Sitting of 27 July 1908

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

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of
  806
  Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz:—Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cornwall, etc.) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.

  SALMON, TROUT, AND RIVER TWEED FISHERIES BILL (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO NOT COM PLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 23rd day of July, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have not been complied with, viz.:—Salmon, Trout, and River Tweed Fisheries Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  South-West Suburban Water Bill.—Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Ammanford Urban District Council Water Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified).—Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Railway Bill [Lords].—As amended, considered.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Keighley Corporation Bill [Lords].—As amended, considered.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Metropolitan Electric Tramways Bill [Lords] — As amended, considered; Amendments made.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Bill [Lords].—As amended, considered.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Thames River Steamboat Service Act (1904) Amendment Bill [Lords].—As amended, considered; a Clause added; Bill to be read the third time.
  Wath and Bolton Gas Board Bill [Lords].—As amended, considered.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  River Wandle Protection Bill [Lords].—Read a second time, and committed.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 82, 211, 236, and 237 be suspended, and that the Committee on the Bill have leave to sit and proceed To-morrow.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  Blackburn Corporation Bill (by Order).—Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Crystal Palace Company Bill [Lords].—Ordered, That Standing Orders 211 and 236 be suspended, and that the Committee of Selection have leave to appoint the Committee on the Bill to
  808
  sit and proceed forthwith.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  Standing Orders (Private Business).—Standing Order 26 a was read, and amended, in line 2, by leaving out the words "the Plans and Sections," and by inserting the words "so much of the Plans and Sections as relates to the portion of the work by which the banks, foreshore, or river-bed may be affected."
  And in line 12, by leaving out the words "the river is subject to a Board of Conservators," and by inserting the words "there be a Board of Conservators, constituted for the conservancy of the river."
  Standing Order 82 was read, and amended, in line 5, by leaving out the words "and such Copies shall be," and by adding at the end of the Standing Order, the words "together with Copies of the estimates and statements deposited in accordance with Standing Order 36 a (if any)."
  Standing Order 172 was read, and amended, in line 11, by inserting after "36 a," the words "or under General. Order made in pursuance of the Private Legisation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899."
  Standing Order 173 a was read, and amended, in lines 30 and 31, by leaving, out the words "and shall be circulated with the Votes."
  175 a. Ordered, That notice in writing of any Bill relating to England or Ireland, and containing provisions whereby any application of the property of any charity not authorised by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts, shall be directed, or the patronage or the constitution of any charity, or the right of any charity to any property, shall be affected, or setting up or taking power to set up or to take over or interfere in the management of any school or other educational foundation or institution, or to levy any rate or raise money for any such purpose, shall be given to the Attorney-General for England or Ireland, as the case may be, and no such Bill shall be taken into consideration by the Committee on the

  809
  Bill until the House has received a Report from the Attorney-General on such Bill, and such Report shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill
  Resolved, That this Order be a Standing Order of this House.
  Standing Order 188a was read, and amended, in line 4, by leaving out the words "and circulated with the Votes."
  Standing Order 220 was read, and amended, in lines 2 and 3, by leaving out the words "and circulated with the Votes."—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  NATAL.
  Copy presented, of Despatch from the Governor of Natal forwarding a Bill to make Special Provision for the Trial of Natives accused of certain crimes [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Copy presented, of Return of the number of Steam Trawlers registered at Ports in the States of Western Europe in the year 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  QUEEN'S COLLEGE, CORK.
  Copy presented, of Report of the President for the Session 1907–8, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  QUEEN'S COLLEGE, GALWAY.
  Copy presented, of Report of the President for the Session 1907–8 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  METEOROLOGICAL COMMITTEE.
  Copy presented, of Third Report of the Meteorological Committee to the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury, for the year ending 31st March, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE.
  Copy presented, of Fifty-fourth Report of the Postmater-General [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC INCOME AND EXPENDITURE.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 2nd June; Mr. Ellis]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 258.]
  CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 2nd July; Mr. Lamont]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 259.]
  LAND REGISTRY.
  Account presented, of Receipts and Payments in respect of the Land Registry for the year ended 31st March, 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 260.]
  CLERGY (WEST INDIES).
  Copy presented, of Return of the Amount payable on 5th January, 1908, out of the Consolidated Fund for Ecclesiastical Purposes in the West Indies [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copy presented, of Return for the year ended 31st March, 1908, of the Army and Navy Officers permitted, under Rule 2 of the Regulations drawn up under Section 6 of the Act, to hold civil employment or profit under Public Departments [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 261.]

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Caledonian Canal. — Copy of One hundred-and-third Report of the Commissioners [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 262.]
  Lunacy.—Copy of Return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made and the number of patients seen by the several Commissioners in Lunacy during the six months ending on 30th June, 1908 [by Act].

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Provincial Engineers (P. O.) Staff.
  MR. HUDSON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether

  811
  he is aware that for some years past the established clerical staff in the provincial superintending engineers' offices has been insufficient to meet the work in that Department; that temporary assistance in the shape of sorting clerks and telegraphists, Second Division clerks, boy clerks, and the employment of casual clerks from outside the service, has failed to adequately fill the breach, and that the members of the permanent clerical staff are obliged to perform continuous overtime; and if he can say when the bringing up of the establishment to the required strength may be expected.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton). I am aware and regret that for some time there has been heavy pressure of work on the established clerical staff in the provincial superintending engineers' offices and that there has been a considerable amount of overtime work; but proposals for a revision of the Engineering Department, including the clerical force, have been received, and I hope that before very long the establishment will be brought up to the required strength.

  Trawlers Depredation on Lewis Fisheries.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland in view of the fact that, in reply to a memorial from the people of Ness representing a population of 4,000, a letter was sent from the Scottish Office, under date 4th June last, deprecating the view that the Lewis fisheries had been ruined by trawlers, and stating that the Lewis fisheries were better last year than they had been for some years, is he aware that the figures which he quoted for 1904–7 largely represent herrings caught by English and Scottish steam drifters, whereas statistics concerning the line-fishing industry, on which the fishermen of Lewis mainly depend, show that the weight of line-caught fish landed in the island fell from 126,024 cwts. in 1893 to 76,011 cwts. in 1904, and 69,833 cwts. in 1907; and, in view of this evidence in support of the contention of the memorialists, will he endeavour to meet their grievances.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair). In the information referred to the herrings,
  812
  whether caught by English or Scottish drifters, were taken in Lewis waters and landed in Lewis. Since 1898, the date from which full statistics are available, the average catch per boat actually engaged in line fishing has remained practically the same, while the value of such catch per boat has gone up from £38 in 1898 to £55 in 1907. Within the same period the number of boats actually engaged in line fishing in Lewis has decreased from 666 to 451. The latter fact much more than accounts for any apparent diminution in the catch.

  Motor Cab Regulation.
  MR. COOPER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, as he does not advise the prosecution of motor cab drivers who take more passengers than they are licensed to carry, except in cases of serious overcrowding, why the police rigidly carry out the regulation as to the number of passengers a tramcar is licensed to carry, and the reason why the tramcar is treated differently in this respect to motor cabs.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone). If more than the authorised number of persons are admitted into a tramcar the passengers are inconvenienced, generally against their wishes. When a motor cab is hired no one is inconvenienced by any overcrowding except the hirer and his friends, and there is no object in prosecuting except where the overcrowding is such as to cause danger.

  Motor Cab Capacities.
  MR. COOPER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, as he is unable to advise the police to prosecute the drivers of motor cabs who carry more passengers than their cabs are licensed to carry, except in cases of serious overcrowding, he has issued any instruction to the police explaining what serious overcrowding means; and, if so, will he give the regulation, and, if no instruction has been issued, whether this question is left to the discretion of each constable.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) As regards the instructions to the police, I can only refer the hon. Member to the

  813
  Answers given to former Questions on 27th May and 22nd June. The need for intervening must necessarily depend on the circumstances of each case, and be left to a great extent to the discretion of the constable.

  French Import Duties on Elastic Tissues.
  SIR F. BANBURY: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the French Government propose to increase the import duties on elastic tissues; and, if so, what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take to protect British interests.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Grey). My right hon. friend does not know whether the French Government propose to increase the import duties in question, as no official publication has yet been made of any of the proposals put forward by the Customs Commission of the French Chamber of Deputies, which is now engaged in studying the revision of the existing French Customs tariff.

  Australian Commonwealth Arms.
  MR. R. DUNCAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Lyon King-at-Arms was consulted in regard to the new design for the arms of the Commonwealth of Australia; and, if not, will he take steps to ensure that he will be consulted.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. As I stated on Thursday last, the arms have already been approved by His Majesty.

  London Police Holiday.
  MB. ROWLANDS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, pending the Report of the Committee on the Weekly Day of Rest, he can see his way to grant the Metropolitan Police a full fortnight's holiday this year instead of the usual ten days, on account of the exceptionally heavy duties the force have been called upon to perform.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) No, Sir. I should not feel justified in
  814
  making any alteration in the leave of absence of the Metropolitan Police, at any rate until after the Select Committee has reported. Even the comparatively small increase suggested could not be made without raising the police rate above its present limit.

  London Railway Cab Service.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any complaints respecting the shortage of cabs at the chief railway termini in London since the abolition of the privilege cab system under the Bill of last year.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) No, Sir, I have received no complaints.

  Home Work.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the administration of the home-work provisions of the Factory Act was discussed at a conference with medical officers of health at the Home Office last autumn, as promised in a reply to a Question in the House on 18th July, 1907; and, if so, what results were arrived at.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Yes, Sir, the conference was held as promised. A useful discussion took place on a number of administrative points, and certain alterations and improvements were subsequently made in the tables issued to the medical officers for the preparation of the statistics. It may be hoped, I think, that the conference will have its result generally in an improved administration of the home-work provisions of the Factory Act.

  Outworkers Lists.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the second column in Table 6 of Part II. of the Supplement to the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops for the year 1906, where the number of lists of outworkers sent in by employers who fulfil the legal obligation to send in two lists

  815
  in the year are given separately from those who have sent in only one in the year; whether he has noticed that the numbers are, in many cases, odd and not even, in one case the number given being one; whether the same thing appears in Table 5, which gives the details of the returns according to industries; and whether he can give any explanation why these apparent mistakes have occurred.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I am aware of the figures to which the hon. Member calls attention. The figures have been tabulated as received from the medical officers of health. As explained in the introduction to the Return issued in 1906, the Department is unable to clear up by correspondence minor points of doubt that arise in connection with these figures. The errors, which are not very important, are no doubt due to some misunderstanding on the part of the medical officers, and the question whether the instructions as to filling up the tables can be made clearer will be considered before they are again issued.

  Infection in Out-workers' Premises.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in Glasgow no cases of out-work in infected premises are reported as having been found in the course of 3,072 inspections of out-workers' premises, although the cases of infectious disease throughout the city are reported as being at the rate of 24 per 1,000 of the population; and whether he has inquired if the places where home-work is done in Glasgow are really as immune from infectious disease as Column 20 in Table 6 of Cd. 3986 seems to show.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The figures in the Returns were supplied by the medical officer of health for Glasgow, a most efficient and careful official, and I have no reason for doubting their accuracy. The question, however, of the prevalence of infectious disease in this or any other class of premises is a matter of public health with which the Home Office is not directly concerned.

  Animal Dealers—Dog Licences.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there is any regular system of inspecting the shops of animal dealers with the view of finding out the number of dogs which they keep, and whether they pay licences for each of such dogs.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) No special regulations have been issued respecting these dogs, but it is a part of the officers' duty to see that licences are taken for all dogs which are liable to duty, and the Board have no reason to think that there is any evasion of duty on the part of dealers in dogs.

  Book Imports.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the nature of the powers entrusted to Customs officers as regards the examination of foreign books in the luggage of passengers landing at British ports from the Continent and as regards the seizure of the same; and whether it lies in the individual discretion of such officers to pronounce a given, book fit or unfit for importation, or whether any and what code of criticism is officially supplied to them for application to the problem.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) Under Section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, books in regard to which notice has been given that a copyright therein subsists in the United Kingdom and indecent books are prohibited to be imported. Any books observed by Customs officers, in the course of the examination of passengers' baggage, which appear to fall within these two categories are detained and submitted to the Board of Customs for their directions.

  Shorthand Writers' Fees.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a second Court was unable to sit at Guildford last week in consequence of there being no shorthand writer; whether a second Court was unable to sit at Birmingham last week for the same reason; whether the learned Judge who was presiding invited

  817
  gentlemen who were present to act as shorthand writers, and that they refused on account of the lowness of the remuneration; whether in many places shorthand writers have had to be engaged at a greater cost than the Treasury scale of remuneration; and whether he will reconsider his decision not to raise the scale.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) As I stated in reply to a Question on Thursday last, the appointment of official shorthand writers for the purposes of the Criminal Appeal Act rests with the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, with whom I am in communication on the subject.

  Limavady and Dungiven Railway Company.
  MR. AINSWORTH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury why the grant of £19,601 was made to the Limavady and Dungiven Railway Company, in face of the fact that the company being under an obligation to pay the Belfast and Northern Counties Railway Company 70 per cent, of the receipts for working expenses was incapable of paying interest on the loan; and why, when the Treasury, after foreclosure, sold the line for £2,000 to the Belfast and Northern Counties Railway Company, they did not require that company at once to promote a Bill to confirm the proceedings and to settle at the same time the obligations of the purchasing company in the interests of the public.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) At the time (1883) when the advance to the Limavady and Dungiven Railway Company was made, it was anticipated that the net receipts of the line, after paying, the proportion due for working expenses to the Belfast and Northern Counties Railway Company, would from the outset suffice to pay the interest and instalment of principal on the Board of Works loan. The Board of Works ultimately, with the consent of the Treasury, sold their interest in the line to the Midland Company subject to the necessary Parliamentary powers being obtained. The Midland Railway Act, 1907, to which the agreement for sale with the Board of Works is scheduled, conferred the
  818
  necessary powers. The Limavady and Dungiven Railway Acts of 1878 and 1882 remain, however, in full force and apply to the transferred undertaking, and under the second schedule of the agreement, confirmed by and scheduled to the Act of 1907, the Midland Company are obliged at their own expense well and sufficiently to equip, work, manage, and maintain the railway in perpetuity and to afford proper facilities for the traffic of the district.

  Windsor Motorists' Prosecution.
  MR. HAROLD COX: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has; been called to recent prosecutions of motorists in Windsor for exceeding the speed limit; whether he has noticed that it was admitted in cross-examination that one car was capable of travelling at fifty miles an hour and another car at sixty miles an hour; and who is responsible for having licensed such vehicles to travel upon the public highway.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have seen a newspaper report of these; prosecutions which contains statements to the effect referred to in the Question. An Excise licence has to be taken out in respect of a motor car as in respect of any other carriage, and it could not be withheld on the ground that the car could travel at any particular speed. No other licence is required.

  Automatic Motor Speed Limits.
  MR. HAROLD COX: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to any inventions for recording the speed of motor-cars and for automatically shutting off the engine and applying the brake at a given speed; and whether he will cause an examination to be made of any such apparatus submitted to him, with a view to determining whether it is likely to prove suitable for compulsory use.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) My attention has not been called to inventions of the kind mentioned by my hon. friend. I should be ready to cause any such inventions to be examined if they were submitted to me.

  Paupers' Clothing Contracts.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he authorised a certain firm in London to value samples of clothing submitted to the Poplar Board of Guardians by various firms, one of which was the Women's Committee of the Central Unemployed Body; whether the report submitted stated that the Board had paid to these workrooms 2s. 3d. for shirts which were valued at 1s. 9d., 2s. 11d. for flannelette vests valued at 1s. 8½d., £1 for men's suits valued at 9s. 11d. and 11s. 6d.; what steps he took to make sure that the samples submitted by the private firms were the same as those sent originally to the board of guardians but returned by them; and whether the expert responsible for the valuation indicated in each case how much he estimated as being a fair wages rate for making the various articles in question.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) As regards the first two points in the Question, the facts are substantially as stated. As regards the third point, I asked for the particular samples which had been submitted to the guardians by the firm referred to, and I have no reason to doubt that these were the samples furnished to me. They are still in my possession. As regards the concluding part of the Question, the expert compared the four sets of samples sent to him and assigned a value to the samples accepted. He did not indicate in his report what he estimated to be a fair wages rate for making the articles in question.

  Vaccination.
  MR. LEHMANN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that Mr. W. R. Hitchcock, the vaccination officer for Wandsworth, did not serve Form Q on Mr. Cooper, 16, Belfour Street, Nine Elms Lane, before his child was four months old, and that this omission on the part of the vaccination officer contributed to Mr. Cooper's neglect to make a declaration of conscientious objection to vaccination under the Act of 1907, Mr. Cooper not being aware of the four
  820
  months limit until three days after the child attained that age; and whether, seeing that this Form Q was expressly inserted in the last Vaccination Order on purpose to make known to parents more clearly the provisions of the Law, he will ascertain whether there has been similar neglect on Mr. Hitchcock's part in any other cases.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have not received any complaint with regard to this matter, but I will make inquiries on the subject.

  Turnchaple Admiralty Contracts.
  MR. W. THORNE: To ask the Frist Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a firm by the name of Rolf and Son are doing work for the Admiralty at Turnchaple, in the Plymouth district, and are only paying the bricklayers' labourers 4d. and 4½ per hour, whereas the standard rate is 5d.; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Admiralty are making inquiries and will take steps to prevent any breach of the Fair Wages Resolution.

  Deptford Victualling Yard Coopers.
  Ms. BOWERMAN: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that, in consequence of the present staff of coopers employed at the Deptford Victualling Yard being insufficient to cope with the coopers' work required there, a quantity of work, such as the heading-up and securing of wood-bound casks and cylindricals, hitherto performed by coopers at piece-work rates, is now being done by labourers, who when employed upon such work receive an extra payment of 2d. per day; and whether he will consider the desirability of restoring this work to the coopers.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The work referred do does not require the services of a trained cooper, and the more economical arrangement which has been introduced brings the Admiralty into line with the ordinary trade practice.

  Obsolete War Ships.
  MR. FLYNN: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the

  821
  original costs of the ships "Bellona," "Katoomba," "Mildura," "Pallas," "Pearl," "Phœbe," "Ringmaroona," "Salamander," and "Tauranga," which were constructed in 1891–2, and which, amongst others, were broken up during the financial year 1906–7, was £1,058,680 and the price realised was only £65,750; if so, can he explain for what reason did the Admiralty condemn these nine war vessels built fifteen years ago; and whether the Admiralty will take into account this loss of £993,000 on vessels which were constructed so recently when preparing their next programme of naval construction.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The hon. Member's figures are correct. Vessels are placed on the sale list when there is no longer any useful function which they can perform in the Royal Navy or when their usefulness is not commensurate with the expenditure required for maintenance. The precise period in a vessel's life when this occurs must evidently vary in each case. As regards the last part of the Question, the Admiralty take into account all relevant circumstances in determining the programme of new construction each year.

  New Armoured Cruiser.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the tonnage of the new armoured cruiser to be laid down this financial year.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The tonnage is not yet settled.

  Rosyth.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the naval preparations on the other side of the North Sea, he will consider the need for expediting the contract for the works at Rosyth, so that these may be completed in the year 1912.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The contract time for the completion of the works at Rosyth having been determined recently after careful consideration, I am not aware of any such change in the
  822
  circumstances as would justify me in reopening the question.

  Admiralty and the Press.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty will he state who sees Press representatives at the Admiralty; who determines the nature and extent of the information given verbally to them; whether special information is verbally given to the representatives of some papers which is not imparted to those of others; and whether the First Sea Lord ever gives interviews to editors of newspapers, or other journalists, or to other persons taking part in public controversy respecting naval matters.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Answer to the first part of the Question is, the private secretary to the permanent secretary. The Answer to the second part is, the permanent secretary. The Answer to the third part is in the negative. With regard to the fourth part of the Question, I do not know whom my colleagues on the Board may see unless they choose to tell me; but I have every confidence that no communication will be made respecting naval matters in the sense which I gather is intended to be conveyed in the Question.

  Pembroke Dock Engine Fitters.
  MR. HUDSON: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now say what wages are paid by the firm of Messrs. Clark, Chapman, and Company to the engine fitters engaged on H.M.S, "Defence" at Pembroke Dock; and whether the Fair Wage Clause is being observed.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) A report has been received from the firm to the following effect:—There are three journeymen engine fitters engaged by the firm on board H.M.S "Defence" at Pembroke. Two of them receive 36s. per week plus 17s. 6d. allowance, and the others 41s. per week plus 17s. 6d. allowance. There are, besides, three young men who have not yet completed their full apprenticeship. Two of these have 24s. plus allowance, and the other, 30s. plus allowance. These young men are usually styled "improvers," the ordinary

  823
  standard rate for which class averages from 18s. to 21s. per week. The usual allowance for battleships is 17s. 6d. for journeymen, and 14s. for apprentices. The Admiralty have no reason to suppose that the Fair Wages Clause is not being observed.

  Wireless Telegraphy.
  LORD EDMUND TALBOT: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if the Admiralty have created a skilled staff of wireless telegraphists; and, if so, how are they rated.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) A telegraphist branch has been instituted, and is in process of formation. They will be trained from boys, and be advanced to the various grades according to requirements when qualified by service and examination. To meet immediate requirements, a proportion of signal ratings who have been performing wireless duties have been accepted for transfer to the wireless branch, and also a certain number of volunteers from other ratings. The arrangements for their transfer and advancement are given in a circular letter to the Fleet, a copy of which I shall be glad to give to the noble Lord.

  Rosyth.
  MR. FINDLAY: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the population which will be located at Rosyth on the completion of the naval works there, sufficient area of land has been secured for laying out a town on garden city lines to the best advantage, for the health and well-being of the people, as befits the spirit of the age.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The naval works at Rosyth will not be completed for seven years after the contract is let, so that the question will not be a practicable one for a considerable time. In any case the Admiralty do not possess sufficient land to lay out a garden city themselves.

  Sanitation in the Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that it is now
  824
  upwards of three years since Dr. Dittmar, the medical inspector for the Local Government Board for Scotland, reported the sanitary condition of the townships in the Island of Lewis as dangerous to the public health, will he state whether he has yet obtained from the local authority information in regard to the houses contained in these townships; and has he yet succeeded in making arrangements with the Treasury such as will admit of assistance being given towards the construction of houses on new sites.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I learn on inquiry that steady progress is being made in the sanitary improvement of crofters' houses. This and other questions affecting administration in the Lews are constantly before me, but no arrangements in the direction referred to by my hon. friend have been made.

  Vatersay.
  SIR J. DEWAR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if an arrangement has been arrived at with Lady Gordon Cathcart in regard to the Island of Vatersay; and if he can state its terms.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The Government have made additional proposals, on the lines generally of the procedure laid down in the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill, which safeguard the proprietor from possible loss. These proposals, which have been accepted by Lady Cathcart, provide for compensation to the tenant for surrender of his lease and to the proprietor for loss directly attributable to the occupation of the farm by small holders. The Government will now proceed forthwith to ascertain definitely how far the farm of Vatersay may properly be occupied by small tenants, to prepare a scheme of settlement under the crofter tenure, and to carry it into effect with the co-operation of Lady Cathcart, who remains proprietor of the farm. This arrangement, I am glad to say, made it possible for the proprietor to apply to the Court of Session upon Saturday, the 18th instant, with the happy result that, by the order of that Court, the men who were committed to prison for

  825
  contempt of Court were then liberated. I trust that those in whose immediate interest this scheme of settlement has been devised and agreed upon, especially those who are in occupation of parts of the farm, without whose active support the whole arrangement will fall to the ground, will now co-operate with the proprietor and the Government in facing and adjusting the difficulties of the situation, and will join in the endeavour to make the scheme a practical success.

  Willesden Education Dispute.
  MR. BOWLES: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he has now made inquiry into the action of the Willesden Education Committee in ordering the fortnightly prosecution of William Barnard of that place until he consents to inflict what he holds to be a permanent injury upon his son, aged fourteen, by forcing him to attend a certain school for mentally-deficient children in the district; whether the Education Committee is under any statutory obligation to order fortnightly prosecutions in this case; and, if not, whether, seeing that the father, whose wages are 25s. a week, has already been fined £4 since last May at the instance of this Committee, he can take any steps to recommend them to mitigate the severity of their action in this matter, and so protect this man from complete financial ruin.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am making inquiries of the local education authority, and when I receive a reply I will communicate with the hon. Member.

  Teachers' Registration Council.
  MR. BUTCHER: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been directed to the hardship inflicted on the registrar, the chief clerk, and the lady assistant registrar of the Teachers' Registration Council, recently dissolved, who have either been dismissed or are under notice of dismissal from the Board of Education.
  MR. BUTCHER: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether, seeing that the persons mentioned in the last Question were engaged in work
  826
  which seemed to be permanent, the President will either secure that they shall receive compensation or find for them other employment in the public service, preferably by taking practical steps to reconstitute the Teachers' Registration Council under the Administrative Provisions Act of 1907.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) In reply to this and the next Question, I have already stated that the officials referred to were the servants of the late Registration Council and were employed under agreements providing for the termination of their engagements at six and three months notice respectively. The Board cannot assume responsibility I for finding employment or compensation for abolition of office for persons who are not in their service. I may add, however, that the Board have been able to give temporary employment during the last four months to the chief clerk, and I have recently appointed the lady assistant registrar a woman inspector under the Board. With regard to the formation of a new council, I beg to refer the hon. Member to the Parliamentary Paper which has recently been issued. It will rest with the new council when constituted to determine the personnel of their staff.

  Agricultural Unrest at Cayo.
  MR. LLEWELLYN WILLIAMS: 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 state of unrest and agitation prevailing in the parish of Cayo, in the county of Carmarthen, owing to the collection of chief rent alleged to be due to the Crown; whether he has been informed that a large number of farmers in the parish have formed a committee with a view to oppose the payment of chief rent; whether they object to its payment on the ground of the disproportionate amounts levied respectively on small and large farms, and their ignorance as to its meaning and application; whether the deputy - steward and the Woods and Forests Department have, upon request being made to them, refused information on these points to

  827
  the farmers; whether, in some instances, levies had to be abandoned on account of excessive distresses; whether distresses were levied this month on two farms, and the goods distrained upon taken away by the bailiff in the absence of the farmers to another parish; whether this was done because the deputy-steward was afraid to conduct the sales on the premises owing to the inflamed condition of public opinion in the district; whether, in the neighbouring parishes of Llangadock, Myddfai, Llanfair-ar-y-bryn, Lland-densant, and Llansadwrn chief rent has not been paid for the last fifteen years, and, if so, why; and whether, in view of the difficulty of collection, the inequality of the incidence, the irritation created, and the inadequacy of the result, the Government will take steps either to commute or terminate the payment of chief rent.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) I am informed by' the Commissioner of Woods in charge of the Crown Land Revenues in Wales that he is aware that there is some unrest and agitation in the parish of Cayo on the subject of the chief rents payable to the Crown in the manor of that name, and he believes that a committee has been formed to oppose payment. No tangible reasons for the objection to payment have been given. The rents are very ancient ones of a manorial character, and have been collected for some hundreds of years. They form part of the Land Revenues of the Crown. No reasonable requests for information have been refused. The Commissioners paid a visit to the district and invited the chairman and secretary of the committee referred to to meet him, but they declined to come. In some instances levies have been abandoned owing to apprehended violence, and in one case in which it was alleged that an unneccessary quantity of hay had been seized the distress proceedings were abandoned with a view to recovery in another way. In a very recent case the article distrained was removed to a distance owing to apprehended violence if the sale were carried out on the premises. There do not appear to be any chief rents payable to the Crown in the neighbouring parishes mentioned in the Question, and the Commissioners of
  828
  Woods are not concerned in any way with rents due to private landowners. It is intended to enforce payment of the rents really due to the Crown unless and until they are redeemed, but the Crown is perfectly willing to sell them on the usual terms as a whole or singly.

  Scottish Probation of Offenders.
  MR. CLELAND: To ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been directed to the interpretation placed upon the Probation of Offenders Act in parts of Scotland to the effect that offenders on probation can only be dealt with and sentenced by the individual magistrate who placed the accused on probation, and in addition that the probation officer's report cannot be placed before the Court; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to prevent the provisions of the said Act becoming nugatory.
  (Answered by Mr. Thomas Shaw.) My attention has not been called to this. I hardly think the points mentioned should cause any difficulty. On the first, all that seems to me to be necessary is that an offender on probation who has failed to observe the conditions of the probation order should be dealt with by the Court which pronounced the order, not by the individual magistrate or magistrates who did so. On the second, the probation officer's report I think can, and indeed ought, to be placed before the Court, and, if it is either sworn to or put on affidavit, it appears to me that it would form ''information on oath," which is what the statute requires. A Court of Law may have, of course, to determine these questions; and I gather from my hon. friend that a present and practical difficulty has been felt in administration, and it is only for this reason that I have ventured to state my views.

  Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Bill.
  MR. COCHRANE: To ask the Lord-Advocate whether he will issue a memorandum with reference to the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Bill, setting out those parts of the Bill which are amendments of the existing law in different type from those parts

  829
  which are merely a consolidation of existing statutes.
  (Answered by Mr. Thomas Shaw.) I should hardly have thought this necessary. I presume, however, that my hon. friend, while not desiring detailed explanations of all the changes that are proposed, is anxious to have in a convenient form a reference to the sources of the various clauses in the existing legislation with indications of new or amended provisions. I think this request is not unreasonable, and I shall be very glad to have a White Paper containing this information issued at once. I should value my hon. friend's active support of this controversial Bill, and this, I trust, he will now be able to give.

  Irish Land Stock.
  MR. CARLILE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications for £250,000 each and upwards were received by the Bank in connection with the recent issue of Irish Land Stock.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The number of applications for £250,000 each and upwards was 184.

  Old-Age Pensions.
  MR. BENNETT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the recepient of an old-age pension will, in case of necessity, be entitled to receive medical relief from a board of guardians.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd - George.) Medical or surgical assistance supplied by or on the recommendation of a medical officer to the recipient of an old-age pension would not disqualify him from continuing to receive his pension.

  Military Churches in India.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give an undertaking that the Indian Government will not apply any public money to the repairing or maintenance of any garrison or other church in respect of the use of which any denomination claims an exclusive right.
  830
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) This course would not be possible. The churches in question, of which several are appropriated for Presbyterian and others for Roman Catholic worship, are Government buildings provided for the use of the troops, and they could obviously not be allowed to fall into disrepair and the object for which they have been built thus be defeated.
  MR. LAIDLAW: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India at what military stations in India, where Government churches already exist, are places of worship for non-Anglican troops to be built, what is the estimated total cost, and out of what funds are they to be paid for.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) The hon. Member will find in Appendix 9 to the Papers presented to Parliament in Cd. 4022 the names of the places where unconsecrated churches are being built. They are being built out of Government funds, but, I am unable to give the exact figure without reference to India.
  MR. LAIDLAW: To ask the Undersecretary of State for India how much was paid in the last financial year by the Government of India for the upkeep and repair of Government churches; and if the Government have contributed anything for the upkeep and repair of Hindoo temple and Mahomedan mosques in the same period.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) In 1906–7, the last year for which we have full accounts, the expenditure on repairs of churches amounted to £17,200; but this figure probably includes grants-in-aid for churches which are not the property of Government. As regards the second part of the Question, the grants made by former rulers for the upkeep of temples and mosques have been maintained and special grants hive also been made in, the case of buildings of archæological interest.

  Births and Deaths in India.
  MR. REES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the statistics of births

  831
  and deaths in India have become more accurate and reliable year by year; and, if the answer be in the affirmative, whether the India Office accepts comparisons between the death rate of the present time and of past years as affording proof that the death rate has risen.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) According to the last Census Report the degree of error in the Indian Returns of births and deaths has, in some provinces at least, been greatly reduced. Comparisons of the kind suggested by the hon. Member should be made with all reserve.

  Rathdowney Prisoners in Tullamore.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the seven Rathdowney prisoners at present in Tullamore goal are denied the use of tobacco; and, if so, seeing that they are bail prisoners, will he order that they are allowed to supply themselves with tobacco as they are with food.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell): Bail prisoners are allowed to smoke tobacco if the visiting committee approve. I am informed that none of the prisoners referred to have made any application for permission to smoke. If they should do so, the governor will, as a matter of course, refer the application to the visiting committee for their decision.

  Rathdowney Police Charge.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he say what officer was in charge of the police at Rathdowney, Queen's County, on 20th June last; and whether it was an officer of inferior rank who ordered the baton charge, and, if so, will he state his name and rank.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) District Inspector Thomas O'Brien was in charge of the police at Rathdowney during the earlier part of the day, and upon the arrival of District Inspector W. S. Irwin, the latter, as senior officer, took charge. Neither of the district inspectors was present at the place and time when the
  832
  police were ordered to use their batons against the rioters. The baton charge was ordered by Head Constable James Spence, who was in immediate charge of the police at the moment. I refrain from making any statement as to the circumstances in which the baton charge was ordered, seeing that a charge of riot is pending against a number of men.

  Eyrecourt Labourers' Cottage Scheme.
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a labourer named Hynes, who is married and has six children, applied for a cottage in the electoral division of Eyrecourt, union of Portumna; and whether he can give the reason why his application was refused.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) It was proved at the inquiry that Hynes is a tailor and does not work as an agricultural labourer. He is, therefore, not qualified to receive a labourer's cottage.

  Irish Primary Education Grant.
  MR. J. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state how the supplementary grant for primary education is to be distributed.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell): I would ask the hon. Member to await the appearance of the revised Estimate which will be laid upon the Table in the course of a day or two.

  Ballynahinch Orange Celebration.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that one officer and fourteen extra mew of the Royal Irish Constabulary were drafted into Ballynahinch, County Down, in connection with the recent celebration of the memory of King William of Orange on 13th July last; whether he can state the reason, if any, for drafting extra police into that neighbourhood; and whether there was anything for them to do when they got there
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) On 13th July an extra force, consisting of one

  833
  officer and twelve policemen, was drafted into Ballinahinch for the preservation of tie peace. The police authorities considered it necessary to send this force, which was somewhat larger than usual, because Orange drumming parties had recently indulged in provocative conduct by drumming for a considerable time outside the houses of certain persons of the opposite party. The proceedings of, 13th July passed off without disturbance.

  Crime in Galway.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the number of cases of manslaughter, threatening letters and notices, firing into dwelling-houses, killing and maiming cattle, incendiary fires, and boycotting in the County Galway since the last spring assizes held in Galway, of the number of persons with whom police protection has to be constant, and of cattle-driving; whether his attention has been drawn to the recent charge of Mr. Justice Madden to the grand jury, in which he stated that the condition of the county was deplorable, that recognition of the law was a thing of the past, and that it was lamentable to think of the perpetual dread of outrage, misery, and wretchedness that entered into the lives of the unfortunate people who had to pass their existence under such conditions; and will he state what steps, if any, the Government propose to take to restore law and order in that particular county.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am aware of the facts as regards crime in County Galway, and am informed by the responsible police authorities that, though the county is still in an unsatisfactory condition, there has been an appreciable improvement during the last two months. I am not aware that Mr. Justice Madden has made any comments on the state of the county, but I have seen a newspaper report of Mr. Justice Kenny's address to the grand jury at the opening of the recent assizes, in which remarks to the effect stated in the Question are attributed to the learned judge. The Government are taking all possible measures within the ordinary law for the preservation of the peace and the punishment
  834
  of offenders in County Galway, and a force of 350 additional police has been appointed to the county under proclamation with that object.

  Land Commission Report.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the usual time for the Land Commission to issue their Report has passed; and can he state when the Report will be issued, and explain the cause of delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Report of the Land Commission for the year ending 31st March last has now been received and will be laid upon the Table in a day or two. The Report is rather earlier this year than usual. It contains a large quantity of statistical information, which necessarily takes a considerable time to prepare.

  Land Purchase Agreements.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that agreements for purchase up to £65,000,000 will be lodged before 1st November next; whether the bonus exhausted on that amount at 12 per cent, will be about £8,000,000; will the Government devote the remaining £4,000,000 for the re-instatement of the evicted tenants and the relief of the congested districts; and, if not, can he say what the Government proposes to do with it.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The agreements for purchase lodged up to the present in respect of direct sales and sales to the Land Commission represent about £64,000,000. The term of five years prescribed under the Act for the payment of the bonus at 12 per cent, will not expire until 1st November next. The Government are not at present prepared to make any statement as to the possible revision in the terms or percentage of the bonus after that date. A measure dealing with the subject of congestion is, as already announced, to be introduced during the coming autumn sitting.

  Boxwell Estate, Wexford.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of

  835
  Ireland whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners stated on 26th May last that their inspector's Report on the Boxwell estate, South Wexford, was being considered, and they were preparing the necessary documents to give a preliminary estimate of the price they would be prepared to offer to the vendor's solicitor; whether any offer has yet been made by the Estate Commissioners for the purchase of the Boxwell estate; and, if so, what were its terms, and what was the landlord's reply.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) On the 23rd instant the Estate Commissioners furnished to the owner a preliminary estimate of the price which are they propared to offer for the estate in question, and are now awaiting his reply. It is not the practice of the Commissioners to give information as to the prices offered in such cases.

  Service of Writs in County Cork.
  MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a statement contained in the evidence of Mr. H. R. Barry, solicitor, Kanturk, at the hearing on appeal of the malicious injury application of Lieutenant John MacCarthy O'Leary against the Cork County Council, to the effect that some writs were being served a very short time ago on some of the applicant's tenants, and that these writs were taken from the bailiff and revolver shots were fired over his head; whether he can state the time and place at which this outrage is alleged to have taken place; have the police any information of this occurrence; and, seeing that the tenants on the estate of Mr. MacCarthy O'Leary have purchased under the Land Act of 1903, can he explain the necessity for serving writs on behalf of a landlord whose interests in the property had ceased to exist.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have seen a newspaper report of the evidence referred to. The process server alleges that at about 8.30 on the morning of 15th July he was stopped on the road at Drominarigle, in the Kanturk district, by two disguised men, who took two writs from his pocket and tore them up, and
  836
  then fired two revolver shots and decamped. The process server passed a police station shortly afterwards, but did not report the matter to the police, who only heard of it casually on the following day. The police have made careful inquiries, but have been unable to obtain any corroboration of the process server's statement. I understand that the writs were against two tenants of Mr. O'Leary who have not purchased their holdings.

  Irish Intermediate Board Rules.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the new rules formed by the Irish Intermediate Board have yet been published; whether the teachers have at all been consulted with reference to those rules; whether under the new rules only ten marks are given for arithmetic whilst ninety marks are given for algebra, and three languages made obligatory; is he aware that there is a growing feeling in Ireland that under the present intermediate system and its treatment of commercial subjects young men cannot be equipped with the knowledge necessary to render them efficient leaders of industry; and will he take steps to provide that the tendency of the intermediate schools is more in the direction of giving boys a sound practical education, and less in the direction of making them dreamers and book-worms.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Rules for 1909 were laid upon the Table on 23rd June, but will not be published by the Intermediate Education Board until the prescribed period of forty days has expired. I am informed that I before the Rules were made, the Board received and duly considered several communications on the subject from teachers of intermediate schools. The I percentage of marks allotted to arithmetic and algebra, respectively, are in the preparatory and junior grades 30 for arithmetic and 70 for algebra, and in the middle and senior grades 10 for arithmetic and 90 for algebra. In the preparatory grade one language other than English is prescribed, and in the three higher grades two languages are necessary. I am not aware that there

  837
  is any dissatisfaction with the treatment of commercial subjects by the Intermediate Education Board.

  War Office Engineers.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state whether he can recommend the payment of removal expenses to members of the staff of surveyors for engineer services, or to make an allowance in respect of such expenses, as is done in the case of the Army Accounts Branch and to public servants in the Admiralty, Office of Works, and Inland Revenue Departments.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The question of removal expenses has not been finally settled. I may point out that, owing to recent changes, the circumstances of the War Department surveyors are not altogether comparable to those of surveyors in other offices.

  Royal Military College, Sandhurst.
  MR. CLAVELL SALTER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the 166 cadetships announced in April last for award at the recent examination for admission to the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, will be sufficient to fill all the vacancies at the college as well as the company which is to be formed at Woolwich; and, if not, will he arrange for the publication, when the result of the examination is known, of an extended list of successful candidates so as to include approximately the number which will be actually required, or make some other alteration in the present system of publishing a list of successful candidates limited to the number of cadetships originally offered for competition, so as to mitigate the inconvenience caused to the parents of candidates, who in many cases, after having made other arrangements for their sons, are informed, some time after the list has been published, that cadetships will be offered to them.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) 166 cadetships will not be sufficient to fill the vacancies referred to. When
  838
  the announcement that 166 cadetships would be awarded was made it had not been definitely decided to form an infantry company at Woolwich. When this decision was reached at the end of May a notice to this effect, and that 60 additional infantry cadetships would be awarded, was given to each candidate attending the recent Army competitive examination. An extended list of successful candidates will, therefore, be published when the result of the examination is known.

  Railways in British East Africa.
  MR. REES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government proposes to give any financial assistance towards the construction of railways in British East Africa; and, if so, whether any allotment is proposed for the current year.
  (Answered by Colonel Seely.) I regret that I am not in a position to add anything to the reply which was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a similar Question on the 9th instant.

  Crown Servants in Ceylon.
  SIR H. COTTON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the director of public works in Ceylon has issued instructions to the consulting engineers to the Crown Agents for the Colony not to recommend Ceylonese applicants for appointments in the Colony; and, if so, whether any action has been taken by the Government in regard to this matter.
  (Answered by Colonel Seely.) The director of public works is not in a position to give instructions to the consulting engineers, and I am not aware that he has attempted to do so.
  SIR H. COTTON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Ceylon Government recently advertised for eleven posts of land settlement officers with a salary of Rs.9,000 per annum; whether there were about 200 applicants, mostly Ceylonese, many of whom were highly qualified for the office in virtue of their knowledge of the native languages and

  839
  of law; and whether all the appointments have been filled up by the selection of European candidates who were less qualified in these respects.
  (Answered by Colonel Seely.) I am not aware of it, but inquiry will be made.

  Native Education in South Africa.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when Parts I. and II. of the Report on Native Education in South Africa will be published, and also the Special Reports on Bechuanaland and Basutoland.
  (Answered by Colonel Seely.) It is not proposed to lay these further Papers which are not as suitable for publication, as they are either no longer quite up to date or deal with matters of less general interest than the last part which has been published.

  Dinizulu.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the dearth of information as to the intentions of the Natal Government with regard to the imprisonment and trial of Dinizulu, he will telegraph for an explicit statement for the information of the House before it rises next week.
  (Answered by Colonel Seely.) The Papers distributed to Members to-day give the latest information in the possession of the Secretary of State, excepting that the governor has now informed the Secretary of State that the Attorney-General anticipates that, so far as the prosecution is concerned, the preliminary examination will be completed almost immediately.

  Shetland Cable.
  MR. C. B. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Postmaster-General if he can state the cause of the breakdown in the Shetland cable recently; and whether it was in any way owing to the operations of trawlers in these waters.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The cause of the breakdown cannot be
  840
  stated. The cable, at a depth of fifty fathoms, was simply flattened for a short length. There is nothing to show that trawlers were responsible. I regret to say that the cable is again faulty.

  Wakefield Post Office.
  MR. ESSEX: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has considered what loss of light and air the proposed new postal buildings will cause to the Market Street, Wakefield, United Methodist Church, necessitating as it will also the use of the building only by artificial light; and whether he is under treaty with the trustees of the said Church to pay them compensation for damage that has been, or may be, sustained.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The matter has received my careful consideration. I have learned with regret that a satisfactory enlargement of the post office cannot be effected without interference in some degree with the light and air of the adjoining Church; but the enlargement of the office: has been designed so as to cause as little interference as possible. I am not under treaty with the trustees of the Church to make any payment to them by way of compensation.

  Bristol Post Office.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that Mr. W. E. Blake, the contractor for the erection of a new post office at Bristol, has posted notices on the job to the effect that any workmen inquiring whether a fellow workman is or is not a member of a trade union will be instantly dismissed; whether he is aware that this is likely to lead to a dispute; and whether, with the object of preventing any action being taken which may retard the progress of the work, he will take steps to secure the removal of this notice.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) I have seen the actual notice, and as it seems to be designed to secure equal rights to all workmen I do not see that I can interfere in the matter.

  Telegraph Messengers.
  MR. W. WILSON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that when outsiders are employed to deliver telegraph messages on which porterage has to be paid the full amount charged by the Department for such porterage, is not paid to them, but that a deduction. of 25 per cent. is made by sub-postmasters in sonic cases; and whether the whole of the porterage should be paid to the messengers.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am not aware of the practice in question; but, if the hon. Member will be good enough to furnish me with particulars of the case or cases to which he refers, I shall be glad to make inquiry in the matter.

  Phœnix Park Powder Magazine.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the cost of the removal of the old railings and the supply of new ones around the powder magazine in, the Phœnix Park has been done at the expense of the War Office, or is to be a charge on the Vote for the Irish Board of Works; what is the cost of the work; what was the necessity for the expense; at whose request was the expense incurred; is it the fact that the only use to which the estate lately added to the Phœnix Park has been put is for War Office manœuvres; and when will the general public be allowed to participate in the enjoyment of the area added to the park.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) As regards the railings the work has been done at the expense of the War Office, and the cost is estimated to reach the sum of £560. The old wooden fence was worn out and required replacement by a better and unclimbable fence. As regards the new estate, I am informed that only three acres of a total 200 acres have been let by the Board of Works to the War Office to facilitate bridging practice by the troops. The rest of the land, with some insignificant exception, is let on grazing tenancies or under agreements existing at the time of purchase. One of the tenants allows the War Office to use his land for signalling and a little horse training. The
  842
  property was acquired to prevent its being built over and to preserve the amenities of the Phœnix Park. There is no intention at present to throw it open to the public, and a large expenditure would be necessary before doing so.

  Irish Ordnance Survey Staff.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he will state how many of the forty-eight field superintendents serving in. the Ordnance Survey, Ireland, are effective soldiers, how many are ex-soldiers of the Royal Engineers, and how many are civilians who have never served in the Army; and if he will state the service of each of the superintendents, showing the service of the surveyors and labourers working under their orders.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) Thirty-three of the field superintendents are effective soldiers, four ex-soldiers, and eleven civilians. The service of these men ranges from seven to thirty-eight years, and that of the men under them from one month to thirty-six years. The information for which my hon. friend asks in the latter part of his Question would entail a reference to the records of nearly 500 men, and the Board regret that they do not see their way to supply it.

  Duleek Survey Staff.
  Mr. FIELD: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can state what weekly charge is made for conveyance by the field superintendent, Ordnance Survey, at Duleek, for paying and visiting a detached party at Naul, County Dublin; can he say why a surveyor named Carter was allowed to compel his labourer to work on the bank holiday, 26th June last, and what action has been taken regarding this action on the part of the surveyor; and if it has been reported to the Division Office at Dublin.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The weekly charge for the conveyance to which my hon. friend refers is 6s. 6d. Mr. Carter and the labourer mentioned

  843
  worked on 26th June, as the former was not notified that that day was a public holiday. A day's leave in lieu thereof was given to both men on 29th June.

  Poultry Farms.
  SIR FRANCIS CHANNING: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether land used either in large or small farms or in allotments for poultry and egg production is agricultural land as contemplated under the provisions of the Agricultural Rates Act, and entitled to the relief provided by that Act.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) My hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. The point referred to in it is one which I have no authority to determine, but the needful guidance to a solution of the question may possibly be obtained by the application of the principle recognised by the House of Lords in the case of Smith v. Richmond (A.C. 1899, 448). Accordingly, it may be said that if a farm used in part for poultry and, egg production comprises land used as arable, meadow, or pasture ground only, the land so used will be agricultural land, notwithstanding its association with the other industry. Allotments used for poultry and egg production would also appear to be agricultural land within the meaning of the Act.

  Rating of Chapels and Schools.
  MR. HUTTON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware of recent decisions of Courts of Law which seriously affect the religious and social work carried on in association with chapels, churches, and Sunday schools; whether he proposes to take any steps to remove the present uncertainty; and whether he will issue a Circular of instructions to local authorities for their guidance, or whether he will undertake to introduce legislation to remove present difficulties.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I presume that my hon. friend refers to
  844
  questions as to the rating of chapels and schools not exclusively appropriated to public religious worship or not used exclusively as Sunday schools. I have no reason to suppose that local authorities generally are unaware of the law on the subject, and I do not think I could give any undertaking to introduce legislation on the subject. I will, however, consider the suggestion as to a Circular.

  Edenbridge Small Holdings Application.
  MR. MORRELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the case of David Nicholls, a labourer occupying a cottage, at 5s. a week, near Edenbridge, in Kent, who, after making an application for land under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, is about to he evicted from his cottage; whether he is aware that the farmer applying for the eviction admitted in cross-examination that David Nicholls had paid his rent regularly and was a decent and respectable man; that no satisfactory reason was given by the farmer for the course which he is taking, and that his action is generally believed to be entirely due to the application made by Nicholls for land under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, whether he is aware that in the neighbourhood in which the man lives many of the existing cottages are already overcrowded and insanitary, and there are no other cottages available at a rent which labourers can pay, so that eviction is greatly dreaded; and whether the Government proposes to take any action in the Housing Bill, or otherwise, to deal with cases of this kind.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) My attention has not been called to this particular case, but as regards the last part of the Question I may say that I hope and believe that the result of the Bill will be that cottages will be provided by local authorities where they are required, and that, consequently, in any such case as that mentioned the tenant will be able to obtain another suitable dwelling.

  Hired Men at West India Dock Stores.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether

  845
  he is aware that three hired men employed in the Naval Stores, Officers' Department, West India Docks, who are continuously engaged on carpenters' and joiners' work, are paid at the rate of 27s. per week, whilst the London district rate for this class of work is 42s. per week; and whether, in view of the undertaking given by the Government on 1st March, 1906, to pay the standard rate of wages to their employees, he will take steps to raise the wages of these men to the standard rate of the district.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The men are not engaged on joiners' work hut on rough carpentry, such as the erection and alteration of racks in the storehouses, and the repair of packing cases, etc. Only one man is continuously employed on this class of work, and he is paid. 33s. per week.

