Sitting of 11 February 1908

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Liverpool Corporation (Streets and Buildings) Bill (by Order). Read a second time, and committed.
Stockport Corporation Bill (by Order). Read a second time, and committed.

PETITIONS.
  CONGO FREE STATE.
  Petition from Kilsyth, for protection of the Native races; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Petition from Macroom, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSED PREMISES (EXCLUSION OF CHILDREN).
  Petitions for legislation: Prom Burythorpe; Crowthorne; Croydon (two); Elstree; Hadleigh; Harpenden; Leavening; Middlesbrough; New Barnet; Newport (Mon.); Ramsey; Ripley; St Albans; and St. Ives; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY.
  Petitions for legislation: From Acocks Green; Barrington; Galley Hill; Hands-worth; Holloway; King's Norton; Leicester; London (two); Northampton;
  1504
  Pittington; Portsmouth; St. Albans 'St. Helens; Saltley; Sidcup; Smethwick; Southsea; Sparkhill; Southwick-on-Wear; Stockton-on-Tees; Topsham, Tow Law; and Witton Gilbert; to lie upon the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (ELECTORS, ETC.) (UNITED KING DOM.)
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 30th January; Sir Charles Dilke]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 44.]
  DUCHY OF LANCASTER.
  Accounts presented, for the year ended 21st December, 1907 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 45.]

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Inquiry into Charities (County of Berks).—Further Return relative thereto [ordered 28th March, 1905; Mr. Griffith-Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 46.]
  Inquiry into Charities (Administrative County of Devon).—Further Return relative thereto [ordered 26th July, 1905; Mr. Griffith-Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 47.]

  ALIENS (NATURALISATION).
  Address for "Return showing the names of all Aliens to whom Certificates of Naturalisation have been issued and whose Oaths of Allegiance have, between the 1st day of January, 1907, and the 31st day of December, 1907, been registered at the Home Office, giving the country and place of residence of the person naturalised, and including information as to any Aliens who have, during the same period, obtained Acts

  1505
  of Naturalisation from the Legislature (in continuation of Parliamentary Papers No. 75, of Session 1907)."—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Children in Police Courts.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will say how many boys and girls under twelve and between twelve and sixteen were apprehended by the Metropolitan Police in 1907; and what are the regulations with regard to the detention, care, and feeding of such offenders at the police stations.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Statistics for the whole year 1907 are not yet available. During the first six months of that year, 2,723 boys and girls, Tinder sixteen years of age, were apprehended by the Metropolitan Police. Care is taken to release such offenders on recognisance at the earliest moment, and if it is necessary to detain them they are detained (whenever possible) elsewhere than in the cells, a matron being in attendance in the case of girls and children of tender years. Meals, consisting of tea, coffee, cocoa, or milk, with bread and butter, are given.

  Dock Inspectors.
  MR. CARR-GOMM: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many factory inspectors are appointed by his Department to examine the conditions of labour and inspect gear on floating craft in the port of London.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The staff attached to the four London districts and the Kent district, which
  1506
  is available for inspection of docks in those districts, and for the enforcement of the Regulations made under the Factory Act, is seventeen inspectors and three inspectors' assistants, but none of these is detached for dock inspection solely. The work of inspecting docks is done as part of the general work of inspection under the Act.

  Factory Inspectors.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what is the number of the present staff of inspectors and assistant inspectors, male and female, of factories and workshops; and whether it is proposed to make any, and what, additions to their numbers in the immediate future.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The present authorised strength of the inspecting staff of the Factory Department, including all ranks is: Men, 152; women, 13. As regards the second part of the Question, I am not in a position to make any statement at the present time.

  Small Holdings.
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state the number of acres of land for small holdings applied for in each county of England and Wales under the Small Holdings Act of last year, the number of applicants, and generally how the Act is working.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) Our information as to the applications made to county councils for small holdings under the Act of last session is by no means complete, but the following statement shows that in twenty-seven counties in England over 4,700 persons have applied for nearly 87,000 acres—

  county.

  Number of Acres applied for.

  Number of Applicants.

  Bucks

  5,353

  253

  Cambridge

  4,631

  641

  Chester

  867

  39

  Cumberland

  —

  17

  Derby

  610

  24

  Devon

  1,853

  98

  Dorset

  2,300

  —

  Durham

  2,742

  161

  Gloucester

  3,722

  182

  Hereford

  2,951

  131

  Herts

  1,500

  —

  Hunts

  6,000

  430

  Isle of Ely

  2,000

  300

  Isle of Wight

  853

  44

  Lancaster

  1,250

  95

  Lincoln (Parts of Holland)

  7,276

  346

  Lincoln (Parts of Kesteven)

  2,368

  159

  Lincoln (Parts of Lindsey)

  2,007

  75

  Norfolk

  5,000

  —

  Oxford

  10,235

  518

  Rutland

  1,200

  58

  Somerset

  8,300

  600

  Suffolk, East

  842

  40

  Suffolk West

  725

  33

  Wilts

  6,000

  —

  Worcester

  5,923

  438

  Yorks (West Riding)

  465

  18

  Totals

  86,973

  4,700

  So far as the Board are as yet able to judge the statutory committees are in almost every case carrying out their duties with energy and despatch, and landowners in all parts of the country appear ready to assist in the matter. We have every reason to be satisfied up to the present with the way in which the Act is working.

  Postal Facilities in Nottingham.
  MR. RICHARDSON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the principal sub-post office in Nottingham, situated on the Derby Road, was burnt down in October of last year; that the nearest sub-post office from which the inhabitants of that neighbourhood can get a halfpenny stamp or send a parcel by post is three-quarters of a mile in one direction and half a mile in another; and will he take immediate steps for opening a sub-post office in this populous centre, and, thus prevent a continuance of this inconvenience.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The office to which the hon. Member refers was re-opened yesterday. I approved the appointment of the new sub-postmaster on 11th January, but he could not be installed until certain structural alterations had been made in the premises he offered.

  Economic Policy of Indian Government.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether information regarding the economic policy of the Indian Government is available in any concise and untechnical form; and, if not, whether, in view of the misstatements and exaggerations regarding the so-called drain, he will consider the desirability of publishing a Memorandum similar to that drawn up by the Government of India in refutation of misstatements regarding its land policy and the incidence of its land assessments.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) A Memorandum of this kind would bristle with points of controversy, if it went beyond statement of material facts. Those facts, from whatever point
  1510
  of view they were selected and adopted, are all of them already accessible. But I may, perhaps, be allowed to draw attention to the official publications annually presented to this House, such as the financial statement of the Government of India and the explanatory Memorandum, both of which contain information on the subject.

  Convictions of Males under Sixteen for Indecent Language and Cruelty to Animals.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will say how many males, under the age of sixteen, were convicted during 1907, in the United Kingdom of cruelty to animals and the use of indecent language.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I regret that I cannot give the information which my hon. friend asks for. The figures of crime in England and Wales in 1907, will not be available for some time to come; and even when they are complete they will not enable me to answer this Question. The age of the offenders can be given only when they are apprehended, not when they are merely summoned and fined; and the use of indecent language is not a separate offence.

  Overcrowding in Scotland.
  MR. J. D. WHITE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that, in Appendix 2 of the recent Report on the Cost of Living of the Working Classes in the principal industrial towns of the United Kingdom, the percentages of the total populations occupying overcrowded tenements, i.e., more than two persons per room, are given for the specified towns of England, Ireland, and Wales, but not for the specified towns of Scotland; it being stated that the figures for the Scottish towns are not available; whether he can state what are the corresponding figures for these Scottish towns; and whether he will consider the advisability of framing the forms for the next Census so as to obtain that information.

  1511
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. My attention was directed some time ago to the fact that the figures referred to are not given in the Scottish Census Report, and under my instructions a Return has been prepared for presentation to the House which will give full information on the subject for the whole of Scotland. The figures for the specified Scottish towns are as follows—

  Town.

  Percentage of population living more than two in a room.

  Aberdeen

  38·1

  Dundee

  49·44

  Edinburgh

  32·94

  Glasgow

  54·7

  Greenock

  54·17

  Kilmarnock

  55·94

  Leith

  43·8

  Paisley

  58·76

  Perth

  28·26

  My hon. friend will remember that the Board of Trade Report [Cd. 3164] draws attention to the fact that the tenement system of blocks of small flats is in Scotland the normal type of working-class dwelling, and that the rooms are generally much larger than those of an English cottage. The question of including these figures in the next Census Report will receive consideration.

  Postage Rates to China.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether penny postage is established between Great Britain and Shanghai, Amoy, Canton, and other places in China where there are British post offices, or agencies of the Hong Kong post office; if so, whether, under these circumstances, he will give instructions for the penny postage system to be extended to the British post offices at Constantinople and Salonica from this country; and what is the estimated cost of this reform.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) There is at present a penny post for letters between this country and the agencies maintained by the Hong Kong Post Office at Shanghai and other places
  1512
  in the Chinese Empire. That Empire has not yet joined the Postal Union and the position of the Hong Kong agencies is therefore different from that of the British agencies in the Ottoman Empire, which like Great Britain is a member of the Union. Having regard to this and other circumstances of the case, it is not intended at present to extend the penny rate to these offices.

  Edgeworthstown Post Office.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether Edgeworthstown post office is about to be made a sub-office instead of, as for years, being head office of the Granard district; if so, on what grounds this change is being made; is any reduction in staff contemplated; and will full inquiry be made before the change takes place.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) After very full consideration I have decided to reduce Edgeworthstown to the rank of a sub-office. The change is purely an administrative measure in order to improve control and organisation. One of the Edgeworthstown officers will be transferred to Longford to meet the increase of work there consequent on the change. The alteration will not in any way impair the existing postal facilities of the district.

  Lough Foyle Fishery Limit.
  MR. BARRIE: To ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he has received a resolution from the Londonderry County Council referring to the recent refusal of the Irish Privy Council to sanction the fishery limit at the entrance to Lough Foyle as fixed by his department; and what action he proposes to take in reference thereto.
  (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) The Department have received the resolution in question, and have informed the Londonderry County Council that the Lord-Lieutenant in Council declined to approve of the by-law referred to. As that decision is final, the Department are unable to take any further steps in the matter.

  Boy Clerks in the Civil Service.
  MR. SNOWDEN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the number of boy clerks appointed in the years 1905, 1906, and 1907; and also the total number of appointments made to the following classes, viz., Second Division, Assistants of Customs, Excise, and assistant clerks, showing the number of these appointments which were gained by boy clerks excluding those gained by ex-boy clerks.

  II. Number of Persons certificated to certain other Classes of Appointments in the Civil Service during those years, together with number of those Appointments gained by Boy Clerks (excluding ex-Boy Clerks).

  Year.

  Second Division.

  Assistants of Customs.

  Assistants of Excise.

  Assistant Clerks (Abstractors).

  Total.

  Number of Boy Clerks among them.

  Total.

  Number of Boy Clerks among them.

  Total.

  Number of Boy Clerks among them.

  Total.

  Number of Boy Clerks among them.

  1905

  184

  47

  96

  6

  110

  4

  246

  124

  1906

  292

  73

  33

  3

  110

  0

  281

  168

  1907

  208

  60

  55

  7

  176

  2

  232

  136

  Total

  684

  180

  184

  16

  396

  6

  759

  428

  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Lords of the Treasury will amend the regulations made under the Superannuation Acts in such a manner as to enable the service given by boy clerks employed in the Post Office, Dublin, who have been promoted to adult clerkships in the Second Division, to be counted after the age of sixteen years, for the purpose of calculating pension on retirement after continuous service, in the same way that sorters, stampers, porters and telegraphists are permitted to reckon all continuous service after the age of sixteen years for superannuation purposes.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) Service as boy clerk, unlike the other cases referred to by the hon. Member, terminates
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I have received from the Civil Service Commissioners the information for which the hon. Member asks, namely—
  I. Number of Boy Clerks registered in years 1905, 1906, and 1907.

  In 1905

  596

  In 1906

  923

  In 1907

  1,100

  2,529

  automatically on reaching the age of twenty, and does not qualify for pension. I do not think that there are any "special circumstances," within the meaning of Section 3 of the Superannuation Act of 1887, which would justify the Treasury in reckoning it for pension when it happens to be followed by service in an established capacity.

  Fire Resisting Properties of Ferro- Concrete.
  MR. HORNIMAN: To ask the First Commissioner of Works what is the estimated life of buildings in reinforced or ferro-concrete, such as is now being erected for the post office in King Edward VII. Street, E.C.; whether he has had any report of how this kind of construction resists the effects of fire; and has he seen any reports or publications

  1515
  respecting the buildings so constructed after undergoing the test of fire at San Francisco.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) Buildings of ferro-concrete are believed by experts to be at least as durable as those of brick or stone. I have received a very valuable report confirming this opinion on this subject from the Joint Committee of the Royal Institute of British Architects which is available to the hon. Member at the cost of 1s. The experience of San Francisco, though interesting, is not of conclusive value, as the buildings there were subjected to earthquake fracture before the occurrence of fire.

  Application for Discharge of Henry Sheppard from the Navy.
  MR. JOYCE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that a widowed woman named Mary Sheppard, of 12, Windmill Street, Limerick, made application for the discharge of her son, Henry Sheppard, from the Royal Navy, the said son being an A. B. on board of H.M.S. "Aboukir"; that she grounds her claim on the Widows' Act, that her husband died on 23rd September, 1907, that her son is her only means of support, and that his late father's employers have kept his position open for his son pending his discharge from the Navy; and whether under these circumstances the claim of this woman will be favourably considered, and her son discharged.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) In reply to an inquiry made on 19th December, Mrs. Sheppard was informed that her son's application for discharge should be made through the commanding officer. Nothing further is known of the case, but inquiry is being made. Discharge on foreign stations is only allowed in special circumstances, the decision resting with the Commander-in-Chief.

  Deaths from Starvation.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board what were the number
  1516
  of deaths in 1907 in London upon which a coroner's jury returned a verdict of death from starvation, or death accelerated by privation; how many of these took place in Whitechapel; if he has not yet received the Home Office Returns as to these deaths, whether he will without delay obtain from the Whitechapel guardians or from the Poor Law inspector of the district the number of such deaths from starvation in Whitechapel in 1907; and whether he has conferred, or will confer, with the guardians of Whitechapel as to steps to prevent or diminish the number of such deaths.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am not able to give the numbers for the year 1907. The usual Return has not at present been moved for, and I understand that consequently the necessary particulars have not yet been obtained by the Home Office from the coroners. I have communicated with the clerk to the Whitechapel guardians as to the occurrence in that union in 1907 of cases of the kind referred to, and I am informed that the medical superintendent of the infirmary has caused a search to be made and can find only one such case, viz., that of George Wright, who died on 25th July last, and in respect of whom the verdict of the coroner's jury was that he died from pneumonia accelerated by neglect and want of food. I will inquire as to the circumstances of this case, but I am not at present aware of any need for action of the kind suggested in the concluding part of the Question. In connection with this matter the character of the district and the large number of persons of migratory habits attracted thereto by free shelters and common lodging houses must be borne in mind.

  Outbreak of Foot-and-Mouth Disease at Gorgie.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in the case of the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at Gorgie, the diagnosis was established as the result of naked-eye appearances or upon bacteriological evidence; and, if the latter, what are regarded by the Board of Agriculture as

  1517
  the bacterial characteristics of the disease.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The diagnosis was based on the naked-eye appearances of the disease. The lesions were so typical of foot-and-mouth disease that no experimental test was considered necessary to establish the diagnosis.

  Untenanted Land at Clonfin.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any further steps have been taken by the Estates Commissioners towards purchasing the untenanted lands of Clonfin, in North Longford, for sub-division amongst the tenants of the surrounding congested districts.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I informed the hon. Member on 21st February, 1907, that the Estates Commissioners had been unable to discover what persons, if any, are entitled to sell the untenanted lands on the Thompson estate, Clonfin, which it is presumed are the lands referred to in the present Question. The Commissioners have not since succeeded in ascertaining the names of the persons who may be entitled to sell, but if the hon. Member is in a position to furnish them with the names they will make further inquiries in the matter.

  Reinstatement of Mrs. Mary Eagan.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what steps have been or are being taken by the Estates Commissioners to effect the reinstatement of Mrs. Mary Eagan in her former holding at Cahirduggan, on the Nason estate, county Cork, having regard to the fact that the farm is in the landlord's possession and derelict.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have communicated to the owner the price which they are prepared to give for Mrs. Eagan's former holding, and the landlord has signified his willingness to accept that price. The matter now awaits the
  1518
  institution of formal proceedings for sale by the owner.

  Inspectors under the Seed Supply Act.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have received a copy of a resolution recently passed by the Lismore Board of Guardians with reference to the appointment of inspectors under the Seed Supply Act; whether the suggestion in the resolution that only persons nominated by the county committees of agriculture be eligible will be adopted; and whether he is aware that serious complaints have been made as to the unsuitability of persons appointed on former occasions.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Local Government Board have received a copy of the resolution referred to, but do not intend to adopt the suggestion contained therein. No complaints of the nature referred to in the concluding part of the Question have reached the Board.

  The Parker Estates near Tallow.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what steps have been taken by the Estates Commissioners to acquire the Parker estate, at Janeville, near Tallow, county Waterford; what have been the causes of the delay in the matter; and what is the present position.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) In March, 1905, the Estates Commissioners issued to the Land Judge a request under Section 7 of the Act of 1903 in respect of the estate referred to in the Question. After the necessary documents had been lodged, the Commissioners had the estate inspected in October, 1906. The Commissioners then made an offer to the Land Judge, and, pending its reconsideration by them at the request of the Judge, the lands were let for grazing. On 31st ultimo the Commissioners sent in an amended offer which will in due course come before the Land Judge for consideration.

  Fermoy Gas Company and the Military Gas Works.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office

  1519
  if his attention has been called to the fact that the military gas works in Fermoy Barracks have recently been connected with the premises of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company; whether he is aware that the gas is supplied by the Fermoy Gas Company to the military barracks at 2s. 11d. per 1,000 cubic feet and from the military works to the railway company af 5s. 10d. per 1,000 cubic feet; will the gas company be obliged to refund the money received from the railway company; and if the War Office intends to allow the military works to continue to be used for the private supply of gas.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Fermoy Gas Company, a non-statutory body, supplies the military with gas at 2s. 11d. per 1,000, while charging the town 5s. 10d.; has Government sanction been obtained to the supply of the railway station from the barracks gasworks; will the money thus received for War Office gas be accounted for to Government; and whether, as the Irish Courts have frequently decided that this company acts illegally in breaking up streets without statutory authority or the consent of the local authority, the War Office will abstain from assisting the gas company against the town council in its struggle to compel the gas company to resort to Parliament for powers and rates of charge.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) The facts are substantially as stated in the Questions. The Army Council are of opinion that the Military Gas Works should not be permitted to supply any private customers of the gas company of Fermoy, and instructions have been issued accordingly that the supply at present given to the railway company should cease after a week's notice.

  Compassionate Allowance—Case of James Norris.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether any fund is now available out of which a further compassionate allowance might be made to James Norris, Ardagh, county Longford, whose son was killed in the South African War; and, if so, will the
  1520
  case be considered with a view to a further grant.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) If the hon. Member will kindly have the application form, which was sent to him yesterday, duly filled in and returned to the War Office, the case shall receive full consideration.

  Pension—Case of Private Thomas Morrissey, 1st Leinster Regiment.
  MR. JOYCE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Private Thomas Morrissey, No. 4333, B. Company, 1st Lenister Regiment, who enlisted in 1894, and was discharged in 1898 suffering from a bad leg, brought on, in the doctor's opinion, by heavy route marching; also, that up to the present this man's leg cannot be cured, and that, through this cause, he cannot follow any regular employment; whether he is aware that this man has made repeated applications to the War Office and forwarded his papers, and has never been given a reply; and whether, under these conditions, a small pension could be given him to enable him to keep out of the workhouse.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This man was discharged after less than four years service in consequence of varicose veins in the left leg. The Medical Board which recommended his discharge was of opinion that his disability was not primarily caused by his service as a soldier. This case was fully considered by the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital on his discharge in 1898, who decided that he had no claim to pension. He has been answered six times to that effect, and was informed in March 1906 that no further application could receive attention. He is not, therefore eligible for the award of any pension from Army funds.

  Retiring Allowances of Quartermasters.
  MR. GUINNESS: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether anything can be done to better the retiring allowance of quarter-masters who have attained the rank of honorary major, in view of the fact that a combatant major is granted £300 per annum

  1521
  on retirement at the age of forty-eight years, while a man who has risen from the ranks by sheer merit gets only £200 per annum on retirement as a major at the age of fifty-five years.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The question has been recently considered, but it has not been found practicable at present to take any steps towards increasing the retired pay of these officers.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  The Navy—The August Review.
  MR. COUETHOPE: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Marylebone I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether every ship which took part in the Naval Review last August had its full complement of officers and men on board; and, if so, how many men of the Royal Naval Reserve and Naval Volunteers were embarked temporarily to man the ships; and what was the total proportion of untrained men carried.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): The Answer to the first part of the Question is: Yes, with the exception of midshipmen and junior accountant officers. As regards the second part, none were embarked to complete complement, but about 147 Royal Naval Reserve men were undergoing their annual training in the Fleet at the time. After such a lapse of time the information asked for in the third part of the Question cannot be furnished, but the proportion must have been very small.
  MR. COUETHOPE: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Marylebone, I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many battleships and how many cruisers which took part in the Naval Review last August had to proceed into dock for repairs immediately after the review, or had to be docked before being able to go to sea; and what were the names of the ships, together with the date on which they were last in dock for repairs prior to the review, and the
  1522
  period of their stay in dock both prior to and after the review.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: None, Sir.

  Rosyth.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he can state approximately when the main contract for the works at Rosyth is likely to be let.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Nothing can be done till Vote 10 is passed by the House. In the event of Vote 10 being taken early, it may be possible to let the contract during the summer.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication when Vote 10 will be taken?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I propose to take it in accordance with the usual custom immediately after Vote 1, as new works cannot be undertaken till Vote 10 is passed.

  Navy Estimates.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state when the Naval Estimates will be ready for distribution to Members of this House.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Estimates are in the hands of the printer, and will probably be ready for issue about Thursday week.

  War Office Publications.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the official publication by the Stationery Office for the General Staff at the War Office of a quarterly review of books of military interest, and to the inconvenience of combining with approval of the volumes reviewed, quotation of unfriendly references to allies, such, for example, as those concerning the Japanese Chief of Staff and the Japanese generals, on page 6 of the January number; whether these references have been communicated

  1523
  by the General Staff to the Royal United Service Institution and distributed at the public expense to headquarters of commands, educational establishments, units, and reference libraries; and whether he will direct care to be taken in future to avoid unguarded official quotation of individual opinion.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): The aim of the reviews in the publication in question is to indicate to the officers of the Army the nature and purport of the contents of a book. To do this extracts are indispensable. These books are selected solely for their educational value as military works; and the fact that they are included in the list does not in any way imply approval of the opinions expressed in them. At the same time, I agree with the right hon. Baronet that such quotations as the one to which he has drawn my attention are better omitted, and I have directed that these reviews shall be in future confined to the purely military aspects of the books they deal with. The references were communicated as stated in the Question.

  Volunteer Reduction.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it be intended to reduce the number of men serving in the First Volunteer Battalion, Manchester Regiment, of which the headquarters are in Wigan.
  MR. A. WILLIAMSON: I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War if the Territorial Army scheme involved a reduction in the number of Volunteers in the counties of Moray and Nairn to about one-half; if he has received memorials from the county council of Morayshire and from the town councils of Elgin and Forres petitioning against the proposed reduction; and if, in view of any such petitions and of the strong feeling which has been aroused, and having in view the record and services of the 3rd Volunteer Battalion Seaforth Highlanders, he can now see his way to sanction the allocation of a battalion of the Territorial Army to the counties named.
  MR. HALDANE: The quota of troops which each county is to be asked to raise has not yet been finally settled. A scheme based partly upon population and partly upon units already existing has already been communicated to County Associations. They have been asked to consider this scheme and confer with the General Officers Commanding of their respective commands upon it. Until the reports of these conferences and the recommendations made at them have been considered by the Army Council and received its approval, it is impossible to say how far existing units will be affected by the new scheme, and I cannot therefore, reply to the specific points the hon. Gentleman raises. As regards the Question of the hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn, memorials have been received from the county council of Elgin and from the Elgin Town Council.
  MR. A. WILLIAMSON: In the event of its being impossible to allocate a whole battalion to the county, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of allocating to it some other branch of the service so that the services of a large number of Volunteers may not be lost to the county?
  SIR FRANCIS POWELL: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to answer my Question?
  MR. HALDANE: When we have got the Report of the General Officer Commanding, which I hope will be very shortly, the Army Council will be able to consider the matter. We are doing our best to avail ourselves of the services of Volunteers, but, of course, military circumstances may preclude our taking advantage of the offer.

  Recruiting Meetings on Licensed Premises.
  MR. THORNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a meeting that was held at the Star Hotel, Crieff, on Tuesday evening, 4th February, at which Captain Bathue, adjutant, delivered an address and conferred with intending recruits in connection

  1525
  with the Scottish Horse, Imperial Yeomanry, D. Squadron; and if he has sanctioned the holding of meetings in licensed premises for recruiting purposes.
  MR. HALDANE: Nothing is known of this matter at the War Office. The General Officer Commanding-in-Chief concerned has been called upon to report upon the subject.
  MR. COURTHOPE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that sometimes licensed premises are the only places available for holding a meeting in rural districts?
  MR. HALDANE: That may be so, and it is very unfortunate. But it should be avoided wherever possible.

  Magisterial Functions in India.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what proportion of the criminal work, original and appellate, in India is disposed of by district and other magistrates in whose case revenue and magisterial functions are combined, and what proportion is disposed of by magistrates who do not exercise revenue and other administrative powers.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,): The information asked for is not available in this country, and in view of the labour which would probably be involved, I do not think I should be justified in calling on the Government of India to supply it.

  Censorship of Correspondence in India.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that letters addressed to certain individuals in India have been tampered with and delayed in delivery; whether it is by the orders of the Government of India or the Secretary of State; and whether he will consider the advisability of putting a stop to this practice.
  MR. MORLEY: The Government of India reported to me that, for special reasons, they felt it to be necessary, in the early part of last year, to take action,
  1526
  which it was within their discretion to take, under the provisions of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. This action was, as I understand, entirely discontinued after about six weeks.

  Freedom of Speech in India.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in the interests of good relations between rulers and ruled, he will advise the Government of India to repeal The Prevention of Seditious Meetings Act, 1907, and the Regulation of 1818, under which Lajpat Rai and Agit Singh were arrested and transported without trial.
  MR. MORLEY: I cannot admit that the best interests of rulers and ruled would be served by the measure that my hon. friend suggests, and the Answer to his Question is therefore in the negative. I may add that the Act of 1907 is in force in one district only, and that no meeting has been prohibited since it came into force.
  MR. SMEATON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Regulation of 1818 and Subsidiary Local Regulations conferring similar powers were of immense value in and after the pacification of Burma in ridding the country not only of the enemies of the Government, but of the enemies of the people, and that these Regulations were welcomed by all classes, notably by the Elders and by the best of the Buddhist clergy?
  MR. MORLEY: I am not aware of that, but I am very glad to hear it.
  MR. LUPTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the peace of India is promoted by the closing of meetings?
  MR. MORLEY: No meeting has been stopped.

