Sitting of 10 December 1908

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence from this day's sitting of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petition from Barrow Colliery, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  ENFRANCHISEMENT OF WOMEN.
  Petition from Bideford, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) ACT, 1907.
  Copy presented, of Return giving particulars of cases in which persons have been reinstated with the assistance of the Estates Commissioners during the quarter ended 30th September, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 32, 1908).
  Copy presented, of Procès-Verbal between the United Kingdom and Bulgaria, respecting Customs Duties supplementary to the Commercial Convention of 9th December, 1905. Signed at Sofia, 13th November, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 10.
  Return ordered, "of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing the definite matter of urgent public importance, and the result of any Division taken thereon during Session 1908 (in continuation of

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  5.

  6.

  Date when Closure moved, and by whom.

  Question before the House or Committee when moved.

  Whether in House or Committee.

  Whether a sent given to Motion or withheld by Speaker or Chairman.

  Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion.

  Result of Motion, and, if a Division, Numbers for and against.

  PUBLIC BILLS.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords during Session 1908; showing the number which received the Royal Assent; the number which were passed by this House, but not by the House of Lords; the number passed by the House of Lords, but not by this House; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills as did not receive the Royal Assent were dropped or postponed and rejected in either House of Parliament (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper
  Parliamentary Paper, No. 322, of Session 1907)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER No. 26).
  Return ordered, "respecting application of Standing Order No. 26 (Closure of Debate) during Session 1908: (1) in the House and in Committee of the whole House under the following heads—
  No. 0·150, of Session 1907)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in Session 1908; with the total number of signatures in that year (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.152 of Session 1907)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  SELECT COMMITTEES.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Select Committees appointed in Session 1908 (including the Standing Committees of Law and Trade) and the Court of

  709
  Referees; the subjects of inquiry; the names of the Members appointed to servo on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance of witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name of the Member who moved for such Select Committee; also the total number of Members who served on Select Committees (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.149, of Session 1907)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  STANDING COMMITTEES.
  Return ordered,' "for the Session of 1908, of (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the four Standing Committees appointed under Standing Order No. 47, showing with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings at which he was present and the number of divisions in which he took part; and (2) the number of Bills considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of days on which each Committee sat, and the names of all Bills considered by a Standing Committee, distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing, in the case of each Bill, the particular Standing Committee by whom it was considered, the number of days on which it was considered by the Committee, and the number of Members present on each of those days (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.148 of Session 1907)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  Return ordered, "of the number of days on which the House sat in Session 1908, stating for each day the date of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time, and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after eleven p.m.:; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Proceedings (in continuation of
  710
  Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.151, of Session 1907)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (DAYS OCCUPIED BY GOVERNMENT AND BY PRIVATE MEMBERS).
  Return ordered, "showing with reference to Session 1908: (1) the number of Sittings at which Government Business had precedence under the Standing Orders during the entire Sitting; (2) the number of Sittings on Tuesdays and Wednesdays at which precedence was given to Government Business up till 8.15 p.m., and to Private Members at 8.15 p.m., and the number of Sittings on Fridays at which Private Members had precedence under the Standing Orders; (3) the number of Sittings at which Goverment Business was given precedence under a special order of the House during the entire Sitting; (4) the number of Saturday Sittings; (5) the total number of Sittings at which Government Business had precedence; (6) the total number of days on which the House sat; and (7) the number of days on which Business of Supply was considered (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 324, of Session 1907)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Session 1908, classed according to the following subjects:—Railways; Tramways; Tramroads; Subways; Canals and Navigations; Roads and Bridges; Water; Waterworks; Gas; Gas and Water; Lighting and Improvement; Police and Sanitary Regulations; Corporations, etc. (not relating to Police and Sanitary Regulations or to Lighting and Improvement Schemes); Ports, Piers, Harbours, and Docks; Churches, Chapels, and Burying Grounds; Markets and Fairs; Gaols and other County Buildings; Inclosure and Drainage; Estate: Patent; Divorce; Naturalisation; Hospitals, Name, Legitimisation, and Miscellaneous."
  "Of all the Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1908 have been reported

  711
  on by Committees on Opposed Private Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member has served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed."
  "Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in Session 1908, have been referred by the Committee of Selection, or by the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, to the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, together with the names of the Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended."
  "And, of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which have been referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.147, of Session 1907)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

Oral Answers to Questions
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES

    Extension of Grindleton Churchyard.
    MR. CLOUGH: To ask the hon. Member for the Crewe Division, as Ecclesiastical Commissioner, whether he is aware that about the year 1859 those locally interested purchased, by means of subscription, certain land to be added to the churchyard at Grindleton, near Clitheroe; whether he can say of what amount of acreage it consisted and what became of it, what proportion was appropriated for the living in June,
    712
    1860, and what proportion was added to the churchyard in May, 1864; whether it is now proposed to add another portion of this same plot of land to the churchyard; and whether it is proposed to effect this by means of a sale or gift.
    (Answered by Mr. Tomkinson.) As the hon. Member for the Skipton Division has been privately informed, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the years 1858 and 1859 were aware that steps were being taken at Grindleton, near Clitheroe, for the purchase of certain land, part of which was intended to be added to the glebe belonging to the living, and the other part was to be added to the churchyard. The Commissioners, who were not concerned in the purchase of the property, were subsequently asked to accept a conveyance of the portion intended to be secured as an addition to the glebe; and this portion, stated to comprise 2a. 0r. 5p., or thereabouts, was conveyed to them by deed, dated 1st June, 1860, and is now vested in the incumbent for the time being. In the year 1863 the Commissioners were asked to accept a conveyance of the portion of land to be used for the enlargement of the churchyard, and this piece, stated to comprise 30 perches or thereabouts, was conveyed to them by deed dated 28th April, 1864. The Commissioners have no information as to any arrangements which have been or are intended to be made for adding to the churchyard a further portion of the land in question, but it would be competent to the incumbent of Grindleton either to sell or to give a portion of his glebe for that purpose.

    Irish Land Purchase.
    MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, according to the Land Commission Returns, by the operation of the Land Acts in the sub-Commission and Land Commission Courts, £7,000,000 of rental in Ireland were reduced since the year 1881 to about £5,000,000; will he state how many holdings does this £5,000,000 represent; have agreements been lodged or sales carried out under the Land Purchase Acts for a rental of about £3,000,000 in Ireland,

    713
    and, if not, how much; how many holdings do the completed purchases of the lodged agreements represent; what is about the rental of the agricultural part of Ireland still to be bought; has he any official information showing that two-thirds of the farms of Ireland are held by tenants who do not pay more than £12 a year rent; and at how much do the Government estimate the amount of the land still to be bought out in order to complete the purchase under the Land Purchase Acts of the agricultural portion of the country.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) According to the last Annual Report of the Land Commission there had been, up to 31st. March last, 369,483 cases in which fair rents had been fixed for a first statutory term. The total former rental dealt with was £7,334,438, and the judicial rental was £5,815,931. In 131,637 of these cases a fair rent was subsequently fixed for a second statutory term, a first-term rental of £2,635,354 being reduced to £1,902,501. Thus the former rental of £7,334,438 is now represented by £5,353,078. Lands of a rental of approximately £5,000,000 had been sold or were pending for sale under the Land Purchase Acts on 31st October last, on which date advances had been made in respect of 143,641 holdings, and applications for advances were pending in respect of 173,343 holdings. I am not in a position to say what may be the rental of the agricultural part of Ireland still to be sold under the Land Purchase Acts, nor can I say whether two-thirds of the farms in Ireland are held by tenants who do not pay more than £12 a year rent, but the general Census Report for 1901 shows that 08 per cent. of the total number of agricultural holdings in Ireland do not exceed £15 in rateable value, and that 56 per cent. do not exceed £10 in rateable value. As regards the concluding portion of the Question I would refer the hon. Member to the Irish Land Purchase Acts Return recently laid upon the Table [Cd. 4412].

    Temporary Clerks in Irish Land Commission.
    MR. E. BARRY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant
    714
    of Ireland if he is aware that some time early this year the Land Commissioners forwarded to If is Majesty's Treasury certain recommendations on behalf of the temporary clerks employed in the offices of the Irish Land Commission, and that the Treasury refused to recognise the claims put forward on their behalf; if he is aware; that these; clerks were doing important work which was recognised by the heads of their Departments; that they had no prospect of reaching a higher salary than £2 per week, considering that such clerics had services ranging from eight to eighteen years, while in other Irish Government Departments, such as the Board of Agriculture and Local Government Board, the temporary clerks were provided for; and, considering the length of service of such clerks in the Land Commission, the nature; of their work and prospects, will he inquire into their grievances, with a view to improving their position.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Any correspondence which has taken place must be regarded as confidential. It would not be in the interests of the public service that I should depart from the existing practice by disclosing its contents. I am not at present prepared to institute the inquiry suggested in the concluding portion of the Question.

    Alleged Tampering with Jury at Limerick Assizes.
    MR. M'HUGH: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether, in connection with the trial of the Geevagh, County Sligo, traversers at the Connaught Winter Assizes in Limerick, he has been informed by the Crown Solicitor for Comity Sligo that persons had come from Sligo to Limerick for the purpose of influencing the jurors; will he inform the House as to the names of the persons against whom this charge is made; and will he lay upon the. Table of the House a copy of the charge preferred against those persons by the Crown Solicitor.
    (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The communications made to me by the Crown Solicitor are strictly confidential. I cannot mention the names of any of the persons believed to be concerned

    715
    in this matter, and I cannot undertake to lay upon the Table any documents in connection with it.

    Unemployment Chart.
    EARL OF RONALDSHAY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to have the unemployment chart, which is published in the Board of Trade Labour Gazette, based upon returns affecting all members of trade unions in future instead of upon returns affecting only 591,000 members; and can he give the percentage of the whole of the members of trade unions at present unemployed.
    (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) It is not possible to comply with the suggestions of the noble Lord, as many trade unions are unable to state the numbers of their members out of work, and any figures they might supply would of necessity be merely estimates. The Board of Trade have convinced themselves, after the most careful examination of the question, that the only solid and trustworthy basis for statistics of this kind for the purpose of serving as a barometer of the labour market is the record kept by trade unions which pay unemployed benefit. Any gain by widening the basis so as to include unions which do not keep this record would be much more than counter-balanced by the greatly increased margin of error in the returns.

    Deserters' Wages Paid to the Board of Trade.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the total amount of deserters' wages paid to the Board of Trade under Section 44 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, from 1st July, 1907, to 30th June, 1908.
    (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The provisions dealing with deserters' wages is contained in Section 28 of the Act of 1906 and not in Section 44 as stated by my hon. friend. The sum received by the Board of Trade on account of such wages during the period mentioned was £6,820 5s. 9d.

    Seamen failing to join their Ships.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many seamen are reported to have failed to join British foreign-going ships in the United Kingdom from 1st July to 30th September last, distinguishing the number for each port and their ratings; and how many continuous discharge books were suspended during that period.
    (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) It will take some little time to obtain the information asked for in the Question, but it shall be obtained and communicated to my hon. friend with as little delay as possible.

    Income of the London Dock Companies.
    MR. LOUGH: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can place in the hands of Members before the Report stage of the Port of London Bill is resumed the figures of this year's income of the London docks, which led the Board of Trade to think there would be a much bigger surplus of revenue over the interest on the purchase money than had been put forward up to the present.
    (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) In view of what took place last night and this morning, my right hon. friend will recognise that he is asking of me more than I am able to perform.

    American Gooseberry Mildew.
    MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, in view of the fact that American gooseberry mildew forms spores on currant leaves, which fall in autumn and infect all bushes against which they may be blown, what grounds the Board have for stating that this disease does not spread in winter; and whether the Board will reconsider their decision not to schedule the counties of Sussex and Bedfordshire.
    (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Board are advised that the autumn spores of American gooseberry mildew

    717
    are not infectious, and that it is unnecessary, therefore, to adopt the suggestion made by the hon. Member. All possible steps will be taken to prevent the spread of the disease, when the time for further action arrives.

    Precautions against spread of Contagious Mammitis.
    MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what steps have been taken by the Board of Agriculture to prevent the spread of contagious mammitis.
    (Answered by Sir Edward Straehey.) The Board are informed that there is no evidence to show that the disease to which the hon. Member refers is epizootic in character, or that it is prevalent to any considerable extent. This being the case, the Board do not propose to schedule it for the purposes of the Diseases of Animals Acts.

    Applications for Small Holdings.
    MR. MORRELL: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether any case has yet occurred in which the Commissioners have made a Report to the Board with regard to the demand for small holdings as provided in Section 2 (3) of the Small Holdings Act.
    (Answered by Sir Edward Straehey.) The reply is in the negative.
    MR. MORRELL: TO ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to the fact that, out of the 595 applicants who have already been provided for under the Small Holdings Act, 145 have been provided for by one county council, that two other councils have provided for 154 applicants, and 10 other councils for 234, that 15 councils have only succeeded in providing between them for 62 applicants, and 31 councils have not as yet provided for any at all; and whether, in view of the discrepancy shown by these figures and of the disappointment that has been caused in
    718
    many rural districts by the present working of the Act, the Board will now put into operation their powers of inquiry and report as provided in Sections 2 and 3 of the Act, so that they may exercise a more effective supervision than they have yet been able to do.
    (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Board are aware of the facts to which my hon. friend refers, but they are of opinion that the general exorcise of their powers, as suggested by my hon. friend, would in effect retard rather than advance the provision of small holdings for those who are entitled to them.

    Death of Peter M'Duffy in Police Cell at Pontlottyn.
    SIR ALFRED THOMAS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the coroner's inquest touching the death of Peter M'Duffy, who died in the police cell after arrest at Pontlottyn on Saturday night 28th November; and whether, having regard to the statement of the police constable, he will grant a special inquiry into the cause of death.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) According to the newspaper report which my hon. friend has been good enough to send me, the medical evidence shows that death was due to natural causes; nor was there any other evidence of violence or unnecessary force having been used on the deceased. The facts appear to have been fully investigated at the inquest.

    Unsanitary Condition of Pontardulais Tin Works.
    MR. J. WILLIAMS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the badly ventilated and insanitary condition of nearly the whole of the tin works situate at Pontardulais, South Wales; and whether he is aware that the conditions under which work is carried on at those works are conducive to sickness, severe illness, and, in some cases, consumption; and whether, if such conditions exist, he will cause instructions to be given to the owners thereof to make the work, and to

    719
    carry out the improvements necessary for the preservation of the health of the workmen thereat.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have no information as to any specific cases of illness at the works in question, but I am aware that, not only at these works but in tinplate works generally, the conditions as regards ventilation need considerable improvement, and the question of the best means to secure the removal of fumes and dust has been receiving special attention from the Factory Department. During the last three months a large number of works have been visited by the inspector and special inquiries made, and various experiments are now being carried out at different works. When the results of these experiments are known, the possibility of further action will be considered.

    Accident at Greenfield (Lancashire) Waterworks.
    MR. JOHN WARD: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to an accident at the new waterworks at Greenfield, Lancashire, on Friday last, by which one man was fatally and another seriously injured by a workman striking his pick against an unexploded blasting charge; and whether it is proposed to hold an inquiry relating to the cause and circumstances of the same in accordance with The Notice of Accidents Act, 1904.
    (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I have called for a report from the contractors, and will inform the hon. Member in due cousre whether an inquiry will be held either by the Board of Trade or by the Home Office.

    Hours of Labour of Omnibus Drivers and Conductors.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: To ask the Secretary of State or the Home Department whether he has any official information as to the number of hours worked per day, also the aggregate hours per week, of the horse omnibus conductors and drivers, and the motor omnibus drivers and conductors employed in London, and the
    720
    wages paid; and whether, with a view to securing the safety of the public, he proposes to take any action in the matter.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I am not fully informed on this subject, and I have not had time to consider the matter since the appearance of the Question. It must be remembered, however, that the hours worked by drivers and conductors is a matter over which I have no direct authority.

    Report of Departmental Committee on Fair Wages Clause.
    MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury it he can state when the Report of the Departmental Committee inquiring into the administration of the Fair Wages Clause in Government contracts will be published.
    (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) I understand that the Report and evidence will be in the hands of Members in the course of the next few days.

    Customs Boatmen—Unestablished Service counting for Pension.
    MR. CROOKS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in February, 1901, the Treasury, in a letter to the Board of Customs, stated that boatmen who had unestablished service should count this for pension on promotion to the established staff, so long as the work was of a similar character; and, as this is the case of many men, will he grant such concession to all Government servants.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I have been unable to trace the correspondence to which the hon. Member refers, and there is on record in the Treasury no general decision in the sense suggested, though certain Customs boatmen have in fact, where the circumstances of the particular case appeared to justify the concession, been allowed to count service prior to establishment in full for pension purposes.

    The Public Trustee and Commission on Investments.
    MR. BOWLES: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer

    721
    whether, in view of the fact that the Department of Public Trustee receives a proportion of the commission charged on dealings in investments belonging to its trusts and so, though a trustee, has a direct pecuniary interest in recommending such dealings, he will take steps to ensure that any recommendation of such dealings made by the Public Trustee in future shall be accompanied by a clear intimation to all the persons concerned that the department will derive a pecuniary benefit from the acceptance of its advice.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I see no reason for adopting such a course.

    Irish Small Holders and Old-Age Pensions.
    MR. P. MEEHAN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in computing the annual value of small holdings in Ireland for the purposes of old-age pensions, allowance may be made for the actual and necessary sums expended for labour; and whether, when a claimant incapable of manual labour finds it cheaper or more convenient to maintain a child of his at home for the purpose of labouring on the holding, allowance may be made for the child's maintenance in computing the value of the holding of the parent.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. The Answer to the second Question would depend upon the precise facts of the case, and the decision would rest with the pension committee, subject to appeal to the Local Government Board.

    Medical Relief and Pension Disqualification.
    MR. P. MEEHAN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether pension officers in Ireland have been instructed by the Board of Inland Revenue that in the opinion of the Board maintenance of a claimant in a union hospital since 1st January, 1908, is a disqualification for an old-age pension; and whether he will cause this decision to be rescinded, at least in those cases in which the claimant is willing to repay the cost of his maintenance.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is a ware that, by decisions in Ireland of revising barristers and Judges, it has been repeatedly held that relief in a workhouse hospital does not disqualify the recipients from admission to the register of voters; whether he is aware that by Section 5 of the Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Act, 1855, this principle is laid down; and whether, in view of the provisions of Section 3 of the Old-Age Pensions Act, he will state if pension officers are acting under authority in objecting to claims on the grounds that the claimants have been treated in workhouse hospitals.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I may perhaps be allowed to take these two Questions together. The point which they raise was dealt with in my reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Kilkenny on the 9th instant, and I do not think I can usefully add anything to what I then said.

    Croydon Pension Officer.
    MR. CURRAN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a pension officer in connection with the Old-Age Pensions Act is to be appointed for the borough of Croydon; and, if so, whether, in view of the present state of unemployment, he will give instructions that the person to be appointed must not be anyone who has retired from a position in respect of which he is receiving a pension.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) No superannuated officer has been, or will be, appointed as a pension officer.

    Income Tax.
    MR. FELL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he proposes, before the introduction of the next Budget, to hold an inquiry into the incidence of income-tax and the anomalies that exist in charging the tax upon returns from wasting securities and on the profits of companies which are not divided among the shareholders, but on which, if divided, they could get reductions.

    723
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) These questions were fully considered by Lord Ritchie's Committee in 1905, and they recommended that no change should be made into the existing law. I do not think that a further inquiry at the present time would serve any useful purpose.

    Outdoor Relief and Pensions.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in some cases pensions officers are objecting to claimants on the ground that their husbands obtained out-door relief, although the claimants themselves were not applicants for, and sometimes not even recipients of, the relief; and whether, for the guidance of pension officers, he will make it clear that applicants for pensions should not be disqualified unless they were actual applicants for relief.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I am advised that any person who receives benefit from the relief, whether the nominal recipient or not, is a person in receipt of poor relief within the meaning of Section 3 (1) (a) of the Old-Age Pensions Act, and is consequently subject to disqualification. Pension officers have been instructed accordingly.

    Lovat Scouts in Sutherlandshire.
    MR. MORTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Lovat Scouts in Sutherlandshire have the same rights and privileges as the Territorial Forces to the use of shooting ranges and drill halls; and, if not, will he make arrangements whereby the grievance might be remedied by both forces having the use of shooting ranges and drill halls.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The Lovat's Scouts in Southerlandshire have the same rights and privileges as the rest of the Territorial Force. The provision of ranges is the business of the County Association whose proposals for accommodating this squadron have been approved. They occupy buildings exclusively, and share ranges with the 5th Battalion Seaforth Highlanders. Will my hon. friend kindly let me know what the particular grievance is to which he alludes?

    Woolwich Inspection Department.
    MR. CROOKS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Mr. Bernard Dunn, when employed in the inspection department at Woolwich, brought to the notice of the Secretary of State for War that defective equipment was being passed into the service of the public; that Mr. Dunn was called as a witness before the Royal Commission on Warlike Stores and the inquiry by the Judge Advocate General at Woolwich; that the Judge reported that his statements were well founded and that the Government had been defrauded; and will he, say whether Mr. Dunn has been paid for his work as a viewer, and, if not, will he be paid.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This man was employed as a saddler in the Inspection Department and was discharged in 1890. Prior to this date he was apparently employed as a viewer without additional pay. Thirteen years afterwards he claimed what, he stated to be the difference between his pay as a saddler and temporary viewer during the period he was employed as such. As he had signed a receipt for wages due to him on leaving the division in 1890 it was impossible to consider his claim. The fact that he gave some evidence to the Royal Commission mentioned does not appear to have any bearing on the matter in question.

    Cavalry Officers.
    SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: To ask the Secretary of State for War what number of the 538 cavalry officer's shown in the Return recently issued to Parliament are actually employed with their regiments; how many are on the seconded list or employed on duty away from their regiments; and whether in calculating the shortage of cavalry officers in the Regular Army, no deduction has been made for officers seconded or emlployed away from their regiments.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The figures in question, which should read 536, did not include any officers seconded or extra regimentally employed.

    Salisbury Plain Artillery Range.
    MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether voluntary agreements have yet been made for the purchase of all the land required by the War Office of the extension of the artillery ranges on Salisbury Plain.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Agreements have not yet been made for all the purchases. Negotiations are proceeding.

    Cheap Ammunition for Rifle Clubs.
    MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether a decision has yet been reached as to the supply of cheap ammunition to rifle clubs.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The question is still under consideration.

    Rifle-propelled Shrapnel Grenade.
    MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether official experiments have been, or will be, carried out with Mr. F. Martin Hale's patent rifle-propelled shrapnel grenade; and whether the advisers or the War Office consider this or similar projectiles to possess military value.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The proposed grenade is not considered to possess military value such as to justify experiments being carried out with it.

    Ogival Bullets.
    MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the experiments which have been carried out with ammunition with pointed ogival bullets have yet resulted in the production of a satisfactory cartridge for use in the Lee-Enfield rifle.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The reply is in the negative.

    Sjögren Automatic Rifles.
    MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether official experiments have been carried out with the Sjögren automatic rifle; if not, whether, in view of the fact that this rifle has been tested with satisfactory results by Continental governments, he will have
    726
    this weapon included in the tests of automatic rifles; and what automatic rifles have up to the present been officially tested by the War Office.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I do not think that it would be in the interests of the public service to publish any information in regard to experiments with automatic rifles.

    Aldershot Military Patrols.
    MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Secetary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to an order I of Lieutenant-General Smith-Dorrien discontinuing the present system of patrolling the streets of Aldershot, and placing soldiers on their honour not to misbehave; and whether, in the event of this experiment proving successful, a similar order will be issued to every command in the Kingdom.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The regulation as regards the patrolling of the streets of garrison towns by piquets is permissive. The practice is not universal, and the question as to the necessity or otherwise of employing men on this duty should be left to the discretion of the General Officers Commanding-in-Chief.

    Lieutenant Colonel Graham—West African Regiment.
    MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for War if it is contemplated to transfer Lieutenant-Colonel Graham, the officer commanding 5th Royal Irish Lancers, to the command of the West African regiment; whether he is aware that this is the officer to whom his attention has been directed as having condoned a mutiny in the 5th Lancers in March, 1904, and against whose conduct complaints have been made; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of placing some other person in command of the black troops in West Africa.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Colonel Graham has been appointed, on the recommendation of the Selection Board, to be Commandant of the West African regiment. He has seen service on the West Coast of Africa in two campaigns. As I have already informed the

    727
    hon. Member on a previous occasion, no report of the alleged mutiny has ever reached the War Office. Nor have I any reason to believe that such mutiny took place.

    National Defence.
    MR. HUNT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that, in the opinion of the greatest military authority in Great Britain, after the arsenals, naval bases, and principal places in the United Kingdom had been garrisoned, only 40,000 partially trained troops would be left to defend the country against the acknowledged possibility of a raid or raids of 69,000 picked foreign troops he would consider the necessity of organising all the men over thirty years of age and under sixty years who had served for three years or more in any of His Majesty's regular or auxiliary forces.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) As I have already informed the House, it is proposed at the proper time to take up the question of forming a reserve to the Territorial Force under the ægis of the County Associations. I am not prepared to discuss in an Answer to a Question the propriety of locking up what might in certain circumstances be better utilised as a mobile force in the defence of particular places. No such estimate as is suggested in the Question is reliable unless constructed in the light of such information as the Army Council alone possesses.

    Lowry-Bane Evicted Tenant.
    MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application from Henry Thompson, who was evicted in 1880 from the lands of Lowry-Bane, near Castlecauldwell, for reinstatement in his holding on these lands, which the Commissioners have given notice to acquire for the purposes of the Evicted Tenants Act, is the farm from which Thompson was evicted untenanted and his former house on it still available; and will the Commissioners favourably consider his application.
    728
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The application in question was not received by the Estates Commissioners within the time specified in the Evicted Tenants Act, and cannot therefore be considered in connection with the allotment of the lands of Lowry-Bane, which the Commissioners propose to acquire under that Act, and which are, as they understand, untenanted.

    Blakeney Estate, Galway.
    MR. JOHN ROCHE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will request the Estates Commissioners to have the grass lands upon the Blakeney estate, County Galway, stripped as soon as possible, and thereby relieve the tenants from the grazing rents which they agreed to pay pending fixing of price; and whether he is aware that the price has been fixed for a considerable time.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners furnished the owner of this estate, at his request, with an estimate of the price which they were prepared to give for the untenanted land. He has since instituted proceedings for the sale to the Commissioners, and they are having the tenanted land inspected, with a view to making an offer for the entire property. When their offer has been accepted and the requirements of the Statute has been complied with, the Commissioners will proceed with the allotment of the untenanted land.

    Irish Teachers and Promotion.
    MR. J. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary for the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many teachers would be entitled to increments and promotion to second grade, first grade, and first-of-first grade but for the reduction in the averages of their schools due to Rule 127 (b); and whether he can take any steps to secure the promotion to which these teachers are entitled being granted.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the Return asked for by the

    729
    hon. Member would serve no useful purpose commensurate with the labour involved in its preparation. The promotions and increments of teachers do not depend on average attendance alone. Training, position in school, ability, and general attainments, length and character of service, and seniority are other determining factors.

    Special Distinctions for Irish Teachers.
    MR. J. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of teachers trained between 1898 and 1900 who got special distinctions at their first examinations; the number of same placed provisionally in second class and afterwards depressed to third grade; the number of teachers trained in 1898–1900 whose salaries were originally fixed higher than the minimums of £56 and £44, the number of same placed on the minimum salary, who have since received special consideration; and the number placed in third grade who are paying premiums for second-grade pensions.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the compilation of the Return asked for would take a long time, and would involve the closest scrutiny of the records of the Board for many years, while no adequate advantage would accrue from it. In these circumstances I cannot ask the Commissioners to undertake the preparation of the Return.

    Irish Teachers Good Reports.
    MR. J. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the numbers of female teachers and male teachers, respectively, who got three consecutive good reports previous to 1906, 1907, and 1908, but who have been denied their increments because cookery was not introduced into their schools; and whether he can see his way to recommend that these teachers should be paid their increments when the proficiency in ordinary literary subjects is satisfactory.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that, so far as can be ascertained in
    730
    the time available, no male or female teachers such as are referred to have been denied increments solely because cookery was not introduced into their schools.

    Cookery in Irish National Schools.
    MR. J. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education are compulsorily enforcing the teaching of cookery in national schools, though over 5,000 of these schools are one-roomed buildings quite unfitted for the purpose; whether increments have been withheld from teachers for not including cookery in the curriculum, though neither apartments or equipments have been provided whether pressure is being brought to bear on teachers to provide the equipment at their own expense, and managers notified to recoup such expenses out of the first fees earned by teachers; whether inspectors have been instructed not to give good reports unless cookery is taught and whether the Department of Technical Instruction provides equipment in all cases where they hold cookery classes.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that in Rule 120 of their Code it is provided that cookery and laundry work should be taught as part of the ordinary school programme to girls enrolled in the fifth and higher standards when suitable provision for instruction is available. Instruction in cookery need not necessarily take place in the schoolroom, but the fact that there is only one room in a school is not sufficient of itself to justify the ommission of this subject (which is regarded as of the first importance for Irish children) from the school curriculum. Increments have not been withheld in any case where the Commissioners were satisfied that good and sufficient reason existed for omitting cookery from the school programme. The Commissioners do not expect teachers to provide the equipment at their own expense. The managers are paid a grant of 5s. per head for each girl taught cookery in accordance with the official regulations, and from the grant the manager can meet the necessary incidental expenditure. The balance of the grant

    731
    goes to the teacher. The allegation that inspectors have been instructed not to give good reports unless cookery is taught is incorrect. I am informed by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction that, in all courses of instruction conducted by county teachers of domestic economy, equipment is provided under the scheme, but there are a number of schools working under the Department in which equipment has been provided by the schools.

    Irish National Board—Senior Secretary.
    MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the character of letters sent by the senior secretary of the National Board to some of the inspectors of schools throughout Ireland; whether he is aware that this official refuses to grant any interviews to inspectors to whom such letters have been sent; and whether the Irish Government will represent to the Commissioners of National Education that this official is not a fit person to fill the responsible position of senior secretary any longer.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a Question on the same subject asked by the hon. Member for West Limerick on 11th March last. The Commissioners of National Education inform me that all letters written by their secretaries are issued by the authority of the Board or of the Resident Commissioner, and that there is no foundation for the statement that their senior secretary refuses to grant interviews to inspectors. This officer is, I understand, a most efficient public servant.

    Irish National Board Inspectors.
    MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware of the action of the two chief inspectors of the National Board for years towards many of the twenty or so organisers who are subject to their authority; is he aware that some of these organisers have been obliged to leave the service by the treatment to which they have been subjected; that many others find it almost impossible to do their work satisfactorily owing to the
    732
    character of the letters that are being constantly sent them; and whether he will call the attention of the Commissioners to the necessity of obliging their two chief inspectors to adopt a more considerate attitude towards their subordinates.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education are not aware that any of their organisers have been obliged to leave the service owing to the action of the chief inspectors or that there is any good ground for the other complaints referred to in the Question.

    Blackrock Police Station, Cork.
    MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the position of sergeant of the Royal Irish Constabulary at the Blackrock Station, Cork, is now vacant; whether, with the exception of the late sergeant, who held office there for eight months, a Catholic has never filled this position; and whether care will be taken in filling the present vacancy that deserving Catholics will not be excluded because of their religion.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary informs rue that there is no vacancy at present for a sergeant at Blackrock Station. In the event of a vacancy care will be taken to select the most suitable man irrespective of religion. The present sergeant is a Catholic, but the three preceding sergeants whose service at the station covered a period of about thirty-five years, were Protestants.

    Brabazon Estate (Cahir) Evicted Tenants.
    MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners received applications from the representatives of Catherine Casey and Thady Flaherty, evicted tenants who held holdings of land on the Brabazon estate at Cahir, Aughamore, in the Swinford Union, County Mayo, for reinstatement in the holdings from which the late Catherine Casey and Thady Flaherty were evicted in October, 1898; and, if so,

    733
    what action have they taken, or do they intend to take, in the matter.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have decided not to take any action in reference to these applications. The holdings in question are now occupied by other tenants.

    Trinidad Dock Director's Salary.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state whether certain members of the finance committee of Trinidad protested as to the salary of the dock director, and threaten to resign; and if so, can he state what action he took to allay the trouble.
    (Answered by Colonel Seely.) A protest was received from the unofficial members of the Legislative Council with regard to the matter referred to. The protest was largely due to the absence of complete information as to the circumstances of the appointment, and the Secretary of State has dealt fully with the matter in two despatches, one of which has been published in the Colony. The other will also be published there shortly. As a result of these despatches the unofficial members have resumed their duties on the finance committee and the Council.

    Indentured Coolie Labour in Trinidad.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is yet in a position to state the result of his inquiries as to the balance of opinion in Trinidad in regard to the importation of indentured coolie labour into that island; and, if so, can he state what action he intends to take in regard to indentured coolie labour, in the Colonies.
    (Answered by Colonel Seely.) I regret that I am not at present in a position to give any further information to my hon. friend, but I will do so, I can assure him, at the earliest possible moment.

    Clyde Foreshores.
    MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will say what, if any, portions of the foreshores of the Clyde
    734
    between Glasgow and Helensburgh, on the north side of the river, and Glasgow and Greenock, on the south side, are treated as belonging to the Crown.
    (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The greater part of the foreshores referred to is prima facie the property of the Crown. Certain portions are, however, vested in private owners, and claims have been made to other portions, which latter have not been admitted by the Crown. I am not able to give the limits of these portions in reply to a Question, but some of the information asked for could be supplied personally to my hon. friend or his representative if application is made at the Board of Trade.

    Housing Loans.
    MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state what are the present terms for borrowing money by local authorities from the Public Works Loans Commissioners for purposes of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, 1890 to 1903.
    MR. STEADMAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what are the terms under which the Public Works Loans Commissioners are at present lending money to local authorities for the purposes of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, 1890 to 1903.
    (Answered, by Mr. Hobhouse.) Loans to local authorities under the Housing Acts are sanctioned by the Local Government Board and secured on the rates, and are repayable either by equal half-yearly instalments of principal with interest on the outstanding balance or by way of annuity. The rates of interest are: 3½ per cent. per annum if repayable in not exceeding thirty years; 3¾ per cent. per annum if repayable in not exceeding fifty years.

    Strumble Head Lighthouse.
    MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board with reference to the island of about five and three quarter acres at Strumble Head, Pembrokeshire, which

    735
    was purchased by the Trinity House as a site for a lighthouse, in June, 1907, for £400, if he will say what was taken as its annual value for rating at the time of that purchase, or, if it formed part of a larger subject, by what amount the annual value for rating of that larger subject was reduced in consequence of the severance of that purchased part.
    (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am informed that the island at Strumble Head was not separately rated, its value for rating purposes being included in the assessment of the farm of which it formed part, and that no reduction has been made in the assessment of the farm in consequence of its severance therefrom.

    Distress at Hartlepool.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: TO ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received an application from the town council of Hartlepool for sanction to create a distress committee; and whether he is prepared to grant the application.
    (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) An Order for the establishment of a distress committee for the borough of Hartlepool is being issued to-day.

    Secondary Schools Grants.
    COLONEL R. WILLIAMS: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he will consider the possibility of paying earlier in the school year both the payment on account and the final payment of the grants to secondary schools, in view of the financial difficulties often caused to the governing bodies of such schools by the fact that salaries and other expenses are increased in deference to the Board's requirements and have to be paid many months before the grants are received.
    (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The final payment of grants to secondary schools cannot be made until the claims have been received by the Board after the end of the school year on 31st July, and the observance of the conditions
    736
    upon which the grants are payable checked and the amounts of the grants calculated in the Board's office. If the conditions have been duly complied with, payment is made before the end of the financial year on 31st March, and in a very large number of cases at a much earlier date, but as all the claims come forward at the same time of the year the Board are unwilling to pledge themselves to payment in any case before the end of March. The instalments of grant are paid as soon as possible after the beginning of the financial year in April, when about two-thirds of the school year have been completed. They could not be paid at an earlier date without an additional charge upon the Exchequer during the year of change.

    Parliamentary Accommodation.
    MR. WATT: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether any of the 204 rooms utilised in the Houses of Parliament by the Commons are also utilised by the Peers; and whether any of the 113 rooms utilised by the Peers are also taken advantage of by the Commons, and in this way are included twice in the total of 317.
    (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) No room is used twice, but I regret that there was a clerical error in my former answer which should have stated the rooms utilised by the House of Lords as 133.

    H.M.S. "Inflexible."
    MR. E. H. LAMB: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether orders have been issued for H.M.S. "Inflexible" to leave England for Gibraltar on 20th December; and, if so, whether, consistently with the national interests and without interfering with the requirements of the service, such departure could be postponed for a few days, in order to enable the officers and men to spend Christmas at home.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) H.M.S. "Inflexible" will not leave England until after the New Year.

    Old-Age Pensions and Friendly Societies.
    MR. STEADMAN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if there are special provisions made under the Friendly Societies Act, in the Old-Age Pension; Act; and if pensions received from friendly societies count as income.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The reply to the first Question (in so far as I understand it) is in the negative; that to the second Question is in the affirmative.

    Applications for Old-Age Pensions from Persons bodily infirm.
    MR. MULDOON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any provision has been made under the Old-Age Pensions Act, 1908, by the regulations issued thereunder or otherwise, to enable poor persons otherwise qualified, who are unable by reason of mental or bodily infirmity, to present a claim in due form.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Arrangements have been made whereby pension officers will assist claimants who, through bodily infirmity, may be incapable of attending at the post office in preparing their claims. As regards cases of mental infirmity, it does not appear to be practicable to indicate any procedure generally applicable to cases of this type. Each case, and the appropriate procedure, must be considered and determined with especial reference to the actual circumstances of the case.

    Territorial Army—Allowance of Practice Ammunition.
    MR. B. S. STRAUS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the annual allowance of practice ammunition for recruits and for trained soldiers of the Territorial Army is limited to forty-two rounds per man; whether he is aware that very frequently these forty-two rounds are fired off in one day; and whether he will consider the possibility of permitting a portion of these rounds to be exchanged for rounds of short-range ammunition of equivalent value to be fired at miniature ranges.
    738
    To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the desirability of granting an allowance of short-range ammunition sufficient to enable Territorials to become efficient riflemen by practising at miniature ranges.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The allowance of ammunition for a man in the Territorial Force is ninety rounds per annum. The number of rounds to be fired off in one day is limited. This allowance may be commuted into miniature cartridge according to a recognised scale. It is considered that this will provide ample opportunity for miniature range practice.

    Increased Pay for Quartermasters of the Special Reserve, Royal Field Artillery.
    SIR ROBERT HOBART: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the quartermasters of Special Reserve, Royal Field Artillery have made application for some increase of pay on the ground of their doing adjutants' work in addition to their own; and whether he can now see his way to give them something for it.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Some applications have been received It has been decided that, taking the work of these officers as a whole, no grant of extra remuneration could be justified.

    Weekly Payment of Army Pensions.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the desire expressed among many Army pensioners in Ireland during the present distress to have their pensions paid weekly instead of quarterly; and whether any arrangements have been made to carry out a scheme on such lines.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The War Office has received no recent applications to this effect from Ireland. As regards the last part of the Question, I have nothing at present to add to the information I gave to the House in reply to a Question put by the Member for the Isle of Wight division of Hampshire on 14th October.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Portsmouth Admiralty Contracts.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the firm of Messrs. Morrison and Mason, contractors for the Board of Admiralty at Portsmouth, reduced the wages of the labourers on the 15th September from 27s. 9d. for a week of fifty-six hours to 23s. 1d. for a week of fifty-six hours; whether he is aware that at the present time these labourers are working fifty-two hours per week for 5d. per hour, or a penny per hour less than they received from the firm for the same class of work up to the 14th September, whether he is aware that the agreed winter hours in the building trade for the town of Portsmouth are forty-seven per week; whether he is aware that 6d. per hour is paid by many master builders in the town, and that his department has been so advised; whether he is aware that the Portsmouth town council, when advertising for tenders, insist upon trade union rates of wages and conditions, and that the corporation pays its own labourers 24s. per week of forty-eight hours; whether he is aware that when the reduced wages were offered by the firm most of the trade unionists in its employ demanded the recognised rate of 6d. per hour, and, failing to get it, loft the employment; whether he is aware that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent demanded, on behalf of those labourers with whom he was concerned, the trade union rate, and the demanded was acceded to; and whether, in view of the fact that the officials of the corporation, the master builders, and the trade unionists of the town regard this reduction as injurious to the town, he can see his way at once to press the firm in question to come into line with other employers in the district.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): The contractors deny having reduced the rates of pay of any labourers taken on since the commencement of the work. The Admiralty have very fully considered this question, and I can add nothing to my previous replies on the subject.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiry of
    740
    the Corporation Surveyor, the President of the Building Trades Federation, and the Secretary of the Trades Council, all of whom consider the wages paid by the contractors to be below the rate of wages recognised in the district?
    MR. MCKENNA: I have already made inquiries in these quarters. There is an issue of fact between my hon. friend and myself, but if he will give me the names of any labourers alleged to have had their wages reduced I shall be happy to inquire again.
    MR. JOHN WARD: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question? Did not the contractors pay less than the recognised rate to a certain body of men, and then when they protested pay the proper rate? Has it not been only since the decision of the Admiralty—
    MR. SPEAKER: That is an argumentative question.

    British Naval Manœuvres.
    MR. MIDDLEMORE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the number of British warships, exclusive of destroyers and torpedo boats, assembled together under one command for the purpose of combined manœuvres in European waters in the years 1906, 1907, and 1908, respectively.
    MR. MCKENNA: The number for 1906 is forty-seven ships. In 1907, on three different occasions, the numbers were sixty, twenty-three, and fifty-eight ships. In 1908, combined manœuvres have been carried out between opposing fleets, but not under one command.
    MR. MIDDLEMORE: Can the tight hon. Gentleman give me the greatest number of vessels manœuvred at one time under Sir A. Wilson?
    MR. MCKENNAasked for notice of the Question.

    Oil Fuel Storage.
    MR. MIDDLEMORE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what steps are being taken to increase the capacity of naval ports for the storage of oil suitable for combustion in warships.
    MR. MCKENNA: The question of the provision of oil fuel storage continues to receive the close attention of the Admiralty; but it is not desirable in the public interest to make any detailed statement in reply to the hon. Member's Question.

    Sentence on a Hindu for Preaching Sedition.
    SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether a Hindu has been lately sentenced to five years transportation for preaching sedition to passengers in a railway carriage; if so, whether the accused in this case was tried by a jury; and whether there were any special reasons for the infliction of so severe a sentence.
    THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,): Proceedings were recently instituted under Sections 124 (a) and 153 (a) Indian Penal Code against a Hindu for seditious and inflammatory speeches made on the Hyderabad railway. The Secretary of State has no official information as to the mode of trial or its result. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, it would be open to the accused, on conviction, to appeal for a reduction of his sentence.

    Sentence for Printing Seditious Articles in Madras.
    SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Srinivasa Tyengar, printer of the India newspaper, published in Madras, who has been sentenced by the High Court to five years hard labour for printing seditious articles; whether the Crown challenged all the Indian jurors summoned for this case except one; whether the jury who convicted the accused consisted of eight Englishmen and one Indian, who is an official under the Government; and whether, in all the circumstances, seeing that there is no appeal from this order, the Secretary of State will communicate with the Government of India with a view to mitigating the severity of this sentence.
    MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State has seen a newspaper report of the case, but has no official information on the subject. Both sides appear to have
    742
    made use of their right to challenge jurors. As my hon. friend is aware, the jury returns the verdict of guilty or not guilty, but they have nothing to do with the severity of the sentence. The accused can appeal for a reduction of his sentence to the Government of Madras and the Government of India, and finally to the Crown.