  Royal Dockyard Joiners.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a very large percentage of the joiners employed in the Director of Works Department at the royal dockyards are paid from 1s. to 2s. 6d. per week less wage than is paid by the builders in the towns where the royal dockyards are situated; and whether he will take steps to raise the wages of those men to at least the same rate as that paid by the builders.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The general question of the pay of workmen in the Works Department is now being considered by the Admiralty, and a decision on this and various other grades of labour will shortly be promulgated.

  Londonderry Quay Larceny Case.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to a case heard on 16th July at Derry Petty Sessions, in which three men were charged with the larceny of a bottle of porter, value 3d., and returned for trial at the Assizes on bail; whether he could state what has been the cost of this prosecution up to the present; and whether, in view of the trivial nature of the case, he will advise that
  846
  some other method be adopted for dealing with similar cases in future.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The three men referred to were charged with stealing porter, of the estimated value of 3d., from a barrel which was stored in a shed on the quays in Londonderry. The accused did not plead guilty or consent to be dealt with summarily, and therefore the magistrates had no power to deal with the case summarily. The prosecution was at the suit of the Derry Harbour Commissioners, and therefore no expenditure from public funds has been incurred. Persons accused of petty larceny have the right to be tried by a jury if they so elect.

  Richmond Royal Houses.
  MR. WATT: To ask the First Commissioner of Works who are the tenants of Pembroke Lodge, Thatched House Lodge, and East Sheen Cottage, Richmond Park, on which £1,990 will be expended in the Year ending 31st March, 1909; and of White Lodge, Richmond Park, on which £410 will be spent in the same time; what rents are paid by these tenants; if no rents are paid, who has the nomination of the occupants; are any rates paid to any of the neighbouring boroughs or to the county; and will he in future offer these houses to the highest bidder of the public, so that the outlay on them may be reimbursed to the nation.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) The houses mentioned in the Question are "grace and favour" residences in the possession and in the gift of the King. The Office of Works have no concern in the matter except as regards structural repairs, as in the case of other palaces.

  Coal Carriage Wastage Allowance.
  MR. HEDGES: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now say what conclusion has been arrived at with regard to the withdrawal by the railway companies of free carriage of a wastage allowance on Coal freights.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Board of Trade have endeavoured to effect an amicable settlement of this

  847
  question, but I regret to say that this has not been found possible. The Board have therefore issued the necessary certificate under Section 1 of The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894, to enable the complainants to take the case before the Railway and Canal Commission.

  Census of Production.
  MR. GRETTON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state at what date are the Returns to be made in connection with the contemplated census of production; if all the forms to be filled in by traders and producers have been issued; and, if not, at what date will the remaining forms be ready for issue.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) As provided in the Census of Production Act, persons receiving schedules are given a period of three months after the issue of each schedule within which to make returns. The schedules are being issued as rapidly as possible. The schedules for coal mines and the majority of those for factories, builders, and contractors have already been issued and the remainder will be issued very shortly. The issue of the schedules appropriate to workshops, which will be in a somewhat simpler form, will then be proceeded with at once.

  Royalties in Patents.
  MR. HAROLD COX: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the income derived from royalties on patents is treated for purposes of income-tax as earned or unearned income; and whether any distinction is made between such income and income derived from copyrights.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Answer to the first part of the Question is that such income is treated as unearned. No distinction is made between income derived-from royalties on patents and income derived from copyrights, save when the latter is received by the author himself whilst he is still exercising the vocation of an author, in which case it is treated as earned income.

  National Revenues.
  MR. WATT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the contribu-
  848
  tions to the revenue per head of the population of England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, for the year 1907–1908.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The amounts contributed to the revenue ill the financial year 1907–1908 per head of population were—

  £

  s.

  d.

  England and Wales

  3

  12

  9

  Scotland

  3

  7

  8

  Ireland

  2

  3

  11

  Hotel Licences.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether steps will be taken in the compilation of licensing statistics in future to show the number of hotel licences granted in each year in Scotland upon a justice's or magistrate's certificate for six days.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I am considering whether it is possible to keep a record for future reference of the information desired by the hon. Member.

  Hindu Temples and Mahomedan Mosques.
  MR. REES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India inherited from its predecessors in title large endowments for the upkeep and repair of Hindu temples and Mahomedan mosques, which they were compelled by the Government at home to make over to the management of committees, appointed ad hoc, after resorting to the necessary legislation; and whether, since this action gave dissatisfaction in India which exists to the present day, there is any prospect that the Government will reconsider the present unsatisfactory position in this behalf.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) Under the old Regulations of the Bengal, Madras, and Bombay Codes, Government officers were charged with the duty of supervising the proper application of the endowments granted by former rulers for the support of mosques, Hindoo temples, and other religious purposes. In 1863 an Act was passed, No. XX., for

  849
  the transfer of these duties to trustees, themselves professing the religions for the maintenance of whose services the endowments were granted. The Secretary of State does not accept the statement in the Question that the Government of India are compelled by the Government at home to "carry through this legislation." The principle of non-interference with the religious observances of the people is one of the settled; principles of Indian administration. Various proposals, chiefly in Madras, have since been, made for giving the public interested in these endowments greater facilities for enforcing the due application by the trustees of funds which should he devoted to religious purposes, but the projects laid before the Government have generally proved open to objections which have been fatal to them. There is, however, a Bill now before the legislative council of the Governor-General, introduced by the hon. Dr. Rashbehary Ghose on 20th March last, for giving greater facilities to the public for calling for and inspecting the accounts of public charities including trusts of a religious nature. My hon. friend will find the Bill and the debate which attended its introduction printed in the Gazette of India for March last, which is in the Library of the House.

  Drumkeerin Evicted Tenants.
  MR F. MEEHANTo ask, the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners had taken any action with a view of reinstating Peter D. Kelly, an evicted tenant on the West estate, Drumkeerin, County Leitrim; and, if not, whether they will soon do so.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners received Peter Kelly's application for reinstatement on the 15th instant only, and, having regard to the large number of prior applications which have to be considered, they cannot say when they will be able to inquire into the case.

  Belcoo Loan Fund Company.
  MR. F. MEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a number
  850
  of poor people in the district of Glenferne, County Leitrim, have been decreed for money borrowed from the Loan Fund. Company, Belcoo and Enniskillen, County Fermanagh, notwithstanding the fact that in many instances the money had been repaid and receipts produced; whether the police in the district are in. possession of warrants to execute decrees in connection with the same; and, if so, whether he would direct an inquiry to be made into the matter before the police proceed to collect the amounts of the said decrees.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The police have received sixty-four warrants for execution upon decrees obtained at the suit of the receiver of the Belcoo and Enniskillen loan fund societies against borrowers and their sureties, many of whom allege that they have paid portions of the debts. The police have been instructed that, in every case in which such allegation is made, they should communicate with the receiver before executing the warrant, and should then proceed as directed by the receiver, who is responsible for any action that may be taken for enforcement of the warrants.

  Maghery Sports.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a party of Catholic excursionists on their way from Armagh to the scene of some sports at Maghery, on Sunday, 5th July, instant, were groaned at and. insulted by a crowd of Orangemen, who waved Orange emblems and shouted that they would attack the excursionists on their way back, that the route back of the excursionists was arranged. between the police inspector and one of the former, and that the route was strewn with broken glass and many of the excursionists' cycles injured thereby; whether he is aware that at Canary Orange Hall 100 or so of the Orangemen assembled, armed with pitchforks, spades, and crowbars; whether, when half the excursionists had passed the Hall, shots were fired at them, several pellets striking the horses and the brakes, to the great alarm of the women and children, and that on the same day an attack was made on a car conveying one of the excursionists

  851
  for medical treatment; whether any arrests have been made in connection with these occurrences, or whether the police have made any report concerning them; and what action will be taken to prevent a recurrence of such scenes.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The police authorities inform me that on Sunday, 5th July, a party of Catholic excursionists proceeded from Armagh to Maghery, but were not interfered with by Orangemen on the way, although some contingents passed through exclusively Orange localities. At one of these places a crowd had assembled at the Orange Hall, but the police arranged with the excursionists that there should be no drumming while passing through this locality, with the result that there was no disturbance. When the excursionists reached Canary on the return journey, a crowd of Orangemen, some of whom had pitchforks, opposed their passage. The police and the leaders on both sides arranged that there should be no band playing by the excursionists, who then passed unmolested. After the party had passed and were out of range several shots were fired by the Orange party, out of bravado, but the shots could not have reached the horses and brakes. The police have no knowledge of any attack made upon a car. It is the fact that broken glass was strewn on the roads in a few places. The police authorities state that this was the first occasion on which a Nationalist procession had passed by this route. The attitude of the opposing party at Canary was menacing, but nothing took place which would warrant a prosecution. The police did everything that was possible to preserve the peace and protect the excursionists, and they appear to have done so with success, seeing that no injury has been reported.

  Mountmellick Labourers' Cottage.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the site selected by the committee of the Mountmellick Rural District Council for a cottage and plot for Michael Delany, Ballina, Ardderin electoral division, has been fixed on demesne lands; and whether, seeing that the cabin at present occupied by Delany has been condemned by the medical officer as
  852
  unfit for human habitation, the Local Government Board will take the necessary steps to secure a cottage for this labourer.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The scheme of the rural district council has not yet been received by the Local Government Board. Assuming that the case of Michael Delany is included in the scheme, it will be fully considered by the inspector who will hold the necessary inquiry.

  National Education Board Secretaries.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that fully one-half of the time of the two secretaries of the National Education Board is spent in writing purely formal and oftentimes useless letters to managers, teachers, and others, and that an ordinary minute or memorandum form would frequently answer the purpose much better; and, seeing that if the latter course were more generally adopted the curtailment of secretarial work thereby effected would allow of the abolition of the position of one or other of these officers, and the consequent saving of his salary of £800 a year, whether he will consider the advisability of having this course adopted.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have referred this Question to the Commissioners of National Education, who inform me that they have nothing to add to the very full information given in my reply to the hon. Member's Question on this subject on 13th July.

  Leslie Estate, Ballbay.
  MR. McKEAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland why, under the sale and purchase of the Leslie estate, at Ballybay, in the county of Monaghan, the agreements for which have been duly signed, it is not proposed to reinstate David M'Clean, of Derryvalley, a tenant who was evicted ten years ago from his holding because he refused to pay an increase of rent.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the lands in which David M'Clean claims reinstatement consist of a town park, and therefore

  853
  do not conic within the provisions of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act of 1903. Moreover, the applicant himself was not the evicted tenant, but his brother, George M'Clean, who is now in America. The Commissioners have decided that in any event the case is not one in which they can take action.

  Belfast Lough Foreshore.
  MR. J. DEVIAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state by whose authority some sixteen men who have been earning their living by lifting sand on the Whiteabbey foreshore of Belfast Lough have been forbidden to do so in future; whether he is aware that the consequence of this prohibition is that these men and their wives and families have been reduced to a condition of starvation; and whether he will consider the advisability of taking action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) As the foreshore referred to is under the management partly of the Board of Trade and partly of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests my right hon. friend has requested me to answer this Question. Complaints were made to the Board of Trade that injury to the adjacent land was being caused by the removal of materials from the foreshore under their management, and they have accordingly given instructions to their local officer to warn those found removing such materials that no removal should take place without the permission of the Board. I have no information as regards the particular cases referred to by the hon. Member, but if any application for permission to remove materials is made to the Board of Trade they will consider whether it can be granted, and, if so, under what conditions.

  Milford Estate, Ballinrobe.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Milford estate, parish of Kilmaine, Ballinrobe Union, has been offered to the Estates Commissioners or the Congested Districts Board for sale; and, if so, how many years purchase has been asked by
  854
  the landlord, how many offered, and when is the bargain likely to be closed.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Milford estate, which belongs to Mr. C. C. Ormsby, was offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board in May, 1905, but the Board decided not to purchase it, seeing that it is situated in a non-congested district. The owner has since instituted proceedings for the sale of the property to the Estates Commissioners under Section 6 of the Act of 1903. The Commissioners will have the estate inspected as soon as the case reaches its turn to be dealt with, and in the meantime no statement as to price can be made.

  Tanderagee Labourers' Cottages.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of applications for labourers' cottages lodged with the clerk of the Tanderagee Rural District Council, before 7th February, 1907; whether he is aware that the council passed fifteen of the applications and formulated a scheme; that, on inquiry by Mr. Dickinson, the Local Government Board inspector, the number was reduced to five, and will he say what was the reason assigned for this reduction; whether he is aware that disease, and particularly tuberculosis, is prevalent in the district, and was attributed by the medical officer and the inspector, in their evidence, to the bad and insufficient housing accommodation of the labourers; whether the inspector had any knowledge of the district before he held the inquiry; and whether he will make an inquiry into the whole matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The number of applications lodged was twenty-nine, and of these the council passed fifteen. The reasons given by the inspector for disallowing ten of the proposed cottages were communicated to the council on 6th March, as follows: In five of the cases the applicants were already living in good houses; in three others the sites selected were unsuitable; in one case the proposed site was on a small holding of five acres; and in the remaining case the applicant was not an agricultural labourer. Evidence to the effect stated in the

  855
  Question was given by the medical officer, but it does not appear that the inspector expressed any opinion on the subject. So far as the Local Government Board are aware, the district council have not taken exception to the inspector's decision. The question of making a new scheme to provide dwellings for labourers who may be living in insanitary houses is one for the consideration of the council in the first instance.

  Hop Report.
  MR. ESSEX: To ask the Prime Minister whether he proposes, upon the recommendation of the Report of the Select Committee upon the Hop Industry, to bring in a Bill prohibiting the use of hop substitutes in the brewing of beer in this country.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Yes, Sir, it is in contemplation to prohibit by law the use of hop substitutes in the brewing of beer in the United Kingdom. A Bill for the purpose will be introduced at an early date provided general assent is secured to put it through during the autumn session.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Wireless Telegraphy.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what powers, if any, he possesses to prevent the erection of Marconi apparatus on private premises that might be used for the purpose of conveying information.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): The Secretary of State for War possesses no such powers. The control of wireless telegraphy is in peace vested in the Postmaster-General, who issues licences, and in war with the Lords of the Admiralty.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Is it not desirable the War Office should have some control over this matter?
  MR. HALDANE: It seems to me more important for the Admiralty.

  Territorial Force and the Civil Power.
  MR. W. THORNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the terms of enlistment under the Territorial Army Act would enable the Territorial. Forces to be used in the aid of the civil power.
  MR. HALDANE: The terms of enlistment do not enable the Territorial Force to be specially called out in aid of the civil power. The nature of their liability when under military law was fully explained by me in debate on Army Estimates of 5th March.

  6th Batt. Royal Highlanders.
  MR. W. THORNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that under the Territorial Army Forces Act, the 6th Battalion Royal Highlanders, formerly the 4th Volunteer Battalion Royal Highlander; Perth, under the scheme should be 1,000 strong and. only about 400 men have joined, and this only for one year; if he is aware that Lieutenant Colonel Campbell, in the absence of Sir R. D. Moncrieffe, Baronet, at camp on Wednesday, 15th July, paraded the men and, in the course of an address, asked them to support the new Army scheme, and at the close called upon those willing to serve for four years to step forward, and out of 179 men on parade only 10 signified their intention of serving the four years term, and that number, consisted entirely of non-commissioned officers; and whether, in view of the previsions of the Territorial Army, Act, he intends taking any action to prevent such methods of attempting to get men to join for a long term.
  MR. HALDANE: I am not aware of the incident mentioned, but on the facts as stated in the Question I do not consider that the action of Lieütenant-Colonel Campbell was in any way open to reproach. On the contrary I think that such action on the part of the Commanding Officer, whether fruitful or not, is much to he commended. In other cases similar appeals have led many men to come forward.

  Fife Imperial Yeomanry—Case of Private Rennie.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state

  857
  the number of occasions on which Private Rennie, of the Fife and Forfar Imperial Yeomanry, was put on fatigue duty during the training period at Annsmuir this year; whether two days after his arrest for alleged disobedience he was taken to the orderly room, when Captain Jury, the Adjutant, and Sergeant-Major Vine, the regimental sergeant, took the evidence of Lieutenant Hutchinson and, Sergeant Storrer against Rennie; whether, on Rennie asking for time to prepare his defence and lead evidence on his own behalf, he, was informed by Captain Jury that he would be allowed to do so all in good time; whether, despite this promise, he was on the following evening, without having had an opportunity of saying a word or leading evidence on his own behalf, drummed out of the camp; whether he was thus sent away without receiving allowance for his horse or his own pay, and had in consequence to borrow money to pay his train fare home to Methil; and whether he will cause inquiry to be Blade into Rennie's allegation that Sergeant Storrer had a violent dislike to him, and kept him almost continually on fatigue duty during the whole training, and thus provoked him into the alleged act of disobedience for which he was dismissed.
  MR. HALDANE: Private Ronnie was put on no extra fatigues beyond those in which all members of the corps took part. After Private Rennie had been remanded by his commanding officer for trial by court martial, the summary of evidence was taken down in the orderly room by the Adjutant. The Sergeant-Major would probably have been present, but was not concerned in the taking of the evidence of Lieutenant Hutchinson and Sergeant Storrer. Private Ronnie did not ask for time to prepare his defence, or to lead evidence on his own behalf. He had the opportunity of questioning the witnesses against him, and took advantage of it in the case of Lieutenant Hutchinson. After the summary of evidence had been taken Private Rennie was, as is customary, informed by the Adjutant that when before the court martial he would have an opportunity of saying anything, he wished in his defence. The application for trial was forwarded to the General Officer commanding, who considered that the case should be dealt with summarily by the Commanding Officer. The Com-
  858
  manding Officer decided to dismiss Private Bennie from the corps publicly, and as Private Rennie did not deny the charge, and as the evidence was quite decisive, that officer did not consider it necessary again to ask the accused if he had anything to urge in his defence. Private Rennie's horse allowance has been paid to the owner of the horse by the Squadron Commander, who holds a receipt for the same. Private Rennie's pay has been. remitted to him, and his Squadron Officer gave him the money for his faro (10s.). The money was not lent to Private Rennie. The Commanding Officer has inquired into the alleged animosity on the part of Sergeant Storrer against Private Ronnie, both amongst the officers and non-commissioned officers, and can find nothing to justify the allegation.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask why Private Ronnie had no opportunity of laying his side of the case before the War Office?
  MR. HALDANE: His case has been laid before the War Office by the hon. Member.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: But cannot Private Rennie himself be allowed to state his case?
  MR. HALDANE: No; the whole matter has been carefully considered.

  Officers' Quarters on Foreign Service.
  MR. VERNEYI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War on what basis the amount of rent charged by the Government to officers on foreign service is fixed, and whether it bears any and what relation to the original cost of the houses in which the officers are quartered; whether in fixing or in maintaining rents which have been fixed in years gone by regard is had to the depreciation in value of such houses resulting from the lowering of the cost of labour or materials, or by wear and tear, or by other causes; whether regard is also had to the fact that officers with their families have frequently no alternative when serving abroad but to accept Government houses at whatever price may be asked for them; whether the rent charged to officers is on such a scale as to involve a substantial profit on the transaction; and, if so, whether

  859
  the War Office will submit a statement to Parliament showing the profits made out of rents charged to officers; and whether they will affirm their approval of such a system.
  MR. HALDANE: Houses are provided to a limited extent in certain exceptional cases abroad for those officers who, not being entitled to free quarters, find a difficulty in obtaining private accommodation on reasonable terms. There is no compulsion on officers to occupy these Government lettings. The rent charged for these houses is based on the scheme being self-supporting; the South Africa rents being, for instance, arrived at on the basis of interest at 3 per cent. and the repayment of the principal within forty years (the estimated life of the bungalows) plus the cost of insurances awl maintenance. In addition, there are charges for water and sanitary services. There is no profit to public funds arising out of the transactions; the Department stands to lose if the lettings are not taken up. The total charges are, however, under revision.
  MR. AINSWORTH: Can the tight hon. Gentleman give us any detailed information as to how much has been paid for the rent of these houses since our troops have been permanently settled in South Africa? Will he hear in mind the officers have no opportunity of getting any other houses?
  MR. HALDANE: I am afraid that would involve a long inquiry which I should be reluctant to have made in view of the labour involved.

  Soldiers and Jury Service.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether officers and men of the Territorial Force are exempt from serving on any jury, and whether this exemption extends to officers and men of special and extra special battalions of the late Militia; and, if not, can he say why this privilege has not been extended to them; and whether he is aware that considerable doubt exists on the matter at present, and causes confusion among those in authority.
  MR. HALDANE: Officers and men of the Territorial Force are exempt from
  860
  serving on any jury. Officers of the Special Reserve are exempt from jury service when on full pay. Non-commissioned officers and men of the Special Reserve are exempt from jury service when subject to military law. The Special Reserve are treated exactly as the Militia, and I am not aware of any doubt or confusion on the subject.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in several instances lately men while out on training were called on for jury service and informed that they were not exempted? Will the right hon. Gentleman have this answer circulated for the information of all commanding officers?
  MR. HALDANEsaid he thought the mention of the matter in that House would suffice.
  MR. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to place the senior service on an equality in this matter with the junior service?
  MR. HALDANE: We are simply carrying out old traditions.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Is it not the fact that in one case the men are exempt all the year round and in the other only while on service?
  MR. HALDANEwas understood to reply that the Territorial Officer was doing duty all the year round, while the Special Reserve was only on service at certain periods.
  MR. MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that all members of His Majesty's Forces have the same privileges in this respect?
  MR. HALDANE: It must be borne in mind that the more numerous the exemptions the greater is the burden on the rest of the community.

  British Garrisons Abroad.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, apart from the reduction of the South African garrison, any further withdrawal of troops from foreign or colonial stations is contemplated.
  MR. HALDANE: No, Sir.

  Recruits' Pay.
  MR. ASHLEY: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for War why a boy in the Regular Army under eighteen years of age who enlists from the Special Reserve is to receive man's pay, whereas a boy of the same age entering the Army in the ordinary way only receives boy's pay.
  MR. HALDANE: These boys enlisted from the Special Reserve have done five months training including a course of musketry, and are on an entirely different tooting from boys enlisting into the Army direct.
  MR. ASHLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that six months in the Special Reserve makes a boy a man?
  MR. HALDANE: It goes a very long way towards doing so.
  MR. ASHLEYBut is the boy then converted into a man fit for active service?
  MR. HALDANE'Sreply was inaudible.

  Officers Training Corps Camp, etc.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what will be the duration of the annual camp training of the Officers Training Corps; what form the training will take; and what will be the strength of the unit or units which will be trained by one of the officers from the Regular Forces appointed to act as adjutant.
  MR. HALDANE: The duration of the annual camp training will be eight to fifteen days for University contingents, and eight days for school contingents. Officers commanding University contingents make their own arrangements with General Officers Commanding-in-Chief, and if possible with officers commanding other University contingents. School contingents will join camps formed for the purpose at convenient centres. Regular officers may he appointed under the Officers Training Corps Regulations to command camps, or such units as may be formed for the purpose of training in camp. The training given will be entirely connected with duties in the field. At present adjutants have
  862
  been, or are about to be, appointed to the contingents of Oxford, Cambridge, and Edinburgh Universities, the approximate strength of these contingents being respectively 520, 530, and 390. Adjutants will be appointed to other Universities or groups of Universities, as may be necessary, having regard to the strength of their contingents, their proximity to one another, and the number of public schools in the neighbourhood, in the training of whose contingents adjutants will be called on to assist.
  MR. ASHLEY: Will any considerable expense be placed on the members of this Officers Training Corps?
  MR. HALDANE: No. We have provided all that is necessary, and there will be the same allowance as to the Regulars.

  Royal Engineer Special Reserve.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why, in view of his decision that men over thirty-six years of age are not suitable for active service abroad, a man is permitted to reenlist into the Special Reserve of the Royal Engineers, under Army Order 186 of 1908, up to thirty-five years of age for a period of four years.
  MR. HALDANE: Good tradesmen were always allowed to enlist in the Militia Royal Engineers up to thirty-five years of age. This regulation has been extended to the Royal Engineers Special Reserve as it is essential that there should be a proportion of good and experienced tradesmen in these units. I may add that these Engineers have not the same war strain on them that Cavalry, Artillery, and Infantry have to endure.
  *MR. ASHLEY: Surely there is more strain on the man building a bridge under fire than on the man who crosses it?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Territorial Regiment—Instructors' Pay.
  MR. COCHRANE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the result of the new regulations for the payments from Association funds to instructors on the permanent staff of Territorial regiments will be to reduce emoluments of the instructors employed

  863
  by two Ayrshire battalions from £22 per annum to £6 10s.; and, seeing that such reduction will be regarded by the instructors as a breach of contract, whether he will arrange to continue the present scale until the termination of existing contracts.
  MR. HALDANE: No rate has yet been approved pending the receipt of revised proposals from the Association. It is not proposed to continue rates paid by Volunteer corps unless they are justified by the conditions of the Territorial Force Corps. The permanent staff are not serving on any definite contract—they are liable at any time to be reverted to their regular unit. The hon. Member is referring only to the allowances from Association funds, and has not mentioned the regular pay and allowances which, if all are taken in cash, amount to about 43s. weekly.
  MR. COCHRANE: Will there he any reduction?
  MR. HALDANE: I hope it will be just the contrary. Many bad systems have grown up, and the matter is now being properly regulated.
  MR. ASHLEY: Will there be an appeal to the County Association or to the War Office?
  MR. HALDANE: They can always revert to the conditions on which they came into the Line.
  MR. ASHLEY: But will there be any appeal?
  MR. HALDANE: Practically, no. We shall leave the matter to the Association.

  Inns of Court Volunteers.
  VISCOUNT VALENTIA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why the 27th Battalion County of London Regiment (Inns of Court) has not received official recognition as a unit of the Territorial Force, having enlisted more than 30 per cent. of its establishment; and whether it is intended to convert this battalion into an officers' training corps.
  MR. HALDANE: It has been decided that this unit shall be forthwith recognised as a Territorial Force unit as contemplated by the Territorial Force establishments. Regulations will subsequently be issued for the organisation of the unit as an officer's training unit for the Territorial Force.
  VISCOUNT VALENTIA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, though the Inns of Court Regiment is not a recognised unit of the Territorial Force, the officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the battalion will be entitled to pay and allowances as such during their forthcoming camp at West Down, Salisbury; and whether those composing the mounted detachment will be granted horse allowance for hire and forage as heretofore.
  MR. HALDANE: This unit will camp as a Territorial Force unit, the officers and men receiving pay and allowances as Infantry. The Territorial Force establishments do not provide for a mounted detachment. In accordance however with the request of the unit the men who composed the Mounted Infantry detachment in the Volunteers will be allowed this year to train as mounted men and to furnish horses, forage, etc., without expense to the public, pending a settlement of the future organisation of the unit.

  Woolwich Common.
  MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the fact that under 43 Geo. 3, c. 35, by which the Ordnance authorities acquired certain lands in Woolwich, all common of pasture and turbary and other common rights and privileges thereon were reserved, he will now abandon the proposal to fence in any part of Woolwich Common.
  MR. HALDANE: My hon. friend has been misinformed. The Act in question contains no such reservation.
  MR. CROOKSquoted the words from the Act in regard to common pasture and turbary and asked should this be the subject of reference to the Attorney-General.
  MR. HALDANEreplied that it was quite unnecessary to refer the matter to the Attorney - General. The words to which his hon. friend had called attention referred to common rights which were bought and paid for long ago.
  LORD BALCARRESasked whether, in view of the fact that within fifteen months there had been three attempts to take land from the common, the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider this matter.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he could not do that. It was absolutely necessary to take ground for training a company. To encroach on the rights of the public would be the last thing in the world that he would wish, but he was bound to do what he could to secure the efficiency of these officers. The War Office had bought and paid for all the rights.
  MR. CROOKSasked whether these lands were not the waste lands of the manor of Eltham.
  MR. HALDANErepeated that all the rights were bought long ago.

  The Union Jack.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the King's Regulations provide that the Union Jack shall be flown at certain military stations on anniversaries and other occasions, ho will direct that Empire Day shall be observed as an anniversary both at home and abroad.
  MR. HALDANE: I have nothing to add to the replies which have been given to the House on previous occasions in reference to flying flags on Empire Day.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGasked what was the object of the Government in smothering up the Empire Day movement.
  [No Answer was returned.]
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What is Empire Day? I do not know the date of it, and I do not care.

  British Officers at Foreign Manœuvres.
  ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War on what principle
  866
  the selection of officers to attend foreign manœuvres is based; whether any grant is made to defray expenses and whether extra leave beyond the ordinary is granted for this purpose.
  MR. HALDANE: As a rule a very limited number of permissions to attend foreign manœuvres are available and a selection has to be made from the very large number of applicants who wish to be present. In selecting officers to attend preference is given to those who have special linguistic or professional qualifications. Grants in aid of travelling expenses are occasionally made and attendance is regarded as a duty and not as leave.
  MR. ASHLEY: Do they got ordinary leave in addition to extra leave?
  MR. HALDANE: Oh yes.

  Grantham Barracks.
  LORD J. JOICEY-CECIL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it is proposed to use the barracks of the late 4th Battalion Lincolnshire Regiment (Militia) at Grantham, Lincolnshire, as headquarters for the Special Reserve recruits of the 4th Notts and Derby Regiment.
  MR. HALDANE: This matter is at present under consideration.

  Territorial Cyclists.
  MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many of the cyclist battalions of the Territorial Force have been raised and recognised; and what is their present strength.
  MR. HALDANE: Eight cyclist battalions have been recognised up to the present, and their total strength on the 1st July was seventy-one officers and 2,241 non-commissioned officers and men.

  Cyclist Companies.
  MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that the absence of cyclist companies from the infantry battalions of the Territorial Force will much impair the value of the tactical training it is

  867
  possible to give to the infantry, whether he will consider the advisability of making provision for the addition of cyclist companies to these battalions.
  MR. HALDANE: The Army Council has decided to sanction the formation in each battalion of Infantry, at the discretion of the Association, of a cyclist section, composed of one officer, 2 non-commissioned officers and twelve men. This section will be within the establishment of the battalion, and will receive the same rates of pay as the rest of the battalion.
  MR. CARLILEasked if the decision come to was not contrary to the opinion held by nearly all commanding officers.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that it was a matter which must be decided by the General Staff.

  British Force at Natal.
  MR. G. GOOCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the number of Imperial troops at the present time in Natal; and what is their annual cost to the British taxpayer.
  MR. HALDANE: There are at the present time rather less than 900 Imperial troops in Natal, and their cost is approximately £70,000 a year.
  MR. MACKARNESS: May I ask whether the presence of these troops does not operate to support the Natal Government in maintaining martial law?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.

  Hong Kong—Loss through Government Opium Policy.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what loss to the finances of the Colony of Hong Kong will be caused by the opium policy imposed upon it by the Colonial Office: and what compensation, if any, from Imperial revenues will be paid.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY, Liverpool, Abercromby): The whole question, including the points to which
  868
  my hon. friend refers, is under the consideration of the Secretary of State in consultation with the Governor; and I am not in a position to make any statement with regard to it at present.

  East African Protectorate.
  SIR C. HILL: I beg to, ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the labour rules referred to on page 1 of the recent correspondence relating to affairs in the East Africa Protectorate [Cd. 4122] as having been fully approved by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies were submitted to and approved by the Secretary of State before promulgation.
  COLONEL SEELY: No, Sir. The rules were promulgated by the Governor before submission to the Secretary of State.
  MR. ASHLEY: Are we to understand that the President of the Board of Trade had authority to approve these regulations without consulting the noble Lord
  COLONEL SEELY: I do not think we can assume that at all. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address a Question to my right hon. friend on the subject.

  Land Tenure in East Africa.
  SIR C. HILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the legislation relating to land tenure in the East Africa Protectorate, which is indicated in the despatch from Lord Elgin of the 19th March, 1908 (No. 9, in Cd. 4117), has yet been introduced; whether, if so, it has met with approval in the Protectorate; and whether the Ordinance, as finally settled, will be laid before Parliament.
  COLONEL SEELY: An Ordinance is being drafted, but has not yet been introduced into the Legislative Council. The Ordinance, when passed, will be included among the papers relating to land tenure in East Africa Protectorate which will be laid before, Parliament in continuation of the papers already present.
  MR. REESasked if somewhat similar regulations would be promulgated for other Protectorates on the coast.
  COLONEL SEELY: That is rather a large Question; I should like notice of it.

  South African Compensation Fund.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILLI beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to; the fact that correspondence from the High Commissioner in South Africa, with reference to the amount of administration of the Compensation Fund, remained unanswered for several months, occasioning a loss of £41,420 7s. 11 d. to the Imperial Exchequer; and whether steps have been taken to expedite replies in the future to communications received by the Colonial Office.
  COLONEL SEELY: The reference is I presume, to Section 10 of the Second Report of Public Accounts Committee just laid. It is quite a mistake to suppose that any loss of public money occurred or that any additional charge was thrown upon the Exchequer through the action of the Colonial Office, for whatever may have been the merits of the question whether administrative expenses could properly he charged to the fun I the Colonial Government had unquestionably full power to spend the money in increasing the compensation pail to protected burghers. I would refer my hon. friend as regards this compensation fund to the Report of the Central Judicial Committee printed in Cd. 3028. I must deny that there was improper delay in the matter on the pert of the Colonial Office. The money has since been revoted by Parliament.

  Portuguese East Africans in the Transvaal Mines.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in signing their labour contracts, the native labourers for the Transvaal mines recruited in Portuguese East Africa are compulsorily repatriated at the end of their period of work; and, if so, whether the Government intend to make representations to the Transvaal Government with a view of altering the necessity of repatriation.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Answer to both parts of the hon. Member's Question is in the negative

  Dinizulu's Salary.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the
  870
  Colonies whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the statement made on 3rd June by the Attorney - General that the legal documents which passed between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and the Colony of Natal, in 1897, showed that it was literally and legally the case that the payment of the salary of Dinizulu was a condition of the incorporation of Zululand with Natal; and whether, in view of the fact that the Natal Government have imprisoned Dinizulu and deprived him of his salary, without the approval of the Secretary of State, the opinion of the Attorney-General has been brought to the notice of the Natal Government.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Secretary of State is aware of the opinion of the Attorney-General, and I would refer my hon. friend to the telegrams to the Governor which he will find in the Bluebook which is being distributed to-day.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What about the answers from the Governor in response?
  COLONEL SEELY: I shall be able to make a statement to-morrow.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: Are the Natal Government aware that all sections are united in the belief that the Government are in honour bound to pay Dinizulu's salary?
  COLONEL SEELY: I am sure that every Member of the House will be glad to hear the statement from the front Opposition bench, that there is such a binding obligation. I think the Natal Government should be informed that that is the view of all Members of this House.
  MR. MACKARNESS: Have the Natal Government expressed any dissent from the view of the Attorney-General?
  COLONEL SEELY: I had better leave that till to-morrow.
  MR. NEILD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government, in arriving at the conclusion

  871
  to pay the salary to Dinizulu in disregard of the decision of the Natal Government, considered the effect such action would have upon the trial now proceeding, and also upon the status and rights of a self-governing Colony to manage its own affairs and the trial of alleged rebels.
  COLONEL SEELY: Yes, Sir.

  Natal Indemnity Bill.
  MR. G. GREENWOOD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Natal Indemnity Bill has passed both Houses of the Colonial legislature; whether the Government are now in possession of the terms of such Bill: whether those terms are identical with the terms of The Natal Indemnity Act, 1906, with the omission of Section 9 of that Act; and whether he will lay a copy of the Bill upon the Table before the debate upon the Colonial Office Vote.
  COLONEL SEELY: Yes, Sir, the Bill has passed. It is similar to, but not identical with, the Act of 1906, the provisions for the prospective operation of the indemnity being omitted. Details will be found in the Papers distributed to-day.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Woodstock division of Oxfordshire, I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether, in view of the obligation undertaken by the British taxpayer to provide Dinizulu's salary, His Majesty's Government will make every effort to secure the trial or release of the chief without further delay.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Secretary of State understands that the preliminary examination is practically concluded, so far as the prosecution is concerned, and it is therefore to be hoped that Dinizulu will soon be brought to trial or released. The Secretary of State is not in a position to interfere in regard to the course of the proceedings.

  Dinizulu's Trial.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies
  872
  whether the Secretary of State has been informed by the Natal Government why it is necessary to examine more than 100 witnesses on behalf of the prosecution against Dinizulu before formulating any definite charge against him; and whether he can give any approximate date when the Attorney-General of Natal will consider that sufficient evidence has been laid before the magistrate to enable him to decide whether the prisoner shall be committed for trial or discharged.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Governor telegraphed to the Secretary of State on Saturday last that the Attorney-General has informed him that he anticipates that the preliminary examination of Dinizulu will be completed as far as the prosecution is concerned almost immediately. The Natal Government have not specifically informed the Secretary of State of the reasons why it has been necessary to examine so many witnesses. But it is clear that, greatly as the prolongation of the preliminary examination is to be regretted, it would be unjust to Dinizulu to spring upon him any charge at the trial which had not been exposed to him in the preliminary examination; as a consequence the production of new evidence has rendered a multiplication of witnesses unavoidable. Dinizulu's counsel have not taken any legal action indicating a desire that the preliminary examination should be closed.
  MACKARNESS: Did not Dinizulu's counsel apply that the magistrates should be removed
  COLONEL SEELY: That was an objection to the personality of the magistrate and not the procedure.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the unprecedented length of the preliminary examination to which the chief Dinizulu has been exposed in Natal, its secret character, and the refusal of bail to the prisoner, the-Secretary of State will inform the House whether by the law of Natal a British subject is deprived of the right to a writ in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus where he is unjustly detained in prison; and, if he is not so deprived, whether the Secretary of State is aware of any reason why such a

  873
  writ has not been moved for on behalf of the chief.
  COLONEL SEELY: The writ of habeas corpus does not exist, I understand, in Natal, but there is an analogous procedure. For such a procedure to be successful it would be necessary to show that the authority under which the prisoner is detained is illegal and as far as the Secretary of State is aware, it is, and always has been, open to the prisoner, if his legal advisers consider this to he in his interests, to take steps to test its legality. I presume that they do not advise such steps.

  Dinizulu's Trial—Constitution of Special Court.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now state who will be the members of the special court appointed to try Dinizulu; and by what law and rules of evidence the court will be bound at the trial.
  COLONEL SEELY: No, Sir, I regret that I am not yet in a position to say who the members of the Court will be, but full information with regard to the composition of the Court will be found in the Papers which are now being distributed. I have telegraphed to the Natal Government to send the names in view of to-morrow's debate.
  MR. MACKARNESS: Will the ordinary law of Natal obtain at the trial?
  COLONEL SEELY: The answer to that will be found in the text of the Special Court Bill.

  Alleged Flogging of Witnesses.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Miss Colenso, in reply to a statement of Lieutenant-Colonel Green, Minister of Railways in the Natal Government, denying the flogging of natives in respect to the procuring of evidence against Dinizulu, has given twenty-nine cases of flogging, including some cases of the flogging of women, in addition to those officially admitted; and whether those cases of flogging will come within the purview of the proposed Indemnity Act,
  874
  and their perpetrators become immune from punishment.
  COLONEL SEELY: I am aware that allegations of flogging have lately been made and denied. With regard to Miss Colenso's assertion I notice that according to a Press telegram the Prime Minister of Natal on the 23rd instant stated that the Government had inquired into all the alleged cases of assault during the military operations in the northern districts and promised further investigation upon a formal complaint being made and some proof offered in support of Miss Colenso's allegations. My hon. friend will find information regarding the Indemnity Bill in the Papers which are being distributed to-day.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it more favourable to the illegal action of the Natal Government——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. The hon. Member must not refer to a friendly Colonial Government in that way.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I did not refer to it in the way you thought, Sir.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member assumes that a thing is illegal. That remains to be proved.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: With great respect, Sir, everything done under martial law is prima facie illegal.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is not the business of the hon. Member to lecture me on the subject of martial law.

  Martial Law in Natal—Indemnity Bill.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the sensation produced in this country by the method of administration of martial law in Natal, and the grave character of the charges advanced against officials in respect to their conduct towards the natives in carrying out the martial law system, the opinion of the House of Commons will be ascertained before the assent of the Crown is given to any Indemnity Bill passed by the Natal Legislature, and that such assent be not given when the Imperial Parliament is

  875
  not sitting, and accordingly without opportunity of discussing the situation in Natal to any effective purpose.
  COLONEL SEELY: The House will have an opportunity of discussing those questions to-morrow. Assent will not he given before the discussion.

  Dinizulu's Chieftainship.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the effect of Section (b), Clause 1, of the Natal Indemnity Act, confirming all orders made by the supreme chief, will be to legalise Dinizulu's deposition from the chieftainship, which was proclaimed by colonel MacNevil at Usutu last December, when he said Dinizulu would not return; and whether, having regard to the fact that, if this be the true construction of the Indemnity Bill, Dinizulu, even if acquitted, would still be deprived of his chieftainship, the Government propose to take any, and, if so, what, steps in the matter.
  COLONEL SEELY: I do not think that Colonel McKenzie can at any time have had authority to issue an order of the supreme chief, nor am I aware that such action was ever taken by him. I do not think, therefore, that there is any reason to apprehend the consequences feared by my hon. friend.

  Land in Zululand—Alleged Breaches of Faith.
  *SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to communicate to the House the reply of the Government of Natal as to the powers in Zululand and in Natal respectively of the supreme chief, controverting the view taken by the Under-Secretary for Native Affairs on behalf of the Colonial Secretary of Natal; and whether the reply on the broader issue as to continuous breaches of faith with the Zulus in regard to their land, referred to on the 12th May, has yet been received.
  COLONEL SEELY: The answers have now been received and the first will be found in the Blue-book which is now being distributed. It is not proposed to publish the other at present.

  Legal Status of Zulus.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the constitution granted to Natal contains any exceptional reservations or conditions depriving the Government of that Colony of such powers as are possessed by other Colonial Governments; and whether the circumstances of the incorporation of Zululand with Natal so operate as to affect the legal status of the Zulus as subjects of the Government of the Colony.
  COLONEL SEELY: The supreme chief has of course a special position in Natal as compared with other responsibly governed colonies and special protection as to lands was given to the Zulus on annexation. But these do not amount to depriving the Colonial Government of ordinary legal powers. The constitution of Natal is in the main the same as that of other responsibly governed colonies and the status of Zulus is similar to, although perhaps not identical with, that of other Natal natives.

  Shipping Claims against Russia.
  MR. McARTHUR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any final decision has yet been given in the Russian courts with respect to the claims for compensation for losses sustained by the British ships "St Kilda." "Hipsang," and "Oldhamia," respectively, during the Russo-Japanese war; and what is the present position of these cases.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. J. A. PEASE,for Sir EDWARD GREY): My right hon. friend has nothing at present to add to the Answer he returned to a similar Question put by the hon. Member for Darlington on the 11th ult., to the effect that these particular cases are still before the Prize Court and that the Embassy is doing all in its power to expedite the hearing.
  MR. McARTHUR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reply has been received from the Russian Government to the representations made by His Majesty's Government with regard to the cases of the "Knight Commander," "Calchas,"

  877
  And "Malacca," respectively; and what is the present position of the cases.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: As regards the "Knight Commander," my right hon. friend must refer to the Answer he gave on the 2nd ult. to the hon. Member for North Hackney, in which he stated that the Russian Government had refused to submit the case to arbitration. His Majesty's Government have expressed their regret at this decision, and have set forth in an official despatch the grounds on which they are unable to share the views of the Imperial Government in declining to assent to their proposal. As my right hon. friend stated in his Answer to the hon. Member for Darlington on the 11th ult., the attention of the Russian Government has again been called to the case of the "Calchas." The Russian Government have agreed to pay a lump sum in satisfaction of the claims arising out of the detention of the Peninsular and Oriental Company's steamers "Malacca" and "Formosa," and these cases are in course of settlement.

  The Case of Mr. Luxenburg.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now state the result of his demand on the Russian Government for compensation to Mr. Luxenburg for wrongful arrest and imprisonment.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: This case has been considered carefully in consultation with the Home Office and the Legal Advisers of the Crown. Mr. Luxenburg was arrested by mistake, kept in prison for a fortnight, and then released. There is nothing in international law on which we could found a claim to compensation as of right, nor is it the practice in this country to admit a claim when a man has been arrested by mistake and afterwards acquittal or released, though compensation has occasionally been given as an act of grace. In this case there is no doubt that Mr. Luxenburg has suffered severely from the conditions of his imprisonment, and in view of this fact, my right hon. friend is submitting the whole circumstances to the Russian Government, and is asking that some compensation should be given. He does not propose to publish Papers.

  San Thome Cocoa Industry.
  *SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British consular agent on the island of San Thomé is a Portuguese and a near relative of an influential planter engaged in the cocoa industry; and whether His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of independent inquiry in the islands of an Thomé and Principe, with special regard to establishing accurate mortality returns, and to the alleged illicit traffic in labourers between the districts from which they are brought and the islands.
  MR. J A. PEASE: The British consular agent at San Thomé, who is a Spanish subject and himself the manager of one of the larger cocoa plantations, was appointed on the recommendation of Consul Nightingale, who had visited the island and who considered that he was the most suitable person for the post. He is not a salaried official. With regard to the advisability of an independent inquiry into the servical system in the islands of San Thomé and Principe, my right hon. friend would refer the right hon. Member to the Answer given on the 29th October, 1906, to a Question put by the hon. Member for North Norfolk. My right hon. friend adds that the whole servical question is engaging the serious attention of His Majesty's Government, who are in correspondence with the Portuguese Government in regard to it. A Portuguese official is now actually on the spot investigating the subject with a view to the better enforcement of the regulations, and if necessary their amendment.

  Ambergate Reservoir Works.
  MR. JOHN WARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the contractors for the Ambergate reservoir, Messrs. Wright and Company, have during, the last two years deducted 6d. per week front the wages of all workmen employed upon their works; whether such deductions are alleged to be made for the supply of tools and medical attendance, without first ob. taming the sanction of the workmen to make the same; whether any audit of such accounts has been made in accordance

  879
  with Clause 9 of The Truck Amendment Act, 1887; whether any report has been received upon the subject from the district factory inspector; and what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,): The enforcement of the provisions of the Truck Acts in this employment does not rest with the Home Department, but my right hon. friend made inquiry of the contractors, and I am informed by them that during the period they have been engaged on these works, about twelve months, they have made a deduction of 1d. per working day for tools and medical attendance; but that this deduction has been made by agreement with the workmen to whom the proposal was put at the outset, and who unanimously desired that the arrangement should be made. It is stated that it is the invariable custom in this trade for the men to provide their own tools, and some could not be engaged at all if they were unable to obtain their tools in this way. There has been no audit up to the present, the contractors stating that they were not aware an audit was required, but they are perfectly willing that the accounts should be audited.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Do the Home Office propose to take proceedings against this firm for an infringement of the Truck Act?
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Home Office has no authority to do so.

  Convict Prisons—Female Directors.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women are members of the boards of directors of convict prisons.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: There are two ladies on the Board of Visitors for Aylesbury Prison, the only convict prison where female prisoners are detained.

  Merthyr Tydfil Police.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been
  880
  called to difficulties which have arisen in connection with the transfer of police from Glamorgan County Council to the new borough police force at Merthyr Tydfil; and whether he will take such action as may be necessary to safeguard the existing pension rights of such constables as may be so transferred.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The pension rights of constables depend on statute and are independent of any action the Home Secretary can take, but my right hon. friend does not think that any difficulty need arise. No constable need enter the new force except by his own wish. If a constable who has three years service or upwards is transferred on a mutual agreement between the police authorities, he carries his pension rights with him. If there is no such agreement the constable ought, before joining the borough force, to have an undertaking from the police authority of the borough, to allow his previous service of three years and upwards to count for pension.

  Confidential Documents as Waste Paper.
  MR. CARR-GOMM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now able to state the result of his inquiry into the case of the shipment of bales of prison registers and other confidential documents from Hull to London and from London to Bordeaux, which was discovered by the bursting of a bale on a ship lying in the Thames during the first week of May.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I find that the bale in question was part of a consignment of waste paper which was removed from Wakefield Prison by a firm which has a contract with the Wakefield Post Office for the removal of their waste paper. I regret to find that no stipulation that the paper should be treated as confidential had, in this case, been made by the prison authorities. In future, all records of prisoners and other confidential papers will be destroyed or obliterated in the prison. The Secretary of State is obliged to my hon. friend for drawing his attention to the matter.

  Asiatics in the Transvaal.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will

  881
  place in the library a copy of the circular from the Trade and Labour Council of Johannesburg to the trades councils of the United Kingdom, pointing out the feeling which exists amongst local workers against outside interference with the policy of the Transvaal Government in regard to Asiatics, and appealing to British labour unions to support that policy.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): I have been unable as yet to obtain a copy of the circular to which my hon. friend refers.
  *MR. REESasked if the decision of an important conference of trade unions in South Africa, objecting to the interference of the Home Government in labour questions, could not be made known in this country?
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he had tried to get the information for his hon. friend. If however he was in possession of some, perhaps he would communicate it to him.

