisions in the Bill which ought to be
1734
amended before it became an Act. Although the drug habit was increasing in this and all other countries, this Bill would not do much to interfere with it. It simply made it illegal that certain things should be sold except by a qualified chemist, but the whole mischief was the ease with which the latter could sell articles which were injurious to health. He was not sure that there was not greater harm in the drug habit than in the drink habit, but both were so harmful that it lay upon Members to do everything they could to restrict the sale of them. There was an article sold to-day called "chlorodyne" which was labelled "poison." When he was chairman of the largest asylum in London a poor creature was brought there who had taken large quantities of this mixture, very much to her detriment. He asked her how she got the stuff, and she said that it was true it was labelled "poison," but she could go to a chemist and although he would only sell her a bottle she could go on to other chemists and get more. Although the dose was only about twenty drops she had taken two or three teaspoonfuls many times a day, and of course it had the effect, which most of these drugs had, of turning her brain. He was hoping that the Government would introduce into a Bill of this kind provision making it more difficult for the general public to get drugs of a dangerous character. What often happened was that a patient got a doctor's prescription for morphia or some other drug of that character, and although it might be years old it was hawked about from chemist to chemist, and what was an excellent thing for the complaint the patient was suffering from at the time, proved most dangerous when it was taken permanently. Although the prescription was two or three years old the chemist would supply a bottle of it, and often the person producing the prescription said he was going to the South of France, or for a sea voyage, and he should like half-a-dozen bottles, and very often he got it. He knew of a person who had a prescription for chloral in rather heavy doses, and he had a great deal of trouble in getting a large quantity of it at a time, but the stores supplied half-a-dozen bottles on the plea that

1735
he was going yachting to Norway and Sweden. The person who obtained that quantity, he need not inform the House, was not any better for it when he came back. He was hoping that it would be quite possible for the Government to insert some clause to make it absolutely necessary that a doctor, in giving a prescription of a dangerous character containing a poison, should affix a date, and make it illegal for a chemist to dispense that dangerous drug after a month had elapsed. This was not merely his own opinion, but from repeated conversations with eminent medical men he knew that would be popular with the healing profession. The danger was now being rather accentuated by the putting up of most dangerous drugs in compressed or tabloid form, and people were using them because they could get them so easily. He had said before, and he repeated that he believed the love of drugs was as bad as that of drink and if they could get an opportunity restricting this traffic it was their duty to do it, and he believed that no measure would be more useful to the community than one which would make it more difficult to get the drugs which were so popular among the drug-taking fraternity. He entirely agreed with the last speaker as regarded the naming of the authority which should have this important duty put upon it under the Bill. He thought it should not be left to an Order in Council, but ought to be decided by the Government. He congratulated the parties to this dispute on coming to a fair compromise, but he hoped, before the Bill became an Act, some clause would be inserted which would make it more difficult for the drug-taking population to secure drugs, so that they should not get them with the same amount of ease with which they could get them now. Although it might not be known, he was sure that a very large portion of the misery and disease which certain classes of our population were suffering from to-day was owing to their having taken, at some time in their lives, drugs which did not. show the bad effects at once; and in regard to the well-being of our people no measure would be of greater or wider use for the benefit of all than a measure which
1736
would restrict the facilities for getting these dangerous compounds. He did not think it was necessary for him to say anything more, except again to ask the Government to insert the local authority that should have cast upon it the important duty of giving a certificate to the person who might dispense these articles, and not leave it simply to the machinery of an Order in Council, under which different authorities might be named. He also-hoped the Government would see their way to put something in the Bill to restrict the sale of those articles which were sapping away the lives and happiness of our people.
MR. DILLONsaid it was quite correct that Clause 2 of the Bill made the sale of poisonous substance? more free, but those who objected ignored apparently the exact state of the facts. All over large tracts of country the law, as it was at present, was set at defiance, and had been for years. He did not so much mean set at defiance as broken by general consent, owing to the enormous necessity for the supply of these drugs. What was the position? Hon. Members who lived in the country knew perfectly well that there were large districts in Ireland where the town was so small that a properly qualified druggist and chemist could not exist. Were they going to say to the poorer farmers in such districts that they should not be allowed to get sheep-dip and preparations of that kind? A substance which had not been mentioned, but which he thought ought to be mentioned, was sulphate of copper. There were hundreds of tons needed where no chemist was likely to have it. Sulphate of copper was required for spraying potatoes, and it was sold in every store in every country town. The result had been that in large districts of the country the Act of 1868 had been for many years a dead letter, and these necessary poisons were sold for the convenience of everybody. It was recognised by everyone that convenience must override the law. He was stating what was an absolute fact; and, therefore, he thought the Government were perfectly right in bringing the law into

1737
harmony with the facts of the case. He thought the Government, so far from curtailing the rights given under Section 2, ought to extend them to all these substances which were commonly used by the country people for the destruction of fungi, or for sheep-dips, or spraying potatoes or fruit trees. He thought all these ought to be included under Section 2, and it ought not to be left to the Lord-Lieutenant in Council to investigate this question. What was the use of leaving the Lord-Lieutenant to inquire whether sulphate of copper was useful when everybody knew it was? Clause 2 was an absolute necessity for the convenience of the rural districts, and in those districts cases of poisoning were exceedingly rare. Whenever there was a case it was generally rat-poison that was used, and seldom anything else. Clause 2 did not apply to rat-poison or anything containing strychnine. He thought the clause was necessary, and hoped the Government would stick to it.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid that owing to this Bill being brought on them at short notice, it was very difficult for some of them who were interested in the subject, and who represented another part of Ireland than that represented by the hon. Member who had just sat down, to deal with the matter. At the same time, they were entrusted with the task of trying to elicit from the Minister in charge of the Bill what compromise had been concluded with regard to the chemists and druggists in Ireland. He understood from the new clause read out that it only referred to chemists and druggists in England and Scotland, but anyone who turned to the end of the Bill would see that a certain portion of the measure applied to Ireland, and he understood that great dissatisfaction had been evinced among certain sections of the chemists in that country with regard to Clauses 2 and 3. The Under-Secretary, in reading out the new clause, made no mention whatever of how it would be affected by Clause 7, which said that the provisions of this Act, relative to the regulation and sale of certain poisonous substances for agricultural and horticultural purposes, and to restrictions on the sale of
1738
certain mineral acids, should apply to Ireland with certain modifications. Clause 2 dealt chiefly with the poisons which were used in the production of agricultural articles—sheep dip, and so on, and it would be found there that so much of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, as made it an offence for any person to sell or keep open a shop for the sale of poisons, unless he was a duly registered pharmaceutical chemist or chemist and druggist, and conformed to the regulations under Section 1 of that Act, should not apply to poisonous substances containing certain materials, such as arsenic, tobacco or alkaloids of tobacco, to be used exclusively in agriculture or horticulture. Clause 2 was rather obscure, in so far that the Act to which it referred, the Act of 1868, had twenty-eight clauses, and in considering Clause 2 of this Bill it was necessary to go through the whole of the Act of 1868 to see what portion of it referred to the sale of these poisons. That, taken by itself, was a matter of considerable labour, but, in the circumstances under which this Bill was introduced, it was an absolute impossibility. He would like to ask, was Ireland included in the compromise referred to?
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the later clause affecting the position of chemist and druggist companies did not affect Ireland.
CAPTAIN CRAIGreplied that if that were so, a large section of the chemists of Ireland thoroughly objected to the Bill. He had understood that some arrangement had been come to by which Clause 3 would be extended to Ireland. If that was so, it would be acceptable to the chemists. The only part of the Bill which referred to Ireland was Clause 2 and a part of Clause 6 referring solely to the sale of articles connected with agriculture and horticulture. If only Clause 2 was applicable to Ireland, he would like to ask whether there was anything in the Bill to allow the right of sale to be extended to those who were connected solely with horticulture and agriculture in Ireland. There was a grievance touching these great seedsmen and rose-growers and fruit-growers, having the right to sell the