    Indian Civil Service Pensions.
    SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, having regard to the provisions of Article 351 of the Civil Service regulations under which the Indian Government possess the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it if the pensioner be convicted of serious crime or grave misconduct, and of the fact that the decision of the Secretary of State on the exercise of this power is declared final and conclusive, the Secretary of State proposes to make any inquiry into the circumstances under which the pension of a retired tehsildar in the Central Provinces was lately withdrawn, on the ground of his participation in political agitation.
    MR. BUCHANAN: As I have informed the hon. Member in reply to previous Questions, it is open to the retired official concerned to submit an appeal in the usual manner, but, so far as the Secretary of State is aware, he has not yet done so. The Secretary of State does not propose to withdraw the case from the hands of the competent authorities in India.

    Walfisch Bay.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information of communications having passed between the German Imperial Colonial Minister and the Prime Ministers of Cape Colony and the Transvaal, with reference to the proposed cession of Walfisch Bay to Germany; and whether he can make any statement on the subject.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,): Mr. Merriman recently stated in the Cape House of Assembly, that the Cape, of which Colony Walfisch Bay forms part, had not the slightest intention of parting

    743
    with it, or with the control of it, and that they were acting with the other South African Governments in the matter.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: May I ask if under the Constitution a Colony having responsible government could part with any portion of its territory without the assent of this Government?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that Question.

    Blue Book on Natal Libel Actions.
    MR. RIDSDALE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that a blue-book has just been circulated, containing 130 pages, consisting of nothing but reports of a series of libel actions brought by a Natal native, mainly against various newspapers; and what was the cost to the State of printing and circulating this State Paper.
    COLONEL SEELY: My hon. friend no doubt refers to Cd. 4403 which was published in the special circumstances explained on page 3. I understand that the cost of printing was £62. No special expense was incurred in circulating.

    Gold Coast Colony Revenue.
    MR. RIDSDALE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, if considerably more than half of the revenue of the Gold Coast Colony is derived from import duties on spirits: and whether a system of revenue can be devised that does not depend for its main support upon the sale of spirits among natives.
    COLONEL SEELY: The revenue of the Gold Coast in 1907 was £708,718. The total amount of the import duties collected on spirits was £254,348, which is rather more than one-third of the total revenue.

    West African Liquor Trade.
    SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can inform the House whether the Commission to inquire into West African liquor traffic has been constituted and a chairman appointed; and whether anyone
    744
    else will be sent out from England to serve on it.
    COLONEL SEELY: The constitution of the full Committee of Inquiry is now under consideration. The Secretary of State hopes to find a chairman who will command general confidence, and it is probable that another gentleman who has experience in Southern Nigeria, and who is at present in England, will be asked to serve with the members already in the Colony.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Will the chairman be sent out from this country?
    COLONEL SEELY: Yes, if we can find a suitable man, as I hope we may.

    British East African Justiciary.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will furnish particulars as to the salaries of Judges and Magistrates in British East Africa, and as to their age, their standing at the Bar, and their professional and judicial experience previous to their appointment.
    COLONEL SEELY: A recital of the qualifications of the officers referred to by the hon. Member, would exceed the limits of an oral Answer, but I will send him a list giving the particulars which he desires, with the exception of the ages of the officers, which cannot be ascertained without special inquiry.

    Alleged Official Malpractices in British East Africa.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that malpractices in regard to native women were alleged to have been the cause of the disturbances which led to the punitive expedition against the Nandi tribe in British East Africa; and whether the late Under-Secretary of State for the Colomes, during his recent visit to the Protectorate, made any inquiry into these allegations.
    COLONEL SEELY: The Secretary of State is not aware that such allegations have been made, and no such statement was made to my right hon. friend during his recent visit to the Protectorate.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Is the hon. gentleman aware that these statements are very freely made in British East Africa, both in the Press and elsewhere?
    COLONEL SEELY: We have no reason to think, and have no communication to show, that they are well-founded.

    Hayti.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any further information with regard to the position of affairs in Hayti.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): The latest telegrams from His Majesty's Consular-General in Hayti, dated December 8th, reports that order has been re-established in the island. General Simon has been proclaimed Chief of the Executive pending the election of a President, which will take place as soon as the requisite number of deputies can be assembled. His Majesty's ship "Scylla" is still at Port-au-Prince, and will for the present be retained there or within reach.

    Hew Guinea Frontier.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps are being taken to provide for the delimitation of the frontier between British and German New Guinea; and, if so, whether he is in a position to make any statement on the subject.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: A Joint Commission has been appointed by His Majesty's Government and the German Government for the delimitation of the boundary between Papua and German New Guinea. The German Commissioner, Captain Forster, is expected to arrive in the boundary territory at the end of this month, while the British Commissioner, Mr. Sabine, Chief Government Surveyor of Papua, is believed to be already on the spot.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Will these Commissioners have plenary powers or only report to their respective Governments?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I cannot say off-hand what their powers will be.

    Persia.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the new Council of State, composed of members nominated by the Shah, is the Shah's substitute for a parliament elected by the people; and whether he can say what action His Majesty's Government propose taking.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I cannot add to the Answer which I gave on Tuesday as to the intentions of the Shah. As to any action which we have taken, and the principles by which I wish to be guided in the matter, I must refer to the Answer which I gave to a Supplementary Question asked by the hon. Member for South Donegal, on November 26th.
    MR. LYNCH: Is it not the fact that an arrangement was made on the 14th March, by the Russian Government with the Shah of Persia as to the summoning of a parliament freely elected by the people.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I have answered several Questions as to representations made to Persia, and I think it very undesirable that these Questions should be put without notice.
    MR. LYNCH: asked whether the Council of State was to be convoked or a parliament freely elected. The Question he had put to the right hon. Gentleman—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. Notice must be given. The hon. Member is now lecturing the right hon. Gentleman.

    Cruelty to Animals in Cairo.
    MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, despite official promises to exercise preventive control, gross cruelty to beasts of burden is daily witnessed in the streets of Cairo; and whether he will urge upon the Egyptian Government, through the British Agent in Cairo, the necessity for preventive measures at certain points, and for some

    747
    systematic educational policy in the interests of humanity.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The latest information on this subject, which I have received from His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General in Cairo, was communicated to the hon. Member on the 5th of May last. Sir Eldon Gorst then reported that the experience of the last twelve months up to April last, had shown that the present arrangements were working in a satisfactory manner. I will, however, refer any information on the subject to Cairo for such action as the authorities may be able to take.

    Russian Officers in Persia.
    MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in the event of a conflict between the Royalist and Constitutionalist forces in Persia, the Russian officers in the Persian service have received instructions from the Russian Government to maintain a neutral attitude; and whether, in the event of their participation in acts of civil warfare, reparation will be exacted from Persia by Russia for any harm which may befal them.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I cannot say anything about instructions given by other Governments, and in so far as these Questions are hypothetical I cannot give any Answer. As a matter of fact, according to my information the Russian officers referred to have not taken any part in the fighting which has been taking place in the province of Azerbaijan during the last few months.
    MR. LYNCH: Have they received the instructions suggested in the Question?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I have said I can say nothing about instructions given by other Governments.

    Housing and Town Planning Committee.
    MR. JOWETT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will inform the House how many public officials have been in attendance on the Chairman of the Housing and Town Planning Committee during the sittings of that body; what are the names of the said officials; and what offices they hold.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): There are two clerks to the Standing Committee to which the Bill was referred and these officers may in a sense be said to have been in attendance on the chairman during the sittings of the Committee in connection with this Bill. But subject to this I am not aware that any public officials were in attendance on him. In accordance with the usual practice the draftsman and some officers of the Government Departments concerned were present.

    East Molesey Pension Applicant.
    SIR HENRY CRAIK: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the case of an applicant for an old-age pension at East Molesey to whom the pensions sub-committee felt themselves obliged to grant a pension, although he had £1,030 invested in Consols; and whether he is advised that the allowance of a pension in such a case was justified by the Pensions Act.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I have received a letter from the Molesey sub-committee respecting a case in which a man has £300 invested in Consols and his wife £730. Both are claimants for old-age pensions. I presume this is the case to which the Question refers. I gather that the committee have not at present come to a decision on these claims. I may say generally, that the Old-Age Pensions Act requires the yearly income, whether from investments or from other sources, to be taken into account. If the income from an investment, together with any other means possessed by the claimant, does not exceed £31 10s., and he is not otherwise ineligible, he is qualified for a pension. The amount of the pension will depend on the amount of the means.
    SIR HENRY CRAIK: Would not an applicant for a pension be required to invest that capital sum in an annuity which would largely exceed the amount that would exclude him from a pension?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I would defer answering that Question until after the pension committee have considered the matter further.
    MR. HAROLD COX: May I ask whether the furniture of these capitalists will be taken into account?
    LORD R. CECIL: Do not instructions lay down generally that all these sums are to be taken at 4 per cent. unless they are invested?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I believe the general instructions do lay that down.
    MR. LUPTON: Is there anything in the Act which prevents persons from investing their money for the benefit not only of themselves but their descendants?
    MR. SPEAKER: The Act is open to the hon. Member. He can see that for himself.

    Mariners' Club Pensioners.
    SIR HENRY CRAIK: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether a man of ninety-three years of age, whose only means of livelihood are 4s. 10d. a month from the Mariners' Club, to which he has subscribed nearly all his life, and 2s. 6d. a week of parish relief, is debarred from receiving any assistance under the Pensions Act.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: The Answer appears to be in the affirmative. A person who has received ordinary poor relief since the 1st January last is disqualified for a pension by subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Act.
    SIR HENRY CRAIK: Does the payment of that moderate sum in poor relief place this poor old man in a position of inequality as compared with the capitalists referred to in my last Question?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: As at present, I am sorry to say it is so.

    Milk Bill.
    MR. COUTHORPE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when the Milk Bill will be printed.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: It would not be practicable for the Bill to make any progress this year, and it will, I think,
    750
    be best to defer its introduction until next session.

    Distress Committees.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state in what cases his Board has exercised its power under subsection (2) of Section 2 of The Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, by creating a distress committee in any county or part of a county where no application has been made by the local authority.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: Under the provision referred to it would be necessary that a central body and distress committee should be established with similar constitutions to those of the central body and distress committees in London. There is no case in which this course has been adopted.

    Out-Relief in the Lincoln Union.
    MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his Board has issued instructions to the Lincoln Board of Guardians, or any other board of guardians, to cease paying outdoor relief to any person who resides with friends, and where the income of the house where he or she resides is £1 per week.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: The reply to the Question is in the negative.

    Unemployed Grants.
    MR. CLYNES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what amount of the grant of money has been distributed since the Government's last proposals in connection with unemployment were approved by the House; and what information has he of the extent to which distress has been relieved by the operation of the proposals in comparison with the distress indicated by official unemployment figures.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: Since the Prime Minister's statement on the 21st October, £57,570 has been paid in aid of schemes of work in England and Wales and £8,614, unexpended balances in the hands of the distress committees, has

    751
    been appropriated to similar schemes. I am afraid I can give no reliable figures in reply to the latter part of the Question.

    Old-Age Pensions Disqualifications.
    MR. CLYNES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in such cases as the following, the persons would be disqualified for an old-age pension; one who received parish relief for a few weeks during which the superannuation pay from his trade society was suspended through depression in trade, one who, without requesting it, received three days hospital treatment at parish expense, and one who had parish relief afterwards repaid to the guardians by the children of the receiver.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: In the first and third of the cases referred to, the claimant would appear to be disqualified. The second case would probably come within the proviso to Section 3 (1) of the Old-Age Pensions Act, and if so the claimant would not be disqualified.

    Brighouse Distress.
    MR. O'GEADY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his Board has received an application from the town council of Brighouse for sanction to create a distress committee; whether any reply has yet been given to the application; and, if so, what were the terms of the reply.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I received on the 30th October an application from the town council of Brighouse for an Order establishing a Distress Committee for the borough, to which I replied on the 4th November, asking for certain information to enable mo to deal with the matter. To this letter I have not at present received any reply.

    Poor Law Medical Relief and Old-Age Pension.
    MR. A. ROCHE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in cases where poor relief in cash has been granted since the 1st January last only during the actual illness of a claimant, and on the recommendation of a medical officer, and where the medical officer gives a certificate in writing such grant was given on
    752
    account of such illness, the Local Government Board will treat such relief as a disqualification for the receipt of an old-age pension; and if a claimant has been an inmate of a district hospital since the 1st January last, and only remained there under doctors' orders, will such relief be treated as a disqualification.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: As regards the first point, I may say generally that it would seem to me that in such a case as that put, the claimant would be disqualified. As regards the second, I think that it would be necessary to know more of the actual facts of the case before an opinion could be expressed. I should add, however, that if the cases which have given rise to the Question occur in Ireland, the matter is not one for me but for the Irish Local Government Board.

    Churches (Scotland) Commission.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can state in detail the salaries paid in connection with the Churches (Scotland) Commission, the total expenses of the Commission up to 1st December, 1908, and whether these expenses are to be met out of the funds allocated to the two churches; and, if so, in what proportion.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The expenses of the Church Commission are not a charge on public funds. The chairman, however, has authorised the following particulars to be communicated to me. The largest item is the cost of the local inquiries under the terms of the Act. These, including the fees of Assistant Commissioners, have amounted to over £4,000. The total salaries paid in connection with the office of the Commission, for a secretary, two clerks, and a messenger, up to April, 1907, were at a rate of £1,178 per annum. At that date a third clerk was added and the total salaries are now at a rate of £1,328 per annum. The expenses under all heads, including printing and shorthand writing, up to 1st December, 1908, amounted to £10,194 17s. 9d. Treasury precedents and the rules prescribed for temporary Commissioners have been closely followed throughout. The entire expenses of the Commission are defrayed out of the property in question as defined by the Act.

    North Uist Crofter Settlement.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that the island of North Uist is at present advertised for sale, and having regard to its suitability for the settlement of a crofter population, His Majesty's Government will take steps, by purchasing the island, to provide small holdings for the landless thereon.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The funds at the disposal of the Congested Districts Board after the large purchases effected by them in recent years are not sufficient to admit of the course suggested by the hon. Member, even if desirable on other grounds. He is no doubt aware that with the co-operation of the Congested Districts Board several new crofter settlements have lately been formed, and that a large portion of the island is already in crofter occupation.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: How much would it take to purchase this island?
    MR. SINCLAIR: I do not know.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Would it not be a splendid opportunity to give effect to the intentions of the Government regarding small holdings at a reasonable cost?
    MR. SINCLAIR: I can add nothing to my Answer.

    Distress in Glasgow.
    MR. CLELAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the refusal of the Scottish Local Government Board to receive a deputation from the Glasgow Distress Committee, with reference to the Board's attitude towards the Distress Works at Tollcross Park; and whether, having regard to the exceptional distress at present existing in Glasgow, and the probable immediate discharge of a number of the unemployed at present engaged upon these undertakings as a result of the Board's decision, he will, as Chairman of the Scottish Local Government Board, bring pressure to bear upon that body to receive a deputation as requested by the Glasgow Distress Committee.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The Board, who were acting with my concurrence as President, did not deem it consistent with consideration to the Glasgow Distress Committee, to receive a deputation in regard to a matter on which the views of the Committee and the Board had already been very fully expressed. Since, as I understand from my hon. friend, the Committee desire to urge new considerations I have no doubt the Board will be glad to receive a deputation from them on representations being made to that effect.

    Compensation for Bad Seed.
    MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), whether compensation has now been paid, as promised, to farmers who were in error supplied by the Department with unsuitable seed last season; and, if not, will he state what has caused the delay in making these payments, and will he hasten them.
    THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): Considerations involving legal questions have caused delay. I hope payable orders may be issued to-day.
    MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), what is the total amount of the claims for loss sustained through the supplying of unsuitable seed by the Department to Irish farmers; whether the full amount has been recovered from the foreign firm who supplied the faulty seed in breach of warranty; and whether, to protect seedsmen and farmers in making purchases this season, he will give the name of the firm in question.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Growers have asked £20 per bag. There were about fifty bags; no part of this has as yet been recovered from the foreign firm who supplied the seed. The firm in question is a respectable and reputable one, and I do not think any good purpose would be served by publishing the name.
    MR. BARRIE: Is it not the case that the purchase of see I by the Department from this firm led to farmers buying

    755
    privately from it and thus incurring loss?
    MR. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that.
    MR. FLYNN: Was the purchase made from a Scottish firm?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: It is not a Scottish firm. I am satisfied that the whole thing is the result of a mistake and the loss will be made good. We shall do our best to prevent a repetition.

    Alleged Jury Packing at Sligo.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney - General for Ireland whether he is aware that in the three cases of the Geevagh, County Sligo, traversers, tried at the Connaught Winter Assizes in Limerick, the Crown Solicitor for Sligo ordered sixty-six jurors to stand by, including a gentleman who is a Justice of the Peace and who has held the offices of High Sheriff and Mayor of the city; did the Crown Solicitor in these cases act under the instructions and with the sanction of the Attorney-General in challenging sixty-six jurors without cause; and will he inform the House whether, since his appointment to office, he has issued to Crown Solicitors any instructions in reference to the selection of juries in Crown cases, and, if so, what were his instructions.
    THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): The Crown Solicitor for the county of Sligo informs me that in the three cases referred to be ordered the number of jurors mentioned in the Question to stand by. His reason for so doing, as stated by my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary in a reply given by him on my behalf to a Question asked by the hon. Member for East Galway on the 7th instant, was that he had trustworthy information that an active canvass of the jurors had been made on behalf of the prisoners, and that persons had actually come from Sligo to Limerick for the purpose of influencing the jurors. The Crown Solicitor was bound to exclude from the jury all persons whom he had reason to believe were influenced by this improper practice, and who would, in his opinion, have been hindered thereby from giving an impartial verdict. I have
    756
    no knowledge of the individuals ordered to stand by. This is a matter entirely for the Crown Solicitor, who acts on the best information he can procure irrespective of the position in life of the jurors challenged. I have given no special instructions as to ordering jurors to stand by at the present Assizes, but about two years ago I instructed all Crown Solicitors not to order any juror to stand aside on account of his religious or political opinions, and I have no reason to believe that these instructions have been in any way disregarded in the cases referred to in the Question.
    MR. DILLON: Will the right, hon. Gentleman explain in what respect these proceedings differ from the ancient practice of jury packing, which we understood had been abandoned by the present Government, and is he aware that on all previous occasions when complaint was made in this House of jury packing the Answer given was in the very words he has just used that nobody was ordered to stand aside on account of his political or religious opinion.
    MR CHERRY: I always understood that the practice of jury packing as alleged in former times was that jurors were ordered to stand aside by reason of their religious or political views, and that jurors of one particular religious faith were empanelled. I never understood that hon. Members objected to jurors who had been canvassed being ordered to stand aside So long as I remain Attorney-General I shall not give instructions to abstain from challenging jurors in such cases.
    MR. DILLON: What proof does the light hon. Gentleman allege he is prepared to give that these sixty-six jurors had been canvassed? Has he asked the Crown Solicitor for Sligo whether he acted upon proof in the matter?
    MR. CHERRY: As I have already stated, the matter was left entirely to the discretion of the Crown Solicitor, I cannot interfere in the details in each case.
    MR. DELANY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state if the system prevails in this country of setting aside jurors in this wholesale manner?
    MR. CHERRY: I cannot the practice in this country.

    Edge Estate, Queen's County.
    MR. P. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether negotiations for sale of the Edge estate, Moyadd, Queen's County, are being carried on, or whether terms of purchase have been agreed on; whether he is aware that John McCormack was evicted from a farm of 100 acres at present occupied by a planter named Goucher; whether the son of the evicted tenant has applied to the Estates Commissioners for restoration; whether he is aware that a man named Andrew Pennycook, non-resident, is in occupation of a grazing ranch of 150 acres, from which tenants were evicted, and that Mr. Penny cook is owner and occupies a farm of 138 acres on the former Duke of Leinster's estate, purchased under the Act of 1903, advance made £3,542; whether he is aware that there are on the Moyadd estate five families, numbering 17 persons, who occupy a total of 5 acres, and that there are numerous uneconomic holdings in the district; and will he say whether the two grazing farms containing 253 acres occupied by only one family will be acquired by the Estates Commissioners for distribution amongst the evicted tenants and uneconomic holdings.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The Estates Commissioners inform me that certain purchase agreements have been lodged in respect of this estate, but they do not include agreements in respect of the 134 acres held by John Goucher as a yearly tenant, or in respect of the 162 acres held by A. K. Pennycook as a judicial tenant. The Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from John McCormack. They have not yet inquired into the estate, as it has not yet been reached in its order of priority. They are therefore unable to express any opinion as to the matters referred to in the concluding portion of the Question. An advance of £3,542 was made to Andrew Pennycook in connection with the sale of the Duke of Leinster's estate.
    MR. P. MEEHAN: Is it not the case that Mr. Pennycook is satisfied to sell the estates to the Commissioners for distribution
    758
    among 17 persons who now hold less than 5 acres between them?
    MR. BIRRELL: I have given the hon. Gentleman all the information in my possession.

    Mr. Henry Hosie's Athy Lands.
    MR. P. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the total acreage of land in the counties of Queen's County and Kildare in the occupation of Henry Hosie, Courcestown, Athy, for the purchase of which money has been advanced to him; and what is the total amount of money so advanced.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that advances amounting to £412 have been made to Henry Hosie for the purchase of two holdings comprising 36 acres in County Kildare. No advances have been made to him for the purchase of lands in the Queen's County.
    MR. P. MEEHANasked if an agreement had not been signed for the purchase of two holdings, one of 385 acres and the other 183 acres. Would the Estates Commissioners advance the money for the purchase of those so that the evicted tenants might soon be reinstated?
    MR. BIRRELL: I must ask for notice.

    Close Estate, Queen's County.
    MR. P. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that Robert Anderson, Castlemitchel, Athy, is at present, and has been for over 20 years, the rated occupier of the lands of Fossey and Ballintha, on the Close estate, Queen's County, purchased under the Act of 1903, in the name of Stephen Marcus Telford; that Mr. Telford is a nephew of Mr. Anderson; that an assignment of these lands was made by Anderson to Telford immediately preceding the sale of the Close estate; that these lands were re-assigned to Anderson by Telford in 1906, that Robert Anderson was registered as owner in fee of the said lands, on 29th November, 1906, and that the considerations in both assignments were natural love and affection; whether he is aware that there

    759
    was advanced for the purchase of Robert Anderson's holding on the Leinster estate £4,173, and for the purchase of his holding on the Close estate £5,363, total £9,536; and whether if on inquiry he is satisfied that the advance of £9,536 for the purchase of land in the occupation of Robert Anderson, Castlemitchel, Athy, was obtained by misrepresentation, he will take steps to have the sale cancelled and to have that part of the land represented by the unauthorised amount of purchase money advanced, £2,536, acquired by the Estates Commissioners for evicted tenants and uneconomic holdings in the Timahoe district.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that Telford was returned by the landlord as the tenant of the lands in question. A purchase agreement signed by both parties having been lodged, the advance applied for by Telford was made and the lands were vested in him. The Commissioners are making inquiries as to the other statements in the Question, and if, on inquiry, they find that the advance was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation they propose to take such action as may be authorised by law.

    Luggacunnan Estate, Queen's County.
    MR. P. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that seventy-three evicted tenants on the Landsdowne Luggacunnan Estate, Queen's County, applied for reinstatement, and that the claims of twenty-one evicted tenants were rejected, and can he say on what grounds they have been rejected; whether he is aware that these twenty-one evicted tenants are in poverty, some in absolute want; whether he is aware that Mr. Byrne, who was evicted from Tully Castle farm of 203 acres has had to enter Athy union hospital, and that his sister, who was also evicted, has as the only means of support what she can earn by needlework, and will he state what amount of public money has been advanced to the planter, Tarleton for the purchase of Byrne's property; whether these twenty-one evicted tenants have been deprived of the benefits of the Act of 1903 by the action of the inspector, on whose reports the Estate Commissioners acted; and whether he will order these twenty-one cases to be
    760
    re-considered with a view of reinstatement in their own or equivalent holdings.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have decided, for one or other of the reasons mentioned in paragraph 20 of their Special Report as to evicted tenants, not to take any action in reference to twenty of the applications for re-instatement on this estate. Hugh Byrne's application for reinstatement in a holding purchased by Tarleton in 1892 by means of an advance of £2,700 under the Land Purchase Acts, is one of those in which the Commissioners have decided to take no action. I have no power to interfere with their exercise of the discretion vested in them.

    Lansdowne Estate, Queen's County.
    MR. P. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners, acting on the report of their inspector, refused the claim of John Kelly, the grandson and only representative of Mr. Daniel Whelan, who was evicted from Barrow House farm of 182 acres on the Lansdowne estate, Queen's County, on the grounds that John Kelly's father held 200 acres and that the kinship was too remote; whether he is aware that John Kelly's father has a second family of six children; whether he is also aware that the planter, Henry Hosie, was, at the date when the Estates Commissioners sanctioned the advance to him for the purchase of Barrow House farm, already in occupation of 584 acres; and will he say under what section of the Act of 1903 or any Act the claim of the evicted tenant was repudiated because his father occupied 200 acres and the farm to which he claimed restoration given to a planter holding 584 acres.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners, in the exercise of their discretion, have decided to take no action on the application of John Kelly, The principles on which they act in dealing with such applications are set out in paragraph 25 of their special Report of 11th June, 1907 [Cd. 3570]. As regards Henry Hosie I would refer the Hon. member to the reply which I have just given him.

    Prosecution of Cattle-Drivers.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the special instructions to the constabulary authorising them in certain cases of cattle-driving to arrest the offenders and bring them before a single resident magistrate out of petty sessions, with a view to their being bound over to good behaviour under the Act of Edward III., were of such a character as to require the approval of the Attorney-General before issue; and whether such instructions were approved in the present instance by the Attorney-General.
    MR. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. friend, the Attorney-General for Ireland, to a similar Question asked by him on the 11th November.
    MR. LONSDALE: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the statement made in this House by the Attorney-General for Ireland, when he said that no special instructions were issued?
    MR. BIRRELL: My right hon. friend said no special instructions were issued with regard to cattle-drivers, and I presume that statement was correct.

    Crime in Ireland.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the condition of affairs prevailing over parts of Ireland, manifested by the increased number of occasions on which firearms have been used in the perpetration of agrarian crimes during the past three years, is reflected also in the statistics of similar crimes of a non-agrarian character; and will he state whether it is proposed to place continued reliance upon the provision of the ordinary law in the expectation that an improved condition of affairs will result in this respect.
    MR. BIRRELL: The facts are as stated As regards the concluding paragraph of the Question I would refer the hon. member to my reply to a somewhat similar Question asked by him yesterday.
    MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in reference to crimes of a
    762
    non-agrarian character a learned Recorder drew attention to their serious increase and that was in the City of London and not in Ireland?
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Is it intended by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to make these outbreaks the subject of pictorial placards by the Liberal Publication Department?
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Do the crimes of a non-agrarian character include the threatening letter written by the hon. Member for North Armagh to Mr. Bailey and read out in this House?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Treatment of the Blind.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that under the Acts which empower boards of guardians to send blind persons to institutions for the blind, it is laid down that such institutions must be approved of by the Local Government Board; and whether such institutions in Ireland are regularly inspected by Local Government Board inspectors; and, if so, are such Inspectors' reports available for the public.
    MR. BIRRELL: Under the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1843, guardians may send any destitute blind child under the age of 18 to any institution for the maintenance of the blind approved by the Local Government Board. These institutions are not inspected periodically, but before the Board give their approval they cause an inspection to be made. No such approval is required in the case of blind paupers above 18 sent by guardians to any such institution under the Poor Afflicted Persons Relief (Ireland) Act, 1878.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: How can the Local Government Board give sanction to these places if they make no periodical inspection to see they are fit and proper places.
    MR. BIRRELL: I have said there is inspection before a blind child under 18 is sent to one of the institutions, but in the case of those over 18 no official approval is required.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Are the reports of inspectors obtainable by the public?
    MR. BIRRELL: The report of the inspector sent to ascertain if an institution is suitable for a child is not, I should say, available to the public.

    Irish School Literature.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been directed to the further correspondence which has taken place with reference to the condemnation of the Advanced National Reader by the Commissioners of National Education; whether he has had an opportunity of reading the book; whether he is aware that on the 3rd of November, the fifth or senior National Reader of this series was sanctioned by the Commissioners; and can he state upon what principle has a distinction been drawn between these two volumes.
    MR. BIRRELL: I have seen the Resident Commissioner's letter of 10th September last, to which, I presume, the hon. Member refers, and I have also seen the Reader. The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the senior or 5th standard National Reader was specially considered at a meeting of the Board on the 20th October last, in connection with an application for sanction of its use in a National school. The Commissioners ordered that the use of the book should be allowed, but that the publishers should be called on to remove the statement on the title page that the book was "approved by the Commissioners." The Commissioners use their discretion as to what books they consider suitable or otherwise for use in schools receiving aid from their grants.
    MR. BOLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the Question?
    MR. BIRRELL: Well, the principle, I take it, is the discretion of the Commissioners.
    MR. ROLAND: Is the right hon. gentleman aware that in the volume which is sanctioned reference is made to the blasted effects of England's rule in Ireland? Why is that permitted when
    764
    equally true statements appear in the other volume which is not allowed to be circulated?
    MR. BIRRELL: That would be a proper question to put to me if I exercised any discretion in the matter, but I have, none.

    Ennis Distress Committee.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the application for a grant by the Ennis Distress Committee has been granted; and, if not, whether he will ask the Local Government Board to take the necessary steps in the matter, in view of the urgency of the question of unemployment, particularly during the winter months.
    MR. BIRRELL: No grant from the Parliamentary Vote in aid of expenses under the Unemployed Workmen Act has yet been made to the Ennis Distress Committee, but their application for a grant is before the Treasury. I am doing my best to press the case forward.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. gentleman be good enough to bear in mind that there is a good deal of unemployment at Ennis, and that the merit of the grant would be taken away if not promptly sent, seeing it is near Christmas, and the middle of the winter, when money is most urgently required?
    MR. BIRRELL: That is the view I am pressing forward.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Thank you, very much.

    Appeals under the Labourers (Ireland) Act.
    MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of appeals under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts to the County Court Judges in respect of each rural district since 1st November, 1906, showing the number disallowed and the number of cottages and plots covered by such appeals, the number of such cottages and plots approved of and the number disallowed, with, if practicable, the reasons assigned by the County Court on

    765
    the objections to cottages and plots so disallowed.
    MR. BIRRELL: The orders made by the County Courts on these appeals do not disclose the grounds on which the decisions are based. I have no objection to granting a Return of the other particulars asked for the period from 1st November, 1906, to 1st November, 1908, if the hon. Member will move for it.

    Trench Estate, Birr.
    MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the farms of Cushcallow, near Banagher, known as the Trench estate, was bought, with the sanction of the Estates Commissioners, under the expressed conditions that it would be used to enlarge the uneconomic holdings in the neighbourhood; and whether these conditions will be adhered to and carried out.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that proceedings are pending for the sale of those lands to them, and they hope shortly to be in a position to make a formal offer for their purchase. In allotting the lands, the Commissioners will have due regard to the circumstances of occupiers of small holdings in the neighbourhood.
    MR. KILBRIDE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local parish priest and the local M.P. were willing to arrange this transaction on the distinct understanding that it should be divided amongst uneconomic holders in the parish to the exclusion of shopkeepers and business men, and that one of the Board's inspectors has been on the property recommending business men to get the land?
    MR. BIRRELL: I am not aware of that.

    County Cavan Analyst.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state who is the analyst for County Cavan, when was he appointed, where is his laboratory situated, what staff is employed there, for how many counties does he
    766
    act as analyst, how many samples were submitted to him in the years 1905–6–7, how many of these samples did he personally analyse, and what is the total salary paid him, distinguishing the amount paid by County Cavan.
    MR. BIRRELL: The analyst for county Cavan is Sir Charles Cameron, who was appointed in 1876. His laboratory is in Castle Street, Dublin, but I have no means of knowing what staff he employs in it. He acts as public analyst for twenty-four counties, and the salary paid to him by county councils, including £60 from County Cavan, amounts to £1,005. He also receives £385 per annum as analyst for eight boroughs. There is no official record of the number of samples submitted to him in 1905–6–7, but the county council might be able to supply the hon. Member with the information.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to secure that this Irish Department is made at least as efficient as the similar Department in Scotland?
    MR. BIRRELL: These appointments are made not by the Government but by the county councils.

    Knockmay Malicious Burning Prosecution.
    MR. P. MEEHAN: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a youth named Thompson has been convicted of perjury in connection with the alleged malicious burning at Knockmay, Queen's County; whether he is aware that County Inspector Tweedy, 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 innocent men; 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 the 24th July, at a special Court held at Maryborough, summonses were issued by order of the presiding magistrate, and that

    767
    County Inspector Tweedy retained the summonses in his office; whether he is aware that the magistrates at the ensuing petty sessions, ordered the return of the summonses; and can he say by what authority the county inspector refused to execute a legal order of a magistrate made in Court.
    MR. BIRRELL: I will answer these two Questions together. On the 24th July last, Thompson, who had made a statement charging three men with a serious crime, was brought before a magistrate, by direction of the county inspector, to have his information sworn and warrants issued if thought desirable. The magistrate decided to issue summonses. The county inspector, finding that Thompson's information differed materially from his previous statement, held over the summonses till he could speak to the magistrate, but had no opportunity of doing so, as the magistrate died. The summonses were withdrawn at petty sessions, on 4th August, and Thompson was subsequently prosecuted for perjury, and convicted. I see no ground for the allegation that the county inspector knew Thompson's original information to be false when he sent him before the magistrate. That officer's action throughout appears to have been in the interests of justice, and there is nothing in his conduct calling for an inquiry.
    MR. P. MEEHAN: By what authority did the county inspector refuse to execute the order of the magistrate?
    MR. BIRRELL: I should think the county inspector, finding a serious difference between the original statement on which the proceedings were taken and the information given at the proceedings, was perfectly entitled to exercise his discretion in the matter until he could refer it to the magistrate. At any rate, I see no harm in it.
    MR. KILBRIDE: How long has this inspector been in Queen's County, where was he stationed before, and why was he promoted?
    MR. BIRRELL: I cannot say without notice.
    MR. REDDY: Is it a fact he was promoted because of the support he gave to Lord Ashtown?
    MR. BIRRELL: No, Sir.

    Sir H. Burke's Galway Estate.
    MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the price upon a considerable portion of Sir H. Burke's estate, County Galway, was left to the Estates Commissioners to fix; when had inspection for that purpose been finished; have the landlord and tenants yet been notified as to the price; and, if not, will he direct that it is done without further delay.
    MR. BIRRELL: Proceedings in respect of the sale of four estates in County Galway, belonging to Sir Henry Burke, are pending before the Estates Commissioners. The Commissioners have intimated the prices they are prepared to offer for three of the estates. The fourth has been inspected and the inspector's report is under consideration.

    Clanricarde Estate Evicted Farms.
    MR JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that seven or eight evicted farms upon the Clanricarde estate were held by a man named Flower; whether he has any official information showing that Flower left over two years ago without paying rent due, and that the lands have since been derelict; and will he say what steps, if any, the Commissioners have taken to acquire those lands under the Evicted Tenants Act.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the facts appear to be as stated. The Commissioners have notified their intention of acquiring these lands with others under the Evicted Tenants Act.

    Castleisland Evicted Tenant.
    MR. J. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the cause of the delay on the part of the Estates Commissioners in dealing with the case of Mr. Maurice O'Flaherty,

    769
    of Ballymacadam, Castleisland, County Kerry, an evicted tenant on the Blennerhassett estate.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have inquired into the application of this evicted tenant, but they are not yet in a position to provide him with a holding.
    MR J. MURPHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly ask the Estates Commissioners to do something for this man?
    MR. BIRRELL: I will ask them to do their very best to secure land.

    Belfast School Inspector.
    MR. J. MURPHY: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education, Ireland, are aware that their senior inspector of schools in Circuit 8, Belfast, was formerly an assistant teacher in national schools in that circuit, and that his relatives and friends live in the circuit; and will he say if it is in accordance with the practice of the Board to have inspectors stationed in their native localities.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the senior inspector referred to has been in their service as an inspector for thirty-one years. The Commissioners add that his occupation prior to his appointment as inspector, or the fact that he had relatives or friends in a particular circuit, would not necessarily affect his position as senior inspector of that circuit.

    Sergeant Monahan. Royal Irish Constabulary.
    MR. P. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Sergeant Monahan, Royal Irish Constabulary, Maryborough, has been censured and punished for remissness in his duty in connection with the malicious burning at Knockmay; can he say of what particular remissness or neglect in duty Monagan has been guilty; and under what rule in the Police Code has the county inspector punished this man.
    MR. BIRRELL: In this case, Joseph Thompson came to Sergeant Monahan and charged three men with the commission
    770
    of a serious crime. The Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary informs me that it was the sergeant's obvious duty to bring the man before the District Inspector in order that the truth of his statement might be examined. For failing to discharge this duty, and for making improper remarks in an official report, the sergeant was reprimanded, but no other punishment was inflicted. This was done by order of the Inspector-General and not of the County Inspector.
    MR. P. MEEHAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this sergeant did report to his superior officer within an hour after receiving the statement?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is putting a large number of supplementary Questions to-day. I think he should give notice of them.
    MR. REDDY: Was not this sergeant punished because he did support Thompson's statement, which proved to be false?
    MR. BIRRELL: No, Sir.

    Waterford Evicted Tenants.
    MR. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay in reinstating Mr. Carrigan, member of the Waterford County Council, in his holding on Lord Ashtown's county Waterford estate, from which he was evicted; did the Estates Cammissioners take compulsory powers with the view of acquiring this farm from which Mr. Carrigan was evicted; and has Lord Ashtown resumed planting with timber a portion of Mr. Carrigan's farm.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have decided that the lands formerly held by Mr. Carrigan cannot be compulsorily acquired under the Evicted Tenants Act.
    MR. POWER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this evicted tenant has had no opportunity of explaining his case? Will he inquire into it?
    MR. BIRRELL: Yes, Sir.

    Euggacurran Untenanted Land.
    MR. P. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can give the date on which the Estate Commissioners paid Lord Lansdowne the agreed price for the Luggacurran untenanted land purchased by them; how long did the Estates Commissioners retain these lands before distribution; what did the expenses of management and payment of local rates and taxes amount to, if any; on what date or dates did the evicted tenants receive their vesting orders; whether he can say what has been done with the one-quarter per cent. difference between interest and purchase annuity paid pending receipt of the vesting order; has it been credited to the buyer; and, if not, will he say why this was not done.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Land Commission inform me that the purchase money in this case was paid to the vender on the 15th December 1905. The evicted tenants had been put into possession on 11th July, 1905, and the lands were in most cases vested in them on the 5th April 1906. An exception was necessarily made in those cases in which the Commissioners had sanctioned advances for improvements repayable as part of the tenants' annuities. In such cases the lands were not vested until the expenditure on improvements was complete, otherwise the tenants would have been paying annuities calculated on advances which had not been fully made, instead of which they were charged interest to the date of vesting on the price of the lands only. No payments have been made by the Commissioners in respect of management or of local rates and taxes in the case of this particular estate. As regards the concluding portion of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the Question asked by the hon. Member for South Kildare on the 30th November.

    Boyton Estate, Donegal.
    MR. C. MACVEIGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of tenants on the Boyton Estate, Tully-donnell, County Donegal, who have purchased their holdings, the average area of them, the Poor Law valuation, and the
    772
    number of years purchase; and whether he can say what number of the smaller tenants on the estate refused to purchase on the terms demanded by the owner, the average area of their holdings, the Poor Law valuation, and the number of years purchase demanded from them.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that agreements have been lodged for the purchase of 185 holdings on this Estate. The average area of these holdings is 23 acres, the average Poor Law valuation is £12, and the average number of years purchase agreed to is 23·3. The Commissioners are unable to furnish the information asked for in the concluding portion of the Question, as the Estate has not yet come to be dealt with in its order of priority.

    Boycotting at Newtownforbes.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the case of a Protestant and loyalist farmer named Robert Geelan, of Curry-granny, Newtownforbes, County Long-ford; whether he is aware that Mr. Geelan has been boycotted for some months past because he refused to become a member of the United Irish League or to subscribe to a fund collected locally by the league for the defence of cattle-drivers, that he has been unable in consequence to buy or sell cattle in the local markets, and has been compelled to obtain provisions from Belfast; and whether any action has been taken by the Crown to afford relief to Mr. Geelan from this system of organised boycotting.
    MR. BIRRELL: My attention has been called to the case of Robert Geelan, who is boycotted. The police are doing everything in their power to protect and assist Mr. Geelan, and the question of a prosecution in connection with the case is under consideration.

    Kilkenny Magistracy.
    MR. MEAGHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Catholic population of the County Kilkenny at the last Census was 74,830, or thereabouts, and the population of Protestant and other religions was but 3,747, making but one-twentieth

    773
    of the population, that the number of Catholic magistrates is forty-six as compared with seventy-five Protestant magistrates, and that out of the nineteen deputy-lieutenants of the county there is but one Catholic; and whether he will see his way to have an equitable number of Catholic magistrates appointed for the county.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Catholic population of the county of Kilkenny at the last Census is correctly stated. The number of persons who were not returned as Catholics was 4,329. There are 125 magistrates on the roll for the county, of whom sixty-nine are believed to be Protestants and fifty-six Catholics. Since the present Government came into office twenty-eight magistrates have been appointed, of whom nine are Protestants and nineteen Catholics. There is no official record of the religions of deputy-lieutenants.

    Synan-Dillon Estate, Limerick.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say how matters stand on the Synan-Dillon estate in Carnane, Fedamore, County Limerick; has it yet come regularly from the hands of the Judge in the Chancery Court to the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, how soon may a division of it be made in favour of the people of the surrounding district, which is a really congested one.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that their offer to purchase this estate was accepted on 27th October last, and the case is at present in the hands of an inspector with a view to the preparation of a scheme for the distribution of the lands.

    Cooper Estate, Limerick.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Hatte, head clerk in the office of Mr. Robert Sanders, land agent, of Charleville, who alleges he has a genuine tenancy of the evicted farms of John McGrath and the late Thomas Barry on the Cooper estate, near Knocklong, county Limerick, on a recent occasion offered to surrender the tenancy of whatever kind it may be if the Estates Commissioners gave him £200 compensation; and will the Estates Commissioners
    774
    arrange with Mr. Hatte, so as to lead to the restoration of their evicted farms to John McGrath and the representatives of the late Thomas Barry.
    MR. BIRRELL: Purchase agreements have been signed by Mr. Hatte as tenant in occupation of the holdings of this estate formerly occupied by McGrath's father and the late Thomas Barry, and the question of the tenancies under which he holds the land will be inquired into by the Estates Commissioners when they are dealing with this estate. The Commissioners are not aware that Mr. Hatte has offered to surrender the holdings on receiving the sum referred to.
    MR. LUNDON: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider Hatte a suitable tenant?
    MR. BIRRELL: I know nothing about him whatever.

    O'Grady Delmege Estate, Limerick.
    MR. LUNDON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can say how matters stand at present as to sale and purchase between the O'Grady Delmege and his tenants around Knocklong and Glenbrohane parishes; have the Estates Commissioners taken, or do they intend to take, any action to test the bogus tenancies on the Garryspillane farm of 145 Irish acres, whereby facilities are afforded to graziers and ranchers to utilise those fertile lands for their flocks and herds, to the exclusion of tenants around having uneconomic holdings and of poor farmers' sons and other landless people.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have no knowledge of the negotiations which may be proceeding in the case of this estate. No proceedings for sale have been instituted before them.