  Automatic Couplings.
  MR. MADDISON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the compulsory adoption of automatic couplings in the United States in 1893 has reduced coupling accidents by 80 per cent. in one year, the average reduction during the last six years being over 70 per cent., notwithstanding an increase of 70,000 men and 523,083 vehicles; whether the proportion of coupling accidents acknowledged by the railways in the Return of shunting accidents for 1907 exceeds 24 per cent., or 1 in 4, of the 3,221 shunting accidents recorded in that year; whether the Royal Commission on Accidents to Railway Servants in July, 1899, condemned the shunting-pole system and urged trials of automatic couplings and like appliances; and whether he will exercise the powers vested in him under The Railway Employment (Prevention of Accidents) Act, 1900, and institute exhaustive tests of the various automatic couplings offered, with a view to secure an appliance that will reduce coupling accidents in this country.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I fear that my hon. friend has misread the American
  882
  statistics. Coupling accidents in the United States, including fatal and non-fatal alike, appear to have been reduced by 80 per cent. between 1893 and 1902, that is to say in nine years, not in one year. Since 1902, however, there has been a considerable recrudescence. For whereas the lowest figure of 143 fatal accidents was attained in the United States of America in 1902, in the five years 1903–1907 the number of fatal accidents of this class in the United States has varied from 243 to 311. I am aware that the figures are not in all respects comparable with the total for this country—which only varied in the same period from 9 to 23—but they indicate that an automatic coupling is not an absolute safeguard. On the general question I must refer my hon. friend to the Report of the Railway Employment Safety Appliances Committee which has just been circulated, and in particular to Colonel Yorke's memorandum attached thereto.
  MR. MADDISON: Is it not the fact that that Committee instituted no te3t at all of their inquiry.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I did not follow the actual course of the Committee investigation, but the Committee was very highly qualified for dealing with the subject, and it had on it representatives of the men.
  MR. HUDSON: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the use of automatic couplings adopted in America does not obviate the danger of fatal accidents?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I said they were not an absolute safeguard. Other accidents arise as the result of automatic couplings.

  Weights and Measures Stamping Fees.
  MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that some local authorities charge stamping fees on every weight, measure, and weighing instrument submitted for inspection, even though such weight, measure, or weighing instrument is found correct and already stamped; whether the regulations provide against such charges; and, if not, whether he will so alter the regulations

  883
  so as to make fees payable only when weights are found unstamped or require adjusting.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The law provides that stamping fees shall be charged on the verification, but not on the inspection of weights, measures, and weighing instruments. Under the Weights and Measures Regulations of 1907, weights, &c., brought to an Inspector of Weights and Measures for verification should be dealt with as upon inspection. If my hon. friend has in mind any cases where this course is not followed I should be glad if he would furnish me with particulars.

  Marine Insurance.
  MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the growth of P.P.I. (policy proof of interest) marine insurances, whereby insurers gamble in vessels in which they have no real interest and thereby put up the rates against the shipowners and other legitimate insurers and otherwise damage their interests; and, if so, will he take into consideration the advisability of devising means to counteract this growing evil.
  MR. McARTHURasked whether it was not a fact that these insurances, while undoubtedly used for gambling purposes, were also extensively used for the insurance of interests which were real and substantial, but difficult of proof under the law of marine insurance.
  MR. CHURCHILL: No doubt the matter presents many complications. My attention has been called to these insurances, and I will consider, in conjunction with the interests concerned, whether any action can usefully be taken with regard to them.
  MR. MACLEANasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would pay special attention to the case of the "Albion." The outside policies taken out by persons who had no real interest in the ship amounted to twice its value. Would the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration not only the financial interests involved, but also the serious risk of loss of life?
  MR. CHURCHILL: Certainly I will give that undertaking.

  Provincial Homes Investment Company.
  SIR F. CAWLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a case tried before Judge Parry, in Manchester, in which a woman named Pointon recovered £37 10s. from a company called the Provincial Homes Investment Company; whether he is aware that the learned judge described this company's prospectus as containing in every page statements that are either direct untruths or alluring half-truths; whether he is aware that a similar judgment was given against this Company by Judge Greenwell, at Newcastle; whether he is aware that there are other companies obtaining the savings of the thrifty poor by the same misrepresentations; and whether he will have the affairs of these companies investigated by Royal Commission or otherwise with a view to their winding-up and also with a view to legislation which will protect the working classes in the future.
  MR. CHURCHILL: My attention has been called to the case referred to by my hon. friend and to the remarks of Judge Parry. I have directed that a careful examination of the subject be made in order to see whether further legislation is necessary. I ought to add for the information of a number of persons who have addressed communications to the Board of Trade on this subject that the Board have no power, statutory or otherwise to require any sums paid to this or similar companies to be refunded.
  MR. BYLES: Has the Board of Trade any power compulsorily to wind-up this company?
  [The Answer was inaudible].

  Meat Supply—The Proposed Inquiry.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the danger to the cattle and moans of livelihood of more than 200,000 small farmers and purchase-annuitants in Ireland from the free importation of the live cattle from Canada and the Western States of America, he will take care that Ireland shall be represented by at least one person practically acquainted with the Irish cattle trade on the proposed

  885
  Departmental Committee to inquire into the question of the meat supply of the United Kingdom.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg also to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether in consideration of Ireland's interests in the cattle trade and in a view of the attempt that is being made to allow foreign store-cattle into this country, thereby laying the Home herds open to the risk of disease, he will appoint on the meat Committee at least two Members from Ireland who have a practical knowledge of the subject from the agricultural point of view.
  MR. E. BARRY: At the same time may I ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, as Ireland is interested in the subject to be inquired into by the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the moat trade, he will appoint at least two representatives from Ireland who have a practical knowledge of the store and fat cattle industry as its affects the producer and the nation as a whole.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave on Saturday to the hon. and learned Member for Waterford when I said that I am reluctant to add to the number of the Committee by the appointment of representatives of special interests or views. It is a Departmental Committee. Its reference is strictly limited to the specific financial and economic aspects of the question, and it does not extend to recommendations affecting the conditions of the importation of cattle. I am still in communication with the hon. Member on the subject.
  MR. GARDNER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the reference to the proposed Departmental Committee on meat distribution will permit inquiries into the prevalence of disease in colonial and foreign countries, and the dangers of infection being conveyed to the United Kingdom and suggested removal of restrictions on importation of live cattle.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Questions affecting the diseases of animals in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, or the importation of live cattle from abroad, do not
  886
  come within the terms of reference to the proposed Departmental Committee, which will be solely concerned with eliciting the facts as regards the effect of combinations on the meat supply of the United Kingdom.

  London Electricity Bills.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will consent to the Second Reading of the London Electricity Bills (3) being put off till the autumn session so that the London local authorities may have an opportunity of considering the new proposals of the Board of Trade (which have only to day, 25th, been published in the papers) and submitting their views before the debate on the Second Reading takes place; and also whether any advantage will be gained by taking the Second Reading now.
  MR. CHURCHILL: My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. I am advised that it would be fatal to the Bills if the Second Reading were postponed to the autumn session. As regards two of the three Bills, the proposal to make the London County Council the purchasing authority is not new, but was considered by the Committee of the other House. Full opportunity will be given for existing purchasing authorities to be heard before the Committee and ample time will be available for the preparation of their case.
  MR. MORTONpointed out that very large expense might be avoided if the local authorities were allowed an opportunity of considering the matter by the Second Reading?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I do not think that possible.

  Wales and Post Office Clothing Contracts.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his Department has made separate contracts with Irish firms for tailoring, boots, and waterproofs for postmen employed in Ireland; and, if so, why similar arrangements cannot be made in respect of postmen employed in Wales.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): As regards contracts with Irish

  887
  firms I may refer my hon. friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for South Down on the 7th instant, of which I am sending him a copy. There is no separate branch of the postal stores department in Wales, and it would not be practicable to earmark for the Welsh service the work of a particular contractor. But I should be glad to receive tenders from Wales for the general supplies.
  *MR. REES: What is the exact difficulty in treating Wales in this respect in the same way as Ireland?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: It is not a separate branch of the postal department.
  MR. REES: Cannot it be made separate?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Newcastle-under-Lyme—Postal Pay.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether under the new classification of post offices, the scale of pay of postmen at Newcastle-under-Lyme has been made less than the scale of pay at Stoke-on-Trent, and, if so, on what this difference in pay has been based.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The principles of the classification of the outdoor force and the modifications introduced by me, are explained on page 57 of the Parliamentary Paper issued on the 11th instant. Both as regards the units of work and the cost of living, Newcastle-under-Lyme is considerably below Stoke-on-Trent, the units of work being 754 at Stoke and ninety one at Newcastle-under-Lyme, the figures of cost of living being ninety-two at Stoke, and that of Newcastle under Lyme only eighty-eight. Stoke therefore falls into Class III, and Newcastle-under-Lyme into Class IV, for postmen.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there is no definite boundary between the two boroughs—and that some of the streets are partly in Stoke and partly in Newcastle? May I further ask on what principle the figures relating to the cost of living are obtained?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: With regard to the first part of the Question
  888
  they are two distinct postal centres. As to the latter part the figures are supplied by the Board of Trade.

COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL— POINT OF ORDER.
*MR. BOWLESasked the Speaker's ruling on a matter arising out of certain occurrences which took place in the forenoon in Standing Committee C. That Committee met at noon to consider the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Bill. It became apparent that neither the Home Secretary nor the Undersecretary to the Homo Office had been nominated a member of the Committee. The Committee adjourned to see whether some arrangement could be arrived at By Standing Order 48 it was provided that the nomination, discharge, or substitution of members of a Standing Committee were matters solely for the Committee of Selection. At a quarter-to-one o'clock the Committee reassembled, and the Clerk informed hon. Members that by the direction of the Committee of Selection two hon. Gentlemen had been discharged from the Standing Committee and the two Ministers nominated in their places. He now understood, however, that no meeting of the Committee of Selection, of which three members formed a quorum, had in fact been held for this purpose; and that no valid direction of the nature suggested could therefore have been made by them. In these circumstances he wished to know whether the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary were members of the Standing Committee, and, if not, whether the proceedings of the Committee were valid, and whether any votes either of them had recorded were valid.
*MR. SPEAKERreplied that the statement was correct, except in one particular —namely, when he said that the Committee of Selection made no order. He held in his hand the Report of the Committee, which stated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Members had been discharged, and the Home Secretary and others put in their places. He could not go behind that.
SIR BRAMPTON GURDONapologised to the House for the mistake which had been made, and explained that it was largely due to the

889
illness of the Clerk of the Committee which prevented the orders of the Committee receiving that careful scrutiny which they always had.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C. (in respect of the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) (No. 2) Bill): Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Kearley, Sir Edward Strachey, and Mr. Lynch; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Secretary Gladstone, Mr. Herbert Samuel, Mr. Solicitor-General and Mr. Leif Jones.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C. (in respect of the Coal Mines (Eight Hours (No. 2) Bill): Mr. Freeman-Thomas; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. King.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee: That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee C. (in respect of the Coal Mines (Eight Hours (No. 2) Bill): Viscount Castlereagh.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order Confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table. Bill, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—Macclesfield and District Tramways (Abandonment) Bill; London County Council (Money) Bill, without Amendment; Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Bill; Sligo and Arigna Railway Bill; London United Tramways Bill; Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways (No. 2) Bill; Holderness Water Bill, with Amendments.
NEW BILL.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACT (1901) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  "To amend the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901," presented to Mr. Steadman; supported by Mr. Thorne; to be read a second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 343.]
  NEW WRIT.
  New Writ for the Borough of Shoreditch (Haggerston Division), in the room of Sir William Randal Cremer, deceased. —(Mr. Joseph Pease.)

  SUPPLY [18TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
  Army Estimates, 1908–9.
  1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £840,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, Bounty, etc., of the Special Reserves and Militia (to a number not exceeding 132,737, including 2,000 Militia Reserve), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): I think it will be well if I rise now to make a statement about the present position of the Special Reserve. There is a good deal of misapprehension current about it, and, I think, as regards the figures and facts, it is desirable that these should be placed as clearly and as briefly as I can before the Committee. The Committee will remember how the Special Reserve came into existence and broadly what its character is. It consists of two parts, each of which is touched by this Vote—a Reserve of men and a Reserve of officers. The Reserve of men is itself divided into two subdivisions, the "A" Reserve, which contains the Infantry and the Artillery, and the "B" Reserve, which is intended to provide for auxiliary services, postal

  891
  corps, extra Army Service Corps men extra engineer men, and so on, who can be raised upon what might be called a Militia basis. These we designed to get in connection with the Territorial Force; that is to say, to get the class of civilians that trains for the Territorial Force specially to train for the corresponding unit in the Territorial Force, and, of course, as supernumerary to the Territorial Establishment, to take engagement to go abroad on mobilisation. We think that will probably turn out to be effective in getting these extra men, but as their number is comparatively small in proportion to the rest of the Special Reserve, and as it is obvious we cannot get them until the Territorial Force through which they are to train is properly in existence, I do not propose to dwell upon that matter to-day. But the other and larger part of the Special Reserve is in a very different position. I would for the moment leave the officers out of account and deal only with the men, and of the men the most important part in size are the Infantry, but not less important, at all event in function, are the men in the Artillery. Dealing with the Infantry first, it will be in the recollection of the Committee that by a suggestion that came from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and which was accepted by the Government, the establishment of the Special Reserve came to be what it is to-day, 101 units— 101 battalions—and in accordance with the suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman these units were made of nearly the same character and all of the same organisation, so as to fit them for performing two functions. They could, and must, be used to supply hafts for the wastage of war, and they are also organised so that at all events some of them—I think a considerable number of then— can either proceed as units when they are wanted for lines of communication, and to relieve garrison troops, or for the purpose of themselves taking part with their own officers, and the Special Reserve on its Infantry side in that way becomes divided into two functions. The 101 units will supply drafts, and they will also be available to go to the theatre of war, and some of them will obviously, when the time comes, be earmarked by the force of circumstances mainly for the
  892
  production of one result and others for the other result. Should they be embodied, they will take, of course, the surplus Reservists of the Regular battalions of the regiments to which they belong, and as recruits come in in time of war it may well be possible that they will expand, and when they move from, the depot, as the bulk of them would in such a case, to the barracks which have been rendered vacant by the Regular battalions going to the theatre of war, they will there be able to expand into additional battalions, which can be sent in due time either as drafts or to the front under their own officers. But the great function in producing drafts which the Special Reserve fulfils is to give scientific provision for the wastage of war. That is what the machinery is designed to do. With the pending withdrawals there would be seventy-four battalions of Infantry at home and seventy-four abroad, and fourteen Cavalry regiments at home and fourteen abroad. I will not dwell on the Cavalry, but each of these seventy-four battalions will have behind them one-third of the Special Reserve battalion, which takes the place of the old depot. Their primary purpose is to be there while the training is going on, both of Special Reservists and of men for the Line, to be trained, indeed, as the men who will form an establishment for providing the wastage of war. Hon. Members know what is the difficulty which formerly existed in connection with the Militia. The Militia at the time of the War had what used to be called the Militia Reserve—that is to say, 130,000 men were retained in the Militia for going abroad with the Regular troops, and when these were drawn on for drafts the result was to reduce the Militia battalion to a state of great weakness; so that, though it was useful in a time of war, its maintenance was disastrous to the Militia, and it was abolished, in the hope, however, that the Militia battalions would revive the force and get it out of its dwindling condition. But the Militia was dwindling steadily in 1906 when the changes now brought about were first, projected, and the purpose of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act of 1907 was to provide something like a scientific system of producing men who would keep up the wastage of war. The War Office

  893
  put it to the General Staff, who were asked what they recommended. They pointed out that the Militia was not maintained to go abroad, and that it depended on their goodwill whether they would come out and take service across the seas. They recommended in respect of the Militia Reserve retained to go abroad and on mobilisation that there should be 101 in all the battalions put together, or 58,580 men. All of these men are not fit to go, because young men of seventeen and upwards will be excluded, but they will form a reservoir out of which we can got 35,000 men. That is the actuarial calculation as to the Special Reserve. What is asked is that we should be prepared to supply for six months the wastage of war. These drafts will supply the wastage of war for the first six months, and then, of course, the 35,000 men being at the depôts training, another body will be ready to take the place of the first at the end of the six months, and so the machine will be at work to supply the wastage. There are 124 battalions of Infantry Militia, some of them very low in establishment and very low in the supply of officers. They are as low as 200 and 300 in strength. The establishment and the strength differ by about 50,000 men. The Department amalgamated 23 battalions with the others and produced 101 Special Reserve battalions, 74 to go behind the Regular battalions. An undertaking has been given that the Militia shall train until the end of this year's training. About half have now trained, and as they are trained they pass over into the Special Reserve, The result is that we have a substantial number of men of good age who have come over from the Militia and are now joining the Special Reserve. A question has been raised as to recruiting, and how matters will stand when the new system is in operation. I am glad to say that so fur the recruiting for the Regular Army is going on very well. In 1906–7 the recruits taken for the Infantry of the Regular Army were 25,328; this year the number is 27,666. For the first six months of 1907 we received through the Militia for the Regular Army 5,271 men; and this year we have taken from the Militia and the Special Reserve 5,249 men. On 1st January the strength
  894
  of the rank and file of the Militia Infantry and the Artillery together is 83,672; on 1st July the Militia is 44,137 and the Special Reserve 30,160, making a total of 74,297 men, so that we are not a very great deal behind what the Militia were on 1st January. It is true that we have given the Militia the £2 for turning over; but 71 units of Militia have turned over up to the 18th inst., and the total percentage of men who have come over is 70 per cent. The Infantry have come over at the rate of 69 per cent., and the Artillery at the rate of 75 per cent. There remains to turn over to the Special Reserve 49 units of Militia Infantry and 14 units of Militia Artillery. If they come over in the same way there will be a total coming over from the Militia of 41,918, to which must be added 12,000 recruits coming into the Special Reserve. It is not too sanguine to say, therefore, that we have in the Special Reserve 54,000 men in sight and over 30,000 actually in. The officers are coming over in an admirably large percentage. The next thing to consider is the conditions under which they are being trained. It is very curious to look at the table of recruiting. The War Office has found a very marked difference from the old state of things. In the period just before the summer months recruiting for the Special Reserve is at a much lower rate than it used to be for the Militia. But later on, and as the winter approaches, the rate is higher. The men will not give up summer employment, but as soon as they near the winter months they will be willing to come in. The Committee are not without experience of this. In the autumn of 1906 it was decided to train twenty Militia battalions experimentally for six months instead of forty-nine days. I have got here the table which shows the way in which it is working. The result is that the table of recruiting shows that the recruiting is going on almost in the same fashion for the Special Reserve as it does for the twenty experimental battalions which are trained on the same footing. The recruits taken between the 16th January, when we stopped recruiting for the Militia, and 18th July numbered 12,078. The number of Militiamen who have elected to join the Special Reserve is 20,258; the number who have elected

  895
  to remain in the Militia is 4,085, and the number who have elected to take a free discharge is 4,478. The number of Special Reservists who, on completing three months drill, have joined the Regular Army is 1,161. Of those who have completed four or five months drill and are under eighteen, only fifty-nine have gone over to the Regular Army, and of those of eighteen and over who have completed five or six months training, eighty-seven have gone over to the Regular Army. Out of the recruits who have enlisted in the Special Reserve 10·82 per cent, have joined the Regular Army. The number of men in the Special Reserve over twenty years of age is 20,994.
  MR. ASHLEYasked what the figures were in regard to men over twenty.
  MR. HALDANE: I have not the figures here. That is how matters stand so far as the men are concerned. I will not trouble the Committee with the details of how the various battalions have come over, but I have got here some particulars relating to the officers. The officers are coming over to the Special Reserve better than the men. The men have come over at the rate of about 70 per cent.; but the officers have come over, I will not say en bloc, but in a very large proportion of cases en bloc. I have stated on a former occasion that the deficiency of officers, including India, is 8,640, and I wish now to explain what steps have been taken to make that formidable figure good. In the first place we have made a Special Reserve of officers the standard of which is the Continental standard of service of one year with a Regular unit on the part of a candidate who has got the necessary knowledge tested by appropriate tests. But we know that, in order to get the Reserve of officers full, it will be necessary to go to the Universities and public schools. We are opening up a sort of second or alternative career to young men who are going in for the professions, but who are not too busy to give a little time to soldiering. If they train for two years in the reformed cadet corps at the public schools that will let them off four months of the
  896
  twelve which is to constitute the standard, and if they give two years more in the University corps that will let them off another four months. We offer to the University student who is to be a doctor, a barrister, a solicitor, or a schoolmaster, on the production of what is called the "B" certificate, if he chooses to go through four months work with a Regular unit, a commission as a Reserve Regular officer. He gets £20 and his outfit, and he gets £35 down as a solatium for the trouble he has taken in getting his "B" certificate in the belief that that is a very useful sum for a man to receive when he leaves the University. He will be paid as a Reserve officer and he will have to train troops with his Regular unit for about fifteen days in the year. The whole organisation for the training of officers, both in the public schools and at the Universities, has been put under the General Staff. Already arrangements have been concluded with six Universities, and officers' training corps have been formed, the total number of under-graduates who have joined being 2,092. From fifty-nine public schools we have got 7,049 qualified cadets. Of course I do not suggest that anything like all these will become available for the Reserve which we want for mobilisation; but it is satisfactory that, in the case of a scheme which has been working for only a few weeks, so many students and schoolboys should have come forward. Cambridge has given 540, and, in addition, forty-five for the cavalry. Oxford has done still better, and has, up to date, given 674. Manchester has given 111, and it is estimated that Birmingham will furnish 280. The detailed figures relating to the public schools show that Harrow has given 287, Clifton 300, and Uppingham 212. The arrangements in regard to Eton are not yet complete. There is a great deal of evidence of keenness to make this military training a new part of a University career, and it seems to me that this is altogether to the good. Out of 1,113 Militia officers 921 have come in up to date. The proportion which has come over to the Special Reserve, from the regiments which have completed their training is 82 per cent. That is not a bad result, but a good many more

  897
  Special Reserve officers are wanted, and the training machinery of the University and public school training course cannot be expected to produce them for several years. Therefore interim means have to be taken to facilitate matters. The first appointments during the transition period will have to be under easier conditions. The plan is that a year shall be the standard except where cut down in connection with the training courses of the Universities and public schools. For the present it is proposed to allow the average candidate for Militia officership to join the Reserve after four months training in a Regular unit, provided he comes in before 15th December next. We have got 82 per cent, of the old Militia officers, and we are beginning the process of getting new officers for the Special Reserve. The process must be very slow until the new training machinery becomes available, but the condition of the Reserve officer will be better than it is under Militia conditions. There will be bettor pay, better rank, and better provision for giving him employment. It is proposed to allow them to take the place in the Regular battalions when officers were wanted of Regular officers who have been seconded. The colonel of a Special Reserve battalion will be a Special Reserve officer, the major will be a Regular major, there will be three Regular captains and five Militia captains; there will be two Regular lieutenants and eleven Special Reserve lieutenants. The position of Special Reserve officers will be much better than that of the old Militia officer. I am in great hopes that something will be done to meet social necessities. I was in Cumberland the other day, and I found that there was a great difficulty in finding employment for labour during a period of distress. I suggested to a large employer that the men should take their six months training, and I was informed that such a system was unknown, but if it were known it would meet a want in the labour market, and would be much appreciated by those who were responsible for finding employment for men. The miners are short of work at a different time, and I think that the Special Reserve system may be also worked as to enable employers of labour to do something to mitigate the trouble
  898
  of unemployment. In a letter written by a right hon. Gentleman, who, we all regret, is disabled by illness from taking to-day the distinguished part which he generally takes in these debates, this sentence is, I think, a little too strong. He wrote—
  "Enough has been said to show that, even under the most favourable conditions, the Special Reserve not only may be, but must be, an absolute and disastrous failure as far as the infantry portion of it is concerned."
  I do not know why it should be a failure when there is such a large proportion of recruits over twenty years of age. Why should it be a failure when the Militia are coming over as they are at the present time? Why should it be a disastrous failure with such an organisation of officers and such a number of men? Why should that be a disastrous failure which is organised under advice of the most competent Gen the Staff with the view of providing in definite fashion for a want which up to that time has been characteristic of the British Army? I am far from suggesting that full machinery for making good the wastage of war has yet been provided, but we have got a long way on the road. An immense amount of work has yet to be done, but it is a sound plan to recognise that the days of the Militia are over; and it is not by accident, but by force of circumstances that the organisation of that force has become rickety and that its officers and men are dwindling away, and that they have better prospects with a Reserve which is constructed, designed, and organised for the fulfilment of a definite function and the officers and the men of which are maintained to fulfil that function.
  *MR. ASHLEYsaid that the right hon. the Secretary for War had given a very interesting historical review of what had happened to the Militia and to the Special Reserve during the last few months, but he had not told the Committee one word to enable them to judge whether this new force would make an efficient land force any more able to meet an enemy than the force which he had destroyed. He thought that this discussion was far and away the most important which had taken place this year in connection

  899
  with our land forces, because it was the first time that the new organisation of the Special Reserve had appeared in the Estimates. The Special Reserve had been avowedly started for two purposes. First of all, it was to take the place of the old Militia which had done such good service in the past; and in the second place, to make up in some small degree for the reduction in the Regular Army. He would first compare the loss and gain in numbers. Leaving out, for the moment, the Militia Artillery and other corps, on 1st October, 1907, the strength of the Militia Infantry was 67,740 non-commissioned officers and men. In order to make the comparison fair between the old Militia and the Special Reserve they must rule out all men, except engineers, who were over thirty-six, and all men under twenty, because the right hon. Gentleman had declared men over thirty-six unfit for active service, and under regulation men under twenty were not allowed to be sent abroad in case of war, or to serve abroad for any other purpose. There were 7,500 men in the old Militia infantry over thirty-six, and 18,300 under twenty, or an actual total of 25,800 to be deducted from the number of men serving in the old Militia Infantry. There were, therefore, 42,000 men available in the Militia Infantry on 1st October, 1907. But there must be further deducted 10 per cent, for casualties or as being medically unfit, say, 4,000, leaving 38,000 Militia Infantry fit to take the field. That force had been absolutely wiped out by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. Again, since the right hon. Gentleman came into office he had reduced the Regular Army by 12,000 foot guards and infantry—nine battalions and their Reserves. Taking these two forces together they had 50,000 men who had been wiped off the pay-list of the British Army. That was a very large and a very serious weakening of our defence forces. What did the right hon. Gentleman propose to put in. their stead? If they looked at the Army Estimates it would be found that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to establish an Infantry Special Reserve, numbering 59,000 non-commissioned officers and men. These men were to be all under thirty-six years of age, except the en-
  900
  gineers, who were a small body. Now, in order to compare this body with the old Militia, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would admit that it would be perfectly fair to deduct from it the same proportion of men under twenty as was in the old Militia, because the men would be recruited from the same class and be of the same age. Allowing 10 per cent, for casualties and as being medically unfit, and for those under twenty years of age, that would amount to 23,000. Deducting these from the proposed establishment of 59,000 men there would be a Special Infantry Reserve of 36,000 non-commissioned officers and men compared with 38,000 of the old Militia, or 2,000 to the bad. Therefore, he had destroyed since he came into office 12,000 Regular and 38,000 Militia Infantry, and proposed to substitute for them 36,000 effective Infantry Special Reservists, making the net loss to the country's defence 14,000. That was the very minimum loss, because it was impossible to imagine that the strength and the establishment of the Infantry would coincide. Last year the old Infantry Militia was 31,000 non-commissioned officers and men below the establishment, and it was extremely unlikely arguing from the analogy of the old Militia that the right hon. Gentleman would get anything like the number of men for the Infantry Special Reserve that he wished. He would point out to the Committee that on 1st July only 25,500 had been recruited out of the 59,000 the Secretary of State wanted, and of those not more than 18,000 were over twenty years of age, and therefore only 18,000 were available for the purposes for which he created this Reserve, which was to be the Reserve of the Regular Army in time of war. From 15th January to 16th May, 4,545 less recruits of all arms were enlisted in the Special Reserve than were recruited for the old Militia last year. The recruiting had fallen by 5,000, so that the right hon. Gentleman was not likely to get so many recruits for the Special Reserve as he got for the old Militia, and indeed how could he expect to? This year too they had been obtained mostly by the old Militia permanent recruiting staff of 2,232, who in the future were to perform

  901
  other duties, and the right hon. Gentleman was now going to rely on only 148 recruiting officers. Besides this he had deliberately dispensed with the services of 7,500 men of over thirty-six years of age who were in the Infantry Militia. He could not understand the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman with reference to this age limit. If he had insisted upon every man who had reached thirty-six years of age being medically examined to see if he was an exception to the general rule, and if he was found to be medically unfit, discharging him, he would have been with him. But why should the right hon. Gentleman say a man was not fit for active service after he had reached thirty-six? There were 10,000 men now serving with the Regulars, 4,000 of whom were in the Colonies and India, and 3,500 in the Reserve over thirty-six years of age, and yet the Second Reserve must not take these men who were most useful as non-commissioned officers. When he had 3,500 of them in the First Reserve it was somewhat pedantic to say that they must not serve in the Second. That was extremely hard on the Special Reserve, which the right hon. Gentleman desired to make a success, because it was these older men who were required to steady and stiffen the ranks. The right hon. Gentleman was so hard in the matter of age that he would not even allow men who were thirty-one years of age who had served seven years with the Colours and five in the Reserve to take on in the Special Reserve till they were thirty-six. He knew of two instances which had already happened. His hon. friend the Member for Petersfield, who commanded a Special Reserve battalion, had told him of two men who for many years were most valuable non-commissioned officers who had served their full twelve years and whom he was obliged to tell, owing to this ridiculous regulation, that they were of no use to him. He had demonstrated that since the Government came into office they had reduced the Infantry by 14,000 as the minimum and had disposed with the service of 7,500 men over the age of thirty-six, a largo proportion of whom would be most useful men to have in the Special Reserve. How could the right hon. Gentleman justify these reductions not
  902
  only in the Regular but in the Special Reserve? Hesurely could not say the reduction was justified on the ground that the Infantry Reserve in 1899, when the Boer War broke out, was sufficient. Let the Committee read the War Commissioners' Report. Fifty-five battalions went out short of strength, some of them being as much as 200 below. The Reserve of the Guards alone sufficed. The Regular Infantry strength to-day was 5,000 less than when the Boer War broke out. Instead of the Special Reserve being superior it was immeasurably inferior to the strength of the Militia in 1899. There were now 5,000 less infantry and not more than half what the Militia was in 1899. The action of the right hon. Gentleman had made the position much worse, as he would find when the next war broke out. Could it be justified on the ground that we had an enormous Reserve at the present time? He had supposed the right hon. Gentleman would have justified it on those grounds until he heard the Under-Secretary of State for War make a speech in another place on 16th July. Lord Lucas was asked why he had closed down enlistment into Section D of the Army Reserve, and replied that the Reserve at the present time was unduly inflated. They thought the Reserve was too large, and therefore they would not allow men to join the Reserve. If that was the Government's view it was no use arguing with them. It was perfectly true that our Reserve had increased by 40,000 men since the Government came into office, but the Reserve which was now so large would in a year or two begin to diminish, and in the course of six years dwindle down to an insignificant factor. But all the credit which was due for the creation of the present Reserve must rest not with the Government, but with Lord Middleton and the right hon. Member for Croydon, who by their extension of the terms of enlistment, three years with the Colours and nine with the Reserves, founded the Reserve which existed at the present time. In 1899 the Reserve was found to be ridiculously inadequate. Lord Midleton took office and stated the three-year Colour system in the Line; this system broke down because of the drafts for India and concurrent seven and three years Colour service had to

  903
  be initiated. So much for the Infantry. What had the right hon. Gentleman done for the Artillery? In 1907 there were 11,000 Garrison Artillery Militia present at training, non-commissioned officers and men. There were now to be only 1,450 Special Reserve garrison gunners. The Regular garrison gunners had been reduced by 5,000; 11,000 Artillery had been abolished by the right hon. Gentleman, and in their place were 1,450, and the Committee was asked to consider a Reserve of 1,450 sufficient.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that was not quite correct.
  *MR. ASHLEYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman said there were more than 1,450 Garrison Artillery Reserve.
  MR. HALDANEsaid there were 15,000 Field Artillery, 5,000 less than there were originally.
  *MR. ASHLEY: Do they appear on the Estimates?
  MR. HALDANE: Yes.
  *MR. ASHLEYsaid in that case he did not press that point. The right hon. Gentleman was about to abolish 2,400 Horse and Field Artillery, and said he wished to train Special Reservists to take their places. Had he desired to train the Reservists to supplement these men he would have been entirely with the right hon. Gentleman, but he thought it would be most pernicious to use them in substitution. Take the case of training and organisation. The Militia Infantry battalion was an entity in the past. It had regimental traditions and feelings; it was proud of having served in the Crimea and in South Africa; indeed, Members of that House, who had been associated with the Militia were aware that officers, non-commissioned officers and men were as proud to serve in their Militia battalion as were the officers and men of any line battalion. They had their organisation, band, mess and everything that a line battalion possessed. All that, however, had been swept away, in order to have these special battalions,
  904
  which were just the old line depots brought back in their worst form. The right hon. Gentleman had cut down the staff to a most absurd degree, and his hon. friend reminded him that the depot staff was abolished altogether. Where these 220 extra Regular officers were to come from he really did not know, because he could not imagine that any Regular officer who really cared for his profession would join a Special Reserve battalion, if he was able to get a job anywhere else. Indeed, he thought, apart from the military side of the question, that the money inducements which were going to be offered were not such as to induce him to go there. Take the men of the Special Reserve battalions. They were going to have them at seventeen, in many cases younger. The recruit would be trained in a squad in a corner of the barrack square, apart from the regular recruits for the Line. He did not say that he would be bullied, but he would be treated in an inferior way until he volunteered for the Line. He would have coaling duty and all the dirty work of the barracks to perform, and at the end of six months time he would drift away with just enough money in his pocket to keep him from doing any regular work, but not enough to maintain him in a proper state. He would come up next year for a fortnight's training and six days musketry, and that would go on for three years, and at the end of that period, when the boy had become a man in age, he was turned into a first-class Reservist. If the right hon. Gentleman, instead of reducing the Army, had said he was going to have these men to supplement his proper Reserves, he would not have had a word to say, or he might have said that it might be an improvement on the past; but what the right hon. Gentleman had done was to reduce the regular Army by 24,000 men (12,000 Infantry), and, in substitution for the Reservists, he was putting forward these half-trained boys to take their place. In February last the right hon. Gentleman himself had said that the Militia was composed of youths of seventeen years of age who could not be sent to the front until they were twenty, and had added that it was a deplorable state of things. So it was a deplorable

  905
  state of affairs, but then they had just as deplorable a state of affairs in the Reserves of the right hon. Gentleman. Why had they all this upset simply to have a more deplorable state of affairs than under the old Militia? In regard to the question of discipline, in the old Militia the men were associated with those who had the right to command, and the habit of obeying came automatically. The men knew their captain, officers, and non-commissioned officers; they were associated with the men who would be with them on active service, and when they went abroad with their units they, therefore, obeyed automatically. What was to happen in the Special Reserve? They knew perfectly well that the officer who had trained the Special Reserve recruit would not be the officer who would lead him in time of war; the non-commissioned officer who had trained him for Army work would not be the officer who would command him on the field of battle; the comrades who had stood right and left of him in the barrack square when he learned the goose step, would not be with him when he fought the enemy; and, what was more, the very corps in which he enlisted would in all probability not be the corps in which he would fight in battle, and the man who joined the Rifle Brigade at Winchester might very well be sent abroad with the Seaforth Highlanders. How could the right hon. Gentleman expect that these boys, trained so inadequately, could be efficient substitutes for the veteran Reservists who had served seven years in the ranks, and who were now abolished? This plan must undoubtedly be a failure, and he, personally, could conceive only one way— it was an expensive way, for it would mean building barracks—out of the impasse into which the right hon. Gentleman had got by having abolished the Militia. He must revert to three Hues instead of two. He must have a Regular Army, he must have a Special Reserve as a short service Army, and then he must have a Territorial Army in reserve. Instead of having Special Reservists trained for six months and for three weeks every successive year, let him make a minimum training of one year. He would then always have a military body which was an entity, and
  906
  not a fortuitous collection of individuals in a Special Reserve. It would always go on exactly as a Line regiment, and it would enable the Government in time of stress to not only get a considerable number of efficient men to fill up the ranks when depleted by war and disease, but would also enable these Special Reserve battalions to go abroad in time of war. Under present conditions it was perfectly impossible that they could fulfil these functions. The number of men in each battalion must be nearly doubled, and the period of training must be raised from six months to a year. If the right hon. Gentleman did that, he thought he would revive the old Militia in its best form, and would get a military body which would be a strength and not a danger to the Empire.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid the speech of the hon. Gentleman was a sample of the way in which hon. Members thought it their duty to find fault with everything in a system because there was something in it of which they disapproved. No doubt the Secretary for War was in. a very difficult position, and his advisers, being Regular officers, had given him advice which did not apply to Reserve battalions. The hon. Gentleman opposite had said that the Militia had traditions which had been swept away and nothing put in their place; but the Reserve battalions were exactly the same as the Militia battalions. The hon. Member shook his head. But he himself, like the hon. Member, commanded a Reserve battalion, and he found it quite possible —he had taken care to do it—to maintain the old traditions, and to have the band, colours, and so forth. He quite agreed that it was difficult to continue old traditions when a great change was made. He was old enough to remember when a greater and more comprehensive change than the present one was made in the Militia battalions, and when they ceased to be the Militia of the county and became infantry attached to other battalions. That was a long time, and it caused a great shock to a good many people. Still, that had not stopped the Militia, nor would the present change stop it. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackpool had gone on to say

  907
  that there were 5,000 less recruits for the Special Reserve. But as the Secretary for War had explained, recruiting did not commence in the early months of the year, but in the autumn or winter. This had been carefully explained by the Secretary of State. Men did not join in the early part of the year, because six months brought them to the summer, and that would interfere with their summer work. They joined in August or September. If they took 1906, they found that the recruits had joined the regiments, where there was six months training, in the late autumn and early winter, and not in the spring and summer. That accounted for a great many more than 5,000. Besides which, it should be remembered that there was always a sort of stage-fright in connection with anything new, and for some weeks men would hardly join on any terms. Of course, there was a slight check at the start, but he had no doubt that as regarded the Special Reserves there would be no difficulty as far as men were concerned. The hon. Member for Blackpool had referred to the question of separate training. If there was to be a training separate from that of the Regular troops it would be a very serious thing for the Reserves. There were three things which stood in the way of their being trained with the Regular recruits. In the first place they were being trained with a rifle that was obsolete, while in many cases the Regulars had the new rifle, and they could not be drilled together. That was to be got over very soon he understood, and he hoped they would have some information as to when the new rifle would be issued. Secondly, there was the question of clothing, which made a distinction between them, and it was a very serious distinction. He hoped gradually the Secretary of State would manage to get over that and do away with any material difference in the clothing of the troops of both classes. There was a most elaborate scheme issued, he thought, by the Director-General of Recruiting and Gymnasia, who had the instruction of these men because they were supposed to be recruits. They were recruits for the first three months, but not after that time, and it was the Director of Troops who ought to have the training of these men, and they
  908
  ought not to be treated entirely as recruits. However, their recruit training had been laid down for the six months in such a way that it could not coincide with that of the troops required to join their Regular battalions in three months. The man that joined the Regular Army got three months drill at the depôt and was then sent on to his Regular battalion. He had to learn a certain amount in three months. But a syllabus hid been made out by the War Office authorities for men who were going to be trained for six months as Reservists who they thought could not learn enough in the first three months to be put alongside the Regular recruit. In fact, there were two different systems of training ordered by the War Office. He hoped that that would be stopped before long, and that the first three months of a soldier's training, whether Reservist or not, would be the same, and that the three months afterwards would be dealt with in other ways. The right hon. Gentleman had made great efforts to get the officers he wanted by school and University corps. They might be very good things, but they had not produced a great number of officers in the past, and he did not believe they would in the future. It was no use to say there were 2,000 men in the corps of the Universities and 5,000 in the corps of the public schools. There was no guarantee that they would ever be officers. It was true that officers of Militia had been offered £20 a year, and those cadets were to be given £25 when they left the cadet corps and became Reserve officers, but that would not make a very great difference or encourage many men to go into the Reserve Army. The difficulty had been that they could not get enough subalterns in the Militia, but they had all the same difficulties in the Special Reserve, except that they had training for six weeks instead of four, and there were very few youngsters who would appreciate that. One thing they were asked to do was quite impossible—to give a longer period to it at just the moment when they were entering into the world. In the old days it used to be two months training for Militia officers and now it was to be three. That would be rather a difficulty and he would press on the Secretary for War that the difficulty in getting officers would be very much

  909
  increased by requiring them to be better trained. It was true that if they could afford to insist on a higher stand and they might have longer training with Regular units, but the unfortunate part of it was that they had never been able to get enough officers without this higher standard, and it was a question whether they would have enough officers of the old standard—he was quite sure they would not get enough of the new. The Secretary of State ought to make it easier for men to go into the reserve of officers instead of more difficult by raising the standard. He did not see that it was necessary in the least to put them in important positions or to promote them. He might leave them as second-lieutenants until they were efficient, but he should make it as easy as possible for them to be made second-lieutenants. It was suggested that these officers would be better trained because they would be attached to a Regular unit, but that was not a good way of getting all the information they required for making them into officers. It was a very bad training for an officer, and the sooner it was altered and he was sent for a shorter period to a school or training depot the better the officer would be and the easier it would be to get officers. He hoped these little details might be altered, and he was sure that with such alterations the Special Reserve would be quite as efficient as the old Militia. It would be available to be sent abroad, which the old Militia was not, without volunteering, and there would not be much difficulty in raising the numbers of the battalions to any standard that was required. The age of thirty-six might be too low, but even at that it was quite possible to get what would be a very strong stiffening of the Special Reserve battalions in the form of men who had been through their Army training and the Reserve, and in time of war probably bounties might be given them to join and create the next battalion that was to be formed when the others were wanted to be sent abroad. He believed the scheme would be a success. He was sure the Militia had not been injured by it so far, and he hoped it would be strengthened by small improvements which might yet be made.
  MR. ASHLEY MR. ASHLEY moved the reduction of the Vote by £100.
  Motion made and Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £839,900 be granted for the said service."—Mr. Ashley.
  MR. GUY BARINGsaid he would like to give his approbation to part of this scheme—the idea of raising the Auxiliary services on a Special Reserve basis. He thought that a very good idea and likely to work well. He also thought the reserve of officers would be strengthened. The right hon. Gentleman had said he was adopting the Continental standard for the reserve of officers and giving them one year's training. But that year was very soon whittled down when he said service with a cadet corps would entitle him to take off four months of the year, and service in a University corps to take off four more; the result was that in the end he would only have four months with a regular battalion instead of the year which Continental officers had, which was hardly on all fours with his statement. There was another point in which he thought the right hon. Gentleman would do an injustice to the Regular officer. That was that these Reserve officers were to step into a Regular battalion to take the place of officers seconded. Many times in his life he and his brother officers had sat down to calculate how soon they would command a battalion, and they had more or less a line to go on, but with Special Reserve officers coming in and out when they pleased, it would be very hard indeed on the Regular officer who wanted to get some idea of how his promotion was going. He would very much like to have some explanation on that point. With regard to the quality of the men to be turned out in the Special Reserves, with an establishment of 62,000 men they were only going to have 35,000 if war broke out. That was rather a falling off. They had also to face the fact that undoubtedly out of that 35,000 a very considerable number would be scooped up by the battalions mobilising. The right hon. Gentleman had to increase his establishment if he was to avoid that, and as to that he had to consult his colleagues and his Party, and then to get the men; so there was a great deal before him if he wanted to have even

  911
  35,000 men out of the Special Reserve. These men were going to be the Reserve of the Expeditionary Force of 160,000 men. The Expeditionary Force no doubt would be well trained and equipped, but they would require drafts which would be made up from the Special Reserves. How did their training compare with that of the drafts which Continental armies would get? The right hon. Gentleman was one of the members of the Cabinet who received messages from the German Emperor, and he had a message not long ago congratulating him on the formation of the Territorial Army. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman had received any congratulations upon the formation of the Special Reserve. It was ridiculous to compare the Special Reserve with the German Reserve, who had been trained for certain one year and probably for two years. How could those men take the places of Regular soldiers after only six months training? The fact that they had a voluntary enlistment forced them to give up 11,000 or 12,000 recruits every year for the Regular Army. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman's force would ever be trained fit to take the field. The statement which the Secretary for War had made about men enlisting in the winter was not in his favour, because that was the worst time for training soldiers. He would like to know if the training was to be given at Aldershot, Salisbury Plain, or at the depot. There was a great military difficulty here, and he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman instead of showing them a way out of it had left them no better off. He did not think anything would be done till they had a reverse in the Field or some regrettable incident happened, and then they would probably have a War Commission. Some general would be crucified and the blame would not be put in the right place, which was the House of Commons.
  *CAPTAIN FABERsaid the debate had reminded him of an old adage that they might do anything with bayonets except sit on them. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be between the devil and the deep sea, because the Army was bleeding to death his Special Reserve, and the Territorial
  912
  Force was bleeding the Special Reserve. The Special Reserve must always be weakened by this process, and they were in a position which was by no means satisfactory. If they were going to be short by many thousands in the Special Reserve, and 50,000 short in the Territorial Army, he was sure the House and the country would prefer that the right hon. Gentleman should get up and declare that he meant to get the men somehow. He had always believed in the scheme brought forward by the Secretary for War, provided he could get the men. He was inclined to think that the way out of the difficulty would be to insist upon those counties which had not contributed their proper quota by 50 per cent. providing the remainder. He did not see why those counties should not be called upon to do so. His hon. friend behind him had stated that it would be a bad plan to train soldiers in the winter, but he was inclined to believe that training them in both summer and winter was a good plan, and if that fact was better known they would be able to get more men. As regarded the age Unit about which the hon. Member for Blackpool had spoken, he agreed that it was desirable to get a doctor's opinion in regard to the men of thirty-six years of age before getting rid of them. It seemed very strange not to enlist men over thirty-three years of age because they would reach thirty-six years of age before their service was up. The Secretary for War might think over that point, because it was one which might, help him. With regard to the clothing of both officers and men, it was changed so often that it became a great strain upon the resources of the men. It had been said that another member of the Cabinet had been interfering in War Office affairs, and that was rather hard upon the civilian servants at the War Office, and he hoped no more would be heard of this complaint. In conclusion, he desired to call attention to the absence of so many hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House.
  *MR. W. NICHOLSONsaid that as one who had served some years in the Militia and who had had a slight experience in the Special Reserve perhaps he might be allowed to make a

  913
  few remarks. He would like to call the attention of the Committee to the conditions under which recruits joined the Special Reserve now serving at the depots. A recruit joined in order to undergo six months drill. If he was eighteen years of age and completed three months drill he could then go on to the Regular Army and receive a bounty of 30s. If he was seventeen years of age or under he could do six months drill and at the conclusion he would receive a 30s. bounty and go into the Army. If in the Army they laid down a rule that they would take no recruits under eighteen years of age, why did they give a recruit in the Special Reserve 30s. to join the Army when he was under eighteen, and might be only seventeen or under? The special recruits did six months drill at the depot, and they did it side by side with the men who went into the line. His point was that the pay of the recruit for the line was the same as that of the recruit for the Special Reserve, who received in addition a bounty of 30s.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he got it whether he went into the Regular Army or not.
  *MR. W. NICHOLSONsaid that for the Special Reservist who went into the Army at the end of six months there was a bounty of 30s. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that the number of recruits who had done three months drill and joined the Regular Army numbered 1,161. That was the reason a bounty of 30s. was given at the completion of three months drill. The right hon. Gentleman had not told them how many recruits joined the Regular Army at the age of seventeen who had completed six months drill. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether there was at all the depots sufficient accommodation for the carrying out of musketry drill by these recruits. Those who at the end of five months were dismissed home in consequence of there being no accommodation for the musketry drill did not receive the bounty, while others who had only done three months drill and had joined the line had their bounty paid. This was considered unfair, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would look into the matter. With regard to the question of allowing the men who had
  914
  served in the Army to enlist in the Special Reserve, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would alter the age from thirty to thirty-five or more. He was sure that many men were kept out in consequence of the arrangements already in existence. With regard to the question of officers, he hoped he might be allowed to call the attention of the Committee to the extraordinary regulations under which they had to serve. The officer of the Special Reserve was on a different footing from every other officer in the Army. He had to undertake to serve for a year and during that year he could not retire, and he could only give notice of his intention to retire at the end of the year. He was bound to the Army for a year, he could be sent away from his unit, he could be sent to any other unit, or he could be sent to any other part of His Majesty's forces. This pressed very hardly on the younger officers. He in stanced the case of a boy who wished to join the Special Reserve when he came down from Cambridge or Oxford. If he joined the Special Reserve he was bound to it for a year, and perhaps it might be that, in consequence, he was unable to take up other employment that might be offered to him. The senior officers especially found it very hard that they had to retain the responsibility of belonging to the Special Reserve for a year under any circumstances, and there was a great feeling among those officers that they should be allowed to retire if they wished. One way out of the difficulty which had been suggested was that if an officer wished to retire he should be allowed to do so by paying back the £20 which he had received. He was sure it would be difficult to get officers unless they got a chance of retiring. Another point to which he desired to call attention was that an officer of the Special Reserve was bound to go abroad with any Unit, and not necessarily the battalion to which he belonged. An officer of the Territorial Army was not bound to go at all, and consequently that officer was able to make his own terms with the War Office. Again, an officer of the Territorial Army might choose to go with his own battalion or not at all. He was, therefore, in an entirely different position from the officer