  Police Shadowing in India.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Members of Parliament and correspondents of journals in England have been shadowed by detective police while travelling in India; and whether

  1527
  he will consider the advisability of putting a stop to this practice.
  MR. MORLEY: If the Gentlemen concerned will address the local governments, if they have been put to any sort of inconvenience by the alleged practice of which my hon. friend complains, I can promise that they will receive every consideration.
  MR. REES: Is it not a matter of common knowledge that travellers in India are apt to fall into bad hands?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Port of Spain Water Supply.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State to the Colonies if he is aware that the town board of Port of Spain, under the Port of Spain Waterworks (Amendment) Ordinance, is now empowered the sole party to repair the pipes, etc., of the town properties; that notice of such repairs and payment for the same to the owners of such properties is in many cases imperfectly given and demanded; that on non-payment of such sum, in some cases only amounting to 12 cents. the board has power to enforce, and does enforce, payment by selling such properties or land by public auction before the doors of the town hall, intimation of such sale being generally by advertisement in the local newspaper; that when the board's solicitor does give notice he charges 80 cents. for such notifying letter; that members of the town board have been known to be the purchasers of such properties put up by auction; and, if so, whether he can state what action, if any, he intends to take, with a view to the adoption of a more just method in regard to the collection of such accounts.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The process for the recovery of arrears of rates and charges due to the town board as water authority is laid down in the Ordinance cited by the hon. Member, and is the same as that in force in respect of house rates in Port of Spain. Sale of the
  1528
  property is, however, not the only procsss, there being an alternative by way of distress. The Secretary of State is not aware that any abuses of the nature described by the hon. Member have occurred in Port of Spain, but the Governor will be asked for a Report in the matter.

  Crown Agent's Office Finance.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state the years in which there were deficiences in the income of the Crown Agents' Office, the amount of the deficiency in each of the last tea years, and the reasons for the deficiencies in each year in which there was a deficiency.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The following deficiencies in the income of the office of the Crown Agents for the Colonies have occurred during the last ten years—

  £

  1898

  4,437

  1899

  3,173

  1900

  2,483

  1901

  23,720

  1903

  6,362

  1904

  5,265

  1905

  6,731

  The usual cause of a deficiency is the fluctuation in the amount of commission received on loan business, which is very variable. The deficiencies in 1901 and 1903, were mainly due to expenditure on the new offices taken in the former year.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, by what amount the Crown Agents' Office Reserve Fund has increased during the year 1907; and if he will state the main items which have led to the increase.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The increase in the Crown Agents' Office Reserve Fund during 1907 amounted to £46,863. The main items were: Dividends on Investments, £12,280; commission on issue of loans, £17,422; and surplus income, £14,587.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies

  1529
  whether the salary drawn by the senior Crown Agent for the Colonies is considerably in excess of that paid either to the Permanent Under-Secretary of the Colonial Office or the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury; if so, what is the amount of the excess and the reasons for placing that office upon a higher rate of pay than that enjoyed by the last-named two officials; and whether, in all the circumstances, the Secretary of State will appoint an independent committee to inquire into and report upon the constitution, administration, and management of the office of the Crown Agents for the Colonies and the salaries paid to the officials thereof, to the end that it may be placed upon a footing in all respects with other departments of His Majesty's Civil Service.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg further to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the exhaustive inquiry instituted in 1901 by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham extended to the internal management and clerical organisation of the office of the Crown Agents; and, if not, whether he will himself institute an inquiry in this particular direction so as to satisfy himself on the head in question.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The senior Crown Agent for the Colonies receives £2,500 a year. As I explained to the hon. Member on Tuesday last, the Crown Agents are not Civil Servants and the true position is to compare their salaries with those given to officials of great commercial and financial institutions. The Secretary of State associates himself with the views expressed by his predecessors upon the work and administration of the Crown Agents Office as an organisation distinct from the Colonial Office; but he will be glad to consider the desirability of appointing a small inter-departmental Committee to report upon the best method of selecting the clerical and technical staff for the Crown Agents' Office, and particularly to consider the conditions of tenure, the scale of payment of salaries and pensions, and how far the arrangements in that office are in accord or can be brought into harmony with the principles governing the Civil Service.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Have the Government assured themselves that the kind of preference which is granted to British industries and merchant firms through the Crown Agents' Office is quite in harmony with the free trade policy of the Government?
  MR. CHURCHILLasked for notice of the Question.
  MR. REES: Was it not necessary lately to give a personal allowance to a Crown Agent to enable him to occupy the higher position of Under-Secretary?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I should not like to say one way or the other.

  Chinese in South Africa.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state how many indentured Chinese labourers there were in South Africa at the end of 1907; and at what date will the indentures of the last batch of Chinese imported expire.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The number on 31st December last, was, I understand, 35,676, and the latest term of labour under indenture will expire in January, 1910.

  The Indian Punitive Expedition.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary for India a Question, of which I have given private notice, whether it is the fact that no Press correspondents will be allowed to accompany the punitive expedition which the Government of India is about to despatch against the Zakka Khels tribesmen; and, if so, who is responsible for this omission of the means of communication to the public here of the incidents of that expedition; and on what ground is this prohibition based laving regard to the restraining influence of the Press.
  MR. MORLEYsaid he was not sure whether this regulation had been made or not, but he would inquire.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked whether hon. Members would

  1531
  have any opportunity of expressing their opinion as to the policy of this expedition, or, indeed, whether it was wise at all?
  MR. MORLEYsaid he did not know what his right hon. friend the Prime Minister would say, but personally he hoped that no discussion would take place till the expedition had at all events made some advance.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could give any indication as to the probable cost of the expedition, how many men were to be employed in it, or was this war to be entered upon like all other wars without the slightest consideration.
  MR. MORLEYsaid that His Majesty's Government had sanctioned this expedition, and the expedition must therefore continue. If the House was of opinion that it was a wrong expedition, or that its cost was likely to be excessive, it would be for the House to pronounce its judgment.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked what opportunities hon. Members would have of forming an opinion on the question, whether the information at the disposal of the Government was to be communicated in any way to hon. Members, or whether no opportunity whatever was to be given to them of expressing an opinion on a matter which would involve an expenditure of thousands and tens of thousands of pounds while people in this country were starving.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman, having regard to the importance of this subject, would have any objection to telegraph to the Indian authorities and Lord Kitchener asking whether it was true or not that this prohibition of war correspondents to accompany the expedition had been issued, and, if so, whether the House would be able to revise it.
  MR. MORLEYsaid that he had already promised to ascertain the reasons for the regulation having been made; and, if it had been made, whether or not it might be altered.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDgave notice that he would take the earliest opportunity to draw attention to the practice of the Government of the day embarking on military operations without giving the representatives of the people any opportunity whatever of saying whether or not the expenditure was justified, and to move a Resolution declaring that expeditions of this kind should not be undertaken without giving hon. Members some opportunity of expressing the opinion of their constituents on the subject.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that the expedition was stated to be an expedition of a punitive character to inflict "speedy and condign punishment." Had the right hon. Gentleman considered the cost of money as well as of lives that would be involved?
  MR. CORRIE GRANTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that during the last great war our Japanese allies not only refused to allow war correspondents to accompany their troops, but provided them all with comfortable hotel accommodation at Tokyo?
  MR. MACVEAGH: What is this war about?
  MR. MORLEYsaid that if the information that had been already supplied to the House in the form of a Question and Answer circulated with the Votes that morning was read it would be seen that there was a perfectly good account given of the causes of the expedition.
  MR. LUPTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would telegraph instructions to India that the troops were not to burn buildings, orchards, farms, and so on, and to turn women and children out into the cold.
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Macedonia.
  EARL PERCY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in proposing to the Powers that the task of restoring public security in Macedonia should be

  1533
  undertaken by an increased gendarmerie force under the command of foreign officers with executive authority, and that the funds for the maintenance and equipment of this force should be secured by a reduction of the Turkish regular army now stationed in the country, His Majesty's Government have re-affirmed the proposition laid down by Lord Lansdowne that, in the event of the adoption of such a policy, it would be reasonable to expect that Bulgaria would be willing to carry out a simultaneous and corresponding reduction, and to enforce measures to the satisfaction of the Powers, with the view of preventing the organisation and equipment of insurgent bands in her own or Turkish territory; and that, failing a satisfactory arrangement on this basis, the Powers should give a collective guarantee that during the specified period, Bulgaria would not be allowed to occupy any portion of Turkish territory.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): The proposition to which the noble Lord refers was not included in the proposals recently made by His Majesty's Government. These proposals were put forward in general terms, and a small decrease of Turkish troops, whose place would be taken by a corresponding increase of gendarmerie, would not necessarily raise so large a question. In the event of proposals of wider scope being made in the future, it would be reasonable that the question of some form of guarantee such as Lord Lansdowne indicated should again be considered.

  The Hague Conference.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when there will be laid before Parliament additional Papers relating to the proceedings at the Hague Conference; and whether he is in a position to explain the reasons which made His Majesty's Government, after proposing the creation of an International Prize Court of Appeal, unable to join in signing the Convention thus obtained at the time of its signature by many other Powers.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Papers are in course of preparation, and will be issued as soon as possible, but they are very voluminous and have not yet been published at The Hague. The British Plenipotentiaries signed none of the instruments drawn up by the Conference before they left The Hague, and the same course of procedure was adopted on the occasion of the First Peace Conference. There was no reason for making the Prize Court Convention an exception to this course.

  Macedonian Gendarmerie—Baron Herenthal's Speech.
  MR. GOOCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the speech of Baron Herenthal to the Hungarian Delegation to the effect that the employment of gendarmerie to hunt down the bands in Macedonia was impracticable; whether he has received favourable or unfavourable replies from the other Powers; and what steps he proposes to take to secure the acceptance of the proposals of His Majesty's Government.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: My attention has been called to the speech in question; replies in this sense have been received from the Austrian and Russian Governments. As soon as the views of all the Powers are known, His Majesty's Government will consider what course they should adopt.
  MR. LYNCH: In what sense?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: In the sense which is evidently familiar to the hon. Member who put the Question.

  Transvaal Finance.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what sums, if any, have been issued to the Government of the Transvaal, under the Transvaal Loan Guarantee Act, 1907.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): The Government of the Transvaal

  1535
  recently issued £500,000 six-months Treasury Bills, which are guaranteed under the provisions of the Act referred to. There has been no issue to the Government of the Transvaal under the guarantee.

  Suggested Tax on Titles.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the expediency of imposing a tax on titles.
  MR. ASQUITH: I would refer my hon. friend to the reply which I gave him yesterday upon another suggestion for taxation.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: As my Question was not reached yesterday, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman what his reply was.
  MR. ASQUITH: The reply has been circulated with the Votes. I am afraid the hon. Member had not the curiosity to look for it. It was this: "Any suggestion in regard to new taxation will receive my most sympathetic and careful consideration." Perhaps by this I may anticipate the answer to other Questions.

  Anstruther Harbour.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state whether he has been able to consider the petition handed to him last September with regard to the vital necessity of improving the Anstruther Harbour; and whether he can hold out any hope of a favourable reply.
  MR. ASQUITH: The petition has received my careful attention, and I regret that, until the Anstruther local authorities are in a position to comply with the conditions which, as they have, been informed, apply to cases of this kind, the Treasury is precluded from making a grant for the harbour.

  Case of Patrick Callighan.
  MR. MACPHERSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to the case of Patrick Callighan, of Preston, who was sentenced
  1536
  to death for murder, was afterwards reprieved and is still in prison; whether he is aware that, owing to poverty, the witnesses for the defence were not all present at the trial, and that Martha Whiteside, the principal witness against the prisoner, went to the police, but that Detective-Inspector Simpson refused to hear what she had to say; that Martha Whiteside disappeared; that the prisoner's brother communicated these facts to the Home Department; that finally Police-Inspector Walmsley, who had charge of the case, disappeared; and whether he will institute an inquiry by his Department, or cause a public inquiry into this matter, without delay.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): This case has received repeated and most careful consideration, and inquiry has been made with regard to the recent statements by the prisoner's brother. I find that the prosecution arranged to pay the expenses of the witnesses whom the accused wished to call at his trial, and he furnished a list of eight witnesses, who were warned to appear and told that their expenses would be paid, but the defending counsel in the exercise of his discretion decided in the prisoner's interest to call only-some of them. It is not the fact that Martha Whiteside went to the police, and that they refused to hear what she had to say, or that she has disappeared. I am informed that Inspector Walmsley has left the district for reasons which, have nothing to do with the present case. I can find no reason to doubt that the prisoner was rightly convicted of the murder.

  State Reformatories Bill.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to re-introduce the State Reformatories Bill this Session.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes; I intend to re-introduce the Bill, though possibly the name may be altered.

  Naturalisation Laws.
  SIR J. HANDLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department

  1537
  in view of his resolution carried at the Imperial Conference on 9th May, that an inquiry should be held to consider how far, and under what conditions, naturalisation in one part of His Majesty's dominions should be effective in other parts of those dominions, for which purposes a subsidiary conference was to be held if necessary, whether this inquiry could be extended to the consideration of the desirability of uniformity as far as practicable in the treatment of natural-born British subjects of Asiatic descent, who are much more numerous than naturalised aliens of Asiatic descent.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The subject referred to at the end of the Question is, in my opinion—which is confirmed by that of my noble friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, within whose jurisdiction it falls—outside the scope of any inquiry which could proceed from the resolution on the subject of naturalisation which was carried on my motion at the Imperial Conference.
  SIR J. RANDLESasked whether the right hon. Gentleman acquiesced in the proposition that natural-born Asiatic subjects should be placed in an inferior position to that of Asiatics naturalised under the proceedings contemplated; and, if not, whether the right hon. Gentleman would make representations on the subject to the Minister affected, whether at the India Office or the Colonial Office.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think that is a Question for my right hon. friend the Under-Secretary for the Colonies. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put it on the Paper.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when it is proposed to introduce the reduced scale of fees for naturalisation.
  MR. GLADSTONE: There has been no decision to reduce the fee charged for the grant of a Certificate of Naturalisation.

  Unemployment and Imports.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the President
  1538
  of the Local Government Board if his attention has been directed to the fact that the British External Trade Returns for January exhibit a decline of £1,893,342 in imports of raw materials, a decline of £2,400,140 in imports of manufactures, and a decline of £999,468 in exports of manufactures; and whether, in view of the amount of unemployment and undeserved distress which these figures indicate, he adheres to his resolution not to legislate on the subject of unemployment in the present session.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I am aware of the figures referred to. I do not think that the returns, which only relate to a single month, can be taken as conclusive evidence of distress and want of employment in the country. I see no sufficient reason for altering the conclusion already arrived at with regard to legislation on the subject of unemployment during the present session.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in December the returns showed more out of work to the extent of 1 per cent. as compared with the return for the previous month?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Yes.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Do the Government not intend to propose any legislation with regard to the unemployed?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Only that which is mentioned in the King's Speech.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is it not very easy to show by statistics that on any day in the present winter there must be at least 400,000 men out of work in the United Kingdom?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: That may be so, but I should like to remind the hon. Member of his speech on 2nd November, 1907, in which he said: "To judge from; past experience we must expect depression in 1908, but there is little reason to anticipate disaster. It is not a black time but a slack time that is before us." I am prepared to meet that contingency with

  1539
  all the sympathetic and valuable methods at our disposal.

  Derby Road, Nottingham, Post Office.
  MR. J. WARD: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Nottingham, I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the principal sub-post office in Nottingham, situated on the Derby Road, was burnt down in October of last year; that the nearest sub-post office from which the inhabitants of that neighbourhood can get a halfpenny stamp or send a parcel by post is three-quarters of a mile in one direction and half a mile in another, and will he take immediate steps for opening a sub-post office in this populous centre, and thus prevent a continuance of this inconvenience.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): The office to which the hon. Member refers was re-opened yesterday. I approved the appointment of the new sub-postmaster on 11th January, but he could not be installed until certain structural alterations had been made in the premises he offered.

  Scottish Postmasterships.
  MR. McCRAE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can state how many head postmasterships in Scotland have been filled by officers from the Post Office service in England during the last five years; how many vacancies in England were filled by officers from Scotland during the same period; whether he can state the aggregate amount of the salaries in each category; and whether he can state how many of these officers were previously in service in each country before appointment as head postmasters.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I deprecate the comparison implied in the hon. Member's Question, since it suggests a separation, which fortunately does not exist, between the Post Office service in Scotland and England. I find that seventeen head postmasterships in Scotland have been filled by officers from the Post Office service in England during the last five years; thirteen head postmasterships in England have been filled by officers from Scotland during the same
  1540
  period; the aggregate amount of the salaries was £4,500 and £4,460 respectively. One of the officers who received appointment to a postmastership in Scotland was originally employed in Scotland, and four of the officers who received appointments to postmasterships in England were originally employed in England.

  Board of Education—Corporal Punishment Regulation.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the observations on the subject of corporal punishment in the Revised Instructions for 1902, in which it is urged that no punishment which excites the emotion of terror should ever be employed; that in infant schools no punishment should be inflicted which causes bodily pain; that in schools for older children corpora punishment should be discouraged as an ordinary expedient in a boys' school and altogether in a girls' school; if he will say whether steps have been taken by the Board of Education to give effect to these observations; and what number of cases of the corporal punishment of boys, girls, and infants occurred during 1907 in the public elementary schools in London, Liverpool, Birmingham and Leeds.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,): The Revised Instructions have been superseded by a volume entitled "Suggestions for the Consideration of Teachers and Others Concerned in the Work of Public Elementary Schools," on page 11 of which the subject of corporal punishment is dealt with. The attitude of the Board is substantially the same as that indicated by my hon. friend's quotation. The discipline of the school and the means taken for enforcing it are primarily matters for the local education authority, and the Board do not intervene unless specific cases of alleged excessive punishment are brought to their notice. I have no information as to the last paragraph.

  Grants to Necessitous School Areas.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education

  1541
  whether the necessitous area school grants are to be confined this year to those areas which established their claim to them last year, although other areas have now greater need; whether these original beneficiaries have now established a special right to a subsidy from the Exchequer not enjoyed by other districts; and how long this subsidy is to continue.
  MR. McKENNA: In order to ensure that the sum available for distribution should not be exceeded, it was necessary to limit the recipient authorities to those who established a claim in the preceding year. I hope to bring forward in connection with the forthcoming Education Bill financial provisions dealing with Exchequer grants in aid of the expenditure of local authorities under Part III. of the Act, in which due regard will be had, amongst other things, to the rate-burden in certain areas.
  MR. ALDENasked whether any reduction in the advances to necessitous districts had been made this year.
  MR. McKENNAsaid he could not tell in each individual case whether it was so or not; but a limitation had been put on the amount which was allowed for the purpose of administration.
  MR. WEDGWOODasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that there were now many local areas in the country not entitled to the grant, where the rates were heavier than in other areas which were receiving these grants.
  MR. McKENNAsaid there were such areas, but they were very few.

  Sheep Dipping.
  MR. RENDALL: I beg 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 conviction of Mr. James Rich, of Rodbourne, Malmesbury, a well-known Wiltshire farmer, for allowing 208 sheep to be removed from Castle Douglas, in Scotland, to Wiltshire without having them dipped in accordance
  1542
  with the recent Sheep Dipping Regulations; whether he is aware that the chairman of the bench stated that Mr. Rich was liable to a fine of £1,000, according to the Sheep Dipping Regulations; and whether he will take steps to obtain such information from practical farmers, with a view to making these regulations a proper safeguard instead of an arbitrary restriction and danger to traders.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,): The Board have been informed by the Clerk to the Wiltshire County Council that Mr. Rich was convicted for having removed 308 Scotch sheep from his farm in Wiltshire without having dipped them twice in accordance with the provisions of the Wiltshire Sheep Scab Regulations of 1905. These Regulations are made in pursuance of Article 9 of the Sheep Scab Order of 1905, which was issued by the Board as the result of the recommendations made by the Departmental Committee on sheep-dipping after hearing the evidence of farmers and others possessing a practical knowledge of the subject. The Board have no information as to any statement made by the Chairman of the Bench.
  MR. LEIP JONESasked whether many experienced farmers were not of opinion that salving sheep, though a more costly and difficult process than dipping, was a better safeguard against sheep scab; and whether, therefore, farmers who wished to salve their sheep instead of dipping them, might not be allowed to do so.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid he was aware there were some farmers who held that opinion, but on the other hand the medical officers of the Board held the contrary view.

  Swine Fever.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, owing to the strong opinion of agriculturists that a full inquiry should be immediately instituted into the whole subject of swine fever, and the fact that such an inquiry must necessarily occupy

  1543
  many months, the President of the Board of Agriculture will reconsider his decision on the subject, and will appoint a departmental committee on the subject forthwith.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The suggestion that the Departmental Committee should be appointed was very carefully considered by my noble friend, but he came to the conclusion that before any step was taken in this direction it would be better to await the results of the new Orders which are about to be issued and are based, as he has already indicated, upon actual experimental investigations conducted by the veterinary officers of the Department.

  Afforestation.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, how much has been spent in the last ten years on re-afforestation in Great Britain and how much in Ireland by the Woods and Forests Department; and how much is received yearly from Ireland by that Department in the shape of quit and Crown rents.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: The amount spent by the Commissioners of Woods during the last ten years in England and Wales on afforestation, by which term is meant planting new areas not previously under timber, as distinguished from replanting in old woods, is about £5,000. The cost of land in England and Wales bought during the same period for afforestation is about £1,200. There has been no expenditure on planting new areas in Scotland or Ireland, but £25,000 has recently been spent in buying land in Scotland for afforestation. The Commissioners of Woods receive about £30,000 annually in the shape of quit rents on land in Ireland.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if any part of the purchase money for the estate recently acquired for the purposes of afforestation will be paid during the present financial year.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: The whole of the purchase money was paid last November.
  LORD BALCARRESasked on what Vote this money appeared.
  MR. J. A. PEASEreplied that there was no specific Vote in connection with this matter, but if any hon. Member desired to call in question the policy he could do so on the salaries of Ministers.
  LORD BALCARRES: The money has been paid. On what Vote does it appear?
  MR. J. A. PEASE: The money has been paid by the Woods and Forests Department. It is a matter of administration.
  MR. BOWLES: Then has the money been spent without the authority of Parliament?
  MR. J. A. PEASE: I understand that is so. £25,000 was the money required for the purchase of the estate, and that has been spent without any direct Vote in Supply.

  Lancashire Magistracy.
  MR. TYSON WILSON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he can state how many persons were appointed county magistrates for the county of Lancaster during the year 1907; and how many of those appointed were working men.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHYOF LANCASTER (Sir HENRY FOWLER,): In the years 1906 and 1907 there have been 449 new magistrates appointed for the county and boroughs of Lancashire, viz., 147 for the county, and 302 for the boroughs. The total number appointed in the five preceding years was 700. I am not able to classify the occupations of the magistrates who have been appointed.
  MR. BELLOC: Has it been the invariable practice not to nominate as county magistrates gentlemen already appointed as borough justices?
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: Yes, I consider it undesirable that the two

  1545
  should be combined. Where a man is on the borough bench there is no reason why he should be put on the county bench. If the office is regarded as an honour it should be distributed, and if as a responsible duty, the duty should be divided among as large a number of gentlemen as desirable.
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: But is it not sometimes desirable to have a county magistrate in a borough to whom officials may go when they want documents signed or summonses issued?
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I have given the question my best consideration, and I think the balance of argument is against one man holding the two offices.

  Scottish University Professors.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that the salaries of several professors of Scottish universities are paid out of Parliamentary grants, and that these professors are subject to religious tests before being appointed; and whether he will introduce legislation making these public appointments of teachers open to all, irrespective of the Church to which the applicants belong.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): My hon. friend was good enough to draw my attention to this subject last session; but I am not able to give any undertaking as to legislation.

  Evicted Tenants in County Clare.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many evicted tenants have been restored to holdings in county Clare up to the end of 1907; and how many evicted tenants remain to be dealt with in the same county.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): Up to 31st December, 1907, the number of evicted tenants in County Clare who had been reinstated in their former holdings or provided with new holdings, was eighty; and the number remaining for whom the Estates Commissioners propose
  1546
  to provide holdings, if possible, is fifty nine.

  County Down Polling Districts.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been called to the resolutions adopted by the county council of county Down in August, 1903, and again in December, 1907, urging that the Parliamentary polling districts should be remodelled so as to make them coterminous with the electoral divisions and that such a change would effect a saving to the county funds, besides facilitating the preparation and revision of the lists of voters; whether the Local Government Board has also considered the suggestion of the same body that powers should be given to the county councils to have the register of voters made out alphabetically in town-lands, or, as regards urban districts, in streets, where the county council may consider that course necessary or desirable; and whether he will undertake to introduce a Bill to give effect to these recommendations or give facilities for a private Member's Bill on the subject.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board have no powers in regard to the division of Parliamentary counties or boroughs into polling districts. The attention of the Irish Government has, however, been directed to the resolutions referred to in the Question. The boundaries of Parliamentary counties in Ireland are based upon the boundaries of baronies, half-baronies, and parishes, which areas-are no longer administrative units for any purpose of local government. The administrative units are the district electoral divisions, and these are not coterminous with any of the areas mentioned. It would be very difficult if not impossible, to carry out any general provision by Statute to the effect that Parliamentary polling districts should always be coterminous with district electoral division" or groups of divisions. It often happens that an alteration of one or more of such divisions is an administrative necessity, and upon every such change it would be necessary to make corresponding alterations in the Parliamentary polling districts. The inconvenience thus caused

  1547
  would probably outweigh any advantage which might attend the adoption of the first of the county council's suggestions. The second proposal relates to a matter which does not appear to be of first importance, and I am not aware that any very useful purpose would be served by its adoption. It will, however, receive consideration. I do not, as at present advised, propose to introduce a Bill to give effect to the recommendations, nor can I promise facilities for a private Member's Bill.
  MR. COKRIE GRANTasked if it was not possible to follow the precedent set in regard to London and appoint boundary Commissioners to inquire and report on any possible readjustment?
  MR. BIRRELL: I will consider that proposal, but I am very much occupied at the present time.

  Singleton Estate (Cork) Evicted Tenants.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, on reconsideration by the Estates Commissioners, the claim of John R. O'Sullivan, evicted tenant on the Lady Singleton estate, county Cork, has been admitted; and, if so, whether steps are being taken under the provisions of the Evicted Tenants Act, to provide him with a suitable holding.
  MR. BIRRELL: This evicted tenant's application for reinstatement is at present under reconsideration by the Estates Commissioners.

  Royal Commission on the Feeble Minded.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can say when the Report of the Royal Commission on the Feeble-Minded will be issued.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): The Chairman of the Royal Commission informs me that the Report of the Commission, which is in an advanced condition, has recently been delayed by unforeseen circumstances; but it is confidently hoped that it will be completed before Easter.

  Anticipatory Motions.
  MR. BOWLESasked the Prime Minister when he proposed to introduce the Amendments to Standing Orders with regard to blocking Motions.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThey will be taken when it is ascertained that they will be unopposed.
  LORD ROBERT CECIL: Has the right hon. Gentleman asked the Patronage Secretary if he intends to oppose them.
  [No Answer was returned.]

NEW BILL.
  HOURS OF LABOUR BILL.
  "To restrict the Hours of Labour in all trades and industries to eight per day," presented by Mr. Thorne; suported by Mr. Steadman, Mr. Parker, Mr. Clynes, Mr. Tyson Wilson, Mr. Glover, Mr. Gill, Mr. George Roberts, Mr. Walsh, and Mr. Curran; to be read a second time upon Friday, 1st May, and to be printed. [Bill 70.]