    Clonmel Intimidation Prosecution.
    MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of a man named Meagher, who was accused at Clonmel on Saturday, before Mr. H. Turner, R.M., of disorderly conduct and intimidating Mr. C. N. Clarke, and who was not allowed to call witnesses in his defence although he protested his innocence and

    775
    was sentenced to three months' imprisonment in default of finding bail; and whether, seeing that if this man had been prosecuted under Section 2 of the Criminal Law and Procedure Act he would have had the light to call witnesses in his defence and would also have the right of appeal, he will explain why proceedings against him were not taken under this Act.
    MR. BIRRELL: It is the fact that the defendant, though clearly identified, protested his innocence, but he produced no witnesses and did not ask for any adjournment to procure witnesses. The question of receiving evidence in such cases is one for the Court to decide. It is not the practice of His Majesty's present Government to institute proceedings under the Crimes Act.

    Longford United Irish League.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been directed to the reports of illegal proceedings at various meetings of the Longford and Clonguish branches of the United Irish League, reported from time to time in the Longford Leader newspaper, of which the hon. Member for North Longford is the proprietor, in furtherance of the boycotting of Mr. Robert Geelan and in condemnation of other persons for associating or dealing with him; whether he is aware that so recently as the 21st November the same newspaper published a report of a meeting of the Longford branch of the league, on which occasion a charge against a man named Nevin for buying a quantity of apples from Mr. Geelan was investigated, with the result that Nevin apologised to the league for his action, and undertook to have no further dealings with Mr. Geelan; and whether the Government propose to give effect to the warning already communicated to the proprietor of this newspaper by the institution of proceedings for the continued publication of illegal matter.
    MR. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his Question of yesterday on this subject.

    Sligo Cattle-Drive.
    SIR F. BANBURY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the
    776
    Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has been reported to him that four bullocks driven off the farm of Carrowmore, in the Geevagh district, County Sligo, on the night of the 11th November, were found next day sunk in a bog hole; that two of the animals were completely blinded in both eyes, apparently by the blows of sticks, that one was blinded in one eye, and the fourth was badly injured in the hind leg, and that all had to be destroyed; whether he is aware that the Misses Frazer, two elderly maiden ladies, who own this farm, have been boycotted by resolution of the Geevagh branch of the United Irish League, and while persons were prohibited from taking the grazing on the Misses Frazer's property under the advice of the League several persons drove their cattle on to the lands, and proceedings had to be taken against them for trespass; and whether any criminal proceedings have been, or are to be, instituted against the persons responsible for these outrages.
    MR. BIRRELL: I have already slated, in reply to a Question asked by the hon. Member on the 26th ultimo, that these four bullocks were driven off the farm in question on 11th November, and found in a bog hole. When found two of them were completely, and one partially, blinded apparently by blows of sticks. The four were sold for £16. The ladies who own the farm have been partially boycotted, and various persons have been deterred from taking grazing from them. Cattle have repeatedly been found trespassing on their lands, which are un-fenced, and civil proceedings were recently taken against some of the owners. No criminal proceedings have been instituted, as the police have not yet been able to obtain the necessary evidence.
    SIR F. BANBURYasked why these particulars were not forthcoming when he put the Question on November 26th, and would the right hon. Gentleman take steps to prevent such gross cruelty to animals in the future?
    MR. BIRRELL: I gave all the in formation I had at the time. As to taking steps to prevent this atrocious cruelty, if the hon. Baronet can give me any information he may rely I will act on it.
    MR. CREAN: Is this farm situated in the City of London?

    Irish Newspapers and Intimidatory Resolutions.
    MR. BARRIE: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the continued publication of resolutions of an intimidatory character notwithstanding the warnings communicated to the proprietors of the newspapers in which such resolutions are published; and will he state if it is proposed to take any further action in the matter.
    MR. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar Question asked yesterday by the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh.

    The Small Holdings Act.
    MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that, although the Small Holdings Act has been in operation for more than eleven months, and although there is in most counties an unsatisfied demand, no reports have yet been forwarded to the county councils by the Board of Agriculture as provided by the Act; whether he is aware that under Section 2 (3) of the Act it is the duty of the Commissioners, after they have ascertained the extent of the demand, as they are required to do, to report this information to the Board, stating whether it is desirable that a scheme should be made, and that under Section 3 (1) of the Act it is the duty of the Board to forward this report to the county council concerned, and that the only reason which can be given, either by the Commissioners or the Board, for not carrying out these statutory duties is that they are not of opinion that it is desirable that a scheme should be made, which presumably is not always the case; whether he is aware that the forwarding of such reports is a necessary preliminary to any action by the Board and the only effective means by which the Board can supervise the working of the Act, and that the failure of the Board to exorcise their powers in this respect has caused hardship to many applicants, both by the indefinite postponement of the preparation of schemes and by the loss of any effective right of appeal from the county council to the Board; and whether he will cause further inquiry to be made with a view to enforcing, according to their plain
    778
    meaning and intention, the provisions of this Act.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): I understand that the Board of Agriculture regard the procedure in question as coming within the default provisions of the Act, and therefore no action has yet been taken in the direction desired by my hon. friend. I propose to discuss the matter with my noble friend the President.

    Liverpool and Hong Kong Mail Service Contract.
    MR. HAROLD COX: Is it intended to take this contract to-night, and is the Prime Minister aware that it violates the pledge given by his predecessor that no subsidy should be given except in return for services?
    MR. ASQUITH: I am not aware of the last suggestion of my hon. friend.

    PUBLICATIONS.
    Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read.
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 358.]

    POISONS AND PHARMACY BILL. [LORDS.]
    Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 359.]
    Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 359.]
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 400.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
They have agreed to: Local Authorities (Admission of the Press) Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for further promoting the

779
Revison of the Statute Law by repealing enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary." [Statute Law Revision Bill [Lords].]

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL. [LORDS.]
Read the first time; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 403.]
LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ADMISSION OF THE PRESS) BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 402.]
NEW BILLS.
  PUBLIC MEETING BILL.
  "To prevent the disturbance of public meetings," presented by Lord Robert Cecil; supported by Mr. Rawlinson, and Mr. Byles; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 401.]
  FIREARMS (SCOTLAND AND IRELAND) BILL.
  "To regulate the sale of Firearms in Scotland and Ireland," presented by Mr. Jesse Collings; supported by Sir Benjamin Stone, Mr. Ernest Lamb, Mr. Parks, Viscount Morpeth, Mr. Watt, Sir Francis Lowe, Earl Winterton, and Mr. Middlemore; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 404.]

  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (No. 2) BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  MR. LUPTON*MR. LUPTON (Lincolnshire, Sleaford) moved to amend Clause 1 (Limit of hours of work below ground in coal mines) by inserting the words "in his place of work," with a view to further Amendments to limit the eight hours to time in the miners' actual working place. This Amendment was necessary not only in the interests of fairness between one man in a mine and another man in the same mine, but also in the interests of fairness between different mines. Some hon. Members in the House were, no doubt, aware that a coal mine was not simply
  780
  a little hole bike a coal cellar, but was a large place having railways many miles in extent, perhaps thirty or forty miles of underground railways branching in various directions from the bottom of the shaft. In some of the mines it might take an hour to get from the pit bottom to the working place, and in others it might take not more than five or six minutes. Under the Bill as it now stood, a miner who got to his working place in five minutes had very nearly eight hours work per day for the first three years, and after that he would have seven and a half hours work, but the miner who had to go something like two miles away from the pit bottom would not have more than six hours in his working place, and perhaps only five and a half hours. There would be a great disparity therefore in the earning power of the man who was working near the pit bottom, as compared with the earning power of the man working away from the pit bottom, and where the wages of the men were, say, 12s. a day it might make a difference of 3s. or 4s. a day in the earnings of the different workmen. He was aware that in some parts of the United Kingdom it was the practice of the men to change from one part of the mine to another at the end of a month or two months, so as to give each man a fair chance of getting a good working place, because some working places were better than others. That had not been carried on, however, in all parts, nor indeed in the majority of places. In the majority of places in the United Kingdom, according to the present practice of the working men, the man who had got a place kept it until it was finished. It might be for years that the same men were in a place. Those men near the shaft bottom had thus a great advantage. But if the time allotted under the Bill were the time in the working place, then each man would have the same time in the working place. It did not matter whether the Bill specified six or eight hours in the working place. He was merely now on the question of making fair time between the different men in different parts of the pit. It ought to be fair all round. If it was not fair all round he was afraid there would be a great deal of heart burning and disturbance. He noticed

  781
  when he mentioned 12s. that some hon. Members seemed to sneer as though that were excessive, but he had got out some figures this year in which he found that the earnings of miners in some cases were equal to 30s. a day in one shift. There were miners, of course, some who only earned 8s. a day, but he thought the majority of good men (coal getters) could earn 12s. He did not say rapscallions did that, but there were not many rapscallions in mines. He wanted to be fair to all the men working in the same pit, and he also wanted to be fair as between one pit and another. The effect of the Bill as it at present stood would be to cause the most undue favouritism. The man who had a new colliery fitted up with all the recent appliances in the way of winding machinery and so on could get his men to their places of work in a few minutes from leaving the bank. There were a number of collieries now started where the men would be got to their places of work in about ten minutes. These men would have a good time in which to do a fair day's work, but in the old collieries that would not be the case. The men there would only have six hours in their places of work. He did not say they would have six hours work, because something had to be taken off for refreshments and rest. The effect of the Bill if passed in its present form would be to ruin some collieries and to make the fortunes of others. As soon as the Bill was passed the men would all tend to crowd to the new collieries where they could get to their places of work immediately, and so earn better wages. The managers of those new pits would have men waiting to come on, and they would be able to turn out more coal than ever before. Their cost, too, would be less than before, because they would be able to send out more coal, and they would make enormous fortunes, while at the same time in the old collieries where the men had to march two miles, and even three miles, and where they could not travel by train, things would be very bad. In the old collieries it did not pay to make the necessary improvements. In order to convey men in a train underground, they had got to lay a first-class, railway with every possible
  782
  care before they dared to run the men in a train at seven, eight or ten miles an hour, although he knew that that would be rather an unusually high speed for underground travelling. For that purpose the road must be first-class, but in a great many of these old mines it would not pay to make an excellent and well-engineered road like that, and, therefore, the men had to walk a long way to their work. The men would, so far as they could, leave those old pits. A man who would only be in his working place for six hours a day, and perhaps only for five hours work a day, would be sure to leave if he could in order to try and get a place at a colliery where he could be for seven and a half hours in his working place The Bill would undoubtedly ruin many scores of collieries. It would mean their closing, and the villages near by would be ruined, the old people would go on the poor rate, and the young people would migrate to the new collieries. Hon. Members smiled and cheered, but they did not care twopence halfpenny about it, but he was telling them the facts of the case which he knew would happen. There would be scores of collieries ruined by the unjust provisions of the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen must remember that he was not now on the question of hours. He was on the question of making it fair between one colliery and another, and if they were to have fairness the time ought to be fixed not from the pit top and back to the pit top, but in the working places, and then it did not matter whether the working place was far from or near to the pit bottom. When the question came up before the Committee the Secretary of State referred to this point, and with his great knowledge of underground mines assured him that what he proposed to do was absolutely impossible. Now he had been a colliery manager himself, and he had had to grope about in a mine, and, therefore, he thought he knew something about the practical working of a mine. He was prepared to pledge his honour as a mining engineer and a colliery manager that it was possible to time with sufficient accuracy how long a man was actually in his working place. They travelled along the main road

  783
  of a mine for a mile, and then they came to a junction where the roads branched out in all directions, and that would be called the station. They frequently had stations where lamps were examined or re-lighted, or where communications could be made with the officials and others who were a long way from the pit bottom. There was not the slightest reason why every man should not be reported at that station as he passed it in going to his place of work. It did not matter what kind of work he was engaged in, he must pass the station if he worked in a remote part of the pit. With regard to those who worked near the pit bottom, of course the nearest station would be the pit bottom. At the station he assumed there would be a clock or a watch kept. It had been suggested that miners did not know anything about clocks or watches, and that only the man on the pit top knew the time of the day. His experience was that miners were not men of that sort; on the contrary, they were exceedingly clever men, and to say that they would not be able to tell when they passed their station what was the time was doing them a great injustice. It would be known in the mine to a minute how long a man should be going to his working place. Supposing, for example, it took ten minutes from the station. That would mean ten minutes to his place of work, and ten minutes back again, and they must add, therefore, twenty minutes to the time he was allowed after leaving the station. In the case of an eight hours day he would be allowed, in the instance he had mentioned, eight hours and twenty minutes from the station. If hon. Members were afraid that this proposal would cause a man to be too long in his working place, by all means alter the hours. All he wanted was that the regulations should work equally in all collieries. He was sure that before three years had passed some of the colliery owners would be ruined under this Bill, whilst others would make enormous fortunes. He thought he had now stated the case quite sufficiently, and he saw no difficulty whatever in carrying this Amendment into effect. He felt quite sure that the owners of collieries and managers would be found
  784
  quite willing to work this scheme. In any case whether they accepted the Amendment or not they would have to have extra officials to see that the colliers were not more than the Parliamentary time in their working place. If hon. Members had read the Bill carefully they would find that it said that a man should not be allowed to be below ground for more than a certain time. How were they going to get the man who worked two miles away from the pit bottom there and back again in the fixed time? They would have to have someone going round to see that those men did come out at the proper time. He should have an official ordering the men out at the time which he knew he must leave his working place, in order that at his ordinary pace he might get at the pit bottom, and reach the pit top at the proper time. Even all the difficulties that were anticipated from giving effect to his Amendment would have to be met for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Bill. There would be all the expense and difficulty of clearing the men out of their working place and driving them away like sheep. For the reasons he had stated, he did not think there would be any difficulty in carrying out the Amendment. In order to secure the equal working of this clause he hoped the House would adopt his Amendment.
  MR. BECKsaid he should not attempt to address the House at any length after the comprehensive and well-reasoned speech in which his hon. friend had moved the Amendment. As hon. Members were aware, they had this question discussed upstairs at great length. He thought those who sat on that Committee would agree that not a single reasoned argument was brought forward against the Amendment. Not a single argument was brought forward against the contentions they made in the Committee on that point. His hon. friend the Member for Sleaford did not touch upon one point of hardship in the present method of timing under the Bill—he referred to the case of the older men. As far as he knew, judging from the Bill, it would be necessary for the men going to their place of work to indulge

  785
  in a sort of foot race in order to earn as much money as they possibly could in the eight hours allowed to them. It had been pointed out that in that foot race the older men would be much handicapped; they would be forced to travel faster than their usual pace, or they would be fined for their age, because they would arrive at their place of work late, and consequently, they would be able to earn less money. It was said in the Committee upstairs that travelling underground was a form of hard work and ought to be counted in the eight hours, but although travelling underground was hard work unfortunately it was not paid for, and he contended that it was a great hardship, not only on the older miners, but on the men working the older pits that this hard and fast rule should be laid down of eight hours from bank to bank. They heard yesterday a great deal about the subject of safety. It was, unfortunately, quite true that this hurrying to work had led to many avoidable accidents. For these reasons he begged to second the Amendment, and if his hon. friend pressed the matter to a division he should have great pleasure in supporting him.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 6, after the word 'mine,' to insert the words 'in his place of work.'"—(Mr. Lupton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): As my hon. friend has already stated, this question was fully discussed in Committee, and this Amendment was rejected by a majority of thirty-six. The hon. Member for Windsor voted against this Amendment which every practical man knows to be hopelessly impossible from the point of view of practice. The hon. Member for Sleaford has pictured all kinds of evils which will follow if his Amendment is not carried, but he omitted to tell the House that under the present system a good many inequalities occur in all mines. As a matter of fact, it would be absolutely impossible to work the Bill with this Amendment. We should
  786
  have to have a time-keeper in every working place, and how are you to say when a man arrives at a working place and what time he leaves? Whatever may be said against this Bill, one thing is certain—and this is admitted by the members of the Coalowners' Association, mining engineers and managers—that whether right or wrong in regard to this proposal the machinery provided for carrying it out is the only possible machinery that can be adopted, and it would be ruined if this Amendment were carried.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid he had much pleasure in supporting the Amendment. The hon. Member for Sleaford was an expert in these matters. [Cries of "Oh, oh."] The hon. Member was an expert and knew more about this matter than any other man in the House, and he supported his Amendment for the reasons he had stated. As the hon. Member knew, mines differed considerably. In the case of a new mine where a man had perhaps to walk only a few hundred yards from the pit bottom, he would get to his work almost immediately. In another case a man might have to walk two or three miles before he got to his place of work, and if he happened to be an old man it was very hard upon him to include that period in the working time he was allowed under the Bill. Not only did mines vary one from another, but they varied even in the same pit. The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment referred to the matter of safety. A man who had had to hurry a long distance underground before he got to his work could not be in the same condition to do his work as a man who had had to go a short distance. As hon. Members were aware, most of the fatal accidents in mines occurred through falls of the roof which could be prevented by proper timbering. If a man was hurried in his work, and had not sufficient time to put up the necessary props to keep the roof up, that was a distinct danger which would involve the mine, and that was what would happen if a man had not sufficient time to get to his work and set his timber properly. The Government said that there might be some difficulty in keeping

  787
  a record which would enable this proposal to be put into operation. There might be some difficulty, but that was not their fault. This was a Government Bill, and the Government must provide the remedy. This was a hardship between man and man and between mine and mine, and some remedy for it ought to be found.
  MR. RIDSDALEsaid he noticed that the Home Secretary had just said that no serious argument had been advanced by the hon. Member who moved or the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment. He was in some doubt as to what constituted a serious argument in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. He did not know whether he implied that his two hon. friends were not serious in regard to this Amendment.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Oh, no.
  MR. RIDSDALE: Did the right hon. Gentleman not consider it a serious argument that this Bill as its clauses were drafted would lead to injustice between man and man and mine and mine? Was it not a serious argument when his hon. friend behind him said that if they did not make the Bill read so that the time must be that which a man was at work they would largely increase the risk of accidents? Was not that a serious argument? He thought it was one of the most serious arguments that could be put forward. When he first considered this Amendment he did not think it was quite workable, and he thought that it must be necessary to count the time that the man spent down the mine. He did not think, however, that even the most serious advocates of the Bill considered that it was difficult to get a man down the mine to his work. He had listened on the Second Reading to the statement that the miners had to work in a position which seriously strained their muscles, and which was most uncomfortable. A very strong case could be put forward on that line, but that would be met by the Amendment. He really could not think that the House would join in a limitation of time that a man was to be allowed to move about underground.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTONasked his hon. friend how he would like to travel a couple of miles underground?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in order in asking a question of that kind in the middle of a speech.
  MR. RIDSDALEsaid he should not have risen at all if the Home Secretary had not said that he did not see any serious argument in favour of this Amendment.
  LORD R. CECILsaid that he was a great admirer, a converted admirer, of the system of Grand Committee, but it seemed to him that it led to very serious difficulty. The Minister in charge of a Bill became so familiar with all the arguments for and against everything connected with the Bill that when the Bill came down to the House he did not think it worth while to explain matters or to try to convince the House. It might well be that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sleaford was a quite impossible Amendment which the House could not adopt. But the discussion, so far as it had proceeded in the House of Commons, did not in the least convince him that that was the case. What did it all come to? Certain arguments of great weight had been put forward by the mover and seconder of the Amendment. The Home Secretary had got up and said that the matter had been threshed out in Grand Committee. That was not a matter which very much concerned him, as a Member of the House of Commons. He desired to make up his own mind apart from what had taken place in Grand Committee. Then it was said that precisely the same difficulties as those which had been pointed out must exist in mines where an eight-hour system now existed, but surely there was a great difference between an eight-hour system as a matter of freedom and an eight-hour system imposed by law. There was much greater power for making arrangements to meet a hard case under a voluntary system. It was said that the Amendment was impracticable, and that every person who knew anything

  789
  about it would say that it was impracticable. That was an argument which he profoundly distrusted, for unless anybody could explain to him why it was impracticable, he was not content to take a statement of that kind. If it was impracticable it ought to be perfectly easy for experts to explain why it was impracticable. He could not see why the hon. Member's suggestion, which he said was the fruit of great personal experience, could not be carried out. He did not see why they could not make an allowance for the time a man took in getting to and from his working place, or why they should not assume a time allowance quite easily, which would be perfectly fair. Unless some modification of the Bill was made in that direcion it was clear that they would greatly handicap the older workers. This was the one point on which he had never been able to understand the attitude of hon. Gentlemen, below the gangway. In so much of their legislation they seem to ignore the older people. That was the case with regard to the Workmen's Compensation Act. Everybody knew what a bitter misfortune that Act had been to some, of the older workers, and there would be a similar result from the passing of the present legislation. It appeared to him that hon. Members below the gangway naturally considered their own trade union supporters, who were necessarily mainly men in the prime of life and that they must be naturally biassed in favour of that type of worker. It was for the House and for those who were impartial, who had no interest either as coal masters or coal miners, to try and see that the balance was kept between the most able people and the least able type of worker. It was clear that unless some change was made in the Bill the older workers would be handicapped. That was a very good reason for making a change.
  SIR F. CAWLEYsaid he was a supporter of the Bill, but he should like a better explanation why the Amendment could not be accepted. The proposal in the Amendment for which the hon. Member for Sleaford had made out such an excellent case was one about which they ought to have a satis factory explanation from the Home
  790
  Secretary. That explanation should be one which would convince any intelligent person that the right hon. Gentleman was right. He agreed with the noble Lord that if the provisions of the Bill were going to ruin the older workers it was not so good a Bill as he thought it was. He thought the House ought to have some better explanation than had yet been given.
  MR. HICKS BEACHsaid that some further explanation was required from the Government why this Amendment could not be accepted. They had had the expert opinion of the hon. Member for Sleaford, who with a life-long experience as a colliery manager had stated that the Amendment was quite practicable. The Home Secretary had told them that the Amendment was impracticable, but neither upstairs in Committee nor to-day in the House had he given them any reason to convince them that he was right. He thought the discussion had made it clear to the House that the Bill, as the hon. Member who had just sat down had said, was an even worse Bill than they thought it was on the Second Reading. It was clear that unless an Amendment of the kind proposed was passed the Bill would have a very serious effect, not only on the old collier but on the old collieries. In the old collieries the coal was a long way from the pit shaft and they would therefore be severely handicapped. He thought the opinion of the House and of the country was that proper attention ought to be paid to the old collieries as well as the new, and if the Bill would have a very serious effect on the old collieries and the old colliers the Government ought to do something.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,): May I say a few words on this point? It will not take more than a few moments to explain it. If you say by an Act of Parliament that a man is not to be in his working-place for more than eight hours you must necessarily mark the time he goes into his workplace, and the time he remains there, otherwise it is impossible to carry out the Act. Unless indeed you provide

  791
  that each man should go down at a different time from the top. One shall go down at 6 o'clock who has a longer distance to go, and one shall go down at 6.30 who has a shorter distance to go. All that is utterly impracticable. It is administratively impossible. Almost every member of the Committee who had experience of coal mines, no matter whether he approved of the principle of the Bill or riot, voted in Committee upstairs against this Amendment. At the present time the hours of going down are fixed and well understood, and so also are the hours of coming up; and none of these difficulties suggested by the hon. Members occur.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid that the humourous situation was that the right hon. Gentleman was evidently aware that he was heaping condemnation after condemnation upon his own Bill. It was evident that they could not work the Bill without some impractical provision noting the time when the men went down into the pit and when they came up. That showed that the whole Bill was unworkable. The right hon. Gentleman had bound himself to the opinion that it was not unworkable; but if the Amendment was incompatible with one of the objects of the Bill, so much the worse for the Bill.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid he wished to ask whether the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment was in a position to name any proprietors or managers of mines in the West of England who were in favour of the Amendment, and whether he spoke with the authority of proprietors or managers of any mines in the West or England.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: I have received a communication from one manager.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: But the hon. Member is not in a position to say that any proprietor or manager of a colliery in that part of the country desires this Amendment?
  MR. HICKS-BEACH: I do not know about this particular Amendment.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid that, as he understood it, nobody desired this particular Amendment. With regard to its impracticability, the House did not seem to remember that a great many of the men were employed all over the mine, and not in one particular place in the mine.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid the right hon. Baronet had asked whether any proprietor or manager of any coal mine in the West of England was in favour of this particular Amendment, and had said that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury was not in a position to give the names of such proprietor or manager, and that, therefore, the Amendment ought not to be discussed. They were not there to consider the interests of any particular mine-owner or manager. That was an error into which many hon. Gentlemen fell. The object of the House of Commons was to legislate in the interest, not of one class or another, but of the public as a whole. He was a member of the Grand Committee, and he thought he attended its meetings regularly. One thing that impressed itself on his mind during his attendance at the Committee was that the work in the mines varied tremendously in different parts of the country. In some collieries it took a man at least an hour to walk from the bottom of the shaft to the working face. In the newer class of mines it took him only a quarter of an hour or even less. Unless something of the sort proposed by the Amendment were done, in certain collieries one man would take two hours going to and from his work, and in another colliery he would take only half an hour. In certain collieries, therefore, the workman would be handicapped much to his own detriment, and in other collieries he would have an advantage over those employed under the old arrangement. That should not be allowed. Again, there was the question of the older men. He challenged any practical Member in the House to get up and say that unless something of the sort suggested by the Amendment were allowed, the older men would not get their full share of the work, and that they would run a risk of accident which might be avoided if such an Amendment were carried. He

  793
  came to the point as to whether the suggestion in the Amendment was practicable or not. No doubt there were difficulties in the way. His hon. friend was quite right when he said that the Government had a fear in their own heads of showing the absolute impracticability of their own measure. He admitted that while the Amendment would be difficult to work, yet he thought it would not be impossible. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that it would be wrong to impose a penalty on a mine-owner for allowing a man to work more than eight hours a day and at the same time to take a note of the time he was in the mine. But why should he not relieve the mine-owner from the penalty altogether and leave the law in this position, that the man who contravened the law should be punished? He thought if that were done they could trust the trade unions to see that the miners did not contravene the law. He did not see why a regulation of that sort should not be put into the Bill. He was sure of this, that the people of the country would agree that without some such provision it would be impossible to work the Bill if it became an Act.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAMsaid he did not know what object hon. Members had in view in making those remarks. It was obvious to a practical man that most of the remarks were made to make an eight-hours day simply a name and not a fact. He was willing to believe that Members were talking as they were because they did not know the subject. He was generous enough to do that.
  MR. LUPTON: Thank you.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAMasked hon. Gentlemen who was most likely to do his work well and in the least time—the man of forty years experience or the man with forty days experience? The older man was more likely to take care of his life, as against the inexperience of a young man. One would have been thankful
  after the passing of the Workmen's Compensation Act if the older men had not been thrown over in some collieries. There were not in some colleries one-tenth the number of older men there used to be. They who had been trained to work with old men knew that the old men were more able to take care of themselves and did their work better than young men.
  MR. PARKESsaid he would very much like to be able to see the feasibility of the Amendment. If something of the kind could be introduced into the mines of the country it would be a very desirable thing; but there was not a mining representative or a practical miner who would say the Amendment was possible. This was a matter not affecting the principle of the Bill but of tinkering a detail, and of seeing whether the proposal was practised or not. Every manager would say that the whole thing was absolutely impossible. No real reason for it had been given. What was the difference in principle between getting two or three miles from the shaft to the working place under the old system and to a shorter distance under the new system? None whatever. He would like to know who would be responsible for reporting the time occupied by a particular man in getting to his work in a particular part of the pit. Would it be the inspector? Or would it be the man himself? If the inspector, how many inspectors would be required? If the man himself, would the colliery proprietor or manager be prepared to take the word of the man as to what time he got to a particular part of the mine? Both conditions were absolutely impossible so far as his experience went, and he had never heard any practical mine manager put forward the idea of the Amendment as a practical argument.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 49; Noes, 225. (Division List No. 441.)

  AYES.

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

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Starkey, John R.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Cox, Harold

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Valentia, Viscount

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Watt, A. Henry

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Fell, Arthur

  Renwick, George

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Lupton and Mr. Beck.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Gill, A. H'

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Ambrose, Robert

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Balcarres, Lord

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

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Barker, Sir John

  Glover, Thomas

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

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

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hall, Frederick

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Beale, W. P.

  Halpin, J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Boland, John

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Brace, William

  Hart-Davies, T.

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

  Brigg, John

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

  Maddison, Frederick

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Harwood, George

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Marnham, F. J.

  Carr-Gomm, H. V.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Massie, J.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hodges, A. Paget

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Median, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.

  Clough, William

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

  Menzies, Walter

  Clynes, J. R.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Middlebrook, William

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hodge, John

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

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

  Hogan, Michael

  Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Myer, Horatio

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hudson, Walter

  Nannetti, Sir Henry

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Crean, Kugene

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Norton, Capt, Cecil William

  Crossley, William J.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Nuttall, Harry

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Delany, William

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Grady, J.

  Dillon, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Malley, William

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Joyce, Michael

  Partington, Oswald

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Erskine, David C.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Essex, R. W.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Lambert, George

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

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lamont, Norman

  Radford, G. H.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Aceringtop

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  796

  797

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

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Warner, Thomas, Courtenay T.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Wason, Rt. Hn. R. (Clackmannan

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Robinson, S.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Summerbell, T.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.,

  Rowlands, J.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Samuel, Rt. Hn. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Tomkinson, James

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Sears, J. E.

  Toulmin, George

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

  Seddon, J.

  Verney, F. W.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Seely, Colonel

  Vivian, Henry

  Winfrey, R.

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

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Sheehy, David

  Walsh, Stephen

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Walton, Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  of Elibank.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Wardle, George J.

  Snowden, P.

  Waring, Walter

  MR. LUPTON*MR. LUPTON moved an Amendment that the hours of work should be ex elusive of "any periods of rest or refreshment duly authorised by the manager, not exceeding forty minutes in all." He said the Amendment received great attention in the Committee upstairs, and he could not help thinking that if the right hon. Gentleman would give the matter his kind consideration he would give great satisfaction, not only in the House, but throughout the country. A good deal had been said about the legislation in other countries, but in those countries where they had an Eight Hours Bill they also had the provision which he proposed, viz., that the time spent in rest or refreshment should not be included within the time mentioned in the Bill. It could not be said against the Amendment that the time allowed in the mine was too long, because they had not yet reached the time to be fixed, and all he said was that whatever time was fixed should exclude the time for rest and refreshment. Something had been said about humanity, and he brought this forward in the cause of humanity. Everybody knew it was not wise for a man to work for many hours without rest or refreshment. If they wanted to live to a good old age they should take a good meal in the middle of the day and after that a little rest. If they went to Staffordshire the miners in the mines there had been in the habit of having a right good dinner in the middle of the day, and a rest
  798
  afterwards and some discussion. In all the mines a man got refreshment during his shift. A man who left his home at half-past four o'clock in the morning needed some refreshment, and in many cases the miners adopted the rule prevailing in France and took two breakfasts with them, a little one and a big one, A man took with him sufficient refreshment in order that he might have a little snack as soon as he got to his place of work, and then three or four hours afterwards he had the bigger meal which he required, as these men worked very hard. It was very hard work indeed for a man who was getting coal. This proposal would enable the men to get proper refreshment. The miners now were strong, lusty men, but they would not be able to do their work unless they were properly fed. The whole of the men at work, including the hauliers, ought to get some refreshment, and also the animals engaged—the ponies and others ought to be fed at proper intervals. What he suggested was that the period of rest and refreshment should not be counted in the day's work, which was very short. The time the hewer was in his working place would average seven hours, and he was giving him good value in saying that very likely it would be less—very likely it would be six and three-quarter hours, because a man had to be there ten minutes sooner to avoid little accidents and delays in getting to the pit bottom. He was putting it at more than it averaged. When a man got to

  799
  his working place he allowed himself a Test, and in the six hours odd the man would want at least half an hour's rest, and he thought that he ought to have an opportunity of taking it for at least half an hour. If the right hon. Gentleman would not give him forty minutes he would take half an hour, and if he would not give him half an hour he would take twenty minutes. At all events, he trusted the Government would be able to foreshadow some Amendment. The time would be set by the manager and fixed for all men equally. It would be an extension of the time for a particular purpose, and it would be the business of those who had to carry the arrangement out to see that rest and refreshment were had during that period. He dared say the right hon. Gentleman in his reply would point out that nobody who knew anything about the mines could advocate such an Amendment as this, and that anybody who did so knew nothing whatever about the matter. When he heard that sort of argument he knew it was the best they had to offer; it reminded him of the old story of the instruction on a barrister's brief, "No case, abuse the plaintiff's attorney." If the right hon. Gentleman had any sound argument to bring against his proposal, he would advance it, and therefore he would sit down in order that the right hon. Gentleman might let them hear it.
  MR. WATTformally seconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 6, after the word 'work,' to insert the words 'excluding any periods of rest or refreshment, duly authorised by the manager, not exceeding forty minutes in all.'"—(Mr. Lupton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GLADSTONE: I quite agree that there would be sound argument for this Amendment if it was found necessary or desirable to fix a particular hour for letting the men have this rest and refreshment, but I submit that this is a question for the men themselves.
  MR. LUPTON: Then will you put it to the ballot to the men under this Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE: But I understand the argument is that it is desirable to make the miners strong and keep them strong, and I therefore assume that the hon. Member is moving this entirely in the interests of the men.
  MR. LUPTON: No, in the interests of the nation. In the interest of the mine-owners and of the miners whom they employ, and of the nation for whom they work.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Then the argument of the hon. Member for Sleaford is hardly a correct argument, because he said it was necessary to make and keep the men strong and healthy, and if that was the reason for this Amendment it is the men themselves who ought to be consulted. There is one construction of this Amendment, which is that it is moved in order to extend the working hours below ground under the Bill. But, if that is the intention, I say that that is a matter to be considered on its merits as to what the time underground should be. You cannot seek to extend the working hours by means of an Amendment of this sort unless the Amendment depends upon the consideration that it is in the interests of the men. If that is so, we clearly see that the whole argument in favour of it must be the welfare of the men. What happens now? If hon. Members look at page 27 of the Report they will see that the average meal-times all over the country in the various mining districts vary from thirty-one minutes to as much as fifty-five minutes in Lancashire and Cheshire. This is arranged now. I do not know, and I have not been informed, that it is possible to fix a definite time for meals in the mines. So far as I know, but I only speak with diffidence, because the hon. Member contradicts me so sharply—
  MR. LUPTON: May I apologise for my sharpness?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No apology is needed from my hon. friend, but I say it would be impossible to fix an hour. As a matter of fact, we have the meal-times arranged now between the employers and the employees at such times as those personally concerned, namely, the

  801
  men, require according to the particular nature of their work. There are times when the hewers at the face are slick because they want to fire a shot or for some other reason, and they use those opportunities for taking their meals. I submit it would be impossible and certainly undesirable to provide a definite meal-time, having regard to the fact that a necessary meal-time is already provided to meet the convenience of the men personally concerned, and I therefore ask the House to reject this Amendment.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid the right hon. Gentleman appealed to him because he had supported him on the last Amendment, which he did not think was a feasible Amendment. In this matter, however, he joined issue with him. One of the chief objections they had to the Bill was rigid conditions. He believed that if they gave a certain amount of latitude it would be to the advantage of all concerned, and that this Amendment would be a great boon. This was a practical Amendment, it was a matter which probably would not be made much use of, but nevertheless it was desirable to give this amount of latitude in the Bill.
  SIR F. CAWLEYsaid that as he had a new clause down upon the Paper he desired to ask the Home Secretary whether he would be prepared to accept this Amendment in place of it. The right hon. Gentleman had said he considered that this was a question for the men themselves. He quite agreed that it was, and for that reason he put down the new clause which left it to be decided by the men whether there should be a period for rest and refreshment, and if so, how much that time should be. They might have a ballot on it in order to decide the point. He saw nothing impracticable in that. At the present time the practice varied in different parts of the country, in each of which they had different times. In the various places where the system existed different times were given for meals and there was no difficulty about it. If the men did not want any time for meals, then they
  802
  could by ballot decide against it, and he could not see what objection the right hon. Gentleman could have to it.
  MR. J. F. MASONsaid the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think of what would be the effect of putting the Amendment in the Bill as between the miner and the mine-owner. There was no difficulty now between the master and the miner in arranging the meal-time, because the managers saw no advantage in hurrying the men and therefore had no reason for not making the arrangement. But directly the Bill came into force it would give them an inducement to reduce the meal-time and to put difficulties in the way whenever the question came up. The only solution was that the time for meals should be entirely outside the eight hours.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYwas of opinion that there was a question here not only for the men, but for the public, because a great deal of the support given to the Bill was given on the assumption that during all these hours work went on. If hon. Members looked at the Report they would see that the time suggested by the hon. Member for Sleaford was right, because the Report stated that the average time given for meals was thirty-nine minutes. He desired, however, to look at the Amendment from the point of view of the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman said it was not practicable, but he submitted that it could be made practicable by applying the same system to it as was applied to subsections (3) and (4), which dealt with the time for lowering and raising men from the pit. It could be arranged in the same way. Those who served upon the Committee knew that this question of rest came up very largely in the course of the discussion. Evidence was given showing there was no difficulty in arranging this because there was a stoppage of half an hour when winding ceased, and the men were allowed to use that time for meals. Many experts gave evidence to the effect that that time was of great importance to the safety of the mine itself, and he thought it would be more

  803
  necessary under the new conditions laid down by this Bill than under the old. He did not think that the proposal was impracticable, nor did he believe that the suggestion that it was impossible could be brought into the matter seeing that what had been done could be done again.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I did not say it was impossible. I said it would not be convenient or desirable.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid it certainly could not be said to be impossible, but he certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that it would be difficult. He, however, could not understand why it should be difficult when it was done all over the country. The moment a limit was put at each end of the day the more necessary such it period became in order that greater pressure should not be placed on the man. This period of rest was necessary to men working under great pressure, and the practice of having a period of rest was almost universal in other countries. Even if the working hours should be reduced to something like six and three quarter, as had been pointed out by some hon. Member already, he thought it would be far better that the period should be agreed upon between the owners and the colliers and a definite line taken on that matter. He trusted that the House and the Government would treat the matter with less light-ness than they seemed to do at the present time.
  MR. MARKHAHsaid the real object of the Amendment, which was very fully discussed ill Committee by nearly all the Members present, was merely for the purpose of extending the hours of work, and they were simply having a repetition in the House of the discussion which they heard upstairs. Eighty per cent. of the miners took their mod daring the time of waiting for turn, or when them were difficulties, such as that of getting the coal out of the mine, which prevented them from continuing their work. Every miner had always a difficulty in getting coal
  804
  away from the face, and during that particular period he usually found time to take his snack. It was said that when they got the eight hours day the whole of the mines would be disorganised. He himself had two mines where the men, instead of working nine hours worked eight, and when the change was made, instead of having half an hour, the men had twenty minutes during which the pit stood. In that twenty minutes the machinery was oiled, and the men did not experience the slightest difficulty in consequence of that period of rest in connection with their work. As he had said, the real object of the Amendment was to increase the working time, and he saw no reason whatever for introducing the method suggested by the hon. Member for Sleaford, who had no mandate to speak for the miners. When the hon. Member moved his previous Amendment, it was the laughing stock of the whole of the miners.
  MR. LAMBTONsaid the hon. Member who had just spoken, at the beginning of his speech, stated that the Amendment wan for the purpose of increasing the hours of work, and afterwards he said that in his own mines the men had a period of rest. That seemed rather a contradiction in terms.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid there were certain classes of men besides the hewers of coal—those who were on the pit bank. These men had to take their food at a different time from the actual hewers, who took their food whenever they could get it.
  MR. LAMBTONsaid the Home Secretary had told them that in Cheshire the time given was fifty-five minutes. He did not object on principle to the Amendment.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It was the average time according to the Return.
  MR. LAMBTONagreed that there would be a great many difficulties and inconveniences under the Bill, but that was no sufficient reason for opposing the Amendment, which would be useful in the interests of the men. It was very injurious that the miners

  805
  should have to take their meals in a hurry and that they should have no rest at all. The right hon. Gentleman must remember that the average fifty-five minutes was out of a ten and a quarter hours day which did leave some time to get coal. If they took fifty-five minutes off the eight hours, they would leave the miner very little time in which to gain his livelihood. He must do with insufficient rest and insufficient time for his meals. He thought the right hon. Gentleman on his own figures might give a little more attention and support to the Amendment.
  MR. BOWLESsaid the hon. Member opposite had remarked that the object of hon. Members on that side of the House was to increase the hours of work, and he had described the Amendment as a mere subterfuge to effect that object. That was not really a fair commment. They had not yet come to consider what was the time to be fixed for work under the Bill, and it would be perfectly open to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who desired to do so, to move such Amendments as they might think necessary, at a later stage, when they came to consider the hours of working, so as to bring those hours into conformity with any idea that they might entertain on the subject. The object of the authors of the Amendment had been frequently stated; it was simply and solely to ensure that there should be guaranteed for the men who desired it, by agreement with the masters, a proper time for rest and food, which everybody must admit were absolutely essential if the ordinary heavy work of the mine was to be properly carried out, without grave detriment to the health and efficiency of the colliers. The Amendment was a reasonable one, and everything the Home Secretary had said, either in the House or upstairs, showed—though no doubt inconveniences arose in all such arrangements—that a proposal of this nature should be adopted in the interests of the men. It was an arrangement which, he ventured to suggest, was very common, and he believed practically universal. He considered that such an arrangement, which was an essential necessity, should be incorporated in the
  806
  Bill, and if his hon. friend opposite went to a division he should certainly support him.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that if they wished to insert this proposal in order to secure a period of rest, it would require that means should be adopted to ensure that the forty minutes should, in fact, be occupied for rest and refreshment. That could not be done unless either each man was watched, or unless the whole colliery was laid idle for that time. This course might, indeed, be taken now in some few pits here and there. But it was not the custom of the country, and neither masters nor men desired it to be the custom of the country If they did not lay the pit idle for forty minutes, and if they really wished to enforce this provision, they would have to watch every man to see whether he did occupy the forty minutes for rest and refreshment. If the Amendment were inserted it would simply be equivalent to substituting throughout the Bill eight hours and forty minutes as the period of employment, instead of eight hours. That would destroy the purpose of the Bill, and cause it to be of no effect in a great many districts in the country, and he could not think that any hon. Member, who in any degree accepted the principle of the Bill, could support this Amendment.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid he should be prepared to support the hon. Member's Amendment if he would accept the addition of the words "at the men's request," because that would leave it to the men to decide by a majority whether they wanted the rest or not. If the hon. Member for Sleaford would agree to those words he should be prepared to support his Amendment.
  MR. LUPTON: I accept that addition.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS moved to amend the Amendment by adding the words "at the men's request." The principal reason for the Bill was alleged to be that the miners in the various districts of the country were coerced to work longer hours than they wished. It could not be said that this proposal was coercion, because

  807
  the Amendment would not impose the period of rest unless they desired it. If the men wanted the period of rest, why should they not have it? It was true that the men would have to work much harder during the time they were at the face to get more wages and more coal. There was every reason why they should have a period of rest. The right hon. Gentlemen said that it was not practicable. Well, it was practicable in the collieries of France, where the men had a period of rest.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The law in France works badly.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid that that was the first information he had had to that effect. At all events it was the law in France.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he did not know whether the Amendment required a seconder, but if it did, he had much pleasure in seconding it. They had been told by hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Amendment was a subterfuge to increase the hours of labour, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department had practically said the same thing, because he had used the argument against the Amendment that it would be impossible to find out whether the men occupied the forty minutes in having refreshment and rest. But the subterfuge was on the other side, because if they looked at the clause it said—
  "Subject to the provisions of this Act a workman shall not be below ground in a mine for the purpose of his work and of going to and fro from his work or be allowed to be below ground for that purpose for more than eight hours," etc.
  It appeared, therefore, that there was taken from the time of work the time occupied in going to and from it. It often took a miner two hours to get to and from his work, and if in addition to that they had the period for refreshment, they would make it a five hours day instead of an eight hours day. He saw the hon. Member for Glamorgan in his place. The hon. Gentleman had told them yesterday that on his side of the House they were actuated by humane feeling, and he would therefore appeal
  808
  to the hon. Member to support this Amendment on the ground of humanity. A man who was working hard underground for six or seven hours would certainly require an interval for refreshment. Did hon. Members opposite say that that interval for refreshment was not to be allowed except at the expense of some part of the short time he was underground? When it was understood that that was the objection which hon. Members raised, everyone would admit that the Bill was practically impossible and unworkable. But he maintained that it was right to give a man a period for rest and refreshment during six or seven hours work. In the improbable event of a man taking advantage of the forty minutes to work, the whole of the trade unions would be immediately upon that man—they did not want any inspectors—for contravening the section in the Act. But even if that was not so what harm would result if he worked for a few moments longer than was absolutely laid down by the Bill? He maintained that if they were really going to allow the men to do their work in a proper manner the Amendment was absolutely necessary. He admitted that on the last Amendment there was some difficulty about devising means of carrying it out. He did not think there would be the slightest difficulty in carrying out the present Amendment, and he should have great pleasure in supporting it. He should like to say a word in regard to the statement of the hon. Member for Mansfield, who seemed to consider it sufficient to get up when the hon. Member for Sleaford moved an Amendment and tell him that he was the laughing stock of the Committee.
  MR. MARKHAM: I did not say anything of the kind. I said he was the laughing stock of all the miners in the Midlands.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he was afraid he could not answer that, because he did not know what the opinion of the miners upon the hon. Gentleman was. All he could say was that if they really considered he was a laughing stock, they had made a very great error, and they could hardly have been acquainted with the action of