1739
various articles enumerated in Clause 2, which affect their particular branch of horticulture. They had an expert knowledge in the cure of the various diseases from which fruit trees and other things suffered. In the readjustment of the Bill, before it came to the Committee stage, he hoped the Government would make some arrangement whereby these large and established firms would be able to sell these articles, which they were able from their expert knowledge to certify were the best remedies for the diseases to which he had referred. He would like to know also whether it was not the fact that certain restrictions were to be put on those who had sold these potato sprays and sheep dips in Ireland, because in some of the out-of-the-way districts in Ireland some restriction ought to be put in force. The danger was in those districts, not where these things were sold in packets, but where they were supplied in smaller quantities, where packets were broken up, perhaps by a small child of the shopkeeper, in which case some of this poisonous material might be left on the counter in close proximity to food and other articles of consumption. He had been told that the restriction to be placed on the sale of these articles would take the line that they would not be allowed to be sold in any shop where food or drink was sold. But whether that suggestion had been accepted by the Government he had not been informed. The hon. Member for East Mayo had spoken quite truly when he had stated that in certain out-of-the-way parts of Ireland there was not a certified chemist within reasonable distance. But even where there was, the prices charged by the registered chemist for these articles were much higher than those charge by the druggist. Co-operative societies also had sprung up and grown rapidly in Ireland during the past few years, and they claimed a right to be allowed to sell these articles, done up in tins, bottles or parcels, in their particular localities. Although the Bill, so far as Clause 2 was concerned, was of as much interest to Ireland as to any other part of the United Kingdom, not one word, in the course of two hours discussion, had been said by Ministers as to how it affected Ireland. He really thought that the Vice-President of the
1740
Department of Agriculture for Ireland, who, he understood, had charge of that part of the Bill, should have been in his place and given the House some enlightenment on that matter. He did not oppose the Bill, and should not divide against the Second Beading, but unless some explanation was given he hoped some of his friends would oppose it and insist on the Vice-President being sent for immediately.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that most of the points which had been raised were such as could only be settled in Committee, and it was obviously impossible for him to discuss them that day. With regard to the general principle of Clause 2, it was one of the most important clauses in the Bill. The purpose of that clause was not to impose restrictions on the sale of weed-killers and sheep-dips to farmers, but, as he said in moving the Second Reading, to enable agriculturists and horticulturists to get those articles which contained poisons more freely than they were now able legally to do. Ironmongers and others who now sold those commodities did so illegally, and were liable to prosecution at any time. Although in recent years few prosecutions had taken place, yet between 1896 and 1901 there were 749 prosecutions by the Pharmaceutical Society, mainly, he believed, in cases of this character. In some parts of England the sale of these articles was restricted absolutely to chemists through those prosecutions. Under the Bill, other persons who were to sell these commodities were to be licensed and were to conform to the requirements of the Act.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYasked if the restriction would apply to the sale of patent medicines which were specially excluded from the Act of 1868.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid they did not come within the purview of the clause. Clause 2 dealt only with those commodities which were used for agriculture, and which contained particular poisons as ingredients, such as arsenic, tobacco, and alkaloids of tobacco. The precarious position of the present

1741
sellers of these poisonous materials for agricultural purposes must be dealt with. On the one hand, it was obvious that they ought to extend the existing legal facilities. He thought that all Members of the House must agree to that. Even the Member for the Scottish Universities, when he came to consider the matter more closely, especially if he read the Report of the Departmental Committee of 1901, could not fail to come to that conclusion. On the other hand, it would be very inadvisable to throw open the sale of poisonous materials, some of them very poisonous, to all and sundry without any restriction at all. Therefore they proposed to require a double check. One was that the local authority should license the trader who was to sell these materials, so that only persons of repute who could be properly trusted to take precautions should get these licences; and, secondly, these poisonous materials were only to be sold in accordance with the regulations which were to be made by Order in Council for the safeguard of their storage and use.
AN HON. MEMBER: What local authority?
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the local authority was to be determined by Order in Council, but it would be carefully considered whether it would be possible to insert a precise designation of the local authority in the Bill. He would consult with his right hon. friend the Lord President of the Council on this matter. This was not a Home Office Bill; it was a Privy Council Bill, and he was speaking not as Under-Secretary for the Home Office, but as representative in that House of that Department. The hon. Member for Mayo had said that this Clause 2 ought to be enlarged, and that the poisons which were specified there should be added to, and he had mentioned one or two materials which were sold for use in agriculture. By an Order in Council other materials, which at any time might be brought into use for those purposes, could be added to those specified in Clause 2 of the Bill. He hoped that he had made it quite clear that it was not intended to restrict farmers in obtaining these
1742
articles, but to enable them to do so more easily, and this had been warmly welcomed by chambers of agriculture throughout the country. The hon. Member for Blackpool brought up the question of morphia. This Bill did make a change in the law; it took morphia out of Part II. of the Schedule of the Pharmacy Act of 1868, and put it into Part I., and thereby furthered restrained its sale. It might be said that the whole of the Pharmacy Acts ought to be amended so as greatly to increase the restrictions on substances such as these. That was a question which ought to be dealt with, if at all, after inquiry and with the aid of expert knowledge, but all the restrictions provided by the existing law which applied to the most deadly poisons, like prussic acid for example, would now be applied to the sale of morphia. The hon. Member had asked him how far the Bill applied to Ireland, and whether the compromise arrived at with regard to Clause 3 would extend to that country. Ireland had its own code of Pharmacy Acts, and the Pharmacy Acts which they were amending did not apply to Ireland at all. They had their own Orders in Council made by the Irish Privy Council. His right hon. friend did not originally propose to apply the Bill to Ireland; but there was a great desire on the part of Irish agriculturists that Clause 2 should be extended to their country, and it was in accordance with that desire that that extension was made. Clause 5, which dealt with comparatively small points, also applied to Ireland. Clause 3 which dealt with the vexed question of companies which were chemists and druggists, did not apply to Ireland, and communications consequently had not passed between the Government and the chemists and druggists and the companies of Ireland as in England. It would be difficult, he did not say impossible, to adapt the Irish Pharmacy Acts to the purposes of the Bill. It would mean legislation by reference of a complicated kind. But if it was desired that Clause 3 should apply to Ireland, he would be happy to take representations on the point into consideration. There had been communications with the Irish Government, but he was not convinced that

1743
there was the same agreement in Ireland as in England with regard to Clause 3. He need hardly say, however, that if there was a general desire among Irish representatives that the clause should be extended to Ireland, with the necessary modifications, of course, the Government would be very glad indeed to do all in its power to meet their wishes. The Government's own desire was to arrive at a general agreement of this character. The adaptation to this particular Bill of the Irish Pharmacy Acts would be a matter of much complexity, and hon. Members must not complain if the clause consisted of legislation by reference of a somewhat complicated character; that would be inevitable. The noble Lord the Member for Chorley had asked how far there was a real compromise in England, and had suggested that the compromise was on the basis of vague conversations which might break down. When the Government had drafted the clause it was submitted to the various parties. He held in his hand three letters with reference to this matter. He submitted the clause as proposed by the Government to the organised representatives of the various parties, and he had a communication from the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain saying that they would agree to the clause as it would stand when the suggested Amendments were inserted; and he had a letter from the Companies Chemists Association, which included the Army and Navy Stores, the Junior Army and Navy, Harrod's, Spiers and Pond's, Boots' Cash Chemists, and all the other protagonists in this fight, and also a letter from the Cooperative Union, which represented the co-operative societies of England and Wales. The whole of these bodies unanimously accepted without any reservation whatever the clause as it would be when amended by the Government proposals. The hon. Member for Inverness had suggested that the House should have an opportunity to consider the precise terms of the compromise. He would hand in Amendments to-night in order that they might appear on the Order Paper tomorrow, and in ample time for the Committee stage. He thought that this Bill, which was of a technical and detailed character, would properly be dealt with
1744
by a Standing Committee rather than by the Committee of the Whole House. He had no doubt that the Standing Committee would consider it in a spirit of goodwill and with a desire to pass the Bill. It was a measure which raised no element of party controversy. He thought that all sections of the House desired to see an end put to this long standing dispute, and he trusted that, as the Bill had already passed the House of Lords, before very many days had elapsed it would have passed through the House of Commons.
MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he agreed that it was most undesirable that these preparations sold for the purposes of agriculture should continue to be sold by persons in defiance of the law. But there was another class they must think of at the same time, namely, those people who had the right to sell these sheep dips and potato spraying mixtures to agriculturists, and who had actually been disposing of them in various districts for many years. It would be a very serious thing, when this Bill passed, if anybody might be allowed to sell these commodities in their immediate neighbourhood. It would be an interference with what had been an undoubted monopoly of qualified persons—a monopoly which they had enjoyed for many years, and out of which no doubt, they had made a very good income. There was no doubt that such persons ought to be considered. He was not content to leave entirely to the local authority, especially as they had not been informed what that local authority was, the absolute right to say whether or not any person should be allowed to sell these things. He was sorry to say that no matter what the measure was, if it applied to Ireland, politics and religion were sure to enter into its administration. And he could quite realise the case in which a local authority, say a rural district council, if it were fixed upon as the authorty who was to have the administration of this Act, might decide that a certain individual should have the right to sell these materials, and so perhaps pay off an old score against the person who up to then had been the only one who had had the right to sell these commodities.

1745
There should be some stringent provisions for regulating that part of the measure. He thought also that where an individual was refused a licence he ought to have the right of appeal to some tribunal which he might consider more impartial than the local authority. He objected very strongly to the extensive powers which were left in the hands of the Privy Council. There was the further objection that the regulations which they framed were to be laid on the Table of the House, so that there might be an opportunity of considering them. So far as that safeguard was concerned, it might as well be left out of the Bill altogether. As had been pointed out by hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House, everything that was done under the Bill was handed over en bloc to the Privy Council. They had become accustomed to this kind of legislation; none the less he thought that it was extremely harmful and retrograde. There were many things in these subsections which he was firmly convinced ought to be kept in the hands of the House. For instance, the regulations as regarded the granting of licences: he thought that the House, and not the Privy Council, ought to lay down the various classes of persons to whom these licences should be given. He certainly thought the House should fix definitely what the local authority was to be, which should have the carrying out of the Act. He desired that the Bill should pass into law, because in theory, at any rate, there was nothing contentious about it, but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman again to consider before the Committee stage whether he could not, with the assistance of the draughtsman who had so skilfully drafted that gem of draughtsmanship, sub-clause (a) of Clause 6, a gem in the way of legislation by reference, include the compromise which had been arrived at on Clause 3. This was a very excellent opportunity of trying to clear up the differences and difficulties which had existed quite as much in Ireland as in this country. It was hardly reasonable to complain of the non-attendance of any Minister to answer for the Irish part of the Bill, but at any rate they had a grievance, inasmuch as they had no one on the Treasury bench who could give them any information whatever with reference to what
1746
it was intended to do on the various points which applied to Ireland alone. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give them ample time, before the Bill went into Committee, to communicate with interested parties and formulate Amendments, and that there would be full discussion in Committee and on Report.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time and committed to a Standing Committee.