  915
  of the Special Reserve. Referring to the training of the officers of the Special Reserve, the hon. Member said that at the present time they were going to be allowed to take on special duty if their services were required. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman why it was that the officer of the Special Reserve had not been allowed to take the place of a Regular officer at the depot when no Regular officer was available. Speaking on 21st February last at the Militia Club dinner the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "We shall require for purposes of the now third battalions a considerable number of additional Regular officers—more than 200. These are officers who must be there all the year round at their work. Now we are quite prepared to consider with you whether it is possible for Militia officers of the old organisation to help us to the accomplishment of that end. It may be that we may find ourselves in a position to offer to you commissions which will enable those of you who desire and are qualified to come in and take your place as part of the 220, if that is the exact number of Regular officers whom we require for this new task. At any rate, this is a matter into which we are prepared to go with you, and we shall rely on the advice of your representatives in securing to us the particular standard of men who are able to do the work of the Regular officers and to be present the whole year round."
  He had asked the right hon. Gentleman how many commissions, if any, had been offered to Militia officers who desired to come in as part of the 220 additional Regular officers required in the new third battalions, and on 20th July he received the following reply—
  "No such commissions have been offered to Militia officers in place of the proportion of Regular officers allocated to the new third battalions, nor was this at any time contemplated. As the outcome of a conference with the representatives of Militia Commanding Officers the Army Council have arranged to employ Special Reserve officers both with Regular units and at the depots, in the latter case where the number of recruits at the depots exceeds a certain number. Special Reserve officers will be employed with Regular units when, as often happens, there is a temporary shortage of Regular officers, or when Regular officers are seconded. I may add that to enable Special Reserve units to obtain junior officers pending the machinery of the new training corps becoming fully operative, the Army Councils have decided, as an interim arrangement, to allow candidates for commissions in the Special Reserve to qualify by serving with a, Regular unit for four months provided that they apply for commissions before the 18th of next December, instead of the full probationary period of twelve months."
  916
  He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman how he could reconcile these two statements. It was a matter of disappointment to the officers of the Militia, many of whom thought they would be elegible and qualified to come in and take part as Regular officers in the depot. He hoped the matter would be reconsidered by the right hon. Gentleman, He was sure that there was not a sufficient number of Regular officers available to go to the third, battalions. As to special service as a whole he pointed out that not only had the members of the different battalions been cut down, but many of the battalions, instead of being amalgamated as the right hon. Gentleman had promised last year, had been disbanded. That might seem rather a minor matter, but it was not so regarded by the officers of the battalions which had been disbanded. Ho was very sorry that the War Office had seen fit to do away with the services of some of those officers who had had experience of war and who were well qualified to be officers in the Special Reserve. He pointed out that the War Office had cut down the establishment of the existing Special Reserve. In the case of the battalion with which he was himself connected there used to be ten companies and now there were only eight, and the establishment had been reduced from 1,000 to 500. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had not allowed the Special Reserve sufficient staff to undertake the duties which would fall to them in future. In connection with the reduction of the staff many non-commissioned officers had received notice to go in the next few weeks. He thought the question of reducing the staff should be reconsidered, and that instead of cutting it down sufficient staff should be allowed to meet emergencies.
  MR. HALDANEwas understood to say, in respect of the Winchester case, that there had been a misapprehension in the treatment complained of, but that the point would be dealt with. As to the officers of the Special Reserve, a conference of Militia officers had been assembled, and he understood that the Committee had decided that another suggested plan was preferable. The

  917
  War Office, however, was anxious to do all it could to meet the case of the Militia officers, and he would consider the matter further. He believed that the suggested arrangements of the Committee were satisfactory to the Members present, even if they had not worked out so in practice.
  LORD J. JOICEY-CECILsaid the right hon. Gentleman prided himself that his Special Reserve battalion would be able to go abroad as a solid battalion in time of war, and that he would be in a better position than he was with the old Militia battalions in the last war. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would be no better off. He had done away with the Militia battalions which used to supply drafts for the line battalions. Under the old system they had a certain number of battalions which they could send abroad anywhere because they always volunteered when wanted. Consequently the War Office knew what number of men it had. Now they had done away with those battalions, and he did not see that the forces of the Crown had been strengthened. The Secretary for War was always saying that the great drawback to the old Militia Reserve was that at the commencement of a war the Militia found themselves deprived of their best men, who were taken to fill up the line battalions; and that he had done away with this trouble for ever. As a matter of fact the trouble was done away with after the war, by abolishing the Militia Reserve, and so keeping the Militia battalions intact, except for volunteering for the Regular Army. So, if a Militia battalion of 400 men were sent to garrison, say, Aden, or some other place, the authorities would know that there were 400 men there till otherwise ordered; and that none of them had been enlisted to serve with any but their own battalion. The Secretary for War had reverted to the old plan of Special Reserves, as, if a Special Reserve battalion was sent out for garrison duty and a reverse happened, say in Aden or India, and men must be had, a telegram could bring a warship and embark practically the garrison, leaving the place undefended. He contended therefore that there was danger in doing away with the Militia as had been
  918
  done. He believed that the men they would get from the Reserve battalions to supply the deficiences in the Line would in most cases require a great deal of knocking into shape before they were fit to take their regular place in the line battalions. The position which Regular officers would have to take during the training of the Special Reserve battalions must cause friction, and esprit de corps would be absolutely extinguished by enlisting men for general service in the Special Reserve, and also by mixing up Regular and other officers. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Lich-field that the traditions of the Militia battalions would go down to the Special Reserve battalions. The feeling in the majority of counties was just the reverse, and the plan of drafting reservists from one regiment to another would have the effect of preventing men from joining the Special Reserve battalions.
  *CAPTAIN MORRISON-BELLthought that we were as a nation in a very serious position as regarded our Army. We had done what he considered the strangest thing that any nation could possibly have done, by abolishing not only a large number of men, but a very important part of the personnel of the Army before we had anything to take their place. He could not imagine any other nation doing anything so short-sighted. When he heard the hon. Member for Lichfield saying that he hoped the training of the Special Reserve officers would be made more easy than at present in order to fit them for the duty which they might be called upon to perform in time of war, it led him to think we were entering into a very dangerous position. He did not think that the present training of those officers was a bit too arduous. He himself had had experience in the Militia, of which he was an officer before he joined the Regular service. He knew they thought a great deal of themselves and believed they were nearly as good as the Regulars, but when he got into the Regular Army he found that he had a great deal to learn. Seeing that, so far as he could understand, the Reservists would have to take the place of Regular soldiers in time of war, he deprecated strongly the idea of reducing

  919
  the training which was given to them at present. It would be disastrous to make that training less onerous for those who would have, in the event of a campaign, to take their place in the Line. He had also been greatly disappointed with the remark of the Secretary of State for War that some of the Special Reserve officers, when occasion arose, would have to take the place of combatant officers. The right hon. Gentleman knew well enough that there was a very deep feeling right through the service that at the present moment officers were thinking themselves extremely badly treated because of this foolhardy reduction in the number of battalions. Owing to that reduction a great number of officers were sent into the Line battalions, promotion was stopped to a considerable extent, and much injustice was done to those unfortunate regimental officers who were the backbone of the service. Those regimental officers were threatened that if they were seconded for particular duty, Special Reserve officers were to be brought into their places, and that would make it absolutely impossible for the regimental officers to secure their promotion. He knew of a particular instance where a senior subaltern had only a few months to run to complete nine years service when another officer was brought in and stopped his promotion, with the result that he had to wait nearly three years before he got his troop. All that had caused a great deal of feeling in the service. It was no use asking officers to serve in the Line regiments when statements were made such as those of the right hon. Gentleman. They felt that the moment might come when, after all, they were not going to get the promotion which they deserved and had worked for. He hoped that the Committee would be given some sort of explanation of the remarks which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman, for he felt very strongly and he knew that the regimental officers felt just as strongly that they had not been well treated, and there was great soreness amongst them because officers were brought in from other regiments very much against their wishes and so prevented them getting their, step. Another point was that they heard over
  920
  and over again that there was a great dearth of officers, that they did not know at the present moment where to look for officers to fill up vacancies both in the Reserve and in the Regulars. It was no good talking about the Eton and Harrow Volunteers being able to furnish a sufficient supply. It was well-known that the percentage of officers coming from such cadet corps was not very great, and it was no use pretending to the country that because we had cadet corps in the public schools we should have a sufficient supply of officers. The question of the sufficiency of officers was a most serious one, more especially when they did not know where to look for them, and he felt it was no solution of the problem to say that we had these cadet corps in the public schools. They had had cadet corps before; they were not new institutions, and therefore, from past experience they could not be looked to to provide a sufficient supply of officers. He only hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would give some explanation on the points that he had raised. He was certainly not one to run down any scheme, and he sincerely hoped that this new scheme of Special Reserves would be a success. He felt very nervous about the matter. He did not think much would be done by this winter training. The training was becoming more practical every year, and he did not believe in the men being put into depots by way of training for the work which they would have to do in time of war. Then there was the question of shooting. If these Reservists were to be asked to take their place in time of war among the Regulars, they should have facilities given them for perfecting themselves in their duties. They should not be allowed to have old rifles, but those which they would have to use in time of war. If, as he understood, they were to be armed with the new rifles, then he would urge that there should not be too long a delay in supplying them, and also proper rifle ranges at which to practise. He hoped the scheme would be a success, but he did not at present see that they could look forward to it with much hope of its being so. He sincerely trusted that the men

  921
  would come forward, that every facility would be given to them to attain proficiency, and that the training would not be reduced or in any way made easier for either officers or men.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not rise to take the part in the debate which his right hon. friend the Member for Croydon was so well qualified to take, because his knowledge of the circumstances was not comparable with that of his right hon. friend who, unhappily, had had to leave under medical orders, and could not be present. He rose to ask two questions. He was in full agreement with his hon. friends in deploring the reduction which the Government had thought fit to make, both in the Regular Army and in the number of Militia battalions. He thought it a very unhappy step, the consequences of which they were not even yet in a position fully to measure. His first question related to the drain which would be put on the Special Reserve Force if, unhappily, hostilities broke out. The theory, as he understood it, was that the function of supplying the waste of war would only begin after the battalions had been adequately mobilised. If his memory served him rightly, the old Reserve was inadequate to meet the necessities of mobilisation at the time of the South African war. Was he right in supposing that the normal Reserve in future would not only be not greater than in 1899, but would actually be less, because the number with the Colours was less now than it was then?
  MR. HALDANE: The Reserve produced will be in the normal 117,000. That is sufficient to mobilise the battalions for home defence.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the answer of the right hon. Gentleman as regarded the figures was satisfactory, but he was a little puzzled to know how that result was arrived at, for this reason. He believed the establishment was lower than it was in 1899. The terms of service were the same as in 1899. The Reserve in 1899 was inadequate, and he should have anticipated under those Circumstances that the right hon.
  922
  Gentleman would not have been in the favourable position in which he seemed to think himself. If the right hon. Gentleman could give the House some assurance on that point it would be a great satisfaction to many hon. Members. We were in a very favourable position as to Reservists because the late system gave a great many men for that purpose, and it was unfortunate, from that point of view, that it had to be abandoned. But it was necessary because it could not supply the drafts for India. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had not, in trying to arrive at a system satisfactory from many points of view, found that it was not satisfactory from the point of view of sending battalions into the field at their full strength. The right hon. Gentleman would find that the number of units in the Reserve was not normal; the Special Reserve would have to be drawn upon at once and the Special Reserve would be at once reduced to far below its proper strength. It would be seen that his first question referred to the mobilisation of the battalions for the field. His second question referred to the Special Reserve itself and especially to those battalions in the Special Reserve who were regarded as in the fullest sense the successors of the Militia, and who would probably be called on in an emergency to take the place of Regular garrisons in the Mediterranean and elsewhere over sea. Did the right hon. Gentleman think that under his system they would have the same esprit de corps as the old battalions of Militia working under officers who had trained them? It had been made a matter of criticism of his scheme that the drafts from the Special Reserve might be sent to any battalion to make up the wastage of war. That, he took it, was inevitable, but the consequence by which a man might be called on to serve in a regiment with which he had no connection or local association was to be deplored. But his question did not relate to that part of the problem. It related to the use of those Special Reserve battalions by themselves, not as supplying drafts. Would they go on foreign service, for which they were now liable, with the same officers, carrying with them the same traditions, and in all respects as favourably constituted as

  923
  existing Militia battalions were when called upon to volunteer in times of emergency?
  MR. HALDANEreplied that it was the intention to preserve the esprit de corps of the battalions, and to give them as far as possible their own officers. They never knew what might happen when they went to the theatre of war; but their desire was to go on as at present. As to the drain on the Reserve, the right hon. Gentleman would remember that there was a great deal of discussion last year over the actuarial calculations. He himself did not feel competent to check the actuarial calculations, and he was not sure that anybody in the House could. But he had them made again, and the numbers arrived at were obtained, he thought, from taking 89,000 of the ordinary Reserve and 25,000 of Section B. That gave, and he thought that was the way in which the result was arrived at, about the figure he had mentioned.
  MR. HUNTsaid that in the Territorial Army the officers were excused from being obliged to serve as High Sheriffs, whereas the officers of the Special Reserves were not so excused. Why was that? He would like a reply to that question. He might be allowed to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, at all events, on his attempt to get officers from the Universities and public schools. He thought that that was the right way to go about the matter. But he was afraid that he could not congratulate him on getting the men he required, and if he got officers they would be of no use without men. It seemed to him that the recruits would be found to be youths of under twenty years of age, who would be of little or no use in actual warfare. Many of them were certainly weedy and undeveloped, and they enlisted because they had been starved to a great extent, their parents being so badly off that they could not afford to bring them up on heavily-taxed tea and bakers' bread, with most of the nourishment taken out of it, and which might or might not be cheap. Certainly, this was one of the "advantages" of allowing our markets to be free to nations outside of Great Britain. There was another thing which had struck him in
  924
  connection with the recruiting of immature boys; it was that the new rifle kicked a good deal more than the old one, in spite of its bell mouth. He was afraid that this new rifle kicked so much that the poor lad of seventeen would not be able to let it off more than twenty or thirty times, instead of perhaps 100 times, as would be required in actual warfare. It seemed to him that it was these underfed, immature lads who were to help to hold back the thoroughly trained, picked, fully-developed and well-fed men from Germany, or other countries, and they had to be able to do that with six months training, and until the Territorial Army could be got into form. It would appear that the Secretary for War had declined to allow old Volunteers and old men of the Militia and Army to be so organised that they could be used in case of emergency. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman had put his foot down and said that he would not have it. He pointed out that these old soldiers and Volunteers of forty or fifty years of age had received a thorough training, and were of a great deal more use than these poor boys of seventeen years of age. Probably they could get them at considerably less expense. He would like to give an example of the sort of horses which were hired for the Artillery forces. Ha happened to have a friend who lived not very far from where he resided; he had known him for a good many years; he was a butcher. Three horses were hired at £3 3s. a week. He happened to know them—they were all "screws"; and the butcher was told that they were on no account to go out for a walk. One horse was a small boy's pony; the second would not pass a bicycle except under very severe compulsion; and the third threw itself down when it was not pleased. None of them wag strong enough for the guns. A fourth horse, with navicular lameness, was stronger than any of the other three, being up to 12st. 2lbs. Ho was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would see that in this case he had got economy and efficiency combined. Ho could not see how the right hon. Gentleman's scheme was going to work, and he thought Lord Tweedmouth was right when he said that this new scheme was a gamble. He thought the Secretary

  925
  for War was gambling with the safety of the country; yet the right hon. Gentleman, from the speech he made in Bristol in May last, certainly had realised our dangerous position. This was what the War Minister had said—
  "That we must, take care that we did not beat our swords into ploughshares before the other nations did the same; that there was no curse greater than war except being unprepared for it when it came, because defeat would mean the destruction of our trade, commerce, credit and security; that war came very suddenly, and nations still did wage war; that a blow at the heart of the Empire, at a great city like London, was a prospect so tempting to an enemy that they might be sure that on the least encouragement an enemy would take advantage of it; that it would be the easiest way of bringing a war to a conclusion, and would mean ruin to our country and starvation to our people."
  That was what the right hon. Gentleman had said, and he would remind him that he had previously warned them that it was quite possible that we might become too poor to keep up the two-Power standard. He supposed that that meant we should have to depend upon our Army to defend us against invasion. The right hon. Gentleman had also said that our Navy might be evaded, and that we could not keep it tied to our shores. And it was on immature boys, with this short period of training, most of which was apparently to be carried out in the winter months, when it was impossible to do field work, the right hon. Gentleman told them they were to depend in case of serious national emergency. He would point out that the great German port of Cuxhaven was twenty-five and a half hours from Hull, and ten and a half hours from Berlin by troop train, and many German Army corps could easily be trained to that port. There was nothing near Hull except untrained Territorial units, which were not yet in complete existence, being without horses, and their artillery entirely useless. Colonel Repington, the military correspondent of The Times, on 6th June wrote that we should require 700,000; but the Secretary for War had first of all told them that he was going to get 700,000 to 900,000 for the Territorial Army and the Reserve.
  MR. HALDANEwas understood to say that he stated that the number, in
  926
  time of national emergency, might rise to 700,000 or 800,000.
  MR. HUNTsaid the right hon. Gentleman might have been wrongly reported, but he had certainly seen that statement. The military correspondent of The Times said we should require 700,000–500,000 mobile Army and fairly trained; 150,000 for garrison duty in Great Britain, and 50,000 to protect Ireland.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: This is not relevant to the subject of Special Reserves. The hon. Gentleman is talking about other matters outside.
  MR. HUNTthought he had about come to the end of his remarks. He hoped he would hear an answer from the right hon. Gentleman about the officers for the Territorial Army and the Special Reserves in connection with the obligation to serve as High Sheriff and to serve on juries, and that the right hon. Gentleman would also tell them something which would make them feel a little more comfortable about the safety of the country.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY To The WAR OFFICE (Mr. ACLAND,)said he might perhaps be allowed to say a few words on the general matters which had been raised in the debate. He thought that quite the most important question was as to whether or not the Special Reserve could be relied upon to perform the function for which it had been called into existence—namely, for finding the drafts. If they found that the Special Reserve was required to fill up the battalions, and only some portion of it remained for drafting purposes—the purpose for which it had been called into being—then to a considerable extent it would have failed. They relied not on the Special Reserve but on the ordinary Reserve to raise units to the full strength at the beginning of hostilities. They had been asked two or three times in the course of the debates: "As it was the fact that some units were not able to mobilise at full strength at the beginning of the South African War, how will you be certain that that will not occur again, and that

  927
  you will not have to call upon these Special Reserves in order to mobilise your units in the first place?" The answer was largely that the condition of things at the beginning of the South African War was by no means a normal condition. In the first place, they had just before that time been creating new units, and had been re-enlisting men from the Reserve into these units. The Reserve had been specially depleted to form new units, and was therefore considerably below the strength it would otherwise have been at.
  MR. ASHLEY: How much below? Not very many.
  *MR. ACLANDsaid that there had been considerable re-enlistment from the Reserve into the Line. Another reason for the special difficulty was that they had not power at that time to call out men from Section D until the whole of Section B had been exhausted. Now, they could take men from Section D when they wanted them, and therefore those special disadvantages which existed at the beginning of the war no longer existed. They were, of course, in a specially advantageous position now owing to the Reserve containing many men who had served for three years, but it was as certain as anything could be that when the normal had been reached, provided care had been taken that units did not sink below the safe and proper establishment, the ordinary Reserve would be amply sufficient to complete the units to the full strength.
  MR. ASHLEY: I wish the hon. Gentleman would explain how, in view of the fact that at present the Infantry are 5,000 below the strength they were in 1899, 5,000 fewer men could produce a greater Reserve than was produced in 1899.
  *MR. ACLANDsaid he was only speaking about such units as existed. It was no doubt true that Units had been done away with in the last few years—not by one Secretary for War alone. He could not pretend that the same total force would be mobilisable as at the time before any reforms had taken place
  928
  several years ago. Then there was the important question whether the training which was going to be given to these Special Reserve units would be sufficient to fit them for this purpose of providing drafts for the Regular Army. Time would show. All they could say for certain at present was that the training these men were having would be at any rate a great deal better than the training which the Militia used to have. Very good opinions were given as to the results of the training of the Spectator Company, which was trained during the winter—the worst time of year. The training of the Special Reservists would be for six months, and it would give very much better material than anything they had had before. More they could I not say. With regard to the officers, there, again, surely they would be in a better position. The normal position of the Special Reserve officers under the new conditions would be that they would have been through a special two-year course at a school, a special two-year course at a University, and four months attachment to a regular unit. That, again, was a great improvement on anything which was asked for before, and especially in this way—that to spread the training over a series of years and to have graduated courses which were not all taken in a few months together was, he believed, a much better way of training men who already possessed a certain amount of education than trying to concentrate their training altogether, because they were interested in their work, keen about it, and thinking about it, and picked up in one year very quickly at the place they left off the year before. Then there was a question about the bounty on transfer to the Regular Army. Here the right hon. Gentleman who wrote a letter in The Times that morning had fallen into an error. It was not a fact that there was a special £2 bounty on transfer from the Special Reserve into the Regular Army. The £2 bounty was for transfer from the Militia into the Special Reserve, and the bounty given on transfer from the Special Reserve into the Regular Army was 30s., and that given, not as a bounty on transfer into the Regular Army, but as a bounty on completion of the six months service. They regarded the men as having earned

  929
  that bounty whether they joined the Regulars or not, and they did not offer the special bounty to try to induce men to go over into the Regulars extra to that which was given in any case.
  *MR. W. NICHOLSON: The 30s. bounty is given to boys of seventeen or under. On the other hand, the War Office lays down that eighteen is the earliest age for any boy to join the Regular Army.
  *MR. ACLANDsaid that that was not so. These bounties were not given to boys of seventeen. They would take great care to see that no boys of that sort joined the Regulars. But they were no doubt taking boys of seventeen and a half, joining the Special Reserve at seventeen, doing their six months and getting their 30s. They were no doubt taking these boys younger, at the end of their six months training, than they would like to take them if they came straight as recruits for the Regulars. They had the disadvantage in that case that they were younger, but they had the very great advantage that they came after their six months training and therefore in a much better physical and military condition than they would be if they sent them away for six months and then took them at the age of eighteen. They gained in efficiency and lost perhaps in the age at which they were taken into the Regular Army.
  *MR. W. NICHOLSONsaid that according to the Regulations a recruit at the conclusion of six months might join the Regular Army even if he had not attained the age of eighteen years, provided he fulfilled the necessary physical requirements, and he was to receive his bounty. If the boy was under eighteen the country had to pay for him for the extra six months and keep him during that time, and did not gain a man who could go on foreign service. The country had to keep him so many months longer until he could go on foreign service.
  *MR. ACLANDstated that the quotation just read from the Regulations showed that the statement previously made by the hon. Member that these boys were taken by the Regulars under
  930
  seventeen was quite erroneous. Referring to a further point raised, it was, of course, true that they had taken powers to post these Special Reservists to any unit in the Army of the arm to which they belonged. That was inevitable. They could not give anything like an absolute guarantee that men would only be sent to join the Regular unit to which the Special Reserve unit belonged. It might quite well be that in those particular units of the Regular Army there had been no wastage at all. If that were so, it would surely be unreasonable to ask them to lock up the Special Reservists belonging to those units and not to post them to other units in which there might have been very heavy wastage. He was sure it was intended not to break the Territorial connection, but they could not give any guarantee on the point. It had been said that officers were going to be posted to Regular battalions instead of officers seconded, but that was only intended to be done very much as a temporary measure. It was not intended thereby to reduce the rate of promotion, but there might be periods when an officer was seconded for a comparatively short time and where it would not be fair to make a promotion, because he would be soon coming back and the particular rank that he belonged to would be over-full. It was very carefully considered by the Adjutant-General, and he could not imagine anybody more careful as to rights of officers of the Regular Army. With regard to jury service, surely it was true that the Territorial officers and men got less pay and probably quite as much if not more responsibility than those of the Special Reserve. The responsibility of the Territorial also lasted the whole of the year, whereas that of the Special Reservist was only for a comparatively short period. It was only fair, therefore, to give the privilege, such as it was, of being excused from service on juries all the year round to men of the Territorial Force.
  MR. CARLILEsaid it was a thankless task to have to criticise the Special Reserves, and it always went against the grain to criticise the provision made for the defence of the Empire. He thought the

  931
  speeches delivered that night had taken the right and just course. When the Minister for War last rose from his seat it was to offer to the Leader of the Opposition an assurance that in connection with the Special Reserves the esprit de corps should be carefully watched and preserved. It was very difficult indeed for those sitting on the Opposition side of the House to realise that that was the attitude of the Minister for War. The men who enlisted in this force were not told that they might be drafted in any time of emergency to any other unit and that they might be called upon to fight in a unit to which they were not accustomed. This applied not only to noncommissioned officers and men but also to the officers. Any officer of the Special Reserve when war broke out or a national emergency arose might be drafted off to another unit to fight among perfect strangers. Of course the officers would feel those strange surroundings less than the men, but in the case of the men it would be more serious, because they were greatly influenced by the fact that they had with them comrades to whose habits and friendship they had been accustomed, and to be thrown amongst complete strangers seemed to him to be a curious way of safeguarding the esprit de corps of those troops. Why did the right hon. Gentleman go out of his way to destroy sentiment in connection with this force? He did not believe there was any assembly which was more controlled by sentiment than the House of Commons. He had seen the House almost in tears over sentiment, and he had often seen it reduced to laughter. The House of Commons did not ignore the fact that sentiment was one of the greatest powers in the world, and yet the right hon. Gentleman when handling this part of the defensive forces went out of his way and destroyed owe of the finest sentiments by changing the name of the Militia, around which military men had clustered ever since the days of Waterloo, ever since the days when they garrisoned the Mediterranean, and ever since they volunteered for South Africa, where they did a noble work on behalf of their Queen, King, and country. Why could he not allow them to remain under the name of the Militia of which they were proud? He had now
  932
  given them an emasculated kind of title known as Special Reserve. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman ignored the power of sentiment always, although he had done so in connection with this force. What chance was there of this being made an efficient force? The lads joined at seventeen years of age, and as soon as they were any good the best of them would be drafted off into the Army. So this force on which they would learn to rely as years went by, in which the right hon. Gentleman had succeeded by regulations in destroying esprit de corps and sentiment, would be constantly emasculated by the removal of all those who constituted its best members and there would be only the residuum left. They were to have six months training in their first year. That surely was little enough for such a future as the right hon. Gentleman proposed to place them in. The next year's training dropped from six months to three weeks. Those lads did not come from the classes which provided the Territorial Army. They did not come out of the great operative and textile centres throughout the country, but they came more or less from a poor class and many of them had suffered from unemployment. They joined this force, got their six months training, and the next year they got three weeks training—which was far too little—and in the meantime, while they were not being trained for the other forty-nine weeks of the year, they were seeking employment and were bound to deteriorate. For forty-nine weeks in the second year they had to seek a precarious livelihood, and they would deteriorate not only in physique, but intellectually and morally as well. This could not possibly be avoided under the system. Why should they be told that they could rely upon this Special Reserve which was marked off as something peculiarly choice? This was the force they were to rely upon in case of war. It was true that boys learned quickly, and at seventeen a boy would learn in half the time that a man at twenty-seven would take, but it should not be overlooked that they were equally quick at forgetting what they had learned. Instead of taking care of these men, nurturing them, protecting them so

  933
  as not to allow them to deteriorate, they were allowed to suffer through unemployment. It should not be forgotten that the Militia sent out 24,000 men to the South African War, but he would like to know how many this Special Reserve could send out. Out of the 58,500 who would be necessary to form the establishment of the Infantry, only 18,000 at the very utmost would be available to go abroad in time of war. During the South African War the Militia sent out 24,000 men, and they did grand work. When the right hon. Gentleman's Special Reserve was formed, it would not be able to do what the Militia did with an organisation which had sentiment and esprit de corps, which the right hon. Gentleman had done his best to destroy. What could they say about the men trained in the depots? The one thing they wanted now was to be able to train the brains of their men, and the humblest private in the Special Reserve ought to have his brain trained. They wanted to institute initiative amongst the men. They would be sent out to do work in extended order, and they could not always be in touch with the captains and others. The men would have to think for themselves, and they were not being trained in the country where they could be taught to take cover. How could they train the men to take cover in a barrack square? It could not be done. The first year the men might get a little training, but the second year's training would be fatal to any powers of initiative in the men. They wanted them to think. These were serious considerations which ought to be kept in mind by the Secretary of State for War before he gave the assurance to the Leader of the Opposition that the esprit de corps was to be carefully nurtured and preserved in connection with the Force which he feared very much would never really be an efficient Force. His hon. friend the Member for Mid. Devon, who had had considerable military experience, said he was nervous about it. He did not wonder at that. The word of the hon. Member in the matter ought to carry considerable weight. What did the hon. Member think of boys of seventeen being sent to garrison Malta and other places like that? The right hon. Gentleman had
  934
  told the Committee that the Special Reserve was going to be sent out to Malta. He would like to see the right hon. Gentleman attempting to send boys of seventeen to garrison the Mediterranean fortresses. There was not a mother in the country who would not be coming up and saying: "You will not send my son of seventeen to those climates." The Prime Minister had had a hot time in regard to the suffragettes, but that was mere child's play compared with the experience which the Secretary of State for War would have with the mothers of England, who would give him such a time as he was never likely to forget. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take to heart many of the things which had been said by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House. He hoped that, notwithstanding the present regulations which were very much against the esprit de corps which was always essential in a British military Force, the sentiment which enabled our soldiers to rally round the name which they held dear would be shown, for without it a military Force nowhere could do any good.
  *CAPTAIN MORRISON-BELLsaid there was one remark of the Secretary of State for War which, he was sure, the whole of the officers of the Regular Forces would receive with the deepest disappointment, namely, the statement that the officers of the Special Reserve were to be allowed to go into the places of those seconded from their regiments. Were these Special Reserve officers to fill the gap? If that was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, he felt that he would cause the greatest disappointment to the officers of the Regular Forces. The regimental officers were the backbone of the Army, and yet they had been passed over again and again and others had been put into positions which might have been given to them. There might be reasons for that, but he did not know what they were. He thought it was a mistake to put in the Special Reserve officers, and he hoped it was not too late to reconsider the matter. If he commanded a regiment, and an officer came to him to ask to be seconded under these circumstances

  935
  he would see him—[laughter]. This was a serious question, and the proposal would cause the greatest consternation among regimental officers. There was no justification for it, and he hoped there would be some further reference to the matter by the Secretary of State.
  MR. ACLANDsaid the matter was made perfectly plain by the Secretary of State in the following Answer to a Question on 20th July—
  "Special Reserve officers will be employed with Regular units when, as often happens, there is a temporary shortage of Regular officers, or when Regular officers are seconded. I may add that to enable Special Reserve units to obtain junior officers pending the machinery of the new training corps becoming fully operative the Army Council have decided, as an interim arrangement, to allow candidates for commissions in the Special Reserve to qualify by serving with a Regular unit for four months, provided that they apply for commissions before the 18th of next December, instead of the full probationary period of twelve months."
  It was not intended to block the hopes of promotion of the regimental officers.
  CAPTAIN MORRISON-BELLsaid that if these Special Reserve officers were going to be put in the place of officers who were seconded for three years a great injustice would be done to the regimental officers, who already felt that they had a strong grievance.
  MR. HALDANEmade a remark which was inaudible in the Press Gallery.
  *CAPTAIN MORRISON-BELLsaid he could not take great comfort from that statement. Already promotion had been delayed to a most dangerous degree, and the officers were deeply disappointed. The officers knew at present that they had a very poor chance of promotion to the command of a regiment. From start to finish promotion was slow, but now they were told that Special Reserve officers were to be put in. That would make promotion still slower, and there was not the slightest justification for such an injustice being done.
  MR. BELLAIRSconcurred in the expression of pity which had fallen from hon. Members on the other side of the House as to the abolition of the Militia. He believed that the Militia had been abolished through the procedure in past years by which the Volunteers had entered so much into competition with the Militia. He understood that of the 101 battalions there were twenty in Ireland where there was no competition with the Territorial Army. Of these twelve were kept intact and eight were draft-producing battalions. He wished to know how the right hon. Gentleman had succeeded in recruiting officers and men from the Militia in Ireland as compared with the recruiting of officers and men from the Militia in this country, where the Territorial Army was in competition.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 77; Noes, 231. (Division List No. 224.)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Nield, Herbert

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Starkey, John R.

  Younger, George

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

  Percy, Earl

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Ashley and Mr. William Nicholson.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Valentia, Viscount

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Findlay, Alexander

  Maclean, Donald

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Micking, Major. G.

  Balfour, Rebort (Lanark)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Maddison, Frederick

  Barker, John

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Glover, Thomas

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Gooch, George Peadboy (Bath)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Beaumont, Hon. Herbert

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Massie, J.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Bell, Richard

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Mond, A.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Gulland, John W.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt)

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Mooney, J. J.

  Benn, W, (Tw'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Morse, L. L.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hall, Frederick

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Myer, Horatio

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh

  Napier, T. B.

  Branch, James

  Harwood, George

  Nicholls, George

  Brooke, Stopford

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hasel, Dr. A. E.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Byles, William Pollard

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Grady, J.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Partington, Oswald

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hudson, Walter

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

  Jenkins, J.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

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

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Radford, G. H.

  Crooks, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Delany, William

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Rees, J. D.

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

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

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Duckworth, James

  Lambert, George

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Edwards, Clement Denbigh)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Essex, R. W.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Rowlands, J.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  938

  939

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn Sir Thomas P

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Seddon, J.

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

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

  Shackleton, David James

  Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

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

  Tillett, Louis John

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

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoushton)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wads worth, J.

  Winfrey, R.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Walsh, Stephen

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

  Young, Samuel

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Waterlow, D. S.

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

  Steadman, W. C.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Whitehead, Rowland

CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1908–9.

  Class II.
  2. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £40,830, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
  *MR. A. PONSONBYsaid that he desired to raise a question in the sphere of foreign politics, which was of the greatest importance at the present time. He alluded to the state of affairs in Turkey, especially as it affected our policy in Macedonia. It was with a feeling of great embarrassment that he touched upon this subject, not only from the fact that he was addressing the House for the first time, but also because events in that part, of the world had been passing with such surprising rapidity during the last few days that anyone who took a close interest in the foreign politics of Europe was obliged to feel that his views were daily and even hourly undergoing some change or modification. He had intended to raise the question of Macedonia not in any spirit of criticism or even of complaint, but with a view to supporting and encouraging the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary in the attitude he had taken up with regard to affairs in the Balkan Peninsula. And he ventured
  940
  to choose this subject because three years residence in Constantinople had enabled him to realise how complicated was the path of any Minister and with what difficulties and dangers it was strewed, in any negotiations he had to carry on with the Turkish Government. There were many ways of approaching this intricate problem. Indeed, there were many grounds for forming political opinions on any subject. People built their political opinions on moral foundations, on legal and economic foundations, and on humanitarian foundations; and he thought that those who built their views on humanitarian foundations, although they might sometimes be laughed at for indulging in sentimentality, in the long run, whether they were dealing with problems which concerned our social life at home or with national and international questions, their views were generally found to be disinterested, just, and generous. But it was not only the humanitarian view that had to be considered in regard to this question. The whole problem was fraught with danger and concerned closely the interests of all the great Powers of Europe. Perhaps he might be allowed to allude to matters as they stood before the last two or three weeks had very much altered the state of affairs. The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary, after two and a half years, finding that no real change had been made and that the situation was really becoming more dangerous, and that the population of that unfortunate country was suffering more and more from misgovernment, drew up

  941
  a scheme of reforms which met with general approval, and which was submitted first of all to the Russian Government and eventually to be transmitted to the other Powers and ultimately to the Sultan himself. He considered that the scheme which the right hon. Gentleman suggested was one that was moderate and would be effective if it were ever accepted. There was no doubt that there was every justification for taking strong measures, considering that for the last two years, since the promulgation of the Mürsteg programme, there had been absolutely no amelioration; on the contrary, the state of affairs had become considerably worse, and the outrages of the bands had increased. Before attaching blame to any particular section, it must be remembered that retaliation was often more violent than the original act which provoked it, and, to use a phrase employed two or three years ago by the Leader of the Opposition, "the balance of criminality" did not rest with that particular section of the population which was responsible for the greatest number of outrages, but with the authority in whose hands the government or mis-government of the country lay. If the bands of Servians, Bulgarians, Greeks and Albanians had been treated with equal justice, or even with equal severity, a very different state of affairs would have been the consequence. But as those who had studied the problem closely knew well, favour was shown to the Servian and Greek bands in order that they might counteract the encroachments of the Bulgarian bands. He, therefore, insisted that the blame rested on the responsible authority. That was not the Turkish Army. The Turkish Army, if properly officered and with efficient generals, would be, he might say, almost the most formidable Army in the world. The blame did not rest with them, nor with the Sublime Porte. The Sublime Porte only consisted of a number of officials who registered the decrees of the Sultan and who, with all the wiles of Oriental diplomacy, managed to frustrate the demands of the Powers. No, the ultimate authority responsible was the Sultan himself—
  942
  that strange and, he might say, uncanny personality who, in his cowardly retirement at Yildiz, managed to control the affairs of his country and the destinies of every individual one of his subjects with a control so complete and so absolute that it might be fairly said that no autocrat had ever before managed to get the whole authority centred in his own person to the same extent. It was with the Sultan that they had to deal. He did not wish to elaborate the scheme of reforms of the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary. There were many points in it which might be considered the absolute irreducible minimum for the reform of these provinces. But to what extent was everything changed by the revolution now going on? This revolution had been accomplished very rapidly. To what influence was it to be chiefly attributed? There was no doubt that the Young Turkey movement had had a considerable influence, but he believed the disaffection in the Turkish Army, widespread for so many years, had gradually come to a head, The Young Turkey Party had taken advantage of the opportunity and also of the Albanian national movement. The result was that the Sultan had granted a constitution. He believed that that constitution would be very like the one granted in 1876; it was a ruse on the part of the Sultan in order to tide over an embarrassing moment. He had shown great skill in the past in dealing with all sections of people, with the Armenians, with the Macedonians, and, time after time, with the Powers of Europe, and no doubt in this instance he would know how to deal with his own countrymen and his own race. With the Army against him he knew that resistance was useless, but he would no doubt find means to get them on his side. If, however, this revolution were successful, if it was a great liberal movement which was to result in better treatment being meted out to the Christian subjects of the Sultan, then it would be wrong for us to interfere, and we ought to stand by and look on sympathetically. But he doubted whether it was a movement of that kind, and he thought that in a few months time it

  943
  would be seen that this concession, given by the Sultan at a time of danger, had not diminished any of Ms power. The Secretary of State when he spoke would be able to tell the Committee what was going on, but in the condition of flux in which Turkey now was it was not likely that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to outline any definite policy. He himself felt, however, that the right hon. Gentleman's schemes for the reform of Macedonia should not be put aside altogether, but should be kept until a favourable opportunity could be found for putting them forward. When they were pressed he trusted the Government would not assent to any mitigation, weakening, or whittling down which would have the effect of rendering them as useless as many of the reform schemes which had been presented to the Sultan before. He was not a great believer in the Concert of Europe and the concert of ambassadors at Constantinople. Unanimity was apparently the main object, and they were only completely successful if they were absolutely inactive. But if it was intended to work through the Concert, then it should have a conductor, and he suggested that this country could undertake that role better than any other Power, because we had a high reputation for disinterestedness and for being the champions of international justice. When he travelled in Turkey he had been received with embarrassing cordiality, not because he was attached to the Embassy, but because he was an Englishman. The light hon. Gentleman would know how and when to press his schemes and there was no one who enjoyed greater confidence or who was supported by a more powerful public opinion than the right hon. Gentleman who now occupied the position of Secretary of State. Before concluding, he might be allowed to refer to the misgovernment in another great Empire, namely, Russia, and he would, with all respect, urge the right hon. Gentleman to remember that even in an Empire where we were not bound by treaty obligations and where there could be no question of our interfering with the internal affairs, the heartfelt sympathy of the British people was on the side of
  944
  the oppressed and not on the side of the oppressor, and any attempt on our part to condone, even by expressions of official cordiality, the misdeeds and unjustifiable cruelties of an authority who must be held responsible for the misgovernment and persecution, would not be approved by the people of this country who were lovers of justice and political liberty.
  Mr. LYNCHsaid the questions which he desired to raise were on two subjects which were most prominent on the political stage to-day. They were Persia and Macedonia. What was the paramount interest of Great Britain in Macedonia and Persia? In Persia we had great commercial interests. Our trade with that country was in the past greater than that of any other country in the world, and at the present time was only second to that of Russia. We had constructed telegraph lines from one end of the country to the other, and anybody travelling in Persia and taking note of the currency would find that it was issued through a British bank. In Macedonia our commercial interests were small, but in Turkey, of which Macedonia was a part, they were very large, but commercial interests were not the paramount interests of Great Britain either in Macedonia or Persia. Our paramount interest in those countries was to maintain their integrity, to foster so far as that might be possible by a friendly outside Power like ourselves, all the best elements of the population, and to prevent the extension at the expense of those countries of the great military Empires of Europe. Everything that tended, therefore, to strengthen these countries was a British interest. The right hon. Gentleman had put the case extremely well on a previous occasion when speaking on Macedonia. He said that the greatest weakness in Turkey itself was the continuance of the Macedonian difficulty. So long as we held India on the one hand and Egypt on the other this country could not afford to be indifferent to the conditions of the population of those countries that lay between. Should those conditions become bad and the population suffer from any cause whatsoever;

  945
  should the Governments which ruled over them become indebted to a large extent either to the Government or concession hunters of any particular country, the result must be that the country would come under foreign control. They might lose their own native resources and strength and the tendency would be for a great military Empire to approach ever nearer to our borders of India and Egypt. It might be asked how we were going to prevent the great military Powèrs of Europe extending into these countries. That was a difficult question to answer, and he certainly would not argue that it was possible for a country with resources like ours single-handed to arrest the aggression of great military Empires in these countries. What he would urge was that we should do nothing by our diplomacy to assist them in that direction. On two occasions in recent history we had so assisted. We assisted in 1902 when we refused a loan to Persia at a high rate of interest on excellent security. From that refusal dated the Russian predominance in Persia, and all those deplorable events which had recently happened in that country, including our exclusion from the paramount position which we had previously occupied. Only last year there was another question which had a great influence in the same direction, he alluded to the concession of 3 per cent. Customs. He had never concealed his admiration for the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had conducted the later stages of those negotiations. His hands were, he had no doubt, in a sense tied by the action of his predecessor, but he did say that the grant of this 3 per cent, had had the effect of releasing other revenues for the purpose of the great enterprise of the Bagdad Railway, and this concession on our part had been rightly made if "the result was to promote that railway, but it had been a very powerful factor in bringing about the financial relation of Turkey with Germany, and the extension of German influence over that country. With regard to the question of Macedonia, which was raised by his hon. friend the Member for Stirling Burghs, how did the matter stand at the present day? After nearly five years of so-called reforms,
  946
  after the programme of reforms introduced in 1902, the condition of Macedonia was now actually worse than it was before the Powers ever put their hands to the plough. If he merely took the period—and he only did so because it was a convenient measure of time for hon. Members — during which the present Parliament had sat, a period of about two and a half years, no less than 5,000 people out of a population of 2,000,000 had met with violent deaths in Macedonia. The figure was even possibly higher. Now the blame for this state of things had been thrown upon the bands, but the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in a memorable speech some years ago seemed to attribute the blame to the bands by a phrase which had been quoted by his friend, the phrase about "the balance of criminally." He did not know whether that view would be fought shy of to-day. But the bands were small, and had very little to do with the real cause. What was the real cause? Obviously it was careless government on the part of the Turkish Government. And it was more than that—it was the refusal both on the part of the population of Macedonia and on the part of the adjacent Balkan States to recognise the seriousness of the reforms introduced by the Powers. The Macedonian peasant had to get their living in the adjacent States, and on the other hand the people of those States saw what was going on in Macedonia. The Macedonian peasant contrasted his lot with that of his brother or his cousin who lived under a very much happier state of things in the adjacent States, and the people themselves saw that anarchy was proceeding in Macedonia. They had no confidence in the reforms, and therefore they were all engaged among one another in pegging out their claims. He thought that he had a perfect right to say that the bands were not the cause of the state of things in Macedonia, but were merely a symptom of that state of things. What had the Powers done? They had combined to introduce the machinery of reform, but they had altogether omitted to supply the motive power. The machinery of reform they had put down in the shape of some forty

  947
  military officers who represented the Powers, the gendarmerie, the civil agents, and the financial advisers who proferred advice to the Turkish Inspector-General. But they had never supplied the motive power, that was to say, they had never given these officers or these civil agents any real executive control of the affairs of Macedonia. These officers ate out their hearts in the wild mountains of Macedonia. He had sat with them; he had enjoyed their hospitality; and he had found that one and all said that they regarded it as disgraceful to the Powers of Europe that they should send their officers to Macedonia on such a purposeless errand. They had no power; and their superiors at Salonika, the financial and civil agents, were always thwarted by the counsels which prevailed in Macedonia and at Yildiz Kiosk, where the Sultan had control. He had preached from this text whenever he mentioned the subject of Macedonia; therefore, he was delighted when he heard the debate of 25th February, and these remarkable words of the right hon. Gentleman—
  "With things as they are in Macedonia, anything which is less than a real remedy can be but little better than a farce."
  That was a sentiment with which he found himself in complete agreement. What was the real remedy? His hon. friends opposite were, at all events, deeply interested to find a real remedy. There were two alternative remedies which they might adopt. One was that they might copy the example of the Ottoman Public, Debt Commission, an institution controlled by Europeans working with native officials, and which had produced the most admirable results without in any, way offending the susceptibilities of the people. They might follow that precedent, and they might grant an executive to the financial Commission which they had already established. Or, they might keep the Financial Commission as they kept the gendarmerie officers, to assist the Turkish officials, and they might appoint a Turkish governor with the consent of all the Powers, for a definite period of years, to be irremovable without their consent, and to have a pension on retirement. That was the alternative
  948
  remedy, and it was a remedy suggested, by the right hon. Gentleman in that memorable speech of 25th February. Personally he cared little or nothing which remedy it was they adopted, and he thought that his hon. friends opposite would agree with him in that matter. But what they wanted to-night was this. If this were the real remedy, as he had every reason to believe that it was, why had there been this intolerable delay in putting it into operation? Why, the proposal to appoint a Turkish Governor responsible to the Powers was a proposal which dated from the time Lord Lansdowne was in office—before the present Government came into power. He thought they had a right to ask why it had taken all this time to put the proposal into practice. The right hon. Gentleman had told them, by way of explanation, in the debate of 25th February, that the delay was due, at all events in part, to the exhaustion which was felt by the Powers after the naval demonstration of 1905. He was in complete agreement with him. He knew that the feeling of exhaustion was apparent, and that it was difficult to do anything with the Powers, in that frame of mind. He did not traverse that at all. But what he did say was that, since that naval demonstration of 1905, two very important things had occurred. Two weapons had been placed in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman which were not in the possession of his predecessor, Lord Lansdowne. On the one hand we had given our consent to the increase of the Customs, and he really thought that we might have obtained at that time a greater reform; we might have obtained the real reform of which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken in February last; or else we might have refused to penalise our trade by consenting to the Turkish revenue being reduced. Then again, about a year ago was concluded a very notable Convention with Russia—the Anglo-Russian Convention. Russia, as the House knew, was one of the Powers which would have sway in the Macedonian question. In September of last year we concluded that Convention, and

  949
  what had we given to Russia under it? We gave her a large part of Persia for her commercial exploitation—in fact, the greater part of Persia. We gave her equal rights with ourselves in Tibet, though the Russian territory did not adjoin Tibet, but was hundreds of miles away. In Afghanistan we gave Russia the privilege of sending commercial agents to that country, and we even engaged that Russian goods should be admitted into Afghan on the same terms as ours, though Afghan goods, if they wished them to penetrate into Russia, had to pay enormous duties. All these were concessions, which to anybody who had considered the subject were undoubtedly great. The concessions made to Russia under the Convention were great and far-reaching, and the House were led to hope that we should be able to work with Russia in a much more friendly way towards the solution of the many problems in which both countries were interested, and they had a right to expect some consideration from Russia in settling such questions as the Macedonian question in a thorough-going way. The debate in which the right hon. Gentleman enunciated his real remedy, a Turkish governor, took place on 25th February. On 12th March in answer to the hon. Member for Tottenham he said a despatch had been addressed to the Powers putting forward the views of His Majesty's Government. On 23rd July, many months afterwards, he put a similar Question and the right hon. Gentleman told him that only a part of his proposals had been submitted to the Powers at all. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would explain the discrepancy between these two answers. He understood that the present position of the matter was this. We had made a proposal to the Powers for the organisation of a flying-column to hunt the bands; and the other proposals, a Turkish Governor responsible to the Powers, the retention of the financial delegates, placing them on terms of equality with the civil agents, and that the civil expenditure should be made a first charge upon the Macedonian Budget, he understood would follow later, and so far as he could judge from the newspapers,
  950
  they were likely to be submitted not by ourselves, but by the Russian Government. He would like to know why there had been all this delay in dealing with these proposals. He hoped the Russian Government would not allege, as was alleged by certain Russian newspapers, that any delay was necessary owing to recent events in Macedonia. He saw no reason why the movement which had set the Army in a position of power in Macedonia should in any way delay the presentation of the formal proposal. He could understand that it might delay the proposal for the hunting of the bands, because after all the bands had fraternised with the Army apparently, and there was no reason at the present moment for organising a force against them. But surely those who led the Young Turkey movement, and who had established themselves in a position of supreme power in certain districts of Macedonia, would not be averse to adopting the real remedy enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman. He thought one of the main contributory causes to the liberation of Turkey which had just taken place had been the presence in Macedonia of the foreign gendarmerie officers and the civil agents. The Turkish officers had seen among them a number of officers from various other Powers, well paid, well clothed, men who really enjoyed a position which inspired respect. They had also seen a great improvement in the collection of taxes, and he was sure this result, at all events, was due to the excellent work which had been done by the European members of the Financial Commission, which he did not wish to disparage in any way. He was loth to believe now that they had established themselves in a position of power, that they would be anxious to rid themselves of all these foreign institutions at a moment's notice. He should think they would rather be disposed to accept gladly the right hon. Gentleman's real remedy to see a Turkish governor set up in Macedonia, practically independent of the central Government in Constantinople. It was true they hoped to reform the Government as a whole, but, if they did, Macedonia, where the Christian population were double the Mussulmen,