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

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1907–8.

  CLASS III.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1908, for Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland."
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that one day last week his noble friend the Member for the Chorley Division asked a Question of the Chief Secretary in regard to the Vote for which a Supplementary Vote was now asked,

  1549
  and the answer given had caused him and those who worked with him some little trouble, because it was very difficult to identify the statements made in the reply with the figures to be found in the Estimates. The Question was "What had been the expenditure for law charges in Ireland under the sub-head 'Fees to law officers and fees to counsel,'" and the Chief Secretary's reply included the statement that fees to law officers amounted to £7,000. He could not find in the Estimates those figures at all. He found that the fees to law officers in the Estimates stood at the sum of £1,000, and that the £7,000 was found in the Estimates as fees to counsel. That was a totally different question altogether, and was included in his noble friend's Question, but was not replied to, and he hoped that they would have an explanation of this discrepancy. But that was not really the serious aspect of the Supplementary Vote. The Government the other day took part in a debate initiated to call attention to the condition of affairs in Ireland, and they declared through the mouth of the Chief Secretary, the law officers and others, that everything was fairly satisfactory and much better than it had been. It was a most remarkable fact that in face of these declarations for the first time for many years the Irish Executive had to come forward and ask for Supplementary Vote in respect of law harges for expenses incurred in connection with criminal prosecutions, and also in regard to the police. Not only was the Estimate which the Government made for this particular purpose proved to be insufficient, not only was the £1,000 proved to be altogether inadequate, but the Government now had to come to the House of Commons and ask for a Supplementary Vote of £2,500. He believed he was right in saying that this particular sub-head of the Vote was created in 1879–80, and he thought that he was also right in saying—and he challenged the Chief Secretary to contradict him—that since 1879–80 there had been no equal to the sum now expended; he found that the average for the ten years ending March 31st, 1906, for all but eight or nine months of which the Unionist Government were in power, and practically prepared the Estimates, was only £886 on the Appropriation Account. That was more eloquent than the speeches of Gentlemen opposite in regard to the
  1550
  results of their administration, when they asked them to accept their simple statement that the condition of things was all that could be desired, and that all it caused was a certain amount of anxiety. When they found that the first result of the tenure of office of the Party opposite was to increase the law charges so that they had to come to Parliament for an extra Vote, they were justified in saying that here again, as in the statistics produced the other day, there was far more powerful and eloquent testimony to be found in support of their contention than in any of the arguments produced by the Government. He was aware of the fact that a few years ago additions were made to this vote in respect of the Public Works Department, and that that amounted to about £12,000 a year, and that had to be taken out altogether in comparing the figures, which he had done. Under the whole Vote there had been unexpended in the year 1902–3 £6,500, the next year £8,400, the next year £6,000, and the next year £1,100. This year there was nothing to surrender, because everything had been expended, and in addition to that the Government as a result of the policy of conciliation had to come and ask for more money. The last thing he would do was to oppose the Government in an honest endeavour to secure justice and enforce the law; but did this represent expenditure which had been honestly incurred in such an endeavour? The result of this money paid to law officers for State prosecutions were two convictions involving eight persons. The other day, in the debate, the Solicitor-General stated—and he listened with amazement, because it came from one of the law officers speaking with all the authority and responsibility of his office—that the Government in making these prosecutions had found that the real difficulty which confronted them was due to the statements made by Members of the Opposition that the Government were in sympathy with the offence of cattle driving. He had read the references to these trials in several Irish papers, but he did not remember having read one single statement by counsel representing the people prosecuted to the effect described by the Solicitor General. He did remember a statement made by counsel to a very different effect, viz., that these prosecutions were a sham, and that there was no reality in them. He had made it

  1551
  his business to look up the reports of these cases, and he would take one statement alone. He did not think the Chief Secretary or the Attorney-General would attempt to argue that it was an exceptional statement or in any way inaccurate. On November 25th, in the Nisi Prius Court before Justice Wright, Mr. Macdermott acting for the accused, said—
  "If the Attorney-General said, like Mr. Birrell, that these practices were reprehensible, perhaps they were, but they were not illegal. If cattle-driving was illegal, where were the men of education and position, and where were the Members of Parliament, who, on every platform throughout Galway, month after month and week after week, advocated this form of agitation? They were told that the Irish Executive itched to prosecute members of this great political party, but the same Executive in fact prosecuted five farmers in the West of Ireland, who had no criminal intention, but who were endeavouring to undo the work of devastation done in the county in the past. He asked the jury to come to the conclusion that these people were gilty of no crime. They would be lending themselves to do the dirty work of other people if they found any other verdict than not guilty."
  That was the language of a counsel de-fending these people, who they knew from his distinguished reputation would have used the best arguments he could command in defence, and if he could have brought home to the Opposition the charge made by the Solicitor-General, that it was due to their misrepresentations, he was sure he would very gladly and properly have done so, but he made no reference to it. It was never referred to until the Solicitor-General spoke on behalf of the Government, and he hoped they would have some further justification for such a charge, for which there was not a shadow of foundation. This expenditure of public money had been absolutely wasted, and he was convinced that Mr. Macdermott represented the views of the great majority of the people in Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom when he said that if they were going to embark on the expensive and laborious process of State prosecutions, surely in common justice and fairness they should prosecute all those who came under the charge, whatever might be their position in life or in Ireland in regard either to a political or any other movement. The Chief Secretary told them in his speech that his fingers itched to prosecute one Member of Parliament, who had since been sent to
  1552
  prison. He did not know what the sensation of itching fingers might be, but he was perfectly certain of this, that whatever may have been the condition of the Chief Secretary's fingers, his hands were paralysed. If he and the Government had intended to make these prosecutions real they would have prosecuted all concerned in the offences, regardless of individuals and the position they held in the world. They prosecuted these farmers from the West of Ireland, these farm labourers, these lads, and the juries acquitted them or disagreed; and could anybody blame the juries? They knew very well that in this country it was a difficult thing, in a case where popular opinion was largely aroused, for a jury to give a verdict against that popular feeling, but it was far more serious and difficult in Ireland, for a juryman, if he found a verdict contrary to popular opinion, was likely to find himself an unpopular person, which probably meant social ostracism and might mean that the man and his wife and family could not get even the necessaries of life. The Chief Secretary when he took office talked of boycotting, and told the House that he knew something of boycotting, the boycotting of Nonconformists in Church of England parishes. He thought the Chief Secretary's language about boycotting now would be very different from what it was then. He did not think now he would get up in the House and compare boycotting in a county in the West of Ireland with boycotting of Nonconformists in an English parish where there was a vast majority of Church of England people. The responsibility for the ridiculous results of those State prosecutions rested solely with the Government counsel, for those who prosecuted put the whole case in the words he had just read to the House. If they had intended that this public money should result in something practical, the Government would have taken steps very different from those they did adopt. He was in this difficulty, that it was not part of their policy to interfere with the Government in the fearless discharge of their duty for the maintenance of order, and, therefore, he had not thought it right to put down an Amendment to reduce this Vote; but he did not hesitate to say that this money had been wasted in a profligate manner owing to the want of courage and determination on the part

  1553
  of the Government. The prosecutions had failed, not because there was no evidence, but because the Government had failed to carry them through with courage and determination, and it was a remarkable fact that for the first time they should have a Supplementary Estimate in regard to these law expenses, and that at the same time they should have the results he had described, unsatisfactory in themselves if one compared them with the expenditure, and ten times more un satisfactory if one judged of them by the effect they must have had on the people and on the maintenance of law and peace in that country.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,)said that with reference to the first question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin he would reply as well as he could, and explain the discrepancy in the figures. The answer which the Chief Secretary had given the other day in reference to the amounts spent on law officers' salaries related to the salaries of the law officers. The Supplementary Estimate which they were now discussing was for fees.
  SIR E. CARSON: The Question was about fees and not salaries.
  MR. CHERRYsaid the Question might have been misinterpreted as well as the answer, but he had the return, and the figures had reference to the salaries of the law officers and not to fees.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Here is a copy of the answer given by the Chief Secretary. It says—
  "Fees to law officers, voted £7,000, expended £5,740. General law expenses, etc."
  MR. CHERRYsaid that must have been a mistake. Those were the salaries and not the fees. He thought the right hon. Gentleman only wished for an explanation of an answer which was certainly a little misleading. The real question was the important one as regarded the increase in the expenses for these prosecutions, and the fact that a larger sum was asked for now
  1554
  than in previous years, and the fact that for the first time for some years a Supplementary Estimate was asked for. That was, he admitted, perfectly true, but he would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the general expenses for law charges had been continually reduced for twenty-five years, and were brought down last year and the year before to a lower figure by many thousands than they had been for a long time. In 1881–1882 the total amount voted for law charges was £105,669. In the following year, which was the largest on record, they rose to £126,396. They then came steadily down to £70,000 in 1893–1894. They came down in 1900 to £68,000, and rose in the following year to £70,000. In 1902–1903 they were £68,517; in 1903–1904, £68,600; in 1904–1905 £65,416; in 1905–1906, £64,416; in 1906–1907 £62,652; and for the present year the original estimate was £62,875. So that, with the exception of last year, the sum was smaller by several thousands than any sum voted in previous years.
  SIR E. CARSON: What were the figures for 1898–1899?
  MR. CHERRY: The figures were small that year—£62,660.
  SIR E. CARSON: Is not that less than last year?
  MR. CHERRYsaid it was, but the following year, 1899–1900, they rose to £67,000. The total amount voted for the present year including the Supplementary Estimate would amount to £65,224, and that was actually less than for the year 1904–1905. In addition to this, several additional charges had been put in recent years upon the Vote for Law Charges that were not on before. In 1889 the expenditure of the legal department of the Board of Works, £3,500 a year, was added to the Vote, and considerable expenditure in connection with legal department of the War Department. In 1899 an addition of £8,400 was made to the Vote for the High Sheriffs' expenses of receiving Judges of Assize. These sums amounted to £12,000 a year, and in addition to

  1555
  that, in 1901 the law expenses of the Department of Agriculture were added to the Vote. He had not the figures but they amounted to a very considerable sum, for the Agricultural Department carried on business all over Ireland, and was constantly involved in disputes which led to legal expenses. He thought it would be reasonable to assume that they would not be less than £1,000 or £2,000 a year. There had been added since 1889 at least £13,000, probably £14,000, which were not charged upon the, vote before. If they deducted that from the total amount of the Vote for this year they would bring it down to very nearly £50,000 as compared with over £100,000 twenty-five years ago. No doubt there had been more expended in the last year than in previous years, and in view of what had been said as to the terribly disturbed condition of the country it was only natural that there should be. He had always admitted that there were some portions of Ireland in a disturbed condition, which gave very great trouble. In addition to that, when they changed the venue in criminal cases an immense amount deal of additional expense was incurred. They had been blamed for proceeding against these men in the way they had done. He supposed the only alternative was to put in force the Crimes Act, but he did not think that had been suggested by the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, at all events without giving the jury system a trial. Whether they were right in persisting in it as long as they did was another question. He thought that they were, and that the results had justified their action. Whether they succeeded in getting convictions or not cattle-driving had died down, and he held it was due to the prosecutions. He held that the calling of public attention to the circumstances of the individual cases by trying them in the ordinary way before an ordinary tribunal had a very considerable effect in inducing the people of the districts to use their own influence to put a stop to cattle-driving. Nobody seriously doubted that the number of cases and the number of persons concerned had very greatly diminished. Cattle-driving was a very easy thing to do. One or two men could open a gate and turn the cattle out of a field. With reference to the
  1556
  Solicitor General's speech, his recollection of what his hon. friend had said was that the difficulties of the Government in regard to cattle-driving had been greatly increased by the fact that Members of the Opposition were stating that the Government were encouraging rather than discouraging it. There was no doubt that some people concerned in cattle-driving thought the Government were encouraging it, and public speeches in which that accusation was made, and which were published all over Ireland, must have had a very great effect in encouraging the very thing they wanted to stop. He thought hon. Gentlemen opposite had not really given them the help they might reasonably have claimed from them. It must be obvious to anyone that whether they were right or wrong in not prosecuting Members of Parliament, they were not wrong in prosecuting the men who actually took part in the drives. In the cases which had been referred to they prosecuted every person they could identify as having actually taken part in the driving of cattle. They did not prosecute any Members of Parliament who merely made speeches encouraging cattle-driving. The right hon. Gentleman said that they prosecuted one particular Member, but that was not so. One of the Judges of the Chancery Division exercising his power of committal for contempt of court had put an hon. Member into gaol for six months, but the Government had nothing to do with that. He did not think that that had had much effect upon cattle-driving, and it should not be overlooked that the most serious cases of cattle-driving were not in the hon. Member's county at all. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the subject of boycotting, and spoke of its serious character. As a matter of fact there was very little serious boycotting in Ireland now.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Oh, oh.
  MR. CHERRYsaid he would read a report for the East Riding of Galway made by the county inpector in the month of October. He stated that there was no really serious boycotting in the Riding. There were a good many unpopular people who were boycotted to the extent

  1557
  of being unable to get work done locally and some were boycotted in the local shops; but they all contrived in some way to get what they required.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in accordance with the invariable practice, lay the document from which he has just read upon the Table of the House.
  MR. CHERRY: Certainly. It was agreed that it was most difficult to stop boycotting by prosecutions, in fact, it was almost impossible, because prosecutions stirred up feelings against individuals and embittered them. In many cases the persons boycotted were most anxious that prosecutions should not be undertaken because the evil was only increased thereby.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid these Supplementary Estimates had been rendered necessary by the numerous cases that came before the Courts in one way or another in connection with cattle-driving, and it was to the attempts of the Government to deal with this crime that he intended to confine his remarks. On Tuesday last the Attorney-General and the Chief Secretary declared that they had considerable difficulty in knowing what the nature of the charge was which the Opposition brought against the Irish Government. This debate would afford them another opportunity of making that point clear. The charge which they made was that the so-called prosecutions against persons charged with cattle-driving were undertaken at a time and under circumstances when the Attorney-General and the Chief Secretary must have known that they would be futile and the money spent on them would be thrown away The Solicitor-General acknowledged that the state of affairs existing in Ireland was a serious one and he asked what were the Government to do under the circumstances? That was not a question for the Opposition to answer. The Government had created the situation themselves, and it was their duty to solve it. They had failed to find a way out of the difficulty and they had handled the question in the worst possible way. Instead of showing a firm front in the
  1558
  early stages of cattle-driving, the Government led those engaged in it to believe that they did not look upon it as a serious offence, and four or five Members of the Government made speeches which he maintained could not be taken to mean anything else than that the Government did not intend to take any serious cognisance of this crime. The Solicitor-General tried to put the blame upon the shoulders of his political opponents for having created the present situation by their speeches. After having heard the declarations of his own colleagues on so many occasions that cattle-driving was not a serious offence and ought not to be treated seriously, the Solicitor-General had the effrontery to turn round and declare that it was his political opponents who had placed the Government in this difficulty. The Attorney-General claimed that cattle-driving had decreased and that the publicity given to the question by his prosecutions had caused that decrease. And yet the Opposition had been frequently blamed for giving publicity to cattle-driving cases by bringing them before the notice of the House of Commons and the country. They were all familiar with the name which the Chief Secretary thought fit to call the Unionist Members from Ireland in April last, for bringing before the House of Commons each case of cattle-driving as it occurred. Now the Attorney-General was claiming credit for stopping cattle-driving, by that same publicity which was a crime six months ago when brought about by a Unionist Member. To say the least of it, such language was highly inconsistent. They must, however, judge this matter by results. What had been the result of the legal proceedings instituted by the Attorney-General? There had been 572 persons proceeded against for cattle-driving, and out of that number only five were convicted. No amount of talk could prove more conclusively than that fact the absolute futility and ridiculousness of those prosecutions. What had all the mild remonstrance against cattle-driving which had lately been indulged in by members of the Government accomplished? Only five convictions out of 572 cases. Probably the Chief Secretary would

  1559
  reply that in 288 of these cases the defendants were ordered to find bail, but he did not see how he could get much comfort out of that. In a great many cases each individual man only took part or wanted to take part in one cattle-drive, after which he would wait until the Estates Commissioners divided the estate up, and then he would get his share. In the 136 cases in which proceedings were taken by indictment, five were convicted, twenty-seven were acquitted, and in 104 cases the jury disagreed. The right hon Gentleman said the Opposition were responsible for these proceedings.
  MR. CHERRY: I do not think I said that.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid that, at any rate, the Attorney-General claimed that the greater share of the blame of having rendered these proceedings necessary belonged to his political opponents in Ireland. That was a most absurd contention. During the whole of last session when a debate took place here or another place on the state of Ireland the same sort of reply was made by Ministers of the Crown. On each and every occasion the Minister who spoke for the Government, while admitting that technically speaking cattle-drives were breaches of the law, proceeded to point out extenuating circumstances.
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid the Minister who replied for the Government invariably proceeded to state extenuating circumstances and to excuse the persons who had taken part in the drives. On one occasion the Chief Secretary, when making the usual extenuating speech, said the House must remember that these cases were not "predatory" but only "intimidatory," and that the House should take that into consideration.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): It was not an excuse.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid it was certainly put forward as something in the nature of an excuse or at least as a fact that ought to be taken into account to minimise the degree of the offence. The Government had shown in regard to cattle-driving their unwillingness or their inability to deal with it. From beginning to end the Government had shown to the people of Ireland that they were not prepared to take the serious view of the situation that Unionist Members said they ought to take, and it was perfectly ridiculous, after the results of the last summer assizes, to come to the House and ask for money for law proceedings, when they had not the least chance of obtaining convictions. The Attorney-General had read a report of an inspector from the county of Galway saying there was practically no serious cases of boycotting in that part of Galway to which the report referred. Well, he did not think that amounted to very much. They did not know what the inspector meant by serious boycotting, but fortunately they had some idea of what the Chief Secretary's idea of boycotting was. In the early part of last year the right hon. Gentleman speaking in the debate on an Amendment to the Address said—
  "Boycotting is limited, I should say, at the most to a score of cases—any boycotting to which the term 'savage' can be applied. As to exclusive dealing, as to cutting people, I know enough of village Nonconformity to say that if a microscopic eye was focussed on our villages as it is focussed on the villages of Ireland, we should have a record too of that method of exclusive dealing which I deplore and deprecate, but is too often almost inevitable when feeling runs high."
  All he could say was that if that was the right hon. Gentleman's idea of boycotting of the second class in Ireland he was grievously mistaken. The Report which the Attorney-General read bore him out in that statement, for the county inspector said there was practically no serious boycotting, and then proceeded to tell what class of boycotting did exist. The county inspector pointed out that there were many persons in that part of Galway who found it difficult to get men to work for them, and who found it difficult to get food for themselves and

  1561
  their families, but that those people got hold somehow of the necessaries of life.
  MR. CHERRY: Got in some way what they required.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he thought he had paraphrased the words of the right hon. Member correctly. He asked the Attorney-General whether he could show a single case throughout England, Wales, or Scotland where such a state of things existed as was described in the county inspector's report. He did not agree with the Chief Secretary that these cases were few and far between. Only the other day he was informed that a person in another part of Ireland, who had suffered very seriously in past years from boycotting, recently sent a confidential agent of his into Roscommon, Galway, and other parts of the country to find out what was the true state of affairs. That gentleman returned and said that cattle-drivings were very frequent, but as a rule they were carried out in a more or less good-humoured way because the people had long ago come to the conclusion that there was not the slightest use in attempting to prevent it, but that with regard to boycotting, in the whole of his experience he had never see boycotting of the same cruel and relentless nature as existed at the present time. In the old days children were left out, but that was not the case to-day. He did not mean to say that there were so many cases at the present time, but where it existed it was of a more cruel and relentless not are. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Who was the agent? Was he an agent of Lord Ashtown?] No, Lord Ashtown unfortunately lived in the most disturbed part of Ireland, so there was no need for him to send an agent to another part to find out what boycotting and intimidation was like. He asserted that it was bad policy for the Chief Secretary and Attorney-General to come down to the House and minimise boycotting. It was not presenting the matter in its true colours. Such a matter ought to cause grave anxiety to the Government and their first duty was to communicate that
  1562
  anxiety to the House instead of trying to minimise and excuse the matter.
  MR. JOHN ROCHEsaid he would not occupy the time of the House by referring to more than one case which, he thought, would illustrate why Nationalist Members complained of the manner in which cases were conducted by Dublin Castle methods. The case to which he referred occurred quite recently in the constituency he had the honour to represent. On September 2nd last he received a wire from a constituent who lived at Woodlawn, better known as the residence of Lord Ashtown, a gentleman who appealed for funds to carry on a journal which was edited by him, and was called Grievances from Ireland. The wire contained an inquiry whether he was at home, and he replied in the affirmative. In the evening three of his constituents arrived at his place, having travelled twenty-one Irish miles. The object of their mission was to submit to him three anonymous letters which they had received on the morning of August 31st. The substance of these was that those men were requested to go to the church at Woodlawn at eleven o'clock at night and assist in placing a bomb under the church, for doing which they were to be handsomely rewarded by considerable sums of money. He got those letters and requested the people who received them not to say anything about the matter at present. On the next day he wrote to the county inspector at Ballinasloe requesting an interview, which he granted, and the inspector came immediately to his place at Woodford. He laid the letters before the inspector, and told him that the people who received them were under the impression that this was a plot to entrap them into the perpetration of a proposed outrage. He would only read one of the letters which was typical of all the others. He might mention that five different persons in his constituency were written to and not one of them had the most remote notion or idea that any second person had been written to, so that if any of them had responded to the appeal and gone to the church at eleven o'clock on that Saturday

  1563
  night the object of the originators of the plot would have been accomplished. I will now read to the House a letter which was addressed to a man named Mahon and was headed "United Irish League"—
  "Dear Mahon,—If you are as we think a true Catholic and Irishman with the welfare of your religion and country at heart and a faithful member of our Land League, and if yon are willing to do a little work for the same we will give you £50 in hand and £50 more in monthly instalments. The cowardly cruel evictor that is the curse of our country will be going in a few days to foreign parts; now or never is the time to nail him; we won't fail this time like we did in Waterford."
  "We have a man that's well used to the work to blow him up while he is praying to his friend the devil in church next Sunday and send him home to hell sure and certain. It will be done in such a way that the costs won't be heavy, but the man is a stranger and as you know none of the rotten supers round Wood-lawn can be trusted, we want you to show him the right place to bury the pot. We are told that his pew is under the stained window-that faces the gate close to the headstone; that's the spot to put the bomb; be sure of the right place. All you have to do is to be at the church at eleven o'clock to the minute next Saturday night; don't go before the time as the shorter you are on the ground the safer for yourself and be sure to avoid the blasted peelers on the way, but there will be no risk as they will be all on guard at the big house and will never dream of the church. The man will be there at eleven; if you arrive at the window first give a very low whistle and when he appears say 'Franuawail.' If he is there first he will say the same word to you; ask no questions, but just point out the spot. Give him a small bottle of paraffin oil, which you must bring with you in your pocket; about a half-pint bottle, that will make no bulk in your pocket, for fear you might meet any of the patrols on the road going. If the man does not join you at the church window at once, don't wait longer than five minutes, as it would be too dangerous to make any delays, but just place the bottle of paraffin oil on the right spot and the man will know. If he asks your name say it is Fahy; he is a stranger and will be leaving the country at once, so you need not be afraid of him, but if you like you can bring a mask and put it on when you get inside the church ground; a piece of cloth with the eyes and mouth cut out would do. For God's sake, Tom, be careful; don't walk on the grass if it is wet, but keep on the gravel if you can. You ought to get the loan of someone's boots. You will meet a friend at the cross roads going back, and will hand you five £10 notes; don't delay a minute with him, but hurry home. If you are afraid, Tom, to go alone, you can bring another man with you, but be sure he is one that can be relied on, for remember, Tom, if this secret is let out, as sure as God is above your life will be taken. If you bring a man with you we will give you ten pounds for him, but we would rather you went alone as the less that know the secret the better. If you are
  1564
  afraid to do this little job yourself, Tom, send a true man that won't fail and he will get the same money; but don't fail if you can't go yourself to send someone, or the man might put the bomb under a wrong window and we would miss our mark a second time. If we hear he has left Woodlawn before Saturday we will let you know. We are sending this for safety to a friend to post far away, and think it safer not to sign our names. God be with you.
  If you tie two old cloths over your boots before you cross the church wall, you won't leave any footprints, as that is the only danger. Tom, for the good of your father and mother and brothers' souls, don't let out this secret, for if you do you will be killed as dead as a maggot; but if you are true to us you will never see a poor day. If you can get a bit of fusee without rousing suspicion, bring it with you. A groom will post this letter for safety on his way to the horse show."
  He might mention in passing that the letters those five different persons received were each and every one of them posted in Dublin. At the interview with the county inspector on 5th September, five days after the attack on the church was to take place, he told the inspector that those people were under the impression that this was a plot got up in the interest of the editor of Grievances from Ireland; that he thoroughly agreed with that view; and that if that was correct either of two things should have occurred. In the first place, if the editor of Grievances from Ireland had anything to do with the plot, either he or his servants were at the church to receive the people who were invited to go there; or that the police were there—and there by his direction—on the night in question; and he trusted that the inspector would be able to clear up those two points. And he further added that if neither of those two things had occurred he was thoroughly convinced that Lord Ashtown was in no way connected with the plot. The county inspector was a bit sceptical at their first interview and gave him no in-formation upon that point. He assumed that the inspector at once got into communication with the Castle. The next time he heard about the matter he was informed that the inspector had thoroughly satisfied himself that he knew who had written the letters, though the inspector did not tell him who. He told him, however, that he had sent the original letters to Dublin, to be submitted to an expert, but

  1565
  up to that time he had not received a reply. Afterwards the inspector informed him that on the night of the 31st, he and four police had been at the church all night waiting to receive those unfortunate people of his, if any of them had been foolish enough to respond to the appeal that had been made to them. Furthermore, what happened? Those letters were written and posted in Dublin, and during the time they were written and posted in Dublin Lord Ashtown was there and left Dublin on the Saturday morning, the 31st, for Woodlawn; but before he left he communicated with the police in Dublin and told them that he expected there would be an attack made on the church that night and requested that the police should be sent to receive the men who were invited there to commit the outrage. The precaution was taken that none of the local police should be trusted, lest they might give the case away to the enemy; men were brought therefore from an outlying district, and he was told that they had to tramp four miles, through the fields rather than trust the local men, in order to get to the church that night. However the plot did not come off. Now the important point was that while these letters were written and posted in Dublin, inviting these five persons to the church that night, Lord Ashtown at the same time was inviting the police to be there to receive them. That had been proved beyond any shadow of doubt. The next thing he heard about it was two days before the police court proceedings. He was informed by the county inspector that the proceedings were about to be taken in the Police Court, Dublin, and he asked him to attend. He went there and he might mention that he was never more amazed in his life than at the manner in which that case was presented by the Crown. How did the Crown present the case? They shoved this criminal conspiracy into the background, and the ostensible charge made was that this woman was being prosecuted by Lord Ashtown for obtaining money by false pretences; and while that was so, Lord Ashtown and his agent in the witness box, and upon their oaths, repudiated any connection whatever with the prosecution and the statement that the woman ever obtained
  1566
  money by false pretences. But the real point was this. When the county inspector on 12th September went to Lord Ashtown and told him—
  "I, by your instruction, had police at the church at eleven o'clock on Saturday night, the 31st August, when you said that an attack was to be made upon it. Since then I have received letters, written to four or five differen persons, inviting them to go to the church that night and lay the bomb in the right position. They did not go there, but they have given me the letters, and now I want to know from you on what authority did you at the same time invite the police to be there,"
  it was not good enough for Lord Ashtown to refuse to give his authority; neither would it do for him to say, as he did in regard to another letter, that he had lost it; because even if it was an anonymous letter it was one of such importance, and as it was only a week or ten days afterwards when he was asked about it, it would not do to say that he had lost it; and then, when his back was to the wall, he gave away this unfortunate dupe of his, and by some legerdemain got the Crown and Dublin Castle, which were in reality the same thing, to prosecute, not for writing these letters to these people, but for obtaining money under false pretences, a charge which the very persons who were said to have made it repudiated on oath. The sole object was to allow Lord Ashtown to ride out of the corner he would have been in if the case had been honestly dealt with. He was for two days in the police court; he demanded to be put into the box, but was not; in addition from the day he gave the letters to the county inspector, 5th September, up to the present moment, he was never asked either in public or in private one solitary word on the part of the Crown as to what information he had or could give. The county inspector who took up the case and put the proceedings in motion, was the whole day in the police court on the first day without the slightest reference being made to his action in the matter, and after that day's proceedings the outside public knew no more about the real origin of the case than the chairman did at the time. The inspector attended on the second day of trial at the police court, and the last witness was put up and asked one or two questions. In addition to