WHITE PHOSPHORUS MATCHES PROHIBITION BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
EARL OF RONALDSHAYmoved to omit Clause 1, for the purpose of obtaining a little more information with regard to the necessity of the Bill. He had already been informed in answer to a Question that there were ten factories in this country at which white phosphorus was used in the manufacture of matches, and that there were only five cases of necrosis during the past five years, all of which occurred in one particular factory. As nine out of ten factories using white phosphorus had, therefore, been absolutely free from cases of necrosis for five years the occurrence of the disease entirely in one factory must have been due to negligence either on the part of those concerned in the factory or on the part of the inspectors whose duty it was to see that safeguards were put in force. One of the main objects, he gathered from the Memorandum accompanying the Bill, was to enable this country to join the Berne Convention. He believed there was no material benefit to be gained by going into the Convention, and supposed that the object was really a sentimental one. But had it occurred to the Home Secretary that those who were urging the passing of the Bill had not altogether foreseen what the result would be if it became law? The object of the Bill was to prevent recurrence of cases of necrosis, a disease which was preventable already. A result which would probably follow from the Bill would be the creation of a

1747
large trust among match manufacturers, because the Bill would prohibit the importation of all matches in the manufacture of which white phosphorus was used. It also appeared from the Memorandum that these manufacturers had agreed to the Bill. It must have occurred to the Government that these manufacturers would reap an advantage by increasing the price to the consumer. Were there any reasons for other countries not having joined the Berne Convention —Russia and Austria, for instance?
MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord is not entitled to discuss the whole Bill on the first clause. He must confine himself to the first clause. He is now making a Second Reading speech.
EARL OF RONALDSHAYsaid his vote on whether to leave the clause out or not was dependent on the reasons which were given for retaining it. He was only anxious to know what the real necessity was for our joining the Berne Convention. If he could get the information he had asked for he would be very glad to withdraw his Amendment.
MR. HICKS BEACH MR. HICKS BEACH, in seconding, asked what were the reasons explained in Memorandum Cd. 3271 of 1906 why the Government at that time were not able to agree to the Berne Convention. He had done his best to find a copy of that interesting document, but there appeared to be only one in existence, and that was in the possession of the late Home Secretary. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would tell them what had actually transpired since 1906 which had enabled the Government now to enter the Convention, and to bring in a Bill of this kind. He thought his noble friend had brought forward one or two strong points against he necessity of bringing in the Bill.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 5, to leave out Clause 1." —(Earl of Ronaldshay.)
Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,)said the chief reason
1748
for the Bill was the desire absolutely to eliminate the danger from necrosis. It was true that few cases had occurred during the last few years, but he thought that immunity had been secured only by great trouble and continual watchfulness, and they could not say that they were safe from an outbreak. The question could not be dealt with by legislation just after the Berne Convention. At that time they hoped to be able to proceed entirely by fresh regulations, and those regulations were taken in hand; but difficulties were encountered, and it was evident that fresh rules could not be imposed without serious cost to the trade. When that became evident the regulations dropped, because they saw it would be a simpler matter to deal with the question by Bill. A second material point was that there were certain patent rights in existence, and they could not prohibit importation, and thereby give undue advantage to two or three manufacturers at the expense of the rest. The result of their communications with the manufacturers on this point was entirely satisfactory. Those who were interested in existing patents undertook to give to the other manufacturers the use of those patents at a nominal figure which was merely a recognition of the patent rights, and in regard to any future manufacture that might come into existence, they undertook to give the patent rights at nearly a nominal price. That disarmed suspicion by itself. The Board of Trade had ample power of control under the Bill to secure to any manufacturer free and proper use at a reasonable price of those patent rights. In the circumstances there was no possible danger arising from the formation of combinations of manufacturers. So far as the general necessity for the Bill was concerned, it was desirable, though he admitted there had been few cases lately of necrosis poisoning, if they could do it, absolutely to eliminate the chance of this very dreadful and painful disease occurring. It was so dreadful that, even if only one case had occurred in the last few years, this Bill, which would involve no trouble or expense, would be justified. The Bill was supported in every part of the House, and he hoped it would be allowed to pass.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid that after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman he would not detain the House many minutes. He did not think it was unreasonable that his noble friend should have asked the right hon. Gentleman to make the reply he had done. The Opposition raised no objection to the Second Reading, thinking it was universally accepted, and they were anxious to get forward with the measure. On that occasion, they obtained an understanding that the right hon. Gentleman would not think them unreasonable if they asked two or three questions when the Bill came forward in the House. He understood that the Home Office thought prohibition was absolutely necessary to stop this painful disease of necrosis or phossy jaw. The late Lord Ritchie, after an exhaustive inquiry, imposed upon manufactories where white phosphorus was used, stringent conditions as to ventilation, cleanliness and periodical inspection, and, besides that, he caused the dangerous processes to be separated. When he himself was at the Home Office those regulations had had the effect of almost suppressing the disease in this country, and there were only five cases in the year 1904, and three of those were very mild, whilst the other two were caused entirely because the operatives would not obey the regulations laid down. In 1906 there were no such cases at all, and he did not understand that there had been any recurrence of the disease. There was some little criticism in the year 1905 when there was a Convention sitting at Berne. At that time, as the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean knew, there was a Foreign Office objection to proceeding with this measure, and he wished to know whether Japan agreed to the present Convention. With regard to the second Convention, upon which the present Under-Secretary was the representative of this country, he gathered that the representatives were unanimous in the decision they had come to. He would like to ask the Under-Secretary what action was taken by Japan and the United States, and whether the latter intended to carry out prohibition in that country. That would have a considerable effect upon the
1750
manufacturers of this country, and he believed that was the reason why the right hon. Gentleman had thought it better that there should be a total prohibition of the landing of matches made with this substance from other countries. He did not know that this House would disagree with a policy of that kind, and they might wish to see it carried much further. All he wanted to know was what were the terms under which ordinary British manufacturers not in the "circle" could obtain patent rights. He shared his noble friend's alarm that some trust might be formed, which might be a disadvantage to the best interest of their manufacturers at home. It would be open to them at a later stage, if they were not satisfied, to ask further questions as to the terms made with other Powers.
MR. SUMMERBELLsaid he was somewhat surprised at any opposition to a Bill of this kind, and more especially at the Motion made by the noble Lord.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he had already pointed out that the Opposition allowed this Bill to pass the Second Reading unopposed on the understanding that they would be afforded opportunities for discussion at a later stage. He denied that the Opposition were opposing the Bill.
MR. SUMMERBELLsaid under those circumstances he would withdraw what he had said upon that point. Even if there had been only one case they ought to make an effort to prevent this terrible disease recurring. A most extraordinary statement had been made by the noble Lord, in which he said a Bill of this character would prevent the importation of matches, and that prohibition would give a monopoly to British manufacturers which would inevitably result in an increase in the cost of matches to the consumer at home. That was an extraordinary statement, and he only wished to emphasise it in view of future discussions.
EARL OF RONALDSHAYasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL OF RONALDSHAYmoved an Amendment to Clause 2 (Prohibition of Sale) providing that the prohibition of the sale of white phosphorus matches by any retail dealer should not come into operation until 1st January, 1912, instead of 1911. The object of the Amendment, he said, was to enable retail dealers who had large stocks of these matches to have a little time to dispose of them. He thought this was an Amendment which the Government would consider was reasonable, because if it were accepted it would not in any way interfere with the efficiency of the Bill. It might put off for one year the time when they would attach their signatures to the Berne Convention but that ought not to trouble them very much. He would like to give a reason why he thought the time allowed for retailers getting rid of their stocks of matches was not sufficient. They liked to have wrappers on the boxes upon which their own name was printed, and any other advertisement of their own; and they could only secure those particular wrappers by giving very large orders. He believed that the ordinary order necessary to secure such wrappers was something like ten gross of boxes. To a man not doing a very large business it was impossible for him to dispose of that property in two years. He believed that the Under-Secretary was of opinion that, generally speaking, two years would be sufficient for retailers to dispose of their stock, but his information was of a contrary nature, and the right hon. Gentleman would find that many retailers in his own constituency would be ready to support what he had said. He did not know this Bill was coming on so early, or he could have given many proofs that these retailers would not be able to get rid of their stocks within the time allowed. He had received a telegram from a grocer at Peterborough stating that he had a stock of these matches which he could not dispose of at the present rate of business under less than three years. [Cries of "Oh, oh."] Hon. Members below the gangway apparently were not conversant with the grocery trade.
MR. SEDDONsaid he was conversant with the grocery trade, and had spent twenty years in it.
EARL OF RONALDSHAYsaid that in the case of this particular grocer three years would be required before he was able to dispose of the stock he had in hand. There would be no risk in accepting this Amendment, and it would not impair the efficiency of the Bill, therefore he could not see what possible objection there could be to it. The importation of these matches was to be prohibited, and also their manufacture. Consequently, the sale of them would cease by the natural course of events. There was another hardship which would be inflicted upon the retail traders. Under the Explosives Act railways were not allowed to charge less than 5s. or 6s. upon any consignments of matches. In order to be able to defray the expense of carriage under these conditions it was necessary they should order matches in large quantities, otherwise they would not make any profit on them. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept this Amendment, otherwise he would feel bound to press the matter to a division. He begged to move.
MR. HICKS BEACH, in seconding the Amendment, said the case put by his hon. friend was worthy of consideration. There were people who would suffer hardship if the proposal in the Bill were carried in its present form. What possible harm could it do to extend the period? The whole object of the Bill was to prevent disease arising from the use of white phosphorus, and it appeared to him that the extension of the period for one year could do no possible harm. That would enable retailers to get rid of the stocks which they had laid in. He would support the Amendment unless the Home Secretary could give some valid reason for not extending the period.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 5, to leave out the word 'eleven,' and to insert the word 'twelve.'"— (Earl of Ronaldshay.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'eleven' stand part of the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid that in consequence of representations made by the trade an extension of time to 1911 was given in Committee, and now the Government were quite satisfied that the trade as a whole were entirely satisfied with the Bill as it stood.
EARL OF RONALDSHAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the objection to extending the time?
MR. GLADSTONE: The objection is that it is really not necessary.
MR. HICKS BEACH: Would it have any detrimental effect with respect to this country becoming a signatory to the Berne Convention?
MR. RUPERT GUINNESSpressed for an extension of the time on behalf of small grocers. He had received some representations on their behalf, and he thought the proposal in the Bill would operate unfairly in regard to them.
MR. GLADSTONEasked whether the representations had been received since the Committee stage of the Bill.
MR. RUPERT GUINNESSsaid he had received them within the last few days. The people for whom he pleaded had to buy their matches in large quantities, and it took a considerable time to get rid of the stocks.
LORD BALCARRESexpressed the hope that his hon. friend would not press the Amendment. He did not believe that grocers were going to suffer to any great extent. It was only in exceptional cases that phosphorus matches were stored in grocers' shops. In trying to protect the small grocer, they might inflict this potential danger on everybody else in the trade. At present the whole of the match trade was in exceptional difficulty, having severe regulations hanging over its head. The extension of the time would inflict great expense and consequent hardship
1754
on the trade, and, therefore, he hoped that the operation of the Bill would not be postponed.
Amendment negatived.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a third time,"— (Mr. Gladstone)—put, and agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL. [H.L.]
Order for the Second Reading read.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,)moved the Second Reading of this Bill, which, he said, had come down from the Lords. The object of the measure, he explained, was to enable the Privy Council and the Court of Appeal to receive the assistance of Judges who were available for the purpose without any creation of new Judges. The first clause would enable a Colonial Judge to act as assessor of the Judicial Committee on the hearing of appeals from a Colony. This applied only to cases where the services of such Judges happened to be available, and enabled the Privy Council to avail themselves of their services in proper cases. Then there were Indian Judges who were happily often in this country and retired Judges who had served in a High Court in British India, and whose assistance would be of great benefit to the Privy Council. The second section accordingly enabled His Majesty to direct that such Judges might be made members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. This applied only to those Judges who had already the distinction of being privy councillors. Another section provided that the Lord Chancellor might request any Judge of the High Court in England to sit as an additional Judge of the Court of Appeal.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir W. Robson.)
LORD BALCARRESsaid he understood that under this Bill it would be possible for one of the assessors to be a Judge who had already adjudicated in a case.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid that Clause 4 referred to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act of 1875, and that provision would prevent what the hon. Member alluded to.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for To-morrow.—(Sir. W. Robson.)