  809
  the hon. Gentleman. He did not sit on the same side of the House as the hon. Member, nor did he agree with all his opinions—in fact, he agreed with very few of them—but as a member of the Grand Committee he took that opportunity of saving he believed the hon. Gentleman did his best to amend the Bill in a single-hearted, honourable, and honest fashion, and he did not think he ought to be treated, certainly not by his own side, in the way he had been treated.
  Amendment to the Amendment proposed—
  "After the word 'manager,' to insert the words 'at the request of the men.'"—(Mr. Samuel Roberts.)
  Agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted."
  MR. PARKES*MR. PARKES thought the Amendment to the Amendment was an improvement on what was moved in the first place. He had consulted people who were associated with the miners in the district which he represented, and he found there was a general feeling on their behalf that there should be time given for meals and for rest. And it seemed to him that was only natural. When they took the time a man left his home and the time he returned again, if this was an Eight-hours Bill, it would not be less than nine hours. Was it reasonable to suppose that a man would walk from his home and work very hard during eight hours and require no specified time for meals? He did not agree with the hon. Gentleman who said he might have a scrap. He thought a scrap was not enough for a man who worked eight or nine hours uninterruptedly. They must also consider the condition of the horses in the pit as well. They must have a time of rest and refreshment for them. He would give an instance of his experience with regard to the working of eight hours. In a certain trade which he knew very well, there had recently been introduced the eight-hour principle. The other part of the trade worked what was called two shifts in the twenty-four hours. One would naturally imagine that the working men
  810
  would choose the eight hours rather than the two shifts in twenty-four hours. But as a matter of fact he had men come back from the principle of the eight hours to the principle of the twelve hours, because they said the pace was almost killing during the eight hours; they were kept at it uninterruptedly the whole time and had scarcely time to snatch a mouthful of a meal, and they would sooner work under the easier conditions of the longer hours so that they might have rest and refreshment than under the eight hours principle. Of course, the thing was more accentuated when they came to seven and a half hours. In the present system there; was sufficient time for refreshment, but when they came to eight and seven and a half hours it simply meant that in some cases going to and from his work and the time he ought to have for meals would take one-and-a-half to two hours out of the time, and that would mean five and a half hours' work out of seven and a half, or six out of eight at the face of the coal. He wanted to know if that would not make a very great difference to the productive power of the collieries of the country. He looked upon this as a serious matter. It was a matter of principle which wanted looking at very carefully. Other countries had seen the importance; of it and had adopted it. They could not anticipate, at the present moment, what was going to be the actual effect of the Bill on this principle. It either meant that the men would be rushed during the whole eight hours or that they must have a time for refreshment. If they were rushed uninterruptedly for the eight hours for the purpose of the mine owner getting out the full possibility of his men, they did harm to the men. They should put this in the hands of the men themselves. Let them be the arbiters as to whether they wanted the quarter or half-an-hour as the case might be. The men he had consulted believed in some amount of rest and refreshment, and he thought they should put it in their hands as to whether they would like a reasonable opportunity of getting refreshment during the time of their work. To ask them to work nine hours right away and expect them to be satisfied with a scrap here and a bite there was asking too

  811
  much of the men, and he believed it would deteriorate the men themselves.
  MR. ALBERT STANLEYwished to reply to one or two remarks of the hon. Member who had just addressed the House. He understood that the Bill would interfere with the hours in Staffordshire as little as it would with the hours anywhere in the country, and the feeling of the miners in Staffordshire was that the Bill had been made too elastic already. He did not know from what source the hon. Member had derived his information, but they already had their meal times arranged for. The Bill would very little interfere with those hours and they would be able to arrange in the future as now what time would be reasonable for refreshment.
  MR. PARKES: In some collieries in Staffordshire they have fifty minutes for meal time.
  MR. ALBERT STANLEYsaid he would like the hon. Member to say where those collieries were, because he did not know any in Staffordshire where work was suspended for fifty minutes. They arranged now as they would be able to arrange under the Bill if it became an Act of Parliament, that some of the men would be working at the face of the coal while others were taking their meal time. That would be arranged without any inhumanity and without any great inconvenience either to the workmen or the colliery owners, and he could assure the House most confidently that there was not the slightest ground for the prognostication of the hon. Member.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not propose to intervene in the discussion between my hon. friend and the hon. Gentleman opposite as to the practice of the Stafford-shire mines, with which I do not profess to be acquainted, but the explanation of the hon. Member for Staffordshire is interesting. He tells us that the Staffordshire miners are very much in favour of this Bill, but that none of them will be affected by it.
  MR. ALBERT STANLEY: I did not say so. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman
  812
  would not wish to misrepresent me. I said it would interfere as little with the hours in Staffordshire as in any part of the country.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Exactly. I thought it was a matter of common ground among us all that there are a great number of miners already working less than eight hours who would not be interfered with at all. When the hon. Member said it would interfere as little in Staffordshire as in any other part of the country I naturally assumed that it would not interfere at all. I quite accept his statement that that was not what he meant, but that the effect on the. Staffordshire miners would be merely trifling. But there is a good deal of evidence that this legislation is being imposed by people who will not largely be affected, because they already have the system, upon those who are, perhaps, not quite so heartily in agreement with them. But I did not rise for the purpose of referring to the hon. Member's speech, though I have been tempted to do so. I rise to ask for a little more explanation from the Government of a statement made by the Under-Secretary a few moments ago, which took me altogether by surprise in view of what happened yesterday. The Under-Secretary says, as an objection to this Amendment, that the limitation of hours in France is working so badly as to be practically a dead letter. I should like to know what evidence he has for that statement, and in what respects the French law is working badly. I think it is more, important that we should have this information because only yesterday the Secretary of State quoted the example of France in order to reassure us.
  MR. GLADSTONE: When?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yesterday, in a speech in the early portion of the afternoon, when he followed the Leader of the Opposition, and attempted to answer some of the questions which my right hon. friend had put, and to remove; from our minds the fears which have been expressed in certain quarters—fears, for instance, that, this limitation of hours would give rise to an increase of price which would

  813
  be serious, not only to the poor consumer directly, but also to our manufacturing industries of which coal is the universal raw material. The right hon. Gentleman then cited, amongst others, the example of France to reassure us, and said that none of those bad results had followed. My recollection is clear, and I have fortified it by the recollection of my hon. friend beside me. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman says he did not cite France, or if he now says that if he did cite France it was an error, and gives us no comfort because the law is not at work there, that would be an answer.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have quoted France so often in the course of these debates, that it is difficult to tax my memory. I do not recollect quoting the case of France yesterday.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not want to press the point too far, because we are all liable to error as to what we have said and heard. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted the instance of France in relation to this Bill in order to draw inferences from what has happened in France as to what is likely to happen in this country. The Under-Secretary tells us that this particular law in France is a dead letter, and, therefore, we cannot draw any inferences from its working in that country. I hope we shall have the case of France cleared up so that we shall know exactly what is meant by the Under-Secretary's statement that this measure in France is a dead letter.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Although I think this is travelling far afield from the Amendment I cannot refuse a reply to the question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. In France the law is qualified by many exemptions for feast days and for the classes of men employed and so forth. In very many cases it has been found to be highly unsatisfactory in its working. I said that in France this measure had been found to be practically a dead letter, but perhaps that was putting it too strongly, and the word "practically" is not a satisfactory word and one which I seldom use. I should have said that in France the Act has to a great extent failed in its purpose on
  814
  account of the many exemptions and the restrictions placed upon its working. I make that statement on the authority of gentlemen connected with the Home Office who made inquiries into this matter in France. There is now a Bill before the Chambers to strengthen in many particulars the provisions of the law. I think I am entitled to say of this Act that it has been made less useful in France by its many exemptions and restrictions than it would otherwise have been and, I think my right hon. friend is entitled to quote France as a precedent for this legislation, first, because their law is the same in principle, and secondly because there is now a proposal in that country to restrict those exemptions.
  MR. BONAR LAW: This is really a remarkable discussion. The right hon. Gentleman claims that he has a right to quote what is going to happen in France as proof of what will happen in this country under this Bill. Already in France they have accepted the principle of this Bill and found that it does not work. The right hon. Gentleman however says it is going to work in the future and he quotes that as a good example in support of this Bill. I happened to have read some account of how the principle works in France, and I have no hesitation in stating that my recollection does not agree with the statement just made by the Under-Secretary, who implied that the Bill had failed to the extent it has failed because of the many qualifications contained in it. What I have read about it—and I invite the right hon. Gentleman's attention to this point—is that it has largely failed because the miners did not like it and would not work under it. That is the real reason why it has failed in France, and that is something which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look into. I rise to support the amended Amendment. If it were really true that the Amendment were impracticable, I certainly would not rise to support it, because at this stage I think we should confine ourselves pretty much to Amendments which can be brought into practice. The hon. Member for the Mansfield division says it is quite impracticable and cannot be worked. I have

  815
  often heard people who are called experts make statements of that kind, but I have often heard them contradicted, and while I am not in the same position as the hon. Gentleman opposite to judge of that matter, I cannot see why it should be considered impracticable. There is no ground whatever for the contention that what we want to do is in the interests of any other class but the men. We should leave this question entirely to the men themselves. If the men in a particular pit prefer that they should be absolutely idle for a given time in order to take refreshments, why is it the wish of hon. Members who support this Bill to deny them that privilege? They say they do it because the work will go on just the same. The hon. Member for Mansfield says that in the pits with which he is acquainted the system prevails of stopping the whole machinery of the mine for twenty minutes. The Under-Secretary says it will mean an eight hours forty minutes day because the men will go on working, but surely he realises that in a great many mines the work at the coal face is regulated by the powers of winding-up. Obviously, if the winding-up is stopped, the men cannot do the extra work. There is another consideration in regard to the Amendment which even hon. Gentlemen who represent the miners should take seriously into account. One of the worst features of the Bill is that it is going to tell most hardly on the old mines. I am told that in many parts of the country if the Bill is rigidly enforced many of those old mines will have to go out of operation altogether. The reason of that is largely because the men have to walk such a long distance to and from the face of the coal after they get to the bottom of the pit. If in a mine of that kind the men prefer to have a regulated time for taking their meals, surely that should not be objected to by miners working in mines where they do not experience that difficulty. The fact that the Amendment would help these old mines should make the miners' representatives willing to consider it. It is not only that the coal hewers will be affected, but if the winding goes on uninterruptedly without any interval for meals, then the men on the
  816
  surface must absolutely take their meals whilst at their work. Is that a thing that we should make possible by Act of Parliament? I cannot understand why, when we leave it to the option of the men, the miners' representatives should object, and I am afraid the real objection is one which they would not like to acknowledge. I am afraid they are trying to get the thing which is preferred by a majority made compulsory on the minority. From any point of view I can see no reason why this Amendment, if it is to be left to the ballot of the men at the pit, should not be adopted.
  MR. LUPTONsaid it was rather surprising to be told now that France afforded us no precedent. France was a most democratic country; it wanted to please the miners and so it adopted all those exemptions. The right hon. Gentleman had asked how they could enforce the Amendment without lengthening the hours? That could be done because the period of refreshment would be fixed by the management according to law, and it was contrary to all experience to say that that would lengthen the hours of work. Surely the men would not require an inspector to order them to stop work when they required a little rest.
  MR. BECKasked if the difficulty could not be overcome on the lines adopted in one of the new clauses which was ruled out of order yesterday. That Amendment gave power to the workmen to decide whether they would have this interval for refreshments or not. The Home Secretary had not answered the question put by the hon. Baronet the Member for St. Ives, and he did not know whether it was possible to arrive at some compromise on those lines. The argument seemed overwhelming in favour of some interval for refreshments. He was sure that if hon. Members were forced to remain in that Chamber for eight hours without any interval for refreshments they would feel it was a hardship.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It seems quite unnecessary for the purpose of arranging for meals to set up machinery of the

  817
  kind suggested in the Amendment. I do not think we ought to endeavour to get an extension of the hours by a side wind in this way.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 79; Noes, 258. (Division List No. 442.)

  AYES.

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

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Armitage, R.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Nield, Herbert

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Gardner, Ernest

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Renwick, George

  Bertram, Julius

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Bull, Sir William James

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Starkey, John R.

  Cave, George

  Kerry, Earl of

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

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

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  M'Arthur, Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Lupton and Mr. Watt.

  Cox, Harold

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Agnew, George William

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Gill, A. H.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cooper, G. J.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Glover, Thomas

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Crean, Eugene

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Crooks, William

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Barnes, G. N.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hall, Frederick

  Beale, W. P.

  Crossley, William J.

  Halpin, J.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Brace, William

  Delany, William

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Branch, James

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Brigg, John

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

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

  Brodie, H. C.

  Dillon, John

  Harwood, George

  Brooke, Stopford

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

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

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

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

  Byles, William Pollard

  Erskine, David C.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Cameron, Robert

  Essex, R. W.

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

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Fenwick, Charles

  Hodge, John

  Chance, Frederick William

  Ferens, T. R.

  Hogan, Michael

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Ffrench, Peter

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Cleland, J. W.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N)

  Clough, William

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Clynes, J. R.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Hudson, Walter

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Jenkins, J.

  Myer, Horatio

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Snowden, P.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Steadman, W. C.

  Joyce, Michael

  Nuttall, Harry

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Dowd, John

  Summerbell, T.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  O'Grady, J.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Partington, Oswald

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan)

  Lambert, George

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Lamont, Norman

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Pollard, Dr.

  Tillett, Louis John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Tomkinson, James

  Lundon, W.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Toulmin, George

  Lyell, Charles Henry

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

  Verney, F. W.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Villiers, Ernest Amhurst

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Radford, G. H.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

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

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Walton, Joseph

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

  Wardle, George J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down. S.)

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

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Robinson, S.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  M'Kean, John

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  White J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh

  M'Laren, Rt. Hn. Sir C. B. (Leices)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

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

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Maddison, Frederick

  Rowlands, J.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Marnham, F. J.

  Samuel, Rt. Hn. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Massie, J.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

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

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co)

  Sears, J. E.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Menzies, Walter

  Seddon, J.

  Winfrey, R.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Seely, Colonel

  Wood T. M'Kinnon

  Middlebrook, William

  Shackleton, David James

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Shaw, Sir Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of

  Mond, A.

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

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Sheehy, David

  Elibank.

  MR. BOWLES MR. BOWLES moved to leave out the words "or be allowed to be below ground for that purpose." The object of the Amendment, he thought, was perfectly clear. The House would see that the clause, as it stood, imposed considerable penalties for a man not only to be below ground, but to be allowed to be below ground. He could understand perfectly well that it should be said that it was improper for the man to be below ground for more
  820
  than a certain stilted time, and he could understand Parliament saying that should be so, and making it an offence. If an employer gave authority or compelled a man to be below ground for more than that certain time, that also might very properly be made an offence, subject to a very heavy penalty. It was not right, however, to insist on imposing a penalty if a man was merely allowed to be below it the circumstances were such as involved no blame on the man or his employer, yet

  821
  a case of that kind would be covered by these words. The provision was one which ought never to be made, especially in view of the further provisions of the Bill, which imposed a very heavy penalty and assumed the guilt of the manager unless he went to the trouble and expense of proving his own innocence. The purpose of the Amendment was clear, and though, perhaps, it could be carried out in other ways than the way he had suggested, unless the Government could show some serious reason why this should be made a crime for which a man had to answer in Court the House ought to be disposed, after consideration, to agree to this Amendment.
  MR. CARLILEseconded.
  Amendment proposod—
  "In page 1, line 7, to leave out from the word 'work' to the second word 'for' in line 8."
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The words which the hon. Member proposes to omit are preliminary words to Clause 6, which imposes a fine for offences committed against the Act. This is the ordinary form of enforcing all Acts for the regulation of labour. The hon. Member is entirely in error in saying that this is the first time in the history of our legislation in which an employer is made liable for penalties because his workmen work longer than prescribed by an Act.
  MR. BOWLES: I did not suggest that. I said that it was the first time in our legislation that the guilt of an employer was assumed until he had shown himself innocent.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1887, provides with regard to the employment of persons in contravention of the Act that—
  "If any person contravenes, or fails to comply with, or permits any person to contravene or fail to comply with, any provision of this Act with respect to the employment of boys, girls, or women,"
  822
  then he is to be liable to penalties. Then with regard to the Factory Acts, everyone knows that if a person is employed illegally, say, in working overtime in a factory, the employer is liable to a fine, and fines for such offences are recovered continually in the Courts. We propose in this Bill to make employment outside the hours mentioned illegal, and if the House passes the Bill, it would be only consistent with the dignity of Parliament to put in the Bill the means of enforcing the Act.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid he wished to make an observation which he thought would modify the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman. As drawn, this clause was, he thought, too severe. How could a manager tell whether a man was working beyond the hours in a mine the workings of which extended to two or three miles? He would suggest to the mover of the Amendment to accept the word "knowingly." If an owner or a manager knew that a man went down into the pit when he ought not, or did not come up when he ought, then perhaps that owner or manager ought to be guilty of an offence; but when the workings of a mine were distributed over two or three miles, the owner or manager could not possibly tell whether a particular man remained too long underground.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I should like to ask the opinion of the Solicitor-General on this matter. Section 6, as it stands, says that "if any person contravenes any provision of this Act" he shall be liable to a penalty. That does not seem to quite run with the provision of the section now before the House, viz., that any person who allow; a man to be below ground for the purpose of his work, etc., shall be subject to a penalty. But supposing that a mining manager takes every reasonable precaution to procure the enforcement of the Act, and makes every provision possible to secure that no man should be below ground beyond the specified hours, and supposing that by the wilful error of a subordinate or by the deliberate act of the workman himself, the Act is

  823
  contravened, does the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that the mine manager should be fined? I venture to think that my friend's suggestion that the word "knowingly" should be inserted in the Amendment should be accepted. Or perhaps instead of "knowingly," "with the knowledge of." I do not pledge myself to the words, provided the Government will accept the principle; but it should be provided that knowledge must be brought home to the manager, or that he had failed to tike every precaution against the contravention of the Act by the workmen.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir S. EVANS,): The question raised by the hon. Member for Norwood is a very reasonable one but admits of a very easy answer. The insertion of the word "knowingly" would contravene the precedents in regard to this class of legislation. In the Coal Mines Regulation Act, passed by a Conservative Government in 1887, and in the Factory Acts the word "knowingly" does not occur at all. It is quite right if the owner or manager takes all reasonable steps to enforce the Act, that he should not be subjected to a penalty; and I think we have in Clause 6 taken ample precaution in that direction, and no words are necessary to make it stronger. I do not think stronger words could be found, but if they could be, we should be quite willing to meet the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The proviso in Clause 6 says—
  "The owner, agent, or manager of the mine shall not be guilty of an offence if he proves that he has taken all reasonable means by publishing, and to the best of his power, enforcing, regulations as to the times of raising and lowering the men … and supplying to each workman, who makes application, a printed statement of the said regulations to prevent the contravention of non-compliance."
  So that all that the manager, agent, or owner proceeded against would have to prove would be that he has taken all the reasonable means pointed out by this sub-clause, and has taken steps to enforce the regulations. In answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield that we are here putting the onus of proof on the defendant, that has been done consistently in legislation of this kind. And it is only reasonable to do so; because the means
  824
  of knowledge are all within the power of the man on whom the onus of proof is laid. There must be prima facie proof, in the first place, that he has done his best to enforce the regulations. This principle is not new to our law. Under the Debtors Act, I think either Section 11 or Section 13, with regard to all offences which are described in that Act, onus of the proof is put upon the bankrupt that he is not guilty of these offences. Then, in the Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1887, Section 9 says:—
  "If any person contravenes, or fails to comply with, or permits any person to contravene, or fail to comply with any provision of this Act with respect to the employment of boys, girls, or women, or to the register of boys, girls, and women, or to reporting the intended employment of boys, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act; and, in the event of any such contravention, or non-compliance by any person whomsoever, the owner, agent, and manager of the mine shall each be guilty of an offence against this Act, unless he proves that he had taken all reasonable means, by publishing and to the best of his power enforcing the provisions of this Act, to prevent the contravention of non-compliance."
  The House will see at once that that section of the beneficent Act of 1887 passed by a Conservative Government is the very foundation of the whole phraseology and substance of this Bill.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid it was very difficult to argue a point of law with such a well-known authority as the hon. and learned Solicitor-General, especially after the speech he had made, but he would venture to suggest to him that by inserting the word "knowingly" he would remove an objection which he seemed to share with some of them. At the present moment the defendant had to show that he was not aware of what was going on, but he thought that some word should be put in placing the onus of proof on the prosecutor.
  SIR C. J. CORY: said the hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted the Coal Mines Regulation Act; but that Act was a very different thing from this Bill. That Act applied to the safety of the men in the mines, and no doubt the employer should do everything in his power to see to the safety of the men, and the proof should be laid on him to

  825
  show that he had done so. But by subsection (1) of Clause 1 of this Bill the employer was to be fined if he allowed a man to be underground more than a certain number of hours. That seemed to him to be very unreasonable. If an employer had provided every facility for the workmen to come up to the surface and comply with the law, surely he had done all that could be reasonably expected of him. It was impossible for him to go to the distant stalls in the mine and see that every man was brought out in order to comply with the law. The Solicitor-General admitted that, but pointed out that under subsection (a) of Clause 6, it was provided that the owner, agent, or manager of the mine, should not be guilty of an offence, if he proved, that he had taken all reasonable means by publishing and, to the best of his power enforcing regulations as to the time of raising and lowering the men and supplying to each workman who made application a printed statement of regulations to prevent contravention or uon-compliance. Under that subsection, however, the onus of proof rested upon the manager or owner to show that he was not guilty, which he submitted was quite contrary to English law. It was said, secondly, that he had to publish regulations, but it was not said in what way he had to publish. They did not know whether he had to publish them at the pit-head or in the newspapers. He was to publish and to the best of his ability enforce the regulations. But how was he to enforce them to the best of his ability? He might endeavour to do it by visiting every working place in the mine, but that would be a physical impossibility. Further, he had to supply each workman who applied with a printed copy of the regulations. Therefore, he had to prove that each workman had had one of those forms, or that such and such a workman did not apply. Where 1,000 or 1,200 men were employed that was a tremendous task.
  SIR S. EVANSsaid that was done in many mines. The miner signed his name in a book on receipt of a set of rules.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid it was done in every case. Every man signed his
  826
  name in the book and had a copy of the rules.
  SIR C. J. CORYobserved that, therefore, every man when he came signed a book and had to give a receipt showing that he had had one of these documents. In the case of 1,000 or 1,200 men that would be very difficult indeed. Therefore, he said that it was difficult to carry out the three conditions provided for under subsection (a) of Section 6, and the onus of proof was cast on the employer where it ought not to be.
  MR. MARKHAMreplied that the clause was very simple and very clear. Every man when he came to a colliery had to sign a book as prescribed under the Coal Mines Regulation Act. There was an obligation that every man who signed received a copy of the rules and regulations under the Act which had been agreed by the local board, the inspectors of mines, and the owners in each district. Therefore, in this case all that had to be done was to attach to these special rules the particular provisions of the Act relating to this section. There was not the slightest difficulty in doing that.
  LORD R. CECILthought they ought to know whether that was correct, because a more astounding version of what the provisions of this Bill were he never listened to. The hon. Gentleman appeared to think that all that would be necessary was that the rules should be handed to the miners and a copy of this Bill given to them.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid it was what happened in every district. Special rules were drafted by the owners and the men, in conjunction with the mines inspector and the local authority, and as soon as this Bill was passed these provisions would be incorporated with the special rules and become really law.
  LORD R. CECILpointed out that that was a very small part of the employers' duty under the Bill. He did not think the hon. Member realised what the employer was exposed to under the Bill and when he did he thought he would agree with them, that some change must

  827
  be made in the wording of the measure. They proposed to strike out the words "or be allowed to be below ground for that purpose," because prima facie they compelled the employer not to allow anyone to be below ground for more than a particular time. The ordinary English meaning of those words was that the men must be forced out if it was necessary to drive them out of the mine. That seemed to him to be quite clear. If he said to a man: "I will not allow you to remain in this room," it meant: "I will turn you out by force if you will not go." It meant nothing else, but the Solicitor-General said "allowed" was used in a Pickwickian sense, and that the Government really did not mean "allowed" when they said it. He said they used it as a good mouth-filling word, and what they really meant was described in subsection (a) of Clause 6. But when he turned to I hat subsection he found that the employer had to prove that he had taken the precaution of publishing these rules. The hon. Member said that was a very simple matter, that he world include in his rules other rules framed under this Act, and then all he had to do was to do his best to enforce the rules. But if he was told that he must not allow, and he must take the best means of enforcing, then he was just where he was under the present clause, and he was bound to see that every man was out of the mine. If it did not mean that let them know where they were, because he thought that words in an Act of Parliament should mean what they said. He protested strongly against putting in words in the first clause of a Bill which had a perfectly clear well-known English meaning—there was no question here of lawyers or of construction—they had a perfectly well-known English meaning, and then attempting to define the words later on in another section and saying that they meant something which nobody would ever think they meant. It was thoroughly bad legislation, and, if that was what the Government intended to do, they ought not to do it. As he understood subsection (a) of Clause 6 however, he really thought it meant to convey by the word "allow" what was usually conveyed by that word.
  MR. G. D. FABERsaid he would take the Amendment, first of all, as it stood. The words proposed to be omitted were "allowed to be below ground for that purpose." In the first place, the words were not practicable. In answer to another Amendment which lad been discussed that afternoon to the effect that the eight hours should be eight hours in the miner's place of work, they were told by the Government that it was not practicable, and he now ventured to use that expression to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, and to say that the words "allowed to be below ground" were not practicable. The noble Lord behind hm put the case with unanswerable force when he said: "How is it to be decided? How can you decide whether or no a miner is allowed to be below ground for that: purpose?" Suppose a miner refused; to leave, what was the master to do? That was objection No. 1. Objection No. 2 was that a mine was not like a factory, and he would follow that argument for a moment or two because the Solicitor-General took the factory as an illustration for the purpose of his argument. A mine was not a factory. It was easy enough, or, at all events, comparatively easy to look round a factory and say "aye" or "no" whether a man was there. But if they had hundreds of men at work at hundreds of different places in a mine, it was almost impossible for an owner or manager to decide whether a man was in the mine or not after the eight hours had passed. The Government themselves admitted that, because the Solicitor-General, with his well-known legal ability and acumen, foil back upon subsection (a) of Clause 6. After all, he said it was easy enough to determine whether a man was "allowed to be below ground" or not by seeing what I the agent, owner, or manager had to do, and when they looked at that subsection they found that the owner, agent, or manager of the mine should not be guilty of an offence if he proved that he had taken all reasonable means of publishing, and to the best of his power, enforcing regulations as to the times of raising and lowering the men. But they

  829
  got no further, because what was the meaning of the expression "to the best of his power enforcing regulations?" How were they to enforce regulations to the best of their power? Was it by going and bawling into a workman's ear, "Time is up"? Must they go up to him, and take him by the shoulder and force him out? His right hon. friend below him suggested that they might adopt a Parliamentary expression and let the manager say, "Who goes home?" But he ventured to ask seriously was this a fair and reasonable onus to put upon the manager of a mine? He used to know something about the law in old days, but he had forgotten most of it now. He always understood that in cases of this kind the onus was the other way. The Solicitor-General quoted the Goal Mines Regulation Act as a precedent, but there were two distinctions. There the onus was upon the mine owner, because they were dealing with the safety of the mine, and he thought the Solicitor-General also said that women and children were involved. That took them into a very different relation altogether; first, in regard to safety, it was fair that the ordinary rule of onus should be shifted, and in the case of women and children who prima facie, were unprotected, it might require some extra precaution on the part of the law. But there was no reason why a grown-up man could not take perfectly good care of himself. He thought it was unfair, therefore, that the managers of mines should be put in this position as between man and man, and as between manager and worker. The onus in his opinion, ought to be entirely the other way, and the inspector should prove that the manager of the mine had not taken due precautions. He thought this was going to be a great addition to all the other inconveniences and unfairnesses which were introduced into this measure. They were going to alter the rule of law. In his opinion, the onus in matters of this kind should be upon the person who desired to prove the offence and not upon the person who was the owner or manager of the mine.
  MR. LUPTONsaid he really thought there was a great deal to be said in
  830
  favour of the Amendment. The Bill endeavoured to make it compulsory for the managers and mine-owners not only to say how many hours a man was in his place but to see that he left it at a particular time. His experience in construing Acts of Parliament was that one man's opinion of what an Act meant was just as good as another's until there had been a decided case. Then the lawyers could tell what the strict interpretation was, but until there had been a decision it could only be interpreted according to a person's own opinion. Here was a Bill which said that a man should not be allowed to be in his place for more than a certain number of hours, and if he was in his place longer than he ought to be he was to be prosecuted. Supposing he was prosecuted, he would naturally say: "Well, I did not know what the time was," and his lawyer would naturally say that it was the business of the manager under this clause to let him know what the time was. The magistrate would probably take the same view, and say: "Did you not tell this man what the time was? If you did not how was he to know?" When he was hurrying and rushing to get his work done it could not be said that he should look at his watch every ten minutes; and besides, in all probability, he would not have his watch with him. It would be put away fifty yards off so that it should not be damaged by the falling of coal or anything else. The Government said it was impossible for the manager to take the man's time. If it was impossible for the manager to do that, and at the same time if the man was hard at work at the face, he could not be expected to know what the time was. Therefore, this responsibility must be put on the manager and he must let the man know what the time was. He would have thought it was easy to take the man's time in his working place, but as he had only been in the habit of managing a few hundreds of men the Government said he knew nothing about it. Still, he should have thought it was quite easy to let him know the time at which he was to leave. The men had all got to get out at one time, and a man who had half an hour to walk, and the man who had a quarter of an hour to walk, having to get out

  831
  in the one half hour, must leave their places at a particular moment; otherwise they would be too late to get out. Therefore they had carefully to calculate the time at which each man must leave his place. Every man would be given a ticket to tell him the time that he was to leave and then a man would have to go round when the time came to tell him he should leave. It was very hard that the mine-owner should be put to the expense and the trouble of having his manager or his deputy going round to tell the men the time at which they had to leave, not for the purposes of the safety of the mine or because it was for the benefit of the mine-owner, but simply because it was desired by the trade union. The manager having to look after the mine-owner's interest and the safety of the mines was readily forgiven by the men if in prosecuting a man for breach of rules he made himself nasty sometimes, because they knew that in the last resort their safety depended upon him. Therefore, let the Government which wanted this Act enforce it and enforce the time that these men should be up at the pit's mouth, and not the manager, because, if the manager had to do it and was constantly enforcing these provisions against the men it would only lead to difficulties. Why should they be forced into strikes in this way, because this was the very way to foment difficulties between the manager and the men? He therefore earnestly impressed upon the House the great injury which this clause would do.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYthought the words were inserted here for the purpose of catching the employer, but he supposed they must submit to the idea, the Bill having been road a second time, that there should be a prevention of grown men combining with others to supply a public want. He rose, however, for the purpose of asking the Government whether even for that dubious purpose these words were at all necessary. If they were necessary why was the definition in this clause in different words from that which occurred in Clause 6. It was a very embarrassing method of drafting, and he should like to ask the Solicitor-General to show, if he could, why the Words were different.
  MR. LAMBTONcould not agree with the hon. Member for Sleaford in this matter. The only thing the manager had got to prove was that he had taken proper precautions and all reasonable means, by publishing and enforcing the regulations as to the time of raising and lowering the men, and if he could show that, no charge could be brought against him, so that the fuss that had been made about subsection (a) Clause 6 was unnecessary. At the same time, he thought the Amendment of his hon. friend ought to be inserted.
  SIR S. EVANS: I will, with the permission of the House, now answer the right hon. Gentleman. There is a difference in the wording, but no difference in the substance of the first section of Clause 6 and the definition in Clause 1. You have in the one case the word "allow," and in the other the word "permit." What really happens is this: You first of all say a certain thing is not to be permitted or allowed, and then, in Clause 6, you are allowed or permitted to prosecute. You are not bound to prosecute, but if there has been a contravention of the regulations, as the hon. Member opposite has just pointed out, and the manager can prove that he has taken proper precautions, then there is no case against him. If he has taken reasonable precautions to prevent a breach of the regulations, then he is not subject to a charge.
  MR AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid the hon. and learned Gentleman has not quite appreciated what has been said. Take the case which has been suggested, of certain men stopping too long at the face of the mine to get wound up within the statutory period. It would occur once, the mine manager would notice it and give warning that it must not occur again. It does occur again, and the hon. Gentleman says the mine manager need not prosecute. Is that quite clear? Would that be the effect of the Bill as it stands? I understand that the visits of the inspector may not be made daily, and there may be considerable intervals between one visit and another. Supposing an inspector came round and saw that these things had occurred day after day. He would say

  833
  to the manager: "Why did you not stop it?" The manager would say: "I did my best; I warned the man." But then the inspector would say: "When your warnings were not heeded, what steps did you take? Hive you to the best of your power and ability enforced the regulations? There is a penalty by statute attached to a man who commits a breach of this law. Why did you not enforce the law against him? You yourself are guilty of a breach of the law for not having enforced the law against him." Would not that be the effect of this section? Is not the manager bound to take any and every step in his power to ensure obedience to the law, not only by himself but by his workmen, and will it not force a prosecution on the part of the manager? Would he not himself be liable to a prosecution if he did not do so? That is with regard to the first part of the subsection. Now I want to ask this further question, arising out of the working of the regulation as to the raising and the lowering of the men referred to in Section 1. Some hon. Members have treated that question as if the manager could discharge his duty by seeing that one man was raised in the time specified, but in order to enforce the regulations, must not the manager get the men to the place from which they are to be raised? I see my point is plain to the right hon. Gentleman, therefore I will not trouble him further.
  SIR S. EVANS: I think it will be necessary for the owner or manager to provide proper facilities for a man getting to and from his work. Where a man disregarded the regulation and the Act of Parliament, the owner or manager, in order to carry out the Act, could warn him on the first occasion and again warn him on the second, and it would be within the competence of the bench of magistrates to say that, in view of the constant disregard of the regulations by a particular man, the obligation of the owner or manager or agent under the Act to provide facilities to get the man to or from his work at the proper time had been fulfilled to the best of their power.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask the right hon.
  834
  Gentleman whether in the case of a workman being reported to the inspector of mines, the latter would take action thereupon?
  SIR S. EVANS: It would be either the employer or the inspector.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I wish to make this quite clear; I desire to know whether the manager would discharge his responsibility by simply reporting the matter to the inspector, or whether the manager would himself prosecute in the case of repeated disobedience?
  SIR S. EVANS: I think in that case the bench would say that the manager had done the best in his power to enforce the regulations.
  MR. BECKsaid there appeared to be an extraordinary difficulty in determining the meaning of this clause at all. He might say that the noble Lord opposite had thrown a great flood of light on this question. He wanted to bring to the notice of the House what was said by the Home Secretary on this Amendment, when it was moved upstairs in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman on that occasion said that they were perfectly well accustomed under the existing law to a limitation of hours. In this case, what would happen was that if the owner, manager, or agent desired to fulfil the requirements of the law he need only provide for facilities at the right time for getting a man to and from his work, and it would be perfectly clear that all reasonable means had been taken. That was obviously the intention of the Government, but it was by no means clearly shown to be their intention by the draftsmen of the Bill. He appealed to the Government to alter the Bill in order to fall into line with what the Home Secretary authoritatively laid down upstairs as the intention of the Government on this matter. He felt it was an appeal which could not be resisted by any logical mind.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil had asked the Solicitor-General whether it was a fact that all an employer would have to do under this section, and under subsection (a)

  835
  of Section 6, was to give notice to the inspector, and that if the man did not come up in proper time, a bench of magistrates in all probability, according to the opinion of the Solicitor-General, would say that the manager had taken all reasonable precautions. He did not know why the hon. and learned Gentleman thought that, because it was absolutely contrary to the provisions of the Bill. There was nothing in the Bill about giving notice to the inspector. The Bill said that the man was not to be allowed to remain in the mines, and that if he remained underground steps must be taken to enforce his removal, otherwise certain penalties would accrue. It was said, when they were passing an Act of Parliament, that the Law Courts would give their decision on the provisions of the Act. Now the provisions of the Bill were perfectly clear, and he, would put a concrete case to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Let them presume that he was the Judge, and that this case came before him. The propel time for the workmen during the three years, when both windings were excluded, was to come at two o'clock. But if it was found that the first man did not come until a quarter past, two, and the employer or manager did not go down into the pit, then delay was caused. If they did not do that, then the hon. and learned Gentleman would contend that it would be sufficient for the manager merely to state in defence that he had given notice to the inspector that the man did not come to the surface. If that was so, and if that was what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, why did he not amend the Bill so as to give force to his own wish? It would be perfectly easy to amend the Bill so that it would be quite clear that what the magistrate would determine was to be the interpretation to be put upon the provision.
  SIR S. EVANS: I said that the magistrates might well do that if they liked.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he now understood. The hon. and learned Gentleman gave the case away. If they could do that and they might possibly do that if they liked, then that was all they contended
  836
  for. But the provision was not clear, and the result of it to any ordinary and reasonable man must be that it would have to be decided whether the manager and the employer had to go round and force the men to leave the pit. He submitted that the hon. and learned Gentleman had completely given his case away.
  MR. WATTsaid that if a man remained down the mine longer than the law permitted then the manager must report to the inspector, and the inspector would write back to say to the manager that he was to prosecute. Would the manager in that particular case be guilty of an offence if he did not carry out the instruction of His Majesty's inspector?
  SIR S. EVANS: That is one case, I am bound to say, which must be put out of account. I may tell the hon. Gentleman that it would be a portion of the circumstances of the case which the justices would take into consideration in determining whether or not under the regulations and so on, the owner, agent, or manager had done his best.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Surely right hon. Gentlemen opposite must see how difficult it is to get, through the Bill with any reasonable degree of speed if they adopt this non-possumus attitude in regard to a provision which may obviously produce a great sense of injustice. We have been discussing this clause from four o'clock till a quarter past seven, and most of that time has been occupied with Amendments moved by the other side of the House. I must honestly say that if the Government cannot see their way to make concessions on matters which may produce the greatest hardship it will be impossible to get the Bill—you cannot get the Bill. Really in the interests of the progress of business I would ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, when points of real substance are raised, but which do not touch the essence of the Bill at all, or its effectiveness for the purpose the Government have in view, whether he cannot see his way to making some concessions.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am most desirous, on a question to which great interest is attached, that both sides should be able to give it full consideration. The debate, so far as I have followed it, really has reference to what subsequently follows in Clause 6. My hon. friend behind me quoted from a speech I made upstairs in which I described our object. I quite agree that critics of the Bill are justified in saying that if we agree to what is the object of the Bill we should give effect to that object. Speaking broadly, what we want, of course, is that proper arrangements should be made for providing that the men get to and from work at a given time. I know that there are varying conditions at different collieries, but our object is that the men should be got to and from the pit at the statutory time. The question is what arrangements may be necessary in the event of a man not presenting himself to be wound up at the given time? That is our one object. I am simply stating what we want to provide. We want the manager or owner or agent to provide reasonable facilities for the men to go up and down.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We are all agreed about that.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The whole question is how it is to be done. I only wish to state, being responsible for the Bill, what it is we want to get done. We do not in the least want to overload the measure; we only want to secure reasonable terms in the Act. I do not think it is at all necessary to provide such drastic penalties, because, if this Bill passes, those who are responsible for the management of our mines, and those who are organised leaders of the men, are all reasonable, rational, and humane, and I have not the slightest doubt that they will work the Act in the right spirit. The only question is as to the occasional instances, the rare occasions, when a man might not come up from the mine at the proper time.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is that these words are necessary at all.
  MR. GLADSTONE: They are necessary at one time or another. Neither my
  838
  right hon. friend nor the Solicitor-General, as I am told, attach much value to these particular words; they thought that perhaps on the whole they would strengthen the clause and make plain its purpose. Neither of them says that the words are essential. I am quite prepared, having regard to our object, to give up these words.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. WATT*MR. WATT moved to leave out the words "for more than eight hours during any consecutive twenty-four hours" and to substitute the words "for more than forty-eight hours per week." The principle involved in the Amendment was precisely the same as the principle in the Bill, only the system adopted under his Amendment was that the limitation of hours should be forty-eight in the week instead of eight hours per day, amounting, of course, to the same number of hours per week. By the Amendment, however, a choice would be given to the men to take whatever days they liked in the week to work longer and to take whatever days they liked in the week not to work at all. The system that the men had adopted for some years had been the system of working four or five days in the week, and resting for one or two, or working four or five days in the week and having what was called a short day's work on the sixth day. If the House would refer to page 13 of the Report of the Committee which inquired into this matter, they would find that of all the localities which were mentioned on that page that had twelve days in the fortnight to work, there was only one of those localities which worked for the full twelve days, namely, the Forest of Dean, and he was told that that district was an exception in this respect, that it worked only during the winter months, and had practically a full holiday during the summer months. But of all the other districts in that list there was not one that worked during the twelve days of the fortnight, so that the system which had been in vogue and was in vogue at the present moment was that a holiday was taken in the fortnight in practically every district in the United Kingdom, and that in a great number of them two holidays were taken in the fortnight.