  1567
  these facts he might add that not later than Thursday last he received a wire from Dublin Castle saying that he was not required at the trial which took place on Friday last. They heard a great deal about respect for law and order in Ireland, but to use a famous expression of the late Prime Minister, "There is a limit to human endurance," and after experience such as they had had in Ireland it was certain that there could be very little respect for law and order there while so administered. They also heard a good deal about boycotting, of which he had some experience. His business, and that of his father before him, was that of a miller. In a radius of six or seven miles from where he lived there were about seven or eight resident landlords, and up to 1879 when the late Michael Davitt started the Land League there was not a single one of them who did not do more or less business at his place, and with his father before him. But he could assure the House that since the day he took an active part in the promotion of the Land League, up to the present moment, not a solitary one of them had ever entered the mill gate. He made no complaint. He was proud of it, but he failed to see why these gentlemen should come whining to this House, when they paid them back with a little of their own coin. He did not come there to whine, but he thought they were certainly justified in referring to the policy adopted by their enemies when they were in power, and when they would crush them if they dared.
  Mr. GEORGE CLARKsaid that, representing as he did one of the divisions of Belfast, the commercial capital of Ireland and the city which only within the last few months suffered so severely, both in trade and in reputation, from the lawlessness and disorder that were allowed to exist there owing to the feebleness of the present Administration, he would like to say a word or two upon these Estimates. They were prepared to pay for justice in Ireland, but when they did so, they expected to get it, and he would like to let the House know what sort of justice they had been getting in Belfast. He asked the Attorney-General for Ireland the other day whether he was going to
  1568
  prosecute a man named James Larkin, who was tried at Dublin before a Dublin jury who disagreed. He was surprised that the Attorney-General told him that he was not going to prosecute, and he could only say that that statement would be received with great astonishment by the people in Belfast, because everyone there, at least the law-abiding and respectable class of people in the city, were convinced that this man ought to stand another trial and ought to get a fair one. In connection with this might he say that he received a letter from a gentleman in Belfast who wrote about some information which he had obtained with reference to the jury who sat on this case in Dublin. His correspondent said that one of the jurymen was a partner in business in Dublin with one of his sons, and that that juror stated that another member of the jury, when in the hotel to which they were sent for the night, was allowed by the police in charge to leave the room and to remain away from the other jurors for about two hours. Next day when they were considering their verdict, this man held out against the other eleven who desired to bring in a verdict of guilty; hence the disagreement. To allow Larkin to go free without any further trial after this fact the writer of the letter said was beyond comprehension. [Cries of "Name." AN HON. MEMBER: It is no use without the name. Another Hon. Member: We will take it for what it is worth.] He was bringing this matter before the House of Commons, as he had a right to. Another matter worthy of the attention of the authorities was that while they were prosecuting this man Larkin, he was appointed by the Home Secretary a member of a Departmental Committee, to consider and report on the best means of securing the working men paid by weight and measurement the correctness of the weights and measures.
  The CHAIRMANsaid the question of a gentleman being appointed on a Departmental Committee by another Department had nothing to do with this debate.
  Mr. GEORGE CLARKapologised for being out of order and explained that he was not acquainted with the ways of the House. He would like to bring before

  1569
  the House another matter with regard to the riots in Belfast. He listened very carefully to the debate on Monday and Tuesday last in connection with crime in Ireland, and he questioned some of the statements made, because he knew that if people in Ireland were asked whether they got the justice they were entitled to the invariable reply would be "no." And when this Committee was asked to pass Supplementary Estimates of this kind, he contended that the people of Ireland ought to receive the justice to which they were entitled.
  MR. J. F. MASONsaid that the reason, apparently why these suns were not included in the original Estimates was that at the time those Estimates were passed Ireland was peaceful. They had become necessary owing to the lawless state of Ireland at the present time. They included an extra £1,000 for the costs of prosecutions, and an extra £1,500 for the law officers of the Crown, and he ventured to think that these items were rendered necessary by the policy which underlay the two little words used by the Chief Secretary recently, the two words "I won't." This Supplementary Estimate had not been rendered necessary by any heroic measures, but by carrying out the ordinary law of the country. That had not only cost these extra sums, but had also cost the ratepayers something over £7,000 which, as damage for malicious injuries, had been awarded in the six months ending with January. Although he believed the Chief-Secretary hated cattle-driving, nevertheless his action in the administration of the law in Ireland had without doubt been considered by the agitators in that country as an encouragement to the agitation. In the words of one hon. Member of the House who was now incarcerated in Ireland—
  "If you resort to cattle-driving the land will be yours in twelve months, and the new Land Bill will ratify your acts."
  The Chief Secretary had told the Committee that he objected to make a martyr of a Member of Parliament by prosecuting him. Well, fortunately for this country, the Government had not been so particular and so careful or so afraid of making martyrs in India as in Ireland.
  1570
  Cattle-driving was described as "unlawful assembly" and the Government had it in their power to send cases to be tried before a tribunal of two magistrates without any stigma of coercion. It was therefore not true to say that the course which had been taken was the only one possible short of putting into force the provisions of the Crimes Act. The fact was that the Government were in a pitiful position. They dared not govern Ireland themselves because they had to consider hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, and they could not allow her to govern herself because they feared the electorate of this country.
  MR. J. WARDsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman was well advised in the attitude he took up with regard to Belfast. As he understood there was a temporary dispute at Belfast, and incidents occurred which were regretted by all. But it was generally admitted in this Committee that those who led the men on that occasion led them in a very cautious manner, taking it altogether, and that there had not been scenes of disorder such as sometimes disgraced incidents of that character. Notwithstanding all the bad feeling and ill-will which was excited on such occasions the men behaved extremely well. Therefore, as the dispute was over, and the man had stood his trial and the jury had disagreed, in his opinion the right hon. Gentleman was well advised to leave that matter where it was. He had been also interested in another phase of the question introduced, he believed, by the Member for East Galway. It was not usual for English Members to intervene in Irish debates, but upon this occasion he could not help thinking that if many English Members had been present, and had heard the speech of the hon. Member for East Galway, they would certainly have required some explanation from the Government. The statement of the hon. Member for East Galway was to the effect that certain men in Galway had received letters inciting them to commit sacrilege and murder. Five letters in a fairly well-known handwriting were sent. Those letters were posted in Dublin. Lord Ashtown, who

  1571
  had taken great trouble in tabulating these outrages, when they occurred and when they did not occur, was in Dublin at the time those letters were posted. He made some inquiries and informed the police that this outrage was going to be committed upon the date mentioned in the letter, and the police took care to have men in readiness at the place where the outrage was to take place. It seemed to him that if Lord Ashtown was in the position to tell the police where the outrage was going to take place or likely to take place and to fix the exact time, he either knew something about it or there was something about the business which required a very strict investigation. That was a point to which he, as an English Member, would like to have an answer from the Government. The explanation of the officials in Dublin wanted elucidating and clearing up. It was a very awkward position, as it appeared to him that it would be impossible for a man to ask for police protection because a certain outrage was about to take place, unless he knew something about it. He hoped they would be given some information as to whether they had tried to find out what connection Lord Ashtown and these letters had with each other. The hon. Member for East Galway had not said it was alleged that these letters were received from him. He did not know whether the Attorney General had any views upon that subject. If so he would certainly like to hear them. Unless something was done to clear up this mystery, it would seem that there was someone attempting to lead men who perhaps were not very clever, into difficulties and danger, and to entrap them into practices that they would all deplore, and he thought that for the prevention of cases of that description every effort ought to be made to investigate the charges suggested by the letters and the statements they had heard.
  MR. CHEERYsaid that these were difficult matters for him to deal with as the jury had disagreed as regarded one of the persons accused of offences in connection with the matter. The boy had been acquitted, but the jury had disagreed with regard to his mother, and no
  1572
  determination had yet been come to as to whether there should be another trial. But as the matter had been opened and discussed it was right that he should put the House in possession of the facts as far as he could.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Was there a disagreement upon the conspiracy counts?
  MR. CHERRYthought that there was disagreement upon all the counts. He was rather in a difficult postion too because he had been attacked most vigorously by both sides. He had been charged with having entered into a conspiracy with Members opposite against Lord Ashtown, and now there was a counter charge relating to some conspiracy to shield him. In the first place, he desired to take upon himself the entire responsibility of this matter. He did not think it would be at all fair to the counsel engaged in the trial that they should be in any way blamed for what had been done. Everything that had been done from first to last had been under his directions. He had endeavoured to the best of his ability to do what he considered to be his duty as regards bringing the matter forward for public investigation. The hon. Member for East Galway had not stated the whole case. Simultaneously with the anonymous letters there were letters, which were not anonymous, sent to Lord Ashtown.
  MR. JOHN ROCHEsaid he had not referred to those because he would then have had to refer to the person whom he held to be the writer, and as the case was still sub judice he was afraid the rules of the House would not allow him to introduce the names.
  MR. CHERRYsaid he thought it was only right that if they discussed the matter at all, they should discuss it fully. He was very sorry indeed that the matter had been brought forward. The letters he referred to were signed "Minnie Walsh," and in them she told Lord Ashtown and his agent that she was in a position to give information as to the perpetrator of the outrages, and that there was a second plot to commit

  1573
  murder. He did not think the writing of these letters had ever been denied. They were at once communicated to the police authorities. They could find nothing whatever to blame Lord Ashtown or his agent for, except that they were foolish enough to give the woman £5. He could not see the slightest ground for any suggestion that Lord Ashtown or his agent had anything to do with this business, or were in any way privy to a conspiracy to get up a bogus outrage. When the matter came forward he consulted other members of the Government and the prosecuting counsel as to what the charge should be, and they resolved that they would get expert evidence as to whether these anonymous letters were written as was suggested by Minnie Walsh or her son and that if that were so she should be put upon her trial on every charge which could be framed against her for violation of the criminal law. They wanted the whole matter and every phase of it to be investigated, and put before a jury. The hon. Member complained that he was not examined as a witness. The sole reason was that he could give no material evidence. The hon. Member had taken the letters to the county inspector, but the persons who received them were examined. The hon. Member could only have given hearsay evidence which would not have been accepted by the Court. They were charged with putting the matter of the £5 in the forefront of the indictment, but he found it was the thirteenth count in the indictment. In the forefront of the case they put the conspiracy which they thought had been entered into to create a bogus outrage. They all thought there never was any real intention on anybody's part to blow up Lord Ashtown, but that the intention was to bring these people who were really innocent to the place and get them falsely accused; and they brought before the Court those who could give evidence on that point against the woman and her son. They had absolutely no evidence with regard to the anonymous letters, except that they were posted in Dublin, and the evidence of a handwriting expert. The counts in the indictment were: soliciting Peter Kelly to murder Lord Ashtown, endeavouring to persuade Kelly to murder Lord Ashtown, proposing
  1574
  to Kelly to murder Lord Ashtown, soliciting Kelly to conspire to murder Lord Ashtown, soliciting Kelly to damage a building with intent to murder, soliciting Kelly to cause an explosion to the danger of life and property, soliciting Kelly to conspire to cause an explosion. These were all repeated in reference to the others; then—soliciting to conspire to damage a building, conspiracy to solicit the man to commit the crime, and at the very end of the indictment, conspiracy to obtain money by false pretences. They were bound to include that because if the woman's story was all false, and she was inventing from beginning to end, they were bound to charge her with taking the money as well as getting innocent men falsely accused. They had racked their brains getting together every possible charge, and they put everything forward. The leading counsel for the prosecution, Mr. Bushe, was the fairest man he ever came across, and to suggest that he had done anything to shield a person from justice was a most far-fetched idea. All those who were responsible for the form of the indictment were anxious to have the whole matter investigated and every circumstance of the case brought out fully. As regarded the speech of the hon. Member for North Belfast it should be entitled "Grievances from Befast." It referred to the case of a man called Larkin. During the strike in Belfast there was a row between this man Larkin and one called Bamber. Bamber had come there as what was commonlly called a "blackleg." In consequence of the row both men were arrested and put upon their trial in Belfast. The Crown Prosecutor—a Gentleman who sat on the Unionist side of the House—acted in every way quite fairly. He decided quite rightly and fairly that neither of these two men should be examined as against the other, but that the case should be based upon the evidence of the police and bystanders. As the result of the trial Bamber was acquitted in Belfast. It was suggested that in Belfast there might be some prejudice as regarded the prisoner Larkin, who was connected with the strike, and in consequence he consented to the trial being held in the county of Dublin. The hon. Member for North Belfast had stated that he had received a letter alleging that the policeman in charge of the

  1575
  jury had allowed one of the jurors to leave for two hours. That was a very great dereliction of duty and ought to have been investigated. The House was, however, left in ignorance as to who wrote the letter.
  MR. GEORGE CLARK: I will give the letter to the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. CHERRYsaid he would have preferred that the hon. Member had communicated the letter to the authorities at the time. If the hon. Member would send it on to the police it would be a good thing to do. The trial of Larkin was at the beginning of the present sittings and over a month ago. The law officers were most anxious that everything should be done as regularly as possible. When Larkin was brought on for trial Bamber was not examined against him according to the arrangement made. Those engaged in the case had told him that it would be utterly useless to proceed with the case against Larkin unless Bamber was examined as a witness. That, he thought, would have been unfair, and as the strike was over and the city quiet he thought it was best to let the whole matter drop. There was, he feared, a vindictive spirit in Belfast and a desire to punish Larkin, not because of the assault, but because he was a leader in the strike.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid that as regarded the Ashtown case it was to his mind a scandal that in that House a charge which amounted to one of attempted murder, or inducing people to commit murder, should be made against a man upon the flimsiest evidence and upon the keeping back of evidence put forward by the hon. Member for East Galway. Lord Ashtown had been the subject of obloquy and charges in Ireland during the last six months, which anybody who had followed the discussion must know to be absolutely without foundation. Inquiry had been challenged by no one more prominently than by Lord Ashtown himself. For three months it was insinuated against him, by people who ought to have known a great deal better, that he was the cause of the explosion in which he very nearly lost his own life. It was insinuated over and over again that Lord Ashtown
  1576
  had attempted to blow himself up. He knew the ways of Nationalist Members and their doings in Ireland. This matter was hardly terminated when these charges were made in the House of Commons on the suggestion of the Member for East Galway, that Lord Ashtown was implicated in a second outrage in which he invited people to blow up the church in his own district in order that he might have the gratification of calling it another outrage in Ireland, or in order that these people might be induced to commit crimes so that he could have the pleasure of having them arrested. A more disgraceful and more serious charge it was impossible to imagine. He really thought the Attorney-General might have said something a little stronger than he did in denouncing this system of making false and scandalous charges against people in Ireland simply because they happened to be obnoxious to hon. Members below the gangway. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Above the Gangway.] How did the hon. Member for East Galway bring the matter forward? Certain letters were written bearing the postmark of Dublin. Lord Ashtown had informed the police that there was going to be an attempted outrage on that day it was a terrible coincidence that Lord Ashtown happened to be in Dublin at the date when the letters were posted and that Lord Ashtown should himself inform the police that he had got this information. What the hon. Member apparently knew was that Lord Ashtown himself had received letters in the same hand-writing, and that he had at once taken those letters to the police. [Cries of No."] That matter was fully investigated by the Attorney-General and he took the proper course. This woman was put upon her trial in Dublin and the prosecution appeared to have broken down because the expert evidence as to the handwriting was not entirely satisfactory. There was the whole matter so far as the House knew, and he said again that for an hon. Member of that House to get up and make charges of that kind against Lord Ashtown, who was not there to answer for himself, was a scandal and was an act of cowardice. [Cries of "Order, order."]
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is an un-parliamentary expression.
  SIR EDWARD CARSON: I will withdraw the expression and use "baseness." [Cries of Order.]
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is equally an imputation of bad motive.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he would of course withdraw, and he would leave it to all hon. Members themselves to place the proper epithet upon conduct so scandalous. He wished to say a few words on the matter out of which the debate had arisen. It seemed to him that the system of yielding in Ireland to the pressure of the mob was becoming rather an expensive matter. The Committee were asked for a sum of £1,500, in addition to £1,000 already voted, for extra fees to the law officers for the prosecutions which they had had to conduct. He might say, in passing, that the only gratification he had was that this money was going to the law officers rather than to any of the other Departments in Ireland. He did not in the least begrudge that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues who had had to carry on the work should be properly paid, but during this year of conciliation, as he supposed he must call it, apparently the fees of the right hon. Gentlemen amounted to £2,100, whereas the average for the previous ten years, during the regime of the wicked coercionists, it amounted to about £800. From the figures before him it appeared that previous to the coming into office of the present Government the sum of £8,000 was surrendered to the Exchequer out of the sum voted, and that in the year before £6,000 was similarly surrendered. Not only was nothing to be surrendered to the Exchequer this year, but the year of conciliation had eaten up the whole of the sum voted for law prosecutions, and they were faced with this Supplementary Estimate. The truth of the matter was that they had in the present year the maximum of cost and the minimum of result. Whether they had any result at all was a matter of grave doubt. The Attorney-General thought that cattle-driving had been largely put down
  1578
  by abortive prosecutions. Therefore, in future, the law would be administered in this way: juries would be advised not to convict, as it was more successful to acquit than to convict.
  MR. CHERRY: I said that bringing the prosecutions and having the facts brought out in public had a certain amount of effect.
  SIR E. CARSONdid not know anything that could have a worse effect than day I after day exhibiting to the public who were inclined to break the law, the absolute paralysis of the law itself. He was sceptical whether the action of the Chief Secretary was stopping cattle-driving. Prom the newspaper accounts he read he very much doubted it. If it had been stopped, at what cost was it? By the absolute surrender all along the line to the men who had broken the law with impunity. What else could he do? When he announced the other night that his policy was to break up the rich grass lands, he was announcing that surrender to the forces of disorder in Ireland. Everybody must have anticipated what would ensue if the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to enforce the law and to take care that people should not break the law with impunity. He would like to ask the Chief Secretary I what were the means he proposed to take with regard to the holdings of grass lands? Were the tenants to understand that they had better not take them because they would be broken up?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to stop the right hon. Gentleman, but he is now getting out of order.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid he only wanted to point out that the paralysis of the law under the right hon. Gentleman had led to an impossible situation in regard to the letting of these lands, and he would not pursue the subject. The Attorney-General had tried to minimise boycotting in Ireland. He himself did not take the same satisfactory view of the report of the inspector from East Galway. The Attorney-General seemed to think it was a very small thing that a man was unable to procure what

  1579
  was necessary for carrying on his business, that he should be unable to secure in his locality what was necessary, that he should not be able to get his horses shod, that he should not be able to get labourers, and that the people in his employment should leave him. To him it seemed a very grave interference with the liberty of any man who honestly wished to carry on his business. When the Attorney-General was minimising these matters, he wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman had ever had a conversation with Mr. Persse, one of the gentlemen whose cattle were driven. He wished everybody there could have heard a lecture which Mr. Persse gave the other day, how in Galway he took a farm from whom nobody had ever been evicted, not grazing land either, how immediately his labourers were ordered to leave at the dictation of the League, how when he cultivated the land each labourer had to have a policeman behind him, and the police had to follow the plough. Mr. Persse stated, with great truth, that he knew when he walked down the street in a free country even with his bodyguard of police, he might be shot at or assaulted, and not a single man would be made amenable to justice under the law as at present administered. It was all very well to try and minimise matters, but these were facts which could not be denied, which could be borne testimony to by many persons. He might well ask: How far had the Government prosecutions been successful; and if they had not been successful, what did the Government propose to do in future to make them successful? The real test was whether they could punish the criminal under the present law. If they could not, then it must be amended or supplemented to make it effective. On another matter he desired to call attention to the extraordinary contention put forward by the Attorney-General in the Judge Bodkin case recently, which seemed to be of far-reaching importance. He would not discuss the merits of the case. He knew Judge Bodkin and was glad to see him appointed. When the Court was asked to grant a writ of quo warranto for the purpose of discovering whether Judge Bodkin was rightly appointed, the Attorney-General
  1580
  put forward an extraordinary claim, and it was a claim of such far-reaching consequences that it ought not to be allowed to go without observation. When the Court was asked to grant a writ quo warranto, as he understood it, the contention of the Attorney-General was that he had a right to come into the Court and say: "I am superior to the power of this Court: it is ray right, as Attorney-General for the King, to stop the proceedings of the Court, even if the Court wish to grant the writ." It was impossible to conceive that the Attorney-General had a right to set the Court at defiance, and such an extraordinary claim ought not to be allowed to pass without observation. They might have the Attorney - General when someone came into the Court and asked for a writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of testing the validity of the imprisonment of a man—
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I rise to a point of order. I desire to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is in order in questioning or bringing up an argument which was confirmed by the whole Court—the three Judges—in their judgment of the case?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the action of the Attorney-General for Ireland in connection with one of these contentious Cases in the Estimates. If that is so, I do not think there is any reason to stop him.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman in attacking the argument is not also attacking the judgment?
  THE CHAIRMAN: So far as I remember, the particular plea of the Attorney-General for Ireland was not adjudicated upon.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid that that was so; it was never adjudicated upon; but even if it had been, he contended he had a perfect right to challenge the action of the Executive in Ireland, because if such a claim was to be allowed to go on and it were said that, if a writ of quo warranto was issued or a writ of

  1581
  habeas corpus, the Attorney-General, as representative of the King, had a right to stop the action of the Court, away went the whole liberty of the subject. This was a matter of far-reaching consequences, and it seemed strange that the Attorney-General of a Liberal Government should have put forward such a contention. All he could say was that if there was any ground for such a claim on the part of the Attorney-General the sooner there was legislation to put an end to it the better. But so far as he knew any such claim had never been made before on the part of any Executive Officer either in this country or in Ireland,
  MR. DILLONsaid that before the right hon. the Chief Secretary spoke he would like for a few moments to call the attention of the Committee to what appeared to him to be an important matter brought before the Committee that evening by his hon. friend the member for East Galway. They on that side of the House had been denounced in very strong terms by the right hon. Member for Dublin University, for making charges against Lord Ashtown. He himself made no charge against Lord Ashtown. All he maintained was that a case had been made out that night deserving of the most careful investigation. It seemed full of suspicion. He thought that if the right hon. Member for Dublin University felt it his duty to indulge in eloquent denunciations of hon. Members from Ireland for making such charges, his language might have been better directed against Lord Ashtown, who had made it his profession and had elicited large sums of money from people in this country and in Ireland, to make charges against the Irish people which were entirely without foundation. Before he explained the nature of their complaint against the administration of criminal law in Ireland in connection with this case, there were two points to which he desired to draw attention. First of all, the main point in the speech of his hon. friend the Member for East Galway, the point which undoubtedly aroused attention of hon. Members, had not been answered either by the Attorney-
  1582
  General or by the Member for Dublin University. That was, "How did Lord Ashtown come to know the hour and place at which the outrage was going to take place?" Letters were written from Dublin to five men in Galway—who had no intention of committing the outrage—inviting them to do so. These letters were criminal letters. They were not acted upon. Prom what source did Lord Ashtown hear of these letters being written? He could have no other means of knowledge except from the same hand which wrote the letters. That was the really important point, and neither the Attorney-General nor the Member for Dublin University who stood up to champion Lord Ashtown, had dealt with the matter.
  SIR E. CAESON: The facts I know were the facts stated by the Attorney-General. What he stated was that Lord Ashtown was informed on the Saturday that the outrage would take place.
  MR. DILLON: Whom did Lord Ashtown get the letter from? Was he right in saying that the letter was in the same hand-writing as the letters written to the people of Galway inviting them to commit this outrage?
  SIR E. CARSON: I think the Attorney-General stated so.
  MR. DILLON: Then these criminal letters were sworn in Court to be in the hand-writing of Minnie Walsh. He did not for one moment say whether she was guilty or not. The man who swore that these letters were in the handwriting of Minnie Walsh was one of the greatest experts in this country, a man from the Home Office, he believed, and all he maintained was that the handwriting must have been very like the hand-writing of the other letters. Minnie Walsh was an old retainer of the Ashtown family, a person who had been for years in correspondence with Lord Ashtown and his family, and who at that moment was in correspondence with Lord Ashtown. How was it possible, if Lord Ashtown received a letter of this character in a hand-writing familiar to him, telling him

  1583
  of this outrage, that three days afterwards he gave this same woman £5 to pursue investigations and strive to obtain information he alleged could be obtained? All he maintained was that the case made out by his hon. friend was one clouded with the gravest possible suspicion and one demanding the most searching investigation. That was all the Nationalist Members claimed. They had made no charge. He made no charge, and he did not believe his hon. friend made any charge beyond stating, as they are perfectly entitled to state, that the whole of the circumstances and the facts of the case were surrounded by suspicion. Then the right hon. Member for Dublin University went on to say that Lord Ashtown had had many other letters—some anonymous and some signed by Minnie Walsh, and that he immediately handed them over to the police. He did nothing of the kind. It was perfectly true that he had in his possession many letters from Minnie Walsh, but he did not hand these letters over to the police. He never approached the police until the police approached him.
  MR. CHERRY: What I said was that he communicated with the Castle authorities. I think it was from the Under-Secretary that I heard at an early stage of the letters of Minnie Walsh.
  MR. DILLON: I was dealing with the statement of the right hon. Member for Dublin University.
  SIR E. CARSON: I was merely restating the facts as stated by the Attorney-General. When the Attorney-General quoted the Castle authorities I thought he meant the police.
  MR. DILLON: Am I not right in saying that Lord Ashtown never communicated with the police until my friend the Member for East Galway set the criminal law in motion?
  MR. CHERRY: I know that at a very early stage he communicated with the Castle authorities; whether with the police or not I am not sure.
  MR. DILLONsaid that the first suggestion of a prosecution or of bringing the matter to the knowledge of the Government and the public was the action of his hon. friend, and he was informed that after he put the law in motion Mr. Trench, Lord Ashtown's agent, and the gentleman who paid £5 to Minnie Walsh, wrote her that her letters were safely locked up in his safe, and that he would take care that they would never come into the hands of the police. Therefore, he came to the point and said that it was absolutely inaccurate to say, so far as he understood it, that Lord Ashtown immediately handed over these suspicious letters to the police. He believed that these letters would have still been in Mr. Trench's safe and would never have been handed over to the police had it not been for the action of his hon. friend. All he said was that there was very grave cause for suspicion, and that in these matters they were entitled to have suspicion aroused much more easily in Ireland than in England. It was all very fine for hon. Members to attack them for making insinuations, as they were pleased to call them; but in a case of suspicion hon. Members must remember that they lived in a country where the agent provocateur was a common instrument to employ, and when Lord Ashtown handed over this woman to justice he knew that Dublin Castle had over and over again initiated prosecutions and obtained convictions by asking people to commit crime. The first fact he wished to bring home to the minds of Members of the House and of the people of this country was that in this case, although there were a large number of suspicious letters, some of them anonymous and some of them signed, all of them in the possession of Lord Ashtown and his agent, they did not communicate them to the Government, or put the law in motion until his hon. friend forced their hands. On the first occasion on which the county inspector visited Lord Ashtown at his residence, the latter did not hand over all these letters; he did not hand them over until the occasion of the trial in Dublin. He thought, also, there was a well-founded complaint as to the method by which the law was put in motion by the prosecutors in Ireland. The Attorney-