  951
  must always present a special problem which would have to be treated in a special way. He could not help thinking that the wisdom of those who controlled the new movement in Turkey would for all those reasons accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman without demur and put it loyally into execution, and that when they had contrived to govern the country and to profit by the example which had been given them all these proposals could be thrown on one side and Macedonia would be governed by the people to whom it actually belonged. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give it to be understood that his consent to the increase of Customs duties would not be granted for more than seven years. The general receipts of the province had increased by £234,000 Turkish within the last two years, and the Financial Commission expected that they would be able still further to increase the revenue by £100,000 Turkish in a year or so. This revenue had not been obtained by grinding down the peasants. On the contrary it had been accompanied by an amelioration of their condition. The way the revenue would be obtained was by forcing the well-to-do taxpayers, who formerly eluded taxation altogether, to make their due contributions to the revenue. The same reform movement which had overspread Macedonia had taken root in Persia, but there it was a popular movement. It did not spring from the Army as in the case of Turkey. The idea of a Persian constitution had become accepted by the people of Persia of all classes, not merely as a political expedient, but as an article of faith. As a result of that they saw the rising into being of a popular assembly, which had been temporarily suppressed, not by influences from within Persia itself, but by Russian influence. On 23rd June the Persian Parliament House was reduced, by the direction of Russian officers, to a mass of ruins. On the day before the Shah held a council With his Russian advisers, and gave orders to the Russian commander to deal with his subjects as he liked. The result was that shell and shrapnel were brought against the Parliament buildings
  952
  and the adjacent mosque, great bloodshed took place, and the Popular Assembly was suppressed. It could be shown, and it was a matter of some importance that it should be shown, that this action on the part of the Shah was wholly unconstitutional. By Article 45 of the Persian constitution it was provided that the Royal firmans would be sanctioned only when they had received the signature of a responsible Minister. It could not be contended that the suppression of the Popular Assembly was sanctioned by any Minister responsible to the Assembly. It should not be overlooked that in December last, when the Shah for the first time attempted, a coup d'etat against the Parliament, the Legations of Britain and Russia, the two protecting Powers of Persia, pressed their advice upon the Shah to observe his promises to the Popular Assembly. They had, therefore, made themselves parties to the establishment of a constitutional regime in Persia. In July of this year Russian officers or the active list made it possible for this same Shah to break the promises which he made to the Popular Assembly at the instance of the Legations. He thought that was a novel procedure. They had lent British officers, but they had never become a party to a constitutional grievance between a ruler and his people, and then sent their officers to suppress one part of the Agreement, namely, the Popular Assembly. Was that the spirit in which the Anglo-Russian Agreement was to be dealt with? They had been told that much would depend upon the spirit in which it was worked. Was that the spirit? What was the outstanding feature of the Anglo-Russian Agreement? That it was an instrument to maintain the integrity of Persia. It was stated in the preamble that both Powers had mutually engaged to respect the integrity and independence of Persia, and the right hon. Gentleman told them, and he was very glad to hear his declaration on the 25th May, in answer to a Question, that the maintenance of the integrity of Persia was one of the principal objects of the Convention. The question he wished to put was, if

  953
  the maintenance of the integrity of Persia was one of the principal objects of the Convention, how did they propose to maintain that integrity if they allowed the Parliament to be suppressed? The only way in which they could maintain the integrity of a loose organisation in an Oriental country was by assisting the central Government in that country. One of their great difficulties in assisting the Central Government of Persia had always been that the money was paid over to the Shah, and it went into the Royal Treasury to be expended on motor cars, gramaphones and other luxuries. The principal fault was that Parliament had insisted that guarantees should be given for all moneys paid in future to Persia to sec that it was devoted solely to national objects. They could not set Persia on her legs or give that solidarity to the Government which was necessary unless they had a Parliament and somebody who would see to it that the national funds were devoted to national purposes. Some hon. Members, and even the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, might say that it was no business of ours to interfere in the internal affairs of Persia.
  *MR. REES: Hear, hear.
  MR. LYNCH: If by that cheer was meant friendly assistance to the people of Persia then he maintained, and he challenged his hon. friend to contradict him, that foe a period of 100 years they had consistently interfered in the internal affairs of Persia. Every Shah of Persia from the year 1834 had been placed on the throne with British assistance. The Government of Great Britain called in Russia, and the two Governments put the Shah on his throne, or to be more accurate, the Shah came to the throne with the assistance of Russia as well as Great Britain. It was the practice of every Shah of Persia to announce to the two Powers of Russia and England the person he nominated as his successor. Not only had the Powers interfered in the internal affairs of Persia, but they had also stood as sponsors for the National Assembly.
  954
  The Anglo-Russian Agreement had worked in the spirit of maintaining the National Assembly and not allowing it to be suppressed by the reactionary Power, and in that way they had been maintaining the integrity of Persia. He asked the House to consider the importance to us of Persia in this matter. At the present time Russia possessed the greatest military frontier in the world, and if Russia was to absorb Persia and come down to the line on the map drawn by the Anglo-Russian Convention, they would have a land frontier contiguous with that of Russia for no less than 1,200 miles. Was there any hon. Member of the House who for a moment supposed that this country with its present military resources could defend such a frontier as that? To those hon. Members who were of that opinion he would like to read a short passage from a very important despatch addressed by the Government of India to Lord George Hamilton on 21st September, 1899. This was what the Council of India said—
  "We desire deliberately to say to your Lordships, with a full consciousness of our responsibility in so saying, that, difficult us we find it in existing circumstances to meet the financial and military strain imposed upon us by the ever increasing proximity of Russian power upon the northern and north-western frontier of India from the Pamirs to Herat, we could not contemplate without dismay the prospect of Russian neighbourhood in Eastern or Southern Persia, the inevitable consequence of which must be a great increase of our own burdens; while the maritime defensibility of India would require to be altogether reconsidered were the dangers of a land invasion to be supplemented by the appearance of a possible antagonist as a naval Power in waters contiguous to Indian shores."
  The Indian Government, in the full sense of their responsibility, said they could not contemplate without dismay the occupation of those great districts of Persia by Russia. But, supposing another course was adopted and Russia got Persia over to her side and armed the Persian Gulf. He would like to quote on this point the views of the greatest soldier we had ever sent out to those parts, the late General Sir Henry Rawlinson—
  "There are no people in the world who offer better rough material for military purposes than

  955
  the Persians; the physique of the men is admirable, and their powers of endurance are great; their general intelligence and personal courage are beyond all praise. If the Persian material were placed at the disposal of a European Power who would encourage and take care of the men, and develop their military instincts, a fine working Army, very superior in my opinion, to anything Turkey could produce, might be obtained in a very short period of time."
  In a lecture in 1858 Sir Henry had previously said that—
  "It was impossible to avoid foreseeing that as any European war becomes developed in the East, the military resources of Persia must be called into action. In fact, it seemed that we could not have a more formidable engine of attack and defence launched against India than a Persian Army commanded by Russian officers. In the same way we could not have a more efficient instrument of defence than the same Army led by British officers, or by officers acting in our interests."
  Those were weighty words, and he could add nothing to their weight. In the present critical phase of the fortunes of Persia and of British relations with that country he commended those words to the consideration of the Government, of the House, and of the country.
  *SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid that until now the House had not had the opportunity of considering those relations which lay at the very bottom of all these questions. The hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs had expressed his hostility to Russia and the greatest anxiety to concern himself with the internal affairs of that country, and he had expressed the greatest horror of what was going on there; and yet at the same time the hon. Member was supporting Anglo-Russian action in Macedonia. To him it seemed to weaken their policy if it were to be supposed that they were specially inclined to act with Russia only, or, at any rate, specially inclined to act with a group of Powers which invariably excluded one of the great Powers. He spoke with the greatest hesitation upon a subject of extreme delicacy. Personally he had no complaint to make of the language or so far as he knew it of the policy of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in this respect. The speeches which had been made here about the entente with France and its supposed necessary consequence
  956
  in a certain entente with Russia were correct and generally approved of, and were perfectly consistent with friendly relations with all the Powers. Unfortunately persons were continually writing articles which were supposed to help the policy of this country, and in foreign Parliaments persons made speeches which were supposed to express the foreign policy of this country. It was said that we had succeeded in isolating Germany. He did not in the least impute that to the policy of the Government. He found nothing in the language of his right hon. friend to give ground for that suspicion, but it was most unfortunate that throughout the world that explanation was given of our foreign policy. He was not speaking of the danger of war. He was not one of those who believed in the likelihood of war. He was speaking of the danger, from the point of view of our policy in all parts of the world, of such a belief. As to the entente with France, that it should be closer if possible, and that it should be permanent was desired by all of them, but there were some who wrote as though we had achieved this curious measure of success, that while there was no alliance with France, and while France did not desire a military alliance with us, we on our part should defend France as though a military alliance existed between these two countries. As a matter of fact by glosses such as he had described there was a risk—that of promoting the rapid increase of armaments. The direct tendency of comments such as those which were made without contradiction all over the world was to increase the German Fleet, and to force the literal execution of the German naval programme of construction, and therefore, to involve us in corresponding construction, and in a race of armaments to add to our burdens. Moreover, he could not but think that it directly weakened our policy in Macedonia. At the present time the Committee were in this position. They wore not acquainted with the whole of the proposals of the Government, but only with a portion of them. They did not know what the Powers had said in reply in regard to that portion, and they were unable, therefore, effectively or usefully to discuss the policy. But it was described as an Anglo-Russian policy, and he thought it would be far

  957
  more likely to achieve success if it represented also the Powers which had the most influence in Turkey. Personally he had every hope, without having too much confidence, that the Powers would welcome the return at Constantinople to the constitution of twenty-eight years ago. He doubted whether they could usefully discuss the details of that subject that night, although it did come under his general belief that our policy had been weakened by its being represented that one of the great Powers had been isolated. There had been in the House no real debate on another great international occasion, namely, the conference of the Powers at the Hague. Some of the papers which had been promised in regard to the conference had not yet been circulated, and he had hoped to have them in time for that debate. What they might be he did not know, but it was impossible to read the Papers which had been laid before them without seeing that there was hostility all through the Hague Conference between Germany and ourselves. One result had been claimed for the Conference. The Leader of the Opposition and the French Foreign Office had said that it was the only result, and the late Prime Minister said that an enduring result and very solid achievement of that conference was the agreement to create a maritime court. In the instructions given to Sir Edward Fry the Government put that proposal very high indeed; they gave the most direct instructions to Sir Edward Fry that the Government were anxious to see the constitution of an international tribunal of appeal from the decisions of the Prize Courts, and wrote that, if the Hague Conference accomplished no other object than the constitution of that tribunal, it would render inestimable service to mankind. That was very strong language. He understood that the Germans were aware of the proposal. We communicated it just before the Hague Conference, began, and they made no reply, but at the conference itself they gave notice of a Resolution on the same subject. They were called first, and the result was that our proposal became a German proposal, and it was adopted as such. Since that time the question had gone backwards. The German Government stated
  958
  that Germany took the initiative for the establishment of that tribunal, but that they were acting with "some degree of caution." Then a Question was asked in this House by the hon. Member for Norwood, and in reply the late Prime Minister said that there must be legislation by Parliament before the ratification of the Convention could take place. It seemed to him pretty clear from the proceedings of the conference that there was jealousy and hostility behind the scenes all the time between Germany and this country, and he confessed that he was not surprised,—as a policy, which was perfectly correct and defensible in itself, had been described as one which had isolated Germany. He was not surprised that a feeling of irritation should have grown up, and that suspicion had been thrown on our policy in all portions of the world. He was far from being convinced that our policy in regard to the Congo State was not influenced by the same cause of difficulty and hostility. We were as deeply committed in regard to the Congo State as in regard to Macedonia. This Parliament would be sitting in the autumn months, but it would be sitting dumb so far as foreign affairs were concerned. There would be no opportunity for debate on this subject. Both in regard to the Congo and Macedonia the Government were under deep promises to this country. It was, therefore, all the more incumbent on them before the House separated that they should state what they would be responsible for, and what their pledges were in regard to the Congo State. The fresh Congo Papers had not yet been distributed, and curiously enough the Belgian Government had stated publicly that they insisted on their immediate publication. The Government would have to carry out the promises made to the House in Congo matters as in Macedonian matters, and he would like very briefly to state, subject to correction if he was wrong, and subject to confirmation of hon. friends on both sides if he was right, what he understood these promises to be. The Secretary of State had told them that he had represented to the Belgian Government that it must be a condition precedent to any annexation that the Congo State should be taken over on terms which would afford a

  959
  guarantee to us that the conditions of our Treaty and the Berlin Act were carried out. The circumstance to which we attached most importance and which that guarantee was concerned with was stated by the Secretary of State in the words "A radical alteration in the economic system." In reply to Questions on 25th June, as to whether the changes required and to be so guaranteed would include the free collection of rubber by the natives and the sale by the natives to merchants of all countries, the answer was that all concessions should be subject to native rights and that the natives must not be debarred from the collection or rubber or from the sale of it to merchants of all countries. He thought "concessions" was a word of undue limitation. The right should exist anywhere throughout the territory, and not in the territory of the concessions only. Subject to that, the answer was thoroughly satisfactory. But since that answer was given there came the White Paper called "Taxation of Natives, and other Questions" and in that he confessed he thought that rather too much importance was given to secondary questions, such as those relating to currency, at the expense of our main position. How dangerous it was in dealing with Belgium to make any concessions at all might be seen from a comparison between statements on page 2 and page 37 of the White Paper. On page 2 the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in a letter dated 27th March, 1908, said—
  "His Majesty's Government have every confidence in the earnest desire of the Belgian Government to introduce thorough and far-reaching reforms into the present system of administration in the Congo, and they are therefore particularly anxious to maintain an attitude of strict forbearance, and to abstain from any act which might be construed as interfering with the complete liberty of action of the Belgian Government in the future management of the internal affairs of the Congo.'"
  The Secretary of State went on to say that there must be adherence to our treaty and the Berlin Act which covered everything. What did the Belgian Government do? They omitted these words, and took solemn notice of the words which he had quoted. They said—
  "The Government of the King are happy to take act of the assurance given by the Govern-
  960
  ment of His Britannic Majesty to abstain from any act which might be construed as interfering with the complete liberty of action of the Belgian Government in the future management of the internal affairs of the Congo."
  At this moment the Belgian Government were professing, not for the first time, their most anxious desire for complete publicity in regard to their position. Last week an article appeared in Le Temps which stated that the Belgian Government had insisted that the correspondence should be published as speedily as possible; but they had not yet got it. This country, at all events, had nothing to lose by publicity. The position was clear, and he had set forth why our expectations ought to be carried out. If the present session passed over without the Act of annexation being passed, it was highly probable that the matter would drag on and that in November, when this House was known to be sitting, but from the nature of their proceedings they should be prevented from expressing their opinion, a state of things might arise when the Foreign Secretary might be glad if they reminded him and the Belgian Government through this House of the promises which had been given, and of the policy on which both sides of the House were united in supporting the Government. There was only one other matter, closely connected with the feeble administration of the Congo in the interior, to which he wished to draw attention. As a result of the captures which had taken place by thousands of revolted troops who carried on slave raiding and the sale of slaves, a stream of slaves continually passed to Portuguese possessions on the islands of San Thome and Principe. A party of convicts were also sent to serve their sentences in these islands. The slave trade was carried on by the Portuguese Government, and the report which Mr. Burtt had made upon the subject had been toned down for publication. They had been told that the Government were giving anxious consideration to this subject, and that communications had been made with the Portuguese Government with regard to it. A Captain Francisco Paola Cid, who had been formerly a governor of the territory, it was said, had been sent to report upon the whole matter. He thought that this excrescence on the

  961
  Congo, which was notoriously continuing to the present time, was a matter which required more rapid attention than the Government had yet given to it. They had allowed themselves to be put off with promises; those promises had not been kept any more than those which had been given by the Belgian Government. In conclusion, he wished to say that in his opinion our policy in all parts of the world was not facilitated by attempts which were made in many quarters to direct it against a particular Power. This country meant peace; but we had a great interest besides that of peace—the interest of not pushing warlike preparations, and, consequently, the cost of these warlike preparations, to the extreme.
  *EARL PERCYsaid he thought the House owed the right hon. Baronet a debt for having raised the general debate on foreign policy, and for having redeemed their discussions from the charge that they entirely concerned themselves with the internal affairs of o her countries. He supposed they would all be glad if the Government could do or say anything which would mitigate or remove the unfortunate suspicion which our foreign policy appeared to excite in some quarters in Germany. On the other hand, he confessed that it was difficult to understand, apart from the constructions placed upon it in the Press, why a policy, which consisted merely in trying to remove the grounds of friction between ourselves and other countries with which we had various controversies at issue, should excite the suspicions of any other Power.
  Mr. DILLON: What about Lord Cromer's speech?
  *Earl PERCYsaid that Lord Cromer's speech illus' rated the difficulty of bringing about a better atmosphere of public opinion either in this country or Germany until the two Governments could arrive at some kind of agreement for arresting what had become an acknowledged rivalry in naval armaments. In regard to the Congo question, he agreed with the right hon. Baronet that they would be faced with some difficulty next session by the fact that annexation might be
  962
  decided upon without our having any opportunity of debating it. They must trust to the Government with regard to the proper time to renew our representations, but they should be renewed before annexation was decided upon. The despatch of the Belgian Government left on his mind the impression that that Government, having assured us of their general concurrence with the reforms which we had urged, thought that they might now investigate at their leisure the systems prevailing in other parts of the Congo basin, and that they were under no necessity to communicate any further information as to the precise steps by which they meant to carry their professions into practice. If that were their view, it betrayed a very serious misconception of the position of this country; and he was not quite sure that that misconception might not be strengthened by the sentence in the despatch of the Foreign Secretary when he said that it was not our desire to prescribe the precise method by which the administration of the Congo should be brought into conformity with the principles of the Berlin Act. There was no doubt that the present Congo administration was a violation of the Berlin Act. But it was also a violation of the expressed conditions under which the original International Association obtained recognition from this country and from America—and so obtained the status which alone enabled it to become a party to the Berlin Act at all. The vital point, as it seemed to him, was that before we gave our consent to the annexation of the Congo by the Belgian Government we should insist that in the Treaty of Cession, the same legal security which was provided for the rights of the concessionary companies should also be secured for the rights of the natives by the restitution to them not only of land sufficient for occupation, but also of their original freedom to sell all the products (except ivory) grown in territories which are not effectively occupied by the companies and exploited by means of free labour hired in the open market. Passing to the question of Macedonia, he would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman found it consonant with the public interest

  963
  to make a statement with regard to the present state of Turkish affairs. There seemed to be a general impression in the responsible Press that in view of the events of the last few days England and Russia would take time to look around and reconsider their position before they presented their new reform schemes to the Sultan. He imagined that this impression was well-founded. It would appear somewhat absurd to enter into a solemn discussion as to the co-operation of the military and gendarmerie for the repression of these bands, at a time when the bands had temporarily disappeared and the military had broken loose from control.
  And it must be remembered that whatever other results might follow from the present constitutional movement in Turkey, it was almost certain that it would increase rather than diminish the general dislike and opposition to interference from outside. He had always believed that the desire for reform was as widespread among the Mahomedans as among the Christians, but at the same time it sprang in no small measure from the conviction that only the removal of the most glaring abuses would rescue their country from constant and humiliating tutelage on the part of the Powers. Speaking for himself alone, he had never pretended to view with any satisfaction or hope the schemes for so-called autonomy, partial or otherwise, in separate provinces of the Turkish Empire. He believed that it was idle in the light of past experience to expect that they could persuade the Mahomedans that a policy of that kind was anything else than a first step towards the dismemberment of the country, nor did be think that their belief in the justice of the European Powers was likely to be strengthened by the contrast between their constant readiness to apply the strongest pressure at Constantinople, and their extraordinary reluctance to go beyond the most polite representation to the Governments at Sofia, Belgrade and Athens, who were responsible for permitting the equipment and passage of the bands. He had no desire to go back to the details of the reform scheme which was adumbrated in the last speech of the Foreign Secretary and of which they had sonic further information in the White Paper, but he must
  964
  allude to one part of the scheme for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible and upon which he confessed he looked with some regret. The right hon. Gentleman, following in that respect the policy of Lord Lansdowne, declared some time ago that he thought that it would be unfair and unjust to ask Turkey to reduce her Regular forces in Macedonia unless we either asked for a corresponding reduction of forces by the Bulgarian Government or unless the Powers were ready to give a collective guarantee for the maintenance of the integrity of the Turkish frontier. The idea of a collective guarantee fell through owing to the opposition of the Russian Government. The right hon. Gentleman then very properly dropped the proposal that we should insist on the reduction of the Turkish Army. But what he thought it was unjust to do directly he did indirectly. He laid down the condition that the support of the troops must not be made a charge on the Macedonian Budget.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): I said that the civil expenses were to be the first charge.
  *EARL PERCYsaid all the evidence went to show that, if the civil administration was to be made a first charge on the Budget, the finances would be wholly inadequate to support the large force which the Turks were compelled to keep up in Macedonia. What must the practical result of that policy be? It was neither just nor expedient, because it must throw upon the unfortunate taxpayer in other parts of the Turkish Empire the greater part of the burden of maintaining the army in Macedonia.
  MR. LYNCHsaid a great pact of the expenditure in Macedonia was found by the 3 per cent. import duty, which was derived from the trade of the whole of Turkey.
  *EARL PERCYwas glad to hear from a free trader that the 3 per cent. import duty was paid by the foreigner and not by the consumer. He had only raised this point for the purpose of showing the extraordinary difficulty,

  965
  he thought the impossibility, of treating the Turkish question piecemeal. We seemed now to be in the presence of a general movement on the part of all races and creeds to combining together for the pursuit of common reforms on the basis of a common patriotism. We might be sanguine or the reverse as to the results of that movement, but, at all events, let us do nothing to prejudice its success. This country had always had a great reputation among the populations of the Turkish Empire for being probably the only disinterested Power in Europe, and he earnestly hoped that at the present juncture we would show by our words and our diplomatic action that nothing would please us better than the success of any movement for reform from inside, which might perhaps eventually free us from the necessity of having to interest ourselves in the internal affairs of the Turkish Empire.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I cannot think that the noble Lord's account of the proposal which I made with regard to the civil and military expenditure of Macedonia really gave a fair impression of what that proposal was. The words of his to which I took exception were that we had demurred to the military expenditure being defrayed out of the Macedonian Budget. We did not demur to the military expenditure being defrayed out of the Macedonian Budget. What we did demur to was the part of the Macedonian Budget allocated to civil expenditure being starved for the sake of the military expenditure. We did not attempt to say that either one or the other should have been defrayed out of the Macedonian Budget. What we did attempt to lay down was that, if there was not sufficient for the full amount of both, the civil expenditure should be defrayed first and the deficit on military expenditure should be made up by funds from elsewhere. The noble Lord says that that would have caused the expenditure on the Army in Macedonia to be defrayed by taxpayers in other parts of the Turkish dominions. But the army is not kept there solely for the internal purposes of Macedonia. It is kept there, as other nations keep large parts of their Army on their frontier, for the sake of the integrity
  966
  of the whole empire. My hon. friend the Member for Ripon seemed to me to be urging that in making the Anglo-Russian Convention we might have used that as a lever to get some special co-operation with Russia in regard to the Macedonian question which might have shortened the delay that is taking place in pressing reforms. That is exactly what we could not do. It was expressly understood that the Anglo-Russian Convention was being arranged between the two Powers to deal with parts of the world and interests in those parts of the world which concerned themselves, and that we were not going to bring into that Convention any extraneous interests which might be a cause of offence to other Powers. Therefore we could not mix up the two things. As to the delay which has taken place, I made no secret at the time when I originally placed the proposal before the House that we were not going to take isolated action, and that we must carry the other Powers with us. Neither Russia, nor England, one or other, nor both together, had either the disposition or the power to attempt to settle the Macedonian question without consulting the other Powers, and if it has taken a long time it has simply been due to the fact that there are so many Powers to be consulted, and that the problem itself is very complex and full of details. But I will ask to be excused to-night under the special circumstances from going in any detail into the question of Macedonian reform. The situation has changed, and has changed so suddenly and yet so greatly in the last few days that I would rather confine myself to some general observations upon how the prospect is affected by the changes which have taken place. They must be general observations only, because it is too soon to pronounce a definite, considered opinion. My hon. friend the Member for Stirling Burghs in a speech to which the House listened with interest and welcome, knowing well the interest which he has taken in politics, and expecting from him, as I am sure they are entitled to expect in future years, much help and useful support in our debates—in his speech he analysed what the, situation in Macedonia had been. It may be summed up in one word. The root cause of the mischief of the situation

  967
  has been bad, weak government. It is that which has been the temptation to neighbouring States, or to the citizens of neighbouring States, or those who in Macedonia itself are of the same nationality as the neighbouring States—it is that which has been the temptation to them to strengthen their own nationalities in Macedonia at the expense of each other. The Government being weak, being incapable of adopting methods for the preservation of order, played off the one party against the other, instead of taking strong, vigorous, and impartial measures. It is against that situation, against those methods of governing, we, in common with the other Powers of Europe, have been for some years protesting. There was some protest from the Turkish army and from the Musulman population; but the extraordinary part of the matter is this, that these sudden events of the last few days, though attended with violence which in some circumstances might have been expected to lead to further violence and disorder, suddenly produced, for the time, order, security, even rejoicing. It is a very remarkable situation, and it comes at the very moment when we submitted to the other Powers proposals for forming a mobile force composed partly of Turkish troops and partly of gendarmerie, to be placed at the disposal of the Turkish Governor, and organised in Macedonia by Turkish officers and the commanders of the gendarmerie, in order that this force might be allocated for the purpose of putting down the bands impartially and vigorously. At this moment—so far as my information goes—at this moment the bands have melted away, they have dispersed under the influence of the events which have taken place. W ell, of course, if this state of things continues, if these bands have really dispersed for good, there is no further need for the mobile force. We welcome the momentary situation and trust it may last. We trust that the Balkan States and also Greece on the border will use their utmost endeavours to secure that it shall last, and that no advantage will be taken of anything which has occurred in Macedonia itself for anything but a good purpose; that
  968
  those States will do all in their power to prevent bands being recruited from their own territories, and will do their utmost with the Powers of Europe to preserve the present situation. Our object has never been political, as the hon. Member for Stirling has said; it has been truly humanitarian and disinterested. It is known at home, but is not yet credited abroad, that for us the Macedonian question is the question of good versus bad government. It has been pointed out that our object in Macedonia has been to derogate from the authority of the Sultan as head of the Mahomedan faith and the integrity of his dominions. There is, of course, no truth in that. Then it has been said that our object is to assist the Christians against Mahomedans; but, as we know, we have only been acting in the Macedonian question because of the treaty obligations we have in common with other Powers in regard to particular parts of the Turkish Empire, and we are well aware that, while the Christian population has suffered from bad government, Mahomedans have suffered as well. It comes back to this, that in the Macedonian question our sole desire is to see good government introduced; and if Turkey is going to improve the whole government of the country and ensure that the Mahomedans and Christians shall benefit equally by the improvements, then it is better that the Macedonian question should be settled by the Turks taking in hand and doing hat for years we have been urging them to do than by pressing partial reforms on reluctant, unwilling and obstructing authorities. I noted the apprehensions expressed by the hon. Member for Stirling that things may not turn out so well as they promised at first. Well, of course we must wait events; but at the present time I can only say this: our own sympathy must be with those who are trying to introduce reforms, and I should be the last to prophesy that they will fail. If they succeed, then they must succeed by their own efforts; but our sympathy is with them. I will only say this: we shall continue, watchful and earnest as we have ever been, in pursuing the object of securing good government in Macedonia, and in the other parts of Turkey

  969
  with which we are concerned. But at the present moment it would be impossible to forecast by what methods that object would be achieved; and I will only say with reference to present events in Turkey that we welcome the news that the Sultan has proclaimed a Constitution. We welcome the news of the strength of the feeling which has brought about the proclamation of the Constitution; and while not relaxing our watchfulness, while not becoming slack in our desire to do all in our power to promote improvement in Macedonia, we shall for the present preserve an expectant and sympathetic attitude. I come to another question of great importance which I should not have touched upon if it had not been touched upon by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. It is a question of great importance and of extreme delicacy, and, indeed, he himself recognised by the manner in which he spoke that it was necessary to be careful and guarded in the words he used. It is as necessary for me to deal with it delicately, and I would not myself have introduced it into this debate. I do not complain that it has been introduced; but it is a serious question. It is undoubtedly most undesirable that any section of opinion in this country should represent it as an object of British policy to isolate Germany. It is equally undesirable that any section of public opinion in Germany should believe in that being the case. When you come to deal with a question of the relations between two great Powers of this kind, I would ask the people who really wish to form an opinion of the feeling of the two countries towards each other not to take too short views. The feeling of any two great countries towards each other may vary in degree from year to year; but I at least say this—that anybody who reviews the history of the last twenty years impartially must be bound to admit that the attitude of this country has not been that of a Power which was reluctant to be on good terms with Germany. And if on reviewing the last twenty years you carry your mind back to the events which occurred in the first decade of the twenty years, you will find that there was at one time a moment when there was constant
  970
  friction between this country and France, and at another time a moment when there was constant friction between this country and Russia. Now what have We done in recent years? We have come to agreements with those two Powers which have removed the friction which existed, and removed all danger of a breach of the peace either between us and France or between us and Russia. That is a distinct change. But does any Power in Europe say to us that a favourable balance of power from their point of view depended on our being on bad terms with France or Russia, or any other Power? We have settled by agreements which are known to the world certain causes of dispute, removed possibilities of friction between us and these two Powers. It is not so long ago—I think only last year—that Prince Billow said that the policy of Germany did not depend on provoking enmity between other Powers. I would complete that by saying that, as far as we are concerned, it is no part of our policy to give our friendships any hostile point towards any other Power. But we must be free to make those friendships. Having made them, I am willing to give the utmost guarantees that we shall use them for the mutual advantage of ourselves and the other countries with which we are concerned; but we shall not take advantage of those friendships to make enmity between our friends and any other Power; nor is it our object to isolate any Power whatever. And, after all, when the isolation of Germany is spoken of, I think it is only fair to bear in mind that Germany has two allies. We have never grudged that alliance; we have never considered that alliance as directed against us, and if we have made agreements with France and Russia (which, by the way, are public to the world, while those of the Triple Alliance are not) there is as little reason to suppose that the object and motive of these agreements was isolation or unfriendly action towards any other Power. Let me examine the point which the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean raises with regard to Macedonia. His argument was that there might be an impression that, because Russia and ourselves were acting together on the

  971
  Macedonian question, we were forming something apart from other Powers which might give offence to them. I will explain exactly how these proposals about Macedonia arose. We made proposals which were announced in this House, and those proposals were made on our own account without consultation with other Powers, simply because, in our opinion, the situation was such that it was necessary, either that we should dissociate ourselves from the reform movement altogether or that it should take some more vigorous and active shape. After we had made these proposals, Russia intimated that she would be prepared to advance some proposals of her own going in the same direction but not going so far, and the other Powers including, I am pretty sure, Germany, were among the first to say that they would be willing to receive the Russian proposals and to accept them. The proposals were discussed between us and Russia because vie at first adumbrated the larger scheme, for it was important for us to know' how much substance there was going to be in the Russian proposals in order that we might make up our minds whether we could give them our cordial support; but as far as other Powers were concerned, they showed not only readiness but even alacrity to accept the Russian proposals after ours had been announced. Therefore there can be no question of the action of England and Russia in Macedonia having originated in any desire to form a group among the other Powers. With regard to the Hague Conference, if we had had any political design we should not have chosen as our first delegate, as we did, a man of the highest character, of great learning in international law, and of great judgment, but one who had had no experience as a diplomatist. If we had had a political object in view we should have thrown considerations of international law to the winds and chosen the most experienced diplomatist we could find. We gave everybody a guarantee that we should discuss all questions at the Hague Conference on their merits; and, as a matter of fact, if he read the proceedings, the right hon. Baronet will know that, while we were often at variance with Germany, we were at
  972
  variance, I think, with almost every other Power in turn on some question. We were at variance, sometimes with one, sometimes with another, because we dealt with questions solely on their merits, and sometimes with one Power and sometimes with another we differed. But when Germany brought forward the Prize Courts Convention we cordially welcomed it; and if it has not proceeded faster since, it is due simply to this, that in order to adhere to that Convention legislation would be necessary here, and we cannot get that legislation through Parliament unless we have some further agreement with other Rowers, including Germany, but not Germany alone, on certain points connected with the law of maritime war, which it is obvious we must have some agreement with the great naval Powers before we can pass legislation to ratify the Prize Courts Convention. We have a conference which will meet in the autumn to discuss the question, and I hope it will arrive at an agreement which will enable us to ratify the Convention next year by the time named. With regard to the Congo, which, I think with the right hon. Baronet, is the third instance in which we were isolated, it is quite true that we have been alone except for the United States.
  *SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I did not say we were isolated.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I understood the argument to be that, owing to our general policy, we were weaker with regard to the Congo than we might have been, because the other Powers have not been willing to act with us. I have said over and over again that we should be delighted to welcome the co-operation of any Power and we should be relieved not to have to bear the burden of promoting reform alone. If any other power made the least intimation that it is taking interest in reform, we should be delighted to welcome their co-operation; and I can assure the House that with the burdens we have upon us, we have no false pride on our side and no artificial ambition to play the leading part ourselves if any other Power desires to do so. With regard to the publication of further Papers, we are quite ready, and I had hoped they

  973
  would have been presented already, but the Belgian Government wishes to present Papers, including the ones we are going to present. They are also going to include some communications they have had with the United States. They are arranging that matter at the present moment, and the present situation is that I have informed the Belgian Government that we are ready to publish Papers at any time, and are only waiting to hear from them what the date of their publication will be so that we may publish them simultaneously. But when they are published I am sorry to say that they will be very incomplete. They end up with a communication we have received from the Belgian Government, but they do not contain our reply. They carry the matter as far as it can be carried by general assurances, and I hope the House will recognise that, as far as general assurances go, the line taken by the Belgian Government is very different from that taken by the Congo Government. The whole tone of the correspondence is very different. The noble Lord is perfectly right in supposing that before we definitely accept the situation of the transfer of the Congo State to Belgium we shall need to send a reply to the last Belgian communication. That reply will take some consideration. It must deal somewhat exhaustively with the question of concessions and with our own right to have some say before we definitely recognise the transfer of the Congo State to another Power. We originally recognised the Congo State under a certain agreement and, in the expectation that it would promote free trade and be a civilising influence. Those treaty rights we consider have been broken, and when the Congo State has broken the treaty rights which were the very foundation and origin of its existence the Powers which are aggrieved are bound and I consider entitled to examine very closely the terms on which that State is to be transferred to another, and to get explicit assurances as to the interpretation which will be placed on their treaty rights. Therefore when the next Papers are published I must ask the Committee to bear in mind that they are published quickly because the Belgian Government desire them to be published before the Belgian Parliament rises, and
  974
  that, so far as we are concerned, they must not be regarded as complete because they necessitate a reply from us which will need some consideration and some time. The question of concessions is an exceedingly difficult one. I quite realise that it would be going on a somewhat exacting tack to demand of the Belgian Government that it shall apply in the Congo, if it becomes a Belgian Colony, some system different from and less free than that which exists in the Colonies of other countries who have possessions in the same region. What has our own practice been? I understand it to be this: before giving any concessions we have surveyed the country carefully, and we have then only given concessions where it has appeared clearly that there were vacant lands which had not been in native occupation. In West Africa, I believe, our general practice has been to give no concessions, because we found that the different native tribes and villages had already parcelled out the land between them. In East Africa I believe there are lands which have never been in native occupation, and those lands are regarded as the property of the Crown and as available for concessions. The Congo Government pursued the reverse course. It gave concessions first without inquiring about native rights. The problem before the Belgian Government is to put that matter right. It is going too far to say there should be no concessions in the Congo State. Vacant lands, if there be vacant lands, we can hardly contend should not be the subject of concessions in the Congo State as they are in our Colonies. But the concessions which have been granted have been granted without any regard to native rights, and it is an exceedingly difficult matter to produce order out of this situation. The Congo question divides itself to me, roughly, into two heads—first of all there is the question of forced labour and abuse of it. The Belgian Government says definitely that forced labour must come to an end. If it is to come to an end it is essential without delay that the natives should be put in possession of large tracts of territory which will enable them to cultivate and to feed themselves and to trade, otherwise they would have no means of earning a livelihood. These

  975
  tracts must come out of the concessionary area where there are natives in the concessionary area. The question of forced labour and the treatment of natives is one which I regard as an axiom in the eyes of any civilised State. The Belgian Government have made no scruple about saying they will abolish forced labour. In regard to the other branch of the question, the right of freedom of trade, we have proposed to the Belgian that if there should be difficulties of interpretation of treaty rights in this matter, the question should be submitted to arbitration. The humanitarian side of the question—the question of decent treatment of the natives—is separate from the commerical question.
  EARL PERCY: Does that include the freedom of the natives to trade? Is that to be referred to arbitration?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: No. It goes without saying that the native must have the lands of which he has been in occupation and freedom to trade in those lands. When you come to the question how vacant lands should be dealt with, the questions of the monopolies of a particular province and questions which are purely commercial, I should be prepared to refer those questions to arbitration, because I have always wished to make it clear that in the matter of Congo reform our prime motive at any rate has been the humanitarian motive. When it is purely a matter of trade interests as distinguished from the humanitarian interest, I think it only right we should deal with it as any other country would deal with it, and agree that it should be a matter for arbitration. Before the Government commits itself to any definite recognition of the situation as satisfactory, assuming that the Belgium Parliament decides to empower the Government to annex the Congo, we shall have to have had further correspondence, which we shall lay before the House, and the whole situation will have to be carefully considered by His Majesty's Government, who will then, no doubt, announce what their decision is. I can say little about the Portuguese question. We have brought all the information at our disposal before the Portuguese Government and urged them to do all in their
  976
  power and with as little delay as possible to put things into a satisfactory condition. Of course, anyone who reflects on the internal troubles of Portugal will realise that the time has not been a fortunate one for undertaking reforms in Portuguese territory. With regard to Persia, I will only say that the hon. Member for Ripon did not give a correct impression, in regard to the Russian officers. The Russian officers were not sent in to suppress sedition. These were officers who had been in Persia for some years—long before the Anglo-Russian Convention. They were officers not sent in by the Russian Government, but acted as bodyguard under the orders of the Shah, and with regard to what part they may have taken in the events at Teheran I do not suppose the Russian Government itself has full information in regard to the facts. The general situation is this, that there are two parties in Persia, the constitutional play and the reactionary party, and that there has been practically a state of civil war, in which the Shah has won in Teheran, and the nationalist or constitutional party has got the upper hand at Tabriz. The only course for us to take in these circumstances is that, so long as there is no danger to British subjects, and there has been none, we shall not go one inch further in intervention than we can help. As long as we abstain from intervention, I hope the Persians will fight out their affairs in their own way. The hon. Member for Ripon recommended friendly assistance. Yes; but it is a very difficult matter offering friendly assistance when there is a state of civil war. When you offer friendly assistance the party to whom you offer it are apt to ask how far you are prepared to go, and there is no more dangerous thing than to offer sympathy and friendly assistance unless, when a dangerous state of affairs occurs, you are prepared to back up those who have leant upon you by going somewhat further. I can assure the hon. Member for Ripon that if we have not intervened in Persia it is not because we are more on one side or the other or because we have not got sympathies; it is simply because it is not right to leave people to expect your assistance unless you are prepared really to intervene to protect them. Take, for instance, the case of the Legations. There is a custom in Persia that

  977
  anybody who has a grievance against the Persian Government takes refuge in a foreign Legation. It is a custom peculiar to Persia, and I am most desirous it should not be extended. In fact, it has really become necessary to keep it within bounds in Persia. Two years ago some thousands of people took refuge in the British Legation in Teheran because they were dissatisfied with their Government. The other day the same situation began, but we had only sixty-six persons who took refuge in the British Legation. The instructions that have been given are these: That refuge is not to be refused to anyone who is in danger of his life, but that refuge must not be given to people who use the Legation for political purposes. That is an obvious precaution, otherwise you would have to contend with political parties when some among them, suffering under a temporary disadvantage, took refuge in a foreign Legation to wait until the bad time has passed by and then take up the contest again. Any foreign Legation used in that way would have its position made impossible; and so we have restricted the right of allowing refuge to those who are in immediate danger of life. Within these bounds we have kept. That is the reason why refuge was refused at Tabriz, though refuge to a limited extent was admitted at Teheran. The state of excitement was very great at Teheran; a considerable number of lives were lost, and the fact that some of the constitutional party, in getting the worst of it, were taking refuge in the British Legation was a reason for some improper proceedings on behalf of the Shah's troops round the Legation, impeding access to it, and placing it almost under surveillance. We demanded, and we received, a proper apology for what had taken place; and if we did not ask for more reparation than that it was because there was practically a state of civil war in Teheran, and we passed by somewhat more lightly events that would have been taken more notice of had they been more deliberate. Then, with regard to the refugees in the Legation, we obtained a promise of security for their lives and their property. A condition was made in regard to some of them that they should go out of the
  978
  country for a year and a half; but as long as we obtained security for life and property it was the utmost limit to which we could go without interfering with the politics of the country. As to joint action, I trust that we may continue to agree as at the present time on the policy of non-intervention in internal affairs. If there be in Persia genuine movement on behalf of freedom and good government which takes a practical shape, it will lack no sympathy from us. No action of ours will ever embarrass it; but the Persians must work out their own affairs in their own way. But as far as we and Russia are concerned, there is a genuine desire on the part of both to intervene as little as possible in the internal affairs of Persia as long as our own subjects are not threatened. That, I am sure, is a wise policy, because any Government in Persia at the present time which was known to I an on foreign support would be unpopular in the country, and what we desire is to see a Government there possessing the confidence of the Persian people.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid the House always listened with interest, and generally with great satisfaction, to the right hon. Gentleman, not only because of the gravity of the problems with which he dealt, but because of his own impartial attitude. He felt to-night that on one question the right hon. Gentleman had not spoken with the directness and clearness which they had been used to in his speeches, and that was on the question of the Congo. There had been one clear policy in regard to the Congo on both sides of the House. It was expressed with determination on the part of the last Government by Lord Lansdowne in 1903, and it had been continued by his successor the present Foreign Secretary. That policy was that the question of the Congo must be settled upon the basis of the Berlin Act. Speaking in this House on 26th February last in regard to the possibility of the transference of the Congo Government to the Belgian Government, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said—
  "But assuming that this does not take place, and that after the close of the present Belgian

  979
  session we have to deal with the existing Government of the Congo unchanged, then we Must be free to deal with questions of this kind or others which may arise out of our treaty rights in our own way."
  He and his friends relied absolutely on that assurance given with great deliberation by the, right hon. Gentleman.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid he did not wish to go back in the least on what he said in February. If no conclusion was reached at the end of the present Belgian session that would be a very grave circumstance to be considered by the Government as a whole.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid they were extremely glad to hear the re-affirmation of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. He was sure that he did not exaggerate in the least when he said that the speech delivered by the Belgian Prime Minister in July must have caused great anxiety in the minds of those who had been interested in this question from the beginning. In that speech he stated that there were practically no obligations on the part of the Belgian Government in connection with the Congo to other nations, and in effect he repudiated any responsibility on the part of the Belgian Government or the Congo Government to the signatory Powers of the Berlin Treaty. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman must have read that speech with anxiety. They all made allowances, of course, for speeches made under the stress of party passion. There was a great deal of opposition in the Belgian Parliament, and when speeches were made on such occasions there was always a temptation to appeal to the patriotic instincts of an independent people, and he had no doubt that the Belgian Prime Minister was somewhat led away by the circumstances of the moment. But the speech remained, and it had not been explained away. The Committee had no papers before them which could give them any understanding of the real situation. He gathered from the right hon. Gentleman's hesitation that the Government were not satisfied, because he said that the Government had received general assurances only, and that before the Government replied to Belgium's last communication they must carefully con-
  980
  sider what course they might find it necessary to pursue. That was a grave statement, and it suggested to the minds of those who listened to the right hon. Gentleman that he was not wholly satisfied. Anyone who read the White Paper and other papers which had been published, and the speeches delivered in the Belgian Parliament, must have come to the conclusion that the fundamental evils which existed in the Congo under the present system were not being dealt with radically by the Belgian Parliament in the transfer that might be made. He referred to the question of concessions. The right hon. Gentleman said that assurances had been received from the Belgian Government that forced labour must come to an end. That sounded very well, but the right hon. Gentleman had allowed the Committee to see what was his view of forced labour coming to an end. It was that the native, if he was to have the position that was provided for him under the Berlin Act, must have an opportunity to trade. The natives must have rights in the products of the soil, and be able to buy and sell in currency to which the right hon. Gentleman had attached so much importance in his despatch. The right hon. Gentleman had given great satisfaction when he said that the position of the Government remained unchanged regarding this question as to the rights of the natives; and he made it very clear to the Committee that concessions on the present basis, without any formal system being established by which land might be set apart for the natives, and a communal tenure of the land be granted to the natives would not be satisfactory. All that this Government could ask was that the communal system should be recognised, and that the land outside the plantations and outside the villages should be set apart for the benefit of the natives, otherwise the end of the race inhabiting the Congo Basin was sure. When civilisation came in, and at the same time the kind of concessions which now existed in the Congo came with it, the natives must either be forced to work or the system must break down and the country become bankrupt. It had been said that the natives of the Congo would not be forced to work if the system

  981
  proposed by the Belgian Government was established, but it would come in the end to the same thing as long as the natives had not a right to trade in the products of soil, and the right of tenure which they had enjoyed from time immemorial. At any rate it was the duty of the Government which took over the Congo to see that the vacant lands were set apart on a reasonable and impartial basis for the use of the natives. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not think him in the least inappreciative of the great difficulties under which he had laboured. It was always difficult to intervene, even when we had the right, in the internal affairs of another country. We were obliged to do it with the consent of all the Powers in the case of Egypt. We had done it in the case of Macedonia; but only successfully in the case of Egypt where we had the power to enter, to re-construct the administration, and to put our own people to work. Happily, in the case of Turkey it would seem as though the reforms would proceed from the inside, as all true reforms must proceed. The action of all the foreign nations could not produce true reform in Macedonia without the co-operation and consent of the Government primarily responsible, and we should not succeed with reforms in the Congo State unless the Belgian Government co-operated with us and accepted the principles of reform which we had laid down. He sincerely hoped that the assurances which the right hon. Gentleman had given in the past, and which he had renewed that night, but which still left them considerable anxiety with regard to the position of affairs, would be fulfilled, and that what the Government had striven for would be attained. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would be able when they met again in the autumn, if not before, to place before the country not only the assurance, but the simple fact that all that had been urged in previous debates in relation to the Congo would be accomplished; and that the Belgian Government, representing a great free, strong, and democratic people in modern Europe, would recognise that the system which had existed in the Congo was one which could not last in this age of civilisation and at this time, when every European nation understood the
  982
  principles on which native races should be governed. If the Belgian Government and people recognised that, and made such a treaty of transfer as would incorporate the two clear principles which this Government had laid down, then, he believed, this country would once again have justified its pure humanitarianism and its real desire to assist those nations and those people who were struggling for better conditions. Happy were those free peoples who were too strong to be dispossessed, but blessed were they among nations who were prepared to be strong with the rest.
  *DR. RUTHERFORDexpressed his pleasure that it was not our object to isolate any particular Power in entering into an entente with other Powers. The fact, however, was that Germany was isolated, and many felt that in the interests of the preservation of peace and the limitation of armaments the policy of an entente should be extended to Germany. He trusted the Foreign Secretary would use his best endeavours to bring that state of things about. With regard to freedom, he must just say they were witnessing a spectacle such as he believed the world had never seen. They saw freedom in travail, in what would be called the Grand Conception, in India, Persia, Egypt, Russia, and Turkey. It was with that movement, as it related to Egypt, that he wished to deal. In Egypt there were two parties, the moderates, who wished to see self-government under British influence, and the extremists, who wished for full and complete independence. There was, happily, no Clan-na-Gael party, or anything of that kind, in Egypt, and he was anxious that the Foreign Secretary should see that no such party was ever formed by a policy of coercion on our part, and also by taking care that the legitimate demands for reforms by the people should be no longer delayed. They all recognised that British rule in Egypt had been of undoubted benefit, but at the same time, Egypt to-day was in a position of political servitude which was unsatisfactory. The imperative needs of the country were self-government and extension of education. Some might

  983
  advocate that it would be better to educate first, but his view was that self-government and education should be run together. We seemed unable to frame a scheme of education satisfactory to the people. Although we were meeting the need for education in some degree by introducing Arabic gradually as the medium of teaching in the higher schools, and by setting aside an additional £100,000 this year, it must be realised, when only £374,000 was spent on all the Departments of education for the instruction of 12,000,000 of people, that that sum was wholly inadequate. At the elementary schools there were only 24 per cent. of boys of school age in attendance. There were only four secondary schools provided by the Government in the whole of Egypt, and there was no University of modern character such as would be recognised in this or any other European country. The El-Azhar was chiefly a theological college. There was now a movement among the Egyptians to establish a University of their own, and he would like to know why the Government Could not arrange financially to help such an institution. In Cairo there was a medical, a law, an engineering, and an agricultural school. Why could not the Government amalgamate those, and let them form the basis of a University for Egypt? If such Universities were established, they would be a great benefit to the intellectual as well as the moral life of the people. With regard to self-government, Sir Eldon Gorst in his first annual report argued against it, because such a small percentage of electors voted in the first stage. The reasons were the complicated system of election, and the fact that the vast majority of the Egyptians looked upon the Legislative Council and the General Assembly, which were purely consultative and advisory bodies, as a sham and a fraud. The remedy was simple; first, they should get rid of the system of electing delegates to elect the members of these bodies and then give real power to the institutions themselves. These institutions were started under British auspices by Lord Dufferin, but they had not been encouraged by this country. They had no power, no authority, and no reasonable or fair chance to show what was in them.
  984
  What the Egyptians were asking for, and what he hoped the House would listen to and assist them to get, was a real Parliament with Ministers responsible to it, with power to legislate and to administer. At present the Ministers were mere puppets in the hands of the British advisers. If real power were given to the Legislative Council and. the General Assembly it was felt by many that the party system would be developed, electors canvassed, elections hotly contested, and political life and character developed in the country. A Parliament in Egypt would be a tremendous force in the new life of the country, and it was the business of England to give it to them at the earliest possible moment. It was said that the capitulations were the great drawback and bugbear to Egypt, but the granting of self-government would be one of the best means, after free institutions had gained the confidence of the foreign Powers, of getting rid of the capitulations. He and those who thought with him felt there was no true national life, and could be none, in Egypt until these concessions were given. He hoped the Foreign Secretary would at an early period turn his mind and hand to this subject. The proposals of Sir Eldon Gorst with regard to the Provincial Councils had been condemned by Egyptians, because their functions were also of a merely advisory character. Egypt was at the present moment a source of great weakness and danger from foreign complications to this country. We could not get over that if we ignored what was just and right to the Egyptians. They were just as much entitled to govern their country as we were to govern our own, and until we recognised that justice could not be done. He would like to quote the advice of the late General Gordon on this matter. General Gordon said—
  "Do not take Egypt. Have a grip over it and give its people free institutions."
  After all, they believed that Liberalism was quite capable of solving the Egyptian riddle as it had solved most successfully the Transvaal and Orange River Colony pr blems. He asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to tell them what his policy was. An attitude of laisserfaire or non-possumies was unworthy of the great Liberal Party.