COMPANIES CONSOLIDATION BILL.
Order for the Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Churchill.)
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASasked whether they were to have no explanation at all. He wanted to know whether the Bill had been before a Select Committee or the Law Officers of the Crown. There were a large number of clauses in the Bill, and he would like to get an assurance on that point.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,)said the Bill was simply a consolidation Bill, reproducing the law at present expressed in eighteen different statutes. It had been considered by a Joint Committee of a most representative and authoritative character.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—(Mr. Churchill)

ASSIZES AND QUARTER SESSIONS BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Privilege Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended, considered; Bill read the third time and passed with an Amendment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. J. A. PEASE,, in moving the Adjournment of the House, said that in the possible event of the Education Bill not being proceeded with, which he thought improbable, the Government proposed to proceed on Friday with the Port of London Bill
SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD ()asked if the Government did proceed with the Education Bill would they go on straight with Clause 3?
MR. J. A. PEASE: That is certainly the intention.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 31st July, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at nineteen minutes after Seven o'clock.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition for Amendment of; of school board of Kirkcaldy; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  STATISTICS (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  Statistical abstract for the principal and other foreign countries in each year from 1896 to 1905–1906 (as far as the particulars can be stated), with some provisional figures for 1907. Thirty-fourth Number.

  RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR).
  Return in pursuance of Section 4 of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1889, of railway servants of certain classes who were on one or more occasions during the month of July, 1908, on duty on certain railways of the United Kingdom for more than twelve hours at a time, or who, after being on duty more than twelve hours, were allowed to resume work with less than nine hours rest; showing periods of duty after deduction of time (if any) spent in travelling home after relief and certain definite and continuous intervals of rest of four hours or upwards; with appendices giving additional statements and explanations furnished by the railway companies.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 TO 1903.
Order No. 7619, dated 28th November, 1908, permitting the landing at a foreign animals wharf in Great Britain of animals carried on board the s.s. "Titian."

DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS, 1877 AND 1907.
Order, dated the 27th November, 1908, entitled the "American Gooseberry Mildew (Wisbech and District) Order of 1908."
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

LAW OF DISTRESS AMENDMENT BILL.
Amendments reported (according to order).
LORD ATKINSONexplained that the Amendments standing in his name on the Paper were really Lord Halsbury's Amendments, which he had undertaken to move on his noble and learned friend's behalf. He first moved to omit from paragraph (c) of Clause 1 the words "lease, under-lease. or." The paragraph would then read—
"Any other person whatsoever not being a tenant of the premises or of any part thereof, and not having any beneficial interest, in any any tenancy of the premises or of any part, thereof."
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 15, to leave out the words 'lease, under-lease, or.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITHaccepted the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendments to Clause 3 agreed to.
LORD ATKINSONformally moved to omit from Clause 4 the provision that the Bill should not apply to goods of an under tenant (not being a lodger) who should have become a tenant of premises without the consent of the superior landlord contrary to any lease or agreement under which the immediate tenant held.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 32, to leave out from the word 'Corporation' to the word 'Provided' in line 37."—(Lord Atkinson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ATKINSONmoved three Amendments to the proviso at the end of Clause 4, so as to make it read—
"Provided that it shall be competent for a stipendiary magistrate, or where there is no stipendiary magistrates for two justices, upon application by the superior landlord or any under tenant or other such person as aforesaid, upon hearing the parties, to determine whether any goods are in fact goods covered by subsection (2) of this section."
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, lines 40 and 41, to leave out the words, "the under tenant or other persons not being the immediate tenant of."—(Lord Atkinson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 41, after the word" landlord "to insert the words" or any under tenant or other such person as aforesaid."— (Lord Atkinson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 2, to leave out the word "premises" and to insert the word "goods," and after the word "by," to insert the word "subsection."—(Lord Atkinson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendments to Clause 5, agreed to.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH, who had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out Clause 5, which ran—
"This Act shall not apply to any under tenant, not being a lodger, where the under tenancy has been created in breach of any covenant or agreement in writing between the landlord and his immediate tenant, or where the under tenancy has been created contrary to the wish of the landlord in that behalf, expressed in writing and delivered at the premises within a reasonable time after the circumstances have come, or with due diligence, would have come to his knowledge,"
said that words had just been deleted from Clause 4, on the Motion of Lord Atkinson, to the omission of which he (Lord Courtney) ought to have objected; but he was under the impression that what the noble and learned Lord was moving was merely a drafting Amendment. He certainly thought his attention might have been called to the effect of the Amendment. As the words in question had been omitted from Clause 4, he had no option but to allow Clause 5 to stand. He would not, therefore, move his Amendment.
LORD AVEBURYsaid the words that have been struck out of Clause 4 were suggested by him in Committee, and were, he understood, assented to by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. Lord Halsbury suggested other words which he thought would better carry out the object, and Clause 5 was the result. As Clause 5 was in. the Bill he (Lord
1596
Avebury) did not object to the words in Clause 4 being deleted, and now that those words had disappeared Clause 5 was necessary.
LORD ATKINSONsaid his reason for moving the omission of the words in question from Clause 4 was that Clause 5 covered exactly the same point. He did not understand that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill preferred retaining the provision in Clause 4. Moreover, Lord Halsbury, for whom he was acting, attached the utmost importance to Clause 5, which contained more than was provided for by the words omitted from Clause 4.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITHsaid it was precisely these additional words in Clause 5 to which he objected.
THE LORD CHANCELLORhaving called attention to the fact that there was no Amendment before the House,
The discussion on Clause 5 dropped.
LORD ATKINSONmoved to amend Clause 6 so as to compel the under-tenant, if served with the required notice, to pay to the superior landlord not only the rent due but also the rent accruing.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 18, after the word ' rent' to insert the words ' whether the same has already accrued due or not.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITHaccepted the Amendment.
On Question Amendment agreed to.
LORD ATKINSONsaid the Amendment standing in his name to Clause 8 was really, if their Lordships would forgive an Irishism, consequential upon an Amendment which had not yet been reached. Clause 10 provided that the Act should not apply to Scotland, and when that clause was reached he proposed to add words restricting the application of the Bill in Ireland to a rent issuing out of lands or tenements situate wholly within the boundaries of a municipality or of a township having town commissioners. The object was to remove agricultural tenancies from the operation of the Act. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill was prepared to accept those additional words