  839
  Under his Amendment they would be permitted to adopt that same system, and have days during the fortnight when they would not require to work. Moreover, the men at the present moment seemed to prefer this system, because within the last few weeks at the Tredegar pit, which the hon. Member for Mansfield knew well, the men met and asked of their employers that they should be allowed to reduce the hours of working on four days of the week, and to have the extra time added to the fifth day, indicating that the system of forty-eight hours working in the week would be more acceptable to them. Under the Amendment, too, the difficulty of the windings would be excluded. The windings of the men had led to considerable discussion and the question of the safety of the men under the rushing of these windings had been a moot point in all the discussions on the Bill. But by the system which he suggested the windings would not be included at all, and moreover the windings of the men would be fewer in number, because if they worked longer hours on some days of the week and shorter hours or not at all on others, the safety of the men would be provided for in that way. The weakness, he thought, which occurred in the clause was this, and reference had not often been made to it. If the eight hours system was insisted upon and carried into law, a peculiar result would take place. If for any cause the workmen were, say on a Monday morning, unable to go down at the usual time, six o'clock, and were delayed two hours, say by a shortage of trucks, which he understood was quite a common occurrence, under the Bill as it stood they would not be allowed to go down during the currency of that week earlier than eight o'clock. If they stayed down eight hours on that day they would work till four o'clock in the afternoon, and until twenty-four hours had elapsed from the time they went down they would not be permitted to go down again. That would be obviated by the adoption of the system of working forty-eight hours in the week instead of six days of eight hours.
  MR. HICKS-BEACHseconded. It seemed to him that this was one of the most desirable Amendments that could be
  840
  moved to the Bill, and that it would help to do away with some apparent difficulties that obviously would occur when the Bill had passed into law. If the House would refer to the Report of the Departmental Committee and look at page 13, they would find, as the hon. Member had pointed out, that in only one district, the Forest of Dean, were the miners accustomed to work for six days in the week, and that was due to the fact that the Forest of Dean coal was almost entirely house coal at present, and consequently there was a great demand for this coal in winter, and a small demand for it in summer, and the colliers only worked about three days in the summer time. If they would also refer to page 16 of the Report they would find that there was a very large amount of absenteeism in various collieries throughout the country on certain days of the week. For instance, if they would look at the Return at the bottom of page 16, they would find that on Monday there were 601 hewers at work in a certain district, and on Saturday there were 712, whereas in the middle days of the week, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, the number of hewers in each case went up to over 800 As to the mineral produced, whereas on Monday the total amount was only 1,200 tons, and on Saturday, 1,400 tons, on the other days of the week it went up to from 1,600 to 1,896 tons, which showed conclusively that in that district, at any rate, it was the custom of the miners to take a full day's work on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, end to have a whole day off perhaps on Saturday, or, at any rate, to work only a short time on Mondays and Saturdays. He could not help thinking that if the Bill was made to restrict the hours of labour in mines to a certain number in the week instead of a definite fixed number per day, it would be much more in consonance with the general desire and feeling of the miners themselves, because everybody knew that the miner was as fond of outdoor sport as anybody else, and he supposed the pit men in the North country were more fond of outdoor sport than any, other class. They would, he felt confident, much prefer to work for eight hours on four or five days in the week and to

  841
  get a whole day free, than to spend the greater potion of each day in the mines. He could not really see what serious objection there was to the Amendment. The object of the Bill was to prevent, he supposed, miners being down in the mine beyond a certain time. The Amendment left it open to be a matter of arrangement between the men and the masters. In certain districts they might prefer to work eight hours each day in the week. In other districts they might prefer to work ten on a certain number of days and six on others, or to have a day off altogether. There was nothing in the Amendment to prevent the various districts of the country carrying out the desires of the men in each mine. But what he thought was more important was that it would help a very great deal to solve the difficulty of the Durham and Northumberland miners. The Home Secretary told them yesterday that the difficulty in the case of the Northumberland and Durham miners was a very real one, and that there would have to be some special provision in the Bill, at any rate for six months or so, to enable the Durham miners and masters to come to some definite arrangement which would enable them to go on and work under the Bill. All these difficulties would be removed if the restriction of hours was limited to hours per week instead of hours per day. It would enable the coal-getters and the boys in Durham to go on working under their present arrangement, and without any hitch being produced by the Bill. It would, again, by removing coal windings from the operation of the Bill, enable the Forest of Dean collieries to be worked exactly on their present system. He most earnestly supported the Amendment, because it appeared to him to be in consonance with the ordinary habits and customs of the miners themselves, and even the House of Commons could not, by passing one measure at the end of an autumn session, radically change at once the manners and customs of all the miners throughout the country. He believed it would help the Bill to bring it into consonance with the feelings and desires of the miners, and by passing it in this form they would enable the miners in Northumberland and Durham to come under the Bill,
  842
  which, otherwise, it would be absolutely impossible for them to do.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 8, to leave out from the word 'purpose' to the end of the subsection, and to insert the words 'over forty-eight hours in one week.'"—(Mr. Watt.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'more than' stand part of the clause."
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Gentleman need be under no apprehension as regards this clause. He has said that if this Amendment were accepted it would settle the Durham and Northumberland difficulty, but it would not do even that. This Amendment provides for forty-eight hours work per week, but at the present time the boys in Durham and Northumberland work in the mines considerably longer than that. The limitation of hours per week is quite right in some classes of employment such as factories, but even under the Factory Acts there is a daily limit. In regard to coal mines I think it would be most dangerous and disadvantageous to allow men to work an unlimited number of hours per day in order to have two short days during the week. That is a very bad principle, and on that ground alone I could not assent to the Amendment. Of course, there is a great deal to be said for shortening the hours of labour by limiting the number per week. My second main objection to this Amendment is that it is not the Bill. It may, as a separate system, apply to this or that industry, but it is a totally different, proposal from the basis of this Bill. The basis of our Bill is an eight-hours day, and that is the short title of our measure. It is perfectly clear that the object and intention of this Bill is to provide for an eight-hours day, and if you substitute for that a provision giving forty-eight hours per week, then it is a different proposal altogether, and it would involve different rules. This Amendment is one which goes to the root of the principle of the Bill, Those are my two main objections, but I also object to the principle which allows miners to work ten, twelve, or even more hours underground at a stretch, and that is something which goes to the very root of this Bill.
  MR. JOYNSON-HICKSsaid he approved of the Amendment, and he was not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman had not seen his way to accept it. It did not, as the Home Secretary said, cut to the root of the Bill, so far as limiting the hours was concerned, but it did cut to the root of the position taken up by the Government that they and the miners' representatives were the persons to decide whether adult men were to be allowed to conduct their own business in mines in their own way. The Amendment meant a certain amount of freedom to the men themselves, and the object of the Government and the miners' representatives was to abolish all freedom on the part of the men who disagreed with them. He would not argue whether it would do away with the difficulties incurred, or with the difficulties in regard I to winding, but the Amendment did raise a question of vital importance, and that was whether, assuming it was desirable to make any curtailment in the hours worked in mines, the men, or any collection of men, were to be allowed the slightest freedom whatever in disposing of their own time, or whether this Government and the active leaders of the miners' trade unions were to become complete dictators of the way in which miners were to spend their working hours. There were obvious advantages in allowing a forty-eight hours week. That was the basis upon which the Factory Acts were worked, and it was the basis upon which the trade unions regulated their own hours, and there was a growing tendency in all sections of the community to have an off day on some day of the week. Under the provisions of the Bill these off days were entirely put off unless the men took a whole day off; there was a possibility of working ten hours one day, and having an off day on Saturday or Monday, unless the whole arrangements were upset by this clause. He appealed to the general body of opinion in the House, and to those hon. Members who were not altogether dominated by the fear of miners' votes. He suggested that this was an Amendment in favour of freedom, and the rejection of it was a distinct acknowledgment on the part of the Government
  844
  that they intended to leave the whole mining industry to the leaders of the miners' trade unions, who woulfl not allow men to say what number of hours they would like to work.
  SIR IVOR HERBERTsaid he wished to correct an impression that might arise from something that had been said by the mover of this Amendment. The hon. Member mentioned an application made by men working in the Tredegar pits for a reduction of the hours of winding to forty-eight hours a week, and the inference from that in the minds of hon. Members would be that the men in the pit favoured a forty-eight hours week rather than an eight-hours day. He rose to say, as one who was intimately connected with the coal-field referred to, and knew very well the feelings of the men there, that such an impression would be a together a false one. The representation made by those miners was in favour of a reduction of winding hours from fifty-four to forty-eight per week. It was a case of taking the best the men could get. Obviously the men there would wish to have a reduction from the long hours of winding which at present obtained, and would be willing to take forty-eight hours winding per week, but that was not the same thing as having an eight-hours day, which was what they desired. Perhaps it might be a step in the right direction had it been granted, but he wished to say in an emphatic manner that in that part of the South Wales coal-field this Amendment would give no satisfaction whatever.
  MR. J. F. MASONsaid he was not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman remained unmoved by the appeals made to him, but he was surprised that he did not regard more seriously the suggestion that the acceptance of the Amendment, or one very similar to it, would get him out of a difficulty. The Bill as it stood would be difficult of application in Northumberland and Durham. The hon. Member for Mid Durham, in his evidence before the Committee, brought out very clearly the injustice which would be done in that district by

  845
  the application of a rigid eight-hours day. Of course, under that system the hewers worked six and a half hours, and there were two shifts a day served by putters who worked for ten hours. The whole of that system must be upset if a rigid eight-hours day was applied, and it was quite evident that a fifty-hours week would leave the position as it stood, and enable them to work five days a week as they did now without altering their arrangements. But even a forty-eight-hours week would make such a small difference that its effect would be only to reduce the time of the putters by twenty minutes a day. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might give some further consideration to this proposal, and it would, at any rate, get the House out of a difficulty which, judging from his speech yesterday, he fully realised.
  MR. LUPTONsaid that if this Amendment were accepted, it would do away with the chief practical objections to the Bill and it would make its application throughout the country much more fair. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said it would get over the difficulty as regarded Durham and Northumberland. Under the Amendment the hauliers could work ten hours a day for four days, and they could have some men coming in on Tuesday who would work on up to the Saturday. Until they were wanted for hauling, they would be repairing, and when Friday came and the other men had finished their forty-eight hours, these men could come in from the repairing to finish off the shifts on Friday and Saturday. By means of the forty-eight hours a week plan, they got over the difficulty not only in the North of England, but in every other part of England. The House would be aware that the chief advantage which the Miners' Union hoped to get by the Bill was a reduction in the output of coal which would raise its price, and consequently wages. That, at any rate, was what the hon. Gentlemen below the gangway desired it to do. They thought that as a result of shorter hours they would have five or six men in the pit where they now had four, but a forty-eight hours
  846
  week would not give that advantage, for very few of the colliers worked forty-eight hours a week now. The Bill would not restrict their hours at all, on the average, throughout the country. The great aim of the Bill from the point of view of the Miners' Union would therefore be lost. It was said that the Bill would prevent men from working excessive hours. It could not be said that to be below ground forty-eight hours a week in our coal mines, which were well ventilated and carefully examined by inspectors from time to time, was an unhealthy life. He did not expect even that many of the hewers would be forty-eight hours a week underground if the Bill was passed. The forty-eight hours a week was a maximum, and he therefore hoped that the Government would accept the Amendment. The Home Secretary, in what he considered to be the interests of humanity, wanted to force a man down the pit six days a week so that he would put in more unprofitable time walking to and from his work, and injuring himself, when he might be far better employed above ground attending to his land, for some colliers had small holdings or engaged in some other occupation. It was said that in South Wales there were long hours; but why was that? It was because the men would not work the double shift system, and if the men would not work the double shift system they had to work long hours in order to keep up the output. As long as the single shift system was insisted on, the hewers would have to work long hours. Under the Amendment the mines would be enabled to maintain the output and they would escape the terrible results which would follow a shortage of fuel, which were too terrible to be imagined.
  MR. D. A. THOMASasked whether the Amendment was consistent with the title of the Bill, and if passed, would it not require the title of the Bill to be changed?
  MR. SPEAKER: There are six days in a week, and if you multiply six by eight you have forty-eight hours.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid he had pleasure in supporting the Amendment. The miners in the part of the

  847
  country with which he was best acquainted, that was South Yorkshire, had shown no enthusiasm for the Bill at all, but they would regard it as an improvement if the Amendment were accepted. They liked their liberty, and they preferred to work four or five days a week, and to have Friday or Saturday as a holiday. This they thought was a better system than working six days a week. Mining was said to be an unhealthy occupation. It was perhaps not one of the most pleasant or the most healthy occupations, but that was all the more reason why the men should continue to have their holidays at the end of a week. The Amendment would give that elasticity which he considered to be so desirable. He was very much astonished that the Members representing Northumberland and Durham were not supporting this Amendment, and were not speaking for it.
  AN HON. MEMBER: They will vote against it.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid that if the Amendment was fifty hours a week it would meet the case of Durham, for it would enable one shift of boys to work for ten hours on five days. He was astonished that the hon. Member for Mid Durham was not in his place supporting this Amendment, for it would exactly meet the difficulties he and his friends had had so much to say about in the House for years. This was the first occasion, and this was the first year, when they had not found these Gentleman speaking against an Eight-Hours Bill. The reason for that was that they were now under a certain amount of coercion. Being now in the Miners' Federation their mouths were sealed and they were not in their places to support this Amendment as they ought to be. It was his privilege to go to Newcastle to be present at the late bye-election there. He noticed then there was no enthusiasm shown for the Bill at all. They could not even get the miners to go on the platform and support the Radical candidate when he spoke in favour of the Bill, and to his great astonishment, he found that they had actually to get miners to come from Lancashire. The Newcastle election had shown that, in that
  848
  district at any rate, there was not much desire to see the Bill passed, for they could not get their own people to support it. If the Amendment was carried, it would give a certain elasticity of choice to the men. He supposed the Government wanted to satisfy the men, for the only reason that could be brought forward for the existence of the Bill was that the men had been coerced to ask for hours which they did not want.
  MR. LAMBTONsaid his hon. friend who had just sat down had commented on the fact that none of the Durham Members were there to support this Amendment. He supported it, but did not do so because he thought it was suitable to Durham. His belief was that Durham did not want any legislation at all. The coal owners and miners in Durham were quite able to settle their own affairs without the interference of Parliament. The hon. Member for Sleaford had on the previous day told them how free from accidents the coal-trade in Durham was, and said that the working of short hours was the greatest benefit in the world. The Home Secretary said that Durham and Northumberland were very highly organised.
  MR. GLADSTONE: What I said was that Durham and Northumberland stood by themselves.
  MR. LAMBTONsaid he thought that was the same thing. The right hon. Gentlemen said that Durham and Northumberland stood by themselves. That meant that they were very highly organised, and he did not see why he should wish to apply a Bill of this kind to them. They had got on very, well without this legislation, and he had never come across anybody who had asked for the Bill at all. The hon. Gentlemen below the gangway did not look upon him as representing the mining industry. There were, however, 3,000 or 4,000 miners in his constituency. Whether he represented them or not he did not know. He had never asked how they voted, and he only knew what had been the result of the poll. He had not received a single petition in favour of the Bill from them. They were not chary about expressing their opinions

  849
  in regard to other Bills, such as the Licensing Bill, but they had never asked him to support this Bill. The Amendment might meet the case of Durham it was said, but he did not think it quite would. The Amendment asked for a forty-eight-hours week. In Durham some men worked thirty-seven hours a week; another class worked forty-seven hours and some of the boys worked fifty-two hours or fifty-four hours a week. These were, lads whose work was not heavy. He was quite convinced that they were not very hard worked from the way in which they played football at the end of the week. As regards physique the Durham miners would compare favourably with those anywhere else. Ever since this matter had been before Parliament all the Members for Durham and Northumberland had opposed an Eight Hours Bill. The hon. Member for Wansbeck and the hon. Member for Mid. Durham had told the House on more than one occasion that the boys and men in Durham had not suffered physically or mentally from their work in the mines. Now it was proposed compulsorily to alter the whole system. That, he thought, was a most dangerous thing. Would the Home Secretary show him that the Bill would not cost more than 1s. a ton more in Durham and Northumberland? There 80 per cent. of their trade was export trade and this increase might seriously affect it. The right hon. Gentleman and his party had taken off the tax on exported coal, but they were imposing a new tax which would be put on at the pit mouth. The dislocation of trade caused by this might involve the loss to Durham and Northumberland of the whole of their export trade. He should support this Amendment because he thought it was better than the Bill, not because he thought it was good for Durham.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid the observation by his hon. friend who had just spoken that lads in Durham were not suffering from physical disease because they were experts at football, reminded him of a similar expression used nearly fifty years ago in the House by the right hon. Baronet who was then the Member for the county of Durham. At that time the
  850
  boys and men were working in the pit sixteen hours a day. The right hon. Baronet in opposing the Bill made the statement that the physique of the children was magnificent, and that he had seem them gambolling about like young lambs. Fortunately that argument did not prevail with the House of Commons, and boys of tender years were no longer permitted to go down the pits under the noisome and horrible conditions under which mining was carried on in those days. He need hardly say that he believed that there was no Member in the House who was more animated by humanitarian sentiments than, the hon. Member for South-East Durham, and that he would not be indifferent to the real interests of the children. He also was a Member for Durham, and although he could not speak with the authority of his hon. friend, at the same time this was a question to which he had given very long and earnest attention, and ever since he had been in the House of Commons, he had supported a general eight-hours day. He was quite sure of this, that the hon. Member for South-East Durham and the hon. Member for Wansbeck never did take up any attitude except that which they honestly conceived to be in the interests of the miners of Northumberland and Durham, and it was in that frame of mind that they expressed their hostility to the eight-hours measures formerly introduced. But there were many conditions about this Bill which might render it acceptable to those who formerly opposed the old Eight Hours Bill. The hon. Member for Wansbeck required no commendation from him, but he was perfectly certain that that hon. Gentleman was the last man in the world who would be coerced, and if there was any modification in his views, it reflected a modification of the views of his constituents. He had preached the doctrine of an eight-hours day in Durham for many years, and had met with considerable hostility because of it. His hon. friend who spoke last stated that the County of Durham did not want this Bill, and that the men there were strong advocates of forty-eight hours per week. But forty-eight hours a week would defeat the whole object of the Bill so far as the County of Durham was

  851
  country, was to do a wanton and indefensible thing. He hoped that the Government would earnestly consider this Amendment, not only in the interests of the coal trade, but to secure the welfare of all the interests involved. He had great pleasure in seconding the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 13, to leave out the words 'During the three years after the commencement of this Act.'"—(Mr. Beck.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'During the' stand part of the Bill'"
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not in any way complain of this Amendment, Looking at it from the point of view of the Opposition, I quite agree that the Amendment is a very reasonable and intelligible one; but I am afraid I cannot accept it. In the first place, I would like to deal with one or two points raised by the hon. Gentlemen opposite. Let me deal, first of all, with the point which he raised and endeavoured to make about my action upon the Committee. He says that the proposal which I made to make the period five years was rejected as such by the Committee.
  MR. BOWLES: Hear, hear.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member for Norwood says "Hear, hear," but I will tell the House what really occurred. I put down an Amendment to fulfil a promise which I made on the Second Reading to change the words in the first clause so far as to substitute a period of five years for the period of eighteen months. I put down that Amendment and in it, of course, occurred the words "five years." My hon. friends below the gangway representing mining constituencies, were very much opposed to this five years period because they thought it was an undue concession to make from their point of view, and when the question was pressed they voted against the words standing part of the Bill. The result was that an equal number—I think, putting it roughly, about fourteen on each side—voted for and against this proposal. Those who voted against it were not all hon. Members sitting opposite, because some of my own friends were against it, but an equal number of strong critics of
  852
  this Bill wanted to eliminate altogether my Amendment in order to make the exclusion of both windings permanent. On this point a number of my hon. friends joined forces with hon. Members below the gangway in opposing the question that those words stand part of the Bill. The result was that the Government were defeated, if I may say so, without offence, by this fortuitous combination of atoms. [Cries of "Oh!"] I pointed out to the Committee that the result of the division did not carry the weight it would have had if the Government had boon defeated on the Amendment upon its merits. I think my hon. friends below the gangway wanted a lesser period, but hon. Members opposite did not desire any figures at all inserted. The point is that that vote on the Committee did not carry any substantial unanimous wish of the Committee; in fact, it was really accidental, and all I am anxious is that the House should know the facts. When the five years period was knocked out the Committee was in an impasse, because there was a blank in the Bill, and if the Government had not given some advice, it would have been impossible to have agreed upon any proposal. As a matter of fact, there were something like six alternative proposals, and I had to recommend some course. The result was that, in order to fill in the blank, I recommended the acceptance of an Amendment proposing three years, and I stand by that Amendment now. Therefore, I think there is nothing in the point of the hon. Member, because it is merely one of the accidents which often happens under the Rules of the House. At that time I distinctly said that I was not committed to my Amendment, and that when the Bill returned to the House of Commons the Government would have to stand by their own proposals. The quotation from my speech which has been made by the hon. Member for Norwood was precisely the same as that which was made by the hon. Member for Dulwich, but I observe that the passage which has been road out must have been either my second or my third intervention in the discussion. I can easily explain what I meant at any rate. It is quite true that at all stages of this Bill I have dwelt on the necessity of guarding against any possible danger which might be accentuated by its passage. In the course of my observations I had to reply to the argument

  853
  would fall on the shoulders of the consumer. He was sure every Englishman had an innate love of liberty. It was one of the things they all felt strongly about, except, of course, the present Government. Miners were particularly fond of their liberty; they were a liberty-loving race. The hon. Member for North-West Manchester said that the Amendment meant freedom for the workers in the coal mines and allowed the men to arrange their own time. The Bill, as it stood, was going to deprive them of their rights and liberties.
  MR. HUNTsaid he had voted for the principle of the Bill, but he must say that he could not understand the Government not agreeing to this Amendment. After all, the men under the Amendment would only actually work on an average about seven hours a day; and that was very much less than was done in other occupations where there was distinctly hard manual labour. There was this also to be considered from the workman's point of view, that if a man lost two or three days from any cause, under the Bill he had no way of making up for them. He was tied up and must only work seven hours a day. He thought that was a very considerable curtailment of a man's liberty. He believed that when Liberal Members began to understand that they would not like it at all. The Amendment, in his opinion, would do away with a great many objections to the Bill, and it would give the men a very fair amount of freedom. If the Government would not accept the Amendment and give the men their freedom, they were going to tie them up very severely, and in his opinion they would not like it at all. He was sure that it would be very much better if, instead of practically tying down every man in every mine to what he might call perhaps a Government system, to which probably eventually he would very strongly object, some other course were adopted. He hoped the Government would consider this Amendment very seriously. The miners in his division were all in favour of an Eight Hours Bill, but he did not think, as far as he knew, that they would have any objection at all to this Amendment, and he was sure that in another part
  854
  of Shropshire it would be welcomed very much indeed, by at all events a very considerable number of men.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid that when this clause was under discussion in Committee, a statement of immense importance was made by the hon. Member for South Glamorgan, in reply to certain remarks of his on this question of forty-eight hours a week, which statement he thought ought to be placed upon the journals of the House in some way, there not being any Reports taken in Committee. The hon. Member for South Glamorgan stated definitely to the Committee that he gave a pledge that the miners of South Wales would work when this Bill was passed six days a week, and it was not the intention either of his constituents or of the Federation to prevent the miners working six days a week. For his own part, knowing the interest that miners in South Wales took in football he doubted whether they would work six days, but he thought that difficulty could perhaps be met to a great extent by altering the hours of work on Saturday morning. If he were not travelling outside the Amendment, he should like to say on the question of diminution, that he was sure, if his hon. friend and those associated with him would follow his advice as to double shifts, there would be no need for anxiety about South Wales. He should like to say a few words about the position of Durham. It seemed to him an extraordinary position that hon. Members should come and state that the Durham coalfield would be dislocated by an Eight Hours Bill. What was the position? He did not know a single coalfield in any part of the world where boys were worked longer hours than adults, and if it was possible in every other part of the world to work mines economically and well under another system, it was possible for the managers in Durham so to organise matters that the same difficulties which had been overcome by other bodies of men were overcome in Durham. He could not think that the House, which had so often dealt with the question of child labour, was going to allow children of thirteen years

  855
  of age to be employed in that way. Children of thirteen years of age could be employed under ground, though not above ground, and these children worked long hours in Durham. Surely that could not be for the advancement of the mining industry of that county, whatever the men might think, and he could not help thinking that that good sound common sense which all North Country men had would settle the matter if the men and the owners put their heads together. If they did that he was sure these difficulties would disappear. As to the Amendment, it would destroy the whole principle upon which this legislation was founded. The House had accepted the principle of an eight-hours day, and to permit the men to work twelve hours a day, as they could if this Amendment were accepted, would destroy the whole intention of the Bill.
  MR. GOULDING, in supporting the Amendment, said that with many others he greatly regretted that the Government had not seen their way to accept it. It would have given that elasticity to the Bill which would have enabled them to overcome a great many of the big obstacles which were introduced. The hon. Member who had just addressed them had stated that the hon. Member for Glamorgan said that the miners, so far as he knew, were not going to use their opportunities hereafter to try and reduce the number of days that they would work or in any other way to encroach upon the time that the Bill assumed that they would work. He did not doubt for one moment the bona fides of the hon. Gentleman, but he was perfectly certain that he would agree with him that representatives only spoke for the time they were representatives, and what the miners said to-day when this Bill was before Parliament they might materially alter at a later date under different circumstances, so that really that statement carried no weight whatsoever. What did carry weight was this. He believed there had been a meeting of the Federation of Miners at Chester within the last twelve months, and there it was desired by representatives of the miners to carry a resolution that they should not work more than five
  856
  days a week, and it took the intervention of the hon. Member for Hanley to prevent its being dealt with. He appealed to them not to hamper the Eight Hours Bill by unpleasant proposals of that sort, but to leave them by for a convenient opportunity. As a consequence, the miners there, acting under the strategic advice of the hon. Member for Hanley, did not proceed to deal with the five days a week resolution. Now the point which they had to consider more than any other that night was how this Bill was going to deal with the miners in Northumberland and Durham in regard to this very proposal. The Home Secretary said he opposed the Amendment for the forty-eight-hours week because it was dangerous. What the danger was he did not proceed to tell them. The only danger that he saw, as regarded the eight-hours day, was the inevitable result that wages would be reduced. Individuals could not earn sufficient to justify their present wage and consequently the cost of fuel must inevitably be increased to the vast majority of the people. If there was any danger with regard to forty-eight hours per week in reference to this work below ground, he should like to move as an addition to the Amendment the words "but not more than ten hours in any day," and that would put it out of the power of any of these individuals to work those hours which people considered deleterious to their health. It was a remarkable thing that, although this Eight Hours Bill affected so adversely the great counties of Northumberland and Durham, they had not had the presence that night of any of the eminent miners' representatives to speak of the clause as it stood. Many of them would remember that some of the most eloquent, powerful, and convincing speeches ever delivered on the floor of the House had been delivered by representatives of those miners against this very Bill. Such being the case they were without the evidence of what was the actual position of the miners in those two counties upon the proposal of a definite eight-hours day, and one was driven back to the only statistic before them, and that was that in the year 1903 the miners, by a majority of 17,000, gave an adverse vote against the Mines Eight Hours Bill. From that day to the

  857
  present the miners in Durham had never varied that result. That was their record, and their representatives were not there to say on their behalf whether they had changed their position in regard to it. Then they came to Northumberland. In Northumberland there had been a poll of the miners, and out of 46,000 only 18,000 took the trouble to vote, and on that vote a simple majority of 465 was declared in favour of the Bill.
  MR. JOHN WARD: What has this to do with the Amendment?
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. CALDWELL,): I wish to point out that the Amendment raises the question of whether there should be an eight-hours day or forty-eight hours a week, and the hon. Member must not stray beyond that.
  MR. GOULDINGsaid he was only going to explain to the House that forty-eight hours a week would naturally be more in accordance with the wishes of Durham and Northumberland than the strict limit of eight hours a day.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The question he is discussing is the opinion of the Durham and Northumberland miners on an eight-hours day. The House has already determined the principle of an eight hours day on the Amendment to leave out subsection (1). The present Amendment is whether the limit should be a daily limit of eight hours, or a weekly limit of forty-eight hours.
  MR. GOULDINGsaid he at once bowed to the Chairman's ruling, and he left that part of the Bill, but he desired to point out that if an eight-hours day was applied to these miners it would inflict a very great hardship which would be avoided if there was the elasticity which was given by a forty-eight-hours week enabling them to work not more than ten hours a day. In the evidence of the hon. Member for Mid Durham he stated that while the "putters" would have their hours reduced from ten to eight, the actual "getters" might have their hours increased
  858
  from six and a half to eight if they were to be able to keep up the output which was necessary to keep these men in employment. Surely it was not desired by any party gratuitously to curtail the amount of production that could be secured from any mine. He therefore desired to give that elasticity to these counties which they would have by a forty-eight-hours week. They would be able so to arrange the forty-eight hours in the week as to secure the greatest amount of output and consequently the greatest amount of employment. Lastly, he wished to refer to another point of importance. There were mines in which a miner had to travel a great distance before he got to his stall. Surely, it would be in his interests and to his advantage to enable him, when he reached that stall, to spend as much time there as possible and not use perhaps an hour each day, as might be the case with a simple eight-hours day, in getting there.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That question does not arise on this Amendment.
  MR. GOULDINGsaid he supported the Amendment on the grounds he had stated, moving, as he did, to add at the end "but not more than ten hours in any day."
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member's Amendment cannot be accepted at this stage. The question before the House is that certain words stand part, and until that is disposed of no new Amendment Can be moved.
  MR. GOULDING: May I not move an Amendment to the Amendment?
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: You can only move another Amendment if the words proposed to be left out are left out.
  MR. GOULDINGconcluded by saying he desired that this system should be secured for miners in these different localities where circumstances were peculiar and where they must be the best judges of what was advantageous to the industry to which they belonged.
  SIR F. BANBURYwas sorry the hon. Member for North Shropshire was not in this place, because he was always interesting in any role he took up, and he had taken up the role in this case of an innocent supporter of the Government, and appealed to them to accept the Amendment.
  SIR S. EVANS: Call him an half and half supporter.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he would like to point out to the hon. Member that when he was a half and half supporter he got no consideration from the Government, and he was going to press upon him the advisability of opposing the Government on principle. The hon. Member for Mansfield and the hon. Member for Durham had opposed the Amendment on the ground that boys should not be compelled to work long hours underground. The hon. Member for Mansfield said children of thirteen years of age should not be compelled to pass long hours underground. He quite agreed with him, and he did not believe there was a single man on that side of the House who would not agree that children of thirteen years of age should not be long hours underground. That, however, was not the object of the Amendment. The object of the Amendment was to provide that people generally employed in the mine—and there were a good many people employed besides children of thirteen years of age—should be allowed to work forty-eight hours in one week. If the hon. Member would bring in a Bill to exclude children from working above a certain number of hours underground, he would support him, but his arguments were hardly apposite to the question before the House. The same remark applied to the hon. Member for Durham. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, interrupting the hon. Member for Worcester, said he opposed the Amendment on the ground that it would permit men to work twelve or fourteen hours a day. He presumed the reason he objected to it was because he thought that would be deleterious to their health. He would however point out that there was nothing to prevent men working twelve or fourteen hours a day now. They did not do it,
  860
  and they did not do it because they were combined in a powerful organisation and could practically choose the hours they worked without any interference from anybody. He thought he might venture to say that that argument—he did not wish to use any offensive language, and he would put it midly—was a foolish one, and one which would not bear investigation. What was the real argument for the Amendment? It was that it would enable the men to have a holiday once a week. They could earn good wages in forty-eight hours, and at the same time secure to themselves on the sixth day a holiday. He did not pretend to have an intimate acquaintance with miners, although he had taken a good deal of interest in this subject, and especially when he was on the Grand Committee, but as far as he knew, the habit of the miner was, if possible, to have one day in the week on which he could play football and take part in any other sports, and enjoy himself. That was a very strong argument for supporting the Amendment. He had never been in a mine himself, but he quite admitted that in order to get to their place in the mine the miners had to go through difficulties and discomforts. The Amendment would allow them to work nine and a half hours in five days, and would give them the power on the sixth day to enjoy themselves. All of them in that House who had any knowledge of human nature must admit that when a man had once started upon his day's labour, it was much more to his interest to spend nine or ten hours at that labour and to get a whole day off, than to spend a smaller number of hours over that labour every day in the week. He saw the Chairman of the Departmental Committee opposite, and he thought he would confirm, him when he said that the Report of that Committee remarked upon the absence of men, and bore out the fact that they did not want to work every day in the week. If the Amendment were not carried, unless the miner changed his whole nature and became a machine who would work readily for eight hours every day in the week—a thing he had never done in the history of mines—he would have to do one of two things: he would either have to lose wages which

  861
  he was already earning, or he would have to go to his trade union and ask them to increase the amount paid per ton of coal. He did not think there could be any doubt as to what he would do. He would go to his trade union and say: "I do not want to work eight hours for six days in the week; I am not allowed to work forty-eight hours in five days, and I must, therefore, ask you so to increase the piece-work price I am paid for getting out a ton of coal, that the result will be the same to me, and I shall be able to work five hours and get the same wage as I do, now that I work longer hours." The result which would follow under those circumstances was evident. There would be a great rise in the price of coal, and a very large amount of restriction would be placed upon the manufacturing community. He did not want to go into the evils which would follow that. Everybody in the House knew what they were, though he did not think the country outside realised it. If the Amendment were carried, it might be possible to avoid all that, and to go on with the same system they had now without that dislocation which he believed would follow if the Bill passed without the Amendment. He should, therefore, for those reasons, have much pleasure in supporting the Amendment. This was evidently, in no way, a party question. The Amendment had been moved, and he believed had been supported by hon. Gentlemen opposite. If the Solicitor-General considered his hon. friend the Member for North Shropshire a half-and-half supporter, he did not think he would consider the mover of the Amendment one. He therefore, appealed to him to give that consideration to his own supporter which he refused to his hon. friend.
  MR. BOWLESwas not surprised, particularly after their experience upstairs, that the Home Secretary had found it impossible to accept the Amendment, but he was rather surprised at what he considered the extremely singular reasons which the right hon. Gentleman gave for the course he was taking. So far as he could understand the right hon. Gentleman, the Government had only
  862
  two reasons against the Amendment. First of all the right hon. Gentleman said, with a great appearance of solemnity, that he could not possibly agree with the Amendment because it was not the Bill. Of course, it was not the Bill. He did not see how an Amendment could be the Bill. The whole point of an Amendment was that it was not the Bill, and, when the right hon. Gentleman with a serious face stood up at the box and set forth as a serious reason for not accepting the Amendment that it was an Amendment and not the Bill, he was bound to say he was taking up a singular position for a member of the Government. The Amendment would make the system they were setting up in one of the most important industries of the country elastic and make it apply fairly and equally all over the country. It would make the Bill apply fairly and equally over the whole of the coalfield, and it would carry out the objects of hon. Gentlemen equally as well as they were carried out in the Bill as it now stood. It would achieve that result all through fairly and equally as between man and man and as between master and man. The Government throughout, both in the House and upstairs, had insisted upon an absolutely cast-iron and rigid rule which was to apply up and down the country to all mines of which the conditions varied. It must be quite clear to any reasonable men that any such attempt as that was an attempt which they ought not to make except upon the clearest and the gravest grounds. Upon what grounds were they invited to make that attempt? The right hon. Gentleman had given them as a reason, and it was all they had heard against the principle of the Amendment, that if it were adopted there would be nothing to prevent people working under their present system. That was to say, that they would work longer hours than eight on certain days in order to get off-days on other days of the week. What did that mean? If that objection had any meaning, it meant nothing else than that in those collieries where at present off-days existed those off-days under the operation of this Bill would cease if the Amendment came into operation. It must mean that; it could not mean anything else. He asked the

  863
  Solicitor-General, who had every qualification to answer, to give them an explanation. The hon. and learned Gentleman was a Welsh Member, well-acquainted with coal mines, and he was also a member of the Government. He asked him whether the Home Secretary meant the House to understand by his objection to the Amendment what was the only meaning he could put upon his words, that if the Bill became law one effect of it would be that, in those districts where there was a system of working longer hours in order to get off-days or short days, that system was to be given up; in other words, that where, for instance, the men worked nine hours a day for tour days a week in order to have two days off, that system was to be replaced by a rigid system of eight hours day by day. Surely there was no theory about a matter of that sort. It was a practical question. The Government had invited them to pass a rigid cast-iron system for the whole of the collieries of the country, but he would respectfully ask, and he thought they were entitled to know, what was the real object of the Government? If the right hon. Gentleman and the Government really meant that off-days ought to cease, and that every man was to earn the same amount of money by working every day of the week, although shorter hours on each day, then that ought to be explained. He very much doubted whether hon. Gentlemen below the gangway agreed with the Government in the slightest degree in that interpretation. If he might respectfully say so, the House had been deprived of all sorts of information which they alone, according to their asseverations, both upstairs and downstairs, were competent to afford. This was a purely practical matter, and he would like to ask hon. Gentlemen below the gangway whether they agreed with the Home Secretary in his statement to the House that the Amendment must be resisted, because if it were to be accepted it would put an end to the system he proposed, namely, that off-days which were secured by working longer hours on certain days was to be given up. The Government were asking them to press upon the great district of Northumberland and Durham, where
  864
  they worked under a system entirely different from that in other districts, the same rigid, cast-iron rule. Surely they were entitled to know whether this system of eight hours a day, day by day and no more, was going to be worked in Northumberland and Durham. In spite of what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman, he submitted that if the Amendment were adopted it would really substantially and practically meet the difficulty in the counties of Northumberland and Durham. But if the Government said that was not so, then what they wanted to know was, how, in their opinion, the Bill was going to work in practice in Northumberland and Durham.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. CALDWELL): The hon. Member will remember that he is occupying a considerable time in putting questions that have already been asked by several hon. Members.
  MR. BOWLESsaid he was well aware of that, but those questions had not been answered. Of course if they had been answered, he would not have repeated them.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The mere fact that a question has not been answered is no reason for continued repetition by subsequent speakers.
  MR. F. E. SMITH: Is my hon. friend not entitled to put questions, though already addressed to the Government, to which in his belief, and in our belief, no adequate answer has yet been given?
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No, I do not think he should continue to repeat questions. If the Government wish to answer they will answer. But it is against the rules of debate in this House to continue repeating questions and arguments which have been repeatedly pub and advanced by previous speakers.
  MR. BOWLESsaid he, of course, bowed to the ruling, but he would like an answer to two very short questions. The Solicitor-General well knew, and it had been constantly repeated in the debates, that at the present moment the system in Northumberland and Durham

  865
  was six and a half hours a day. If the Amendment were carried were they to go on working six and a half hours a day, or were they to work longer? Surely, the Government must have considered this matter. If so, what was the result of their consideration? If hon. Gentlemen below the gangway had not considered this point he ventured to suggest that they ought to do so. Was the six and a half hours a day in Northumberland and Durham to be continued or not? Or were those hours to be increased? He thought it was extremely important that they should know. That was a simple question which had not yet been asked, and on which the Amendment turned. Then there was the question of the boys in Northumberland and Durham. They had days off, and they wanted to know whether the days off of those boys would be continued if the Bill came into operation in its present form. He left the question of Durham and Northumberland, merely observing that they had no intelligible theory from the Government as to how the Bill, as it stood, if the Amendment were not carried, would affect that great coalfield. They had been told that the great advantage of proceeding in this matter by way of legislation was that it would avoid disputes and strikes in the trade. He said that if the Government really wished to bring into operation the real principle of the Bill, if it were indeed a real principle, namely, to increase the opportunities for leisure of the mining community with less risk of disputes and strikes, they would do it by accepting the Amendment, and by preserving elasticity and variety in the system which they were attempting to apply to the whole country. He submitted, in the absence of any explanation as to how they were going to meet the practical difficulties raised by the Bill as it stood, the House of Commons would be taking upon itself a very serious responsibility if it agreed to this measure in its present form, and without accepting the Amendment.
  MR. FELLsaid there could be no doubt that the Amendment was entirely in harmony with the spirit of the time. The tendency of the present day was in every case to concentrate labour, to work longer hours,
  866
  and to concentrate oneself more upon one's work for a short while so as to have a holiday at the end of the week. He had noticed how this had increased in every quarter, and how entirely different our habits and wants were now compared with what they were twenty years ago. If they constituted an eight-hours day every day of the week they would be putting the clock back, and they would not get Englishmen to do it. They might pretend that pitmen were going to work eight hours a day every day of the week, but it was not true. They did not mean to do it. There was not the slightest idea that they were going to do it. Though he was not practically acquainted with mines he had seen many of them, and had examined the facts in connection with them, and his examination went to show that the men in the mines should not work more than about four and a half days a week. To suggest that instead of working four and a half days a week, the men should work every day in the week was to change the habits of the whole of those men, and he was sure that they were not going to do it by Act of Parliament. They would find that when they put this change into actual operation it would not operate in the manner they expected. The Amendment would enable the old and nearly worked-out mines to be worked to advantage. There was no dispute about that; and it would also enable old men to do their work. To suggest that for the men to walk to and from their work, occupying a considerable time, and to be at their work only for a short period, would be a profitable and economical mode of working was an illusion. The further a man had to go to work naturally the longer it took him to get there, and when he was there, naturally he wished to remain longer at his work in order to make it more profitable. In another colliery where it took only a quarter of an hour to go down, they would work nine hours a day. It was admitted on all sides that old collieries would not be able to continue working if they had this rigid eight hours a day for what was suggested would be six days in the week. It did not require them at this time of day to say that business and work was now done under

  867
  higher pressure than it used to be. They could not make men become plodding machines instead of men who were doing actively all they could positively do and making the largest amount of money they could in the shortest time. To suggest that they should do this at the present day was beyond comprehension. They would not care to work slowly on every day at a moderate amount. They would do as all men were doing, put on the steam and work as hard as they could for about four days in the week and then take a holiday, and he did not grudge them that holiday. Far from it. If this Bill would give them that holiday he would be only too delighted if they could enjoy it with plenty of money in their pocket. But if they worked eight hours, and still took their holiday, they would not have the money in their pocket. They would take it all the same but they would have less money to spend when they had a holiday. He heartily supported the Amendment, and believed there was none which had been proposed more in accord with the spirit of the times.
  MR. RIDSDALEsaid he did not often trouble the House—on the few-occasions when he did he was very sorry for his auditors—but he conceived it his duty to support this Amendment. On this occasion he had listened with considerable patience to a large part of the debate, and had heard serious arguments addressed to the Home Secretary, the Law Officers of the Crown, the Under-Secretary of the Home Office or whoever might be in the position of defending the Bill, but he had listened in vain for any answer to them. In addition to commenting on the silence of those in charge of the Bill he might be allowed at the same time to say that those hon. Gentlemen who were mainly interested in the success of this Bill had also been conspicuous for their silence. What did the Amendment propose? It proposed to introduce into the cast-iron system of eight hours per day a certain amount of elasticity. It allowed the number of hours to be the same per week as the more rigid proposals of the Government, and it allowed a certain amount of liberty to the individual colliers that they should work rather
  868
  more than eight hours on one day and rather less on another day. He could not conceive any Government really seriously wishing arbitrarily to limit the discretion of a man as to whether he should work a longer or a shorter period on one particular day than another. There was no principle involved. Was there any extraordinary quality in the figure 8, that it must be applied to every one of the days of the week, and not extended to nine on some and diminished to seven on other occasions? If there was any argument for the Bill, which he occasionally doubted, surely if the number of hours worked per week was the same under each method, the best method to adopt was the one that gave the most elasticity and liberty to the individual. He had listened to the right hon. Gentleman and the reasons why he would not accept the Amendment. The first reason he gave was that it was not the Bill. A more admirable reason in support of the Amendment he had never heard. It was an Amendment proposed in older to give liberty to the various men as regarded the hours they worked on a particular day, and it was designed to extend that liberty as far as possible. He could not understand why it should be in the mind of the Government to restrict the liberty of the men to this absolutely arbitrary period of eight hours. There was nothing more in eight hours than there was in eight and a half or seven. Then the second reason given was that actually these wrong-doing men might on certain days of the week have the iniquity to work for ten or perhaps twelve hours in order to get off for a holiday on the last day of the week—a most monstrous thing for any collier or anyone of His Majesty's subjects to perpetrate. Was that argument put forward seriously? They were the only two arguments they had heard from the Government bench against this proposal. If, as they heard originally, the case in favour of the miner was that it was a dangerous occupation, and that to spend more than eight hours a day in the mine incurred a certain amount of risk as the hon. Member for Merthyr said, that argument was met entirely by this extension of the time to forty-eight hours for a whole week, and they had the additional advantage of

  869
  allowing these men to have a certain discretion with regard to the splitting of the hours he was to work in any one day. He was not entitled, as his hon. friends below the gangway would at once inform him, to speak on behalf of the miners in any respect, but it seemed to him to be an impossible position that any man, be he a collier or anyone outside the four walls of an asylum, should not wish to have the power, at any rate, whether he exercised it or not, so to divide up his time that he might work a little longer at one period or a little shorter at another. In that House they had not a cast-iron system by which they were always there at a quarter to three and left at eleven o'clock. There was a certain amount of discretion. Unfortunately he was there until 3.30 that morning, and had only three hours sleep, but he felt he had been exercising his individual liberty, and, as he thought, trying to do a little good for the country in preventing this Bill getting through, and he intended to sit up for the rest of the night if necessary to achieve that object.
  SIR S. EVANS: The last observation the hon. Member made was that he conceived it to be his duty, not only to his constituency but to the country, to do his best by all the means at his hand to prevent the Bill becoming law. That was the whole tenour of his speech. But I do not think I heard a single piece of argument in the course of the speech in favour of the Amendment now before the House except the mere phraseology which he used that there ought to be elasticity. Let me test the hon. Member and see whether he is honest in supporting the Amendment. He is perfectly honest in his opposition to the Bill, but is he honest in supposing the Amendment? He wishes to give full liberty to anyone to work as long and under what conditions he likes. Just as he has enjoyed thoroughly the liberty of staying in this House for twenty-one hours out of the twenty-four, and only enjoyed three hours sleep—and some of us would have preferred that he had indulged in a little more—so he thinks every collier in every coal mine in the country, whatever the state of things in the colliery was and whatever the danger
  870
  was to him and whatever the consequences to his health if he was foolish and selfish enough to work all these hours, ought to be allowed, in the exercise of his full liberty as an Englishman, to spend any quantity of time he likes underground. Let me put to him one or two questions and see whether or not he has even grasped the Amendment. A man works forty-four hours on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. Admirable, according to the hon. Gentleman. He ought, therefore, to be allowed to work ten hours on the Friday.
  MR. RIDSDALE: That makes fiftyfour.
  SIR SAMUEL EVANS: Exactly. And the Amendment is that he must not work more than forty-eight. That is exactly what I was pointing out to the House, and the hon. Member has not thought fit to grasp the meaning of the Amendment.
  MR. RIDSDALE: If I might interrupt, I have endeavoured to make clear that under the Government Bill it would be eight hours for six days which makes, in my view, forty-eight hours, and that under the Amendment there were forty-eight hours, but there was the power to any man to work ten hours on one day and take off the extra number on the next.
  SIR SAMUEL EVANS: The hon. Member was speaking in favour of an Amendment to limit the hours of working of colliers to forty-eight a week. That is the Amendment. I put to him this, that if they are entitled to work, as he thinks they ought to be, eleven hours for the first four days, why, according to his theory, should they be prevented from working more than four on the fifth occasion.
  MR. RIDSDALE: By your Bill of which we have accepted the Second Reading.
  SIR SAMUEL EVANS: The Second Reading of this Bill is that we are not regulating the hours per week, but regulating the hours per day, and if the hon.