  985
  He hoped his policy was a big, real, and good step towards a solution. He knew there were risks, attendant on self-government, but it was nfinitely better to risk embarking Egypt on the ocean of freedom than to let it remain in the dead sea of despotism.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with regard to the alteration of the treaty with France as regards the imposition of duties upon certain goods imported from this country. He was informed there was a Commission sitting in France with the object of revising the Customs tariff between this country and France. It was proposed to make alterations in the import duties on elastic fabrics. It was first proposed to raise the duty upon all elastic fabrics from 200 frs. minimum to 250 frs., with a maximum of 300 frs. Since then it had been proposed to raise the duty on silk goods from 200 frs. minimum to 400 frs., with a maximum of 600 frs., and on artificial silk from 200 frs. minimum to 600 frs., with a miximum of 900 frs., and on cotton and woollen goods from 250 frs. minimum to 300 frs. He was informed that the Foreign Office had been communicated with, and the reply of 7th July from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was to the effect that the whole question was engaging the attention of His Majesty's Government. That morning he asked the Foreign Secretary whether the French Government proposed to increase the import duties on elastic tissues, and, if so, what steps the Government proposed to take to protect British interests. The answer he received was that the right hon. Gentleman did not know whether the French Government proposed to increase the import duties as no official publication had yet been made of any of the proposals put forward by the Customs Commission of the French Chamber of Deputies, which was now engaged in studying the revision of the existing French Customs tariff. How could that answer be reconciled with the statement of 7th July that the whole question was engaging the attention of His Majesty's Government? No answer at all was given to the last part
  986
  of his Question as to what steps the Government proposed to take to protect British interests. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman thought it was impossible for him under the present one-sided system of free trade to take any steps to protect British interests. He was afraid that was a fact. He would, however, be obliged to the right hon. Gentleman if he would inform him whether it was possible for him to make representations to the French Government upon this revision and increase in the duties which would undoubtedly destroy a large trade which existed between this country and France, and at a time when unemployment was rapidly increasing.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid there was no inconsistency in his answers. The first answer was that they were giving attention to the question, and it was as the result of that attention that he was able to give the House of Commons the answer to his second question. He was able to give him the information contained in the answer which had been given that afternoon. He could tell him what the position of the matter was. A French Parliamentary Commission had for some two years been considering what report it should make on the question of Customs duties. Nobody yet knew what that report was. It had not been published. If he were to make representations to the French Government their answer would be that they did not know what the Report of the Parliamentary Commission was yet. When it was published they would have to consider it, and so it was impossible to give any reply until the draft was published and considered. Therefore, it was premature to consider the question as between the two Governments at all.
  *MR. REESsaid he felt considerable diffidence in addressing the Committee after the hon. Member for Brentford, who was able to speak with confidence of the feelings and wishes of all the Egyptians! His confidence was colossal. It was of that kind which was only characteristic of profound acquaintance or profound unacquaintance with the subject. It was somewhat painful to those who had lived in Russia to hear the manner

  987
  in which that Government was always referred to in that House, and though he believed he was the only Russian interpreter in the House he had had no opportunity to speak when the deplorable debate on the King's visit to the Czar took place, nor could he do more now than express his dissent from what the hon. Member for Stirling Burghs had said, and he recommended him rather to go to Russia and live amongst the peasants, than to take the sentimental imaginations of popular writers as his guide. The subject to which he wished especially to refer was the Bagdad railway. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell them anything now on this very important subject, which was a matter of pleasantry to certain hon. Members opposite, who hardly realised that it was a project of equal importance with the Suez Canal, in which this nation above all others was exceedingly interested. He understood that four new sections were to be made, and that the Porte was now in a position, thanks to our permission, to raise their Customs duties by 3 per cent., to give the necessary kilometric guarantee. He did not know if the door was open to us still to participate financially in this great project, but if it was he trusted we should, or at any rate that we should obtain some internationalisation or some power over the Gulf section, which would enable us to maintain the position we had hitherto had in the Persian Gulf, and in surrounding territory. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to tell them that something was being done following on the Anglo-Russian Convention to get control over the Northern shores of the Gulf and to obtain concessions there which might at any rate serve to keep other Powers out of concessions. He had received a letter that morning from one of the ports in the Gulf emphasising the importance of a subject on which he had several times interrogated the right hon. Gentleman—the great extent to which gun-running took place there. He was told that for three months in every year large cargoes of guns were run under the very bows of our gunboats, or at any rate close by, and were landed on the Northern shore, and sent up country to Afghanistan. Whether these guns came from England
  988
  or Germany, they were destined to be fired at our own people. These questions were of as much importance as any others which had been debated, and even now perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would say a word or two upon them.
  SIR WILLIAM BULLasked when the trial of the four Englishmen in Antwerp was likely to come on. He knew the Foreign Office had interfered in one particular, and they were acquitted of the first charges made against them. But since that another charge of stealing had been made against them, with the result that a trial was still hanging over them. Could the right hon. Gentleman give any assurance that the British Government would interfere to have them brought to trial as quickly as possible?
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid he was unaware that this last point was to be raised, but he would make inquiries as to the present position of the trial. He asked to be excused from entering into the question of Egypt at that late hour. The question of the Persian Gulf and the Bagdad Railway was also of very great importance, for the construction of the railway must be of great interest to any country that had possessions in the East. But he did not know that either of these subjects lent themselves to public discussion at the present moment. If he did not deal with the various points raised, it was not because he did not admit their importance, but because there was considerable difficulty in making a public statement at that late hour.
  Resolutions to be reported.

  CLASS I.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £37,000 (including a Supplementary sum of £5,000), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909 for Houses of Parliament Buildings."
  And, it being Eleven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Wednesday; Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL [Loans].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1:
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD moved to insert after the word "consent" in line 9 the words "voluntarily and without intimidation." In order to understand the nature of this clause, and the effect of this Amendment it was necessary to go back for a few moments to Section 1 of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907. By Section 1 of that Act, which this particular Bill was designed to patch up and alter, it was provided that—
"If it appears to the Commissioners expedient to acquire land for the purpose of this Act, and if they have offered to the person who appears to be the owner of that land the amount which appears to the Commissioners to be its value, and if that amount has not been accepted then the Commissioners may acquire the land compulsorily."
By Section 3 of the Act passed last year it was provided—
"That untenanted lands should be so acquired unless in the occupation of a new tenant, or unless the Commissioners think that the evicted tenant ought to be reinstated."
Then there was a proviso—
"That no tenanted land should be acquired compulsorily which is in the possession or occupation of a bona fide tenant using or cultivating the same as an ordinary farmer, in accordance with proper methods of husbandry.
One would have thought that that was an exceedingly valuable proviso. It was clear that the Commissioners were not to come and take away compulsorily any land which was bona fide in the occupation of a bona fide tenant using and cultivating the same as an ordinary farmer in accordance with the proper methods of husbandry. Now the whole basis of this Act was designed to get rid of that proviso, and it started by
990
saying that the Commissioners might acquire the land although in the occupation of a tenant bona fide farming the same, provided such tenant gave his consent in writing. It was perfectly clear up to that point what the scope of the Act was, but it was evidently felt that in drawing up the Bill that if the tenant gave his consent it ought to override the Act of last year. What was the effect of the provisos in the Bill? It was that the tenant should sign this particular consent in a particular way. They were entitled to have it made clear that if the tenant was to sign a consent which gave away the right he had to remain in possession of the land that consent had not been extorted by intimidation, but had voluntarily been given. Briefly, that was the effect of his Amendment. If it could be shown that there had been any intimidation or that the consent had not voluntarily been given, the effect of his Amendment would be that the transaction could be upset, and it would prevent the Commissioners from expropriating that land and taking it away from the man who was bona fide cultivating it when consent had been extorted from him in a way of which the Committee, he was sure, would not approve. From what the Chief Secretary for Ireland had already said it was evident that he was going to propose to leave out all those words which would give satisfactory security to the bona fide tenant in the transaction, and the proper place to put that security in was where the word "consent" was first mentioned. It was on those grounds that he proposed his Amendment. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 9, after the word 'consent' to insert the words 'voluntarily and without intimidation.'"—(Mr. William Rutherford.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,)said the hon. Member knew the law, and he knew that to insert these words would be contrary to all Parliamentary practice and an offence against the established principles of legislation.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he was satisfied if it was clearly understood that the consent had been obtained voluntarily and without intimidation. He asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
M R. BIRRELL M R. BIRRELL moved the omission from the clause of words providing that notice of the filing of consent should be given to the landlord and published in a local newspaper and that the consent should not be acted upon if the landlord should satisfy the judicial Commissioner that the tenant had been compelled to give consent by unlawful means. The intention of the Act of last year was that anybody who held a farm from which somebody had been evicted should not be removed without his consent, even although compensation or another farm was offered to him. Therefore he had no objection to so much of the Lords' Amendment as related to that matter, and which required that the tenant should in presence of two witnesses attach his name to the consent, but he could not agree to the part of the Lords' Amendment which said—
"Notice of such filing being, in the time and manner prescribed, given to the landlord of the land to which the consent applies, and published in two successive issues of a newspaper circulating in the district in which such land is situate; and provided further that such consent shall not be acted upon if the said landlord, or any other person interested in or having a claim upon the said lands, shall, after having an opportunity of being heard in the time and manner prescribed, satisfy the Judicial Commissioner that the tenant was compelled or induced to give such consent by intimidation or other unlawful means."
He thought that was unreasonable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. The original Act was not intended to protect the landlord at all. The sole object of it was to protect the actual tenant, and to secure that, he should not be removed until he had indicated his consent.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 13, to leave out from the word 'Commission' to the end of the clause."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. WALTER LONGexpressed his intention to support the Chief Secretary. When they voted on this question before, the view the Unionist Party took was that, if special powers were taken to restore evicted tenants, they should not be exercised to the detriment of men occupying farms who did not desire to vacate them. They devoted themselves to securing that a new tenant should not be displaced unless he was a consenting party. The Amendment inserted in the House of Lords necessitated so great a delay in restoring the evicted tenant that it practically made the Act of no value. If a new tenant was willing to go, and the conditions on which he was asked to go were satisfactory and fair, then Parliament laid it down that his land should be acquired. There never had been any suggestion of an appeal to the landlord as to whether he wished the tenant to go or not. It must not be overlooked that this involved considerable hardship to the landlord. After all, a landlord was a landlord in Ireland, just as much as in England or Scotland, up to a certain point, and if anything was done to deprive him of his property he had reason to complain. It should be remembered that this Bill sought to amend an Act of Parliament which attacked one landlord and had brought the management of his estate to the public eye. He was not going to criticise Lord Clanricarde's management of his estate. It was not an unpopular thing to hold up Lord Clanricarde to public contempt, but there was a great deal to be said on the other side. That, however, was not a subject which ought to be considered at that moment. They had passed deliberately an Act of Parliament for a particular object, and it had been proved beyond doubt that that object must be defeated unless this amending Bill were passed. He did not think that the Committee could ask the Chief Secretary to go further than he had done. On behalf of himself and his friends, having regard to what was said and done in that House and in the House of Lords, he said it would be impossible for them, if they were to be consistent with the declarations they had made and the attitude they had assumed, not to agree with the Government in the course

993
which they proposed. That course was the only one to take in the circumstances. Although there was a deplorable amount of intimidation in Ireland which ought to be prevented, it was not the way to prevent it by refusing to pass this amending Bill. It could only be prevented by better administration of the law, a subject, however, which could not be discussed at present. With the caveat of expressing profound regret at what was really going on in Ireland, he should offer no opposition to the Bill.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that although he was entitled to look with suspicion on any proposals brought up in the middle of the night, he thought after the explanation given by the Chief Secretary it was quite proper to leave out the words proposed to be omitted. Believing that the interest of the tenant would be sufficiently secured, he agreed that the Amendment should pass.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," put, and negatived.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

COMPANIES BILL [Lords].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1:
MR. RAWLINSONsaid he wished to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kingston, after the word "Possession" to insert the words "to which this Act applies, and." These words led up to a new clause which was also on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kingston—
"(1) His Majesty may by Order in Council apply this Act to any British Possession where His Majesty is satisfied that by the law of such Possession a company incorporated in the United Kingdom and having a place of business
994
in such Possession is entitled to privileges similar to those conferred by this Act. (2) His Majesty in Council may revoke any such Order when it appears that the law of the British Possession has been so altered that it would not authorise the making of an Order under this section."
The Bill proposed to give power to certain companies to hold land in England—a power which they had not at present. When the matter was discussed on the Second Reading it was naturally agreed that it was necessary to prevent undesirable companies springing up here and getting the benefits of the Bill while they were not subject to proper restrictions. The object of the Amendment was to apply the Act only where the laws of the Colony or Possession to which the Act would apply properly safeguarded the interests of investors.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 5, after the word 'Possession,' to insert the words 'to which this Act applies, and.'"—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir H. KEARLEY,)said he had had the opportunity of speaking to the hon. and learned Member for Kingston with regard to these Amendments, and when the lion. and learned Gentleman explained to him what he wanted, he saw no real necessity for them. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke specially of the Channel Islands. Only so recently as last year they had had a most important conference with the Channel Islands' authorities with reference to their bringing their laws tip to such a point as to prevent the recurrence of the evils associated with the promotion of certain companies in these Islands. That conference had already borne good fruit. Jersey had already passed a law by which they gave no registration to a company in that Island unless it confined its operations to Jersey. As regarded Guernsey, the authorities met them to a considerable extent. Their law did not go so far as that of Jersey, but it had been already brought up to the point which satisfied the Board of Trade here. They had accepted our Companies Acts of 1890, 1893 and 1900.

995
As the House was aware the Government had a Consolidation Bill in hand which would incorporate these and last year's Act. A draft copy had been submitted to Guernsey and he had every hope that they would adopt it. Under these circumstances the hon. and learned Member for Kingston was good enough to say that the case he wanted to provide for had been met; and, therefore, he asked the hon. and learned Member to withdraw the Amendment.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDthought it was a great pity that the Bill now before the Committee had any restrictive or limiting words whatever. He should have thought that it would have been the right thing to see English companies incorporated abroad.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Member was not in order in that line of discussion.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he might be in order in proposing a further Amendment by inserting the words "in British Possessions or elsewhere abroad."
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Member could not move that now.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid that though he was hardly satisfied with the hon. Gentleman's explanation he would not press the Amendment.
Leave to withdraw refused.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that all he desired to make clear was that in England we had a large number of companies formed and registered and which did business in British Possessions as well as every other country on the face of the globe. When they found there were restrictions there was not a business man who did not wonder why there were these stupid restrictions to prevent business being done in the particular country. But when they found there were similar restrictions here with reference to companies in British Possessions, and that they were
996
not permitted to hold land in this country, then they though it was only reasonable that there should be restrictions against us. He hoped the Committee would agree with him that all these restrictions should be swept away, and that it should be made as easy as possible between one country and another. He regretted this Amendment because, although it would do something in the direction of these restrictions being swept away, it did not go to the extent he would like to see it go.
Amendment negatived.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD moved to add after "1907," the words "and complied with all the other requirements of Section 35 including an address to which notices might be sent or at which they might be served in accordance with such section." He said that the Amendment made it clear that, if a company registered abroad desired to do business in the United Kingdom, it must have the name and an address of a person in the United Kingdom on whom notice could be served and to whom process could be sent. It was to this particular section that the clause now before the Committee referred. If a company registered in a British Possession desired to own land in England, it was now required to company with Section 35, subsection (a), (b), (c) of the Act of 1907; "(a)" required a company to file a certified copy of its memorandum or its charter or statutes; "(b)" said it must give the names and addresses of one or more persons authorised to accept service. Why should there be a distinction made between a company which wanted to carry on business in England and a company which simply wanted to own land? This Bill wanted to make a portion of Section 35 of the Act of 1907 applicable to the company which wished to own land in England, requiring it to send in a list of its directors. But, supposing they did send in a list, if they did not go on filing one from year to year, in nine or ten years time it would be a list of dead people. What was the object of leaving out, the other requirements of the Act of

997
last year? He proposed that all the requirements of Section 35 of that Act should apply, and he would give two illustrations to show how necessary it was. Supposing a company owning land refused to pay rates, there would be no person on whom notice could be served. At present it was clear that no company could own land in this country unless it had got an address at which notice might be served; but if this Bill were passed in its present shape, it need not have an address, the list of directors might be an old list, and the articles or statutes of the company might have been altered fifty times without any of the alterations having been registered. If all the provisions of Section 35 of the Act of 1907 were applicable to a company which did business in England, they ought to be applicable to a company which simply owned land here, and he submitted that the Bill ought not to be accepted unless it was amended in that way.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 9, after the word '1907,' to insert the words and complied with all the other requirements of Section thirty-five, including an address to which all notices or processes may be sent or served in accordance with such section, and continues from time to time to comply therewith.'"—(Mr. William Rutherford.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR H. KEARLEYsaid he could assure the hon. Member that they had secured all they wanted and that there was no necessity to draft the whole of the provisions of the section of the Act of last year into the clause. The main provision of the section was made applicable, and they were satisfied that no company would be able to take an improper advantage of the Bill. Under certain circumstances the other provisions of the section of the Act of 1907 would also apply.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that no provision was made for the filing of any alterations in the company's articles or statutes or in the list of directors, and subsection 2 of Section
998
35 which said that "a process shall be sufficiently served if it is left at that address," was left out. What was the object of providing for an address if they left out those words? Then why should not a company owning land in this country have to file a summary of its affairs at Somerset House the same as any other company, and be liable to the same fine of £50 if it broke any of the provisions of the section? He maintained that any common-sense man would insist upon these provisions being incorporated in the present Bill.
SIR H. KEARLEY: Does the hon. Member suggest we make these companies exempt from the provisions?
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he certainly suggested, that because they took certain subsections and said they should apply to companies owning land in this country but they did not intend to include the rest of the matters which were included in the section outside (a), (b) and (c). They were entitled to complain that the President of the Board of Trade was not there. He supposed he should not be in order to move to report progress, but at all events he desired to press his Amendment.
MR. MARKHAMsaid as he was responsible for these paragraphs, and the Government had accepted his Amendments relating to paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 35 of the Companies Act of last year, he thought the Secretary to the Board of Trade would be well advised in having alterations in the memorandum and articles of association registered at Somerset House. He had an Amendment moved that all companies registered abroad with transfer offices in this country should deposit their Articles and Memorandum of Association together with a list of their shareholders and the Government accepted that Amendment. It was very careless on his part not to have put down in the same paragraph an Amendment to the effect that any alterations in the Memorandum and Articles of Association should be at once registered at Somerset House; otherwise the articles might be altered

999
from time to time in foreign countries where British companies were registered and they have no knowledge of it. He hoped the Under-Secretary would on the Report stage introduce such Amendments as would cover that point, which would be helpful in finding out exactly the position of these companies.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that if the hon. Gentleman would assure him that in the meantime the matter should be looked into with a view of seeing whether there were not some other provision in Section 35 that ought to be included, he would withdraw the Amendment.
*SIR H. KEARLEYsaid that Section 35 applied to every company incorporated outside the United Kingdom which had a place of business in the United Kingdom or a transfer office. Therefore, these particular Colonial companies in whose interest the Bill was being passed, only got the benefit of the Bill provided they were carrying on business in this country. If they were, the section in its entirety would apply to them. It was specified in the Bill that they must comply with (a), (b), and (c), which he thought was sufficient for the purpose. Section 35 of the Act of 1907 applied to all companies, whether foreign or Colonial, if they carried on business in this country.
MR. RAWLINSON: Is there any restriction in this Bill to companies
carrying on business in this country? A company may fall wider this Act and not under the 1907 Act.
SIR H. KEARLEYsaid the Act only applied to companies established in British Possessions and carrying on business here. It had nothing whatever to do with ordinary businesses carried on here.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that if a company registered in a British Possession carried on business here it must comply with the whole of the 35th Section. But this Act would clearly only benefit a company registered in a British possession which aid not carry on business here and was not complying with the whole Act but simply desired to own land, and the right hon. Gentleman's Bill was to allow that company to own land without complying with the whole section and without carrying on business, and it did not apply to a company that was carrying on business here at all.
SIR H. KEARLEYsaid that was exactly what the Bill did apply to. It applied to companies carrying on business here which were incorporated in British Possessions.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 32; Noes, 168. (Division List No. 225.)

AYES.

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

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Gretton, John

Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

Hamilton, Marquess of

Balcarres, Lord

Courthope, G. Loyd

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Baldwin, Stanley

Craig, Charlse Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Craik, Sir Henry

Heaton, John Henniker

Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester)

Dalrymple, Viscount

Hill, Sir Clement

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

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

Hunt, Rowland

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Joynson-Hicks, William

Bowles, G. Stewart

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Keswick, William

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Bull, Sir William James

Fardell, Sir T. George

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

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Fell, Arthur

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Cave, George

Forster, Henry William

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gardner, Ernest

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

McArthur, Charles

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Magnus, Sir Philip

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Morpeth, Viscount

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Nield, Herbert

Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

Parkes, Ebenezer

Starkey, John R.

Younger, George

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

Percy, Earl

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Ashley and Mr. William Nicholson.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Valentia, Viscount

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Lynch, H. B.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Farrell, James Patrick

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Findlay, Alexander

Maclean, Donald

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Gill, A. H.

M'Micking, Major. G.

Balfour, Rebort (Lanark)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Maddison, Frederick

Barker, John

Glendinning, R. G.

Mallet, Charles E.

Barnes, G. N.

Glover, Thomas

Markham, Arthur Basil

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Beauchamp, E.

Gooch, George Peadboy (Bath)

Marnham, F. J.

Beaumont, Hon. Herbert

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Massie, J.

Beck, A. Cecil

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Micklem, Nathaniel

Bell, Richard

Griffith, Ellis J.

Mond, A.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Gulland, John W.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt)

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Mooney, J. J.

Benn, W, (Tw'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Morse, L. L.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Hall, Frederick

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Myer, Horatio

Bowerman, C. W.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh

Napier, T. B.

Branch, James

Harwood, George

Nicholls, George

Brooke, Stopford

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Bryce, J. Annan

Haworth, Arthur A.

Nolan, Joseph

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hasel, Dr. A. E.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hedges, A. Paget

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nuttall, Harry

Byles, William Pollard

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

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Higham, John Sharp

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hogan, Michael

O'Grady, J.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Horniman, Emslie John

Parker, James (Halifax)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Partington, Oswald

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Hudson, Walter

Paulton, James Mellor

Cleland, J. W.

Hyde, Clarendon

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Idris, T. H. W.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

Illingworth, Percy H.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Jenkins, J.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

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

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Radford, G. H.

Crooks, William

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Rainy, A. Rolland

Crosfield, A. H.

Jowett, F. W.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Delany, William

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Rees, J. D.

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

Kekewich, Sir George

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

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

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Laidlaw, Robert

Ridsdale, E. A.

Dobson, Thomas W.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Duckworth, James

Lambert, George

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Edwards, Clement Denbigh)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lewis, John Herbert

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Essex, R. W.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Roe, Sir Thomas

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Rowlands, J.

Everett, R. Lacey

Lyell, Charles Henry

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

938

939

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Sutherland, J. E.

Whittaker, Rt. Hn Sir Thomas P

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wiles, Thomas

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Wilkie, Alexander

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Seaverns, J. H.

Thomasson, Franklin

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Seddon, J.

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

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

Shackleton, David James

Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

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

Tillett, Louis John

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

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoushton)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Wads worth, J.

Winfrey, R.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Walsh, Stephen

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

Young, Samuel

Stanger, H. Y.

Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Waterlow, D. S.

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

Steadman, W. C.

Weir, James Galloway

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Strachey, Sir Edward

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Whitehead, Rowland

NOES.

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

Forster, Henry William

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Starkey, John R.

Ashley, W. W.

Gordon, J.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Balcarres, Lord

Gretton, John

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Banner, John S. Harmood.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Valentia, Viscount

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hill, Sir Clement

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Houston, Robert Paterson

Younger, George

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hunt, Rowland

Carlile, E. Hildred

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Watson Rutherford and Mr. Hugh Barrie.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Clive, Percy Archer

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Courthope, G. Loyd

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Dalrymple, Viscount

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Acland, Francis Dyke

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Beck, A. Cecil

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Bellairs, Carlyen

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Bowerman, C. W.

Holland, Sir William Henry

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

Bright, J. A.

Horniman, Emslie John

Radford, G. H.

Brodie, H. C.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th

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

Hudson, Walter

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Bryce, J. Annan

Hyde, Clarendon

Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Illingworth, Percy H.

Robinson, S.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Byles, William Pollard

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Roe, Sir Thomas

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Jowett, F. W.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Cleland, J. W.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lamont, Norman

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

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

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Cooper, G. J.

Lehmann, R. C.

Seaverns, J. H.

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

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Seddon, J.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Seely, Colonel

Crosfield, A. H.

Lewis, John Herbert

Shackleton, David James

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

Sherwell, Arthur James

Davies Timothy (Fulham)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Stanger, H. Y.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Duckworth, James

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Maclean, Donald

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Essex, R. W.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Esslemont, George Birnie

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Everett, R. Lacey

M'Micking, Major G.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Ferens, T. R.

Maddison, Frederick

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

Ffrench, Peter

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Markham, Arthur Basil

Tomkinson, James

Fuller, John Michael F.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Toulmin, George

Fullerton, Hugh

Marnham, F. J.

Verney, F. W.

Gill, A. H.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Walsh, Stephen

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Massie, J.

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Glendinning, R. G.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Ward, W. Dudley (S'thampton)

Glover, Thomas

Micklem, Nathaniel

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Mond, A.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Morrell, Philip

Waterlow, D. S.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Gulland, John W.

Nicholls, George

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Nolan, Joseph

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Harmsworth, R L. (Caithn'ss-sh

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

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

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

Nuttall, Harry

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Winfrey, R.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Partington, Oswald

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Paulton, James Mellor

Hedges, A. Paget

Peace, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Higham, John Sharp

Pollard, Dr.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

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

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 2:
Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee proceeded to a division.
Mr. JOSEPH PEASE and the MASTER of ELIBANK were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, and, there being no Members willing to act as Tellers for the Noes, the Chairman declared that the Ayes had it.
Clause agreed to.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD, on a point of order, asked the Chairman, under Standing Order 30, to record him as having voted against the clause just agreed to by the House.
*THE CHAIRMAN: That cannot be done.
Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he felt bound to look with the greatest suspicion upon Bills brought in like this in the middle of the night, and he should move to leave out Clause 1. His object was to get some explanation from the Government as to how the money was made up which was mentioned in paragraph (a), and that for Ireland referred to in paragraph (b). It seemed to him that to ask the Committee of the House to pass a section like that without any discussion or any explanation from the responsible Minister was an unreasonable proposal. The section involved no less than £3,000,000 for England and £700,000 for Ireland. These were large figures, and the Committee were entitled to some details before they agreed to the clause.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,)said that the explanation was a simple one, and could be given to the Committee in a few words. The mention of the sum of £3,000,000 in the clause did not necessarily mean that the amount in question was to be spent in its entirety. As a matter of fact, it was a sum within which the Commissioners could borrow and beyond which they could not go without the resent of the House of Commons. The sum was the same as that taken last year, and £500,000 less than the sum taken in the year before that. The amount mentioned in the Bill had, in fact, always been about the same. Of course the figures were inverted as the result of the knowledge possessed by the Treasury, who had some anticipations of the demands which were likely to be made by local authorities and others in the course of the year. These sums were put down in the Bill with the idea of leaving a sufficiently wide margin to meet all reasonable contingencies.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDasked whether in lending the balance of the
1004
£3,000,000 the House of Commons had in any way to be consulted. Who were the authorities that had to decide whether loans were to be made out of this money? Was there any control exercised by the House of Commons over the money? These were points that needed to be explained for the information of the Committee.
MR. HOBHOUSEsaid there was no actual expenditure of money at all. It only meant giving authority to public works.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDremarked that the House of Commons had no control over the works on which the money was spent.
MR. MARKHAMasked whether any portion of the money related to the Housing and Town Planning Bill.
MR. HOBHOUSEthought there was a section of the Bill now in Committee upstairs which referred to housing, but the Bill under discussion at that moment did not cover that.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2:
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD moved to omit the clause in order to ask whether the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill could tell them the meaning and effect of the clause. He gathered they were absolutely writing off sums, some of which were exceedingly paltry, but at the same time there were large sums. Under Clause 2, in fact, considerable sums of money lent from that Department in past years had been lost or were now to be wiped out. Tha was to say, the money had disappeared. These sums when they were authorised did not come before the House in detail, the House simply authorising a limit of £2,000,000, and it was found every year that a considerable portion of that money authorised to be borrowed had been, lost, and the House was asked to write it off. What did they see in the list of items that were being written off? He found when he looked at the schedule to which the section

1005
referred that they were asked to write oil a sum of 2s. 9d. No; the gentleman in question had 13s. 6d. lent to him and had paid 2s. 9d. off the money. It was a very praiseworthy thing on his part, but being an Irishman he could not help paying the money. He owed 10s. 9d. more, but that 10s. 9d. the Government had found out, having instituted an inquiry no doubt, was not recoverable. It was a bad debt. Therefore they were to lose it and they were to pass an Act of Parliament now to say that it was gone. When they looked at the next item they found——
*THE CHAIRMAN: This is not the time to discuss the items of the schedule in detail.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he bowed to the Chairman's ruling. He regretted that he was betrayed into discussing the items of the schedule, but that was not done for the purpose of picking out an item and saying it should or should not be disallowed. It was really done, if he might respectfully submit, for the purpose of illustrating the clause under discussion, which said that these amounts were to be absolutely wiped out. It was not only trivial matters such as those to which he had referred, but there were enormous sums which were to be similarly dealt with. It would be out of order for him to give the exact figures of these amounts, but they totalled upwards of £100,000, and it was a very serious matter indeed that they should be kept there at twenty minutes past twelve at night and asked to wipe out all these sums with practically no explanation, or chance of explanation, or discussion in that House. He did not know whether it was part of our Constitution that these loans should come before the House for confirmation or not, but certainly when they were lost and the House was asked to wipe them out they should know what they were and why the amount should be written off. There fore he wished respectfully to insist on moving his Amendment that Clause 2 be omitted from the Bill unless he could get some reasonable explanation from the hon. Gentlemen in charge as to the items which had been lost and how
1006
the amounts to be written off were fixed. He thought it was most unreasonable. When he looked across the House he saw Members on the opposite side who came in pledged to economy, and then voted with their mouths practically closed on matters touching over £100,000.
MR. HOBHOUSEsaid the whole reason for the position was that the clause was a clause repeated in every Act of a similar character every year. It wrote off in one column or another of the schedule either the principal or the interest of the money advanced. The whole details of transactions were stated in a paper circulated in the House two days ago.
Clause agreed to.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that he had no desire to waste the time of the House and he would reserve further observations for the schedule except in regard to Clause 6. With regard to Clauses 3, 4, and 5, as to which he had given notice of Amendments he would not move.
Clauses 3, 4, and 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
MR. HOBHOUSEsaid he moved an Amendment the object of which, he said, was to make quite clear the purpose of the Act.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, line 1, to leave out the words 'any of the purposes for which,' and to insert the words' the acquisition of land or the purchase, erection, construction, alteration, or enlargement of any building or permanent work by.' "—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid that the words were inserted in agreement with the Opposition who had some doubt as to the meaning of the words of the original Bill.
LORD BALCARRES: Does this cover ranges?
MR. HOBHOUSE: Yes.
Question put and negatived.
Question put "That those words be there inserted."
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD moved to amend the proposed Amendment, so that it would read "the payment of monies necessarily required to be expended in connection with the acquisition," etc. He moved because he himself was the trustee of certain properties which had been occupied for the last twenty years by a battalion in connection with the Army. The lease of that property had been taken for all these years in the name of the colonel of the regiment. The lease expired just as the County Association was coming into power. A new lease was sought to be negotiated and what was the position? The Association said they had power to take the lease but no power to pay the paltry stamp.
AN HON. MEMBER: Write it off.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that what he wished to point out was that if County Associations were really to have proper powers of acquiring land as it was contemplated under the Act of last year they should be given powers not only to acquire land but to pay the cost of acquiring it. Difficulties had arisen all over the country in connection with the Territorial Force. All kinds of technical points had cropped up. To his know ledge property that had been acquired and taken over by these battalions had been hanging fire because of the difficulty that had been found in getting money. If they looked at the Act of last year they would find that the Army Council was empowered to provide these local County Associations with sufficient money to carry on their business. Why had they not done that?
THE CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on this Amendment.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsubmitted that if they looked at the full meaning of these words which he suggested, "The payment of monies necessarily required to be ex-
1008
pended in connection with the acquisition of land," they would see that they were simple words which would enable business to be properly carried on and enable these County Associations to do what any public body ought in reason to have power to do, to spend any money reasonably required for the purpose of acquiring land.
MR. HOBHOUSEthought that these words were hardly necessary. The question of payment did not arise. The proposal before the Committee was merely to extend the powers of the Public Works Loans Commissioners.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that as the hon. Gentleman did not approve of the words he had suggested he would, in order to save the time of the Committee, ask leave to withdraw them.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD moved as an Amendment to the original Amendment to insert after the word "by" the words "or for." He said that if they referred to the original Act, to which this was supposed to be an. Amendment by way of elasticity, it was made clear that any of these transactions might be done by or for the County Association in each case. In each case he came across as a matter of business connected with the County Association the work had been done for them and not by them. The leases which they took were in the name of the principal Secretary of State, and were not taken by the County Associations at all. Under these circumstances he thought the Committee would see the reasonableness of his proposal that the section should read: "The acquisition of land or the purchase, erection, construction, alteration, or enlargement of any building or permanent work by or for a County Association." He hoped the Amendment would be accepted.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"After the word 'by' to insert the words 'or for.'"—(Mr. W. Rutherford.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. HOBHOUSEthought a moment's reflection would make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the insertion of these words would enormously increase the powers of the Secretary of State and defeat the restriction which in accordance with the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite was inserted in the original Amendment to the Bill.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that he would not propose this Amendment if the Secretary to the Treasury put the matter in that way.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 4, line 3, to leave out the words 'is for the time being authorised by,' and to insert the words 'in pursuance of.'"
"In page 4, line 51, to leave out the words 'to borrow.'"—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
Amendments agreed to.
Clauses, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule:
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that he should certainly have been content to have allowed the schedule to pass without question if the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had given them some short explanation as to what the very different items contained in it were. He knew the hon. Gentleman had said that they were set out in some paper that had been published, but it was only in Committee that Members could go into these matters in detail, and especially when they came up, as they did now, in the middle of the night, it was important that they should not be allowed to slip through without some examination. He very much objected to some of the items in the schedule, and he contended that the Committee
1010
were entitled to an explanation on the subject.
MR. HOBHOUSEsaid that the smaller items and the exact circumstances of each case were set out in the White Paper presented to the House on 20th July. He thought it would be taking up the time of the Committee unnecessarily if he were to read out from a Parliamentary Paper, which was available to all, the particulars connected with each of the items. The fact that these items were set out in the White Paper referred to only showed, in his view, how carefully the Treasury did its work.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDexplained that the reason why he asked this question was that, on reference to the White Paper, he found that the schedule was somewhat illusory. For instance, if they took the last two items in the schedule they found a loan of £53,000 to the Waterford and Wexford, now the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbour Company, in regard to which a sum of £7,053 19s. 6d. had to be written off. Not only was that the case, but some of the principal sum of £53,000 had already been written off, together with £13,980 17s. 4d. for interest. There was no clear statement of this fact in the schedule, and it was necessary to examine very closely into the Bill to get at the true bearings of the transaction, which, looked at from every point of view, was a very serious one having regard to the loss it had entailed. Then in regard to the Limavady and Dungiveen Railway Company, he found that £19,601 was advanced, and no less a sum than £17,601 hid to be written off, besides a loss in interest amounting to£12,232 3s. 1d. He thought that when the Minister in charge of a Bill presented them with a schedule of that description and did not choose to give them an explanation of what the items were, they were quite within their rights in making as effective a protest as possible.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, as amended, to be considered this day.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1:
MR. RAMSAY MACDONALDsaid he wished to ask for the ruling of the Chairman on an Amendment he had to propose. The real substance of his Amendment was to leave out Part II., but in order to secure his object he thought it would be necessary for him to move to leave out Part I. to begin with.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that this point arose on the Schedule, and he thought the hon. Member had better reserve his Amendment till that was reached.
MR. RAMSAY MACDONALDsaid that if they turned to the Schedule they would find that there was only one Act included in Clause 2. He wished to know whether, if Part I. was left in, it would not prejudice his opportunity of moving the deletion of Part II. from the Schedule.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that, as he understood, the hon. Member desired to move the omission of the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905. He desired to know whether, if the Committee passed Part I. of this Bill, it would make it necessary that there should be a Part II., so that the Unemployed Workmen Act would have to stand part of it.
MR. RAMSAY MACDONALDsaid that what he then wished to know was whether if they passed lines 5 to 7 inclusive in the second paragraph of the first section, that, would not still more prejudice his Motion.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I see that the hon. Member means the preamble. That comes after the Schedule, and therefore we are not passing the preamble at all at the present moment.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Question proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
MR. CONOR O'KELLYasked who was the Minister in charge of the Bill, as he wished to say one or two words on subjects connected with the clause.
SIR A. ACLAND HOODremarked that there ought to be some Minister in charge of the Bill. He had sat in the House for many years while this Bill had annually passed through Committee, and he had never known it to be taken without some Minister being definitely in charge of the proceedings.
MR. HOBHOUSE: I am in charge of the Bill.
SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman responsible for all the Acts mentioned in the Bill? I think the action of the Government is unsatisfactory, and I move to report Progress.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE): This is quite in accordance with the usual practice. When I was Junior Lord twenty-five years ago I used to be in charge of this Bill.
SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid he recollected the right hon. Gentleman a great deal longer than twenty-five years ago, long before he was Junior Lord. In those days he was a great footballer and he always played the game. There were three Amendments down to the Schedule in regard to which the Minister ought to be there to explain. He moved to report progress.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 34; Noes, 137. (Division List No. "226.)

AYES.

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

Balcarres, Lord

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Banner, John S. Harmood.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Ashley, W. W.

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

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Carlile, E. Hildred

Houston, Robert Paterson

Starkey, John R.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey.

Hunt, Rowland

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Clive, Percy Archer

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

Valentia, Viscount

Courthope, G. Loyd

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Dalrymple, Viscount

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Younger, George

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Gordon, J.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Forster.

Gretton, John

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Hamilton, Marquess of

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

Hill, Sir Clement

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Partington, Oswald

Acland, Francis Dyke

Haworth, Arthur A.

Paulton, James Mellor

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Hedges, A. Paget

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Higham, John Sharp

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

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Radford, G. H.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

Horniman, Emslie John

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Beck, A. Cecil

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Robinson, S.

Ballairs, Carlyon

Hudson, Walter

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Berridge, T. H. D.

Hyde, Clarendon

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Bowerman, C. W.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Brodie, H. C.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

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

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Seaverns, J. H.

Bryce, J. Annan

Jowett, F. W.

Seddon, J.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Seely, Colonel

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Lamont, Norman

Shackleton, David James

Byles, William Pollard

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Sherwell, Arthur James

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lehmann, R. C.

Stanger, H. Y.

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

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Cooper, G. J.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

Lewis, John Herbert

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Crosfield, A. H.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Duckworth, James

Maclean, Donald

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Tomkinson, James

Essex, R. W.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Toulmin, George

Esslemont, George Birnie

M'Micking, Major G.

Verney, F. W.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Maddison, Frederick

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

Everett, R. Lacey

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

Ferens, T. R.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Marnham, F. J.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Fullerton, Hugh

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Gill, A. H.

Massie, J.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Masterman, C. F. G.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Glendinning, R. G.

Mond, A.

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Glover, Thomas

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

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

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Nicholls, George

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Gulland, John W.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Winfrey, R.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Nolan, Joseph

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

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

Nuttall, Harry

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

Parker, James (Halifax)

Clause agreed to.
Schedule:
MR. EVERETT MR. EVERETT moved to leave out of the schedule "The Poor Rate Exemption Act, 1840." He said that by an Act passed in the 43rd year of Queen Elizabeth's reign, entitled an "Act for
1014
the Relief of the Poor," it was among other things provided that the overseers of every parish should raise by taxation of
"Every inhabitant, parson, vicar and other, and of every occupier of land, houses, tithes, impropriate, propriation of tithes, coal mines or saleable underwoods in the said parish in such competent sum or sums of money as they should think fit, a convenient stock of necessary ware and stuff to set the poor on work and also

1015
competent sums of money for and towards the relief of the poor not able to work, and also for the putting out of poor children to be apprentices; to be gathered out of the same parish according to the ability of the same."
Two principles were noticeable in that Act, that every inhabitant or occupier was to pay; that it was a case of persons not property—and that ability to pay was to be the measure of payment. It was a great and good Act and a just Act, and upon it the foundation of all our rating system had been based. In 1840 a change was made in that Act. A measure was passed to exempt, "until the 31st December, 1841," inhabitants of parishes, townships and villages from liability to be rated as such in respect of stock in trade or other property to relief of the poor. The Act provided that it should not be lawful for the overseers of—
"Any parish, township or village to tax any inhabitant thereof, as such inhabitant, in respect of his ability derived from the profits of stock in trade or any other property for or towards the relief of the poor,"
Provided always that nothing in the Act—
"In anywise affected the liability of any parson or vicar or of any occupier of lands, houses, tithes impropriate, appropriations of tithes, coal mines or saleable underwoods to be taxed under the provision of the Act for and towards the relief of the poor."
It was this Act they were asked again to renew. The grounds for passing it were the practical difficulties found by overseers in ascertaining what were the profits accruing from stock in trade and other personal property. If they omitted to rate them or rated them wrongly the legality of the whole rate was invalidated. The Act was passed to remove this difficulty, but it was only passed for one year. In the debate on the passing of the Act Mr. Goulburn said that the necessary consequence of exempting one class of property from rating was the imposition of increased burdens on another, and therefore the Bill was strictly speaking an augmentation of taxes on every species of property to which no compensating advantage was given. He (Mr. Goulburn) added that the printed communications from the Poor Law Commissioners showed that a vast quantity of property would escape rating under the Bill which on every principle of justice ought to pay its proportion. The principle of the law of Elizabeth was that it
1016
should bear equally on all parties. The Act exempting people from liability had been renewed year by year for sixty-seven years. Why had that been done? Simply because the main provisions of the Act were so unjust towards different persons that no Government had dared to incur the responsibility of making it permanent. He respectfully submitted that the Act was grossly unjust and that the injustice of it was really becoming more serious, because while exemption was given from contributing to the relief of the poor a great number of other objects had also been added to it. The whole result had been that rates had become much heavier than they formerly were. When they were on the subject of income-tax they argued about pence in the pound, but when they came to rates they dealt with shillings in the pound. Who were the sufferers by the present state of things? They were the ratepayers; all those persons who happened to possess property which was not exempted from rateability, namely, persons occupying or owning land, houses, factories, coal mines, railways, etc. They were unjustly treated inasmuch as they had not only to pay their fair share of the rates, but to make up the money that was lacking owing to others, who were equally well able to pay, being exempted. If they passed this Act again he maintained that they would be repeating this great and gross injustice. His object in moving the omission of the Act was in order that they should not continue this injustice which he had shown was a very real and serious one. The present Government had announced that they had it in contemplation to deal with the question of rating, and the ratepayers naturally were very anxious to know on what lines Ministers were likely to proceed. They could not help feeling a certain amount of anxiety on the subject. A certain Valuation Bill which came under the notice of the House last year and again this year was introduced it was supposed as a basis of the new system of rating. If they took that Bill, along with the commentary upon it of the Solicitor-General for Scotland, they had forced upon them the unwelcome conclusion that the idea at the back of it

1017
was still further to narrow the already too narrow basis on which rates were now charged. They feared that it would mean narrowing the basis down to one kind of property alone and making that carry the whole burden, thus exempting large classes of property which were now liable to rating. He desired very strongly to urge the Government not to seek to commit Parliament to a proposal which would be so enormously unjust to a great number of persons in the country.
*THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. I must remind the hon. Member that he cannot now deal with other legislation. All that he can deal with is what is in this Bill. He is now discussing another Bill which has nothing to do with the Question before the Committee.
MR. EVERETT: I hope, Sir, you will allow me to make a passing reference to proposals which have been foreshadowed to us by the Government.
THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly not.
MR. EVERETTsaid in that case he would conclude what he had to say with the remark that the Government should have a studious regard for fair play and fair dealing all round.
Amendment proposed—
"In Page 7, to leave out lines 7 and 8."—(Mr. Everett.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the schedule."
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,)said that his hon. friend had from some points of view justification for the Motion he had made. He emphasised the justification he had for moving the Motion by stating that no one in the House liked to pay rates, and if the hon. Member had added that no one cared to pay taxes he (Mr. Bums),believed he would have secured an equally hearty response. Rates and taxes would, however, have to be paid under present conditions until the Government redeemed its pledge, as he believed shortly
1018
it would be able to do, to inquire into the system of local taxation. He appealed to his hon. friend after the remarks made by the Prime Minister last year, and also in view of the fact that the question of local taxation was under the consideration of the Government, to realise that he had better not press his Motion that night. They were relatively small points that had been raised in the Motion, and to discontinue the Poor Law Exemption Act, 1840, would not put them much more forward on the road he desired to tread than if they were to allow this Act to be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act for one more year. The question had been before the House for sixty-seven years, and it raised a point which to the rural and agricultural Members was of some importance. The question it raised indicated that there was an inequality and some injustice, but every year during the past sixty-seven years the rural and agricultural Members had taken many opportunities of exacting from the Treasury a sum of money that had its advantage to the rural and agricultural districts in disproportion to the disadvantage which they under this Act might suffer. In consequence, the question had never been dealt with wholly as he believed it must be when this Act was expunged. He appealed to his hon. friend not to press his Motion, but to rest content with the assurance that when the Government dealt with the question of rating and valuation—both of which they intended to deal with in the next session—then, as the greater included the less, they would be compelled to deal with the subjects raised in the Act of 1840 which was covered by the Motion. After the assurance and guarantee that the Government intended to deal with the larger subject, of which this was a smaller issue, he begged his hon. friend not to press the Motion.
MR. HICKS BEACHremarked, that the Government appeared to recognise the unfairness of the present system of local rating, because Lord Wolverhampton, speaking the other day in the House of Lords, said the Government had declared their intention to deal with the question this year. Then the noble Lord went on to say that the Prime

1019
Minister had pledged himself to a reform of the Poor Law system, and that one of the first questions taken in hand would be the relations between, local and Imperial taxation. It would be very satisfactory to all parties if something could be done to remedy the just grievance which existed as regards local taxation, but up to the present time the Government had not even brought in their promised Valuation Bill.
*THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The point is whether or not the Act of 1840 should be left out of the schedule. The hon. Member cannot discuss what action the Government should or should not take in regard to a Valuation Bill.
MR. HICKS BEACHsaid he agreed, but what he wanted to express was that the Government in refusing to agree to the Motion to exempt this Act from the schedule had given nothing but a vague promise to bring in a Valuation Bill by way of dealing with the subject. The point he put before the Committee was that there was small probability of the Government being able to bring in that Bill in the autumn.
*THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member takes the view that the Government will not be likely to bring in their Bill he can use that as an argument, but he is not in order in discussing the question as he is doing.
MR. HICKS BEACHsaid he had no wish to go further. He had stated his ground in supporting the Amendment, which seemed to him the only way he could take at the present moment to enforce the view of several Members on that side of the House that local taxation was of the utmost importance to county boroughs. They wished to enter their protest against the Government for not having taken any serious action in regard to the matter.
MR. COURTHOPEsaid the Act of 1840 imposed the heaviest burden the British agriculturist had to bear. It imposed a burden never intended when the Act was passed. He would explain in a
1020
few words what he meant. It was cited in the preamble that a person should pay for the relief of the poor out of the profits derived from his stock in trade or other property. But it was never intended that anything but profits should be rated. But the Act had the effect, especially in rural districts, of throwing the whole burden upon agricultural lands. Profits from agricultural lands, however, were insufficient; and, in the second place, the rate was levied not on the profits but on the land itself. For years agricultural land had been paying rates and yet very often the occupier had not been getting any profit at all. The burden had been heavy and increasing. It had been increased, as the hon. Member who moved the Amendment had stated, by various statutes which had been passed, and there was no doubt whatever that it would be increased as a result of recent legislation in the next few years. It would be increased next year through the legislation passed this year. The burden was-really becoming intolerable, and it was quite time that those who were interested in agriculture should press for some relief from their oppression, the injustice of which was evident to anyone who-considered the matter. The farmer was paying on his all, everything he possessed. It was all in the land on which he was rated so heavily. A banker who might be making enormous profits was rated only on the buildings which he occupied. He might be receiving an annual profit of many hundred pounds more than the poor farmer, yet he would be paying very much less rate. It was the same with other trades and professions. The burden was hardest for the agriculturist just because in paying on his stock in trade he paid on his all. For this reason, without at that late hour entering into the many arguments which might be adduced in support of the demand for the relief of the agricultural ratepayers, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite to consider the question in a rather more sympathetic way than he had done. He did not mean to say the right hon. Gentleman did not wish well to the agriculturist because he knew he did, but he really thought it was impossible for agricultural Members to allow that question to be indefinitely postponed in the hope that

1021
something might arise to help them in the dim future when unknown legislation which was only foreshadowed was brought in. He therefore would most urgently urge the Committee to support the Amendment.
MR. CONOR O'KELLYrose to ask if the Act applied to Ireland, in which case he would like to say something, as his constituency was very much like that of the hon. Member who had spoken.
MR. JOHN BURNS: No.
MR. YOUNGERsaid he did not think that was how to approach the subject. No advantage was to be gained by leaving out that particular Bill. It would be impossible to overturn the whole system of local rating by simply exempting that one statute, and on that account he thought the Amendment futile, and urged that it should be withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR SAMUEL SCOTT SIR SAMUEL SCOTT (Marylebone, W.) moved to exempt the Militia Ballot Act. He was in hopes of getting a little

AYES.