1597
when they came to Clause 10, and therefore he now moved to insert in Clause 8, which provided that the Lodgers' Goods Protection Act, 1871, should be repealed as from the commencement of this Act, the words "wherever and so far as this Act applies."
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 25, after the word 'shall' to insert the words 'wherever and so far as this Act applies.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITHaccepted the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendment to Clause 9 agreed to.
LORD ATKINSONthen moved to add to Clause 10 the provision to which he had referred, the practical effect of which, he said, would be to confine the Act to urban areas.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 32, after the word 'Scotland' to insert the words 'and shall only apply in Ireland to a rent issuing out of lands or tenements situate wholly within the boundaries of a municipality or of a township having town commissioners.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
On Question Amendment agreed to.
Bill to be read 3a on Monday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 237.)

INCEST BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment, and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

THE STRENGTH OF THE ARMY.
THE EARL OF ERROLL: My Lords, I rise to call attention to a statement reported to have been made by the Secretary of State for War on Friday the 20th November, at Guildford, to the effect that, "the Army is 90,000 stronger than it was three years ago," and to ask for details justifying these figures; and to move for Papers.
What I want to know is whether these extra men—and I lay emphasis on the
1598
word extra — represent a net increase of the numbers of the Army, or do they merely represent a change of name and a re-arrangement of units, with the view of persuading the public that the armed strength of the country is greater than the facts justify? Do these men really exist in the flesh, or are they more in the nature of a stage Army, in which the same men are counted several times over? The right hon. Gentleman went on, in the speech to which I have alluded, to claim an increase of 65,000 men in the Special Reserve, and an increase of 40,000 in the reserve of the Regular Army. From this total of 105,000 men he deducted 15,000 as due to the reductions of nine battalions, leaving as the net increase 90,000 men. I venture to say that this calculation is erroneous and absolutely misleading, because it altogether ignores the Militia of three years ago. I maintain that in a comparative statement, if credit is taken for the Special Reserve now, credit should also be taken for the Militia as they existed in 1905. This is a debit and credit amount, and if you take credit for the Special Reserve you must take credit for the Militia as well. You must take credit for both or neither.
Now, what is the Special Reserve? It is merely the old Militia under a new name, with the obligation to serve abroad. At the present moment it is 25,000 men short of what the Militia was in 1905, and it has an annual training of fourteen days instead of twenty-eight days as in the case of the old Militia. In what I may call the pre-territorial days, it was the established custom when calculating the armed strength of the country to include the Militia, and I am informed that the War Office used always to rely on two-thirds of the Militia volunteering for service abroad. Granted that this obligation of the Special Reserve to serve abroad is a good one, which I am quite ready to admit, I maintain that that is no reason why all the value of the Militia of three years ago should be ignored. The Militia never failed to come forward when asked. They fought in very large numbers in the Peninsula, they were present in force at Waterloo, and during the Crimea they occupied the garrisons in the Mediterranean, and their services in South Africa are so recent that I need not allude to them.

1599
The Militia establishment in 1905 was 130,000 men and their actual strength, irrespective of the permanent staff, was 90,000. The Special Reserve establishment is 80,000—its present strength is, I believe, somewhere near 65,000 —so that, even if it were up to its total establishment, it would still be 10,000 below the Militia, of three years ago. Even supposing that the organisation is better, I maintain that you cannot, by wiping out 90,000 men and replacing them by 65,000, claim to have increased the numbers. Really we are in a worse position now than we were three years ago. With 75,000 fewer men in the Territorial Army than we had in the Yeomanry and Volunteer Forces, 20,000 less men in the Regular services, and the balance of loss of 25,000 between the Militia and the Special Reserve, there are, deducting the increase in the Reserve of the Regular Army, 80,000 less men to call upon than there were three years ago.
Speaking in the City the other night, Mr. Haldane is reported to have said—
"There was no greater fallacy than to suppose that the Government had reduced the Regular Line. They had far more than compensated for any changes by providing the Special Reserve."
To me this is a most astounding statement. It was the Militia who were replaced by the Special Reserve. The Regulars who have been done away with have never been replaced at all.
A word as to the organisation of the Special Reserve. It consists of so-called units of 550 men, with an annual training of fourteen days; it is to feed the Line, and is composed of very young men. I am told that not 50 per cent. of the men, after feeding the Line, would be fit, through age and physical defects, to take part in a campaign. Further, it would be impossible now for the Special Reserve to garrison Mediterranean and other ports and so free the Regular battalions there. The Special Reserve will have to remain at home as a depot, to train men to fill up the Army in the field. Than I come to the Expeditionary Force. It is claimed that the Expeditionary Force, which should be ready to go out of the country almost at once, consists of 160,000 men, and that the Army Reserve is now 140,000. I think this would convey to the non-military mind that we had 160,000 men plus 140,000
1600
men. But it is nothing of the sort. Before mobilising this Expeditionary Force all these Reserves would be swallowed up. I am informed that two Divisions, or the equivalent of 30,000 men, would be sent to India. We should then want 100,000 to fill the ranks—that is, two reserve men to every man serving. For the Expeditionary Force the numbers are 169,000. The regiments that we have at home would, I believe, supply—that is to say, they have in their ranks now—120,000 men; but when you deduct the recruits, the unfit, and those under age you get a number something like 50,000. That leaves us in this country with only about 70,000 towards the Expeditionary Force and we should have to take 100,000 men from the Reserve to make up the Expeditionary Force. I believe the Army Council calculate that to replace casualties during the first six months we should want another 60,000 men, so that by that time we should have used up not only our Regular Army Reserve, but what is left of the Special Reserve as well.
Then I come to the Army Reserve of 140,000 men. I am quite willing to admit that that is an advance on what we have had, but those figures at the present moment are abnormal. They are not due to the Government scheme, but to temporary causes, and particularly due to the three years system established by Lord Midleton, but when these men begin to leave the Reserve, the numbers must go down, because their places will not be filled up, as their Reserve producing units have been destroyed, and I think that the normal Reserve will not be much over 100,000 or 110,000 men. Before the war we had an Army Reserve of 80,000, and a Militia Reserve of 30,000 men, so that when the present exceptional circumstances cease to prevail, the Reserve will come to be about what it was before the war. It is, therefore, absurd to say that the Army has not been reduced. From what I can see the exact contrary is the case. You cannot increase your numbers by simply changing a name. By improved organisation and an alteration in the terms of service you may increase efficiency, but that fact does not give you more men. Whether the men are called the First or Second Line does not affect the total numbers available. In my view, such statements

1601
as the one to which I have referred are dangerous and give to the country a false idea of our military strength.
Moved, that an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to a statement reported to have been made by the Secretary of State for War on Friday the 20th November, at Guildford, to the effect "that the Army was 90,000 stronger than it was three years ago."—(The Earl of Erroll.)
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord LUCAS): My Lords, the speech of the Secretary of State for War at Guildford, to which the noble Lord has referred, was very inadequately reported in The Times. If the noble Earl had referred to fuller reports, he would have seen that Mr. Haldane was speaking entirely about the Regular Army. The noble Earl based his argument on what he has himself described as the condition of the armed forces. The position with regard to the Regular Army is exactly as stated by the Secretary of State. If you count, as you are bound to do, the numbers available on mobilisation and the Reserve, you will find that there is a large increase.
The increase has been obtained in this way. In the first place, we do not wish to take any credit to ourselves for the abnormal condition of the Regular Reserve. Its condition is entirely due to the action of the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Midleton). The three years system which the noble Viscount established, and the number of men who came in as three years men have increased the Reserve very much above the normal figure. It is 40,000 higher than in 1905, and about 14,000 or 15,000 higher than it will be when it gets back to what I may call its normal condition—that is to say, when the present terms of enlistment have been worked sufficiently long for the three years men to have all passed out of the Reserve. I do not wish to deny that it has been of great advantage to have had these 40,000 men. They have given a strength to the force which came in very opportunely to help us through the period of organisation. As gradually the new system comes into full operation the Special Reserve will, we hope, be up to its full establishment, the number of men serving with the Colours will be
1602
older and larger, and therefore we shall have to make much less call on the Reserve on mobilisation than we should have to do at present.
Next you have to consider the other category of Reserve—the Special Reserve. After passing the Act of last year you cannot help yourselves from considering the Special Reserve as a part of the First Line. It is true, as the noble Earl has said, that the Militia have always come forward very patriotically on the occasions when they have been called upon, and they have gone out in their units to the various big wars in which this country has been engaged. At the time of the South African War there was a Militia Reserve of 30,000 men, and without that Reserve it is hard to say what would have been done to find the necessary reinforcements for the Regular Army. But soon after the war the Militia Reserve, as the noble Earl will remember, was abolished, and some means had to be found to obtain drafts for the units of the First Line of the Regular Army outside the Army itself. The only way to obtain these was from the Militia, but the Militia, as we all know, were unwilling to undertake that function, and it was only after considerable difficulty that they did undertake it, and they have now come into the Special Reserve. Had you not had that re organisation, had you left things as they were when the present Government came into office, you would have had practically nothing to fall back upon for the supply of drafts and to fill up wastage of war in the Regular Army. You have provided that by the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, and I cannot conceive how it can be argued that those forces are not to be regarded as strengthening to that degree the Regular Army. I maintain that they are an important source of strength to the Regular Army.
When you talk about a profit and loss account you are again arguing from the point of view of the general armed forces of the Crown. Mr. Haldane carefully stated in his speech that he was only dealing with the Regular Army. It is quite true that the forces outside the Regular Army are proportionately less. What we claim is that by reorganisation and by more carefully and scientifically defining the functions of the various parts of the Regular Army it is possible to make it a more powerful