  1585
  General had very properly taken full responsibility for that action. They complained of the proceedings in the police court. In Ireland and even in this country, public attention had been aroused by these proceedings, and when this new case arose, everybody naturally said that this woman should be prosecuted, as the police thought her guilty, in the first instance for an attempt to procure the commission of an abominable crime—and in connection with that let him direct hon. Members' attention to facts showing that there was an abominable conspiracy in this matter. In the columns of London newspapers he had read weeks before of this abominable crime which was going to horrify Ireland. In the Daily Telegraph he saw it stated that their correspondent had information of a crime which was to throw all previous crimes into the shade, and that he could point to a certain church where a week hence a bomb was to be exploded in the church, and the whole congregation while worshipping their God were to be hurled into eternity. These things caused in their minds the deepest suspicion as to the ramifications of this whole business. Then came the police court trial. The Attorney-General answering his hon. friend, who said he was not asked to give evidence, replied that his hon. friend had no evidence to give of any value. How did the Crown know that? Because when his hon. friend came to Dublin they never asked him what his evidence was at all, and told him simply and curtly that he was not required. He himself went to Dublin, and when he went down to the court with his hon. friend to hear this interesting case, what was their amazement to see this woman put into the dock and charged in the first instance with obtaining money by false pretences from Lord Ashtown and Mr. Trench, his agent, and the first two witnesses called against her were her employers Lord Ashtown and Mr. Trench, who made no complaint of that sort. The result of these proceedings was to convince public opinion in Ireland and in England that this was a fresh plot against Lord Ashtown, and yet Lord Ashtown and Mr. Trench too, he thought, said that they had no part in making the charge against this woman of obtaining money under false pretences.
  1586
  Where did that charge come from, and who invented it? Had hon. Members ever heard in this country of a woman being charged with obtaining money under false pretences, and then evidence of that nature being given? Lord Ashtown admitted giving her the money and being constantly in correspondence with her, and Mr. Trench admitted that she was frequently in his office, and that on the last occasion that she was there Lord Ashtown came into the room and Mr. Trench discreetly retired and left them together. They had no complaint to make against her of obtaining money under false pretences, and yet that was the main charge brought against her. And when she was summoned by the Crown for these two crimes, the main one being obtaining money by false pretences, where did she go to for protection? She went down straight to Mr. Trench's office, where she brought out the summons and said, "What am I to do now?" And Mr. Trench said, "Go to Mr. Brady the solicitor, and he will take up your case for you," and she actually went and employed a solicitor, acting on the advice of Mr. Trench, from whom the Crown prosecutors said she had obtained money under false pretences. This was not a case to be dismissed by the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University. It was a very serious case, and while he made no charge, as he said, the facts were uncontradicted and were full of suspicion and doubt, and when they thought of this, that the whole liberties of the people of their country were aimed at by an abominable conspiracy at the head of which was Lord Ashtown himself, with confederates among the leading English newspapers, they were entitled to appeal to the House of Commons and ask that the fullest possible light should be turned upon these proceedings. It was the duty of the Government to resort to whatever means were at their disposal to examine this thing to the very bottom, and to find out how it came to pass that the proceedings of what it was admitted was a bogus conspiracy to commit outrage, was revealed to Lord Ashtown at the very moment that it was plotted in Dublin, and that this extraordinary and criminal correspondence between him

  1587
  and this unhappy woman was concealed from the knowledge of the Government until it was dragged out of Lord Ashtown.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid that this was rather an unusual debate, and after what had fallen from the hon. Member who had just sat down he thought they would all agree that this House was not a tribunal well suited to investigate such a matter as that which he had brought before them, and he himself felt that it was perfectly impossible to continue the discussion when they had not the same means of knowledge, and all of them knew little bits of the facts and not the whole case. The Attorney-General—he did not know whether he was wise or not—read the whole thirteen counts—a method rather calculated, he thought, to bring into contempt the noble profession to which they both belonged. But he agreed that those counts were very complete, and that they charged this Mrs. Walsh with every possible offence that could by any ingenuity of a draughtsman be connected with the occurrence in question. Upon that indictment she had stood her trial, and, although it was true she had not been acquitted, the jury had disagreed, and it was for the Attorney-General to consider whether fresh proceedings should be taken. In that state of things he thought it would be very undesirable for them to discuss the matter at all—although, no doubt, it was rather late in the day for him to make that suggestion. But the real difficulty of the case was that it broke down because the jury were not disposed to rest upon the evidence of the expert witness with regard to handwriting, and the whole point was to connect the defendant with these most villainous letters which were so properly brought to the notice of the police by the hon. Member—letters which were enormously long, which were animated by a most malicious and dangerous spirit, and which were certainly well calculated to stir up a feeling of the keenest indignation that such letters should have been written. It was often urged against him that he did not send all sorts of people to prison in Ireland. The difficulty he found was to get evidence against them upon which the Courts would convict;
  1588
  and here the case broke down because of the unsatisfactory nature of the handwriting evidence. The learned counsel brought in the Beck case, and the fact that the expert had given evidence in it, although he did not know that anybody who had anything to do with that case stood condemned for all time. The counsel also occasionally called him Mr. Beck instead of his own name. This was one of the humours of the trial, and in that way the whole case was prejudiced. He did not pretend to have acquainted himself very accurately with the facts of the case, but he read the newspaper report of it, and he did not think anybody could say that it was a gross miscarriage of justice that the jury disagreed. It was rot unnatural that hon. Gentlemen below the gangway should feel rather strongly when Lord Ashtown's name was mentioned. Those who did not quite agree with Lord Ashtown would feel that it was a very painful duty—if it was a duty—that he had taken upon himself, of collecting mere newspaper reports—and the Irish papers did give very singular reports—of such things as rowdy meetings of boards of guardians and other boards, putting them together under one band, and circulating them all over Europe as if they represented fairly and honestly the real state of things in Ireland. He did not wonder, therefore, that there was a good deal of feeling. But no accusation whatever was made against Lord Ashtown. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, everybody who had spoken had disclaimed making any accusation against him, and he entirely associated himself with what fell from the Attorney-General, that all who had an opportunity of investigating this case felt perfectly satisfied that he had no concern in it. Upon other matters really everything that had been said to-day upon the general case against him was said with great ability by Opposition speakers in the debate on the Address. There was one thing, however, that he would refer to. It had been supposed that if only they had prosecuted the hon. Member for Westmeath they would have obtained convictions in the cases in which the law officers prosecuted with so much vigour in Dublin and

  1589
  elsewhere against cattle-driving. That was, of course, an easy thing to say. He did not complain of the hon. Member for Westmeath on a former occasion, because he confessed he had a great dislike to seem even to sneer at a man behind his back. It was a matter of regret to him that he was not in his place, and he certainly had nothing whatever to do with his not being in his place. And if he had been in his place, he would have felt at greater liberty to give him the reasons which animated him in leaving him alone. He had the advantage of being acquainted with the character of the public speeches of that hon. Member. He dared say he might have underrated the power of his eloquence and his great personality. He knew the hon. Member had been described as another Daniel O'C'onnell, that it had been said that he had been received with great enthusiasm by crowds who had been depicted in the newspapers as hanging upon his words as they dropped from his lips. But really he did not take that view of the eloquence of the hon. Member or the importance of his subject. The hon. Member went about different parts of the country, and when he met people coming out of chapel he addressed the portions of the congregations that cared to listen to him; and if he had been reported verbatim, if the manuscript of his speeches had been handed to the reporter, he could not help thinking the speeches would have fallen as flat upon the mind of the reader as he had reason to believe they often did on the particular spot where the words were emitted. He took, therefore, the view that it would be an exceedingly undesirable thing to give the hon. Member what he called a State trial, a prosecution for using language inciting to an illegal offence, before a jury, of course, in which his own defence was to occupy three days—this punishment he did not desire to inflict even on the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland. He did not take that step, and he was still satisfied that he was right. But one thing he had overlooked which he ought not to have overlooked, having practised law himself. He did not consider so carefully as he ought to have done perhaps that when his right
  1590
  hon. and learned friend did direct prosecution of those who were actually engaged in the illegal offence, the use the ingenious counsel engaged for the defence would undoubtedly make of this. Counsel was, of course, bound according to traditions of the profession to make use of every possible argument for his client, and he undoubtedly did use a powerful argument to the jury when he said that the Government left alone this great orator, this peripatetic philosopher who went about delivering these speeches; and then portions of the reports in the Irish Times would be read, and sympathy would be excited for cattle-driving. He was by no means certain—in fact he thought indeed that the effect would have been the other way—that, had the hon. Member been found guilty in a State prosecution—and it was quite possible he would not have been—and sentenced to a period of imprisonment, the fact would in any way have affected the minds of juries when they came to hear cases against cattle-drivers The offenders had been described as lads, boys, dupes, and poor farmers. Some of them were sixty years of age, many forty years old, and very few under twenty-five; they certainly were not boys, when the term was used in a common colloquial sense, they certainly were not boys, and he did not think it was right to call them dupes. They had mistaken notions of their own interest, and had formed an entirely wrong conception of the effect that might accrue to themselves personally and their hopes of getting land, but he was afraid it was giving them a far too favourable view to say they are dupes, and certainly they were not dupes of the hon. Member for Westmeath. All this is supplementary to what he said the other day as his reason for leaving the hon. Member alone. He deliberately came to the conclusion that a prosecution, so far from tending to put down cattle-driving, and the evils that gave rise to cattle-driving, would increase the practice. Though language was used day after day towards him personally to induce him to do what he did not want to do and give the hon. Member a State trial, he abstained from doing so believing that it would increase lawlessness, and in no sense would it

  1591
  have punished anybody in Ireland for lawlessness. An hon. Member who had spoken, as he always spoke, very well—and he did not know why the hon. Member suggested that he did not treat him with courtesy; he always listened to the hon. Member with attention and found considerable force in what he said—that hon. Member had complained that he (Mr. Birrell) had said the offence of cattle-driving was intimidatory and not predatory, and the leader of the Opposition had complained of a distinction he had drawn at an earlier stage between cattle-driving and cattle-lifting; the right hon. Gentleman thought this was an undesirable thing to do because it seemed to minimise the nature of the offence. But what was an unfortunate Chief Secretary to do when he had to make an explanation to the House anxious to know the facts? The very essence of the criminal law was clear definition of the offence, and he said the offence is not predatory; the object was not to steal the cattle, as many people thought it was, and he was not sure that there were not educated people even now who thought that cattle-driving was cattle-stealing,. Because he felt in honour bound to make it perfectly plain, and because in making it plain he minimised the offence, it was unfair to assume that in his heart he sympathised with the offence. In the same way he might say the object was intimidatory, not predatory. He had said so, and it was so. It was an unlawful reprehensible form of intimidation, but if he was not allowed to say what is was and the occasion of it, that was to impose upon him an amount of silence which was unreasonable From cattle-driving speakers passed to boycotting. For the offence of cattle-driving he admitted that the Government had failed, lamentably failed, in the great majority of instances to obtain verdicts. Then they dragged in boycotting with all its horrors, and here again the Chief Secretary was put into a rather awkward position. A particular case was brought up, facts were known to him, and a good many things were said on both sides that ought to be gone into; but so much did he desire to see the detestable practice put down that he was slow
  1592
  to go into the actual facts of a case lest he might expose himself, as he had in relation to cattle-driving, to the imputation of seeming to minimise the effect of the practice. Therefore, he was not going to say a word about its being serious or less serious. He wished to God it would cease; it pointed to a state of feeling which he was sure every body deplored. It was resorted to as an act of war; the only way in which anybody had been able to say a word of excuse for it was in the same way as they excused the horrors of war—things they could not contemplate in cold blood. Those days he thought were gone by, but he admitted there were far too many cases of boycotting. Hon. Members would say, why not put it down? and there the Government joined issue. They never would be successful in putting down boycotting by criminal prosecutions. The only successful method of putting down boycotting was by civil procedure. In a civil proceeding when they could show a case of genuine conspiracy to deprive a man of the means of livelihood or to prevent him from making profit from his produce and obtain damages, they did more to deal a blow at boycotting than by putting persons in the dock and prosecuting them under the very dangerous and questionable law of conspiracy. He agreed that if they had chosen to put into force the clauses of the Crimes Act, which would have enabled them to put the crime of cattle-driving before two resident magistrates, they could have filled the gaols of Roscommon and Galway with prisoners. But when they jumped off that into boycotting and spoke as if he could by the exercise of legal process secure convictions in many—too many—cases of boycotting that existed all over Ireland, he said at once he could not do it, and he did not think anybody could do it, and it was not by these commercial proceedings that they could put down these offences. He, therefore, could only say that although he regretted as much as anybody this Supplementary Estimate, he did not agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that these law costs were matters of congratulation. He thought it Was most melancholy that the Police Estimates should be over a million of money, and that he should be there

  1593
  asking for a Supplementary Estimate, but he did not suppose Gentlemen opposite seriously complained because they had employed the law officers to make these prosecutions. In fact they were asked to do so by one Gentleman opposite in order to show that the Government was in earnest. They took that expensive form of showing that the Government was in earnest. All he could say was that he deeply regretted it, and he hoped the day might come when, not only no Supplementary Estimate of this kind would ever be asked for, but that much of the vast sum now required to keep Ireland in order might be set free for other purposes greatly needed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think he was going to take advantage of the opportunity given by this Supplementary Estimate to make a speech which would be more fitting and proper to the debate which had taken place last week. The Committee, however, need not be under any such alarm. The few observations he had to make would be strictly relevant to what had passed in that debate. The first observation related to the case of Lord Ashtown. Of that case he knew nothing except what he had heard in the course of the discussion, which nobody could hear without feeling that the House was really being used for the purpose of making the very gravest charges against an individual who, from the nature of the case, could not be there to defend himself; who had courted inquiry into this matter consistently from the very beginning; and whom the Government were bound to defend if they had the means of defence at their disposal. He thought they ought in any case to shelter him when he was made the subject of an attack such as that to which they had listened from the hon. Member for East Mayo who, although he told them in his speech that he intended to bring no charge, spent twenty minutes in enforcing upon the attention of the House, with his accustomed eloquence, the most serious charge which he thought could be brought against any human being—a charge, namely, that Lord Ashtown was guilty, not of committing crime himself, which
  1594
  was bad enough in all conscience, but had in it the element of personal courage, but of the far more infamous crime of urging other people to commit a crime in order that they might be found guilty, and that through them a blow might be struck at the Party from whom he differed, or at an agitation of which he disapproved. For his part, he did not gather that any evidence had been brought forward in that debate, or in that House or out of it, in favour of that abominable charge. He did not think it ought to be made unless there was evidence; and when he remembered that Lord Ashtown himself had done all in his power to court inquiry into the matter he thought it ill became the hon. Gentleman to use his great ability for making such an accusation against Lord Ashtown; and he was sorry it was not in the power of the Government to make a more effective defence of the man whom he was convinced they did not believe to be guilty of the crime with which he had been charged. He hoped at any rate the Attorney-General for Ireland would remember, in dealing with any future developments of this case, if future developments there were to be, that, as he thought, he was bound to consider whether the machinery of the law he had at his disposal could not be used to elucidate the whole of this matter—to get to the very bottom of the affair. If he used all the machinery at his disposal he would rejoice whatever the result might be.
  MR. CHERRY: Can the right hon. Gentleman suggest anything that I could do and have not done to get to the bottom of it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not suggest that, because he had not the means at his disposal. He had not the adequate knowledge; and if the right hon. Gentleman told him that he had used, and desired to use, every machinery at his disposal to get at the truth, he accepted his statement.
  MR. CHERRY: I certainly do.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the right hon. Gentleman was qualified to give that assurance, and he accepted his statement. Then, if all the machinery

  1595
  at his disposal had been used to get to the bottom of the case, and nothing had been shown that threw the smallest suspicion on Lord Ashtown, it was most unfortunate that the House should be used as a theatre in which and from which accusations could be levelled against a man whom he firmly believed to be innocent and whom the Government believed to be innocent. Leaving that subject, he came to the broader aspects of the question with which the right hon. Gentleman had been dealing. He had been charged of course—he himself had been one of those who had charged him—with not having dealt with the development of crime in Ireland at a sufficiently early stage and with not, dealing with it when he did take it, in hand with sufficient rigourous. There was now another theory to account for the failure of the machinery of law in Ireland, a theory which he had heard for the first time that evening, and which was developed by the learned Gentleman the Attorney-General for Leland. He described colloquies he had had with his colleague in Dublin in which these two gentlemen, contemplating the painful state of crime in Ireland, came to the conclusion that it was mainly due to Unionist speeches. In the view of these two learned gentlemen, Unionist orators, when they charged the Government with dealing too lightly with the crime of cattle-driving, were really spreading effectively; broad amongst the people the doctrine that the Government were indifferent to the crime which they were really doing their best to put down. Let them contrast that theory of the influence of English Unionist oratory in this country with the Chief Secretary's view of the impotence of Irish oratory in Ireland itself. His friends behind him and he himself in the course of their speeches in the country did say and thought that earlier utterances of the Government with respect to cattle-driving in Ireland spread abroad the view that they regarded it lightly. The right hon. Gentleman had sincerely done his best to mitigate that not unnatural error of the public mind in Ireland—the effect of those earlier utterances. But because they, the critics of the Government, said so, the whole Irish population in these
  1596
  disaffected districts had become poisoned by this view. The infection had spread, and they were the authors of the Irish view that the Government treated this matter lightly. When an Irish representative—the chosen spokesman in that House of Irish opinion, the valued colleague of the representatives of a large part of Ireland sitting below the gangway—when he went about Sunday after Sunday in the very districts themselves propagating this view, the right hon. Gentleman had nothing to say for him except that his speeches, as far as he could learn, fell very flat whenever and wherever they were uttered, and that if they had not got an unfortunate and temporary notoriety through the enterprise of some journalistic pen in Ireland, they would not have been noticed. That might be the relative weight of importance attached by the Government to Unionist speech on the one hand and Nationalist speech on the other. He confessed he rated the authority and power of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway over the minds, opinions, and actions of their fellow-countrymen far higher than the right hon. Gentleman did; and he did not think that an Irish Member of Parliament could go about the country preaching to willing ears a particular policy, recommending it not merely to the general, but to the personal and immediate interests of these people, and be the impotent, the dull, the neglected, and the negligible quantity which the right hon. Gentleman supposed he was. Even if the hon. Member had been as negligible a quantity as the right hon. Gentleman supposed, he did not think there was a worse moral to be preached in any part of the world that the leaders were to be allowed to escape because they were Members of Parliament, but the followers, dupes or not, were to be prosecuted. That mentally suggested that the Government did not treat the matter very seriously. The right hon. Gentleman's own natural style of oratory did not always suggest that he took a very serious view of his subject, although he personally—let him hasten to add—thought that the veneer of jocularity which occasionally glittered over the solid basis of argument he inclined to use was so natural to his

  1597
  style that he believed, however deeply he felt on a subject, he could not refrain from entertaining them in all his speeches.
  MR. BIRRELL: I will do my best.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the right hon. Gentleman could not help adorning his speech by these playful sallies which nobody enjoyed more than he did. At all events, he thought it would be admitted that, when his object was to persuade the population of these districts that the Government took the very gravest view of the situation, his method of indoctrinating them with that view was not always, perhaps, the most felicitous that could be chosen. But, after all, the argument most relevant to the Supplementary Estimate was the argument based on financial considerations. Had the additional money which they were asked to vote been really used effectively for carrying out law and order in Ireland? By the admission of the Government themselves, the spending of this money, however it might have fructified the legal profession in Ireland, had done absolutely nothing to put down lawlessness. The Chief Secretary said recently that in his view one of the great objects of jury trials was to enable the Government of the day to come into touch with the public opinion of the districts where the jury trials took place. He did not deny that in the case of duelling, which the right hon. Gentleman quoted, the discrepancy between the legal sentence that might be inflicted and the public view taken of the crime as shown by the action of the juries had some effect on our jurisprudence. But what had that to do with the present case? In this case, as the Government admitted, a very grave offence had been committed. Was it not a scandalous state of things that they should be spending thousands of pounds, not in vindicating the law, but in showing that the law was useless?—not in protecting unoffending and harmless citizens, but in showing that they could not protect them? There had been an expensive legal movement in which the Attorney-General for Ireland had borne a leading part, but it was purely a parade. Not a single shot had been fired, not in anger at all events, and certainly not a shot had
  1598
  gone home, for no one had been brought down. It has been a pure sham from beginning to end; and the Government must have known all along it was going to be a sham from beginning to end. Was it not an expensive way of coining into touch with public opinion to spend these thousands of pounds on abortive jury trials? The Government knew very well before these trials began what the opinion of certain classes in Ireland was in regard to these offences. What, then, was the use of these abortive jury trials? They did not convict the offenders. They did not give the Government any information which they had not already possessed as to the state of public opinion. The Attorney-General for Ireland, with an optimistic spirit which did him credit, declared that while the jury trials were abortive in the sense that no guilty person was brought to justice, they had done good by spreading abroad sound views in regard to the enormity of the crime of cattle-driving.
  MR. CHERRY: The right hon. Gentleman forgets that in the first case the jury convicted.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That was an excellent reason for trying a second case, and the Government did try it and failed. I do not know how many cases the Government tried and failed, but there was a large number. Indeed, no one has been louder in proclaiming the lamentable failures than the Chief Secretary with his usual candour. What, then, is the use of talking about one success out of so many failures? And what was the source of those failures? Were they owing to the speeches for the prosecution? I am sure they were able speeches. But does the Attorney-General really think that while his addresses failed to convince the juries to whom they were addressed, they had great influence outside the Court in carrying a more wholesome spirit to the criminal districts?
  MR. BIRRELL: The juries disagreed very often,
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I gather from that interruption that the Chief Secretary thinks I am unduly harping on the want of success of

  1599
  the Attorney-General; and that there would have been acquittals in all cases had not the Attorney-General by his addresses prevented that scandal from polluting the course of justice in Ireland. Well, I give the Attorney-General the benefit of the doubt. But the real question for the House is this—if we have to vote this enormous amount for legal charges in Ireland, ought we not to see that something happens in consequence of it—that justice is done and the law is vindicated? Are the Government doing all they can in that direction? They are not. They know perfectly well that they have at their disposal laws which would enable them to deal with a situation which they admit is deplorable. They do not take the view of the Leader of the Irish Party that Ireland is a crimeless country. On the contrary, they admit to the full the indictment which has been brought against certain portions of Ireland by this side of the House.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I never said that Ireland is crimeless. That would be absurd. I said there was less crime in proportion to population than in England.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Not in cattle-driving.
  MR. HAYDEN: Yes, and in cattle-maiming.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the hon. Member for Waterford would have the House believe that all these charges of agrarian outrages in Ireland were the result of a criminal conspiracy of English newspapers and Unionist politicians. But that was not the view of the Government. The Government admitted that there were parts of Ireland where the rights of peaceable citizens were not preserved by the laws under which those peaceable citizens lived. Were they going to tolerate that state of things? To use the old phrase, "Force is no remedy" was futile. Force was a remedy; and it was the only remedy against all kinds of crime.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: You tried it,
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that if he had his way he would certainly try the machinery
  1600
  which the law provided to see that the law was obeyed. He could not understand anyone denying in cold blood that perfectly sound maxim, which ought to control the policy of the Government and influence the views and votes of all Members of this House. The Chief Secretary frankly admitted that the only laws he chose to put in force were inefficacious for the purpose for which alone laws were intended. The responsibility of refusing to use the machinery which the law provided for seeing that the subjects of His Majesty were allowed to exercise the rights which the citizens of every free country were permitted to exercise tested heavily on the Government, and he thought when they looked back in calmer moments of reflection, they would admit that it shed little lustre or glory upon an administration which, at all events, was powerful enough, if for nothing else, to carry out the fundamental duties that rested upon all Governments.
  MR. POWERsaid that the discussion had in the main been devoted to the Lord Ashtown incident, and he wished to say a word or two in regard to that question. He had always been one of those who thought that absentee landlordism had contributed very much to the bringing about of the unfortunate condition of Ireland, but having regard to the position of Lord Ashtown and the way in which he occupied his time he was inclined to wish that he was an absentee landlord. Lord Ashtown and certain other persons in Ireland seemed to spend their time in endeavouring to blacken the character of the country. In the publication "Grievances from Ireland," edited by Lord Ashdown and circulated broadcast throughout England, he selected a few isolated cases, and said that the country was to be judged by those cases. What would be said of Irishmen if, founding their judgment on the scenes which could be witnessed in the streets of London and other cities every day, they were to say that there was no domestic purity in England. It was equally unreasonable to say that the selected cases which were published were typical of life in Ireland. He had from the first regarded the Glenaheiry case as a very suspicious one, but after

  1601
  the revelations which had been made that night, he thought it was more suspicious now than it ever was. The people whom he represented had found fault with the Attorney-General for not having a proper investigation in this case, for, after all, the inquiry which took place could not be regarded as having been complete. He and his friends were anxious that the case should be probed to the bottom. Anyone who looked at the matter with an unbiassed mind would come to the conclusion that the case was full of suspicion and that it should be investigated in the most thorough and searching way. In view of the opinion expressed by the English official who was sent over to Ireland to inquire, it was only right that there should be the fullest possible inquiry, and on behalf of the people who had to pay for the so-called outrage he asked that such an inquiry should take place.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid the Committee must feel that it implied a want of respect on the part of the Government towards the Leader of the Opposition that no reply had been given to the very powerful speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He desired to refer to the very feeble answer given by the Attorney-General to the hon. Member for North Belfast in regard to the case or Mr. Larkin. The Attorney-General spoke of the trouble in Belfast as if it were an ordinary labour trouble. He seemed to endorse the remark of the hon. Member for "Stoke that the men and their leaders on the whole behaved fairly well. That was a view, at all events, which would be endorsed by no one who knew the facts. It was not a purely labour trouble. It was a Nationalist conspiracy organised and inspired by party and religious hatred of the worst kind. The case presented by the hon. Member for North Belfast had not been answered by the Attorney General. What were the facts? Being afraid that a jury cognisant of the facts in Belfast would convict Mr. Larkin, the Attorney-General and the Chief Secretary determined to remove the accused for trial to Dublin where he would be tried before a more sympathetic jury. The Attorney-General and the Chief Secretary desired that
  1602
  Larkin should be acquitted of the crime with which he was charged. [An HON. MEMBER: What happened?] The jury disagreed. The disagreement of the jury and an acquittal were equally satisfactory to the Chief Secretary and the Attorney-General, because in either event the result was that a criminal was allowed to go free, When an application was made for a new trial it was refused. The Chief Secretary denied that there was any crime. Why did the Government institute a trial at all if they were not convinced that there was a prima facie case?
  MR. CHERRYsaid the motion that Larkin's trial should take place in Dublin was made in Belfast, and he assented to it.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid that no doubt by assenting to the motion the Attorney-General achieved the result he desired, namely, the sending of the man to a more sympathetic place to be tried. In the case of Lord Ashtown the hon. Member for Stoke spoke in terms which, he thought, he would regret on consideration. He admitted with creditable candour that he knew nothing about the case.
  MR. J. WARD: Only what I heard here.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid that what the hon. Member had heard from hon. Members on the Nationalist benches would not largely enlighten his mind. The Judge who tried the case did know something about it, and some importance must be attached to what he said. The hon. Member for Stoke would not dare to repeat outside the House the insinuations he had made against Lord Ashtown. There had been a significant silence maintained by the Nationalist Members in this debate. There was a certain grim humour about these Supplementary Estimates for law charges and criminal prosecutions. What he and his friends complained of was that the law was not enforced in Ireland, and that prosecutions proved, as a matter of fact, to be absolutely futile. The answer to the charges which had been brought against the Government, made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, no doubt with great eloquence, physical

  1603
  energy, and thumping of the box, was after all unsatisfactory. If nothing was to be done why should they pass Estimates for prosecutions for maintaining the so-called law in Ireland; and why should these Estimates be so very much higher than in the days when the law was carried out with efficiency and effect? There were 532 prosecutions for agrarian outrages during the past year. [HON. MEMBERS on the NATIONALIST Benches: Your figures are wrong.]
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: The figures are not wrong at all.
  MR. HAYDEN: The figures you quote refer to the number of persons and not to the number of prosecutions.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he accepted the correction, the slip being due to the interruptions from below the gangway, largely encouraged by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford. [Cries of "Divide."] Not until he had replied to these interruptions.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly address me?
  MR T. L. CORBETT: I will continue to address you if you prevent hon. Members below the gangway from continually interrupting me.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I asked the hon. Member to address me, and he makes a reply which is not particularly civil.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid that no one had more respect for the Chairman than he had, and if he had infringed order
  in any way, he humbly apologised. What he wanted to say was that 532 persons had been prosecuted by the Government, and only eight had been convicted. In addition to the agrarian crimes which had been prosecuted by the Government with prima facie evidence before them, cases of outrage upon outrage had been brought before the House by hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Opposition Benches, and the invariable answer of the Chief Secretary was the formula to which they were now becoming accustomed, but with which they were not satisfied, that "the fact was entirely as stated, but that there had been no arrests." Inquiries had lately been made by hon. Members below the gangway in regard to crime in English counties and constituencies, but he noticed that a Question to the Home Secretary about the crime in an English constituency by the hon. Member for Newry had somehow mysteriously been dropped.
  MR. MOONEYsaid that if the hon. Gentleman was anxious to know the reason, it was because the Home Secretary had stated that the statistics to be published in a day or two would show the amount of crime there.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he did not quite follow the interruption His contention was that there were many cases in Ireland where the crime had been clearly proved, but no conviction had followed.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 207; Noes, 75. (Division List No. 7.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, George William

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cameron, Robert

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Brace, William

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Brigg, John

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bright, J. A.