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

Dalrymple, Viscount

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Forster, Henry William

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Ashley, W. W.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Starkly, John R.

Banner, John S. Harmood.

Gordon, J.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

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

Hamilton, Marquess of

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hill, Sir Clement

Valentia, Viscount

Bowles, G. Stewart

Houston, Robert Paterson

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hunt, Rowland

Younger, George

Carlile, E. Hildred

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

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey.

Mason, James F (Windsor)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir Samuel Scott and Mr. Gretton.

Clive, Percy Archer

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Courthope, G. Loyd

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Bryce, J. Annan

Esslemont, George Birnie

Acland, Francis Dyke

Bums, Rt. Hon. John

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Everett, R. Lacey

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Byles, William Pollard

Ferens, T. R.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

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

Fuller, John Michael F.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cooper, G. J.

Fullerton, Hugh

Barran, Rowland Hirst

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

Gill, A. H.

Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Beck, A. Cecil

Crosfield, A. H.

Glendinning, R. G.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Berridge, T. H. D.

Duckworth, James

Gulland, John W.

Bowerman, C. W.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Brodie, H. C.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Randor)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

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

Essex, R. W.

Harmsworth, R L. (Caithn'ss-sh

information as to that Act, but when he looked at the Treasury Bench he did not see a single member of the Government representing the War Office from whom he was the least likely to get any information whatever. That was the sort of treatment to which the House was becoming somewhat used. As soon as the clock got past twelve, apparently the Government (who were paid to be in that Chamber) went to bad.
AN HON. MEMBER: A very sensible thing.
SIR SAMUEL SCOTTsaid that in the circumstances, seeing that there was not a single representative of the Government from whom he could get any answer, he would move to report Progress.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Samuel Scott.)
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 32; No2s, 135. (Division List No.227.)

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

M'Micking, Major G.

Seddon, J.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Maddison, Frederick

Seely, Colonel

Haworth, Arthur A.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Shackle ton, David James

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Sherwell, Arthur James

Hedges, A. Paget

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Stanger, H. Y.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Marnham, F. J.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Higham, John Sharp

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Massie, J.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Horniman, Emslie John

Mond, A.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Hudson, Walter

Nicholls, George

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Hyde, Clarendon

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Tomkinson, James

Illingworth, Percy H.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Toulmin, George

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Nuttall, Harry

Verney, F. W.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Ward, John (Stoke unpon Trent

Jowett, F. W.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Partington, Oswald

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Lamont, Norman

Paulton, James Mellor

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Lehmann, R. C.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Levy, Sir Maurice

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

Williams. J. (Glamorgan)

Lewis, John Herbert

Radford, G. H.

Wilson, J. H (Middlesbrough)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

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

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Robinson, S.

Winfrey, R.

Maclean, Donald

Rogers, F, E. Newman

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

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

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Seaverns, J. H.

SIR SAMUEL SCOTTsaid he would. not detain the House more than one or two minutes, but he would like to have some explanation as to why the particular Act they had been discussing was left is the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. He was perfectly aware that the Act was somewhat different from the other Acts in the Bill, because instead of continuing an Act of Parliament it suspended an Act, namely, the Militia Ballot Act. He would like to hear from the hon. Member who represented the War Office what was the exact position at the present time with regard to that Act. The Secretary of State for War had said on 4th June of last year that the Territorial Army Bill did not kill the Act legally, so far as the Militia continued to exist, but the Militia in its present form had become obsolete, for it had been abolished by the Territorial Army Bill. The hon. Member representing the War Office shook his head, but it was a fact that, except as regards Ireland, the Militia was abolished.
MR. ACLANDsaid three options had been given to the Militia. They might come over to the Special Reserve, they might accept their discharge, or they
1024
might continue is Militia. Seeing that they were given the option of continuing as Militia, they had thought it right to keep that Act in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Militiamen could serve out their term of service as Militiamen, and that being the case he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his. Amendment.
SIR SAMUEL SCOTTsaid he could quite understand the reason for continuing the Act, for so long as Militia continued that Act ought to be continued. He asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*MR. LUTTRELLsaid he wished to move an Anend-ment providing that certain powers given to the Commissioners under the Light Railways Act should be altered. He thought those provisions ought to be a He wed to expire, for he would remind the Committee that when in 1896 the Bill passed through Committee there was a majority in favour in not allowing the Lands Clauses to apply to the making of light railways. This was altered at a

1025
later stage, and consequently the Lands Clauses were now incorporated. The effect of this was that under the Act they had to pay very much more for land which was wanted for railways than they ought to pay. If the landlord objected to the railway coming on his land, he was under that Act able to get a much higher price for his land. That was an encouragement to people who objected to railways being made, and he felt that it was the duty of the House of Commons to encourage the making of railways. It was a great hardship on the public that the should have to pay very much more, sometimes 10 per cent. more, than the value of the land.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member would not be in order in seeking to amend certain clauses of the Light Railways Act, but he would be in order in moving the Amendment which he had handed in to leave out the whole Bill.
MR. LUTTRELLsaid his proposal was to leave out part of the Bill.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid the Amendment could only be against the Bill being continued. The elimination of the references to the Lands Clauses Acts would involve the amendment of several sections.
MR. LUTTRELLsaid he would under those circumstances move that the whole Bill should be left out.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that if the hon. Member moved to leave out the whole Bill he must apply himself to the whole Bill and not simply to the discussion of a part which ought to be dealt with by an amending Bill.
MR. LUTTRELL: said he objected so strongly to that part of the Bill that he objected to the whole Bill.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid in that case the hon. Member should confine his observations to the whole Bill, giving reasons why the Bill ought not to be continued.
MR. LUTTRELLsaid he proposed to deal with the portion which he had mentioned. He objected to the whole Bill. It was a bad Bill because it had the portion which he referred to in it. He thought he was in order in saying that it was a bad Bill, that a Bill that had provisions such as those to which he had alluded which made it possible for the public to pay far in excess of the land, must be a bad Bill. He therefore wanted the Bill to expire; and another Bill should be substituted to take its place. It was extremely wrong that the public should have to pay far more than the value of the land.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, to leave out lines 29 and 30."— (Mr. Luttrell.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the schedule."
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the point raised by his hon. friend was, he gathered, that he objected to the method of procedure in acquiring land under that Bill. In the case of land the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act of 1845 were applied to land which was required for light railways. There was some force in what the hon. Member had said, but he could only inform the House that the Act in question had only been in operation for twelve years, and the time had now come when the Government and the Department responsible for the Act would have to deal with it in the light of experience acquired. He would ask his hon. friend to withdraw his Motion, and he trusted that when an opportunity came for simplifying the acquisition of land, something might be done to meet the hon. Member's views.
MR. LUTTRELLsaid he thanked the President of the Local Government Board for what he had said and readily withdrew his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. MACKARNESS MR. MACKARNESS (Berkshire, New-bury) moved to omit the Motor Car Act of 1903. He did not propose to make a long speech at that late hour, for he thought

1027
it would be admitted on both sides of the House that the present state of the law as to motor cars was perfectly inadequate both in town and country, and that some alteration was therefore most necessary. He need not go into the intolerable injury inflicted on people both in town and in country, but he wished to call the attention of the Government to the growing sense of injury which was being produced, and to appeal to the Home Secretary and the President of the Local Government Board, who, he thought, were both in, sympathy to do something to improve the present state of affairs. He did not know that any of the replies of either the right hon. Gentleman had been very hopeful that anything would be done, and his object in moving the omission of the Act was to ascertain the intentions of the Government as to future legislation and to find out, if possible, in what way they proposed to alter the law.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, to leave out line 13."—(Mr. Mackarness.)
MR. CATHCART WASONsaid he desired to second the proposal of his hon. friend. He had not the least cause to complain of the action of his right hon. friend, the President of the Local Government Board, in regard to the administration of the Act while he had been in office. But the Act had not been carried out throughout the whole country as it ought to have been. It would be very much better if the Act were repealed and the President of the Local Government Board was compelled to bring forward another Act dealing with the question at the earliest possible opportunity. Those hon. Members who were in the House in 1902 knew perfectly well that the Act was the result of an arrangement entered into by general consent by a compromise on both sides. The proposals for further restrictions were largely supported by hon. Members now in opposition, but then on the Government side of the House. So far as they had seen the working of the Act throughout the country, he thought they would all, including the President of the Local Government Board, be prepared to admit that it was an absolute failure. He did
1028
not know whether he would be justified into going into the cause of the failure, but he thought a large section of the community had deliberately set itself against obeying the law as laid down by Parliament. He was very sure that all sections of the House would agree that, the present state of affairs under which the law was broken by the very persons who ought to obey it, many of whom were themselves law-makers, could not go on. Members of that House were the very persons who ought to be most careful to set the example, and they ought not to be the persons to break and evade the Motor Car Act as they deliberately set out to do, setting on one side all questions of the welfare of the community. It would be difficult at that hour of the morning to go into the many defects both in the law and in its administration. After the very satisfactory answer the President of the Local Government Board had given them the other day in reference to that Act, he sincerely trusted that very soon they might see a better state of things arising. In the meantime, he was sure the House could not do better than enter its vigorous protest against the manner in which this Act had been deliberately set aside and evaded. It was in the hope that that protest would carry due weight that he seconded the Amendment of his hon. friend.
MR. MARKHAMsaid the hon. Member who had just sat down was one of those very Members of Parliament of whom he had been speaking. He had taken the law into his own hand, he had disobeyed the law, and he had, he understood, also been fined for exceeding the speed limit. He did not intend at that late hour to speak at any length on that subject, but if he did not take that opportunity of speaking he would have to take some other, and he did not know that the next case would be any earlier than that. When the Motor Car Act of 1903 was introduced they had a specific pledge that that Bill should be in operation for a period of twelve months only, and that at the end of the twelve months it should come up for revision. There was a great deal of legislation by reference in the Act of 1903, but the law was quite clear in regard to the nuisance at present

1029
caused by motor cars. The responsibility was to a very large extent divided between the Home Secretary and the President of the Local Government Board. The Home Secretary in that House in answer to questions constantly told Members that those questions should be addressed to the President of the Local Government Board, but when they put them to the President of the Local Government Board he told them that they should be addressed to the Home Secretary. The duties of the two Departments were quite clearly defined. The Act said that the speed of motor 'buses must not exceed twelve miles an hour. He had asked questions about that in the House, and being unable to get satisfaction he had gone to the Chief Commissioner of Police and asked him how it was that motor 'buses travelled at eighteen miles an hour without being prosecuted.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANasked, would the hon. Member say which clause he was referring to?
MR. MARKHAMsaid he was referring to the whole Act, but more particularly to Clause 7. Subsection 4 of Clause 7 said that no person should in any instance drive a motor car at a speed exceeding twenty miles an hour, and contained numerous references to the Ant of 1861, which laid down the speed of motor 'buses at ten miles an hour. As the Act was entirely by reference, he felt he was perfectly in order in showing that it had not been obeyed, but had been set openly at defiance. If ever there was a case where an Act had been flouted and was the proper subject for discussion it was there. The speed of motor 'buses was twelve miles an hour. That had been laid down by the President of the Local Government Board in his regulations under the provisions of that Act, and the Chief Commissioner of Police had informed him that no action had been taken though the law said the speed should not exceed twelve miles an hour, because it came under an Act of 1875 under which no locomotive was to exceed twelve miles an hour. The Chief Commissioner of Police told him that certain circumstances made it necessary
1030
for him to allow four miles an hour over the speed laid down by the regulations. It was intolerable that when that House laid down that the speed of these vehicles should be a definite one not exceeding twelve miles an hour the Home Office should vary that speed. It was the duty of the police to see that the law was enforced, and it was the duty of the Home Secretary to see that the Chief of the Police took action. Every street in the Metropolis was filled with the stink of petrol.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that had nothing to do with the Motor Car Act.
MR. MARKHAMsaid he felt it had.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that grievance with regard to the administration of the Motor Car Act could not be discussed
MR. MARKHAMpointed out that the Act provided that regulations should be laid down by the Department; he had not the reference there, but he would find it; it was in Clause 12, which defined that the Local Government Board should have power to make regulations under any section for dealing with motor cars on the highways. He was sorry the Deputy-Chairman was restricting him. If he had known that a point was to be raised in that way by the Chairman, he would have had all the Acts mentioned in the Motor Car Act and given each one of them.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member could not go over the terms of the Act; he could only tell the Committee in general terms the reasons why he thought the Act should not be renewed.
MR. MARKHAMsaid the Act of 1903 was a dead letter, so far as its operation was concerned. Was not that a problematic discussion on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill?
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that if the hon. Member spoke in general terms that was a very different thing from giving every section of the various Acts.

1031
The hon. Member would be perfectly in order in giving general grounds why the Act should not be renewed.
MR. MARKHAMsaid that his general statements were that motor cars were an intolerable nuisance. They were for the pleasure of the rich. They were run by speculative companies and no regard was paid to the protection of the public. That Bill had done a tremendous amount of harm if people only knew it. Many motorists showed an utterly callous disregard for the rights of their fellow citizens. They had only to go to the Great North Road to see that. Those cads on wheels went by making life intolerable for the people in the district, and though there were many motorists who acted in a moderate manner, a great many men seemed to lose all sense of right or wrong when they got into a motor car. Even the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland when he got into a motor car broke the law. He said in all sincerity that that was a question which must be dealt with. It was necessary not only in London, but throughout the country that the law should be altered and people suitably punished who put it at defiance. He might tell the Committee that the present Motor Car Act was openly set at defiance day after day with the greatest impunity, and he thought it was something like a farce that they should have an Act on the Statute book which was openly disregarded by every motorist. He did not believe that there was a single owner of a motor car who did not openly disobey the law every time he went out. When he himself took his car out, he openly disobeyed the law, and he did not think that in this respect he was a bit worse than anyone else. He had found that it was possible to drive motor cars down the street in which he lived at a speed of thirty miles an hour, and he had regularly broken the law by following them to find out at what speed they were going. The law was openly flouted and he had broken it himself in order to show that this was done. The time had arrived when steps should be taken to put the law into effective operation. If the President of the Local Government Board did not introduce next session a
1032
Bill dealing with this question he would find that the people of the country would give a very strong expression of their intention not to sit quietly down and allow motor cars to be driven at any speed which the owners liked to the imminent danger of other people using the highway.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he was not a motorist, he had not been apprehended for driving at forty miles an hour, and he sincerely regretted that his hon. friend who had just spoken should have set such a bad example by showing how easy it was to break the law. As to the hon. Gentleman's statement that he had driven at the speed of thirty miles an hour to find out if other motorists were breaking the law, he (Mr. Burns) had no guarantee that all the other transgressors had not been doing precisely the same thing, and perhaps they might urge with more plausible reasons. He sincerely hoped that the hon. Member would discontinue that rather vicious practice and return to the ways of the law-abiding motorist. He had risen as one of the Ministers responsible for the administration of the Motor Car Act to reply for the hon. Member for Newbury and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland,. The hon. Member below the gangway said that the country would be much better without the Act than with it. He would remind the hon. Member, however, that if they were to carry out that night the object he had in view, and were to discontinue this particular Act, the registration of cars would be impossible, the licensing of drivers would be discontinued, the twenty-mile an hour speed-limit would be abolished, and reckless driving would not be punishable either by a penalty or in serious cases by imprisonment. The result would be that they would be in a worse condition than before. He could not too strongly impress upon the Committee that if this particular Act wore repealed things would go from bad to worse. What he suggested was that they should continue this Act and make the best possible use of it until such time as they could seriously consider the existing legislation with a view to its proper amendment. If the Motion were carried, motor cars would still be used, but there would be no limit

1033
to speed, no registration, no licences, and penalties would be lessened. He would point out to the hon. Member that under Section 1 if any person drove a motor car on the public highway recklessly or negligently, or at a speed or in a manner dangerous to the public, having regard to the circumstances of the case, that person was guilty of an offence under the Act. The point he wished to make was that in that section there was no qualifying condition as to twenty, ten, five, or even two miles an hour. If on the evidence produced and facts shown a man was found to have been driving even at a mile an hour in a crowded place, and it was proved that he did it negligently, that man was liable to a fine, and in certain circumstances to imprisonment. If this Motion -was carried, Clause 1 and the rest of the clauses of the Motor Car Act would be repealed, and their condition in the last case would be worse than in the first. The hon. Member for Mansfield had said that practically nothing had been done. He could assure the hon. Member that that was not so. If he looked at the number of summonses and the number of convictions he would find that as each quarter went on, the number of people who were summoned, the number of people who were fined, and the number off people who were convicted in the later quarters was immensely larger than in the preceding quarters. He was very glad to say that the police universally now were realising their responsibility in this matter, and that magistrates also were beginning to recognise that roads were intended for other people besides those who possessed motor cars. Also, he believed, that at last the local authorities whose duty it was to administer this Act, were becoming really alive to their responsibility in regard to the matter. He had already in answer to Questions in the House given some details as to the number of local authorities who had approached the Local Government Board on the matter, and he could only say that he was losing no opportunity of impressing upon them the necessity of discharging their duties to the full. The hon. Member had said that the Local Government Board was anxious to put the responsibility on the
1034
Home Office, and the Home Office had an opportunity of evading responsibility in the matter. He could assure the hon. Member that was not so. His right hon. friend the Home Secretary and himself had had frequent consultations on the matter, and they were prepared heartily to co-operate in order to make the legislation they had at present as effective as possible. The Home Secretary in his Department and he himself at the Local Government Board were tightening up the restrictions in order to make the legislation more severe than it had been. As regards the Local Government Board he might say that during the two and a half years during which he had had the honour of holding his present office, they had had forty applications only from local authorities for the prohibition or reduction of the speed limit, and in the overwhelming majority of those cases he had been glad to consider the reduction of speed asked for. In one case he had actually prohibited the use of motors altogether, namely, between Kingston Bridge and Hampton Court Bridge. Generally speaking, the Local Government Board had granted the applications, as was shown by the fact that out of the forty they had refused only four. He realised as fully as anyone could do that there was still a large number of motor drivers who used the roads for road racing and other purposes, that made the traffic dangerous to the public. He fully agreed with his hon. friend that it was desirable that the laws for the protection of innocent people should not be evaded. There were a number of people using motors with whom they had yet to deal, and he was anxious, as soon as he could do it, further to remedy matters. He intended to issue a circular to the local authorities setting before them their powers, duties, and liabilities under this particular Act with a view to securing from the local authorities a more vigorous supervision over those men who drove beyond the maximum speed of twenty miles an hour. There was, he would point out, an aspect of this question which they must consider in relation to any restrictive legislation that might be passed. He had, as an engineer, some knowledge with reference to the manufacture of motor cars, and he might say that whereas eight years ago this country

1035
made £70,000 worth of motor cars, this year we had made £7,000,000 worth o motor cars.
MR. MARKHAM: Does that justify the killing of children and the running down of pedestrians generally?
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid in no sense was he defending the recklessness of motorists on the road when driving at five, twenty, or thirty miles an hour. On the contrary, he deprecated as strongly as he could the driving of cars at these high speeds. What he wanted to point out as the Minister at the head of the Department curiously enough responsible for motor cars, as well as responsible for dealing with the question of unemployment, was that eight years ago we made only £70,000 worth of cars as compared with £7,000,000 worth to-day. We had displaced America from the third place, Germany from the second place, and we were now in the running with France for the supremacy of the industrial nations as regards the output and manufacture of motor cars. What we would like to see was that, consistent with maintaining that trade and supremacy which he hoped the old country would always have in the arts mechanical and peaceful, we should be able to keep the roads of our country in order and put "the motor cad" in his proper place, which, in many cases, ought to be in prison as a reward for his scandalous conduct in recklessly risking killing his fellow people. In so far as they had been able, his right hon. friend the Home Secretary and himself had done their duty cautiously yet boldly in endeavouring to suppress the motor nuisance. He must say this of the local authorities, that unless they showed greater enthusiasm in enforcing the law within their province, the Local Government Board would have to take more serious steps. The hon. Member had complained of motor buses in London, and expressed regret that the Home Office had not taken more serious steps in order to put a stop to the nuisance they caused. He would remind the hon. Member however that for four years the London County Council had not made a single representation to the Home Office or the Local Government Board for the restriction, reduction, or regulation of the
1036
speed of motor buses. The City Corporation which was also an authority in London, had not made representations to the Local Government Board for nearly four years. With regard to the question of motor omnibuses they now had a maximum of twelve miles, and he believed his right hon. friend was considering the question as to whether that maximum should not be reduced to a lower figure. With regard to the question of petrol the streets did not bear witness to the use of petrol and the dropping of grease and lubricants to-day as they did six or twelve months ago. Manufacturers saw that it was wasteful to waste grease and petrol in that way and car makers were correcting their mistakes. If the local authorities did not do their duty after his Circular the Local Government Board would have to consider the question whether there should not be further legislation. They could not have a Motor Car Act Amendment Bill this year, and the passing of the present Motion would simply render the situation more intolerable to those who did not use motor cars. He appealed to his hon. friend not to press the Motion, but to rest assured that so far as a non-motoring President could keep these people in order and defend the public it would be done.
MR. CATHCART WASONexpressed the hope that the Amendment would be withdrawn after the speech to which they had listened, but he could not allow the remarks which the right hon. Gentleman had made with regard to local authorities to pass unchallenged. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to consider that local authorities had been much to blame and had been slack in this matter. He must direct their attention to the fact that before the right hon. Gentleman came into office there was a-circular issued by the Local Government Board informing local authorities that there was no need for their applying for any speed limit because no application would be received with favour by the Board.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the only Circular he had issued was a Circular urging that the corners of roads and hedges should be seen to with a view to minimising the risk of accident, and.

1037
that this should be done in co-operation with the Local Government Board.
MR. CATHCART WASONsaid that the Circular to which he referred was issued prior to the right hon. Gentleman coming into office, and that was one reason why the local authorities had not till now taken action. They had had a great grievance against the Motor Car Act from the time of its inception. It had not fulfilled anything like what was expected of it. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was in error in what he said about Clause 1. The effect of its deletion would simply be to go back to the common law of the country. He congratulated the President of the Local Government Board on his speech and upon the Circular to which he had alluded as being one which he intended to issue.
MR. MACKARNESSsaid he had moved the Amendment with the object of getting a declaration, and he thought after the declaration he had got that the present state of the law was unsatisfactory he did not require to press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD*MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD moved to omit the Unemployed Workmen's Act from the schedule. He felt he ought to apologise to the House for raising such an important subject at that hour of the morning, but that was the fault of the j Government and not his. The Labour Party did not intend to pass unchallenged any reference to the Unemployed Workmen's Act so long as the Government remained inactive on the subject as it had been since it came into office. He did not desire to go outside the scope and liberty which a Member was allowed in the discussion of that Bill. If they turned to the third subsection of the fourth clause of the Bill they would see that the whole administration of the Act was handed over to the Local Government Board, and that secondly, the Act being nothing but an administrative; measure, it was absolutely impossible to discuss whether it should or should not remain on the Statute-book with out referring to some extent to the
1038
way in which the administration of the section, which was the main section of the Act, had been carried out. They had heard several times that the Government could do nothing with the Act until a certain Commission had reported, and therefore the Act which automatically expired this year must find a place i in that Bill. Nevertheless the Government had legislated on old-age pensions which was a subject much more germane to the scope of the reference to the Poor Law Commission. Surely in that case the Government could not think that that was an adequate reason why they should refuse to deal with the problem of unemployment. The problem of unemployment had less to do with the Poor Law than old-age pensions. But that was not the only reason they had against the Government for refusing to legislate further. The Government themselves proposed in 1906 legislation on the subject and the Poor Law Commission was then sitting. The Government had not yet explained how it came that in the King's Speech of 1906 they proposed to legislate for the unemployed, and in 1908 said they could not legislate because the Poor Law Commission was sitting.
*THE CHAIRMAN: It is not in order to discuss upon the question whether this particular Bill should be left out or not pledges which the Government have given with regard to legislation. The only question which can be raised is whether or not this Act or some specific portion of the Act should be left out.
*MR. RAMSAY MACDONALDsaid he hid no intention whatever of going outside the scope of the subject, but the paint was that the Government gave that as a reason why the Bill should be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and not made a subject of fresh legislation. He had said all he wanted to say upon that, point. What they had to deal with was that the present position should not be continued. There were a great many reasons for that, and he regretted exceedingly that it was at twenty-five minutes past two in the morning that they were asked to discuss them. He could not, therefore, go over all those reasons, but it would be absolutely necessary to go into them to some extent.

1039
The Liberal Party might not consider it necessary, but the Labour Party considered it was, and that settled the matter so far as they were concerned. It would be quite justifiable even at that hour to go over all the reasons, but he did not propose to do it. There were, however, one or two reasons which must be dealt with. First of all, in the working out of that Act they had experienced that it did not impose upon the Local Government Board the necessity of being positive in its suggestions. The Act in its present form did not imply more than that local distress committees might present to the Local Government Board a scheme for work. All the Local Government Board needed to do under the Act was to say that the scheme could not be accepted by them, and the Local Government Board having come to that decision, all the efforts of the Local distress Committee to put the Act into operation came to an end. They found that the Local Government Board worked this subsection which was the most important section of the Act in a strange way. There was a women's work committee in London. The Local Government Board sent samples of their work to an expert. The expert was of the character who did not know the difference between flannel and flannelette. He actually assumed that certain work supposed to have been done in flannelette was in that material when it actually was in flannel. Moreover, the Board and its expert did not seem to know the difference between 2s. 11d. and 2s. 1d. In answer to a Question he put that day as to certain prices quoted by this expert a price 2s. 11d. was given when it should have been 2s. 1d., and the difference which the expert tried to make out for the purpose of discrediting the work of the women's committee was altogether false. He did not propose to elaborate that point. He was speaking at a late hour.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I really must appeal to the hon. Member to apply himself to the Amendment. This is all criticism of the administration. So far the hon. Member has not really applied himself to the question whether the Bill should stand part of the Schedule or not.
*MR. RAMSAY MACDONALDsaid he did not desire to go beyond his privileges. If they turned to Section 4 of the Act they would see that that section was the most important section and that once they passed it they gave the whole Act away. It began with a statement that the Local Government Board might make regulations for carrying into effect the Act. That was the whole point, that was what he was criticising.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member desires to omit the Act from the Schedule. The whole Act must go if the Amendment he moves is carried. It does not seem to me to be competent in regard to this Bill under our rules of order to discuss the Bill in detail, and particularly the administration of the Bill. The hon. Member can state reasons against the Bill as a whole and as to why he desires it should be left out. He can say the administration is so bad that the Bill is utterly worthless and he desires it accordingly to be left out, but he cannot go into the question of administration in detail.
*MR. RAMSAY MACDONALDsaid the point he wished to make was that the Act contained provisions that the Local Government Board might make regulations, and he wished to show that Section 3 of Clause 4 was being put into operation in such a way as to make the Act of no effect in dealing with the problem. For that reason he was moving the deletion of the Act from the Schedule.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that any criticisms of the administration of the Act ought to be taken on the Vote for the President's salary.
*MR. RAMSAY MACDONALDsaid that ho would not press the point. There was another reason, however, for his objection. There was a provision in the Act which, while it remained part of the law and was carried into effect, really meant that any attempt to deal with the unemployed by that Act was impossible. The conclusion he had come to, therefore, was that the Act had better go altogether. The Act gave distress committees power to register the

1041
unemployed, but did not impose on distress committees the duty of finding work for registered persons. The three years experiment which they had of the treatment of the unemployed problem under that Act had shown that anything which did not impose on distress committees the responsibility for finding work for the people they put on the register, must be a failure. They found, as a matter of experience, that only about thirty-six out of every sixty persons registered by the distress committees had work found for them by the distress committees, and that proportion was being diminished rather than increased. It was perfectly true that it was better than nothing, but thirty-six from sixty left a very large number for whom nothing was done, and they were not going to be content with that. When after three years experience it was shown they only found work for thirty-six out of every sixty people registered they were not going to stand by when the Government told them that the only treatment for that Act was to put it in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. This winter we are going to have more distress than ever. The President of the Local Government Board and his colleague, the hon. Member for North West Ham, had both confessed that the distress committees created by Clause 1 of the Act had broken down. The hon. Member for North West Ham had said so in a previous debate this session, and the President of the Local Government Board had made a similar statement last session. The distress committees created by Clause 1, according to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague, the hon. Member for North West Ham, had broken down, and yet the proposal was to give these distress committees another twelve months, to show that they still remained of very little use. That was the only contribution the Government could make to the unemployed problem for the next twelve months. If the rules of the House had allowed it they would not have put down
1042
an Amendment for the omission of this Act for the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The rules of the House, however, had compelled them to do so if they were to speak at all about the Act and make their protest. If they could have moved an Amendment to the Act they would have done so. The House knew that perfectly well, and it was only by putting down the Amendment which was in his name were they able to make the protest which they desired to make.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, to leave out lines 41 and 42."— (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald).
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the schedule."
MR. MADDISONhoped the hon. Member for Leicester would have the courage of his convictions and carry his Amendment to a division. If he did so he would promise to vote for him. He did not think there had been a motion made which might be more useful than that. The President of the Local Government Board proved himself a true prophet when that Act was introduced. He was convinced that the Act had done nothing vital or fundamental to assist the problem of dealing with the unemployed, and he would, therefore, willingly vote for its removal from the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. A distinguished Member of the House had told him that the distress committee of the constituency which he represented had complained that they could get no money under the Act, and had asked him to exert his influence to secure that there should be a proper distribution of the money. He had written for particulars, and had said that if they would make a case out he would do his best for them-Their reply was that they had no unemployed register, that they had no certainty that they would get any money, but that if he would assure

1043
them they would get the money, they would provide the unemployed.
MR. JOHN BURNSsincerely, trusted the House would not accept the motion which had been brought for ward by the hon. Member for Leicester. There were several reasons why it should not be accepted. He did not intend to go into the criticism of the administration of the Act which the hon. Member had made, for that could be better dealt with when the Local Government Board Estimates came on later in the week. When they did come on he hoped to have an opportunity of correcting in the most courteous and frank way the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Leicester that the Local Government Board was responsible for certain defects in the Act. He could assure the hon. Member that the statement was not true. He did not think that the hon. Member for Leicester would, when those Estimates came up, repeat his statements. In the case of women's workrooms——
*THE CHAIRMANsaid he must ask the right hon. Gentleman to keep to the Amendment before the Committee.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the hon. Member for Leicester had availed himself of the opportunity which he had had to make statements which he did not think he would attempt to sustain, but he would reserve his opportunity of replying to the hon. Member. He willingly accepted the ruling of the Chairman. He did not believe that the hon. Member for Leicester really thought it better that this Act should go altogether. If the Motion were carried and the Act were to go, the £200,000 grant would disappear. The hon. Member could rely on it that if the Act were repealed the grant of money which the Government substituted for the amendment of the Act would undoubtedly not be made, for they would not feel
1044
justified with the Unemployed Act removed from the Statute-Book and with the disappearance of all the regulations under which the £200,000 could be spent, in continuing the grant of money-He did not share the rather gloomy view of the writer of a letter in that day's Times that next winter was going to see distress of an unparelleled character. There were many people who took the contrary view, and he ai least believed that whatever distress there was next year they would be able to cope with it, and that they would be able to meet the demands of the distress committees. In regard to the distress committees which applied to them for money, money was ready for them, and in nearly every case they were able to leave them in. the hope of having a balance in hand. If this Motion was carried the unemployed in thirty or forty districts would have no reason to thank the hon. Member for Leicester for the plight in which they would find themselves. It was because he would have the duty of distributing this £200,000, and because he believed they had a right to spend that money till the Report of the Royal Commission on Poor Law was presented, that he appealed to all sections of the House, particularly to the Labour Members, not to support the hor. Member for Leicester in the Motion which he hail made. In taking the line he had taken that right he was taking the same line as two and a half years ago, when he said that the Government did not intend to amend that Act, but to provide £200,000 in order to work the Act, until the Report of the Royal Commission on Poor Law Reform was received. That Commission was within a measurable distance of reporting. They wanted more scientific action than that Act enabled them to have.
*THE CHAIRMANpointed out that that had nothing to do with the Bill.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he presumed that on Wednesday the Local Government Board Vote would be challenged and he would then have an apportunity of speaking on the subject. He asked the House not to accept the Motion, for if it was carried it would be one of the most serious blows they could possibly have, and would greatly hinder them in dealing with the unemployed problem.
*MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid the argument had been used against the Motion that if the Act were not renewed the grant of £200,000 would have to be withdrawn. This would not be the case. Before that Act was passed, borough councils, and other similar organisations, felt the obligation which was theirs, to make provision for the unemployed. The Act had done two things. It had dried up to a large extent the founts of charity from which funds used to be forthcoming to make provision for the unemployed. Those of the Labour Party who supported the Act during its passage through Parliament saw these things coming, and supported it only as a first step towards the State making adequate provision for the unemployed. The complaint of the Labour Party was that the Act had only made matters worse, and they contended that in these circumstances it would be better that it should drop, so that the old authorities who formerly dealt with the unemployed should have the responsibility placed upon them of again taking over the duty. One other reason why he supported the Motion was because the Act created false hopes. The fact that the Act had been placed upon the Statute-book created an expectation which its machinery had been totally unable to realise. He hoped that the optimism of the right hon. Gentleman was justified, but so far as he could see at the present time, not only from letters in the Press, but also from
1046
the Board of Trade Returns, and from speeches by the heads of great commercial firms, the coming winter promised to be one of exceptional trade severity. The Government knew that this might be the case, and there was reason to complain that they had done nothing to meet the situation by way of introducing a Bill to amend the Unemployed Workman Act. What he feared was that if the Act was allowed to remain on the Statute-book with all its costly machinery—machinery that went on creating offices and paying out money for officials without doing anything really effective for the unemployed—it would have the effect of aggravating the problem during the coming winter. He said honestly that he would a thousand times rather face the approaching unemployed question without this Act than with it. Therefore, if his hon. friend went to a division on the matter he should certainly go into the lobby with him, and he hoped the Committee would realise that the Labour Party were registering their protest that night in the only way they could do, against the Government for not introducing fresh legislation on the subject.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid it was impossible for him not to sympathise with the speech delivered by the proposer of the Motion, though he did not in the least sympathise with the Motion itself. It was impossible to contemplate what had been going on with regard to this matter—and he spoke with some knowledge of the work ing of the Act in a large commercial centre—without realising that the Act was quite inadequate to deal with what was undoubtedly the greatest problem of the day. It was a matter which no Government, whether it called itself Liberal or Tory, ought to allow to remain undealt with, and he blamed the present Government for not having fulfilled its pledge to legislate on the subject.

1047
However, even if it was admitted that the present Act was inadequate and that its administration was not all that could be wished, there were many Members who realised the serious consequences that would follow if it were suddenly struck out of the Statute-book. The effect would be most disastrous upon the people whom the Labour Members alleged that they particularly represented. He ventured to think, after the discussion they had heard that night, that his hon. friends below the gangway were not in earnest in moving that the Act should be omitted from the schedule of the Bill. He did not think they would dare to go into the lobby and vote in favour of such a Motion, and be believed they had taken the opportunity of moving an insincere Motion.
*THE CHAIRMAN: It is not competent for the hon. Member to say that it was an insincere Motion.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that if it was an improper remark he would withdraw it.
MR. JOHN WARDsaid that the hon. Member who last addressed the Committee probably hit the nail on the head when he declared that in his opinion the Act was a dead letter and was totally inadequate to deal with the unemployed question in any shape or form. One would expect that this would be the case with any Act of Parliament dealing with a problem of this description passed by the Party to which the hon. Member for Liverpool belonged. The hon. Member also said that he did not think the proposer and seconder of the Motion were really in earnest in moving that the Act should be excluded from the schedule of the Bill. It was, however, only fair to say that they did not themselves suggest that this was the case; on the contrary the mover stated that he did not wish the Act to be excluded from
1048
the schedule. The hon. Member for Leicester only moved his Motion for the purpose of bringing the question forward and eliciting a reply from the Government, because it was impossible to deal with the matter in any other way. The mover of the Motion having o made that statement, he (Mr. Ward) was surprised to hear from the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil that he hoped his hon. friend the Member for Leicester would persist in his Motion, and that he would be only too delighted to vote in favour of excluding the Act from the schedule of the Bill. He almost felt inclined to risk his reputation and to support the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil in voting against the inclusion of the Act, because he well remembered the meeting which took place between the Labour Members of the different organisations in the country at which it was decided that the Bill, as it then was, was inadequate, utterly ridiculous, and absurd from beginning to end. He well remembered also the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil and that hon. Member for Woolwich breaking away from an agreement made at a conference in that House and deciding that the Bill should be supported without the Amendments which the Labour Members, in consultation with their colleagues in the trade unions, had deemed necessary to make it of any use whatever to deal with the question under discussion. He well remembered, too, that the President of the Local Government Board, who was not then a member of the Government, and probably had no thought that he was ever likely to be, was opposed to the Bill in its entirety, almost from beginning to end. They had private conversations and private conferences. The trade unionists of the country considered the question at Caxton Hall, and in Committee Room 15. He did not suppose, in fact, that many hon. Members knew the enormous amount of trouble that was taken over the measure before it was placed upon

1049
the Statute-book. From the very inception of the Bill up to the time it passed into law the President of the Local Government Board adopted precisely the same attitude towards it that was now taken up by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. The strange thing was that the President of the Local Government Board now appeared to have changed places with the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, and while the latter was prepared to vote against the continuance of the Act the right hon. Gentleman appealed to the Committee to allow it to go on for another year.
MR. JOHN BURNSobserved that the Government were pledged to spend £200,000 for three years on the unemployed. They considered that, apart from their actual views, sympathies, and prejudices, the responsibility for spending that money with a minimum amount of the harm which had been predicted would arise from its distribution should be carried out. They had been compelled to adhere to that mainly because the hon. Gentlemen who sat around him were in favour of putting the motor car on the legislative road without any petrol. He supplied the petrol, though he was a bit doubtful as to the destination.
MR. JOHN WARDsaid he could assure the President of the Local Government Board he did not object to reviving these reminiscences. He wished to refer particularly to one or two statements by those who were emphatically in favour of these measures when they stopped borough councils from doing their duty. It was now suggested that they should abolish the Act to give an opportunity to the borough councils of doing what they would have done if the Bill had not become law. That seemed to him peculiar. Then they were told that the Act went on paying officials who were doing nothing. He did not think
1050
that was quite right. In spite of the President of the Local Government Board he thought the mere placing of the matter on the Statute-book had recognised the status of the unemployed workmen, and until some better Act was placed on the Statute-book he would not vote for its being excluded.
*MR. RAMSAY MACDONALDsaid he would not put the House to the trouble of a division, especially after the statement made by the President of the Local Government Board that he did not believe in the Act but that he would vote for it. He begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. J. MACVEAGH (Down, S.)said there were one or two points upon which he would like a statement from the Secretary to the Treasury. What Bills were omitted from the schedule of this year that were included in the schedule of last year? That was a somewhat important point, because they did not know what the Treasury clerks had done. He would take one case that occurred to his mind. A number of Acts affecting the Bank of England appeared in the schedule from year to year. It might be within the recollection of some Members of the House that he had put a few questions from time to time about unclaimed bank balances. He was rash enough to state upon one occasion that when the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill came up and these Bills conferring certain powers on the Bank of England were proposed to be renewed, he would draw attention to the fact of the Bank of England's annexing money which did not belong to them. What was the result? These Bills disappeared from the schedule. How did that happen? The matter was one in which they were entitled to have an explanation. The Bills had been included year after year for

1051
the past fifty years. Either that was a piece of tomfoolery——
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: Is the hon. Member entitled to discuss Acts which are not in the schedule?
THE CHAIRMAN: No, but he was in order in putting the question he put.
MR. J. MACVEAGHsaid that what he wanted to know was why the Bills were omitted. What pressure was brought to bear to have them struck out? It was quite possible the Secretary to the Treasury knew nothing about it. Some well-paid and well-fed Treasury Clerk might have performed this without his knowledge, but the House was entitled to know what had happened and why the Bills hid disappeared. There was another point on which he would like to have a statement from the Secretary for the Treasury. There was in the schedule a Bill relating to sand grouse, entitled "The Sand Grouse Protection Bill." The Secretary to the Treasury, if he remembered right, made a most eloquent denunciation against the inclusion of this Bill in the schedule. Why did he introduce it now? He (Mr. MacVeagh) did not know anything about grouse. He had never been grouse shooting in his life, but he was assured there was no such thing as a sand grouse in this country. Why were they passing year after year a Bill to protect what did not exist? The Bill was intended to acclimatise sand grouse in the United Kingdom. This had been going on for twenty-three years, and the sand grouse was not acclimatised yet. Might he ask why the Secretary to the Treasury included that Bill? He could not put the responsibility on anybody else. He was told they should give the grouse a few years yet, but where were they coming from. He had looked up the Encyclopœdia in the Library, and he found that they never came to this country at all. They only existed in
1052
Africa and Asia. The Financial Secretary once voted in protest for a certain Amendment which was moved by the President of the Board of Trade That Amendment stated that in the view of the House it was inexpedient that when important Acts of Parliament had been passed for a limited period, such Acts should be included in a general Bill like the Expiring Lawn Continuance Bill brought in at the close of the session, without any opportunity being afforded for discussion.
*THE CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on the schedule.
MR. J. MACVEAGH: It arises on the question whether the schedule should contain Bills which are notoriously obsolete or totally unnecessary.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I think that would arise on the Second Reading rather than on the schedule.
MR. J. MACVEAGHasked whether it might arise on the Third Reading. He thought it would be more for the convenience of the House if he were allowed to finish the few words he had to say, rather than be put to the trouble of repeating it all. That Resolution was moved by the President of the Board of Trade, supported by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies——
*THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order.
MR. J. MACVEAGHasked if the Secretary to the Treasury would give him an explanation as to whether he intended to give effect to the Resolution or would give an undertaking to give effect to the policy which he had advocated that the whole question of this schedule should be referred to a Select Committee to report what Bills were obsolete and what measures should be adopted in future years. He could make that promise with great safety

1053
It had been made by every Government and not a single Government had ever carried it out. He hoped for the sake of consistency the present Financial Secretary would give them the same pledge. He thought he would carry the sympathy of the House with him when he said that this method of piling all these Bills into one schedule, and coming to the House without giving it opportunity by means of a Select Committee or otherwise of including only those measures which were neither obsolete nor ridiculous was not a common-sense method. He would ask the Secretary to the Treasury—he did not want to put the House to the trouble of a division—to give him the benefit of his advice. Would he especially tell him why the Bank of England was to be left out of the schedule?
MR. HOBHOUSEsaid he had been reminded of a speech he made some years ago.
MR. J. MACVEAGH: A very good speech too.
MR. HOBHOUSEsaid he found himself unable to sustain the objection he made.
MR. J. MACVEAGH: Not a bit of it.
MR. HOBHOUSEsaid that with regard to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman with reference to the Bank of England balances, if he had given him a little warning he would have looked very carefully with a view to discovering whether the hon. Gentleman was accurate or not.
MR. J. MACVEAGH: I am absolutely accurate.
MR. HOBHOUSEsaid that that might be so. At all events he would look at the point and see whether there
1054
was anything in it. [Several MEMBERS: What about sand grouse?]
MR. MARKHAM: Can the hon. Member give us no reply on the question of sand grouse? Surely this Bill has some value, otherwise it would not be included in the schedule.
Schedule agreed to,
Bill reported to the House without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."
MR. J. MACVEAGHsaid he presumed that he might now be allowed to remind the Secretary to the Treasury of the fact that on a previous occasion he supported a Motion proposed by the President of the Board of Trade against the inclusion of Acts in the schedule of the Bill brought in at the end of every session for the continuance of expiring laws. That Motion, he saw, was supported by Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Causton, the Master of Elibank, Mr. J. M. Fuller, Mr. H. J. Gladstone, Mr. McKenna, Mr. J. A. Pease, Mr. H. M. Samuel, Mr. Thomas Shaw, Mr. Churchill, and Major Seely—a very respectable division list in favour of the principle of reform of this method of legislating by schedule. The names he had mentioned should be sufficient to convince the present Government that the argument he was now advancing was worthy of their serious consideration. He did not propose to go into the question of all the Bills contained in the schedule, but he submitted that it was really absurd in the twentieth century that year after year, they should go on re-enacting the Ballot Act, which no one would ever think of enforcing. He suggested to the Government that a Select Committee ought to be set up to go through the schedule, picking out the Acts which were obsolete, and arranging to include in one Bill such Acts as it was desirable to make permanent. He was

1055
only asking the Secretary to the Treasury to induce the Government to undertake to carry out views which the hon. Gentleman himself had put before the House on previous occasions, and which no one supported more vigorously than the hon. Gentleman sitting on his right (Mr. Whitley). He hoped they would have an undertaking that this question would be seriously considered by the Government, and that a Committee would be set up with the object of removing anomalies from the schedule, thus putting the legislation with respect to the continuance of expiring laws on a common sense basis.
MR. HOBHOUSEsaid that no doubt there was a good deal to be said in support of the contention advanced by the hon. Gentleman that there should be a revision of the schedule, but as the hon. Gentleman realised it was necessary that even an Act like the Ballot Act should be continued. If that Bill fell to the ground a great deal of Parliamentary machinery would fall with it, and therefore it was clearly necessary that it should be re-enacted. While he would undertake to look into the schedule very carefully, and to strike out anything that was undesirable, he took it that no Government would be prepared on the recommendation of a Select Committee to embark hastily on a proceeding of that sort.
MR. JOHN WARDhoped that the hon. Gentleman would not on the mere statement of another hon. Member decide to strike out of the schedule an Act relating to sand grouse. He know nothing himself about the habits of this bird, but it might be hoped that the continuance of the Act would have the effect of inducing it to visit our shores in larger numbers than it had done hitherto.