1603
and more efficient weapon with which to fulfil its duties. You still have the Militia in the present Special Reserve. You do not require more than a certain number of them on mobilisation; but on mobilisation you at once embody your Special Reserve units, and put into them not only the whole of the Special Reserve but also the surplus Regulars. There will be a certain number of surplus Reservists and a certain number of soldiers who for various reasons, being too young and so on, do not go abroad in case of war. They are formed into battalions. At present, if you had to mobilise the Army you would have seventy-four of these battalions, with a large proportion of Regular officers, who would be as capable of fulfilling duties for the defence of this country as the Militia would have been. They are not, of course, mobile troops, but you can usefully use them to release mobile troops for other purposes.
Then as regards the question of garrisoning stations in the Mediterranean and elsewhere to release Regular battalions. Besides the seventy-four battalions to which I have referred, who constitute the training machinery of your drafts, you have twenty-seven other battalions who will be used for that sort of purpose—for the same work, in fact, as the Militia did before. You are not going to call upon them to supply drafts; they are outside your drafting machinery. They are the fourth battalions, and will be used in the way I have suggested. At the early stage of the campaign, therefore, and before the Territorial Army has received its war training, you have these battalions of the Special Reserve who are more efficient from the military point of view than the old Militia, and are able to fulfil the duties that the Militia could have carried out.
THE EARL OF ERROLL: Did I understand the noble Lord to say that the Special Reserve units were fit to take the place of the Militia in garrisoning stations in the Mediterranean and elsewhere?
LORD LUCAS: Yes. You have seventy-four third battalions, who constitute the actual machinery for training drafts. Besides those, you have twenty-seven fourth battalions, which are not to provide drafts, but are to be used for
1604
garrisoning the stations in the Mediterranean and for similar purposes. As to the 90,000, there is an increase of 40,000 men of the Regular Reserve, and 65,000 —now nearer 68,000—of the Special Reserve, and against that, you have to put the reductions made in the Regular Army of 18,000 men. The reductions in. the Regular Army consist partly of those troops considered to be no longer required owing to certain changes in defensive policy.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Will the noble Lord state the nature of those troops?
LORD LUCAS: The chief reductions are set out in the Return recently presented to your Lordship's House. The reductions consist chiefly of garrison artillery, which has been reduced by some 5,000 since 1905, and there is a reduction also in fortress engineers. By the reductions of these men the expeditionary force is not affected in any way. The reduction of certain infantry battalions has only taken place because they were surplus to any force you could possibly have organised and put into the field as an organised body. In spite of the reductions, we can at the present time mobilise a larger organised expeditionary force than was ever possible before, and now that the establishment is rapidly filling up, especially in the weak arms, we shall be able to mobilise an expeditionary force of over 160,000. There is at present, as I have said, an increase of 40,000 in the Regular Reserve and 68,000 in the Special Reserve, and if you allow 18,000 for reductions that brings the total increase to 90,000. As to the question of age, the number of men under twenty in the Special Reserve on October 1st was just over 16,000, which compares very favourably with the number under twenty in the Militia in 1905—the number was then 23,000.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, as we recently had a debate on the whole subject of our military strength I shall confine myself on the present occasion entirely to the point raised by the noble Earl, which is whether the Secretary of State for War is justified in going about the country stating that the Regular-Army is now 90,000 stronger than it was two or three years ago. I submit that

1605
the argument which the noble Earl employed has not been answered in the smallest degree by the reply we have just had from the Under-Secretary. The noble Lord introduced a number of qualifications which, if they were all reported and were carefully weighed, would tend to remove from the minds of men a large percentage—perhaps 95 per cent.—of the value of the statement made by the Secretary of State. I would point out the extreme danger of such statements being made without those qualifications. I have in my hand a verbatim report of the speech of the Secretary of State, and this is the sort of statement I find in it—
"I have to state that, so far from the Regular Army having been cut down, we are to-day 90,000 stronger than we were three years ago; and yet the Army costs two and a half millions less."
I believe the first statement is a delusion, and the second I hold to be absolutely incorrect. I challenge the noble Lord the Under-Secretary to substantiate it in a single particular.
LORD LUCAS: If the noble Viscount will add the amount formerly spent annually in connection with military works loans, he will find the reduction in cost nearly twice as great.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Of course, if you give up a barrack programme and do not build the barracks necessary properly to house the troops you reduce expenditure, but it cannot properly be taken as a reduction on the cost of the Army. I speak with some indignation on this subject, because it is far too serious a one to be treated simply as a bone of contention across the floor of the House. The Secretary of State should have told his audience that a large part of the force to which he was referring was temporary and disappearing, owing to a long service system having been adopted as opposed to the short service system partially adopted by Lord Lansdowne, very much extended by his successor, and for which Mr. Arnold Forster intended to substitute a still shorter term which would have given an even larger Reserve. Mr. Haldane declared that it was a fallacy to suppose that an Army consisted only of people with the Colours, and he went on to compare our Reserve and this increase of strength with the Army of Germany. But the
1606
German Reserve is a Regular Reserve. What Mr. Haldane is asking the people of this country to believe is that the Reserve on which he is going to depend is also a Regular Reserve, whereas it is only a Reserve consisting of the old Militia under another name.
There is another point. The Secretary of State went on to justify himself for having reduced certain battalions. He said—
"We got rid of units which could be of no service. We considered what made for fighting efficiency. We found a very large surplus of infantry, and we reduced them in proper proportion to other arms."
Units which could be of no service! He was referring to five battalions of Regular Infantry and one of Guards. Those battalions were raised under the last Administration. We had authority for it in the repeated demands of the Duke of Cambridge, of Lord Wolseley, of Lord Roberts, of Sir Redvers Buller, of Sir Evelyn Wood, and all the officers who served with them. Will the noble Lord tell me that any officer will declare that these battalions were surplus to our fighting efficiency?
LORD LUCAS: I can certainly say that, for the purpose of general military usefulness, the replacing of those infantry battalions by what is infinitely more required—artillery, of which the Army was ridiculously short—is of the utmost value.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: The noble Lord said that these battalions were surplus to any force we could possibly put into the field. Will any one of his military advisers at the War Office tell him that when the expeditionary force had been sent abroad and we were mobilising for home defence, these infantry battalions would be surplus to our requirements?
LORD LUCAS: As an organised force, certainly. There is no organisation into which we could fit them. They are outside any possible organisation.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Therefore, if a foreign force lands to-morrow— and it is admitted that that is not without the bounds of possibility—the