  871
  Member had as much regard as he pretends to have for the principle of the vote on the Second Reading, that is the principle underlying the Bill. He said lots of questions have been put, and not answered. No questions have been put which have not been answered from this side of the House. No question of a legal character has been put to me in the course of the Amendment. The real reason why we did not think it necessary to get up — I am rather sorry I am up now—is that we want to see the Bill pass into law. The real reason of his getting up is not to support the Amendment, but to prevent the Bill becoming law. The principle of the Bill is that we want to attempt to regulate the hours per day, and in doing that we think we are doing what is good for the people of the country and for the people engaged in this industry. It is not good to encourage a man to do injury to himself for three or four days in the week, and to go on holidays or some other expedition on two other days of the week. It is bad for the industry, bad for the employer, and bad for the men. It is right, not merely from the point of view of safety, but of the industry in every direction, that it should have as much regularity as possible in the working of the colliery and in the output from the colliery, that in that way you regulate the hours of the men themselves working in dangerous conditions, and enable the enlightened employers also to show to their customers what they are able to produce day after day. It will not be spasmodic or sporadic. So far as we can we are regularising the method of working, and I am very pleased to see the workmen and their leaders are putting upon themselves self-restraint in this matter. I do not think we are right to say: "Why not enjoy your life when you can." It is better, in their interest, in the interest of the families and of the great industry in which they are engaged, that there should be as far as possible, a limitation of hours and a regulation of the industry so that the employer may know what the output will be.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid he wished to enter his
  872
  protest against the speech made by the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down. When one of the supporters of the Government got up and had the courage fairly and squarely in face of a hostile audience freely to criticise the Bill the Government bench refused to answer his criticism.
  MR. THOMAS RICHARDSsaid they were all answered in Committee upstairs over and over again.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSONclaimed to move "That the Question be now put."
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid that no explanation of this proposal had been vouchsafed to them from the front Government bench, and the only excuse given to them was that an answer had been given to the questions in the Committee upstairs. [Cries of "Question."] That was the reason why he had risen to protest against the speech of the Solicitor-General. The only reply they got was that the Amendment went against the spirit of the Second Reading of the Bill, and to prove this the Solicitor-General went to the trouble of reading the heading of the Bill or rather the short title. But the hon. and learned Gentleman never said a word about limiting the hours of work per day. The object of the Bill was "to amend the Coal Mines Regulation Acts for the purpose of limiting the hours of work below ground." Not one word was said there as to whether those hours were per day or per week. When the Law Officer of the Crown was forced to get up and reply to a Member of his own party in that way, the Liberal Government must be hard driven for an argument. He did not propose to discuss further the merits of this particular Amendment, because it had been made abundantly clear that a man ought to be allowed to work ten hours a day for so many days, and so many days at a lesser number, providing he did not make the total more thin forty-eight hours per week. If hon. Members voted for the Amendment as he proposed to do, it did not follow that they were unfavourable to a restriction upon the hours of labour in mines. The Amendment was

  873
  a great improvement upon what was proposed in the existing Bill, and the arguments used in favour of it had been unanswered. He should not have intervened at all in the debate only he desired to protest against the suggestion that by the Second Reading they had been in any way bound upon this question.
  MR. MARKHAMclaimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid that those Members of the House who were not members of the Grand Committee had no opportunity of hearing the arguments on this question, and now it was being claimed that the House ought not to be allowed to have the full benefit of those arguments. He thought the learned Solicitor-General was not quite right in saying that the Amendment was contrary to the spirit of the Bill. It had already been pointed out that the title in no way limited it. In the only precedent which the learned Solicitor-General brought forward earlier in the evening, namely, the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1877, there was a provision limiting the hours of work for boys and girls to fifty-four per week. Therefore, a week had been considered to be the natural term. If they turned to the Report upon which this Bill was founded they would find further evidence in favour of that contention. Therefore, the week was a term which had always run through these proposals in connection with limiting hours in coal mines. It was desirable to ask what were the number of hours which the Government believed the miners were going to work? They were told eight hours per day, and of course most people who did not know took the eight hours and multiplied it by six, imagining they were going to have a forty-eight hours week, and by that method they judged the output of coal. When they looked at the Report which had been issued they found that under the present system there was not going to be any reform whatever. It was just as well to make it perfectly clear that there was no chance of the eight hours per day being worked. Therefore, they should adhere to what was really the principle of the Bill, that was a forty-eight hours' working week per colliery.
  874
  If they desired to limit the hours per day to ten as was done in connection with boys and girls under the Act of 1877, he had no objection, and he thought that would be rather an improvement upon the Amendment. But so far as the forty-eight hours was concerned it was distinctly within the limits of this Bill. It was a reduction from fifty-four hours, and, therefore, the argument just put forward by the hon. and learned Solicitor-General ought not to weigh with them in coming to a conclusion on this Amendment.
  MR. BECKsaid he wished to associate himself with the speech which his hon. friend had made. They had now got a step further in the progress of the Bill. With regard to what the learned Solicitor-General had said, all he wished to say was that if he expected to have his theory of an even number of hours each day put into practice, he would have his hands full. He had before him the hours actually worked in the coal mines. In Monmouthshire the number fell short of eight full days in a fortnight, and in Swansea the same thing occurred, and so they might go on with other districts where they got one idle day and then a full day, and so on throughout the whole colliery district. He understood from the speech of the Solicitor-General that he disapproved of this practice, and approved of a regular daily number of hours of work. But how could a colliery proprietor calculate what would happen everyday of the week? What they were arguing was that the principle of an eight-hours day of work was carried out by a forty-eight hours week, and the men would have a certain amount of liberty—that liberty was no doubt hostile to the Bill—but they did not approve of the spirit of the Bill, and they thought that the men should be at liberty to divide the forty-eight hours per week up in anyway they please. He remembered talking over this subject with a gentleman interested in the question, who said that the only argument against it was that the Socialist Party had pledged themselves to a system of "eight hours work, eight hours play, eight hours sleep, and 8s. a day." He suggested that "forty eight hours work, forty-eight hours play, forty-eight hours sleep, and 48s, pay"

  875
  would look just as imposing upon a poster. It was trifling with the House to use arguments such as those they had heard from the front bench in regard to one of the most important Amendments moved in the course of the debate. For these reasons he should heartily support his hon. friend's Amendment if he pressed it to a division.
  SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid he had listened to the debate with a desire to learn what were the real arguments on which the Amendment was resisted. He thought the House had some right to learn from those who so repeatedly told them that they represented the working classes what were the real reasons which they suggested in support of the resistance which was being offered to the Amendment. Looking at the question fairly and impartially he could not see that the action of those who were opposing the Amendment was in any way in the interests of those they represented. They denied the right of any one section of the House to do that. They were just as anxious to look after the interests of all classes, including the class which hon. Gentlemen below the gangway thought they specially represented, as they were. They had been deprived by a conspiracy of silence on the part of hon. Members from hearing the arguments of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway. Being deprived of hearing their arguments they had had to be content with the arguments which had been put forward by the Solicitor-General. In his opinion, they could not have had greater travesty of argument than the travesty which the learned Gentleman gave of the arguments of the hon. Member for Brighton. He had said that they were bound in consistency to hold that a man ought to work more than forty-eight hours a week because they said in certain circumstances they would allow him to work ten hours on one or two days. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that if they allowed that they could not consistently object to a regula rten-hours day. He did not think that he was misrepresenting his argument when he said that, for when the hon. Member for Brighton argued that a ten-hours day might be allowed on one or two days a week, the hon.
  876
  and learned Gentleman said that he was entirely inconsistent if he denied a man the right to work ten hours on every day. That was not the argument they put forward. They said the restrictions on the hours of labour were necessary, but it did not follow they must compress the limit of time to be worked into each twenty-four hours. The hon. Member for Yarmouth had rightly pointed out that it was against human nature that the workmen should submit to the slavish restriction imposed by the Bill. Not only was it against human nature, but he did not think that such a restriction was an ideal at which they should aim. Was it not the case with all who had worked hard in their time that they had repeatedly put on a spurt and worked longer hours in order to have a holiday? Would they like to be restricted to eight hours a day? Had they not occasionally—every one of them in their various occupations—worked more than eight hours a day in order to be able to have a holiday? Why should those who claimed alone to speak for the working men wish to impose this hard and rigid fetter on the working men? This was a fetter which they would not be prepared to accept for themselves. It was perfectly clear to every one who had listened to the way these Amendments had been resisted by the Government without argument, and without any reason for their refusal, that the aptitude for restriction grew on what it fed on. Now they were trying to impose restrictions on adult labour.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. CALDWELL): The hon. Member must not make a Second Reading speech.
  SIR HENRY CRAIK: I am speaking strictly to this Amendment.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is possible to speak to the Amendment and at the same time to make a Second Reading speech.
  SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid that presently they would have restriction applied not only to the day, but also to the hours of the day. They would say that at a certain hour a man must begin his work, that at a stated

  877
  hour he must finish his work, that at a certain hour he must take his meals. Was that what the working men of the country wanted? Did they want a hard and fast rule as to when they should work and when play, when they should eat and when they should sleep? He was glad to dissociate himself from the future they were making for the working men of this country.
  MR. RUSSELL REAsaid his objection to this Amendment was that it was practically impossible to carry it out. How were they to restrict a man's weekly work to forty-eight hours? Was a man to carry forty-eight tickets which he was to give up hour by hour, or how did they propose it was to be done? Hon. Gentlemen opposite knew nothing about the matter. If a man was to be allowed to work thirteen hours one day, ten hours another day, and two hours on a third day, how was the colliery to be worked? Was a colliery to be worked sixteen hours a day in order that certain of the men might please themselves when they should work and when they should not?
  MR. G. D. FABER: How is it worked now?
  MR. RUSSELL REAsaid it was not worked with any such liberty as hon. Gentlemen opposite had implied. If they restricted the work in a colliery to forty-eight hours a week as regarded the machinery and the engines, they simply got an eight-hours day. The proposal which had been made would be found to be absolutely impracticable in practice, and an eight-hours day was the only possible method of regulating this industry with any degree of sure-ness that they would succeed.
  MR. BELLAIRSsaid he should not have risen had it not been for the severe attack which the Solicitor - General had made on the hon. Member for Brighton. It had become necessary in consequence of that attack that every one of those who agreed with the hon. Member for Brighton should associate themselves with what he had said. He claimed the right, though he thoroughly disapproved of the Bill, to vote for this
  878
  Amendment, because he thought it would effect an improvement in the clause. He had been one of those who felt to a certain extent ignorant with regard to this measure. He thought they were entitled to have full answers from the Treasury bench on the questions which had been asked notwithstanding the proceedings in Committee upstairs. He had come into the debate many times and had been waiting to hear the voice of hon. Members who represented the miners. He was one of those who did not see the necessity for nursing a great industry which had something like 600,000 trade unionist members. He wanted to know what the representatives of the Durham mining industry thought in regard to this matter. Did they think that the Durham miners could not protect themselves although they had a trade union which in 1906 had an expenditure of £94,000?
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. CALDWELL): The hon. Member is not addressing himself to the Amendment. The Amendment is whether it is to be an eight-hours day or a forty-eight-hours week.
  MR. BELLAIRS: The principle of an eight-hours day was discussed on the Second Reading debate.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: This Amendment only deals with the question whether it shall be an eight-hours day or a forty-eight hours week.
  MR. BELLAIRSasked how was it then that comparisons had been drawn, and that they had had appeals by those who claimed the monopoly of humanitarian sentiment on this very question. The Solicitor-General had referred to the question of the health of miners, and he claimed a right to speak in regard to this and the other subjects that had been raised. Why were they applying this clause providing an eight-hours day to miners on the ground of health, when the health statistics proved conclusively that the health of the men was very good? They were told then, an eight-hours day would reduce the number of accidents, but he found that in 1907—
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not make a Second Reading speech.
  MR. BELLAIRSsaid he had been trying to follow the example of the Treasury bench, but in consequence of that ruling, he should defer his remarks to the Third Reading of the Bill. At the same time he thought the Government ought to give them some guidance in regard to this question.
  MR. BONAR LAW: I do not understand why there should be so much objection to the discussion of what is undoubtedly one of the most important points raised in the whole Report stage of the Bill. The point I have risen specially to refer to is the speech of the hon. Gentleman who was the Chairman of this Committee. I am bound to say that when he rose I expected to find some solid, tangible, arguable reasons given why this Amendment should not be accepted, but all that he said was that it is impossible. He said that to have a forty-eight-hours week will mean an eight-hours day. Has he absolutely forgotten his own Report? If he will look at the Report given by his own Committee he will find that the hours per week are often systematised in such a way that the length of the day varies. He says it is impossible to have a forty-eight-hours week without an eight-hours day, but it is known to everybody that this system does prevail.
  MR. RUSSELL REA: What I say is that this cannot be done at the caprice of an individual.
  MR. BONAR LAW: I did not hear anyone make any suggestion that that should be the case. I ask again, what possible reason is there why this law should be applied to mines, unless hon. Gentlemen who are interested in this case are not merely desirous of rushing the Bill through to-night, but have some other ulterior purpose. If the hon. Gentleman will consider for a moment he would see that there is a strong economic reason which should make this Amendment much more suitable for mines. In mines there are cases where the individual miner has
  to get to the bottom of the shaft, and then has to walk an hour to his work, and an hour back when he has finished his work. Would not that man prefer to spend that useless time three days a week in the open air even if he has to work longer on two days a week? I say, without question, that every argument that makes this a good principle for factories makes it an equally good principle for mines.
  MR. SHACKLETON: There is a daily limit in factories. That is the point.
  MR. BONAR LAW: Does the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State say that there is not a weekly limit in factories?
  MR. GLADSTONE: There is a daily limit.
  MR. BONAR LAW: Is there not a weekly limit?
  MR. SHACKLETON: There must be. You cannot have a daily limit without a weekly limit.
  MR. BONAR LAW: The obvious point for which we are fighting is that a man should be allowed, if he chooses, to work longer hours from Monday to Friday in order to have a half-holiday on Saturday. I say that a man should have a right to decide whether the forty-eight hours to be worked each week should be graduated over all the days of the week. There is no reason whatever for pressing the scheme embodied in the clause in this rigid form. It has received the support of a great many hon. Members as a first step in what the President of the Board of Trade has described as a great onward movement; and it is for that reason that they support it and not for the sake of the miners.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 225; Noes, 57. (Division List No. 413)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Balcarres, Lord

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Beale, W. P.

  Agnew, George William

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Hogan, Michael

  Power, Patrick Joseph

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

  Holland, Sir William Henry

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

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Boland, John

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Brace, William

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Branch, James

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Brigg, John

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Brodie, H. C.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Brooke, Stopford

  Jardine, Sir J.

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

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

  Jenkins, J.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Robinson, S.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Joyce, Michael

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Cameron, Robert

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Samuel, Rt. Hn. H. L. (Cleveland

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Sears, J. E.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Seddon, J.

  Clough, William

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Seely, Colonel

  Clynes, J. R.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Shackleton, David James

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Shaw, Sir Charles Edw. (Stafford

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Lambert, George

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

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

  Lamont, Norman

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Crean, Eugene

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Crooks, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Snowden, P.

  Crossley, William J.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Lynch, H. B.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

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

  Steadman, W. C.

  Delany, William

  Macknarness, Frederic C.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Summerbell, T.

  Dillon, John

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  M'Crae, Sir George

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

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  M'Laren, Rt. Hn. Sir C. B. (Leices.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Erskine, David C.

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

  Tomkinson, James

  Essex, R. W.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Toulmin, George

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Fanwick, Charles

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Verney, F. W.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Marnham, F. J.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Massie, J.

  Walton, Joseph

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Menzies, Walter

  Waring, Walter

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Gill, A. H.

  Middlebrook, William

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

  Mond, A.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.

  Glover, Thomas

  Morse, L. L.

  White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Myer, Horatio

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Napier, T. E.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Hall, Frederick

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Halpin, J.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

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

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Harwood, George

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

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

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

  O'Grady, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Matter of

  Henry, Charles S.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Elibank.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pollard, Dr.

  Hodge, John.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  882

  883

  NOES.

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

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fell, Arthur

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Gretton, John

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Renwick, George

  Bertram, Julius

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Starkey, John R.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Chance, Frederick William

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Cross, Alexander

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Watt and Sir William Bull.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  MR. SPEAKERsaid the next Amendment standing upon the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth, which proposed to leave out the word "eight" and insert "nine," was out of order.
  MR. FELLinquired why it was out of order.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid it would contradict the Resolution to which the House had just come.
  MR. FELL, in moving an amendment providing that the regulation "shall not apply to a new colliery being opened out until such colliery shall be in working condition for the regular output of coal," said he wished to draw the attention of the House to the case of a colliery which was being opened up. He did not desire that such a colliery should come within the scope of the Bill until it was in a working condition for the regular output of coal. He suggested that the whole invention and spirit of the Bill was that it should apply to a colliery in full working order in which the men went down in their shifts to the headings and working places and returned from the mine to the open air, but while a colliery was being opened out a different state of affairs existed. To begin with, the men wire working in the open air and their work had nothing to do with the working of a mine. But if this Bill became law, and no exception was made, from the very moment a colliery started, these
  884
  regulations would take effect in regard to men working in the open air putting up buildings and making the preliminary works for lowering shafts. In that case all these regulations would apply and they would only be allowed to work eight hours, and so on.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: As a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if there is anything in this Bill which would refer to a man working in the open air and not underground?
  MR. SPEAKER: No. The words of the Bill are "below ground."
  MR. FELLthought there were clauses in the Bill which would provide for the men over-ground—distinctly there were. He knew there were. [Cries of "No."] Well, there were the men who were winding. They were working above ground, and in the case of men who started sinking a shaft they were at first working in the open air though they must get down later on. [Cries of "How far do they get?"] He did not know that this was such an entirely comic affair as hon. Members seemed to think. He did not know what it was they were laughing at. Did his hon. friends below the gangway suggest that anyone sinking a shaft was doing the work contemplated by this Bill? He said they were doing a totally different work. The men who were sinking a shaft in the open air were not engaged in a mine, and the Bill should not apply to them. In many cases it was

  885
  two years before a colliery was in a working condition for the regular output of coal, and during that time it seemed to him absolute common sense that regulations which were made for a working collier should not be applied to them. He did not wish to labour the point. He only put it to the House that there was a very great difference between the two cases. Take the case of a man who was sinking a well, or an ordinary bricklayer lining a shaft which was being sunk. Why should they have their hours of labour regulated more than ordinary bricklayers and labourers? He submitted that the opening of a colliery was just like the beginning of a factory, and the factory regulations would not apply until the factory was started. There seemed to him such an immense difference between the two that he was justified in suggesting and pressing upon the House an Amendment of this kind. Everyone would desire that collieries should be opened up as far and as soon as possible, and he did not think that work of that kind should be hampered by regulations such as those contained in the Bill. He had received many pamphlets and papers from landlords who owned coal land which they would not allow to be worked, and there was nothing that would stop the opening of such land like a Bill of this character if it applied to the preliminary operations. The owners of the coal land would wish to have the work done in the quickest possible way, and if these conditions of the Bill were applied they would be considerably delayed and certain men might not think it worth while opening a colliery at all. That would be to the prejudice of the country and to the prejudice of the men, and under these circumstances he begged to move.
  MR. BOWLESseconded. It was perfectly true, as was suggested by the interruption from the benches below the gangway, that the Bill applied only to persons below ground, but the work of opening up a new colliery was for the most part work above ground. He was not an expert lawyer, but it appeared to him that such work would be covered by the Bill, and he did not imagine that anybody desired that it should come within the scope of the measure. He
  886
  thought the House was under a debt of gratitude to his hon. friend for having pointed out this difficulty and moving this Amendment. If the Government were satisfied and gave an assurance that this case was not within the Bill, he was sure his hon. friend would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 9, at the end, to insert the words 'but this shall not apply to a colliery being opened out until such colliery shall be in a working condition for the regular output of coal."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR S. EVANSsaid they would be very sorry to do anything by this Bill to discourage the opening out of new collieries, but he did not think that the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Amendment need be under apprehension on that point. He did not think the Amendment was necessary, because the contingency of sinking a new shaft and opening out a new colliery was already provided for by the Bill. The measure provided for the fixing of the hours of lowering and raising of the men to whom the Bill applied by means of shifts, and the clause would not apply to the ordinary men employed in sinking a shaft, and in working above ground. The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman went, however, a little further, and he said that the Act should not apply at all to a new colliery—whatever a new colliery was, and he was sure he did not know—until such colliery should be in a working condition for the regular output of coal. It was not possible to say what was meant by those words "the regular output of coal." Provision was made applicable to sinking operations, and it was quite certain that the Bill would work injustice to nobody. Practically speaking, the eight hours allowed by the Bill might be utilised and would be utilised in the working of coal.
  MR. CARLILE*MR. CARLILE (Hertfordshire, St. Albans) merely rose to ask a question. The hon. and learned Gentleman had just referred, he supposed, to subsection

  887
  (7) of Clause 1 in reference to sinking operations, but he noticed that under sub-head (b) the number of hours would not exceed six, so the hon. and learned Gentleman had not explained how that provision helped them. What they wanted was to protect experimental work, that the hours of men engaged on that work might exceed eight, but the hon. and learned Gentleman alluded to a subhead which said that the hours should not exceed six.
  SIR S. EVANSsaid that was only a case which applied to an ordinary shift in which the workman was working, but that did not affect the Amendment or the observations that he made.
  MR. CARLILEpointed out that that did not help them in the least.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. RIDSDALE MR. RIDSDALE moved the insertion of the following proviso in Clause 1:—"The workmen in any mine may, by a majority of them signing a declaration to that effect, contract themselves out of this Act. Such declaration must be notified to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and, one month after such notification, the provisions of this Act shall not apply in that mine." He said the Amendment was put down with the object of bringing into the Bill a little more elasticity than was at present contained in it.
  MR. HUNT: May I ask, Sir, whether my Amendment does not come first?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's Amendment does not come either first or last. It is out of order.
  MR. RIDSDALErespectfully submitted that there was nothing in his Amendment which was contrary to the spirit of the Bill as a whole. According to the spirit of the Bill the majority of the miners of the country were to be allowed to impose their will generally, but in his Amendment he suggested that a majority of men in the particular mines who desired to do so should be able to extend the limit and to contract themselves out of the Act and work forty-eight hours a week or any
  888
  hours which they in their absolute discretion thought fit. It was obvious that the circumstances of mines might vary very much indeed, and that while certain mines might well come under the operation of the Bill, other mines would be very much pressed by it. It might be a question as to whether a mine would not have to shut down in consequence of the restrictions which the Bill placed upon it, and in that case it was only fair to the men that they should have an opportunity of saying whether they should not be allowed to work a few more hours. He did not see that it destroyed the Bill in any particular. If a mine in some part of the country was in such a condition that it would have to shut down, and the men by a vote of the majority said that they wished to put the mine in a position to continue working, was this a time, when unemployment was so rampant throughout the country, to say that the miner should not have an opportunity, if he so desired, to work nine or ten hours a day in order to keep a home over the heads of his wife and children? It was absolutely preposterous. The Amendment did not impose on anybody the necessity to work so many more hours than they were pleased to do. It merely allowed the majority of the men, if they chose, after considering the situation in meeting assembled, to say by a majority that they did not wish to be fettered by the operation of the Bill; to sign a declaration to that effect, and having sent it up to the Home Secretary, enable him to say, after one month, which would give him plenty of notice, that in respect of such and such a mine this Act should cease to run. The Solicitor-General might accuse him of trying to wreck the Bill again if he proceeded to expound the various reasons which he could adduce in support of the Amendment, but he thought the Amendment spoke for itself, and he was content to leave it to the House to say whether or not it ought to be accepted. He wished now to touch for one moment on a personal point. He would like to reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman with regard to the remark that he always attacked the Government. If the hon. Gentleman looked up the record, he would find that he had voted over 800 times during the last three years in

  889
  support of the Ministers of the Crown, and he would be very much surprised if, when the hon. and learned Gentleman looked up his own record, he found that he had supported the Government as many times. He thought, therefore, it should be open to him, when he found there was a Bill which he did not think was quite just, to express his opinion freely upon the subject without being accused of disloyalty. With these few words he ventured to submit the Amendment to the House.
  MR. HUNTsaid he was glad to be able to second this Amendment, although he was in favour of the principle of the Bill, because the principle of the Bill, like the principle of tariff reform, was for the protection of labour. It seemed to him that the miners of a particular mine certainly ought to be able to have a chance of working more than seven hours a day, at all events during some days of the week, if it really suited them, and they really wished to. There was this to be remembered, the men in some mines, especially old men, where they had to travel underground for two or three miles to get to their work, would be very severely handicapped indeed with younger men in other mines who perhaps had only to walk a quarter of a mile. Under this Amendment, as he understood it, the eight hours bank to bank law would still remain unless the workmen in any mine took the trouble themselves on their own initiative to call a meeting and decide among themselves that it would be better for the men in that particular mine to work for longer hours on some of the days in a week. Neither the manager nor the mine owner would have anything to do with it. As he understood it the law would not be altered unless the majority of the men who actually worked in the mine voted in favour of longer hours. It would not depend upon the number of the men who voted, but on the number of the men in the mine. The working of the mines was so very different in many parts of the country that he certainly could not think that it would be right to compel every miner in every mine to be tied down to exactly the same time every day, especially when they remembered that the hours of work
  890
  would be much shorter than those which men were compelled to work in a great many other industries where the work was also arduous. The miners in his division were very much in favour of the Eight Hours Bill, and their reasons for being in favour of it were very definite—one was that now in these mines the owners and managers compelled them to take one hour for their mid-day meal, and that did not suit them, because they found that, owing to the atmosphere in the mine, directly they had had their food they were quite unable to keep themselves awake, the consequence was that they went to sleep for about three quarters of an hour, and when they woke up they were so stupid from being asleep in that atmosphere that they were unable to work properly for about another half-hour. Many of these men desired the Eight Hours Bill because they wanted, and he thought rightly, to be able to take their food in ten minutes or a quarter of an hour and go straight back to their work and lose no time. But it was quite different in other mines even in the same county. In the adjoining division he might say that to his certain knowledge a good many of the miners in the last bye-election, although they were Liberal colours, so as not to offend their leaders, voted for the Conservative candidate for the sole reason—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that the hon. Member must address himself to the Amendment.
  MR. HUNTwas very sorry that Mr. Speaker had had to call him to order. The owner of the largest mine said practically the same thing. He said that it would make no difference to the output whether the miners worked on the eight hours principle or whether they worked as they did now. If they were not allowed to stand out if they wanted to, and if this Bill was passed in its present form, it would deprive the miners of their freedom and prevent them from making up for time lost by illness or for any other reason. After all, the miners were grown up men, and had a very good idea of looking after themselves. Some of the old mines which had narrow

  891
  and often difficult seams to work would become absolutely unprofitable if this compulsory bank-to-bank law was insisted upon, and the effect of that would be to throw a good many men out of employment, and probably make coal dearer by reducing the supply, with the possible result that many men engaged in industries in which coal was largely used would also be thrown out of employment. It should also be remembered that year by year more and more men even under the present conditions were being driven out of the skilled trade into the coal mines by unfair foreign competition.
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the hon. Member had not yet even approached the question under discussion.
  MR. HUNTdid not know whether he would be in order in saying that it seemed to him if none of the miners were allowed to contract out that the older and more difficult mines would be given up. The Bill would take away the means of livelihood of those who desired to work half a day longer, and they would be obliged to leave their work and have to tramp the roads with very little prospect of finding employment elsewhere. He thought that until the supply of employment in this country was very much better than it was at present, it could not be a good thing that grown-up men should be tied down to work only seven hours and even less in some cases by what was practically State compulsion, and from this cause be obliged to run the risk of being unnecessarily deprived of their work or of having their weekly wages reduced. He therefore thought the Bill should not be allowed to pass without some Amendment on these lines, which would give the men a chance of some freedom to work the number of hours that suited them best.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 9, at end, to insert the words 'The workmen in any mine may, by a majority of them signing a declaration to that effect, contract themselves out of this Act. Such declaration must be notified to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and, one month after such notification, the provisions of this Act shall not apply in that mine.'"—(Mr. Ridsdale.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR S. EVANS: I am afraid the Government cannot accept this Amendment, because it goes dead against the principles of the Bill and would allow contracting out in the case of mines being worked by the same employers, mines which were absolutely contiguous, and which, but for the Act of 1878, would be the same mine. That should be a sufficient answer to this Amendment, but I might perhaps be allowed to point out one or two matters with regard to it, to show how difficult the working of the Amendment would be in itself. The hon. Member proposes that in any mine the majority of the men should be able to bind the other men to contract out. Fifty-one per cent. could bind 49 per cent. to contract out. Then again, how often could they determine whether they should contract out or not. Could they do it every month? Could they do it periodically? Again, there is no machinery for finding out what the majority of the miners thought, and the consequence would be that the majority not always being the same majority there would be a sort of in-and-out process of contracting out. I am afraid, therefore, we cannot accept the Amendment. With regard to the personal observations of which my friend complained, I can assure him I did not make them in any bad spirit at all, and was far from accusing him of any disloyalty to the Government, a thing which I should never do. What I said had reference to the arguments he used.
  MR. RENWICKsaid he had listened to the whole of the debate on this Bill, both yesterday and to-day, and particularly with regard to this important matter—important to the district he represented, important to the cities and counties of Durham and Northumberland, of which Newcastle very properly was called the metropolis—and this was the first time he had attempted to speak upon the matter. It was the first time that he had seen the slightest chance of anything that would help to get Northumberland and Durham out of a difficulty in which they were at the present time. The hon. Member who

  893
  moved the Amendment said he might be accused of wrecking the Bill. If he himself had to choose between wrecking the Bill and wrecking this great industry in the North of England, he should not have any hesitation in doing his best to wreck the Bill. During the whole course of the debate he had listened in vain for anything from the miners' representatives from either Northumberland or Durham to assist those counties in the matter. He certainly did expect, from what he knew of the miners and their representatives in the House, that they would have had the courage to have told the House whether or not they were in favour of the views which they had expressed time and again when these Bills had been before the House. He remembered on a former occasion when he was a Member of the House he was asked at the express recommendation of Northumberland and Durham not only to speak on similar measures but to do his best to help them out of the difficulty in which those measures involved them. Since then a change had taken place, the members of the Minors' Union of Northumberland and Durham had joined the Miners' Federation. The political situation had changed but the economic reasons against the Bill remained, and there was the greatest uneasiness in the city of Newcastle and the surrounding district, which was an important district, upon the matter. He had had innumerable letters and telegrams from various organisations in Newcastle, urging him to do his best to oppose the Bill, but he had not received any resolution from the other side. He wished to keep as strictly as possibly to the Amendment, and he was going, out of the mouths of the miners' representatives of Northumberland and Durham in the House, to give reasons why the House should take this opportunity to support the contracting-out principle being incorporated in the Bill. In 1902 the hon. Member for the Wansbeck division, speaking on an Eight Hours Bill, said—
  "I sincerely hope this House will not be induced to pass such legislation, but if it does I trust in Committee the same justice will be granted to us as was granted in 1894 by accepting a local option clause."
  894
  At that time, the hon. Member recognised the importance of the local option clause to protect the coal industry of Northumberland and Durham. The same necessity was present now, and they ought to have an opportunity to contract out. The Home Secretary had told them that it was acknowledged that Northumberland and Durham were entitled to exceptional treatment, but the right hon. Gentleman had failed to tell them what that exceptional treatment should be, and how he was prepared to deal with the difficulty with which they were faced. They had been told over and over again by miners' representatives of these two counties that it would be an impossibility under such a Bill as this to carry on their industry. The hon. Member for Wansbeck said—
  "The House may pass the Second Reading, but I ask the House to hesitate before they inflict, as this Bill would inflict, a much greater hardship than they perhaps have realised, on the miners."
  Those were weighty arguments coming from men who knew what they were talking about. Could anyone be surprised that the heads of the great industrial works and consumers generally throughout the north of England paid attention to the warnings of experienced men such as the hon. Member for Wansbeck and others undoubtedly were? As they had not had the courage to tell the House their opinion had changed, and they had no reason to alter it from an economic point of view, the House was justified in believing they held this opinion still. The hon. Member for Mid-Durham in 1903 said the miners in the north of England only asked to be left to themselves. He asked now on behalf of the miners of Northumberland and Durham that they might be left to themselves, and allowed to work out their own salvation. The hon. Member for Gateshead, the sister borough of Newcastle and a prominent Member of the Durham Miners' Federation, said that if this Bill passed, he believed it would be the worst day's work that the House of Commons had ever done, so far as the miners were concerned. Surely if the hon. Member believed that, he should now have the courage to rise and tell them why he made that statement, and whether it was on a false assumption or

  895
  not. Until he told them that he had had reason to alter it, he was afraid he was justified in keeping the hon. Member to that assertion, and in believing that if the House passed this Bill now, it would be the worst day's work that the House of Commons had ever done for the miners. The hon. Member said that in 1904. What had happened since 1904? Not very much. The same hon. Member opposed the Eight Hours Miners Bill only last year. In April last the hon. Member said that rightly or wrongly the miners thought that if that Bill passed, it would be detrimental to the miners themselves. That showed that as recently as last year the hon. Member still held to his opinion. He would give some other weighty arguments in support of his contention that Northumberland and Durham were entitled to the right to contract themselves out of this Bill. There was a ballot taken of the Durham Miners' Union in 1902, and in that ballot 12,684 miners voted for the Bill and 28,127 against it. That was in 1902, and since then something else happened. In 1903 another ballot was taken and less than 13,000 out of 80,000 voted in favour of the Bill. In Northumberland recently a ballot was taken in connection with this Bill, when, out of 28,275 members of the Northumberland Miners' Union, only 30 per cent. voted in favour of it. Those were most weighty arguments, but he had even more weighty arguments in favour of contracting-out. He had there the Report of the Departmental Committee which stated that the system of liberty at present prevailing in the mines of Durham and Northumberland was one of inconceivable efficiency and one to which both the managers and the miners, the workers and the employers, appeared to be attached. Further, they said that the problem was one of an exceedingly difficult character to solve, and they found that it was the opinion of all that the remedy could not be accomplished without some increase in the under-ground labour. They had the statement of the Miners Union of Northumberland and Durham that it would be impossible to work their industries in these circumstances. Therefore, he maintained that they were justified in asking for power to contract out of
  896
  the Bill. What was the difficulty that they had in Northumberland? They had there a deeply rooted objection on the part of the miners to work night shifts. They did not work themselves on an average anything like eight hours, but they had two relays of hewers served by one set of boys, and they had it upon the authority of the hon. Member for Wansbeck that it was an absolute impossibility, with the number of boys that they had at present, to work under any different conditions. Here were some of the words he used. He said—
  "Let the House understand that we have a full complement of hewers. Every place is full. We want no more."
  And yet the only condition under which they could work three shifts, if the men themselves would agree to it, would be by calling in a larger number of boys who, when they had reached a certain age, would not be able to find employment as hewers. If that was not exploiting boy-labour, which right hon. Gentlemen had recently condemned, he did not know what was. Therefore, he thought he was justified in appealing to the House on behalf of the great coal industry of Northumberland and Durham to give them that power which the leaders of the miners had over and over again told them it was absolutely necessary that they should have. He appealed to the leaders of the miners' party in Northumberland and Durham to have a little of that courage which they knew they possessed, to speak out like men and tell them that which they were entitled to know, whether the result of the Bill was going to be, as they had told them it was, an increase in the cost of the production of coal which would make it almost an impossibility to carry on the coal industry in Northumberland and Durham.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I intervene only for a moment in reply to one passage of the hon. Member's speech. He has given the House the impression that the Departmental Committee which considered the matter came to the conclusion that the problem was specially difficult in Northumberland and Durham, and that for that reason contracting-out

  897
  arrangements should be allowed if only for the sake of those two counties. Precisely the opposite was the conclusion of the Committee. They say on page 39 that the problem in Northumberland and Durham is easier than elsewhere. And in another passage, which the hon. Member carefully omitted to quote, although he quoted passages just before and after it, they say—
  "We are convinced that whether, by the institution of three shifts of hewers, or two uniform shifts of eight hours for all classes, or by some other arrangement, the same organising ability and the same co-operation between the employers and workers which has evolved the present system, would succeed in evolving a satisfactory substitute for it should the necessity arise."
  MR. RENWICK: I distinctly stated that miners of Northumberland and Durham were opposed to the three-shift system. I mentioned that particularly.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid the Solicitor-General told them it was contrary to the spirit of the Bill that contracting-out rather than local option should be allowed. He thought the House would recognise that it was not contrary to the spirit of all the Government Bills that local option should be allowed. But he did not want to comment on the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He wanted to ask the representatives of labour what was their considered attitude with regard to this Amendment. Were they disposed to accept it or to reject it? He should like one of them to rise in his place and give the reasons why he was going to reject it. They had heard a great deal of "trust the people." He did not think any hon. Gentleman below the gangway would say that if a poll was taken of the miners of Durham, there would not be a very large majority for allowing them to contract out of the Bill. He sincerely hoped one of those hon. Gentlemen below the gangway would follow him and give the reasons why they were proposing to reject the Amendment. Was it that they believed that by contracting-out some benefit would accrue to that community who were desirous of contracting-out? Did they think there would be a larger output of coal, and that the community which put out the larger amount, the Durham miners, would be in
  898
  a better position than those who were hampered by the restriction put upon them by this Bill; or did they think that this large and important and well educated community were a misguided people who were desirous of injuring their health by working longer hours, and that it was the duty of the House to stop them doing what was obviously injurious to their health? He had observed in the debate a conspiracy of silence among Gentlemen below the gangway. What was the reason for it? Had they a bargain with right hon. Gentlemen on the front bench opposite that if the Bill passed, they were going to assist them to put another measure on the Statute-book? They had been singularly unfortunate. He had no doubt, that by hook or by crook, by going back on all they had said on local option on other Bills they were going to pass this measure contrary to every principle which they had put forward in the past. He challenged any hon. Gentleman who sat below the gangway to rise in his place and give him some conclusive answer to the questions he had put forward.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid the acceptance of this Amendment or of any contracting-out clause whatever would be absolutely destructive of the Bill, and he could conclusively prove that in a few minutes. Some eight or nine years ago, if local option had been accepted by the miners, and no one knew this better than the hon. Baronet on the front bench, it was agreed that this Bill would be passed by both Houses, but the miners' representatives showed that it would have proved absolutely destructive to the coal trade. What would happen if any contracting-out clause was introduced? There was the keenest competition between Yorkshire and Northumberland and Durham. The exports of coal from Hull and Newcastle entered into the keenest competition. If they laid an obligation on employers of labour that they were not to work more than a limited number of hours it would be manifestly unjust that they should say that the Yorkshire miners should work eight hours a day while their competitors were allowed to contract themselves out. If Parliament in its wisdom chose to limit the hours of labour

  899
  they must regulate the conditions under which the men worked having regard to that limitation. If Parliament placed no statutory obligations on employers and employed that they were not to work more than a limited number of hours they would be keeping the door open to free competition, but if they restricted in some counties the hours which men might work and allowed other districts to contract out, they would simply be taking trade from one district to another.
  MR. BOWLESsaid that the hon. Member appeared to have omitted to observe that the power of contracting out was not raised exclusively, if the Amendment were carried, in Northumberland and Durham, but would be equally given to all districts.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid that the hon. Member had not read the Amendment. The Amendment gave no power to the employers whatever. It was entirely left in the hands of the men. It would be manifestly unjust to lay a statutory obligation on him to work his men for a limited number of hours if they give the right to the men in the North of England to work more than that number of hours. He had stated, and he believed the future would show that he was not wrong, that in the federated areas the production of coal would not be decreased by the Bill for the reason that the number of play days would be increased, and the men would work longer hours in the summer time than they had in the past. But the Amendment was whether they were to allow contracting out under the Bill, and the matter was one of such vital importance that the miners' representatives, especially the late Mr. Pickard, recognised well that if the contracting-out principle was established, great injustice would be done to different colliery districts by the trade being taken from one district to another. Then they heard all this talk about Durham. He had asked earlier in the evening why it was that the Durham representatives came to the House and told them—and it was the only district in the world, he believed, where two sets of hewers had the coal taken away by one lot of boys—that the coal-fields in Northumberland
  900
  and Durham could not be worked except under these conditions. He said, with the experience he had of mines in all parts of America and the Continent, there was not a single case in this country or anywhere in the world where this system of coal-getting existed. He did not believe it could be denied that coal would be got just as economically under the new system as at the present time. He asked the House to reject this Amendment, which would cause grievous injury by taking trade away from one locality to another, and would destroy the whole purport of the Bill.
  LORD R. CECILsaid surely they must know where they stood. The defence of the hon. Member for Merthyr yesterday was quite simple and short. He said that so far from reducing the output and inflicting any injury on the coal trade whatever, it would increase the output and do nothing but good to the health of the workmen. Coal owners and miners alike would benefit by it, and it would be a great advantage to them. The only thing was that Parliament in its wisdom must show them which way the advantage lay. Now came the hon. Member for Mansfield who said exactly the contrary.
  MR. MARKHAM: I only said it will increase the price of coal from 4d. to 6d. a ton.
  LORD R. CECILsaid they wanted to know which was the truth. Was it going to reduce the output or increase it? Hon. Members opposite could not have it both ways. They must make up their minds whether it was going to increase or reduce the output. If it was going to reduce it the whole argument they had always urged against the Bill was perfectly sound and just, and they were running a great risk of dislocating the coal industry of the country. If they were not really going to reduce but increase the output there would be no injustice in allowing each district to decide whether they would take advantage of this Amendment or not.
  MR. BOWLESsaid he should like to express to the House the complete confusion in which the speech of the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division had landed him. The Bill had been recommended to the House as a measure conferring undoubted advantages upon the whole of the mining industry of the country, more especially as far as the miners were concerned. The hon. Member for Glamorgan told them that the miners stood as a solid body in favour of the Bill. If that were true, upon what earthly grounds did the hon. Members below the gangway resist this Amendment? If this was a Bill for conferring undoubted advantages on the mining community, why were they afraid of letting the workmen say, after a trial of those advantages, whether in their opinion they were real or not. But on the top of that they had the hon. member for the Mansfield Division saying that in his opinion if any district took advantage of the Amendment that district would have a gigantic advantage over other districts. Under those circumstances he asked the House seriously as reasonable men to consider whether it was possible any longer for hon. Gentlemen opposite to take the view which they had taken upon the question. The only argument which had been used by the Government against the Amendment was one which the Government always used when they had no other. The Solicitor-General said he could not accept the Amendment because it was not the Bill. Of course it was not the Bill. If it were the Bill it would be impossible to move it as an Amendment. It was ridiculous to say the Government could not accept the Amendment because it differed from what was contained in the Bill. The question was whether the principle of the Amendment was more just and sound than the principle contained in the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen below the gangway owed the House a duty in regard to this matter, and they ought to inform them what their real opinion upon the Bill was. Instead of doing that they sat in complete silence, and putting that silence to the kind of speech they had just listened to from the hon. Member from Mansfield, he was forced to the conclusion that
  902
  the only way of making the Bill work justly and fairly with a reasonable amount of elasticity among the miners was to adopt an Amendment which would give a reasonable amount of liberty to the miners in regard to their hours of work.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONappealed to the front bench to give them some information in regard to the important questions which had been raised by the noble Lord. He wanted to know which was the correct view, that given by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil or the one presented by the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division. He found himself in a position of some considerable difficulty. He had on various occasions recorded his vote against local option, because that was a thing which he did not like and did not approve of in any way. He gathered from the speeches of hon. Members who had already spoken, and particularly from those who represented Northumberland and Durham, that the conditions of labour in those counties were of a peculiar character, and varied considerably. The Amendment would be of assistance to those counties. In this matter he appealed for some direction to hon. Members below the gangway who represented those counties. He saw the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Morpeth, in his place, and he was one whose voice they had not have heard in this debate, and they were always ready to hear his views. He was sure if he would give them his opinion he would be able to direct them upon the right road. He appealed to him to give them some direction as to the way they ought to vote, and as to whether they ought to support this Amendment.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid he did not think the House ought to consider this question merely as a dispute between the miners of Northumberland and Durham and other places. Under the operation of contracting-out a preference was going to be given to one district over another. On this occasion he was sorry he should be bound to vote against the proposal made by his hon. friend. This matter was not a matter between the Northumberland and Durham miners and

  903
  their representatives, though he agreed with his hon. friends around him that it was singularly unfortunate that they had not had any enlightenment from the representatives of those districts as to what their opinion was, for such an expression of opinion might have been useful in other matters connected with the Bill. It would be idle for the House to accept the conclusion, however, of either Northumberland or Durham upon this matter, and to take it as a basis of their opinion as to whether they could accept a clause which would be injurious to the whole trade. On the contrary, he hoped the hon. Member who proposed the Amendment would withdraw it, seeing that it was absolutely impossibly to accept it in the interests of the whole community.
  MR. J. F. MASONsaid his hon. friend who had just addressed the House spoke entirely from the coal-owners' point of view, but the proposal now before the House was designed not for the benefit of the coal-owners but for the coal miners. He could quite understand, as his hon. friend and the hon. Member for Mansfield could see, that if one particular

  AYES.