  Clark, George Smith (Belfast, N.

  Barker, John

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Barnard, E. B.

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

  Clough, William

  Beauchamp, E.

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

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Dev'np'rt

  Burns, Rt. Hn. John

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

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

  Burt, Bt. Hon. Thomas

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

  Bennett, E. N.

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rees, J. D.

  Cox, Harold

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rendall, Atherstan

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Crombie, John William

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cross, Alexander

  Lambert, George

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Crossley, William J.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Robisnon, S.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rowlands, J.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

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

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

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lough, Thomas

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Duckworth, James

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Maclean, Donald

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Callum, John M.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Essex, R. W.

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  M'Crae, George

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Evans, Samuel T.

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

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Maddison, Frederick

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Mallet, Charles E

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

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

  Findlay, Alexander

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Toulmin, George

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Massie, J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Menzies, Walter

  Vivian, Henry

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Wadsworth, J.

  Grant, Corrie

  Mond, A.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Walters, John Tudor

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Montagu, E. S.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Gulland, John W.

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Waring, Walter

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Morrell, Philip

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmann'n

  Hall, Frederick

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Myer, Horatio

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Napier, T. B.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Nicholls, George

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Hedges, A. Paaget

  Partington, Oswald

  Whiteley, John Henry (Halifax

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Henry, Charles S.

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

  Wills, Arthur Walters

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

  Perks, Robert William

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Pirie, Duncan V.

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

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Horniman, Emslie John

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES,—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Radford, G. H.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Fell, Arthur

  Hudson, Walter

  Barnes, G. N.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jowett, F. W.

  Boland, John

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Joyce, Michael

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Gill, A. H.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Glover, Thomas

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Gretton, John

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Guinness, Walter Edward

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Cullinan, J.

  Halpin, J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Hayden, John Patrick

  MaeVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

  Delany, William

  Hazleton, Richard

  M'Kean, John

  Dillon, John

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  M'Killop, W.

  Duffy, William J.

  Hodge, John

  Meagher, Michael

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Hogan, Michael

  Mooney, J. J.

  1606

  1607

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Walsh, Stephen

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Walton, Joseph

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

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

  Wardle, George J.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Grady, J.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Sheehy, David

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Captain Donelan.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  O'Malley, William

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Snowden, P.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Summerbell, T.

  First Resolution read a second time.

  Resolution to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1908, for the Expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary."
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsuggested that the Government should postpone this Vote, in view of the fact that they had only a quarter of an hour to discuss it, and it would take some little time as they desired to raise serious points upon it which they could not do in that limited period. It would be more convenient that it should go over, as otherwise, his hon. friend who was going to initiate the discussion, would take up a quarter of an hour, and then have to repeat himself on another occasion.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid the Government were prepared to take the next Vote.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to withdraw the Vote?
  MR. BIRRELL: Yes; and proceed with the next.
  Leave to withdraw the Vote being refused.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG MR. CHARLES CRAIG moved to report progress on the ground taken by the hon. Member behind him, that the time at their disposal was not adequate for the discussion of the Vote. They, in that part of the House, also had a number of very grave points which they wished to raise.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

SUPPLY [10TH FEBRUARY].
Resolutions reported.

ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATE, 1907–8.
1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for additional Expenditure in respect of the following Army services, viz.:—
Vote 5. Volunteer Corps, Pay, Allowances, etc.—

£

E (a) Grants for the Extinction of Debts

350,000

E (b) Expenses of County Associations

8,000

358,000

Less Surpluses on other Votes

357,900

100"

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DE- PARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTI MATES, 1907–8.

  CLASS II.
  2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and

  1609
  of Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including certain Grants in Aid."
  3." That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mint, including the Expenses of Coinage."

  CLASS III.
  4." That a sum, not exceeding £1,870, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Trustee."

  CLASS V.
  5." That a sum, not exceeding £327, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for making good the Net Loss on Transactions connected with the raising of Money for the various Treasury Chests Abroad in the year 1906–7."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  LORD BALCARRESsaid he wished to ask for a assurance from the right hon. Gentleman on two or three points in his speech the day before, which he reserved for future consideration. He could not expect a precise reply, but in view of the fact that in five or six weeks time the new Territorial Army would come into existence, it was desirable that the right hon. Gentleman should at the earliest possible moment explain to the House what the decision of the Government was. The night before the right hon. Gentleman on three or four occasions stated that the Government's mind was not made up on certain very important aspects of the question, but it was difficult to reconcile that statement with the facts of the case, after a perusal of instructions which had already been issued to the County Associations.
  1610
  His right hon. friend the Member for Derbyshire had given a specific example of what was going on throughout the country. The County Association of Derbyshire would be responsible for 3,000 or 4,000 men, but was limited for the expenses of its secretariat to £184 per annum. The secretary of that County Association would have a very onerous duty placed upon his shoulders. The district was a large and scattered one, many parishes were very inaccessible, and the secretariat must involve the employment of some clerk or shorthand writer to carry out the Departmental work. The right hon. Gentleman and the War Office Committee had, however, directed from the War Office that this inadequate sum only should be allowed for this work. It was ridiculous for the War Office to expect that the associations could get good men to serve as secretaries unless they paid a decent salary. What was happening now? There were County Associations in England which had already received the names of possible candidates for the secretarial position. He knew one particular county where a large number of retired officers applied for the post. The County Association reduced the number to six, and of these six gentlemen, no less than five declined to undertake the charge for which they originally applied when they discovered that the salary was of so insignificant a character. He might take another example, that of Lancashire, with which he was connected. Lancashire was too large to be managed by one association, and was accordingly divided into Western and Eastern Associtions. The Western Association, which had its headquarters at Liverpool, was informed that all they could be allowed for the office was the sum of £50.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): You are quite mistaken.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid that although the right hon. Gentleman said he was quite mistaken, the County Association understood that it was the direction of the War Office that not more than £50 should be annually spent for office accommodation.
  MR. HALDANE: On what grounds do they understand it?
  LORD BALCARRESreplied that it was on grounds similar to that which made the County Association of Derbyshire understand that they were limited to £184 for their secretariat. If there was any doubt about the matter, surely it was imperative in the interests of this model army that the right hon. Gentleman should set at rest the doubts which had been caused by the vagueness and indecision of the War Office. That was the difficulty, and it was no use saying that those doubts had arisen through misapprehension, and so on. It was for the right hon. Gentleman and his Army Committee to remove those doubts, by giving precise and specific information. The absence of such information, he considered, was one of the things which was militating enormously against the County Associations. The doubt and the hesitation which existed in people's minds were to be found in the minds of the recruits—the potential or actual members of the Territorial Force—because they did not know what the conditions were under which they were going to be. As he had said, they were within four or five weeks of the actual inception of this great scheme, and yet these doubts existed. The right hon. Gentleman had obligingly undertaken to issue new regulations in pamphlet form in order that it might be made clear what was the actual responsibility which would rest upon these new associations and upon the men in them, and no doubt such information was needed. This particular Vote for £8,000 no doubt only represented a very small fraction of what would be required, but he wished the Government could see its way to expedite the really important information which was needed. In regard to the financial question as to whether the money might not have been better devoted to the extinction of National Debt he would not enter into it, as the Conservative Party were financial heretics, and did not lay claim to the financial purity of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Therefore, it was for the latter to criticise the action of the Government; but there was a matter which was infinitely more
  1612
  important—a hundredfold more important—than that, and it was that the Government should make up its mind as to the policy it was going to adopt about these finances. The right hon. Gentleman said that latitude was going to be allowed, but he rather doubted whether it was necessary to allow latitude in the particular case. It was not fair to a County Association, that of Derbyshire for instance, to say: "We will recommend a sum of £180 odd yearly, for your secretary, and then if you like to save money upon other items of your £1,800 you can add that to it." That had been done in one or two cases already, and secretaries had been appointed on the terms of the payment of nominal sums and the County Associations were going to save on all their other administrative Votes; they had told their secretary so, and at the end of the financial year they were going to pay to him as much money as they found remaining to their credit. That was not in his opinion right.
  And, it being a quarter past Eight of the Clock, Further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

RAILWAYS (NATIONALISATION).
MR. G. A. HARDYin moving—"That, in view of the widespread complaints on the part of traders, agriculturists, and the general public with regard to the railway charges and facilities, and particularly with regard to preferential treatment of foreign goods, the time has come to consider how far these evils could be remedied by State purchase of the railways, as fore-shadowed by the Railway Regulation Act of 1844,"—said that in bringing this subject before the House, he was fully conscious of the many difficulties and objections which surrounded it. But Socialism was not one. For the Conservative Government in 1844 passed an Act by which the State ownership of railways was settled in principle. Compulsory acquisition was definitely provided for at the discretion of Parliament within twenty-one years from that date. This principle had been steadily kept in view in all the new Railway Acts since that period. The question of

1613
railway purchase was not a Party one. It was now advocated by our chambers of commerce, our chambers of agriculture, Members of the House of Lords and Members of the Conservative Party as well as by an immense mass of public opinion. A great impetus had been given to the movement by the remarkable progress abroad. Great Britain was now the only country in Europe except Spain and Portugal which did not control or partly control their railways. France, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Italy, Holland, Russia, Scandinavia and Balkan States owned or partly controlled their lines. In India we possessed our own State railways, perhaps the largest in the world, 32,000 made or making, and 482,000 officials. Those railways not only developed the country and strategetically helped the military, but paid a steady profit for the Empire. Not only did the Continental countries control their railways, but Japan had taken all its railways over. Argentine, Mexico, and even Siam were also acquiring or owned their railways. If they looked at the self-governing Colonies, every one of them except, perhaps, Canada owned their railways. So that, practically, only in England, United States, Spain, Portugal and Turkey private ownership had full sway. Ever since the great powers were granted to the railway companies by the Acts of 1844 and prior Acts there had been a continual struggle and conflict with the traders and the agriculturists against the hardships and burdens the companies had inflicted upon them. Parliament had again and again by Resolutions appointed Select Committees to inquire into the question, and to protect the traders and public, but their grievances still continued, and many had, in despair of obtaining redress, thrown up their hands and said they could not fight the railways longer and had accepted the burden with all its hampering restrictions. He believed he was right in saying that the President of the Board of Trade had received more deputations from aggrieved and suffering agriculturists and traders on this subject than on any other. What were these grievances? Mr. Balfour Browne, whose expert knowledge none could dispute, said—
"I am not exaggerating when I say that the agricultural question which has been attempted
1614
to be mot very ineffectually by a palliative Agricultural Rates Bill, is nothing else but a question of railway rates."
They had heard many speeches about protecting the worker, the farmer, and the manufacturer from foreign competition, but here at our doors, in our country, there was a preference given to the foreigner which terribly handicapped our farmers and traders, by the railway companies, who in their search after dividends retarded the development of our commerce. They found meat and dairy produce, fruit and vegetables from Denmark and France, and manufactured goods from Germany and Belgium, conveyed to English markets at a cost in carriage of ½, and not infrequently ⅓ of what the English manufacturers were charged. Rates and fares were generally much dearer in Great Britain than on the State-owned railways on the Continent. The average amount received per ton of goods per 100 miles in the United Kingdom was 10s. as against 5s. 6d. on German railways. The President of the Board of Trade, speaking in December, 1906, to traders stated that—
"In the near future we shall have to consider the whole question of railway rates from be ginning to end—"
"I have been much impressed since I came to the Board of Trade with what one speaker calls the growing discontent with the whole system."
This discontent was still more accentuated when they considered the preferential transport tax exacted by the railway company which frequently gave the foreign producer a monopoly here to the exclusion of our own farmers. These preferential rates often enabled French fruit to find a ready sale upon the London market, when at the same time the high home rates compelled English farmers to let theirs rot upon the ground This applied to almost every kind of agricultural produce. He would quote some figures he had obtained from the valuable book on the subject written by the hon. Member for Denbigh District. The hon. Member mentioned the question of hops, and all hon. Members must be conscious of the terrible injury inflicted on our hop farmers when some years ago hops were brought from Boulogne through Folkestone to London at 17s. 6d. a ton, when the price charged to the home producer was 35s. a ton

1615
from Ashford. Let them take barley. The charge for foreign barley from West Hartlepool to Mirfield was 10s. 2d. per ton, the charge for home grown barley was 18s. 4d. In the case of potatoes, the charge from Penzance to London was 45s. per ton, and that from Cherbourg 30s. per ton. The difference in the charges for potatoes from Spalding to London compared with the preference given foreigners equalled from 10s. to 20s. an acre in France, at the cost of English farmers. Formerly Spalding group rates were fixed at 9s. 2d., but competition brought them down to 7s. 2d. But a combination of the railways brought them up to 8s. 4d.; 150,000 tons per annum came from that region alone every year, and that meant that the increased rate took £15,000 per annum from the farmers. This was the grievance of agriculture with which the House sympathised and which he believed they would do their best to remedy. The present rate resulted in the lowering of the value of land by 4s. an acre, and that must come out of someone's pockets. Yet they found at this very time in St. Malo, Brittany, land had increased in value through the railways bringing produce from Brittany at the low rates they did. There had been a boom in land in Brittany and it had gone up in price. Let them take the case of cheese. He had before him a statement made before the Commissioners, which said—
"The cost of conveying cheese by the London and North Western Railway from Chilford, Cheshire, to London was greater than bringing it from New York, all the way past the very station to London."
In fact the rate was actually less. The Field pointed out worse cases in 1894. The rate for imported butter, cheese, bacon, lard and wool, from Southampton Dock to London, seventy-six miles, was 6s. per ton. From Botley in same county a similar distance for all these goods, the rate was 19s. 2d., 219 per cent. more. The difference between Southampton Dock for foreign and Southampton Town for home was as follows:—Hops, foreign, 6s.; home grown, 20s. Apples, foreign, 5s.; home grown, 12s. 11d. Pressed hay, foreign, 5s.; home, 9s. 11d. Eggs, foreign, 6s. 8d.; home, 20s. Before the Commission on Trade Depression one of the Agricultural Commissioners declared
1616
that the Worcestershire farmers were prevented from selling corn in Coventry because of the exorbitant rates. What could traders and farmers do? Professor Hunter stated that while French fruit was charged 2½d. per ton per mile, 5½d. was charged to Kentish farmers. But there were many cases brought before the farmers' alliance where the railway company had charged far beyond the maximum rates. He would take, for example, guano and packed manure. From Petersfield to Nine Elms the maximum was 9s., but 12s. 6d. had been charged. To Wimbledon 13s. 4d. was charged, the maximum being 8s., and to Guildford, where the maximum was 4s. 1d., 9s. 2d. was charged. What could the trader do? What could the agriculturist do? What could any one person do against a great railway company? For a farmer or shopkeeper to attempt to contest these railway rates was to court disaster. One of the largest merchants in London who knew all about it and had been again and again before the Commission had told him "It is not the slightest use going on. We can do absolutely nothing. The railways are too powerful for us. They trample on us and we have to take it." That was the feeling in commercial circles. If they turned to poor Ireland it was worse than in England. It was cheaper to send cattle by road than by rail, and it was cheaper to carry goods to England and have them re-shipped to Ireland at through rates than to pay local rates. In March, 1903, in consequence of the outrageous increase of the railway rates, this resolution was passed in the House—
"That, in the opinion of this House, the revised railway rates are most prejudicial to the agricultural and commercial industries of the country and this House urges upon the Government the necessity of dealing promptly and effectively with this subject."
The result was that a Select Committee was appointed two months later, and an Act was passed in 1904 handing over the task of finding a remedy to the Railway Commission. Could they honestly say that the Commission had found a remedy that took away the objection which the people of the country had? The result had been that for every shilling cut off the rate,

1617
it had been only too easy for the railway companies when they were in harmony to withdraw 2s. in facilities. Who was there in business who cared to quarrel with a railway company? He became a marked man. They had ways of dealing that made it most unfortunate for him. Professor Hadley said—
"The railway companies can behave in an exasperating manner without endangering any of their well-recognised rights. Such impudence as was displayed by the companies in face of the early discussions of the railway companies would be almost impossible in America. But in the majority of cases it may be fairly said that, honestly managed, American corporations have really tried to conform to the requirements of Commissioners even before the courts have taken the steps to render such compliance necessary."
They could not say that of the English railways. The experience since the passing of the Act had confirmed that opinion. The Mansion House Association had brought a case on behalf of its members in Northampton, who urged that rates had been increased and should be reduced to the 1892 level. After two years delay and after costing some hundreds of pounds the railway company were defeated. Naturally traders imagined that this would be a test case, but what was the result? The railways in their easy confidence simply sailed away and said that anyone else could bring another action against them. For instance, the southern farmers through the Mansion House committee challenged the preferential rates at Southampton, and it cost them £2,000 to fight the railways. They were successful that time, but when it was remembered that there were over 200,000,000 separate rates, what chance had the public? If they contested one rate and won they could go on—he hardly liked to calculate how long before they brought justice to the people of England. But they were faced with another danger, the growing danger of railway combinations. Competition had broken down; amalgamations and working agreements were being arranged. Many of the companies had had their privileges granted them on the distinct understanding that they would be a help to the British public by competing with the old lines, and they could see the danger they were faced with as these railways amalgamated and competition ceased.
1618
The latest proposal was the Great Northern and the Great Central. The Central Chamber of Agriculture were protesting against it and if the protest was successful they might be able to retain the liberty which was likely to be taken away from them. But there was little competition now left because they found that there were rate conferences. There was one rate all over England. If they wanted a special price from a railway company they found their prices were all alike. They found that the Great Western subsidised forty-one different lines and paid £146,000 per annum. The London Brighton and South Coast Railway paid the South Eastern yearly subsidies of £24,000 not to use their running powers to Eastbourne. They had had great hopes that the canal competition would keep railway rates down, but the railway companies had bought up the canals. The Great Northern Railway Company had entered into an agreement with the Witham Navigation Company for 999 years, and agreed to pay £10,545 a year for tolls on the condition that the tolls would be so prohibitive that there was a yearly loss of about £700. What was the remedy? They could not look for help to the railway companies. They were commercial undertakings. At all costs they must get their dividends. It mattered not to them whether trade went under. The directors had to face their shareholders and must earn dividends, regardless of how trade suffered. They had to work their men very long hours and did not give them too much pay. Practically they had to study dividends before the country's needs. They were overloaded with expenses. Twenty-three thousand miles of railway were owned by 213 different companies, with 250 boards of directors whose fees must come to something like half a million a year. The salary of the Minister of Railways in Prussia was not as much as the smallest board of directors in England. Then each line had its solicitors and engineers and a separate staff. The trucks went half filled and that was a very important item. The average load of a goods train in the United States was 173 tons; in Germany, 132; in France, 121; in Belgium, 96 and in the United Kingdom, 70. It had

1619
been estimated by the London and North Western Railway that the loss on working expenses resulting from divided management was 20 per cent. Working expenses alone amounted to something like £70,000,000, so that there would be a saving of £14,000,000 a year. What shorter hours they could give railway men and better pay, and yet have a handsome dividend to relieve oppressed agriculturists! With State ownership there would be greater uniformity. The service would be conducted with a sole eye to public utility. This had been done in Belgium and Germany. He was very much struck with the principles laid down by Bismarck when he advocated the acquisition of the Prussian railways. If they had those same principles before them they would be making a success of any step they attempted in this direction. First, that the railway tariff should be so clearly drawn that anyone could calculate freights; secondly, that all inhabitants of all parts of the country should be secured in equality of railway charges; thirdly, that the disadvantages which weighed down small producers should be eliminated; fourthly, that the unnecessary and therefore wasteful services should be abolished. They knew that this problem was a great one, and full of difficulties, but they had a President of the Board of Trade who had undertaken successfully and carried through the almost impossible task of reconciling two opposing factions, the directors who refused to recognise the men and the men who insisted upon being recognised, and had saved the country from disaster. If he would take up this question which had baffled statesmen in the past he would rally to his support the vast body of business men and agriculturists as a whole, the working men and all who would benefit by greater facilities and better arrangements. He begged to move.
MR. CHIOZZA MONEYsaid it gave him very great pleasure to second the Resolution. He thought the House was very much indebted to his hon. friend for bringing this subject forward. This was a non-party question which they could discuss in the light of common sense and from a business point of view. It was a question of trade, and
1620
that rightly regarded must be a public question, for the interests of trade and the public could not be divorced. Surely a question like this must concern a British House of Commons. Railways were a British invention, and he thought there were grounds for the proposition that in no great industrial country had railways been of less advantage to the people than in the country which produced the inventors of railways. It should be remembered that the United Kingdom, consisting of two small islands, enjoyed tremendous natural advantages. At no point was the larger of the two islands concerned removed from tidal water at a greater distance than 100 miles. He would ask hon. Members to reflect upon the contrast which existed in this matter between the geographical position of the United Kingdom at the gates of Europe and our greatest commercial rival, Germany, situated in the very heart of Europe cut off by nature from tidal water. How had Germany survived those inherent natural disadvantages? Germany had surmounted them chiefly during the last twenty years by reason of the fact that she had used her railways for national purposes, and had developed them entirely with a single eye to the interests of German trade and the German nation. The marked progress which Germany had made in the last twenty years had been very largely due to the fact that her railways had been thus used. Although Germany was not concerned in the invention of railways, although they might go to Munich and find in its industrial museum not the original Rocket built by George Stephenson but merely a copy of it, it was nevertheless the fact that Germany this moment, at the beginning of the twentieth century, derived greater advantage from British railway inventions than the British nation. That was a proposition which could be supported by many conclusive arguments. Mr. Stephen Jeans, the Secretary of the British Iron Association said in his book on the British Iron Trade—
"It would naturally be supposed that in a small country like Great Britain the cost of transport would be much lees than in countries which, like Germany and the United States, are differently situated. Geographical conditions should be entirely favourable to this

1621
country. But the natural advantages of our geographical position are not realised as they should be, because of the relatively high railway rates enforced."
It had sometimes been advanced as an excuse on behalf of our railway companies that they had acted as pioneers in the matter of railways. He would remind the House that George Stephenson's pioneer work was not only done in this country, because Stephenson himself was employed by the Belgian Government upon the Belgian State railways. Stephenson died in 1848, and four years before he died, in connection with the debates in this House which led to the passing of the Act to which his hon. friend had referred, Mr. Gladstone said—
"I believe that the charges on the Belgian railways are not more than one-third of ours. Because this country is rich it is no sound reason that it should pay more than is necessary."
And then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
"There is no likelihood that the great experiment of the greatest possible cheapness will be tried under the present system."
Those words were uttered by Mr. Gladstone in 1844, and speaking in February, 1908, he ventured to assert that those words were as true that night as when Mr. Gladstone uttered them. In a country that depended so much upon its trade with the world at large, which had to bring materials from over the sea and take them to the centres of industry at the cheapest possible price, railways might be truly said not merely to be distributive, agents but they were actually manufacturing agents, and the cost of the freights charged entered into every price quoted by a British manufacturer. If therefore, those freights were excessive; if those charges were as a whole greater than the charges levied by railways upon their commercial competitors, then he claimed they had allowed to be erected in this country great private taxing authorities which levied upon the trade of this country and upon every movement of material or manufactures made in this country a great tax in restraint of trade which tended to rob them of the advantages which they naturally possessed. He found from the Board of Trade Returns that in the year 1906 £58,000,000 were paid in this country for the privilege of moving goods over
1622
the British railways. For a comparison he turned to another country which had a population very nearly the same as our own, but a larger area, viz., the Kingdom of Prussia. He found that Germany for all purposes, whether for carrying goods, minerals or passengers, only paid £79,000,000, whilst this country paid £58,000,000 for minerals and goods alone. The total receipts of the British railways in 1906 came to £117,000,000, whilst their working expenses, including rates and taxes amounting to less than £5,000,000, came to 72·7 millions, leaving a net profit to the British railway companies in 1906 of £44,500,000. How did that compare with Prussia? He would remind the House that while it was undoubtedly important to compare British ironclads with German ironclads, it was also important to compare German railways with British railways and, he might add in passing, German schools with British schools. Whereas the British railway companies drew from this country in 1906 £44,500,000 net profit, the State drew in Germany a net profit of only £30,000,000. That was to say that in a country of a smaller population the State drew a net profit of £15,000,000 less than the British railway companies drew from the activities of the United Kingdom. His claim was that here there was a very great sum of money to be accounted for. It became more remarkable when they reflected that this princely profit of £44,500,000 sufficed only to pay a very small dividend on British railway capital. The explanation of small dividends went very near to the heart of the question, and the permanent officials at the Board of Trade obliged them every year with an account of some small share of the "water" added to British railway companies which in 1908 made it possible for a railway director in this House to state that that dividend was only 3 per cent. As a matter of fact, the Board of Trade pointed out very clearly with reference to one particular variety of water alone, that no less than £200,000,000 of capital had been added to the British railway companies' stock by manipulation to produce the gigantic total which was supposed to represent capital invested in British railways. Mr. MacDermot, of the Railway News,