1607
War Office, according to the Undersecretary, prefer to meet the invading force with a Territorial Army and without the support of these five battalions of Regulars and this battalion of Guards. The noble Lord had better not advance such an argument, because it is impossible to maintain it, and the experience of all soldiers is against it. I have made these few remarks simply because I feel that the utterances of the Secretary of State are calculated to mislead the public. If they are not so intended, they ought to be withdrawn or modified. The effect of them can only be to pile up against the Secretary of State in the future the whole military opinion of all those who are now complaining of the undue reduction of our Regular Army. Even when the Secretary of State has got his Special Reserve to the full he will have a force which his soldiers will turn round and tell him they cannot depend on without more Regulars. I will add this assertion, that, even if the Secretary of State's statement is accepted as correct, he has not got the officers for the 90,000 men, and could not mobilise them to-morrow. What I would urge is that we might be allowed in future to gain the advantage on our side that we have endeavoured to give to the noble Lord. Not a word has fallen from this bench in criticism of the present condition of the Territorial Army, although we know its organisation is far from complete, because we believe that time should be given for the experiment and because we desire that everybody should lend a hand to make the experiment a success. But, in the meantime, I would urge that what I venture to call these vain-glorious boasts as to the condition of the Army, boasts which we know to have no military support whatever at their hack, should be discontinued, and that the modifications which the Under-Secretary has to-night introduced into Mr. Haldane's speech should, on the first available opportunity, be made equally clear with the utterance of the Secretary of State of which we complain.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWS): My
1608
Lords, I do not propose to enter into the technical part of this debate, the War Office reply having already been given by my noble friend behind me. I merely desire to make one or two observations upon what was said by the noble Viscount who has just sat down. The noble Viscount took credit to himself and his friends on the benches opposite that they had not in any way attacked the organisation of the Territorial Army. With all respect to the noble Viscount that really is not the case. The debate which was initiated the other night by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal who is not now in his place, though not an attack on the Territorial Army, amounted to a categorical statement that the whole scheme of the Territorial Army was absolutely ineffective for the purpose for which it was designed and a demano for the establishment of an entirely different system; and noble Lords opposite trooped into the lobby with the noble and gallant Field-Marshal. To say after that that no attack has been made on the organisation of the Territorial Army because noble Lords have not mentioned what has happened in this county or that is not, it appears to me, entirely in accordance with the facts. After that debate we are, unfortunately, obliged to regard noble Lords opposite as wedded to some new, and, I confess, unexplained system of organisation of the forces of this country, and it was in the hope that we might avoid that conclusion that we besought noble Lords not to join the noble and gallant Field-Marshal in the lobby on that occasion. The noble Viscount objected to the inclusion of interest on loans in calculating the annual expenses of the Army because, he said, those loans were for all time. But, unfortunately, that is not so. The complaint was that a very large proportion of the money raised in that way was used for purposes not merely temporary, but which the experience of a few years showed to be useless. Therefore, I am afraid that from, the taxpayers' point of view—and that is the only point of view which, when you come to speak of expenditure, matters—the money spent by way of loan must be counted in as much as the ordinary expenses of the Army.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: The noble Earl, I think, is ignoring the fact that all money raised on loan is being paid off by an annual charge over a short period of, years. They are already bearing on their Estimates the cost of all loans of the last twenty years, many of which are reaching maturity.
THE EARL OF CREWR: We are, unfortunately for ourselves, suffering for the loans raised by the Government of noble Lords opposite. We are still paying for things that have proved, in more than one case, to be useless for the purpose for which they were designed. All the previous speakers pointed, with perfect truth, to the fact that a very considerable portion of the surplus of men to which my right hon. friend alluded is due to the exceptional swelling of the Reserve owing to the initiation and the abandonment of the three years service of the noble Viscount. I really think that, if I were the noble Viscount, I would talk as little as possible about the three years system, because I suppose it is common knowledge that that system had to be abandoned in a great hurry owing to the discovery being made that if it had been continued we should very soon have been without an Army or Reserve at all. We have no complaint whatever to make of this debate having been raised. I think it is a perfectly arguable point to say that my right hon. friend overstated his case, if noble Lords will have it so, in including the Special Reserve in the Army; but my right hon. friend does take up that position. He does differentiate between the position of that portion of the Militia which has been replaced by the Special Reserve and the Special Reserve itself, and there are perfectly sound reasons for doing so. It is, no doubt, the fact, as the noble Viscount stated, that the training in that case is not to the same extent as the Regular Army, but you must regard the Special Reserve now as forming part of the Regular Army, and I think my right hon. friend was quite justified in including it in his figures,
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am afraid we shall find ourselves wandering away from the point into a some what general dis-
1610
cussion upon a number of interesting military questions. For example, I do not think the question of the policy of providing barracks by means of loans of greater or less duration is quite before us this evening. Nor, again, are we much concerned to-night with the Motion which was brought on the other evening by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal. I think by the way the noble Earl did Lord Roberts rather an injustice in representing him as having attacked the Territorial system. Lord Roberts, whenever I have had the pleasure of listening to him has always gone out of his way to applaud Mr. Haldane's Territorial system; but it is quite true that he has added to that an expression of his belief that that system, as at present instituted, will fail to give us anything like the number of men that are required.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I never accused Lord Roberts of having attacked the Territorial system, because, as we all know, he has expressed a general approval of it; but he has so far attacked the whole policy of my right hon. friend as to say that he considered the provision of men for the Home Army to be entirely inadequate.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I rather think the noble Earl did use the word "attack" in connection with Lord Roberts' speech; this evening, however, the only point really before us is the very specific and well-defined point raised by my noble friend on the back Bench. He challenged the accuracy of Mr. Haldane's statement in his Guildford speech, and the noble Lord who so well represents the War Office made a very interesting attempt to justify Mr. Haldane's conclusion. He gave us a profit and loss account—I think that was the expression he used—or a statement of the manner in which the War Office regarded the profit and loss account, the profit being the number of men added to the Army by recent changes and the loss being the loss sustained in men and officers owing to the breaking up of old units. These statistics are not always very easy to handle or to follow, and I confess I do not think the noble Lord was entirely

1611
successful in bringing out the total profit claimed by Mr. Haldane at Guildford. The only point that I did, I think, gather clearly from the noble Lord was that whilst we are not at liberty to count amongst the Regular Army the Militia as we used to know it, noble Lords opposite do think themselves entitled to count in the Regular Army the Special Reservists, who, my noble friend maintains, are the Militia under a different name. But I really rose for the purpose of making a humble suggestion which I think may, perhaps, be helpful. Would it not be possible for the noble Lord to lay on the Table in the simplest and most intelligible form a statement of the profit and loss account on which he relies?
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: And the cost.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My noble friend suggests that to that might be added a statement of the cost under the old and under the new system. We have before us an interesting Return, moved for by my noble friend, and I was looking at it whilst the noble Lord opposite was speaking; but I am bound to say that I could not work it out so as to show the credit balance which the Under-Secretary so confidently claims. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord will consider whether he can give us the calculation on which he relies.
THE EARL OF ERROLL: If the profit and loss account is laid on the Table, I hope it will include the whole armed strength of the country now and three years ago.
LORD LUCAS: I really think the Paper which has been laid before Parliament at the instance of the noble Viscount contains all the information that has been asked for. It contains the difference in strength and in establishment between the Regular Army now and in 1905; it contains also a comparison between the Militia in 1905 and the Special Reserve now, and the Volunteers in 1905 and the Territorial Army now; and, finally there is a statement on the last page as to the Reserves in 1905 and now. I should have thought that that gave all the information
1612
asked for. If, however, noble Lords will specify particular points concerning which they desire additional information, I will see whether the Return can be amplified in order to meet their wishes.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

THE SMALL HOLDINGS ACT.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWrose to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture the following Questions: (1) whether the Local Government Board and the Public Works Loan Commissioners will lend money for the full periods fixed for loans under the Small Holdings Acts and whether the President of the Board of Agriculture will say under what authority a refusal to lend for such full period is based; (2) whether it is the intention of the Local Government Board to subject proposals of a county council to the examination of the officials of that Department, as well as of the Board of Agriculture, before granting sanction to a loan, thereby considerably increasing the cost of the land to the small holder; (3) whether, if any part of the sinking fund to repay the cost of the purchase of a small holding is borne by the county rate instead of by the small holding tenant, and the scheme results in a loss, the Treasury will refuse to bear any part of such loss; (4) in cases where a council takes on lease, either by agreement or compulsorily, land with a prospective but not immediate building value, subject to the rights of resumption under Clause 33 of the Small Holdings Act, 1907, what time would be granted for a loan for the erection of buildings and houses thereon; also whether the compensation for unexhausted improvements effected by the tenant, which will be useless to the person using such land for building purposes, must fall on the county rate; (5) whether the Board will sanction the addition of 5 per cent. on land, 10 per cent. on buildings, and 12 per cent. On dwelling-houses to the rental of small holdings, for repairs and management, or what percentage meets with the approval of the Board; (6) whether in the event of the breach by one of the sub-tenants of a county council of the covenants of a lease, the

1613
penalty for which was re-entry, the landlord would be entitled also to resume possession of the land occupied by the other sub-tenants; (7) whether, in the opinion of the Board, the occupation of a piece of grass land provided as a small holding by a county council for the purpose of grazing a pony or cows is a compliance with the provision of Section 6 of the Act of 1907, that a small holder must himself cultivate the holding; (8) whether in cases where farm labourers apply to be put in the position of small holders instead of farm labourers, but are called on to vacate their cottages to make room for their successors as labourers on the farm, the county council should erect new cottages for them, or may acquire their present cottages either by agreement or under compulsion; (9) whether, in the opinion of the Board, it is the duty of a county borough to provide land for small holders outside the county, if they cannot do so within, for persons who will thus cease to be county ratepayers; (10) whether the Board of Agriculture will fix a date at which it will notify to councils in whose counties there remains an unsatisfied demand for small holdings the date by which, in the opinion of the Board, such demand should be satisfied, and in default of which it will be the duty of the Board to prepare a scheme; and, if so, what notice will be given of the intention to fix such a date; (11) whether, in the opinion of the Board of Agriculture, in cases where in any district there are only moderate sized holdings of about 100 acres held mainly in connection with rural industries, a county council should entertain applications to have them broken up for holdings of 50 acres or under; and (12) whether the President of the Board of Agriculture will take note of the many and serious difficulties which have arisen in the administration of the Acts, and institute an inquiry thereon with a view to the introduction of an amending Bill to overcome them.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think I owe an apology to your Lordships for the length of the Questions which appear in my name on the Paper, but I am not going to dwell at any length upon them. I wish to refer only to two of their,—the first and the third Questions,
1614
which deal with the length of time which will be allowed for the repayment of loans on houses and buildings. A period of eighty years is allowed in the case of land, and, of course, the small sum necessary to be set aside as a sinking fund is not a serious item in the rent; but when you come to the question of buildings and houses, instead of eighty years, you are cut down to thirty years, and in some cases, I am told, to under fifteen years, which makes a serious difference to the small holder in the rent he has to pay. For your Lordships must recollect that the small holder is required not only to pay the rent for the land which he hires and the interest on the cost of the buildings, but also to pay off the loan on the land and buildings within a certain number of years; that is to say, at the end of that period the county council becomes the happy possessor of the land, houses, and buildings for nothing. To show how great a difference the term of repayment may make, I would like to take a few concrete cases within my own knowledge. The first case is that of buildings about to be put up at a cost of £800. If eighty years were allowed, the annual charge would be £30, but if only thirty years were allowed, the annual charge would be £44, which, over a holding of 145 acres, would amount to an additional rent of 2s. per acre. The second case is that of a farm of 115 acres where £350 has to be spent on buildings. In this case the difference between eighty and thirty years would be not less than 1s. per acre. I also have a third case where the difference would be 1s. 6d. per acre. Surely there is no necessity to fix so short a period as thirty years. I think county councils may be relied upon to see that the buildings are kept in proper order and in substantial repair. As to the other Questions on the Paper, some of them have been answered to individual county councils, but I thought it would be of great assistance to all who are administering the Act if the Answers could be more generally known. Others were addressed to the noble Earl on the occasion of a conference which he summoned of representatives of county councils of England and Wales on the subject of the administration of the Small Holdings Act. That