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fell, Arthur

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Nield, Herbert

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Beauchamp, E.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gretton, John

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Renwick, George

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Starkey, John R.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Houston, Robert Paterson

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

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Win.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Ridsdale and Mr. Beck.

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Cross, Alexander

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Brace, William

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Branch, James

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Beale, W. P.

  Brigg, John

  Agnew, George William

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Brodie, H. C.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

  Brooke, Stopford

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Bennett, E. N.

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

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  mine had the advantage of contracting out under this Bill, it would be against the interests of others in a better position, but that was no reason why they should deprive these miners of an opportunity to contract out. It was suggested that it would not be right to allow a bare majority to deprive the remainder of the advantages of this Bill, but it was quite possible to alter that by saying that the majority should not be a bare majority but a two-thirds or a three-fourths majority, although at the same time he would remind the House that for the time being even a bare majority would faithfully represent the preponderance of fouling among the miners.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not rise to continue the discussion, but merely to make an appeal to the House, that they should now come to a decision one way or the other upon this point. That decision having been come to, I then propose to move the adjournment of the debate.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Aves, 55; Noes, 232. (Division List No. 444.)

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jardine, Sir J.

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

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jenkins, J.

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Searboro')

  Cleland, J. W.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Clough, William

  Joyce, Michael

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Clynes, J. R.

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Cobbold, Fleix Thornley

  Kekewich, Sir George

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

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

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Robinson, S.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Cooper, G. J.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

  Lambert, George

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lamont, Norman

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Samuel, Rt. Hn. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Crean, Eugene

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex Harwich)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Crooks, William

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Seddon, J.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Seely, Colonel

  Crossley, William J.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Sheckleton, David James

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Shaw, Sir Charles Edw. (Stafford

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

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

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Dillon, John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Stanley, Albert (Stalls, N. W.)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  M'Callum, John M.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Duncan, C. (Burrow-in-Furness)

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Summerbell, T.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Essex, R. W.

  M'Laren, Rt. Hn. Sir C. B. (Leices.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

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

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Maddison, Frederick

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Ferens, T. R.

  Mallet, Charles E.

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

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Tomkinson, James

  Gill, A. H.

  Massie, J.

  Toulmin, George

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Trevelyan Charles, Philips

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Menzies, Walter

  Verney, F. W.

  Glover, Thomas

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Middlebrook, William

  Walsh, Stephen

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Walton, Joseph

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Morrell, Philip

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Waring, Walter

  Hall, Frederick

  Morse, L. L.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard.

  Watt, Henry A.

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

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Harwood, George

  Myer, Horatio

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Napier, T. H.

  White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

  Hazel Dr. A. E.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wiles, Thomas

  Henry, Charles S.

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Hodge, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Dowd, John

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

  Hooper, A. G.

  O'Grady, J.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Partington, Oswald

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of

  Hudson, Walter

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Lack)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Elibank.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered Tomorrow.

  EAST INDIA LOANS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid) in the Chair.]
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3:
  DR. RUTHERFORDsaid that in moving the Amendment standing in his name he would be very brief, knowing how hon. Members were exhausted after the long sitting of the previous day. The Bill asked for a loan of £25,000,000, £20,000,000 of which were to be spent on railways and irrigation works and £5,000,000 for general purposes. His Amendment was to reduce the £20,000,000 for railways and irrigation to £10,000,000. His first reason was that when the late Government were in power in 1898, they only asked for £10,000,000, so that if they reduced the £25,000,000 asked for by this Government by £10,000,000, they would still have the power to raise £15,000,000. He understood that the Government had £1,500,000 from the old loan of 1898 in hand. His second reason was that if the Government were only allowed to raise £10,000,000 the Indian Government would have to come to this House to ask for more, and then the House of Commons would be able to review the expenditure of the previous loan. The House of Commons was supposed to be the Grand Inquest of the Empire, but they would not deserve that title unless they reviewed all expenditure in India until Indians were endowed with a Government of their own. His third reason for moving the Amendment was that they should, as far as possible, limit the amount of European
  908
  money that was sent to India. After all, there were serious drawbacks to our raising money for India at the present moment. The Under-Secretary for India admitted the other night on the Second Reading of the Bill, that pressure had been put upon him, and that it was due to that pressure that the Bill had been brought forward chiefly in the railway interests. Those who agreed with him thought there was something more important than railways. The railways had been laid down quite to the satisfaction of the people of India, but irrigation had not been developed to the same extent. Now, irrigation was the economic salvation of India, and yet £176,000,000 had been spent on railways in that great dependency and only £29,500,000 on irrigation. "He trusted that the Government of India, in using their powers in spending this money in India, would consider that their first duty was to spend more on irrigation than on railways. It should be remembered that India was an agricultural country, and money spent on irrigation went to develop not only agriculture, but one of the greatest sources of revenue. We had had the experience of Egypt which we had converted from a wilderness into a garden, to a very large extent, chiefly through irrigation. Then there was the question of foreign investments in India, and there was a fear entertained that if large sums were so invested it would interfere with the natural political development of the country, and that the national movement would not have the same opportunity of getting a great reform as it otherwise might have. They knew something about the sinister influence of finance in the politics of this country, and they had all heard how Lord Rothschild, exercising his influence in another place, had destroyed an important measure. He wanted to ask the Under-Secretary a very serious question. It had reference to Sir Charles Elliott, who was lately Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, convening a meeting to oppose the reform measure that Lord Morley was going to introduce into India.
  THE DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. CALDWELL,)said the hon. Member's Amendment was to leave out "twenty" and insert "ten,"

  909
  and it was a question of whether £10,000,000 or £20,000,000 should be given. He was now raising a question outside the Amendment.
  DR. RUTHERFORDsaid he was obliged by the ruling, but he feared that it was a very serious and grave matter. The House of Commons appeared to be the proper place to ventilate it, as it did after all bear on this expenditure. He would, however, defer to the Chairman, and leave it to the Under-Secretary to say what he could about the matter. He hoped the Committee would accept the reduction for the reasons he had given. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 15, to leave, out the word 'twenty,' and to insert the word 'ten.'"—(Dr. Rutherford.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'twenty' stand part of the Clause."
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,)said that the hon. Member moved the reduction of half the amount which they proposed to insert in the Bill in regard to railway construction. That would be a distinct step backward from the policy which had been pursued for a great many years past not only by this but by previous Governments. The last Railway Loan Bill was in 1905, and it proposed to give the Secretary of State power to expend £20,000,000, the same sum which was suggested here for railways and irrigation. The year 1905 was little more than three years ago, but they had spent all the money, and he thought anybody who had studied the question would recognise that the money had been well spent. He ventured to point out in the speech he made the other night that it was not due to any financial pressure that this demand was made, but to the strong desire of those interested in India that they should press forward steadily in the further development of railways and irrigation, but above all with railways. The greater part of this money which they asked for now, about three-fourths,
  910
  would probably be used for improving railways already existing, and not for constructing new lines. He quite recognised the importance of the arguments used by his hon. friend, but he thought that was hardly the time to enlarge upon the subject he dealt with. He did not think it could be said that the supply of British capital for the development of her resources had been otherwise than on the whole beneficial to the people of India. There could be little doubt, moreover, that the extension of railways and irrigation had increased largely to the benefit of the population, and he did not care very much where the money came from so long as it was well spent as it had been in India. He thought it was important to know that a large amount of the money lent had been contributed by Indians. From the short investigation he had made he thought the position of rupee paper was satisfactory, and a good third of it was held not only in India but by Indians.
  SIR H. COTTONsaid he wished that the right hon. Gentleman had deferred his reply until he had heard the few observations which he proposed to make. He wished for some explanations as to the financial position which had led to a proposal to raise these large loans. He found that among other sources from which money for railways might be derived was the profit from the coinage of rupees. There was a very large profit made from that source. It amounted at the present moment he believed, to about £14,000,000, and he thought that half this large profit was devoted to capital expenditure on railways. On that point he should like a little information, because it seemed to him that from this source alone sufficient money ought to be available for capital expenditure on railways. But he found, on the contrary, that during the last two years enormous sums had been raised by loans for this purpose. In the year 1906–7 the sum raised amounted to £5,000,000. Last year £10,500,000 were raised for capital expenditure on railways. £2,000,000 were raised in India and £8,500,000 had been raised in England. This was an enormous sum of money, and now they were informed that it was required,

  911
  not for new construction, but for maintenance and repairs. But if so, why was the expenditure not met from revenue? No private company would venture on such a course as this. The Government had an immense stake in the railways of India, he believed the sum of money which had been raised amounted to £178,000,000. On this there was a profit of about £2,000,000 a year, but last year the sum was not quite so large. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have given some explanation why it was necessary to raise loans in this country. The finances of India were extremely complicated and difficult. He could remember a Finance Minister in India who used to say that he was the only person who under stood those finances. Perhaps the only person in this country who thoroughly understood the financial situation in India was the Financial Secretary to the India Office. Hardly a single Member in the House was familiar with the conditions which rendered these large loans necessary. If the loans were really required, why were they not raised in India? Why should they be raised in England? Lastly, there was the question of India Bills. He could not help being suspicious that the large loans which it was proposed to raise were really needed to finance the home charges of the India Office, and that they were not required for the purposes they were nominally supposed to be raised for. Everybody knew that the Government had had the greatest difficulty in providing the necessary money in England to meet the home charges. He, in company with many other people, held the suspicion that the loans now contemplated were really wanted to get over the difficulty in connection with India Bills. The large coinage in India and the manner in which the rupee had steadily decreased in value had as everyone was aware, added greatly to the difficulty in negotiating those Bills.
  Amendment negatived.
  DR. RUTHEEFORDproposed an Amendment to leave out the words "other than strategic." They had discussed that the other day, and he
  912
  did not wish to keep the House long considering the matter. They had, however, very serious reasons for objecting to any of this money being spent on strategic railways. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman how much money had already been spent on such strategic railways, what useful purpose those railways served, and had not some of those railways been instrumental in bringing about war? An important speech had been made by his right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean, who had said that these railways in a particular case had caused a war. They ought to have some answer to that indictment. It seemed impossible to believe that a Liberal Government would go on building such railways.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 16, at end, to insert the words 'other than strategic.'"—(Dr. Rutherford.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. BUCHANANsaid there were three strategic railways in the original programme. One was never begun, and a second was stopped as soon as it was begun, and, shortly after the present Secretary of State came into office, he issued instructions that the third—the Loi-Shilman Railway—should not go further than 300 miles from Lahore, that is, eight or nine miles beyond our administrative frontier and twenty-three miles from Peshawur. During the Mohmand troubles the railway was brought to a standstill altogether; but whether work had been resumed he was not in a position to say. Of course, there had been a certain amount of money spent upon it. He should not like to give a figure, but he thought it was something like £200,000 or £300,000.
  Amendment negatived.
  DR. RUTHERFORDsaid the next Amendment to which he wanted to draw the attention of the Committee was a very simple one. Its object was to secure a better prevision for third class passengers, both as to carriages and

  913
  waiting-rooms. The carriages for third-class passengers were extremely unsatisfactory; they would be described in this country as something like horse boxes. They had realised in India, as they had long realised in this country, that they derived the best profit from the third-class passengers; and he hoped the Government would require them, in building new carriages, to provide proper and reasonabls accommodation for those passengers. There was an unfortunate distinction made in India as regarded railway waiting-room accommodation. In many cases waiting rooms for Europeans as distinct from Indians had been put up. He hoped they would get rid of that colour bar, and that first, second, and third-class waiting-rooms only would be provided. After all, India was India, and belonged to Indians and not to us; and we ought to legislate in the interests of Indians, and not of Europeans.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 19, after the word 'State,' to insert the words 'and in the better provision for third-class passengers, both as to carriages and waiting rooms.'"—(Dr. Rutherford.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid that, if the hon. Members Amendment were carried, he would move an addition in the following words: "And the payment of a revised scale of wages to all grades of employees." He did not know whether the Under-Secretary could tell them whether there had been a recent revision of the scale of wages. He knew that twelve months ago there was very serious, and as appeared to him well-founded, discontent with the rate of wages paid. The wages were fixed three years ago, and meanwhile the cost of living had gone up very considerably while the rate of wages had remained standing. If something were done to improve the rate of wages, that act of justice would tend to secure better service from them in respect of passengers. He would be glad if the Under-Secretary could give them any information as to whether anything had been done or was contemplated.
  SIR H. COTTONwished to know why the building of railway carriages and the raising of the wages of the employees, however satisfactory in themselves, should be debited to capital expenditure. Anyone with any knowledge of business must know that these were revenue charges, and ought not to be debited to capital and loans raised for the purpose. This Government prided itself on avoiding loans. They had had it from both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was the policy of the Government to avoid loans and meet ordinary charges from revenue. He trusted the Under-Secretary would give him some explanation why these charges were debited to capital and not to revenue.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid the Amendment, from a railway point of view, was of importance. The authorities were fully alive to the need for these improvements. He had reports which had been made on the subject by the Railway Board in 1905 and 1907, calling attention to the deficiency of third class passenger accommodation, and urging the managers of the various lines to provide better accommodation. The attention of the railway authorities would be called to the fact that not so much had been done as might have been done, and that they should do their very utmost to improve it still further. A good deal of money would be spent in the improvement of rolling stock, both for goods and passengers. Of course they could not accept the Amendment because they considered the railway policy at present being pursued was in full sympathy with the Amendment, and that to ask for a good round sum of money was the best way of working out the object in view. As regarded the point raised by the hon. Member for Merthyr he could not give him the figures on that subject. He believed the working expenses had been steadily going up in recent years, and that there had been certain increases in wages amongst the railway men, but he could not give definite figures or facts.
  Amendment negatived.
  DR. RUTHERFORDsaid he proposed in addition to the purposes set out in the Bill, railways and irrigation, provision for elementary schools and sanitation, and the establishment of State agricultural banks. It was a big order to discuss that question that night, and he did not propose to do it, but after all they should be alive to the fact that the education question in India did require more thoughtful attention from the Committee and the House and the Government of India. The Universities were on a fairly satisfactory scale, and did magnificent work, and so did the secondary schools as far as they went, but unfortunately there was no satisfactory provision for primary schools. That was one of the saddest reflections upon the Government of India and he presumed upon that House. He trusted the Under-Secretary would accept the Amendment, and that the Government of India would provide British India with what the Governor of Baroda had provided for that State and gradually give free and compulsory education. The expenditure on education in France was 5s. 4d. per head of the population, in Germany 4s., Austria 2s. 4d., and India 1½., so they had much leeway to make up. Sanitation was really a very big question. The death-rate was very serious and very unsatisfactory. In 1881 it was 28 per 1,000, in 1896 it rose to 32½ per 1,000 and in 1905 to 36·1 per 1,000. The ravages of grave and serious disease largely accounted for that, but there were two or three ways in which it could be combated. The first was by improving the water supply, and the system of drainage, and the establishment of a satisfactory sanitary service. He would give two or three instances to show how necessary it was to have a sufficient sum to carry these matters out. In Barisal a water supply project which would cost £13,800 had been temporarily shelved for want of funds and it was hoped it would now be taken up. At Benares a sewage scheme had been completed at a cost of £86,000 and a further scheme had been sanctioned and would be carried out as funds became available. In Bombay they had this report—
  "Progress in municipal sanitation in the Bombay Presidency hampered by the ravages of plague, which have embarrassed the financial position of most of the municipalities to a certain
  916
  extent and many urgent schemes for water supply and drainage have had to be deferred.
  What was essential to satisfactory sanitation was money, and he hoped the Under-Secretary would accept these Amendments so that they might come before the Government of India which might spend a fair proportion of the money in the direction he had suggested. With regard to agricultural banks they all knew the magnificent service they had rendered to Egypt, and they would do the same if established in India.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 6, to insert the words '(5) in the provision of elementary schools in India; (6) in the sanitation in India; (7) in the establishment of State agricultural banks.'"
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. BUCHANANsaid the Amendment was one which raised very important matters for general discussion, but hardly germane to this Bill. The Amendment could not, of course, be accepted. The clause asked for powers to borrow money for expenditure on railways and irrigation, and so far from too much being asked for those purposes he thought those who were most acquainted with the subject thought that they were perhaps hardly asking for enough. He did not think they could possibly add to the objects specified. They were, however, fully alive to the need of such provision. Last July he gave some figures to show that a rapidly increasing sum was being spent on elementary education. In regard to sanitation, they were spending large sums of money this year in making further progress in that direction. No one felt more than those responsible for the government of the country how urgently necessary it was to take greater precautions against epidemic and disease by means of sanitation, and they were strongly sympathetic towards the promoting of further sanitary legislation. At the same time, it was one of the most difficult and delicate subjects with which the Government had to deal.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE*MR. KEIR HARDIE moved to add a provision that the rates charged for water supplied by an irrigation scheme should not exceed such sum as would be represented by a sum equal to the amount necessary to repay in thirty years the capital employed in the undertaking, plus 5 per cent. thereon. The hon. Member explained that the object was to limit the amount to be charged for the supply of water under public irrigation schemes. Without enlarging on that subject, he wished to give one figure. As far as he could make out from the accounts, especially those published in the "Progress and Condition of India, 1906–7," the total capital invested in the irrigation works was just under £31,000,000, and the net income, after deducting all charges, and presumably inclusive of the sinking fund repayable on loans, was £2,500,000. That was the net profit, and it was burdensome upon the ryots who had to pay it. Owing to the system of local assessment, the higher the water rate the higher was the amount to be paid in local taxation. As illustrating what was happening in connection with these irrigation works, he quoted the statement that when the Punjaub Council Bill was being introduced on 21st October, 1906, a Government official said the State had spent on a particular canal £2,000,000, and in eighteen or nineteen years the capital outlay had been repaid and the profit earned in 1904–5 was 29½ per cent., and it was likely to be still higher in the future. It was this attempt still further to increase the 29½ per cent. of profit that led to the recent movement in the Punjaub which was called sedition. He submitted that it was most unfair to provide these public works as a means of raising revenue for the Government, and the object of his Amendment was that the amount of interest rate charged for the supply of water should not exceed what would provide for the working expenses and the sinking fund and a net profit of 5 per cent. on the capital invested.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 6, at the end, to add the words 'and the rates charged for water supplied by an irrigation scheme shall not exceed such
  918
  sum as would be represented by a sum equal to the amount necessary to repay in thirty years the capital employed in the undertaking, plus 5 per cent. thereon.'"—(Mr. Keir Hardie.)
  MR. BUCHANANsaid the hon. Member had raised a very important and difficult question upon which he did not feel he possessed the intimate knowledge which would enable him to reply in detail. The matter had been before the House on several occasions. The percentage on irrigation works varied enormously all over India. It varied in the Punjab from something like 5 per cent. to 27 per cent., and the average all over was somewhere between 8 per cent. and 9 per cent. The matter was being very carefully watched by officers of the Government, and there was certainly no intention or desire on their part unduly to increase the rates. The areas of irrigation had been going up by leaps and bounds. The Government could not accept the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. MACKARNESSwished to be allowed, at this stage, to raise points which he should have raised earlier had not his Amendment been ruled out of order.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The more correct time would be at a later stage of the Bill.
  MR. MACKARNESSsaid it was not they, but the Government who were responsible for the lateness of the hour. This clause was the main operative clause of the Bill, and really raised the principal issue and object of the Bill. It was highly improper that the clause should be pressed upon the House at midnight. The main object of the Bill was only explained on Monday night, and after one hour and three-quarters debate was closured. What did this clause propose to do? It proposed to authorise the Secretary of

  919
  State to raise upon the credit of the people of India a sum of no less than £20,000,000 at any time he liked, and for purposes which were only vaguely specified in the clause. He certainly thought that before the House gave such a large authorisation as that it ought to be more fully informed as to the objects upon which this money was proposed to be spent, and the times when the loans were proposed to be raised. There was nothing in the clause to prevent the Secretary of State tomorrow raising the whole of the £20,000,000 specified in the clause, and there was nothing in the clause to show how much of that would be spent upon railways, and how much upon irrigation. It was true that they were told the other night by the Under-Secretary, whose statement he entirely accepted, that it was intended to spend the greater part of the sum upon railways. For his part he was prepared to say that the proportion was very unsatisfactory. It would be very much more satisfactory if they could have an undertaking that a much larger proportion should be spent on irrigation and much less on the railways. There was no provision in the Bill as to what railways the money was to be spent on, or as to whether it might not be spent on strategic railways, in regard to which great objection was taken by many people in India and in this country. In the short time in which they were allowed to discuss this Bill on Monday night there were serious objections raised to the spending of money under this clause in the same way that money had been spent on railways in the past, and to the very damaging speech which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman representing the Forest of Dean. On that point no answer had been given by the Under-Secretary of State for India. He hoped that before the clause was put they would have some answer in regard to the charges of futility which had been made against some of these railways, and as to the increasing burden of military expenditure which had recently been imposed on the people of India. They should have an undertaking that this money was not to be spent on the equipment or extension of railways of that useless kind. It had been suggested
  920
  by the noble Lord opposite that this was a very urgent matter. He had heard from the Under-secretary of no suggestion of urgency. What his Amendment intended to propose was that no money should be sanctioned in the future on matters of that kind without their being informed how far the people of India would have any voice in the expenditure. He did not think it right or seemly that when they had promised to give a larger control over their own Government to the people of India and in the management of their own finances, the House of Commons should saddle them prospectively with loans to this very large amount. He was prepared to divide against the clause as a protest against the House of Commons being asked to authorise the raising of that large sum of money at that late period of the session, and at that late hour of the night. There was another point which had been touched upon in regard to which he thought the Under-Secretary for India should give them some answer. Very serious allegations had been made outside the House as to the purpose for which the money was to be raised. It was stated only that evening by a correspondent in a journal of high standing that a fictitious value was being given by the Government of India to the rupee when exchanged for gold, and that the Government was making these loans to recoup themselves with English gold for the condition of things which had been brought about. The question was actually asked by the writer he had referred to, "Why does not Mr. Buchanan tell us frankly that the proposed Gold Loan is to cover up the traces of this tampering with the Indian currency?" He did not suggest there could be any foundation to that charge, but when a thing was said so openly as that the House would agree that some answer was demanded. He trusted that the Under-Secretary would give an answer.
  SIR H. COTTONsaid he would support his hon. friend in voting against this clause. He felt he was entitled to some reply from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to a speech which he had made regarding the financial conditions the clause contained. They had

  921
  discussed salutation, they had discussed water rates, and they had discussed education but there had been practically no discussion on the financial provisions of the Bill. He had not been able to raise these matters in the Second Reading because he was closured as soon as he began to speak. But he certainly thought he was entitled to a reply from the Government when, in challenging the Bill as to the essence of the clause, he asked why were these loans raised in England at all. If the money was really required for the railways in India, why could not the loans be raised in India? Was it a fact or was it not a fact that the real principle underlying the Bill was to raise funds to enable the Indian Government to meet the home charges? He objected also to this large expenditure on works which he maintained ought to be defrayed from revenue rather then from capital.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid that he sympathised with the regrets at the delay in bringing out the measures of reform. The reason for delay, as hon. Members knew, was that they were very anxious in making changes in administration to have behind them the great mass of opinion both in India and Europe. The Government of India had to consult the Local Government and they elicited opinions from leading officials and non-officials, from associations British and Indian, from every kind of leading authority. All this took time. The Government of India then, on that information, formulated its views and sent them home for the consideration and decision of the Secretary of State. As regards the statement of the hon. Member for East Nottingham, he must be aware that a considerable sum, £2,000,000, in 1907–8 was borrowed in India for railways, but it would be manifestly impossible to raise all the capital necessary for railway purposes in India.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid he only wanted one word on one point. He had understood his right hon. friend to reply in regard to the railways that there were only three involved, The third of these railways which had been mentioned was the Kabul River Gorge Railway,
  922
  and the right hon. Gentleman had said that the military parties were continuing the survey of that for which assent had been previously given. That would be the assent of July, 1905, which was given by the late Government. The point which he desired to make was that in October of last year a survey was taken under fire and when he had asked a question in the House of Commons about this in February of this year, the Secretary of State replied that a civil railway engineer was deputed by the Government of India to examine the country beyond the 300 mile station, with a view to a prolongation of the line, should that project be sanctioned. It was that survey which was commenced in October of last year which caused the Mohmand War. [AN HON. MEMBER: No.] Someone said no, but three companies were sent out in connection with that survey carried on under fire. For what purpose was that survey carried on, and when and where was it sanctioned It was a railway which was sanctioned in connection with the Kitchener redistribution scheme. It was part of the project for the cantonment of Torsappa in connection with which 6,000 men were to be stationed 6,000 feet above the level of the sea in a hopeless spot where there was not a blade of grass for miles. That project was started, but was abandoned, there being no object for putting 6,000 men on the top of this mountain. That being so, what was the object of the railway? Why should it be continued beyond Mile 300? That extraordinary departure from what seemed to be settled policy had not been defended by his right hon. friend. When he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had pressed the point, the answer given by the Secretary of State was that no decision had been arrived at as to the prolongation of the line beyond Mile 300. The Mohmand country, he might point out, was one where there was no delimitation of frontier, and the survey was carried on in October, November, and the beginning of December last, under fire all the time. He believed it was the sole cause of the war.
  SIR J. JARDINEsaid that even at that late hour of the night, and without any animus against

  923
  the Government of India, which he knew too well for that, he would like to remark upon the speech just delivered by the Member for the Forest of Dean, and to point out that these strategic railways away on the frontier were in a different position from the other railways included in the clause. [Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: Hear, hear.] It had long been known to those who had had to do with the administration of India that, as the country became civilised, the demand of the natives for more civil institutions increased, and there was a constant demand for money to be spent on the civil department. He thought the responsibility of that House was enormous in dealing with matters of that sort, and it would not be reduced unless and until and in proportion as the reforms that were promised gave more power of criticism to the natives themselves. As he had said, he knew the Government of India well, and he knew it too well to assume that what it did must be either always right or always wrong. In dealing with such matters he would like to point out there had been a strong difference of opinion about the propriety of such expenditure upon such enterprises as the strategic railways to which reference had been made. The question came much into notice at the time of the Afghan War, and he would like to quote the eminent authority of Lord Lawrence, who pointed out that there was a very
  great difference between expending the money of the taxpayers of India, who were not represented as people were here by an elected House of Commons, on things inside India and schemes away in these wild parts. Lord Lawrence described the close connection between the weight of the taxation and the sentiment of loyalty or its opposite which was felt, and he said, after an almost unparallelled experience of Indian affairs, both in war-time and in peace, and in the great emergencies that our Empire had passed through, that money ought to be expended on things within our territories, on making roads (which would include railways) and on irrigation works, and should not be expended beyond the frontiers. If that railway had been given up by the Government of India in the military Department they ought to know why the survey had been recommended. His belief was that, while the people did not object to a good deal of taxation if there was expenditure on those things that were recognised as useful and in connection with which they could see the money expended in the country, there was a growing feeling of dislike to the enormous increase of the military expenditure, and especially when it took that particular form.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 89; Noes, 15. (Division List No. 445.)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Seely, Colonel

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Shackleton, David James

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Lehmann, R. C.

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

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Essex, R. W.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Gill, A. H.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

  Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard.

  Toulmin, George

  Harwood, George

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Waring, Walter

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Pearce, Roberts (Staffs, Leek)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh

  Higham, John Sharp

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

  Hooper, A. G.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Robinson, S.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Elibank.

  NOES.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Seddon, J.

  Crean, Eugene

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Summerbell, T.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Grady, J.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Mackarness and Dr. Rutherford.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to read bea third time To-morrow.

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the third time and passed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. MOONEYasked whether it was in order for the House to order a Bill
  926
  to be read a third time which was not before the House. The Bill on the Order Paper was a Bill of which one clause had been left out, whilst one subsection had been left out and two subsections put in. The Bill had never been reprinted. The Bill before the House now was not the Bill as it came from the Committee upstairs, and if passed now as it stood would not be the Bill as it came down from the Committee. To put himself in order, and to get a reply he moved that the Bill be read a third time this time three months. He desired some explanation from the Lord-Advocate as to what that course had been taken in connection with that Bill. Large alterations had been made in the Bill since it passed the Second Reading, and it was not in any legal shape or form the Bill that went

  927
  upstairs into Committee. It was utterly impossible to get any information as to what was done in Committee unless they went to the trouble of getting the reports of the Committee, and finding out what actually was done. As a matter of fact the Government voted against one of their own clauses upstairs, and that clause remained in the Bill as now before the House. He did not think it was treating the House with proper consideration to make large Amendments in the Bill and then for Members to find that the Bill before them was not the real Bill in any shape or form.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. Mooney.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,)said he hoped he would be able to explain the situation in which they were placed with regard to the Bill. There had been no exceptional treatment in regard to it. It was a very common practice that when complicated changes were made in a Bill, it should be reprinted at every stage. But in this case the changes that had been made in the Bill were of a perfectly uncontroversial nature, and perfectly easily understood by any Member who would possess himself of the Paper which contained the Amendments which were made in Committee. It was true that considerable changes were made in the Bill. In the dropping of Clause 3, however, a whole clause was dropped, and those hon. Gentlemen who took an interest in the Bill and were present
  928
  during the proceedings in Committee had no doubt in their minds as to the result of the proceedings in Committee in regard to Clause 3. The other changes were largely drafting Amendments, and where they were not drafting Amendments, they were fully explained to the Committee and in no way affected the principles. The ordinary course had been followed in this case. It was not the practice to reprint all the Bills at every stage. The House had always; had a discretion and judgment to be exercised in those mutters, and the ordinary practice had been followed in this case. There was no desire on the part of the Minister responsible for the Bill not to acquaint the House most fully with the proceedings that had taken place.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid the right hon. Gentleman gave them credit for the high intelligence possessed by himself. He (the speaker) was only a simple and ordinary Member and not a Minister, but he contended that the Bill would scarcely be comprehensible to the high level of intelligence on the Treasury Bench. They had a Bill, and with it a codicil of Amendments, and they were to read the Bill with the codicil and the codicil with the Bill. This was not a mere technical point. Everybody acquainted with the law, with the Courts of justice, knew the horrible difficulties of construing statutes because of the slipshod way in which they were drafted. In this case there came down to the House as if it were a legislating machine, all these Amendments, which it would take a man versed in the comparison of different documents to be able to incorporate one with the other. He

  929
  did not believe they were worth reading, but at the same time, it was not the kind of thing that should be done. There was one thing that made him rejoice and that was to see the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland an economical man. It was delightful to see the careful economy, the careful regard for the pence, in this matter. He hoped the ecnomical mind would extend still further, and that there would be some stay to the production of documents of great length, and with no value from another place. But he did not see why this Bill should be presented to the House in this slipshod fashion. Again and again in other times they had insisted that Bills should be presented to the House with Amendments in an intelligible form. He did not remember a single session in the twenty years he had been in the House in which great inconvenience and much dislocation of the Courts had not resulted from those slipshod methods of drafting Bills in a language which would scarcely be creditable as English in a King's Speech. He certainly thought this Bill should be reserved for some further consideration. He hoped they might get, in the first place, a distinct pledge from the Government that it was only in the interests of economy that they took such a course and, in the second place, a statement from the right hon. Gentleman that he would give one-fifth of his salary as conscience money to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. ESSEXasked if the House of Lords was going to get the Bill in a better form than the House of Commons had it now.
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid he recognised that that was quite a proper question for the
  930
  consideration of the House. On the consideration of the ordinary procedure of the House would be the time to consider whether the present practice should be altered or continued. It was quite possible in normal circumstances to have a Bill reprinted. If the Bill had been reprinted after the Committee stage, however, and was again altered on the Report stage, that would involve a second reprinting. If it was reprinted after the Report stage, some alterations might be made on the Third Reading, which would involve still another reprinting before it was sent to the House of Lords. Consideration of those circumstances had led the House to adopt the present practice that there should be commonsense and discretion exercised where Bills were not of very great and widespread importance.
  MR. MOONEYsaid he thought the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman had given was a proper one. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would excuse him for having asked the question, but to a simple unsophisticated Member the Amendments had seemed very considerable, for several of them had taken up half a page of the proceedings. If they were only drafting Amendments, it was, of course, quite a different matter from what he had imagined. He had no axe to grind and had only wanted to know what procedure the House was going to adopt. He asked leave to withdrawn his Amendment.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid he did not want to delay the Bill but he must enter a cave, at against the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that Bills might be presented under ordinary circumstances to the

  931
  House in the form in which that Bill had been presented, for it made it extremely inconvenient if not impossible to discuss a Bill. The Bill was considered by the Scottish Grand Committee on Tuesday, and it would have been quite possible to have it reprinted in time for the discussion that evening. The plea of economy seemed to him to be rather thin, and he thought it must be due to some carelessness of the right hon. Gentleman's Department that the Bill had not been reprinted. He shared that perfect trust in another place which the right hon. Gentleman had displayed, and he was quite sure that that other place would be quite able to interpret and deal with the Bill.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  CROFTERS' COMMONS GRAZINGS REGULATION BILL.
  Order for the Second Heading read.
  MR. COCHRANEthought that on the Second Reading of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman ought to give a word of explanation.
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid he was glad to have the opportunity of explaining to the House that the Bill consisted of one clause, the object of which was to strengthen the powers of the Crofter Commission dealing with common grazing in Scotland. It gave them the power to strengthen the Committees which were to be appointed. These Committees under the Bill would now be allowed to move without waiting till they were requested to do so. He knew the operations, and the Commons Grazing Committees of Scotland had been very
  932
  much hampered by the fact that crofters who unduly benefit could not be induced to move to secure that all classes might have their fair share in the grazings. In another way it altered the procedure of the existing Act, by the insertion of words, which provided that a breach of any regulations made under the Act should be liable to a penalty not exceeding 40s. That was really the very small scope of the Bill, and it would be of very great advantage to the crofters. It enabled them to regulate their common grazing, and to insure that the common grazings should not be over-stocked.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question. As he understood it, the Bill enabled the Crofter Commissions to set up committees whether the crofters applied for their setting up or not. A penalty was imposed for overstocking which would now be defined by law. Under the existing Act the penalties which the sheriff could inflict were unrestricted and unlimited. After the passing of this Bill, would the penalty to be inflicted be one not exceeding 40s., and 5s. per day during the continuance of the offence?
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid no, that was not the case. The penalty imposed by that Bill was without prejudice, and did not take away any existing powers. There was no intention to interfere with the existing law.
  Bill read a second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—(Mr. Sinclair.)
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 31st July, adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at seventeen minutes past One o'clock.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition for amendment of; of county council of the county of Forfar; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  PORT OF LONDON BILL.
  Petition to be heard against; by Counsel of the Conservators of the River Thames; read and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TREATY SERIES, No. 32 (1908).
  Procès-Verbal between the United Kingdom and Bulgaria, respecting customs duties supplementary to the Commercial Convention of the 9th December, 1905; signed at Sofia, 13th November, 1908.

  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) ACT, 1907.
  Return giving particulars of cases in which persons have been re-instated with the assistance of the Estates Commissioners, during the quarter ended 30th September, 1908.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PORT OF LONDON BILL.
Brought from the Commons, and read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next.—(The Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.) (No. 244.)
BUXTON CHARITY BILL (No. 245).
  LONG ASHTON CHARITY BILL (No. 246).
    ABBOTS BROMLEY CHARITY BILL (No. 247).
    Brought from the Commons, and read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next.—(The Lord Denman.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, I should like to ask the Leader of the House a Question of which, I understand,
674
he has received private notice—namely, whether, in view of the statement made by the Prime Minister that we are face to face with the prorogation next week, he considers that this House will be prepared to get through the very large amount of contentious business indicated by the Government so as to enable the prorogation to take place at that date.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, I am happy to reply to the Question of the noble Lord, of which I have received a kind of vicarious notice. The noble Lord, I think, will see that it is very difficult to reply with any certainty to his question. Until we know what Amendments are put down to the two important Bills which the House will have under consideration next week, what the character of those Amendments is, and how long the discussion is likely to take upon them, it is very difficult to say whether the Prime Minister's forecast is likely to be fulfilled. My right hon. friend used these words, that the House might be face to face with the prorogation; but, of course, it is possible to be face to face with a thing and not to be in absolutely close approximation to it. We cannot, I think, altogether disregard the possibility of the House having to sit into the following week if it should turn out that Amendments are made in this House of a far-reaching character to either of the important Bills to which I have referred. More than that I cannot say at present.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think it is fortunate that the noble Earl has qualified the some what optimistic statement made in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister. The noble Earl has said, with great force, that it is quite impossible to predict with any approach to certainty that our business will be completed next week. I am afraid that even that, unless I greatly misapprehend the amount of work which lies before us, is a some what sanguine estimate. The noble Earl last night assumed that we would take the Second Reading of the Port of London Bill on Monday and the Second Reading of the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Bill on Tuesday. That would leave us four days for the whole of the remaining

675
stages of those two important measures, in which many of your Lordships take a great interest, for two or three other Bills which have yet to be disposed of, and, last but not least, for the discussion of Amendments which your Lordships have made in Bills that have already gone to the House of Commons and of Amendments which your Lordships may make in the Bills that have yet to come before us. To suppose that that amount of business could be forced through your Lordships' House in the compass of four days seems to me to be a really extravagant anticipation. I really rose because I think it is for the convenience of the House that noble Lords should be aware that, in our opinion, it will be absolutely necessary, unless some entirely new development takes place, that the House should sit on at least two days of the week following.

LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put in to Committee, read.
Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself in to Committee."—(Lord Atkinson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON moved an Amendment restricting the power given to rectify the omission to register the ownership of land acquired by any rural district council under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts to land acquired on or before 1st March, 1908.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 8, after the word 'it,' to insert the words 'on or before the 1st day of March, 1908.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Standing Committee negatived; The Report of amendment to be received on Tuesday next, and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its; being dispensed with: Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 284.)