1623
in his book on railways, said the published figures required considerable modification in view of the fact that the capital has been swollen of late years by nominal additions. Take, for instance, the Taff Vale Railway Company, which used to pay a dividend of 18 per cent. What sort of dividend did it pay now? Only 5, 6, or 7 per cent. The Taff Vale Company came to Parliament, and Parliament allowed it to call every £100 worth of stock £250 worth, and this was done by a stroke of the pen. Consequently, the large dividend disappeared and the small dividend appeared, and there was the excuse for the miserable set of rattling locomotives and carriages upon which he had the misfortune to travel only a few months ago. In view of these facts and many others he might mention, such as the fact that charges which ought to have been made against revenues were made against capital in order to swell dividends, in view of such facts as that in a notorious case the price of tarpaulins was added to capital—a curious case of tarpaulin letting in water instead of keeping it out; in view of these facts, need they be surprised that railway directors were able to rise in that House and state that the dividend paid by railway companies was only 3 to 3½ per cent.? Such a statement in view of the many varieties of "water" in British railway capital, some of which he had referred to, amounted not to interest but to usury. His charge against railway companies was that their dividends were not a proper charge upon materials and goods, but they amounted actually to a tax. He would ask the House to consider one or two instances out of many which he had collected, to show how the trade of this country was hit by these railway charges. Take the position of a Staffordshire iron firm which desired to get its goods to tidal water. The cheapest way was to take it to Liverpool at a cost of 8s. per ton to a railway company. Iron from Westphalia to Rotterdam, 156 miles, was carried for 6s. 4d. per ton, and from Westphalia to Antwerp for 7s. 6d. per ton. The charge for hardware from Birmingham to Newcastle, 207 miles, was 25s. per ton, but from
1624
Dortmund to Rotterdam, 153 miles, the charge was only 10s. per ton. Taking cutlery from Sheffield to Hull cost 20s. per ton, and the German State railways carried the same class of goods for 6s. 7d. per ton. Indeed, there were some articles like cheap chemicals, whereon the freight was often more than the value. These charges hit the small man as well as the large man. He mentioned the case of a Putney blind-maker who sold a blind worth £9 to a man in Liverpool, and the freight of which was £4. This case was brought into court, and the blind-maker said: "If such charges are allowed it would cripple my trade" The Judge gave the man his sympathy, but on law decided against him. There was a celebrated case about potatoes. A hundred tons of potatoes were shipped from Dundee to New York. When the ship approached New York it was found that the duty was so high that it it would not be worth while to land them. The potatoes were brought back from New York to Liverpool at a cost of 23s. 10d. per ton. If the potatoes had been sent direct from Dundee to Liverpool they would have cost 24s. 2d. per ton. What redress had a trader in view of all these things? His hon. friend had already shown what sort of redress he had. He could appeal to the Railway and Canal Commssioners. If he was rich and not very wise he could fight a case there, and if he was poor he could not fight at all. As illustrating what a railway company could do he referred to the treatment the well known firm of Messrs. Howard had received at the hands of the Midland Railway Company. That firm fought and beat the railway company, and immediately the company raised the railway rates to Bedford to punish the Messrs. Howard. But the Messrs. Howard did not take it lying down. They took a case before the Railway and Canal Commissioners who in deciding in favour of the Messrs. Howard described the action of the railway company as an abuse. A small firm could not have fought such a case at all. The practice of giving foreign producers a preference over British producers was one, as his hon. friend had pointed out, which Parliament had already tried ineffectively to control. It had absolutely failed, and

1625
considering the repeated failures for two generations of even' attempt in this country to control the greed of private railway proprietors he would appeal to Parliament to end this matter by authorising the Government to assume the entire control of the railways. As to the question of owner's risk he would give a case which illustrated the whole gravamen of the case against the railway companies. A gentleman ordered a special tree for his garden and paid 5s. for it in a Midland town. The freight charge was 4s. 9d. Although the tree was well packed it was badly damaged on arrival, and the owner sent in a claim. The claim was returned as the tree was carried at owner's risk. The owner would like to know what the rate would have been if the tree had been carried at company's risk. Under the present management railway companies were able practically to force consignors to sign a note absolving them from any risk whatever. He contrasted our system with that of Germany where the State accepted full responsibility for goods lost, delayed, or damaged. A large sum of money was paid every year by the German Government to consignors whose goods had been lost or damaged in transit. The German railways were used with a single eye to the nation's benefit. Our traders were not able to stand the racket of the higher railway rates they had to pay and the preferential rates granted to foreigners. The German State railways were so managed that bounties were given in certain districts in order that they might be able to compete successfully with foreign countries. Special rates were granted for Westphalia coal to enable it to compete with British coal. In the case of the Levant and East African trade the German State railways granted special bounty rates to enable German traders to compete with British manufacturers in certain markets in regard to certain products. But in spite of those bounties being given, which, of course, reduced the profits of a German State railway, it still remained true that these railways made satisfactory profits. Further, the German State railways forwarded their shipbuilding and naval interests. Special freights were charged for shipbuilding materials to enable the vessels to be
1626
built more cheaply, and it was for that reason that shipbuilding in Germany now more nearly approached than ever before the prices in this country, which was of very serious import to our shipbuilding industry. Another point was that the German Minister for Railways, just because the State owned the railways, was able to help any part of the country which happened to be in distress. The area of Germany was very large, and one district might be visited with distress during a bad harvest. In 1891, in order to assist that, the grain freights were lowered; in 1893, special rates were given to fodder. In 1898–1899 there was famine in certain quarters caused by great floods, and half rates were charged for the carriage of food and fodder by the German State railways. Again, Germany had largely constructed her railways with relation to national defence, so that when that country embarked in war as a business operation as she did in commerce, she had in her railways a ready instrument for protective purposes. All this had been shown in a special Report on the subject prepared by the Hon. Robert Collier. Switzerland, which was a more democratic country than Germany, had profited very largely by means of the nationalisation of her railways in 1901. In the small number of years since then railway freights in Switzerland had been lowered, passenger fares lessened, the tracks improved, profits increased, while at the same time better wages and terms of employment and shorter hours had been given to the railway servants, and old-age pensions had been established. He would not trespass longer upon the House by entering at length into the larger question, but he might briefly point out that the position of British railways was obviouly uneconomic. Their capital and labour was wasted in useless competition. They had not only thousands of directors, but the administration and management were duplicated over and over again. He instanced the shunting of wagons and the advertising as illustrations of the disadvantages which followed from private competitive management of the railways of this country. Hundreds of thousands of pounds were spent in advertisements

1627
in such newspapers as the Sketch, which having a United Kingdom circulation could only be of limited use to a local railway. The facts to which he had referred claimed the attention of all classes of the community. At a recent meeting of the Association of Chambers of Commerce, Lord Brassey had pointed out that we were on the eve of a great change of policy in regard to our railways; that they saw what was taking place on Continental Europe where the requirements of the public in regard to railway transport were fully considered, with a result which was at the same time satisfactory to the Exchequer of those countries where the railways were the property of the State. He hoped that the House would agree that the irresponsible and competitive management of our railways could not go on. It seemed to him as true now as when it was stated by a Parliamentary Committee in 1872 that the case of the public against the monopolist charges of the railway companies was a very strong one. It had been said by another Committee, that of 1846, that the railroads of the country were public concerns and as necessary to the people as the air they breathed. He reiterated that statement that night. Parliament had legislated again and again, without result in order to control private railways which were inherently monopolistic, and he appealed to the President of the Board of Trade to crown his brilliant term of office by putting the railways under national control.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in view of the widespread complaints on the part of traders, agriculturists, and the general public with regard to railway charges and facilities, and particularly with regard to preferential treatment of foreign goods, the time has come to consider how far these evils could be remedied by State purchase of the railways, as foreshadowed by the Railway Regulation Act of 1844."—(Mr. George Hardy.)
MR. BONAR LAWsaid there was one point on which the two hon. Gentlemen who had just spoken were very firmly agreed, and that was the inherent imbecility
1628
of the present railway directors. That was shown by the mover of the Resolution, who asserted that railway directors thought only of their dividends and did not care in the least what happened to trade, apparently convinced of the idea that dividends had no connection whatever with trade. The results showed that they got only comparatively small dividends. The hon. Member for Paddington had attempted to make out that the dividends were colossal, but there the Board of Trade was against him. The Board gave the amount of water in those railways as far as it had been able to estimate it. It was £200,000,000 out of a total of £1,300,000,000. There remained £1,100,000,000. The profit was £44,000,000, and, therefore, the dividend was only 4 per cent., and not the colossal amount suggested by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member's idea of the stupidity of railway directors went further than that, but his idea that they would spend hundreds of thousands of pounds in advertising without finding by experience that advertising paid them was, he thought, one which no one except the hon. Member would entertain. The Resolution before the House was, it was true, generally in favour of the nationalisation of railways, but the wording of the Resolution and the two speeches to which they had listened put that desired change on the extremely narrow ground of the preference which was given to foreign produce as against British produce on our railways. There was a very general belief that that preference existed. He had heard of it long before he came to that House, and when, a few years ago, he was appointed to the Board of Trade, he believed that it did exist, and he had an earnest hope that it might be possible for him to assist the head of the Department to put an end to the evil which, if it did exist, was certainly impolitic. They looked into the matter, and they received many deputations, who all made complaints in general terms of precisely the same sort of thing of which they had heard that night. They tried to get specific instances, and when they did get them it was found in every case, without exception, that preferential rates did not exist.

1629
He did not rely on his own experience only for this statement. Both hon. Gentlemen had overlooked the Report of the Departmental Committee which was appointed for the very purpose of inquiring into this alleged preference. That Committee was appointed not by the Board of Trade, the permanent officials of which were sometimes supposed, though there was no reason, he believed, for the suspicion, to be unduly partial to railways, but by the Board of Agriculture, the whole bias of which was in favour of the Resolution now before the House. That Committee gave everyone like the hon. Members who had spoken the opportunity of putting before them such grievances as were alleged to exist, and, at the end of a long inquiry, they gave a practically unanimous Report to the effect that this preference did not exist, and that, therefore, there was no need of any legislation to deal with it. There was no preference, but the foreign producer had advantages which enabled him to get his goods carried at a lower rate than were possible to the home producer. These advantages were inherent in the nature of the business. Foreign produce came in large quantities, and hence was carried at lower rates. But that was not a preference. The same preference applied to home goods carried in the same quantities. Therefore, if there were rigid uniformity of rates, it would not only upset the whole Parliamentary basis on which the railways were carried on, but it would be contrary to all business experience, which was that charges should in some way correspond with the cost incurred. The hon. Gentleman had pointed out the low rates given by German State railways. They were low rates, but the low rates on goods which came to this country were compensated for by higher rates on goods used in Germany. Germany deliberately used its railway system in order to force exports upon us, with the result that undoubtedly we got the goods cheaper. And, therefore, he would ask the hon. Member whether, if railways were not nationalised, he would charge lower rates for our export goods and higher rates for goods transported internally from one part of the country to another, so that people would have to pay more for them.
MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: German rates, in spite of the loss on the bounty rates, are lower than the ordinary rates charged in this country.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid he had looked into that with some care, and he did not agree with the hon. Gentleman. They could not compare rates on the basis of the amount of railway miles that the goods were carried, as a large part of the cost to the railway depended on the terminal charges. From the nature of the case our terminal charges were out of all proportion to the length of the distances, and therefore our rates seemed higher in proportion to those of other countries than they really were. The moral which he drew was that, if they wanted to put the home producer on an equality with the foreign producer, the way to do it was not by insisting upon our railways adopting an unbusinesslike system, but to adopt a much more simple and much more effective course, and the effect of that more simple and more effective way would be this, that instead of enormous quantities of potatoes being produced in Brest, and raising the price of land in Brest, land would go down there and go up in this country, and then the hon. Gentleman would find that the larger quantities came from the British rather than from the foreign districts. But had he desired to advocate the nationalisation of railways he would have done so upon a much broader ground than the two hon. Members had adopted, and have taken the line that unnecessary competition had the effect of raising prices, and from that point of view a very great deal could be said in favour of the system. Nevertheless, he would not himself approve of it, and largely because he believed unnecessary competition could be put an end to without so drastic a change. He believed most strongly that private enterprise under equal conditions would always beat State enterprise. The motive lay in the mainsprings of human nature; that motive was personal energy, and it was based largely upon personal ambition. If they took that away they took away one of the strongest forces for progress. [A LABOUR MEMBER: Does Tariff Reform rest on that?] He confessed he

1631
did not see the point of that interruption. It would be admitted that in some directions what he had said was true. Take, for instance, the War Office and the Admiralty. There never had been a war in this country in which there had not been an almost universal complaint that the business part of that operation had been badly done. That was true not only of our last war but of all wars. He had as high an opinion as anybody of the qualities of our civil servants, but business, like everything else, had to be learnt, and could only be learnt by experience. And the best kind of experience was the experience derived from the knowledge that if you made a mistake you would pay for it. That was a kind of experience which an official never could get. Let them establish a State system of railways, and there would be immediately another big concern like the War Office and the Admiralty. If the one was not managed well on business lines, how in the world could the other one be expected to be? His other reason was based on entirely different grounds, the effect of the adoption of such a proposal on our political institutions. The danger of all Governments was corruption, but there was corruption of different kinds, and the danger to which a democratic community would be liable would be introduced into every constituency if railway servants were to become the employees of the State. He would not enlarge upon this. Every Member would realise what the argument meant. He could not imagine there was anybody who had thought upon the subject who would not regard with something like horror the possibility of an organised body in every constituency putting pressure upon candidates for the improvement of their condition at the expense of their fellow-citizens. He admitted that the present position of rail-' ways was not satisfactory, but the ground upon which he arrived at that opinion was not that taken by the majority of Members opposite. It seemed to him, and he thought so in the last Parliament, there was far too much inclination to look upon railway companies as public enemies. The President of the Board of Trade last year made a statement which was obvious, but which might be
1632
repeated, for it could not be too much emphasised, that unless the railway companies had a fair chance of a return for their money they could not be kept up to the requirements of the day, and the public would suffer from a starving of the service. They had had an example that night of the kind of thing to which he referred. When hon. Members or groups of hon. Members opposed the progress of a Bill promoted by a railway company they opposed a Bill which would be for the public advantage, and every attempt of the kind added to the cost. The amount of money spent in getting railway Bills through Parliament was enormous; he had forgotten the amount, but it was a sum almost fabulous, and the money so spent was just as much capital used for the enterprise as if it were spent in construction. The House of Commons ought to avoid causing expense of this kind unless public advantage required it. He disagreed with the hon. Member who moved the Resolution. The real hope for the prosperity of railways, and upon that largely depended the prosperity of the trade of the country, was the doing away with unnecessary competition. Much of this competition was utterly wasteful, and among managers there was a strong movement on foot to put an end to it. He urged on the President of the Board of Trade that he should assist rather than retard arrangements of the kind. Many traders opposed such arrangements because they liked, to exercise the pressure that competition allowed, and in doing so they often got facilities which represented to them far less advantage than the cost to a company. Somebody had to pay in consequence, and in nearly every case it was the public who paid in higher rates or diminished facilities. Undoubtedly it was the business of the President of the Board of Trade to see that every precaution was taken to prevent abuses arising from amalgamations and arrangements of that kind, but equally so it was to keep down competition that benefited nobody, and must be injurious to the whole community.
MR. PERKSsaid he did not speak as a railway director,

1633
although for some years he was chairman of one of the London railway companies and he might say that he had not always been in accord with some of the directors of the railway companies, as to their relations either with their employees or the public. The mover of the Resolution in referring to the Act of 1844 omitted to state that the Act, passed when Mr. Gladstone was at the Board of Trade, contained a proviso that there should be no expropriation of a railway unless it paid to the proprietors a dividend of 10 per cent., and in those early days when railways were very speculative and the rates of interest higher than they were to-day, that did not seem at all an unreasonable proposition. He ventured to doubt whether more than two railways in this country had paid the dividend he had named. Neither of the two underground railways in London had a single penny of watered stock in their capital and one of them had carried more than the entire population of the globe in the last thirty years without any return whatever to the ordinary proprietor. That might not show much sense on the part of the proprietors, but it certainly showed the sacrifice that had been made for the benefit of London. He ventured to suggest that while there might be some considerable ground for complaints, as far as concerned the burden placed on agriculture and the trade of the country, and also the public, the remedy of State purchase suggested by the Resolution before the House was worse than the disease. It proposed that all the transport business of the country should be taken out of the hands of the private managers who had managed it for the last seventy years, and transferred to a State Department. The pecuniary obligations involved in this important proposition were enormous, yet no suggestion had fallen from the mover or seconder as to how they proposed to deal with the large amount of capital which after deducting the suggested amount of watered stock amounted to some £1,100,000,000. Mr. Gladstone once, in dealing with a similar proposal affecting another class of property, put an acute dilemma to a man to whom
1634
he was speaking on the subject. Mr. Gladstone said—
"Do you mean to pay for it? If you mean to pay for it it is folly, if you do not mean to pay for it it is robbery."
That dilemma would have to be faced by men who suggested the nationalisation of railways. Another large class which had to be considered was the class comprising the railway employees and those dependent upon the railways, of whom there could not be less than a million in this country. What had been the effect upon labour of the transfer to the State of the Italian railways? He was in Genoa when the strike against the proposed reduction of wages by the Italian Government took place, and he saw women lying down on the lines in front of the trains which were coming out of the station so as to stop by that means trains running at all. It was highly problematical whether the transfer of the railways of this country to the State would mean the employment of a greater number of people, or whether it would mean a rise in wages. The effect not only in Germany but in Italy was directly the reverse. Another large section of the community not very popular in this House but one which had to be considered was the 600,000 or 700,000 railway shareholders. The railways in this country were not held by great magnates like those in the United States. The average holdings in the railways of this country were not more than £1,000, and when some of these stocks were quoted at 10 per cent. or 11 per cent., it would be seen that the holdings were small. A great deal of railway stock was held by friendly and insurance societies, and some was held by foreign investors who had thus shown their confidence in British railways, and the British Parliament. The foreign investors were persons who ought not to be lightly put aside. This Resolution, however, could not be regarded as an isolated step. It was part and parcel of a programme of nationalisation of land, and the transfer to the State of all means of production, distribution and exchange. It was because this was the first step in a programme which he believed to be commercially and socially unsound that

1635
he would oppose the last portion of this Motion. Applying the proposal to the London railways with which he was familiar, he concluded that it would not be possible to turn over those railways to the State without also handing over the tramways and all other means of distributing the public. And what applied to London applied far more to the provinces, even down to the carrier's cart which brought in from and took out produce to the villages. Four systems of handling railways existed in different parts of the world. State control as in Germany, Italy and Australia; partial State control as in France and Canada; private ownership as in the United States, and private ownership under Parliamentary control as in this country. If they compared the speed in travelling and the charges made the comparison would be found to be largely in favour of the privately owned lines. In regard to the Italian railways, Signor Crispi in a letter to The Times in December, 1906, said that the service had greatly deteriorated since the railways had been taken over by the State, and that there had been a heavy fall of revenue and incalculable injury done to the trade of the country by the delay of traffic. In the early days of the Argentine Republic—now one of the most progressive and stable Governments in South America—the railways were owned by the State, but that system had been almost entirely abandoned and the railways were now largely under the control of British managers, who had magnificently developed the resources of the country. Indeed, the State management of railways was almost invariably marked by failure, and in many of the countries it had been steadily modified or abandoned. If our privately managed railways were compared, in the matter of passenger service, with State controlled railways abroad, it would be found that the foreign railways were slower, dearer and afforded fewer comforts and facilities, especially with regard to third class passengers, who constituted 90 per cent. of the travelling public in this country. Let them take, for instance, the lines between London and Edinburgh. We had twenty trains a day running between London and Edinburgh, and third class passengers travelled by every
1636
train. An hon. Member below the Gangway wanted to go even further and to provide third class sleeping carriages. There were only seven express trains which ran between Paris and Marseilles as compared with twenty running between London and Edinburgh. There were fifty express trains a day going out of Paris in all directions—to Germany, Belgium, Austria, Italy and various other places, and there were only four of these which carried third class passengers, whereas our trains carried third class by almost every train. Then let them mark the very slow delivery of goods on the Continent compared with the rapid delivery here. The arrangements for through rates and transit were most unsatisfactory on the foreign lines. There were many works in Alsace-Lorraine which could not get their coal and ore simply because the State railways refused to make through quotations. There were railways in this country which had made unfortunate speculations in connection with the outlay of huge sums of money. For example, out of £16,000,000 or £17,000,000 recently expended on the underground lines of London, at least £8,000,000 were at present wholly un-remunerative. That was one of the risks which the nation ought not and probably would not undertake and the result would be that necessary lines would not be built. Another great railway had spent £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 in giving a new competitive service to London. Nearly, the whole of that capital was unremunerative. A national system of railways would mean greatly increased cost. Great corporations could not trade and buy their raw material and carry on their enterprise as cheaply and efficiently as private traders. One of the best informed economists of France, M. Waddington, said—
"French railways which are not exposed to competition, give the public fewer advantages than English railways, which have the full benefit of competition."
When the Prussian railways were taken over by the Government the Minister of Finance found it was an extremely satisfactory concern to the revenue, and he raised the rates in order to increase the revenue, and there was the greatest possible pressure brought to bear upon him in Parliament for the purpose of

1637
increasing or diminishing the revenue. It was perfectly clear that already the Government had its hands quite full. It could not undertake the control, management, administration, and construction of the railway system of the country. It would create a vast machine which could be used for political purposes and would not be always used in the interests of labour or the Liberal Party. It might be used by their friends for the purpose of carrying out the social programme which they so closely identified with tariff reform. He hoped the Board of Trade would be able to tell them that whatever the Government thought with reference to an inquiry as to a revision of rates or economies which might be effected by stopping useless services, His Majesty's Government did not intend to take a step in the direction of the nationalisation of our railway system without infinitely more consideration and thought than had been given to it in that two or three hours debate.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD GEORGE,)said he could assure his hon. friend that he was not rising on behalf of the Government to commit them to the nationalisation of railways. As a matter of fact the Resolution even as it appeared on the Paper did not seek to commit the House to that step; it was simply a suggestion that the time had arrived for considering the question of putting into operation the State Purchase Act of 1844. That was a very different proposition. It simply said that this matter had been inquired into two or three times already; it was forty years since the last inquiry was instituted, and it was suggested that the time had arrived when it might be profitable to inquire into it once more. That was the only proposition, as he understood it, which his hon. friend had placed before the House. He could not accept the form of the Resolution, but he would come to that later. He rather regretted that more time could not have been given to the discussion of what was a gigantic issue from any point of view, and the House of Commons could not be expected to express an opinion—in fact all shades of opinion could not even have
1638
the opportunity of giving expression to their views in the course of a three or four hours discussion. He thought it was a very useful thing that they should make a start in discussing the problem. He was more and more convinced since he had had the opportunity of coming into close contact with railway administration that it was one of the most important problems connected with the trade and commerce of this country, but it was not so simple a proposition as some hon. Members seemed to imagine. While he sympathised with a good deal that had been said, and while he admitted that hon. Members had made out a powerful case, he did not agree with them in their attack upon the railway companies. With the material at their disposal, and considering all the difficulties of the case, he believed that our railways were very ably managed in the main. The primary responsibility of railway directors, it must be remembered, was to their shareholders. Bearing this in mind, and having regard to all the difficulties, he thought they had done their best for the general public of this country. He agreed with the hon. Member for Padding-ton that there was a good deal of "water" in the capital, but not sufficient appreciably to affect the argument. He would remind his hon. friend that the real difficulty was not so much water as the land. If his hon. friend wanted to see the reason why railway rates were so much cheaper on the Continent than here, he must not place the responsibility altogether upon the railway directors and managers, nor even upon stockbrokers, because the House of Commons was largely responsible—he was not sure that it was not entirely responsible. Before they were allowed to get any privileges for the development of their lines railway companies had to go to a gigantic expense and spend huge sums upon experts and others before they could get a Bill through Parliament. Having, perhaps, after the third try, got their Bill through, they were allowed to go down into the country to buy a piece of land. What happened? The persons whose property was developed and whose property was enhanced in value by the transaction got ten times as much value out of it as the railway companies. It was a story of scandalous pillage from

1639
beginning to end. The extravagant costs of the land and the heavy expenses were sometimes increased by ludicrous conditions. The London and North-Western expresses had to slow down in passing a certain village to three miles an hour simply because that condition had been inserted by some landowner. These circumstances and conditions had so hampered our railways that it was no wonder they could not compete with the railways of Germany and other countries. The matter was a purely business proposition, a proposition for the nation to go into, and to mix it up with questions of prejudice against railway directors was, in his opinion, a mistake. It was quite unnecessary and created bitterness in the examination of a problem which was a business one. He did not agree with his hon. friend who spoke last that this was only part of the Socialistic programme of nationalising everything. His hon. friend knew that this was one of the very few countries in the world in which railways were not nationalised. Who were the men who had nationalised railways? The man who nationalised the railways in Germany hated and fought Socialism. Prince Bismarck was not a member of the Labour Party. Prince Bismarck considered the question purely from the point of view of the development of the interests of Germany. The thirty years experience of Germany had proved his plan a colossal success and a great financial success. Then, 40 per cent. of the revenues of Prussia were paid out of State railways, and the main part of the revenues of Saxony came from the State railways. Nobody had proposed that the railway investor should get less than the full market value of his securities. In Germany the railways had been used as an instrument for the development of German industry and for fighting against foreign industry; and a very formidable weapon it was—much more formidable, in his judgment, than tariffs. The hon. Member for Dulwich had made the interesting admission that he was apprehensive that the State's mixing itself up in business would lead to corruption—that pressure would be brought to bear upon Parliament in the interests of a class. He quite agreed with that, but he was not sure that it was confined to labour. He did not know that manufacturers were
1640
above bringing pressure to bear upon Parliament. The whole question really was whether there was any case for some inquiry into the present position of railways. He thought the railway directors themselves would admit that there were things that ought to be looked into. They had grievances. When they were settling the railway dispute the directors pressed two or three matters upon the consideration of the Board of Trade, and he believed they had grievances in regard to the acquisition of land for railway development, the conditions under which the law allowed the development of light railways, and the rigidness of the provisions of the Act of 1894 with regard to rates. He thought that more elasticity and flexibility in those provisions would be better for the railway companies, and also for the traders. But the traders also had their grievances. He did not say it was the fault of the railway companies. These grievances were largely the inevitable result of the present system. He was much surprised to hear the hon. Member for Dulwich challenge the case with regard to preference to foreigners. Several cases had come within his knowledge while he had been at the Board of Trade, in which there was no doubt that preference was given to the foreign producer over the home producer, through railway rates. He thought that in that matter agriculturists had a real grievance. The hon. Gentleman said that there had been an inquiry by a Departmental Committee into this question, and that the Committee reported against the case for preference. That was not the case. The Committee took a technical view of its reference. It took the view that it was commissioned to inquire whether there was preference within the meaning of the Act of Parliament. That was a very different thing. The Act said—
"Any difference in the treatment of home and foreign merchandise in respect of the same or similar circumstances."
The Committee simply inquired whether within the meaning of the highly technical interpretation which the Railway Commission placed on the words "in respect of the same or similar circumstances," there was preference. They did not inquire into the broad question whether there was not a higher tariff for the home