1615
conference lasted some time. A full Report of the proceedings is on the Table, but I have looked through the Report in vain to find what answers were returned to those Questions. The proceedings seem to have been interrupted by the well-known hospitality of my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, which has been one of his characteristics ever since he first entered public life. The whole of the conference were taken off to an excellent luncheon. They, no doubt, returned replete with the comforts of this life, but very empty-handed as regarded the questions which they addressed to the noble Earl. I thought, therefore, that the noble Earl would acquit me of any desire to hamper his Department if, for the information of those genuinely interested in small holdings, I gave him this opportunity of replying to the Questions that he did not answer on the occasion to which I have referred.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, in reply to the first Question I have to say that the Board of Agriculture have been in communication with the Local Government Board on the subject, and it has been agreed between us that the Local Government Board, when so requested by the county councils, in the case of the purchase of land for small holdings, will grant loans for the full period of eighty years; and, as regards buildings, whether purchased with land or erected by councils, they will grant further loans for whatsoever period is justified by the character and probable life of the buildings up to the maximum of fifty years allowed by the Act. In the case of buildings erected upon land leased by the councils, of course the term of the loan will not exceed that of the lease, except where the lease provides that compensation is payable by the landlord for the buildings on the termination of the lease. The Board of Agriculture are so far quite satisfied with the arrangement. We have got a very good working arrangement, and I. think there need be no fear that we have come to a very
1616
satisfactory arrangement on the subject of the first Question.
Then the noble Earl asks whether it is the intention of the Local Government Board to subject proposals of a county council to the examination of the officials of that Department, as well as of the Board of Agriculture, before granting sanction to a loan. Of course, if the Local Government Board did that in every case it would be what is called an intolerable strain; but the Local Government Board have stated that in ordinary cases they do not think it necessary to hold an inquiry on their own account. Hence I do not think it need be anticipated that any examination of a case which they may make will really increase the cost of land to the small holder.
The Answer to the third Question— whether, if any part of the sinking fund to repay the cost of the purchase of a small holding is borne by the county rate instead of by the small holding tenant, and the scheme results in a loss, the Treasury will refuse to bear any part of such loss—is in the negative. They will not refuse to do so; but the Treasury Minute requires that the Board should certify that a council had used their best endeavours to obtain rent at the amounts necessary to recoup all the council's expenses. In view of the terms on which money can be borrowed under the Act, there really is no hardship on the councils. I honestly think that, under the new regime, people will be able to get small pieces of land, generally speaking, at lower rents than they could do formerly when from £8 to £20 an acre has been charged to these poor people for land for which farmers used to pay from 15s. to 20s. an acre.
As to the fourth Question, in some cases it would be possible, but in many cases that must be recognised as impracticable. In reply to the fifth Question, 15 per cent. would be about fair for all repairs, management, insurance, etc., where there are houses and buildings; and where there are no houses or buildings we think that about 7½per cent. might probably be required. Question No. 6 is a legal conundrum, and I do not think I need go into it deeply. I am told that certain sections of the Conveyancing and Law of Property

1617
Acts, 1881 and 1892, which deal with rights of re-entry and forfeiture of leases, meet this difficulty. I do not profess to understand it, but that is the legal answer. The Answer to the seventh Question is: Yes. It is immaterial whether the land is used for grazing a cow or a pony. The Circular of 26th May, 1908, disposed entirely of that question.
The noble Earl next inquires whether in cases where farm labourers apply to be put in the position of small holders instead of farm labourers, but are called on to vacate their cottages to make room for their successors as labourers on the farm, the county council should erect new cottages for them, or may acquire their present cottages either by agreement or under compulsion. The Answer is that where a council desires to house applicants for small holdings they may either erect new cottages or purchase existing ones; but as a general rule, there would be difficulties in the way of compulsory hiring. Of course, the question of turning labourers out of their cottages is very much to be deplored. I may, perhaps, call the attention of the noble Earl to the case of Ireland—people seem much more favoured there than in this country. Under the Labourers' Cottages (Ireland) Act, where the accommodation is deficient or unfit, labourers have to be supplied by the district council with houses.
The point dealt with in Question No. 9 is practically the London problem— the problem of the urban boroughs, where it is the duty to provide land for small holdings outside the county. That is the great question of London, which is under consideration, and perhaps the noble Earl will forgive me if I do not go deeply into it to-night. Next, the noble Earl asks whether the Board of Agriculture will fix a date at which it will notify to councils in whose counties there remains an unsatisfied demand for small holdings the date by which, in the opinion of the Board, such demand should be satisfied, and in default of which it will be the duty of the Board to prepare a scheme. There is a great deal to be said for this suggestion. Under the Act six months is put as a limit, but I do not
1618
honestly think that the time has yet come to accept the suggestion. Speaking generally, I think county councils are endeavouring, to the best of their ability, to meet the Act. The Act requires that if the Board are of opinion that a scheme should be brought forward in any particular county, and if they inform the council accordingly, they are allowed six months to prepare a scheme before the Board can act in default.
The answer to the question whether, in the opinion of the Board of Agriculture, in cases where in any district there are only moderate-sized holdings of about 100 acres held mainly in connection with rural industries, a county council should entertain applications to have them broken up for holdings of fifty acres or under, is to be found in the account of the Conference to which the noble Earl has referred. It is impossible for the Board to give an answer to hypothetical cases of this sort. The county councils are, after all, reasonable men, and they can be trusted to act in a reasonable manner. I do not think it is very likely that in ordinary circumstances such a state of things should arise. Of course, if it is necessary, those men who hold 100 acres must give up the land, but, generally, some other and better arrangements can be made.
As to the last question, I do not think I can admit that the difficulties are either numerous or very serious. The administration of the Act is difficult, and the principal difficulty is, of course, the very large demand which has been disclosed from suitable men. We are overwhelmed with the demand for land, which used to be denied, but which I think now is generally accepted. Every officer in my Department is working double time to meet the demand, and the Treasury have told me that they will be generous in giving me as much more assistance as I may reasonably require. I think that, on the whole, though some people are a little bit disappointed that we have not gone still faster than we have, the Act is working extremely well, and I should be very much disappointed if, by next Michaelmas, we have not 100,000 acres in this country under small holdings. I do not think that an inquiry into the

1619
Act at the present moment would serve any useful purpose, and I respectfully ask that I may have a little more breathing time, say, till next Michaelmas, to see what progress has been made then.
LORD MONK-BRETTON: My Lords, the other day I asked the noble Lord who represents the Local Government Board in this House several questions with regard to the terms for the repayment of loans for the purposes of this Act, and I received categorical answers. I also called attention at the time to the fact that the statement which was then made by Lord Allendale, on behalf of the Local Government Board, differed entirely from that contained in a letter on the same subject which several local authorities had received from the Local Government Board. A month has elapsed since I called attention to the matter, and the local authorities are in precisely the same position as they were then. The county councils have received different answers from the Local Government Board with regard to the terms of the loan from those stated in this House, and I suggest that it might be practicable to issue regulations or a circular to the county councils explaining exactly what is the position, so that they may be able to proceed with the Act. As things are, county councils are being hardly treated in this matter. The Act has been in force since January and we are now in the last month of the year; yet to this day the county councils have not had clear instructions as to how they are to administer the Act. I therefore hope the noble Earl will see his way to issue regulations or a circular on the subject.
EARL CARRINGTON: This is a very important point, and I am much obliged to the noble Lord for mentioning it. I will at once consult with the Local Government Board on the subject and see whether a notice might be circulated to remove any misunderstanding there may be, though I was not aware that there was any misunderstanding.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I should like to ask the noble Earl whether, in the case of a scheme which has been approved by the Board of Agriculture, the Local
1620
Government Board will insist on sending down their own valuer, and, if so, whether there is any appeal as to a difference between the two valuers.
EARL CARRINGTON:I think that, in ordinary cases, the Local Government Board will accept the valuation of the Board of Agriculture and give us credit for trying to be fair to all parties. I hope that any difficulty of the kind referred to by my noble friend will be entirely avoided in the future.
House adjourned at ten minutes past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Three o'clock.