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CAHIUNGTON): My Lords, I owe an apology to the House for asking your Lordships at this late period of the session to give a Second Reading to this Bill, but it is not altogether my fault. I got the Bill through the different departments concerned by the end of October, and I introduced it in your Lordships' House on 4th November. Since then I have given considerable time for examination of the measure by noble Lords opposite, and I am glad to say I shall be able to accept some verbal Amendments of which notice has been given. It is a consolidating Bill merely, and, to the best of my knowledge, contains no new matter. The Bill is generally asked for in Scotland, and I therefore respectfully ask the House, even at this late period of the session, to be good enough to give it a Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Earl Carrington.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, we are all very much obliged to the noble Earl for the time he has allowed for the examination of the Bill before asking us to give it a Second Reading. As a consolidation Bill this I will be a very useful measure; but there are in it two provisions differing from the existing law, the first being in Clause 6. As the law now stands, a tenant is required to make a claim for compensation before the termination of his tenancy; but, under the Bill, all that is required is that the tenant should give notice that he intends to make a claim. Your Lordships will see that there is a very substantial difference between those two things. The result

677
might be that the claim would not be made until two or three years later. In this particular the Bill makes an alteration in the law, whereas our conception of a consolidating Bill is that it merely consolidates the law without making any charge whatever. Another point concerns the mode of arbitration to be followed under the Bill, as to which I should like some explanation. Your Lordships will remember that the Agricultural Holdings Bill as relating to Scotland provided that in future all arbitrations were to be conducted by one arbiter, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary. It was seen in this House that that might create very great confusion in regard to the important matter of sheep valuation, and words were inserted here which made it clear that the clause should not so apply. The noble Earl opposite, however, adopted the advice of the Solicitor-General in the House of Commons that the words were quite unnecessary, with the result that within three months he was besieged from all quarters in Scotland on the subject. This Bill, I am told, proposes to meet that difficulty by inserting a new definition of the word "agreement." It is provided in Clause 35 that—
"'Agreement' includes an agreement arrived at by means of valuation or otherwise, and 'agreed' has a corresponding meaning."
How does that affect the question in any way? Clause 11 runs—
"All questions which under this Act or under the lease are referred to arbitration, shall, whether the matter to which the arbitration relates arose before or after the passing of this Act be determined, notwithstanding any agreement under the lease or otherwise providing for a different method of arbitration, by a single arbiter."
I do not see that it makes the slightest difference what definition you attach to the word "agreement" if you say that notwithstanding any agreement one arbiter is to act. Perhaps the noble Earl will be able to explain that to me on some future occasion. In all other respects I think the Bill conforms to the law as it now stands.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I hope the House will not pass this Bill at the end of the session. I do not think it is at all a safe thing to do. The noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture told us that it was
678
purely a consolidating Bill, but the noble Earl who has just sat down has referred to two very important points where the provisions differ from the existing law. I cannot conceive that it is possible for the Bill to become law this year, and it seems to me that it would be very unwise for this House to part with control over it at this period of the session. There is a Committee presided over by the Lord Chancellor which looks after consolidation Bills, and if the noble Earl would agree to refer the Bill to that Committee I am sure it would got most favourable consideration next session. The definition of "agreement," to which the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, has just called attention, is in itself absurd, and is another pitfall in the way of those who have to read the Bill. In the first place, it is entirely new matter; and while it proposes to define the words "agreement" and "agreed," it does not define the word "agree." I have had two or three communications from lawyers in Scotland upon this point, urging most strongly that the Bill should be carefully considered. I need not labour the matter so far as the other points are concerned; but it cannot have been by carelessness that the draftsman made the change requiring only notice of intention to make a claim to be given before the termination of the tenancy. That is a very material, and, I consider, grossly unfair change to propose. It has been protested against to me by a dozen people from all parts of Scotland. Then there are great difficulties with regard to the definition of what is known in Scotland as temporary pasture. A change in the law would, no doubt, be an advantage. That, however, cannot be done in a consolidation Bill. But if the Bill were referred to the Committee on Consolidation Bills, it would be easy, by means of a schedule showing the change, to get a slight change of that kind made. I do not think it is safe to part with this Bill at this period of the session, and I therefore trust that, if we agree to the Second Reading being taken now, we shall not be asked to proceed further with the Bill this session.
EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am, of course, entirely in the hands of the House. I have explained how it is that the Bill has been brought before your Lordships at such a late period of the session, and if the noble Lord opposite

679
chooses to take the responsibility of stopping the Bill I can say nothing. I might mention that only on Tuesday I received a deputation of Scottish farmers on this subject. Noble Lords acquainted with Scottish farmers know that they are a very resolute, determined, and outspoken body of men. Some of them were extremely outspoken, and they said they were determined to have the Bill this session. There is really very little difference between the noble Earl opposite and myself. I think the noble Earl is perfectly right, and I am quite ready to accept an Amendment carrying out his view with regard to Clause 6. As the only difference between us seems to be as to the meaning of the word "agreement," I honestly think we might come to some satisfactory conclusion on that point. I hope noble Lords opposite will let us get the Bill through.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the noble Earl warned my noble friend, in rather solemn accents, of the responsibility which will rest with him if he stops this Bill. But what will happen supposing the Bill is not proceeded with now? I do not think it will make any difference whatever either to the farmers of Scotland, or to the ultimate prospects of the Bill. This is a Bill which has orignated in your Lordships' House. I do not apprehend that the noble Earl intends that it should pass through all its stages in this House and in the House of Commons as well before the end of the session.
EARL CARRINGTON: Yes, if your Lordships will give me a chance.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Then we have another little Bill added to the twenty-five Bills which the Prime Minister light-heartedly said he wished to see passed before this session came to an end, and one which, moreover, contains, apparently, some very contentious matter. Surely the reasonable course is that the noble Earl should be content with the perfectly friendly reception which has been given to his Bill, should introduce it again at the beginning of next session, when we are not likely, if it is a consolidation Bill pure and simple, to take long in discussing it, and then send it down to another place. That seems to
680
me a reasonable and businesslike mode of procedure.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I must say I think my noble friend behind me has not been entirely well treated in this matter. He seems to have met noble Lords opposite in every possible way by giving them the opportunity of thoroughly examining the Bill. I have no doubt they have taken the fullest advantage of this, and it does seem to me a little ungracious now to refuse to pass the Bill, assuming that it is, as my noble friend has declared it is, purely a consolidation Bill. Of course, I have no personal knowledge as to whether or not there is any new matter in the Bill, but, assuming that my noble friend is willing to make it quite clear, as I think he can, that it is a consolidation Bill pure and simple, I should have thought we might have proceeded with it as a purely formal matter, and that there would be no difficulty in passing it through another place.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I have had to pass many consolidation Bills and have always undertaken that they were purely consolidating and contained nothing new. But, in regard to this Bill, two noble Lords have pointed out that new matter of a highly contentious nature has been introduced. Take, for instance, the provision referred to by Lord Camperdown that, notwithstanding any agreement under lease or otherwise providing for a different method of arbitration, all questions shall be determined by a single arbiter. I know nothing of the merits, but if that is a new provision it seems to me a very important provision and certainly one which ought not to be passed without due consideration. If it is true the new matter has been introduced, it cannot be suggested that this is merely a consolidation Bill.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, the object of this Bill is declared in its title to be to consolidate the enactments relating to agricultural holdings in Scotland, but there is, as has been explained, a certain amount of new matter. If the noble Earl, the President of the Board of Agriculture, would take out the new matter to which we object we should be very glad to facilitate the passing of the

681
Bill, which would, I am sure, prove of the greatest benefit to the whole country. But if the noble Earl cannot see his way to do this, I hope Lord Balfour's suggestion will be adopted.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

PREVENTION OF CRIME BILL.
[SECOND READING].
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD STEWARD (Earl BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, your Lordships have already given a warm welcome to two measures promoted by His Majesty's Government dealing with criminals—one, the Probation of Offenders Act, passed last session, and the other the Children Bill of this session, many of the clauses of which dealt with children who were criminals. To-day His Majesty's Government ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to the Prevention of Crime Bill, the last, so to speak, of the series, which deals with offenders older than those embraced in either of the other Bills to which I have referred.
This Bill is divided into three parts. Part I. has reference to the reformation of young offenders, and the eight clauses in that Part deal chiefly with the question of the establishment of Borstal institutions in various places up and down the country. I think it would be useful in this connection to give your Lordships some figures with regard to the number of young offenders. Statistics were taken out some years ago to show the age at which criminals first fell into crime. The result was that out of 1,181 convicts, no fewer than 704 had fallen into crime before they were twenty-one years of age. I think your Lordships will agree that that is a very remarkable proportion. We have on similar occasions agreed that prevention is better than cure, and it is the object of these Borstal institutions, if possible, to prevent these lads from returning to a life of crime.
I would draw your Lordships special attention to Clauses 5 and 6. There special provision is given enabling the Secretary of State to release on licence. That is really the essence of the Bill, certainly
682
of this part of the Bill, the idea being that these young men should be released on licence, and watched while out on licence; if they work well, there is every reason why they should be allowed to remain out on licence, but if at any time they show signs of falling back into criminal practices, they will be forthwith put into prison again. In order to carry out this system of licences, it is also important that the Courts should have the power of passing longer sentences, because there must be a power given to the authorities to bring the lads back again, if they do not take proper advantage of the licence given to them.
Clause 6 provides that where a person detained in a Borstal institution is reported to the Secretary of State by the visiting committee of such institution to be incorrigible, or to be exercising a bad influence on the other inmates of the institution, the Secretary of State may commute the unexpired residue of the term of detention to such term of imprisonment, with or without hard labour, as the Secretary of State may determine, but in no case exceeding such unexpired residue. The Bill provides also for Treasury contributions being given for assisting and supervising persons on licence. I would ask your Lordships to notice the classes of offenders who will be sent to these Borstal institutions. In the first place, first offenders ought not to be sent, for it is thought they would suffer by association with the habitual criminals for whom these institutions are really intended. Neither should lads who have been in reformatory schools, and failed to profit by them, be sent; they have had their chance, and, if they have not taken it, it is usually thought hopeless to attempt to reform them. Next, only lads physically fit should be sent, the idea being that when they come out of the Borstal institution they will be able, by their own energy, to earn an honest living.
Part II. of the Bill deals rather with the opposite end of the scale—namely, with those who have persisted in criminal courses and who are the most hopeless class of criminals of all. The first clause in Part II.—Clause 9—gives power to the Court to pass sentence of preventive detention in addition to penal servitude. The idea is that when a prisoner has been convicted and has also been found to be in the meaning of this Bill, a habitual

683
criminal, he may, under certain circumstances, be sentenced to a period of detention not exceeding ten nor less than five years. We wish to detain those criminals who, as soon as they are out of prison, immediately begin to plan a further crime. In the year 1900, out of a male convict population of 2,624, no fewer than 1,476 had been convicted five times or more. On March 31st this year, the total was 2,897, of whom 2,376, or over 82 per cent., had been previously convicted, while 1,073 had actually undergone previous sentences of penal servitude. The unfortunate thing is that with every conviction the probability of return seems to increase; that is to say, convicts once started have entered upon a very slippery slope. Of the men in prison for the first time, 30 per cent. returned; of those who came in a second time, 48 per cent. returned; of those who came in a third time, 64 per cent. returned; of those who came in a fourth time, 71 per cent. returned; and of those who came in a fifth time, 79 per cent. returned. The figures seem to show that this constant returning to prison is rather on the increase than on the decrease. The object of the Bill is to provide a form of detention under easier conditions than at present exist, when prisoners are sentenced to a long term of penal servitude. It is quite true that in most of the cases coming within this part of the Bill the Courts have already power to pass very long terms of penal servitude; but that is a severe form of punishment and Judges are very often unwilling to commit offenders for a long time, however certain it is that on their release they will return to a career of crime.
Prisoners will be allowed, while in these places of detention, to earn a small sum by way of wages, and they may spend it on newspapers, extra food, and, perhaps, on tobacco. They will be allowed to associate more than is the case in an ordinary prison, and they will be kept at labour sufficient to inculcate, if possible, habits of industry. But previous to this detention they will, of course, have to undergo a form of severe punishment; otherwise, this might become an attractive feature to some criminals. Therefore it is provided that preventive detention can only follow a period of penal servitude. It
684
is desired to provide for the prolonged detention of persons who may be called professional criminals, and therefore prevent them roaming at large meditating and committing fresh crimes. It is not intended that anybody should be sentenced to preventive detention who has not committed a crime deserving at least three years penal servitude.
There are ample safeguards to secure that this period of detention is not inflicted upon prisoners without proper precautions. First of all, your Lordships will see that the charge of being a habitual criminal cannot be inserted in an indictment without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The second safeguard is that seven days notice has to be given. There is a third safeguard in the appeal, without leave, to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Then there is the safeguard of the Judge who has to inflict the sentence, and, in addition to that, it is provided in Clause 12 that the Secretary of State shall, once at least in every three years, take into consideration the condition, history, and circumstances of the person with a view to determining whether he should be placed out on licence, and, if so, on what conditions; and then the Secretary of State has power to let the man out on licence.
I think I have now covered the whole of the important clauses of the Bill. If there is one principle underlying it, it is that there should be individual study of the character and habits of each prisoner, and the punishment in future will much more fit the individual than has been the case in the past. I hope the Bill is sufficiently uncontroversial for your Lordships not only to read it a second time but to give it an easy passage, and I feel sure that in time to come this Parliament will be celebrated for having passed three measures, if not four, of considerable importance in the reform of criminal procedure.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a".—(Earl Beauchamp.)
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I should be very sorry to interpose any obstacle in the way of the passing of this Bill. I think it is impossible to have listened to the very clear statement of the noble Earl in moving the Second Reading without very great sympathy. The

685
Borstal system is one deserving of every encouragement, and I am sure the views which the noble Earl expressed commended themselves to every one anxious for reform in these matters. I do not know whether the Government have considered the number of Borstal institutions they think it will be desirable to set up or whether they regard that so much as a matter of detail that they have not yet applied themselves to it. At any rate, it will be necessary to consider that as time goes on. While regarding with considerable favour the provisions for dealing with the detention of habitual criminals I think the safeguards to which the noble Earl directed attention are wise, though I am not sure that the same consistent thought runs through the entire Bill. I am unable to find that the safeguards which are necessary for England have been given effect to in the case of Scotland and Ireland. In regard to England, a man is not allowed to plead guilty to being a habitual criminal. That is the highest form of proof that can be conceived, yet it is not apparently to be permitted. Clause 9, subsection (2), runs—
"A person shall not be found to be a habitual criminal unless the jury finds on evidence—"
and so on. There is no suggestion anywhere that the Court can take the shorter method of asking the prisoner whether he is guilty. But when I come to Scotland, I find this provision in Clause 15, subsection (5)—
"Where, in Scotland, the accused pleads guilty to being or admits that he is a habitual criminal, such plea or admission shall be equivalent to the finding of the jury under Section 8."
This contrast may not be intended, and I draw attention to it merely that it may be considered. There is another point. The noble Earl quite rightly indicated that one of the checks against possible miscarriage was the opportunity of appeal. In Scotland three Judges may be constituted a Court of Appeal. There is no Court of Criminal Appeal in Ireland, and, so far as I can see, it is not proposed to set one up under this Bill. Reference is made to the Crown Cases Act, 1848, but I am not aware that any Act in Ireland gives power of re-measuring a sentence and calculating the discretion exercised in its award. On the whole,
686
however, I am in favour of the Bill and upport the Second Reading.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, there are some of us who do not always welcome Bills from the Government bench, but in this case I congratulate His Majesty's Government on having brought in a most excellent measure. I quite agree with the noble Earl the Lord Steward in thinking that this Parliament will be gratefully remembered as one which has, in two Bills at least, taken great and forward steps for the prevention of crime and the proper training of the rising generation of this country. But, although I am satisfied that this is an excellent Bill, I should like to draw attention to one point in regard to which the Government may see their way to making some slight alteration in Committee. I refer to Clause 2. That clause provides that where a youthful offender, sentenced to detention in a reformatory school, is convicted under any Act before a Court of summary jurisdiction of the offence of committing a breach of the rules of the school, or of inciting to such a breach, or of escaping from such a school, and the Court might under that Act sentence the offender to imprisonment, the Court may, in lieu of sentencing him to imprisonment, sentence him to detention in a Borstal institution for a term not less than one year nor more than three years, and in such case the sentence shall supersede the sentence of detention in a reformatory school. Now, a Borstal institution is not a place of punishment, but a place for reform. I can quite understand the Government saying they do not think the reformatory system a good one and that lads of that character ought to be placed in Borstal institutions, but I cannot understand why a boy who is in a reformatory school because of his past conduct should be sent to a Borstal institution, where he will have a pleasanter time, if he is convicted of the additional offences mentioned in Clause 2. I merely draw attention to that point in order that it may receive consideration.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I desire to draw attention to some of the provisions of Part II. of this Bill, and to ask your Lordships to consider the principles which underlie the legislation therein contained. For five or six years there has been a growing development noticeable

687
in the tendency to introduce the indeterminate sentence, which has been so much discussed by criminologists. Personally I am in accord with the principle so far as I understand it. The principle of the indeterminate sentence, according to the writings on this subject of Sir Robert Anderson, and others, is, I think, that a person who is a nuisance and a danger to society should be removed indefinitely until he has ceased to be a source of danger. It is perfectly obvious that here the idea is that the criminal with whom you are dealing is a person who has passed all likely chance of reform, and that it is certain from your knowledge of his record that he will Commit crime again. Punishment inflicted, therefore, with the idea of reform would disappear in his case, that is to say, you are bound to admit that you Cannot hope to reform him. If, therefore, you remove him indefinitely from society, your object is not so much that of reform as of protecting society. The object, therefore, is a perfectly legitimate object; it is also, in a sense, a selfish one, for it is the protection of society, not the reclamation of the criminal. If that kind of punishment is applied to the criminal, then it seems to me his seclusion should be surrounded with as little discomfort as you can reasonably make it; he ought to be treated fairly and kindly, and almost in the same kind of way as persons are treated in asylums. But there is a defect in the logic on which the Bill is based The criminal is going to be punished first with a sentence of penal servitude, though if the object is to reform him there can be no particular reason in imposing a punitive sentence. I think the fact that the Judge has to give the prisoner three years penal servitude first may make him in some cases unwilling to impose the preventive detention which the criminal has so richly earned, and which all would feel would be the proper punishment in the interests of the protection of society. For that reason I very much regret the combination of the punitive sentence and the preventive detention. The detention, moreover, is not to be in a home but in a prison, with certain alleviations. Subsection (3) of Clause 11 provides that—
"Persons undergoing preventive detention shall be subjected to such disciplinary and reformative influences, and shall be employed on such work as may be best fitted to make
688
them able and willing to earn an honest livelihood on discharge."
That, of course, depends on how it is administered. The present prison system tends to deprive any one who serves a long term of imprisonment of all moral backbone or power of earning a livelihood. These people will already have suffered three terms of imprisonment, and if they are to be detained simply for the sake of the protection of the public we have no right to detain them except under conditions which involve no hardship. The noble Earl said it was undesirable that this preventive detention should be made too attractive. I am not so sure about that. I think your Lordships and everybody who has life and property to protect would be very glad to provide a permanent asylum if only all the criminals in the country would be attracted to it and remain there. As the clauses stand I think the punishment goes beyond anything we are entitled to inflict; indeed, the clauses impose a punishment for which there is no justification and in their present form I could not support them.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I should like in a few words to join in the general welcome which has been extended to this measure The study which I have given to this Bill and to the history of the experiments which led to it leads me to regard it as a measure which it is eminently desirable should be placed on the Statute-book at the earliest possible date. The main feature which I welcome in it is the increase of elasticity which will now be possible for the wise and thoughtful men who, in so marked a way, have devoted themselves to the management and personal study of the very difficult questions relating to internal prison and reformatory life. No one can compare the conditions of twenty years ago and to-day without seeing, not merely that things are much better done now, but that the elasticity which is now possible is a power exercised universally, as I believe, for good. There is no part of the field of sociology in which the value of experiments has proved so useful as in prison discipline, and the results of those experiments are often Unite different from what one would a priori expect. There are certain experiments which should have turned out

689
almost ludicrously impossible but which have been found to work out perfectly well, while others that ought apparently to have worked well have operated in an absolutely contrary sense. With some of the criticisms in regard to this Bill I am inclined at first sight to agree, but I should like to hear the matter discussed in Committee before making quite sure that the conclusion to which one naturally jumps are the right ones. But having given some study to the subject, I believe that this Bill is likely to produce happy and useful results.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, it is only necessary for me, in thanking noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion, to say that the various points which have been brought forward shall certainly receive attention before your Lordships are asked to go into Committee on the Bill. I could, however, deal with the Irish point raised by the noble and learned Lord opposite, but I will not venture to detain your Lordships now.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES.
LORD MONK BRETTON: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the subject of agricultural education in England and Wales, and to the Memorandum on the same subject, recently issued by the Board of Education; and to ask His Majesty's Government what action they propose to take in order to curry out the recommendations, and especially the financial recommendations, contained in the former, as well as to secure continuity and co-ordination of agricultural education generally, without the risk of overlapping the work of the two Departments.
I think I can best deal with this matter, by telling the House how my own attention was called to it. I am a member of a local authority which possesses an agricultural college. That college was started at the time when the late Lord Goschen gave what is commonly known as the whisky money to county councils. They had more ample means then than they have now. The Education Act,
690
1902, has since come into force, involving heavy expenditure all round. So much so, that the county council with which I am connected had to look round in order to economies, and as a result of their probable economies, I think the agricultural college, to which I have referred, is in very considerable danger. It receives a somewhat insignificant grant from the Board of Agriculture. I believe that if that grant is not increased within a short time, the college will be abolished. The local authority has taken no action with regard to it up to now, because it was aware that the Committee presided over by the noble Lord opposite, Lord Reay, was sitting, and because it desired to await their Report, and the action which H.M. Government might take with regard to it. The Report of that Committee has now been issued, and we are only waiting to know what his Majesty's Government intend to do with regard to the Committee's recommendations. There is no doubt at all that the Report of the Committee is in favour of increased grants to these institutions.
I believe this story, which is personal to my own county, is typical of what is taking place all over the country. Since I have been in the House I have received a letter from a noble Lord regretting his inability to be present, but stating that the College of Bangor is in very low circumstances for want of funds. The counties that can do least for agriculture are the agricultural counties, because they are the poorest, and that seems to me a very good reason why we should not depend so largely on the rates for agricultural education. I notice that the Committee say—and we discovered this in our own county—that when there arose the question of the abolition of an agricultural college, the farmers declared that they wished it to be continued. The Committee, in their Report, point out that the attitude of farmers with regard to these agricultural institutions has wholly changed, and that they now regard them as of the greatest importance. I do not think it is necessary in your Lordships' House that I should dwell on the importance of this matter. The noble Earl, the President of the Board of Agriculture, is the great advocate of small holdings The noble Earl wishes to cover the country with small holdings; but if these people are to be

691
successful small holders it is essential that they should have every means of education which it is possible to place within their reach. I remember a Report which was issued to your Lordships two years ago, and a very eloquent speech delivered by the right Rev. Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, on the subject of physical deterioration. The right rev. Prelate called attention to the national need that there was for fostering agricultural districts; he pointed to the birth rate in agricultural communities like Dorsetshire and in industrial communities like Blackburn, and demonstrated that it was absolutely necessary for the preservation of the manhood of the nation that rural affairs should have the fullest attention from His Majesty's Government.
What is the present position of agricultural education in this country? We depend on two Government Departments—the Board of Agriculture and the Board of Education. What does the Board of Agriculture do in this matter The Board gives a grant of £11,500 a year to Universities and colleges. That is the sum total of the money expended by the Board of Agriculture. What the Board of Education does it is impossible to say, because that Board issues no returns from which we can ascertain how much is spent on agricultural education; but from the statistics that I have been able to get at, I am inclined to think that the Board of Education does not spend so much in this direction as the Board of Agriculture. In any case, what is spent in this country is ludicrous when compared with what is spent by other countries. Whilst England and Wales spend £11,500, the Kindom of Prussia spends £100,000. In the United States of America £300,000 is spent by Congress and by the various States for agricultural purposes. Denmark is well known as a country which has done much good progressive work in the matter of agriculture, and the Committee report that in Denmark agricultural education is liberally supported by the Government. France, according to the report of our commercial attache, gives more than £150,000 a year; and it is well known that in our own Colonies a great deal of money is devoted to this purpose. Sir John Cockburn, in giving evidence before the Committee, stated that South Australia gave a grant
692
of £9,000 to one agricultural college, which is almost as large as the whole of the grants of the Board of Agriculture throughout England and Wales.
The work of these colleges is not confined to England and Wales, for they are doing an Imperial work. There is a drain of teachers from this country to other countries requiring agricultural education. One man left our small agricultural college in Sussex for Hong Kong, and another for East Africa. It is not right, therefore, that the expense of the education of these men should fall on the rates. I remember that when I was an official at the Colonial Office that department was called upon to find an agricultural expert for the Transvaal. Sir Thomas Elliott, of the Board of Agriculture, was consulted, and the result was the appointment of Mr. F. B. Smith, who has, since the beginning of Lord Milner's government, been at the head of the Agricultural Department in the Transvaal. He is, I believe, one of the most successful officials in South Africa, and a gentleman who had done more than any other to cement the settlement between the Dutch and the British in the Transvaal, and he owes his education to the Wye Agricultural College in Kent. Why, therefore, should this college be supported at the expense of the rates of Kent and Surrey?
The Committee report that the grants are inadequate. Every Committee and every Commission that has reported on this subject in the last twenty-five years has said the same thing; and every college and every University in the United Kingdom has, I believe, applied to the Board of Agriculture for increased grants. The Committee state quite clearly in their Report—
"The funds at present available for agricultural education are wholly inadequate, and considerably increased funds should be provided, the main source of which must be the national exchequer."
I venture to ask His Majesty's Government whether these increased funds will be provided from the national exchequer. Before I leave the Board of Agriculture I should like to call attention to the way in which that Department distributes the grants. This will be found in Appendix IV. on page 21 of the Board of Education Memorandum. It will be seen that what the Committee term Universities receive

693
proportionately very much higher grants than colleges. The list starts with £1,250 to the University College of North Wales, Bangor, and concludes with £100 to the agricultural institute at Ridgmont. I do not propose to inquire into the reason why these grants are issued so disproportionately. I think from the evidence it is quite clear that what the Board of Agriculture has done, having limited money at its disposal, has been to devote all the money it thought necessary to the Universities and then distribute the few remaining hundreds of pounds to the colleges. If the whole of the money is to be put into the Universities you will end by having a large number of teachers, but no colleges for them to go to.
The grants of the Board of Agriculture begin at the top—namely, with the Universities, and what remains goes to the colleges. The Board of Education, however, does the opposite. The Board of Education begins at the bottom and through its technical regulations gives grants which it declares are to be used for agricultural purposes. But those grants are concealed grants, for in their reports the Board of Education do not differentiate between what is given for agriculture and what is given for other purposes. I wish the noble Viscount the Lord President of the Council were in the House, but in his absence might I ask either the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture or the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether the Government would be prepared to lay upon the Table a Return showing the amount of money expended by the Board of Education on agricultural education in the counties? In Appendix III. of the Board of Education Memorandum, which gives information as to the Parliamentary grants available in respect of agricultural education, I find a total of £29,180, presumably largely for agricultural purposes. Included in that sum is an item of £1,610 for the county of Cumberland. Now, I happen to have heard that of that sum only £70 is spent on agricultural education in that county. Therefore it appears to me that this table is not worth the paper it is printed on. If the county of Cumberland does not get a twentieth, the inference is that of this £29,000 under £1,500 is given for agricultural purposes. As I have said, the
694
Board of Agriculture begins its work at the top. The Board of Education, on the other hand, works up from the bottom, and refuses to give grants to colleges which are under the Board of Agriculture. Therefore in your chain of agricultural education, consisting of the University, the college, the evening school and other outside work, the college is your weakest link. It is hardly touched by the Board of Agriculture and it is put in Coventry by the Board of Education. The result is that the college is in danger of almost immediate extinction. I ask His Majesty's Government to tell us what they propose to do with regard to these colleges. I certainly hope they will put an increased grant on next year's Estimates. If they do not, I am inclined to think they will never be worried by these colleges again, because there will be no colleges in the following year to require grants.
Then there is another point on which I should like to ask His Majesty's Government for information. It relates to what I call the outside work of those colleges and Universities, not the work done in the building for pupils who are devoting their whole time to these studios, but lectures and other work carried on amongst farmers in evening classes. According to the correspondence between Sir Thomas Elliott and Mr. Ogilvie, published in the Board of Education Memorandum, it would appear that the Board of Education are going to give grants in respect of that outside work. That, however, is contrary to the recommendation of the Committee presided over by Lord Reay. That Committee, in paragraph 28 of the summary of their principal conclusions and recommendations, say—
"The Committee are of opinion that agricultural instruction, when provided by Universities, University colleges, agricultural colleges, farm institute and winter schools, or by means of special classes or courses of lectures in agriculture and kindred subjects (e.g., dairying, horticulture), should be under the direction of the Board of Agriculture."
I venture to ask whether that recommendation is likely to be carried out. If it is, it seems to mo that the Board of Agriculture will require some funds with which to assist those classes. We have waited for the Report of this Committee, and now we are awaiting the decision of His Majesty's Government

695
with regard to it. I hope that the Government will be able to define the spheres of activity of the Board of Education and the Board of Agriculture in order that any friction between them may not be allowed to stand in the way of the very important work which is being carried out by the local authorities in the country. I hope His Majesty's Government will be able to give some information as to the way in which they propose to co-ordinate the whole system—University, college, and technical classes—and to finance it in order to put this country, which has lagged so long behind foreign countries and our own Colonies in this matter, in the position which it ought to occupy.
LORD REAY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend opposite for having called attention, in a very interesting speech, to the Report of the Committee of which I had the honour to be chairman. I rise to press on my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture to give effect, as speedily as he can, to the recommendations of the Committee, more especially with regard to what I would call the grading of agricultural schools. By this grading the University colleges are placed at the top; then follow the agricultural colleges and schools such as winter schools, which are of the greatest importance. Some of the members of the staffs of those colleges would be available for work in the neighbouring districts, and there would be in every county an organiser and a staff of exports to give advice to farmers and carry out experiments of various kinds. Agricultural education would be encouraged if most counties followed the example of the county of Wiltshire, which has through my noble friend the Chancellor of the Duchy secured such an efficient administration. There should be either a special committee for the organisation and supervision of agricultural instruction, or a sub-committee reporting direct to the education committee of the county council in each county, the point being that on such a committee farmers would serve and exercise influence which I consider of the utmost importance in the development especially of the lower grades of agricultural education.
The next point to which I would call the attention of my noble friend the President
696
of the Board of Agriculture is the very great importance of settling clearly the boundary line between the Board of Education and the Board of Agriculture. Elementary and secondary education the Committee considered outside the scope of their inquiry as coming under the control of the Board of Education. If the higher agricultural colleges are placed under the Board of Agriculture, and are made the directing agency for the lower grades of technical agricultural instruction, it is important that the Department which deals with the first category should have control of the whole system. That is attended in Scotland with the best results. There the whole of the lower educational work is organised by the three agricultural colleges on systematic lines which prevent overlapping. I think it will also be found a very sound plan from a financial point of view. I agree with the noble Lord opposite that the amount spent on agricultural education in this country is ludicrously small as compared with the expenditure in foreign countries, and I think the Board of Agriculture have a strong case in approaching the Treasury with a claim for funds for the support of those institutions which are now in a most unsatisfactory financial condition.
In the first place, I think my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture should insist on obtaining money in order that the higher colleges should be placed in a proper position, especially with regard to securing a highly qualified staff. That is important, because a greater supply of well-qualified teachers is needed, and they must be trained at the Universities or University colleges. As the Committee have pointed out, the facilities for agricultural instruction of a lower grade are "unorganised, unsystematic, and wholly inadequate." Farmers all over the country are no longer hostile to agricultural education as they were perhaps, twenty or thirty years ago, but are fully alive to its importance. The Board of Agriculture, being in touch with farmers, is better able than the Board of Education to realise what the farmers require. That is another reason why I desire to see this technical agricultural education under the supervision of the Board of Agriculture. The Committee state that in the next ten

697
years from fifty to sixty winter schools should be provided in England and Wales. That is a moderate estimate. Experience in Denmark has shown that winter schools exercise a most beneficial influence on the development of agriculture in the right direction.
I wish to insist on the urgent need of more State aid being given to veterinary education. We had a good deal of evidence on that subject, and it is quite clear that what has been done hitherto is inadequate and should be largely increased. The provision of scholarships for post-graduate research and travelling fellowships for teachers is also a matter which should not be lost sight of. I am very glad to see that my noble friend Lord Belper is in his place, as he took a prominent part in our discussions and in the preparation of this Report; but I greatly regret that Lord Barnard, to whom the appointment of this Committee was largely due and who has such a thorough knowledge of the subject, is not able to be present. I need hardly point out that all the recommendations of the Committee were unanimous. At one time it was anticipated that there would be a good deal of difference of opinion; but, finally, after a discussion of a very interesting character, we succeeded in coming to unanimous conclusions. I therefore think that we have been able to strengthen the hands of my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture in approaching the Treasury for more grants in aid of this great national industry; and since we have reported, chambers of agriculture and farmers' clubs all over the country have expressed their assent to the Committee's recommendations. We have adopted a definite and constructive policy, and have outlined a comprehensive and thoroughly national scheme, which must be looked at as an organic entity and judged on its merits as a whole.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH: My Lords, I think all your Lordships will thoroughly sympathise with the Question asked by the noble Lord and will agree as to the great importance of the subject. It seems to me, if I may venture to say so with great deference, that what is wanted is a general scheme of agricultural education throughout the
698
country, connected with, and as far as possible worked by, the county councils through their education committees or committees more especially devoted to agricultural subjects. In that way you can make use of existing machinery, which in my opinion is an important point. In too many instances what small funds have been available have been injudiciously spent, and instruction has been given on the wrong scale. In West Sussex, to which county I belong, hardly anything has been done in the way of agricultural education on anything like a proper scale. The farmers cannot be said to look with any hostile eye on this. What they complain of is that there is very little to be got out of it. They do not think a system of lectures very practical. It seems to me that if the education is to be effective, it must be made interesting and practical. It may be questioned whether agriculture admits of being taught by lectures and whether it is not entirely a practical subject. I suppose the answer is that there are two sides to agriculture as well as other things, and that the scientific side can, to a great extent, be helped by lectures delivered by experienced men. But there are also the various agricultural operations which can only be taught by practical instruction in the field. This subject has attracted increased attention not only in this country, but in others. I notice, in the Report of the Committee, that allusion is made to the very practical kind of agricultural schools in France. There are some thirty-eight of these, and they consist of farms varying in size from 100 to 350 acres. These farms not only combine theoretical with practical instruction, but are worked at a profit; and it seems to me that if we could take a leaf out of the foreigner's book in that way, and combine instruction with practical working, we should be going a great way to solve the difficulty. I trust that His Majesty's Government will approach this matter in a helpful way, and that this important question of agricultural education will no longer run the risk of perishing from lack of funds.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on what I might call the diverse recommendations of the Departmental Committee and the Memorandum of the

699
Board of Education as to the line which divides the sphere of influence, and the sphere of action of the Board of Agriculture and the Board of Education. Personally, I think the recommendation of the Departmental Committee might have gone even a little further than it did. I think, that the moment you come to what may be called secondary education in agriculture, that education should be entirely under the supervision and direction of the Board of Agriculture. The noble Lord who presided over the Departmental Committee has told us that he was careful to guard against stepping into the sphere of the Board of Education wherever there was what one might call a mixed realm, and where in the same sphere of action both agricultural and general education were being treated. But I think that if the Board of Agriculture had under its control the Universities, University colleges, farm institutes, agricultural colleges, and winter schools, it would very soon be found that what might be called the agricultural side in the secondary schools would rapidly decay. The work would be transferred entirely to the institutions which the noble Lord recommends should be placed under the Board of Agriculture, and I think it would be found after a time that the agricultural sphere of influence in the Board of Education would be limited to such preparation for agricultural teaching as it would be advisable to have in the elementary schools. In an elementary school in a rural district it is very essential that the instruction should be, to a certain extent, founded upon agricultural circumstances. By this I mean that if you are going to give something in the nature of a preparatory scientific training to elementary school children it must, of necessity, be applied to the surroundings of the child. You can bring up a scientific student, if he is only to be a theoretically scientific student, under any circumstances at all, providing that your school surroundings are sufficient; but if you are going to give him what I might call a practical, scientific grounding, you must do that where the scientific methods which you teach are linked with the surroundings of his every-day life; and you cannot give this scientifically practical agricultural training in a school situated in a town. It must be done in a rural school, and for this purpose I think there should
700
be inter-communication between the two Departments, so that the teachers who are placed in these rural schools might have had previously some kind of agricultural training which would give them a theoretical knowledge of the subject and enable them to direct the minds of the elementary scholar into a scientific way of looking at agricultural life. The objection is made that of the students in an elementary school in a rural district only a small proportion will take to agricultural life, and that therefore it is a mistake to give an agricultural aspect to the teaching, which may, after all, be only of avail to a small percentage of the students. But, as I have said, the scientific teaching, whatever it is, to be practical must be based on the everyday surroundings and everyday life of the child. I would appeal for a mutual arrangement which would give to the teachers concerned some scientific knowledge of the science of agriculture. Things have altered since the counties first had money given them for technical education. The agricultural instructors whom we have trained during the intervening period now have something to teach the farmers, the farmers recognise that it is so, and the Boord of Agriculture has a very promising work to do if it will take it up in a thorough and systematic manner.
THE EARL OF HARROWBY: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend, Lord Zouche. I think a great deal of money is wasted by county councils in lectures. My experience of the colleges about the country is that they take in gentlemen's sons, agents' sons, and the sons of large farmers, but there is no school to which the sons of small farmers can go. The country is over-run with unskilled labour, yet it is extremely difficult to get men who can do drain or hedge work. I would like to ask the noble Earl, the President of the Board of Agriculture, who has so nobly taken up the question of small holdings, whether he can do something in the direction of sending to schools some of those boys, who exist in every village, who are intelligent and prepared to follow in the footsteps of their fathers, but fail through want of opportunity.
EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I have to thank the noble Lord opposite

701
for calling attention to this matter, and for a most interesting and instructive debate. The noble Lord asked for information as to the amount of money spent by the Board of Education on agricultural instruction. I am afraid that would be a somewhat difficult question to answer, but I will submit it to my noble friend the Lord President of the Council and see if any satisfactory reply can be given. I should like to take the first opportunity of giving an assurance that there is no question of disagreement or friction between the two Departments, but there are intricate questions which must be threshed out before any system can be devised for the complete co-ordination of agricultural education. The heavy business of the autumn session has made it absolutely impossible for any definite conclusion to be come to between the two Departments on the recommendations of Lord Reay's Committee, whom I thank most sincerely for the way in which they have dealt with this important subject. I have not had an opportunity, owing to the pressure of work, to go in detail into the consideration of all the proposals, but I hope I shall not be thought very optimistic if I say that I think it will be extremely easy to come to some agreement which will be satisfactory to all concerned. We shall have to go to the Treasury in regard to the possibility of an increased grant. The necessity of that has been earnestly pressed, and I shall be more pleased than anyone if we can obtain more money for the purpose of forwarding agricultural education. I hope it will not be long before the two Departments come to a satisfactory conclusion upon the subject.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I was very glad to hear the noble Earl say there was no disagreement between himself and his colleague at the head of the Board of Education. I never for a moment supposed that there was. When I had the honour of occupying the position the noble Earl occupies to-day, I found the then Minister for Education, the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, willing to do everything he could for the advancement of agricultural education. The noble Marquess was good enough to appoint Mr. Dymond, whose work in promoting agricultural education generally in primary schools is little short of marvellous. There is no friction between
702
the heads of the Departments. But it is clear that the Board of Education think that they alone ought to have the distribution of the grants now given to all except the Universities and the University colleges. I cannot help thinking that there is a serious amount of disagreement on this matter between the Board of Agriculture and the Board of Education, and I hope the noble Earl will devote special attention to trying to come to some understanding between the two Departments. I cannot believe that is impossible. I cannot believe it is even difficult. Many suggestions have been made. It has been suggested that there should be a permanent consultative joint committee. It has been suggested that there should be a committee from both Boards, who should have the administration of these grants. Then there is an advisory committee of the Treasury, which makes reports on behalf of the Board of Education to the Treasury in respect of the grants made to the various forms of higher education. Surely one or other of these plans might be adopted. But, if neither of them commends itself to the noble Earl or his advisers, there is yet another suggestion, and I am not sure that that is not the suggestion which may, perhaps, be productive of the best effect. After all, this matter of agricultural education is mainly one for county councils and local authorities, and I would venture to ask Lord Belper, as chairman of the County Councils Association, whether it would not be possible to get together a committee of those who are experts in the administration of agricultural education in their several areas, who might draw up some clear line of demarcation between the moneys which may properly pass through the hands of the Board of Agriculture and those which may properly pass through the hands of the Board of Education. I really do not care whether you appoint a committee, or what committee you appoint. What we want is to get more money in one way or another for the purposes of agricultural education, and our trouble is that while the Board of Agriculture, we believe, is bettor able to spend the money in the way which agriculturists wish, it is the Board of Education which has the money at its command. I cannot help thinking that when any impartial tribunal comes to consider this

703
question, they will be impressed by the fact that the Department whose duty it is to foster the industry of agriculture, should also be charged with the duty of fostering higher education in matters of agriculture. The relations between the Board and the farmers are of the most friendly character. I speak with the greatest possible respect of the Board of Education, and of the inspectors which that department employs, but somehow or other I cannot altogether believe that those distinguished classmen who come from Oxford and Cambridge can be quite as sympathic with the agriculturists of this country, as men who have been trained in practical agriculture, and have not neglected the advantages of chemical research and of practical agricultural industry. In the Blue-book to which attention has been called, there is a reference by a representative of the Board of Agriculture to a committee which I think owes its inception to the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Duchy. It is a committee of the Wiltshire County Council. It is charged, not only with agricultural education, but with all the duties it properly can perform, that affect farmers and agriculture in the county. The farmers look upon it as their own committee, and I venture to think that a committee such as that, can do more good almost than any other department of a county council. This is what the representative of the Board of Education said of that committee—
"A local authority has too much to do, and an agricultural committee charged with the duty of looking after all agricultural interests and education would be much better for that part of the work; but if these men in any area are segregated the work of general education is apt to suffer very seriously. To cut out the agricultural interests in any way from the region of general and secondary education in rural communities would, I consider, be a matter of gravest misfortune."
That, I believe the noble Lord will say, is not the experience of the county of Wiltshire; and I venture to hope that it is in that direction we may look for some improvement in the organization of agricultural education. What the Board of Agriculture has done in the past is, I think, worthy of some praise and some credit. It has shown that it can organise these institutions. It is said by the Committee that, after all, we are not so very much behind foreign countries in
704
our institutions for agricultural education, and that the addition of a few of these institutions would furnish the country with sufficient collegiate centres. I cannot help thinking that a Department which has been successful to that extent is worthy of being trusted to go further. At this moment there is a great deal more interest being shown in the country generally in all that affects agriculture, and I trust that my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture will strike while the iron is hot. I earnestly hope that he will follow out the recommendations of the committee, and that he will do all that he can to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase the amount — the miserable amount—placod at his disposal for the encouragement of agricultural education.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY (Lord FITZMAURICE): My Lords, I do not rise to continue the general discussion, nor to attempt to add to what has been said on behalf of the Government by my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture. I intervene merely to explain that the Agricultural Committee of the Wiltshire County Council has not the full powers which Paragraph 115 in the Report of Lord Reay's Committee might lead anyone who read it to think. I recommended in my evidence that those powers should be handed over to one committee. The actual fact is that the committee—it is a separate committee, not a sub-committee—not only does the work in question, but also deals with the Fertilizers and Feeding Stuffs Act. That is undoubtedly an important addition to their work. I gave it as my opinion, in my evidence, that it would be desirable to carry that further, and to hand over to the Agricultural Committee also the work of the Diseases of Animals Act, and Small Holdings and Allotments. I can certainly repeat what I said to the Departmental Committee, that the experiment of having such a committee has, so far as it has gone, been very successful, and if we could get further statutory powers, those additional subjects might with advantage be handed over to the committee. It is of very great advantage, from the point of view of administration, especially of education, that there should be a committee which the farmers of the county look to as their committee.
LORD BELPER: My Lords, I should like to support almost all that the noble Lord the Chairman of the Departmental Committee has said. I must also give credit to the noble Lord as being the most careful and painstaking chairman of a Committee it would be possible to find. The noble Lord gave every opportuity for discussion, and the unanimous opinions we expressed in our recommendations cannot be said to have been arrived at without the fullest possible deliberation. I think for the first time it has become apparent that the agricultural interests in the country are satisfied with the good work accomplished by the colleges. I have had some experience of this. We issued invitations to a large number of farmers to inspect our college and see for themselves what was being done. The result has been that farmers who were entirely opposed to the work before have expressed unqualified approval of the practical instruction given. That is a point which cannot be too strongly emphasised when we go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask for more funds. If the agricultural interest are unanimous in pressing the Chancellor of the Exchequer to grant sufficient funds for the improvement of agricultural education, in order to put our farmers on an equality with those of other countries, I hardly think that any Government can refuse to accede to that request. The County Councils Association have passed unanimously a resolution approving of the main recommendations of the Departmental Committee. With regard to the appeal made to me by Lord Onslow, I can assure him that the County Councils Association will always be ready to do anything in their power to assist in a matter of this kind, especially if the co-operation does not involve any further expenditure out of the local rates. It is no idle observation in the Report of the Committee that it is impossible for county councils to find further sums themselves for this purpose. We are already overburdened with obligations placed upon us by Parliament, and it is obvious that the National Exchequer is the only source from which increased funds can be obtained for an improvement of agricultural education. I hope the sympathetic expressions of the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture will not prove idle words, but that before long funds will be forthcoming,
706
not only to make the existing colleges more useful than they can be with their present limited means, but also to establish a really national system of agricultural education.
House adjourned at five minutes before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Six o'clock.