1641
producer than for the foreign producer. The representative of the Board of Agriculture came to the conclusion that there was preference, though the majority of the Committee were of opinion that, within the terms of their reference, there was no preference. But the question had really never been investigated on its merits, and he did not think the hon. Gentleman could deny that there had been preference to the foreign producer. He was quite certain that if an inquiry was held on a broader reference, it would be found that there had been this preference, and he thought the time had certainly come for an inquiry into that particular matter. It would, he thought, be possible to remedy these cases of hardship by adopting some means of combination and of eliminating wasteful competition. The hon. Member for Dulwich admitted that there was a good deal of this wasteful competition, and that it was the duty of the Board of Trade to help and not to retard the elimination of that element. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman that there was a good deal of wasteful competition—trains running at the same hours to the same places, two-thirds empty, and running for purely competitive purposes, and the public had to bear the expense of that. More than that, there was the condition of the district where there was no competition at all to be considered. Where there were three or four lines of railway serving the same centre, the public would perhaps get fair play and good terms; but what happened where there was a district served by only one line, as was almost invariably the case in agricultural districts? In the large centres where there was competition the railway companies had been beating down their rates to the finest point, and an unfair burden was thrown on the districts where there was a monopoly, in order to meet the loss on the charges in the competitive districts. There ought to be an end of that sort of thing, and it could only be done by saving the railway companies from the evil effects of competition. But it must be remembered that the benefit must not be merely the benefit of the railway companies. Of that saving, whatever it might be—and he believed there might be an enormous saving of
1642
expense if the companies got rid of purely unnecessary competition—the districts which now suffered from excessive rates must have their fair share. He was not going to enter into the various grievances that came before the Board of Trade. There was no question on which they received a larger number of representations. They came from all parts of the country and from every class of trader, and the more he heard of them the more he felt that it was not the fault of the railway directors or managers, but of the present system. So long as they had the present system it would be impossible for them to work on any other lines than those on which they were now working, and those were lines which were detrimental to very large industries in this country. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the Italian railways, which he said were a bad example with regard to nationalisation, but since they were nationalised they had improved. They could not have got worse. That was actually impossible. There was only room for improvement at the time when those railways were nationalised, and they had improved. At the present moment they were engaged in considerable operations which would improve them still more. When they were private railways they were hopeless. Now, with State credit behind them they were able to find capital, and they were really undertaking great works of improvement. The difficulty was that an inflated price had to be paid for them, and, therefore, they did not start under fair conditions; but they were improving nevertheless, and they would improve still more within the next few years. But let the House take the case of railways more or less similar to our conditions, for instance, that of Germany and Belgium. The hon. Member for Louth had referred to the Paris to Marseilles express, but after all that was a private railway; he quoted the case of a French railway, which belonged to a private company.
MR. PERKSsaid he understood that that railway had a subvention from the State.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that that was the very worst form of either nationalisation or private enterprise. They had got the evils of private management, and

1643
also of excessive public control; it was neither one thing nor another. The German and Belgian railways were used in the interest of the industries of those countries. He had taken the trouble to make inquiries into the working of the State railways in the industrial districts of Germany, and he must say that he had been amazed at the results of that inquiry which he intended to place in full in a Paper before the House. There was general agreement that the State railway administration, in spite of alleged defects, which he could not say were altogether favourable from a labour point of view, was far superior to the old system of private ownership and administration. Several merchants and traders spoke of the advantages they witnessed from, and the value of the co-ordination of railways in Prussia, and said that the uniform administration could not be too highly appreciated, or the services rendered by the Minister for Railways in establishing through rates and special rates for special industries, and in his readiness to meet the wishes of traders and manufacturers. One of his investigators recorded a conversation which he had had with English merchants trading with Germany, who all agreed that from their own experience the Prussian railways, in so far as railway rates were concerned, were directed with more regard to manufacturers' and traders' interests than was the case with regard to private English railways. There were three investigators, who carried out their investigations separately, and they were all agreed that in Germany the trader was perfectly satisfied; that he would no more go back to private ownership than we would go back to private ownership of the Post Office in this country. The German system was used as a very powerful machine for the purpose of helping and developing German industry. When that state of things existed in Germany and Belgium, for the House to say they would not inquire into the matter would, he thought, be a mistake. There had been two inquiries. One was an inquiry when Mr. Gladstone was President of the Board of Trade in 1844, by a Committee of that House, not merely into this question, but into the general question of the relations of the railways
1644
to the State. That Committee unanimously recommended that provision should be inserted in the Act of Parliament which would enable the State to resume the ownership of railways on certain terms. There was another inquiry in 1865, over which the late Duke of Devonshire presided, and Mr. Lowe and Mr. Ayrton were members of the Committee. A very influential Committee, they inquired, not merely into State purchase, but into the whole conditions of the railways, and, while expressing their opinion that it was inexpedient at that moment to put in force the Act of 1844 as regards any great scheme of State purchase, they by no means attempted to lay down any rule to guide the action of Parliament for an indefinite future. They decided against any great scheme of purchase under that Act of 1844, and assigned as their reason that it was of no use at all, and was not applicable to the circumstances of the present day. It was forty years since the last inquiry, and he thought the time had come for another inquiry into the whole question. The conditions had entirely changed since 1865. The question of State purchase was then a new one. The great State experiment in Germany had hardly begun; in fact, it only began about ten years afterwards. The experience of Belgium was also practically new, and so was the experience of other countries such as Austria. Denmark, Norway and Sweden. There was also another condition which the House would, he hoped, take fully into account. The railway companies themselves were beginning to realise that the present system was impossible. They were pressed for increased wages, shorter hours, cheap workmen's trains, whether or not they would pay as a commercial undertaking, for lower rates, and for greater facilities. The companies could not face all these demands under the present system. Unless the investor got a fair return for his money the railways would not get the capital necessary for essential developments. Increase of facilities and development of railway communication meant more capital, and these demands on the railways all meant raising more capital for the purpose. In addition to that there was the demand of the trader, which was after all the

1645
demand of the industries of the country. Between the two there was a real danger that the railways might be crushed. But the companies were coming together and making arrangements. What for? To stop competition. The hon. Member for Dulwich said that this army of canvassers, who went about touting for orders and quoting rates, could be stopped. But apparently they had the same schedule, and yet there were some advantages offered—exceptional facilities, or it might be discount. There were indeed many ways in which they could walk round the schedule. But the companies were stopping all that. The traders had enjoyed the advantage up to the present, but could get it no longer. Not only was competition being stopped, but there was another thing worthy of notice, the railway companies were beginning to make arrangements which were not far short of amalgamation. Up to the present the Report of this Commission was based on the assumption that free competition was a good thing, not in the interest merely of railways, but in the interest of the general public. When the trader benefited every class in the community benefited by free competition. They were coming to an end of free competition, and the sooner they realised this the better. The companies were arrayed in self-defence, and no one could complain of it. He thought that they were bound to do this, and as business men it was imperative on the railway directors to look to this as the only possible source of increasing their revenue. The hon. Member for Dulwich used the illustration of the War Office, but he would point out that the past complaints against that Department were largely due to the fact that the War Office had not been organised by business men. It had been run by swells, and if the railways were run in the same way the same results would follow. Perhaps there was even too much of the swell element in the railway companies. But if the railways were run as the War Office had been, the result, he was sure, would be identical. The railway companies were hardly a fair example of "the incentive of personal ambition." The trader who worked for himself felt that incentive. But the railway director was only working, like
1646
the official at the War Office, for a large body of men whom he did not know, and his remuneration was not of the kind to make him sweat over it. Those were purely War Office conditions.
MR. BONAR LAW: May I point out one difference? The railway directors are chosen for their qualities as business men.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that he must congratulate the hon. Member on having perpetrated an excellent joke. Some railway directors were undoubtedly chosen for their business qualities; but there were many who were chosen for reasons of influence with the House of Commons and elsewhere, and the railway companies had also to look to that sort of thing as they had to defend themselves. But now competition was being eliminated by the railway companies themselves, and the time he thought had come for the State to inquire under what conditions they should allow that process to go on. He had to face a great problem. The Great Northern and the Great Central Companies had an agreement which was very desirable in many respects, as getting rid of waste. But the State and the community had a right to inquire where they came in. Such agreements would be multiplied, and therefore the time had come for a statutory inquiry. The Government would offer no resistance to the Resolution if the mover of it would consent to a slight alteration of form. He proposed to leave out the words: "State purchase of the railways as foreshadowed by the Railway Regulation Act of 1844," and to substitute for them the words: "Any change in the existing relations between the railways and the State." Those were the words used in the Report of the Commission of 1865, and they would enable an inquiry to be held into the whole of the conditions of the railway service. No inquiry would be useful that did not go into the whole question of grievances and the best method of arranging them and—the most practical question of the moment—the conditions under which the State should permit these agreements for amalgamation and co-operation between the railway companies. He begged to move the Amendment which he had indicated.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Resolution—
"To leave out the words 'State purchase of the railways, as foreshadowed by the Railway Regulation Act of 1844,' in order to insert the words any change in the existing relations between the railways and the State.' "—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Resolution."
MR. G. A. HARDY: I think it would be quite well to accept that.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that, speaking as a railway director, he would be inclined to think that purchase by the State would not be a bad thing for the railways, but, speaking as a taxpayer, he thought it would be the worst thing that could possibly be brought about. He would have thought that the House had had enough to do with nationalisation or municipalisation since one of the most recent enterprises of that nature—the purchase of the London water companies—had been followed by the general raising of the water rates without any corresponding advantage.
Mr. G. A. HARDYrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put; "but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the moment the State became the proprietor of a big enterprise they must have a fine office, and in addition there was an immediate demand for the wages to be raised: Those were only two of the reasons why the Water Board had not been a success. His hon. friend below him had alluded to the policy of electoral corruption, and the right hon. Gentleman had rather laughed at it. The right hon. Gentleman was a man of very great ability, and he knew that tariff reform had nothing to do with this question, but he could not get over the fact that if something like 680,000 men were employed by the State the result of their vote might affect an election.
Mr. G. A. HARDYrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question
1648
be now put;" but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the result of the railway being owned by the State in Victoria had been that special legislation had to be passed in order to deal with the votes of the employees, who were formed into one constituency and had a special representative. How long would hon. Gentlemen opposite tolerate such a state of things in this country.
And, it being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

INFANT LIFE PROTECTION.
Select Committee appointed to inquire and report as to the desirability of extending the provisions of the Infant Life Protection Act, 1897, to homes in which not more than one infant is kept in consideration of periodical payment, and of altering the limit of age prescribed by Section 2 of that Act.
The Committee was accordingly nominated of: Mr. Arthur Allen, Mr. Bright, Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Ellis, Mr. Gulland, Mr. John Taylor, and Mr. Power.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Mr. Whiteley).

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
Ordered, That the Committee of Public Accounts do consist of Fifteen Members.
The Committee was accordingly nominated of: Mr. Cavendish, Mr. Ashton, Mr. Bowles, Mr. Brigg. Mr. Cameron Corbett, Sir Daniel Goddard, Mr. Hazleton, Sir Robert Hobart, Mr. Leif Jones, Sir George Kekewich, Mr. Kettle, Mr. McCrae, Mr. Parker, Mr. Runciman, and Colonel Williams.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. Whiteley.)

HOME WORK.
Select Committee appointed to consider and report upon the conditions of labour in trades in which Home Work is prevalent, and the proposals, including those for the establishment of wages boards and the licensing of work places, which have been made for the remedying of existing abuses.
Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Twenty-one Members.
The Committee was accordingly nominated of: Mr. Arkwright, Mr. Bridge-man, Sir William Bull, Mr. Boland, Mr. Brunner, Mr. Chiozza Money, Mr. Devlin, Mr. Arthur Dewar, Mr. Fell, Mr. Gooch, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Ernest Lamb, Mr. Hugh Law, Mr. Massie, Mr. Master-man, Mr. Parkes, Mr. Richardson, Mr. Robinson, Mr. Stuart Samuel, Mr. Trevelyan, and Sir Thomas Whittaker.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Seven be the quorum.—(Mr. Whiteley.)

SUPPLY [10TH FEBRUARY] REPORT.
Postponed Proceeding on Question, "That this House doth agree with the
1650
Committee in the First Resolution, 'That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1908, for additional Expenditure in respect of the following Army services, viz.:—
Vote 5. Volunteer Corps, Pay, Allowances, etc.—

£

E. (a) Grants for the Extinction of Debts

350,000

E. (b) Expenses of County Associations

8,000

358,000

Less Surpluses on other Votes

357,900

100 '"

resumed—
Question again proposed.
And, it being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
Second and subsequent Resolutions to be considered To-morrow.
Adjourned at five minutes after Eleven o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Ravensthorpe Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Llanelly and Burry Port Water Bill [H.L.], Road 2a.
Clyde Navigation (Superannuation) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.], (No. 10). A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to the Clyde Navigation; and
Transfer of Training Colleges (Scot-land) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.], (No. 11). A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to the Transfer of Training Colleges in Scotland:—Were presented by the Lord Hamilton of Dalzell; 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, section 7) deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  DUCHY OF LANCASTER.
  Account of the Receipts and Disbursemets of the Duchy of Lancaster in the year ended 21st December 1907, also a separate Account of the Capital of the said Duchy to same date; Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

MILK SUPPLY—PROPOSED LEGISLATION.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, I rise to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation with regard to the milk supply during the present session; and, in the event of such legislation being introduced by the Local Government Board, what steps the Board of Agriculture propose to take for the purpose of safe-guarding the interests of agriculture.
I should like to explain, as briefly as possible, my reason for putting this question. I hope it is unnecessary for me to assure the noble Earl that I have not been led to do so through any feeling
1494
of want of confidence in the Department over which he presides, nor of any hostility to further legislation with regard to the milk supply. I can speak not only for myself, but as chairman of a committee that has been appointed to watch legislation with a view to safe-guarding the interests of agriculture in this matter, and on which we have representatives of the most important breed, agricultural, and other societies in England, as well as a large number of representatives from Wales, Ireland, and Scotland. Dairy farmers and milk producers realise that legislation is not only desirable but necessary to ensure a supply of pure and wholesome milk to the consumers in the country. I can go further, and say that they would welcome legislation, provided that in it they were treated with justice and equity, and that that legislation was comprehensive, general, and applied to the whole country.
I think it will be admitted that the present condition of the milk control throughout the country is eminently unsatisfactory. We suffer from orders which are permissive, and from legislation which has been piecemeal. The Dairies, Cowsheds, and Milkshops Orders of 1885 and 1886 give power to local authorities to make Orders as to the inspection of cattle and dairies within their districts. Some local authorities have made Orders which are carried out in a satisfactory manner; on the other hand, in some districts Orders have been made which are carried out in a perfunctory way. I regret to say that in a very large number of cases local authorities have not chosen to make any regulations at all, and in those districts the milk supply is absolutely without any supervision whatever.
Then, my Lords, we have had legislation dealing with localities. The London County Council have already powers in three Acts dealing with this matter, and in the General Powers Bill which they have introduced this session they are endeavouring to get further powers in that direction. Other corporations in a similar way have obtained powers for dealing with the milk sent into their areas, and the result of this has been that farmers in different districts are placed under absolutely different conditions. We find in some districts that there is no supervision whatever. In other

1495
districts there is supervision by the local authorities. In a considerable number of districts we have two or more authorities within the same area, with the result that unnecessary burdens are placed upon the farmer in regard to the manner in which he carries on his business. I think this will be generally admitted to be an unsatisfactory state of affairs, and that a public Bill dealing with the whole question is much desired, both in the interests of the producers and the consumers.
With regard to the first part of my Question, I notice that the President of the Local Government Board, in replying to an hon. Member in the House of Commons the other day, said the Government were desirous that there should be legislation with regard to the milk supply during the present session. Considering the vast importance of this question I think I shall not be unduly pressing the noble Earl if I ask him to give us a little more definite information. I should like to ask him whether it is not only the desire of the Government, but their intention, to bring in legislation during the present session. I presume that the Government would not deal with a large subject like this, affecting a most important branch of the greatest industry in the country, without very fully and carefully considering how they were going to treat the question, and I hope the noble Earl will be able to tell us whether up to the present time, the Government have really considered what line they are going to take in dealing with the matter. I also presume that any part of the proposed Bill affecting the agricultural interest would be submitted to the Board of Agriculture for their consideration and approval; and I should be much obliged if the noble Earl would tell us whether, up to the present moment, he has received any suggestions from the Local Government Board as to the form which this legislation is to take, or, indeed, any communication from the Board whatever on this subject. I think it is only fair that, if legislation is to be introduced within the next few months, we should have a definite statement to that effect, and the Government should take the earliest opportunity of putting the form and the manner in which they are going to legislate before
1496
the public, so that those interests which are likely to be affected may have full and ample opportunity of considering the matter, and of expressing their views.
I was rather induced to put the second part of my Question from some remarks which have fallen from the noble Earl in speeches on agriculture which he has made on different occasions. I observe that in October last, speaking to the North Eastern Farmers' Association, the noble Earl told his audience that a very heavy burden might be placed on the dairy industry by ill-considered and unnecessary restrictions; and that Sir Edward Strachey, who represents the Board of Agriculture in the House of Commons, quite recently warned the farmers that they might expect stringent, and I think, if my memory serves mo right, he used the word "drastic," legislation in the immediate future with regard to this question. These expressions have, very naturally, I think, aroused considerable feeling of insecurity and of alarm among dairy farmers and stock-owners throughout the country.
I can assure the noble Earl that this feeling is very wide-spread. It is not only confined to the large dairy farmers, but is also felt strongly by the small men. The small owner feels that if any hardship were inflicted on the dairy industry by legislation, it would fall with especial severity upon the class of man who owns two or three cows; and on that class in whom the noble Earl, as we know, takes such a sincere interest—the occupiers of small holdings. I believe that if it were known that this question was going to be dealt with by the Board of Agriculture, agriculturists would look upon any possible legislation with equanimity, because they are satisfied with those many assurances, which I know are perfectly sincere, which have fallen from the noble Earl, of his desire to do his best to safe-guard the interests of agriculture.
But this Bill will be brought in by the Local Government Board, and we feel that, though the Local Government Board have the assistance of able medical officers of health, of experts, scientists, bacteriologists, and gentlemen who are admirably qualified to advise them as to the purity and distribution of

1497
milk, and of what I may call the sanitary side of the question, yet, so far as we are aware, the Local Government Board have no information and no advice on the agricultural, or what I may call the practical, side of the matter. It will be obvious that this question has to be dealt with practically as well as theoretically. In dealing with the milk supply you have to go to the source—namely, to the farm; and we contend that matters connected with cattle, their treatment, management, housing, and inspection, should be dealt with by the advice of, and through, the Board of Agriculture, who possess a highly qualified and practical veterinary staff, in whom the agriculturists have confidence.
I hope that the noble Earl, the President of the Board of Agriculture, will be able to-day to say something to allay that feeling of insecurity to which I have referred, by giving us an assurance that he will undertake that farmers have fair play in this matter. That, my Lords, is all that the dairy farmers of the country demand. I think it is a very moderate request. If I may sum it up, I would say that they wish, in any matter of legislation, their interests to be treated with justice and equity; that as far as possible they should be guarded against suffering any loss; but that if any individuals should sustain loss through legislation passed for the public good, they should be adequately compensated by the public for that loss; and also, that what I may call the agricultural side of this question, should be dealt with practically by qualified persons. I think those principles are such as generally to commend themselves, not only to agriculturists, but to all fair-minded people throughout the country.
I was pleased to see that one of our greatest authorities on hygiene and public health fully realises that these principles should be accepted. I refer to Sir James Crichton-Browne, the President of the Sanitary Inspectors' Association, who, in a speech the other day, said he hoped the Local Government Board in dealing with the milk supply would confer with the Board of Agriculture, and bear in mind the interests of the honest producer as well as those of the innocent consumer. I do not wish to put our case
1498
more strongly than it was put by that expert in matters of health, who may be taken to regard the matter rather from the point of view of the good of the public than from that of the particular interests of the agricultural classes concerned.
In conclusion, I should like to make a suggestion to the noble Earl. It is not a new suggestion, and I was sorry to observe that it was one which did not meet with great encouragement from the President of the Local Government Board in the House of Commons. I would not press the noble Earl to give me an answer in regard to my suggestion. I would only ask him to be good enough to give it his careful consideration, and I think it is of such a moderate description that the noble Earl will be able to give it a favourable consideration. It is that before any legislation is introduced dealing with this large subject, a public inquiry should be held into the whole question of the milk supply of the country. I would suggest that the inquiry might be undertaken by a Committee—a Select Committee, a Departmental Committee, or a Joint Committee—and that on that Committee should be placed representatives of both sides of the question, of the sanitary side, and of the agricultural side, the side of the consumer and that of the producer. The Committee should hear evidence on both sides, and I honestly think they would be able to arrive at a satisfactory solution of the question.
I would point out to the noble Earl, if he thinks this would cause delay, that I see no reason why the inquiry should take a very long time. We are agreed on the main principles, and on the desirability of a pure milk supply. We are all agreed that the consumer should be given pure milk, and that no injustice should be done to the producer. It is only a matter of detail, of means as to how this can best be accomplished. Therefore, I do not think an inquiry of this sort need take a very long time; and I can assure the noble Earl that if he can see his way to bringing about such an inquiry it will be most satisfactory to the dairy farmers and agriculturists, and I am confident that it will do a great deal to allay that feeling of insecurity, and almost of alarm, which I

1499
regret to say prevails to a very considerable extent at the present moment. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will permit me, in the first place, to thank him very sincerely for the kindly and courteous way in which he has spoken of the efforts of the Board with which I am connected. I am glad to be able to inform him that I have received a letter from my right hon. friend, Mr. Burns, in which he says it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation this Session with respect to the milk supply. I quite agree with the noble Earl in all he said as regards the present control of the milk industry. It is not at all in as satisfactory a condition as we should wish. The noble Earl spoke of the feeling of insecurity and alarm entertained, not only by tenant farmers but by small holders throughout the country. I can assure him that we are equally anxious to do all we possibly can to place the industry on a safer and more satisfactory basis; and, with him, I earnestly hope that the matter will be dealt with not only theoretically but also practically. The great object of the present Government, I need; hardly say, is practical legislation. We try to follow out the advice, "Let your policy be a policy of results," and I can assure the noble Earl that that will be our object and aim in this direction as well. In the second part of his Question the noble Earl asks what steps the Board of Agriculture propose to take, in the event of this legislation being introduced by the Local Government Board, for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of agriculture. I can hardly, I think, be expected to answer that question now as fully as I might wish, and to make a definite pronouncement, until the proposals have been a little more developed; but I need not say that I will do all in my power legitimately to protect the farmers in legislation of this sort, consistent with the public interest.
The noble Earl then made a suggestion with respect to a public inquiry. He
1500
did not press for an immediate answer, but I can assure him that every possible consideration will be paid to his suggestion, upon which I will at once consult my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board, Before sitting down, perhaps it will not be out of place to say that the news from Scotland as regards the cows that have foot and mouth disease is very satisfactory. Up to the present there are no fresh outbreaks, so far as we can trace, and the disease has been confined to the place where it broke out. I feel certain that your Lordships will approve of the promptitude of the stops taken in this matter by the officials of my Department, and I sincerely hope that we may be able to confine the outbreak to its present limits.
EARL ROSEBERY: As regards the last point, I should like to ask whether the noble Earl has received any representation from Linlithgowshire on the subject of the restrictions?
EARL CARRINGTON: Yes
EARL ROSEBERY: And does my noble friend mean to pay any attention to it?
EARL CARRINGTON: I am afraid I must ask for notice of that Question.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, the latter part of the noble Earl's speech was undoubtedly reassuring, but I cannot say that I thought the answer he gave to my noble friend Lord Northbrook, was quite so satisfactory. The noble Earl has not carried us very much further than we had got by the statements made in public by the President of the Local Government Board. Mr. Burns told us some time ago that the Government hoped to deal with this subject this session, and, naturally those who have had the advantage of taking part in the business of government gathered from that that there had at least been some conversations between the heads of the Local Government Board and the Board of Agriculture with regard

1501
to the proposals to be laid before Parliament. But the noble Earl informs us tonight that he has apparently only just received a letter from the President of the Local Government Board telling him exactly what all the world has known for some time past. He went on to say that he could not promise to offer the opinions of the Board of Agriculture until the proposals were somewhat more definite. We are all really waiting to know what the Government are going to do in this matter; and I would venture to point out to the Government that which they do not seem to be aware of, although I admit I think the wish may be father to the thought, that there is such a thing as the House of Lords, and that at this period of the session this House is not very busily occupied. I would venture to suggest to the President of the Local Government Board and my noble friend whether it would not be a good opportunity of giving this House something to do if these proposals, at any rate in their initial stage, were brought forward here, so that the farmers of the country would be able to express an opinion upon them.
It is not only the farmers who are concerned. I, in my Department, am anxious to know whether the Government really means to push to a conclusion legislation on this subject. There are a number of Bills before Parliament dealing with this matter in the case of large boroughs, and particularly London. We have had for years past what are known as model milk clauses. These clauses, I venture to say, are not satisfactory to anybody. They were a compromise arrived at between those interested on different sides, and it was always understood that they were to be allowed by Parliament in measures brought forward by the great corporations without variation, pending the time when the matter would be dealt with for the whole country by the Government. That time, we hoped, had arrived, but from what the noble Earl has said to-night it seems to me that the proposals are very much more in the abstract than they can be said to be in the concrete. I hope that before the session is much older we shall have some information from the Government,
1502
not only that they have aspirations, but that they do intend to deal with the matter, and also upon what lines they propose to proceed. This is not a party matter. It is one upon which we are all agreed, and it is only a question of seeing that whatever regulations are imposed in the interests of the health of the people are drawn up with the greatest consideration towards the agricultural classes, and with the least desire unnecessarily to harrass them.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: As apparently the subject is going to drop, might I ask my noble friend opposite whether he will take into consideration the introduction in this House of a Bill dealing with this matter? I am sure we all agree with his statement that this is a question which ought to be dealt with from the practical as well as the theoretical point of view; and I should say that in this House there is quite as large an experience, and quite as great knowledge of matters affecting the country as in the other House of Parliament. I would point out that up to the present time we I have no indication that there is any business to be given us to do, and if the noble Earl can induce his colleague to have the Bill introduced in this House, he will be doing a very useful and practical thing.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord TWEEDMOUTH): My Lords" I am not in a position to say that we are prepared at once to introduce a measure of this sort in this House. The President of the Local Government Board has declared quite clearly that a Bill is to be introduced this session, and I hope it will be soon introduced, whether in this House or the other. With regard to the further point to which the noble Earl referred, I think he may probably reckon that in the course of the next two or three weeks we shall have two Scottish Bills in this House to discuss.
EARL ROSEBERY: After they have been discussed in the other.
House adjourned at Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.