NAVAL MARRIAGES BILL.
Considered in Committee.
Clause 1:
MR. CARLILEsaid he believed an arrangement was come to between the two Front Benches as to the Bills to be taken, and this Bill was not among them.
MR. FLAVINasked if the right hon. Gentleman was in order in stating that an arrangement was come to botwoen the two Front Benches when the Opposition Front Bench was absolutely empty.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2:
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that they had got through a great deal of work that night. They had gone along very well up to that point, and dealt with a number of important questions. But now they were all very tired and as this Bill raised important questions he moved to report progress.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that he could not take the Motion at that stage. The Committee had recently rejected a similar Motion.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. J. A. PEASE,)said that perhaps he might be allowed to state that no definite arrangement was made as to which Bills the Government were going to take that night or in regard to the number. What he said to the right hon. Gentleman for the Wellington Division of Somersetshire was that the Government proposed to take a certain number of Bills appearing first on the Paper and the last item. Last week he pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that there were a number of Bills

1057
that it was absolutely essential the Government should take before the recess, and the right hon. Gentleman agreed with him as to the number of those Bills, included among which was the Naval Marriages Bill.
MR. CARLILEsaid it appeared to him that the privilege of having the banns road on board ship in the Navy was a very desirable one, and he did not see why it should not be extended to the mercantile marine.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is the Naval Marriages Bill. The hon. Member cannot discuss extension to the mercantile marine.
MR. CARLILEmerely wished to make the suggestion to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. The privilege should not be confined to sailors of the Royal Navy. Why was it not proposed that the same privilege should be enjoyed by the sailors of the mercantile marine?
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That question cannot be raised upon this Bill.
MR. CARLILE: Am I not at liberty to ask the Minister in charge of the Bill why certain sailors are to have this privilege and other sailors are not?
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are on Clause 2, and on that clause the question is not relevant.
*THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Dr. MACNAMARA,)said the Bill was a very necessary little Bill which he might mention to hon. Members opposite was recommended two years ago by the Archbishop of Canterbury. It was to on able officers and bluejackets and marines, to secure that the preliminaries to marriage might be taken on board a ship at sea. Under it the banns could be called, and the men interested, if they had made due declaration, could receive a certificate from the commanding
1058
officer corresponding to the registrar's certificate on land. The effect of striking out the clause would be that sailors could not got this certificate. The Bill, as he said, simply enabled sailors to take the proper preliminaries to marriage in the absence of domicile. In every case with the exception of an Archbishop's licence, which was a very costly affair, prohibitive to officers, to say nothing of bluejackets, domicile was required of seven or fifteen days in the case of one of the parties, at any rate, and in some cases both persons had to be living in the country on the day when notice was given. The Bill enabled bluejackets and marines to take the preliminary steps without such necessity of domicile. It was entirely non-controversial and it did not alter the law in any respect whatever, except in regard to that one matter.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid it was not his intention to obstruct the passing of the Bill. It seemed to him, however, that the title was a misnomer, that it really ought to be called the Naval Banns Bill.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are not on the title of the Bill. We are on Clause 2.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid the effect of the Bill, particularly of that section, was to allow not naval marriages but naval banns. There was nothing about marriages in the clause.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid the clause provided that where a marriage was not intended to be solemnised by banns the commanding officer was empowered to take the declaration which would be made before the registrar.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6 agreed to.
Bill reported without Amendment to the House, road the third time, and passed.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL [LORDS].
Considered in Committee.
Clause 1:
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that this was a very big Bill with a tremendous number of clauses. Was it right and fair to take a matter of that sort at that time in the morning? Of course, if it was to go on he dared say some of them could get a copy of the Bill before they got through its many clauses. He hoped the Government would consent to report progress, taking instead of it Navy and Army Expenditure, 1906–7, Committee.
THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,)urged the hon. Member not to press his objection. The Bill was a purely consolidation Bill, which was desired by agriculturists on both sides of the House. There was one Amendment to make matters clear.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 41 agreed to.
Clause 42:
Amendment proposed—
"In page 20, line 41, at end, to insert the words 'Provided that where such a tenancy was a tenancy from year to year the compensation payable in respect of an improvement comprised in the Third Schedule to this Act shall be such (if any) as could have been claimed if this Act hail not been passed."— (Sir Edward Strachey.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. CARLILEasked whether the Amendment removed words put in in the other House in order to reinstate the Bill in the condition in which it left the House of Commons.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid the only object of the Amendment was to make it quite clear that the law was not altered.
Amendment agreed to
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Bill reported with an Amendment; as amended to be considered to-morrow.

TUBERCULOSIS PREVENTION (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Committee read and discharged. Bill committed to a Standing Committee.—(Mr. J. A. Pease.)

NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1906–7.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
I. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1907, and the statement appended thereto, that the aggregate expenditure on Navy Services has not exceeded the aggregato sums appropriated for those Services, but that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the total differences between the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.:

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

1,041,698

8

7

Total Deficits

644,285

12

7

Net Surplus

£397,412

16

0

And whereas it is expedient that the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to cover the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services be sanctioned.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—(Mr. Hobhouse)

Schedule.

Number of Vote.

Navy Services, 1906–07. Votes.

Differences between Exchequer Grants and Net Expenditure.

Surpluses.

Deficits.

£

s.

d.

£

s

d.

1

Wages, &c, of Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines

—

254,136

17

1

2

Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

187,206

2

8

—

3

Medical Establishments & Services

22,225

13

8

—

4

Martial Law

1,842

18

0

—

5

Educational Services

9,894

19

7

—

6

Scientific Services

2,771

14

8

—

7

Royal Naval Reserves

80,309

1

6

—

8

Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.:

I. Personnel

—

82,848

1

11

II. Matériel

—

264,933

12

10

III. Contract Work

199,886

1

10

—

9

Naval Armaments

260,541

17

5

—

10

Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad

194,528

0

11

—

11

Miscellaneous Effective Services

78,025

9

9

—

12

Admiralty Office

4,466

8

7

—

13

Half Pay, Reserved and Retired Pay

—

20,078

19

7

14

Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances

—

19,838

9

4

15

Civil Pensions and Gratuities

—

895

11

4

Amount written off as irrecoverable

—

1,554

0

6

Total

1,041,698

8

7

644,285

12

7

Net Surplus

£397,412 16 0

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he wished to call attention to the scandalous state of affairs disclosed in the Resolution. It was not so much that a million of money voted for certain purposes had not been spent, because that they might reasonably expect; but that other items of expenditure had been greatly in excess of the amounts voted to the extent of £644,285. It was proposed by the Resolution that the shortcomings of the Navy Department should be covered up by the appropriation of the surpluses to meet the deficits. This kind of thing happened every year, but he doubted whether there had ever boon a more flagrant instance of it than was disclosed on the present occasion. It showed the way in which a Government which was supposed to have a great care for the finances of the country really looked after matters, and was an extraordinary commentary on the manner in which the Estimates wore made up. It was a matter which ought not to be passed by without a serious protest.
*DR. MACNAMARAremarked that the hon. Member had said that this was a flagrant case, but as a matter of fact the thing was usual. They took power tinder the Appropriation Act to transfor sums from one Vote on which money had been saved, to another Vote on which the estimated expenditure had been exceeded. There had been a saving altogether of over £1,000,000, and against that had to be placed a deficit on other Votes of £644,000, which meant that the Admiralty had required nearly £400,000 less than was allowed. If the hon. Gentleman wanted particular information on any one point he would be glad to give it to him.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that he did not desire information on any particular point, but it seemed a scandalous way of meeting outlay. When the Estimates were under consideration the Committee were asked to vote certain sums for specific purposes. He noticed that on the wages of officers, seamen, and boys, there had been £254,136 more spent than the Admiralty got the authority of Parliament to spend. On shipbuilding, repairs, and maintenance, there was an excess expenditure of £82,848, and in the same way £264,933
1064
extra had been spent for materials. On the other hand, the Admiralty had not spent £199,886 on contract work, which they had asked Parliament to sanction, but while this work had not been done, the money had been utilised to help towards meeting the over-expenditure in other directions. The proceeding he had described reflected no credit on the present management of the Department.
MR. JOHN WARDbelieved that the Admiralty took credit for £200,000 to be expended on Rosyth. He wished to know whether any part of the surplus was due to money saved from the expenditure at Rosyth.
*DR. MACNAMARA: I do not think off hand that any of this saving is due to money estimated for Rosyth, which was not spent.
II. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1907, and the statement appended thereto, that the aggregate expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services, but that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the total differences between the Exchequer Grants for Army Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.—

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

1,336,708

4

1

Total Deficits

42,029

13

4

Net Surplus

£1,294,678

10

9

And whereas it is expedient that the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to cover the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services be sanctioned.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)

Schedule.

Number of Vote.

Army Services, 1906–07. Votes.

Differences between Exchequer Grants and Net Expenditure.

Surpluses.

Deficits.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

1

Pay, &c., of Army

358,433

12

9

—

2

Medical Establishment: Pay, &c.

44,876

13

4

—

3

Militia: Pay, Bounty, &c.

41,127

7

2

—

4

Imperial yeomanry: Pay and Allowances

16,943

14

7

—

5

Volunteer Corps: Pay and Allowances

30,198

4

1

—

6

Quarterings, Transport, and Remounts

107,764

3

7

—

7

Supplies and Clothing

105,665

13

2

—

8

Ordnance Department Establishments and General Stores

128,775

0

10

—

9

Armaments and Engineer Stores

306,4 29

11

4

—

10

Works and Buildings

87,310

0

6

—

11

Establishments for Military Education

—

2,323

6

8

12

Miscellaneous Effective Services

24,390

16

4

—

13

War Office and Army Accounts Department

4,229

10

11

—

14

Non-effective Charges for Officers, &c

20,563

15

6

—

15

Non-effective Charges for Men, &c.

—

32,744

16

2

16

Civil Superannuation, Compensation, Compassionate Allowances, and Gratuities

—

2,855

2

7

—

Balances irrecoverable

—

4,106

7

11

Total

1,336,78

4

1

42,029

13

4

Net Surplus

£1,294,678 10 9

MR. CARLILEsaid that if his hon. friend's criticisms upon the previous Resolution wore warranted, as he certainly thought they were, the statement now under discussion deserved still more severe censure. He could not look at it without realising that the cheeseparing policy of the present Government in dealing with the Army was clearly brought before them by these figures. The Government asked for considerable sums and then did not spend them. The Army was cut down in numbers and consequently the Government were able to show a large surplus, upon which he supposed they would consider themselves entitled to congratulation. There was a great surplus under the heading of pay, and it was evident from the figures that the Army stores had not been kept up to the right level. It was evident that the Government were starving the Army. The only excuse that they could offer was that they had miscalculated their requirements, and he thought it was a grievous thing that this should be the case in regard to every one of the sixteen items in the schedule. He hoped the Government would not think that it could take any credit to itself for a state of things under which the Army was bound to suffer. Besides that it was to be feared that the cheeseparing policy of the Government would expose the country to great national risks which ought never to have been encountered.
MR. JOHN WARDnoticed that the amount written off in the schedule as irrecoverable was only £4,106 7s. 11d. He would like to know whether that was lost on canteens.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. ACLAND)said
1068
that the amounts irrecoverable were the remains of claims arising out of the South African war. It was rather remarkable that the sums were so small, but they had fought a great many claims and had got back a good deal of money, though sometimes there were no assets. What the hon. Member for Hertfordshire called a starving and cheeseparing policy the Government called economy. They wore quite pleased that they had boon able to spend this large amount less on the Army than they calculated upon doing when the Estimates were framed.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDasked the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill if he would toll them how many officers and men were represented in free medical establishments and so on. That would give them a bettor idea of what the surplus really meant.
MR. ACLANDsaid they took the number of men authorised at the beginning of the year, and therefore the sum was not so large. The matter ought to have been raised on the Estimates on which the House had spent five days.
Resolutions to be reported to-morrow.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 10th July, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at two minutes after Four o'clock a.m.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that in the case of the following Bill compliance with the further proofs required by the Standing Orders Committee has been proved before them:—Ards Railways.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

LIVERPOOL CORPORATION (STREETS AND BUILDINGS) BILL.
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships to suspend the Sessional Order, which provides that no private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after 18th June, in favour of the Liverpool Corporation (Streets and Buildings) Bill. The circumstances under which I ask for this indulgence are that, although the Bill was introduced at the proper time by the promoters and no fault rests with them, it was not found possible to take it in the Police and Sanitary Committee of the other House of Parliament until a very late date. In fact, the Bill was only reported to the other House on 17th July; it was read a third time on 22nd July, and no time has been lost in submitting it to your Lordships. If your Lordships will be good enough to suspend the Standing Order, the Committee stage could stand over until the meeting of Parliament later in the year.
Moved, "That the order made on the 25th day of March last, 'That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 18th day of June next,' be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2a accordingly.

DOVER GRAVING DOCKS BILL
LORD BRASSEY: My Lords, I rise to move that the Order made on 25th March last, that no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after 18th June, be dispensed with. The Dover Graving Docks Bill is the result of negotiations which have been pending for some time, and I am glad to say that the opposition which was threatened to the Bill has been withdrawn. Graving docks are urgently needed at Dover. There are no dry docks between Southampton and London, and the English cross-Channel steamers are sent to Calais for repair. Those responsible for the management of the port of Dover agreed with the promoters of this Bill that it was desirable that the scheme as originally submitted to a Committee of the other House of Parliament for the construction of two large graving docks should be approved, but in deference to the view of the Admiralty the scheme has been reduced, and it is now proposed to construct only one graving dock. Those interested in the port of Dover are hopeful that at some future time the present restrictions may be withdrawn. In conclusion, I have to inform your Lordships that all the local authorities of Dover, the harbour board, the town council, the chamber of commerce, and the railway companies, have petitioned in favour of the Bill, and I therefore hope your Lordships will suspend the Standing Order and give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, "That the order made on the 25th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 18th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Brassey.)
LORD GLANTAWE: My Lords, I wish to support the Motion which the noble Lord has just moved, and I hope the Admiralty, on reconsideration, will not place a limit on the size of the docks. I have had considerable experience in these matters, having been a member of the Swansea Harbour Trustees for nearly forty years. Graving docks have been constructed there from time to time, and the result has always been, that a dock

703
constructed to meet present requirements has invariable been found in a few years to have been too small; and unless there is special reason for limiting the size of the dock at Dover, I hope, for the benefit of the people who are taking an active part in its construction and the shipping community generally, that the restrictions as to the size of the dock will be removed. I am glad that the opposition to the Second Reading has been withdrawn, but I would strongly press upon the Admiralty and those who are in authority at Dover to consider very carefully the question of the size of the dock to be constructed, so that no capital may be wasted, and that the port may benefit from the experience of other ports in the construction of docks of a similar nature.
*LORD WEARDALE, who had given notice, on the Motion for the Second Reading, to move "That the Bill be read a second time this day three months," said: My Lords, I think I ought to explain that in putting on the Paper this Amendment, which I have since withdrawn, I had no desire to place any impediment in any way to the construction of these graving docksat Dover. My object was to avoid anything like obstruction in the future to a Channel ferry service being established, and we consequently approached the promoters and have been able to arrive at a satisfactory agreement on this matter. In those circumstances I do not intend to move the Amendment standing in my name.
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I had the opportunity of some conversation with the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees upon this matter last week, and I am glad to be able to respectfully advise your Lordships to agree to the Motion. In this case, again, there is no fault lying at the door of the promoters. The delay was caused on account of objections taken by the Board of Admiralty to some of the provisions of the Bill, objections far-reaching and in the nature of public policy. These matters have been adjusted to the satisfaction of the Admiralty, but the negotiations have had the effect of delaying the presentation of the Bill to your Lordships. In these cir-
704
cumstances, and as it will now pass, I understand, as an unopposed measure, I hope the House will agree to the Motion.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, I wish to state in a few words the view of the Admiralty. In the first instance the Admiralty objected to the Bill, for the reason that if the dock was made the size originally proposed, it would take away a large amount of water from the naval harbour. Since then the promoters have modified their original proposal, and the Admiralty now see no reason to oppose the Second Reading. The Admiralty, however, intend to submit a number of Amendments of a protective character when the Bill goes before the Select Committee. With that reservation, they offer no opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed for To-morrow.
London County Council(General Powers) Bill.—Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Gosport Gas Bill; Central Ireland Electric Power Bill; Sligo and Arigna Railway Bill; London United Tramways Bill; Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways (No. 2) Bill; Holderness Water Bill.—Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Gas Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Honourable Artillery Company Bill [H.L.]; Leith Burgh Bill [H.L.]; London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Ravensthorpe Urban District Council Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments agreed to, with an Amendment, and Bill returned to the Commons.
Liverpool Corporation (General Powers) Bill; Tyne Improvement Bill; Widnes Corporation Bill; Margate Corporation Bill; Manchester Corporation Bill; Burnley Corporation Bill.—Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Edinburgh and District Water Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. — Read 2a (according to order), and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been reported from the Committee; and to be read 3a To-morrow.
Public Offices Sites (Extension) Bill.—Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments; committed to a Committee of the Whole House Tomorrow, and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Return of the number of steam trawlers registered at ports in the States of Western Europe in the year 1907.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS.
  Report of proceedings as regards Ireland, for the year 1907.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Statement showing for each secondary school in respect of which waive resolutions were passed by the local education authority under Article 43 of the Regulations for Secondary Schools, 1907, the articles which the board were asked to waive, and their decision as regards each article.

  TREATY SERIES, No. 20. (1908).
  Agreement between the United Kingdom and Italy, respecting commercial
  706
  travellers' samples; signed at Rome, 30th May, 1908.

  MISCELLANEOUS.
  No. 5. (1908). Further correspondence respecting the Second Peace Conference, held at the Hague in 1907 (in continuation of Miscellaneous, No. 1, (1908) [Cd. 4081.]).
  No. 6. (1908). Final act of the Second Peace Conference, held at the Hague in 1907, and conventions and declaration annexed thereto.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 4074. Peru.
  Report of proceedings of the Basutoland National Council, 1908, and correspondence as to affairs of Basutoland.

  NATAL.
  Further correspondence relating to native affairs in Natal (in continuation of [Cd. 4001.], May, 1908).
  Despatch from the Governor of Natal forwarding a Bill to make special provision for the trial of natives accused of certain crimes (in continuation of [Cd. 4194.], July, 1908).

  Fifty-second Report of the Commissioners of Mis Majesty's Customs, for the year ended 31st March, 1908.
  MARRIAGES, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS (IRELAND).
  Annual Report of the Registrar-General, for the year 1907.
  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  Return of Evictions in Ireland for the quarter ended 30th June, 1908.
  QUEEN'S COLLEGE, GALWAY.
  Annual Report of the President for the session 1907–1908.
  QUEEN'S COLLEGE, CORK.
  Annual Report of the President for the session 1907–1908.
  Fifty-Fourth Report of the Postmaster-General on the Post Office.

  METEOROLOGICAL COMMITTEE.
  Third Annual Report for the year ended 31st March, 1908.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LUNACY.
  Return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made and the number of patients seen by the several Commissioners in Lunacy, during the six months ended 30th June, 1908.

  BANKRUPTCY.
  Twenty-fifth General Annual Report by the Board of Trade, under Section 131 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883.
  General Rule, made pursuant to the Bankruptcy Acts, 1883 and 1890, Warrants and arrests, under Section 27 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883.

  MINES AND QUARRIES (FIRE AT HAMSTEAD COLLIERY).
  Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by R. A. S. Redmayne, Esq., on the causes of, and circumstances attending, an underground fire which occurred at Hamstead Colliery on 4th March, 1908.
  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND COURT OF APPEAL, ETC.
  Account prepared in pursuance of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1875, showing the receipts and expenditure in respect of the High Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal during the year ended 31st March, 1908.
  SUPERANNUATION.
  Return, for the year ended 31st March, 1908, of the Army and Navy officers permitted under Rule 2 of the Regulations drawn up under Section 6 of the "Superannuation Act, 1887," to hold civil employment of profit under public departments.
  Account of receipts and payments in respect of the Land Registry, for the year ended 31st March, 1908.

  CLERGY (WEST INDIES).
  Return of the amount payable on 5th January, 1908, out of the Consolidated Fund for Ecclesiastical purposes in the West Indies.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  IRELAND (PROCLAIMED COUNTIES).
  Return respecting: laid before the House (pursuant to Order of Friday last), and to be printed. [No. 184.]
  FINANCE BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Wednesday next.—(The Earl of Crewe.) [No. 185.]

SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA.
LORD MUSKERRYrose to call attention to certain modified regulations which have been adopted recently by the Board of Trade in respect to the qualifying time in charge of a watch required of those candidates for Board of Trade certificates as mate or master who have served an apprenticeship on approved sea-going training vessels; to refer to the protest against these new regulations which has been entered by the Imperial Merchant Service Guild; to ask why the opinion of the Board of Trade Advisory Committee was not firstly ascertained before the new regulations were adopted; and to move "That, in the opinion of this House, these modified regulations are a departure from assurances given in this House by the Board of Trade, and that it is desirable that the new regulations should be withdrawn before they can become in any way operative."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in calling attention to the Notice which stands in my name, I am bringing before your Lordships what, I feel, is a very serious matter. We are all deeply concerned in the question of safety of life at sea, and I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that we should discountenance in the strongest way any changes or alterations which may minimise the safety of our sailors or the seagoing public. If there is one thing more

709
than another which is absolutely essential in promoting or ensuring safety it is that, the ships which fly our Red Ensign should be commanded and officered by the most competent, capable, and experienced men. At the present time, thanks to the efficiency of the certified commanders and officers of our merchant fleet, we can feel nothing but pride at the way in which our ships are navigated in all quarters of the globe. Therefore, I contend that the Board of Trade have no right whatever to tamper with the existing conditions, thus subjecting our merchant ships to greater risk and converting efficiency into possible disaster.
I know that the standard of the examinations for Board of Trade certificates of competency has been improved of late years, but I do not know that, even yet, it is by any means perfect. It may also be said, and I do not disagree with it, that the possession of a certificate does not necessarily ensure ability and efficiency in the particular sphere which the certificate enables the holder of it to enter. A good mathematician may not be a good seaman or vice versa. It is the same in all professions, whether the sea or otherwise. But I do claim that a certificate of the kind imbues the holder of it with a due sense of his responsibilities, and that he is directly answerable to the Government for any misdoings or for any culpable negligence in carrying out the duties and responsibilities vested in him. What makes the certificate of even more value is that it proves that the holder of it has had sound practical experience at sea for a number of years. And, in the case of certificates for the higher grades, they indicate that the owners of them have had considerable experience in sole charge of a watch—that is, they clearly understand what it means to be in charge of the bridge and de facto of the ship during certain watches each day.
I trust that your Lordships will agree with me when I say that no man should be granted a certificate as first officer or captain of a British ship until he can produce the necessary testimony that he has had experience of this kind, for it is only then that by practical
710
experience he is thoroughly alive to the most serious responsibilities which devolve upon him in occupying a position of enormous trust on board ship. Until the present time the Board of Trade have evidently been of a similar opinion. Finding that their previous regulations were being evaded, the Board issued a special circular to their examiners laying particular stress on the necessity of candidates proving that they had been in regular charge of a watch, or watches, during each day. The Board state that, in the foreign trade, the time served in charge of a watch must amount to not less than eight hours of each twenty-four hours of service, and in their official regulations relating to examinations they say that it must be distinctly understood that occasional service in charge of a watch should not be accepted as qualifying service for certificates as first mate or master. The Board warn their examiners that great care must be exercised by them in regard to such service, and unless the candidate produces a satisfactory certificate, setting forth these facts, from the master or owner of the vessel in which the service was performed, it must not be accepted.
In years gone by the Board of Trade insisted upon candidates showing actual experience on board ship in a similar capacity to the certificate they held. For instance, before a candidate could be examined for a master's certificate he was required to produce proof of twelve months service as chief officer. But the Board of Trade have modified these regulations from time to time, with the result that service in quite junior capacities is considered sufficient to qualify candidates to take out a certificate enabling them to command a ship. The new modifications which the Board of Trade have introduced by a stroke of the pen, just as they did in regard to the deeper immersion of British ships, constitute a step which compels me to enter an emphatic protest.
It is not necessary for me to go into all the different details as to qualifying time required for Board of Trade certificates. To put the matter shortly, before a candidate can present himself

711
for examination for a first mate's certificate he must show that he has had at least twelve months experience in regular charge of a watch. Candidates for masters' certificates must show at the very least two years—usually it is two and a half years—experience of a similar kind, twelve months of which must have been in a grade not lower than second mate. To show you what has been the Board's view hitherto, the words "in charge of a watch" are emphasised in the regulations in order to lay special stress on them. To make my point clear it is, that under the latest regulations issued by the Board to meet the case of a few favoured ship-owners owning very large ships, those who have served in what are to be known as "approved sea-going training vessels" will be permitted to sit for a master's certificate without ever having had charge of a watch. Their experience need only have been in very junior capacities on board ship where, when on watch, they have been subordinate to the officer actually in charge. It is proper for me to say that such candidates, after passing their examination, will not be given their certificates as master until they can prove that they have had twelve months service in charge of a watch, though candidates for certificates as chief mates need not show any experience in charge of a watch whatever, and their certificates will be granted on completion of the examination.
I say without hesitation that it is a very serious and a very wrong thing for the Board of Trade to make such drastic changes when, as usual, they have not consulted those who are chiefly affected—that is, those who are responsible for the efficiency and safety of our merchant ships. When candidates of very limited and immature experience have obtained certificates of the highest grades they are not in any way bound to remain in the company in which they have been serving. It is quite open for them to transfer their services. And it is very likely that they will do so on the ground of better prospects or higher inducements elsewhere. The Board of Trade are thus a party to creating a supply of officers possessing by no means the same practical experience in responsible capacities as those we have at present, and what the dire results
712
of this will be in due time will be perfectly obvious to your Lordships. I do not say that the youths serving in these new "approved sea-going training ships" will not get a very good training in the technicalities of their profession, but I do say that it is just as essential with them as with others that they should be compelled to show that they have had actual experience in responsible capacities on board ship before being granted the higher certificates from the Board of Trade.
Under the new scheme of the Board these favoured applicants need only have served in very junior capacities provided their service has been on vessels of not less than 8,000 tons gross making an average speed of sixteen knots and upwards and carrying a crew of not less than 130 men, including six deck officers besides the master. I do not think that the term "deck officer" is a proper one for the Board of Trade to use, for an officer is an officer of the ship from truck to keelson and his duties and responsibilities extend over all parts of her. I may say that in very large ships, such as those of over 8,000 tons, it is all the more important that the very best and most experienced officers should be carried. Presumably more officers will be created by the shipowners through the medium of these training ships when, as a matter of fact, there are already more than an ample supply of officers in the mercantile marine. Even up to the present time shipowners have usually required applicants for junior positions on board ship to hold certificates of the highest grades from the Board of Trade, and thus ensure that they have had good practical experience in charge of a watch.
Now, thanks to a hollow and absurd cry about a shortage of ships' officers, the Board of Trade and shipowners are going on the other tack, and officers of the most limited experience will be considered as amply sufficient to act in responsible capacities on board ship. My Lords, there is no shortage of officers for our merchant service. I have it on the best authority that there are a large number of highly qualified captains and officers out of employment at present and that much distress exists in consequence. But there is a shortage of British seamen in the

713
forecastle of our ships, and this does require the attention of the Government. I do not say that training schemes should be discouraged, although the efficiency of our present-day captains and officers seems to indicate that there is no immediate necessity for any such schemes.
The Board of Trade's new concessions to shipowners are, of course, of advantage to, for instance, the American International Combine comprising the White Star and other lines who, on their new training-ship "Mersey" intend taking cadets and charging high premiums for so doing. I may say that as the "Mersey" is a sailing ship this is a very much better scheme than any of those that propose to train boys on steamers, where they cannot learn all the details of their profession, and therefore can never become thoroughly efficient officers. I have worked it out and estimate that, providing a youngster first puts in two years on a stationary training-ship such as the "Worcester" or "Conway," and then three years in an approved seagoing training-ship such as the "Mersey," it will take from eight to ten years before he—or perhaps I should more correctly say, his parents—will be able to show a single halfpenny on the credit side of his account. The cost of his training up to obtaining his first Board of Trade certificate will be. not less than £400, and then after it has taken him five years to get his certificate he may consider himself lucky if he starts to earn £8 a month, upon which he has to keep up the position of a gentleman on it, and pay for the expensive uniforms he must wear. This, my Lords, is what is held out as in ducements to go to sea nowadays in the merchant service.
Mr. Lloyd- George made provision in the last Merchant Shipping Act for a Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee, and it was expected that the Board would seek the opinion of this committee of i experts when any important questions arose which affected shipping interests. It seems to me a very curious thing that on this particular question the advisory committee was not asked to express an opinion, though matters of comparatively minor importance have been brought by the Board before this com-
714
mittee from time to time. I cannot see what use it is to have a committee of the kind and put the country to a good deal of expense in connection with it when, in a matter of this sort, it is never consulted. Affecting, as they do, the position and the interests of the commanders and officers of our merchant ships, surely they have a perfect right to be allowed to express their views when such changes are suggested. I may say that I am chiefly moving in this matter on the urgent representations of the Imperial Merchant Service Guild. The guild, on learning of the new regulations, addressed a vigorous protest to the Board of Trade, characterising the change as one most injurious to the profession which it represents and most certainly calculated to reduce the high standard of safety and efficiency which is at present such a distinguishing and gratifying feature of the merchant service of this country. I am with them entirely in this view.
There is another very serious aspect of this question. Some little time ago I had the honour to bring to the notice of your Lordships a proposition of shipowners that, under certain conditions, the qualifying time shown by candidates for the lowest Board of Trade certificate—that of second mate—should be reduced from four to three years. It was with very sincere gratification and appreciation that I found that the spirit of this House was entirely with me in strongly opposing a proposition of this kind, and I was equally gratified to receive the assurances of my noble friend who then represented the Board of Trade, that the Board had no intention whatever of departing from the present rule as to sea service before a man is able to take up his certificate. The noble Earl, as I thought, very properly supplemented this by saying that the only way to get boys to go to sea was to make the calling of the sea attractive, and until that was done he was afraid that we should find it very hard to increase the number of British subjects serving in the mercantile marine. My noble friends the Marquess of Lansdowne and Lord Ellenborough welcomed this assurance on the part of the Board of Trade, and the noble Marquess warned the Board of Trade as to being extremely careful not to in

715
any way relax the requirements in regard to the efficiency and competency of ships' officers.
I want to know why there has now ' been such a distinct departure from the Board of Trade's assurance as given in this House? A change as to qualifying time for responsible positions on board ship has been made, and it is most certainly a relaxation of the requirements hitherto existing in regard to the efficiency and competency of ships' officers. I do not at all like these tinkering methods of the Marine Department' of the Board of Trade, especially when i they are so dangerous, and done so, quietly. Your Lordships will inflict no hardship on anybody in expressing the ' opinion that the new regulations I am referring to should be withdrawn. Approved sea-going training-ships have not as yet started, and the regulations, therefore, are not operative as yet. The Marine Department of the Board of Trade have informed the Imperial Merchant Service Guild that they do not consider it necessary to modify the regulations in question in any way. Fortunately, the Marine Department are not the final court in matters of the kind. There is no need whatever for the new regulations, and there is no reason why favouritism should be shown to candidates who have served in seagoing training-ships, where the service would be much more pleasant and congenial, whilst the less favoured ones going through their apprenticeship in the ordinary way—though decidedly none the worse off in the end—must comply with the old regulations as heretofore.
I trust your Lordships will support this Motion. I must repeat that it is our duty to prevent any mischievous or dangerous propositions or schemes which tend to minimise the efficiency and safety of our merchant ships. We must have men to command and officer them who have had the necessary practical experience in responsible capacities, and no man should be granted a certificate of competency as chief officer or captain of a British ship unless he can produce proof of real experience in responsible capacities. On these grounds and on the ground that assurances
716
given in this House have been departed from by the Board of Trade, I submit my Motion for the consideration, and, I hope, for the support of your Lordships.
Moved to resolve, "That, in the opinion of this House, the modified regulations which have been adopted recently by the Board of Trade in respect to the qualifying time in charge of a watch required of those candidates for Board of Trade certificates as mate or master who have served an apprenticeship on approved sea-going training vessels are a departure from assurances given in this House by the Board of Trade, and that it is desirable that the new regulations should be withdrawn before they can become in any way operative.—(Lord Muskerry.)
*LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, the noble Lord has been for many years a regular questioner of the Board of Trade in this House, and the Department had come to look upon him, if not as one of its oldest friends, at all events as one who understood them and whom they understood. It came, therefore, as rather an unpleasant surprise that the notice of Motion which he had placed on the Paper should contain an accusation of breach of faith against the Department. I would submit to your Lordships that the modified regulations which have been introduced cannot be so described, and I hope your Lordships will agree to that view.
LORD MUSKERRY: I beg the noble Lord's pardon.
*LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: I said that the modified regulations are in no sense a departure from the assurances which have already been given. I gather from the letter which was written by the Merchant Service Guild to the Board of Trade that the particular assurance which the noble Lord and the Merchant Service Guild have in their mind is one which was given in this House by ray noble friend Lord Granard on 10th July last year. That assurance was given in a discussion upon a Motion which had been made by the noble Lord, in which he called attention to the alleged shortage of officers in the

717
merchant service and asked that in any steps which might be taken to remedy that deficiency, the existence of which Tie did not admit, the Board of Trade would not include amongst those remedies any curtailment of the period of service at sea which is necessary before candidates can present themselves for examination for second mates' certificates. The Board of Trade had no, intention of doing anything of the kind, and therefore, my noble friend had no hesitation in giving the assurance which was asked for. My noble friend is here, and I have no doubt is ready to answer for himself. I merely mention this for the purpose of saying that the Department thoroughly endorse everything which was said by my noble friend on that occasion, and also maintain that these new regulations are in no sense a departure from that assurance. In fact, if does not matter what assurances were given, because the modified regulations, where they alter the period of service which candidates for these certificates must undergo, in every case lengthen that period and in no case shorten it; and, where the nature of the service is varied, I hope to show your Lordships that something is substituted for it which is at least as valuable as, if not more valuable than, that which was required under the old regulations.
These modified regulations have been issued in order to adapt the regulations to a new system of training which has recently been instituted by one of the great steamship companies—the White Star Line. That system was alluded to by my noble friend Lord Brassey and my noble friend Lord Granard recently in this House. It has been adopted after consultation with the Board of Trade, and it has the full approval of the Department. I will describe, very briefly, how it differs from the old system of training, which consisted, as your Lordships are aware, of four years' service at sea, either as an apprentice or as a deck hand in any capacity. The defect of that system undoubtedly is that in these days of steamships it is very difficult for the officers of the ship to devote very much of their time to the teaching of apprentices. Under the old system of sailing ships they had more leisure to do so, and I think it is universally acknow-
718
ledged that the apprentice system is more valuable on a sailing ship than on a steamship. In order to carry out a new system of training on a sailing ship the White Star Line have recently purchased a sailing ship of, I think, 1,800 tons. She has been fitted up to carry sixty apprentices, who will work the ship with the assistance, I believe, while it is necessary, of ten deck hands. Besides a full complement of officers and a doctor, this ship will carry two schoolmasters who will instruct the cadets or apprentices in various subjects extremely useful to them in their career in the merchant service, such as foreign languages, navigation, nautical astronomy, and other subjects of a technical character. The more, technical part of their education will be undertaken by the officers of the ship, and I believe there will be included in the course instruction by the surgeon in ambulance work. In fact, the instruction which will be given will be of the most complete character, and it has the thorough approval of the Board of Trade. This is the new system of instruction to which the modified regulations are to be adapted.
I quite agree with what the noble Lord has said, that there is no finer body of men in the world than the officers of our merchant service. I quite agree with him that we are all very proud of them and that they command the greatest confidence and respect; and it is quite fair to say that a system of training which has produced such good results cannot have very much the matter with it. But even the best of systems is none the worse for being brought up to date, and that is what this new system of instruction will do. The new modified regulations deal with the qualifications necessary for candidates for the three certificates issued by the Board of Trade. The noble Lord has correctly stated what those modifications are. In the case of second mates' certificates, they allow the necessary qualifying period of four years at sea to be spent on one of these approved training-ships, on which I think there can be no doubt that the instruction which will be received will be very much superior to what is likely to be received by a man who serves as a deck hand or apprentice.

719
For a first mate's certificate and for a master's certificate certain further modifications have been introduced in order to meet a difficulty which arises. The gentlemen who have introduced this new-scheme of training officers at very considerable expense are naturally anxious that those officers should be able to serve the whole of their service on board their ships. The old regulations did not permit of their doing so, and I will show-why. In the case of a candidate for a first mate's certificate it was necessary that he should show that he had been in complete charge of a watch on a foreign going vessel for a space of one year. As your Lordships are aware, on these great liners watches are invariably kept by two officers, and it would follow, therefore, that in order to comply with the regulations the officer would have to leave the service of the company and engage on a smaller vessel where only one officer kept watch. A similar difficulty arose with regard to the examination for the master's certificate. What has been done is this. The period during which the officer must have served in possession of a second mate's certificate has been doubled. He now has to serve two years instead of one; but it is provided that if he is on board a ship complying with certain conditions as to size, speed and number of crew, that is to say, a liner of considerable size, he may put in that service as the junior of the two watch-keeping officers instead of being in sole charge of the watch. The modification with respect to the master's certificate is of a very similar nature. It is considered—and I think considered rightly—that the fact that the period of service is twice as long, that it must have been passed on board a ship where the standard of efficiency and discipline is so high as it is on these great liners, and that the candidate must have had in the first instance the advantage of the very complete system of training I have described, makes this qualifying period fully equal, if not superior, to what was required under the old regulations.
Then the noble Lord asks why it is that the Advisory Committee was not consulted. My answer to that is a very simple one. In the first place, the time of the Advisory Committee was
720
fully occupied. It has been fully occupied ever since it was appointed. In the second place, Mr. Lloyd-George, the then President of the Board of Trade, in the exercise of the discretion which, I think, is invariably granted to the head of a great Department, considered that this was a matter which he could quite well settle himself. I have given details of the new regulations and an outline of the new system of training which they have been adapted to meet, and I have only one word to add. The purchase and fitting up of this ship has cost the White Star Company a very considerable sum of money. I am informed that, in spite of the fact that the ship will carry cargo and that apprentices will pay fees, she will be run at f n annual loss of several thousand pounds. This very considerable expenditure can only have been incurred with one object—namely, the provision of officers who will have had a better training, and will, therefore, probably be even more competent than those who fill the positions of officers on these, ships at the present moment; and I contend that for that reason, if for no other, the Department are thoroughly justified in the course they have taken, and in the encouragement which they have given to this very valuable new undertaking.
*LORD LYVEDEN: My Lords, in regard to most things connected with this mercantile marine I am in full agreement with my noble friend Lord Muskerry, but to-day I am sorry to say I cannot agree with him. For a long time past there has been great difficulty in getting officers in the mercantile marine who have a thorough knowledge of sailing ships, owing to the large number of steamers now afloat. Your Lordships have heard how Mr. Ismay, of the White Star Line, formed a committee to consider the question, and these gentlemen decided that the best course was to purchase a full rigged ship of 2,000 tons, in which sixty cadets could be carried,, with a large number of instructors. Then a difficulty arose as to what could be done when the cadets had completed their term of apprenticeship. It is the rule in the White Star and similar lines, that all officers should have master's certificates; and when an exception is

721
made it only applies to the junior officers of the watch. Thus the regulations of the Board of Trade could not be complied with, as, according those Regulations, the candidate must have had full watch on the bridge. The Committee met the officials of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, with the result that the concessions referred to which only apply to these training ships were made. These concessions enable cadets to pass from the training ship into such steamers as junior officers, and to go forward with a continuity of employment to the examination for mate's certificate and master's certificate after a proper interval. This variation is not intended in any way to make it easier to obtain these certificates, but to provide for those who are specially trained passing to steamers where two or more officers are engaged and going forward to a higher certificate under all the advantages appertaining to a modern liner. My friend Captain Reedman, of the S.Y. "Argonaut" told me the following story. An uncle who wished to see his nephew once asked the quartermaster on the bridge: "Is my nephew, Mr. Smith, on board?" "Mr. who?" inquired the quartermaster. "Mr. Smith, a fair-haired boy," was the reply. "Oh, you mean young Carrots. He is in the galley with the cook, peeling potatoes. Where else do you expect an apprentice to be?" That was the sort of training apprentices received in the old days. Seeing the splendid training these boys will receive on these ships I think the slight concessions in the regulations are justifiable, and I hope no alteration will be made. I feel sure it would only hamper these young men who are doing the best they can to get a thoroughly good education to qualify them for the position of officers in the mercantile marine.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sure those of your Lordships who have listened to this debate will agree with the noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade, that it is for the advantage of the country and of the merchant service that the methods of training should be brought up to date, and in much that he said on that head I think your Lordships will be disposed to concur. W e can all agree that a superior kind of education and a more scientific
722
training are all for the best. I confess that when I came down to your Lordship's House this afternoon I had hoped it would not be necessary for me to say anything in criticism of the statement to be made in reply to Lord Muskerry; but I must say I do not think that in. every respect my noble friend behind mo will be satisfied with the answer which the noble Lord has given. I quite understand, and I think he probably will agree, that the effort which the White Star Line has made is a patriotic effort which they intend to be of great advantage, not only to themselves, but to the great service of which they form a part; but I do not think personally I should be disposed to deny that the period of service which is exacted falls short of what ought to be expected. There is, I understand, rather longer sea service provided under the new rules than under the old rules.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: Twice as long.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Well, that is, of course, so far very satisfactory; but it seems to lack one particular quality—namely, that a second mate who comes up for a first mate's certificate will never have been in a position of absolute responsibility. I may have misunderstood the noble Lord, but that is what I took to be the case, that owing to the new arrangement he is never in sole charge of a. vessel. He undoubtedly is one of the two officers in charge of the watch, but he is to be the junior of his rank. I do not profess to be an expert in this matter, but I certainly should have thought that the matter above all others in which training and experience are required by officers of the merchant service is in the exercise of that complete responsibility which sole charge alone can confer. I do not mean to say that the new regulations will not produce a very fine article, but I confess I question whether anything in the way of scientific training or of longer sea service will make up for the experience which is conferred by the knowledge that you, and you alone, are responsible for the fate of the ship. I gather from my noble friend, that, although the-examination may take place before a

723
chief mate has ever been in sole charge, yet before he is actually certificated he must have been a year in sole charge of a vessel. So that there is a concession made with regard to the master, though the sole charge even in his case is not so long as has hitherto prevailed.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: It is quite as long.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then I am reassured to that extent, but as between second mate and first mate the criticism I have ventured to make seems to hold good. I think your Lordships would have been happier if the noble Lord had been able to inform the House that the Board of Trade had acted in this matter with the complete assent of the Advisory Committee. The noble Lord himself will admit that on that his answer was not complete, because all he had to say was that the President of the Board of Trade, in the exercise of his discretion, thought there were some subjects which he ought to decide himself, and that this was one of those subjects. For my part, I should have been happier if Mr. Lloyd-George had thought it right to consult the Advisory Committee. Then if he had come to Parliament and said that what he proposed had the unanimous support of his Advisory Committee, a better case would have been made out for it. However, these matters are very technical. I only rose to make that one observation. I cannot say that I think this is quite a matter upon which it would be wise for your Lordships to override the decision of the Board of Trade. There are very few men in this House who are really capable, if I may say so with great respect, of appreciating the point, and, therefore, I hope my noble friend will not press his Motion to a division, though I think he was fully entitled to make the criticisms he has made to your Lordships.
LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, after what my noble friend who has just sat down has said, I will not press my Motion to a division; but I should like to say one or two words. The noble Lord who answered me did not quite grasp what I was driving at. I fully admit that the
724
lads in the new White Star training ship will get a very admirable training. I think I said so in my speech; but no amount of training will give them the practical experience that a man must have if he is going to be a really trustworthy officer. The Board of Trade seem to imagine that a junior officer on board a big steamship, by just being there, will absorb this experience. They do not know the usual place the junior officer occupies. He may be on the bridge going down, channel, but after that he may be anywhere but on the bridge, and when he is on the bridge he is a perfect cipher. Though I am not going to press my Motion to a division, I cannot help saying that the innovation which has been made is a dangerous one, and I think it will be found that the whole of the sea-faring community are with me in that.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CAVALRY FOR SCOTLAND.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYrose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War if there was any immediate prospect of the restoration of cavalry to Scotland. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I promise not to add anything to the nightly catechism of my noble friend opposite, or to detain your Lordships for more than a minute. The question of cavalry in Scotland has become a topic of very widespread interest. We have had frequent assurances that the withdrawal was only temporary, and in one answer the limit of two years was given, I think, more than two years ago. I am sure my noble friend will thank me for enabling him to make a statement which I trust will reassure Scotland on this point.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord LUCAS): My Lords, the noble Earl will be glad to know that money was taken in this year's Estimates for the purchase of a site, and that we have been by no means inactive in regard to looking out for one, although, for obvious reasons in matters of this kind, it is impossible for me to disclose either the site or the actual date on which it is proposed to purchase it. I can assure the noble Earl that steps are

725
being taken, and I hope to be able to give a more definite answer in a very short time.

DEPUTY-LIEUTENANCIES.
THE EARL OF ROSEBEEYrose to call attention to the War Office Circular of 20th November, 1907; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, my second Question demands two minutes of explanation. It refers to a circular from the War Office with reference to the appointment of deputy-lieutenants. It is to this effect—
"A commission as deputy-lieutenant should only be given to a person who possesses the qualification, in addition to such as are laid down in the Militia Act, of having either held a commission in one of His Majesty's forces for not less than ten years, or of having rendered eminent service in connection with the Association formed in his own county under the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act. 1907."
The subject of deputy-lieutenancies has received a great deal of attention of late years from the War Office. I think the age was first raised, and then their number was limited. Those improvements—for I regard them as such—I heartily welcomed; but I must say that I think this new restriction imposes a very great limitation upon the selection of deputy lieutenants, and may, in fact, if I do not misread it, put an end to the appointment of deputy-lieutenants for a very considerable time. The Militia Act of 1882, which I had occasion to look up in connection with this matter, imposes a very considerable number of limitations upon the appointment of deputy-lieutenants already, chiefly those relating to property; but if this new one is added, that persons to be appointed should have held His Majesty's Commission or should have rendered services in connect ion with the Territorial Force, it will be found difficult for some years to come to get any deputy-lieutenants at all. I wish to point out to my noble friend that the uses of deputy-lieutenants, which may be as vague to some candid minds as those of an archdeacon, are not entirely limited to military duties. It is quite true that they were utilised in connection with the Militia; but in the Militia Act itself it is stated that three deputy-lieutenants might act for the Lord-Lieutenant in his absence, which
726
means, I suppose, that they may recommend to the magistracy and so forth—duties which do not obviously require military training. There is another point to which I desire to call attention. Deputy-lieutenancies have been purely honorary offices. They have been the only means by which a Lord-Lieutenant could reward public services rendered in a locality. I do not care to cite my own course in that matter; but I have always observed the strict rule not to give a deputy-lieutenancy to anyone who had not rendered such public service. As a result the number of my deputy-lieutenants has become extremely small, but under this War Office Circular they threaten to become extinct. I do not make these remarks in any hostile spirit, because I regard the circular as having; been hastily issued as one of many means of promoting the interests of the Territorial Force. I only ask that the Secretary of State for War should give his attention further to this matter, and that the appointments should not be limited to purely military persons or persons who have rendered services to the County Associations, but that some scope should be given to a Lord-Lieutenant to give to persons who have rendered local service the only reward which a Lord-Lieutenant can give.
LORD LUCAS: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words with regard to the original cause of this circular being issued, and the view of the Army Council on the matter. Originally, the chief function of deputy-lieutenants was to assist the Lord-Lieutenant of the county in raising the necessary number of men under the Militia ballot. They had, in fact, to raise what was then the Territorial Force of the country, and, allowing for the changes in the nature of the two forces, the functions of the present County Associations bear very close comparison to those originally intended to be performed by the deputy-lieutenants. It was, therefore, considered a suitable opportunity to revive the original conception of what was a deputy-lieutenant, and that was the reason for issuing the circular, in which it is clearly laid down that one of the qualifications of deputy-lieutenants is that they should have rendered useful

727
service to the County Associations. It is not confined to that. That is the only new qualification; the other is having held a commission in one of His Majesty's forces for not less than ten years, thus reviving once more the conception that a deputy-lieutenant was intended to be a person who exercised certain definite functions very closely connected with the military forces of the Crown. I will, however, lay before the Secretary of State what the noble Earl has said.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I do not wish to detain the House, but I would point out to my noble friend that the original conception of what was a deputy-lieutenant has been overridden by the consistent practice of, at least, a century, and the effect of the Circular will certainly be to impose I a hardship upon those who might otherwise expect a deputy-lieutenancy for civil services.
LORD ASHBOURNE: Up to the date of the issue of this circular a Lord Lieutenant had a perfect discretion as to whom he might appoint. I should like to ask whether, in the event of a Lord - Lieutenant not being able to find deputy-lieutenants coming within the qualifications named in the Circular, it is intended that he should fall back upon the old practice?
LORD LUCAS: No case of that kind has arisen. If it did occur the point would certainly be considered.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS DUTIES) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, this Bill and two others stand in my name on the Paper for Second Reading, and as they are all of a non-contentious character, I hope your Lordships will permit me to be very brief in view of the important debate that is to come on later. The Isle of Man (Customs Duties) Bill is an annual one, which is necessary to give validity to what is passed by the governing body in the Isle of Man. I believe
728
it has always been treated as a formal matter in this House, and I, therefore, move the Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Denman.)
On Question, Bill read 2*, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

SEED POTATOES AND SEED OATS SUPPLY (IRELAND) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the day for Second Reading read.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, this is a similar Bill to one which it was my duty to introduce in this House some two years ago. Owing to the failure last summer and autumn of the potato crop in Ireland, the Treasury authorised certain grants to be made in order to supply seed potatoes and seed oats so as to avert what might have become a potato famine. It has always been the custom for the Treasury to sanction these loans, and then come to Parliament in order to obtain the necessary funds. They did it two years ago, and the Bill received the assent of this House. I hope that on the present occasion the same reasons will obtain. I beg to move.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Denman.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

WHALE FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, a similar Bill was brought in last year for Scotland, and it was found also to be desirable that a Bill of this character should be brought in for Ireland. Two applications have lately been made for the erection of whaling stations off the Irish coast, and these applications have caused some alarm among the fishing populations in these districts. It is certainly necessary that the industry should be carried on under

729
certain regulations. In this instance the regulations will be undertaken on behalf of Ireland by the Board of Agriculture. I beg to move.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Denman.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order).
[Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:—
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE,on behalf of Lord Avebury, moved an Amendment providing "that the local authority, within the meaning of the same section, in the City of London shall be the mayor, aldermen, and commons of the city in Common Council assembled." He very much regretted the noble Lord's absence, as this was a matter which concerned the City of London, and Lord Avebury was infinitely more able to speak with authority upon this question than himself. Hitherto the justices had made arrangements in connection with the matters under consideration in this Bill, but in future the Bill ordained that the London County Council should make those arrangements. One of the objects of the Bill seemed to be to set up the London County Council to deal with these matters in order to avoid difficulties arising from over-lapping, and he did not desire in any way to quarrel with that object. But the Hill as now drafted would set up the London County Council as the authority to carry out in the city all the arrangements that were dealt with in the Bill, and he thought the result could only be one of very great inconvenience to all parties. Overlapping had taken place and confusion had arisen in connection with various of the Parliamentary boroughs, but the position of the City was absolutely different, and none of the inconveniences feared could
730
possibly arise in the case of the City, in the metropolitan boroughs the justices who had dealt with these matters had had no connection whatever with the municipal body in the district, but in the City the justices who had hitherto had these matters in hand had been the aldermen of the Common Council. There had, therefore, been complete harmony in the making of these arrangements between the justices and the Common Council. Though not quite accurate, it was almost accurate to say that these arrangements had been carried out in the City by the Common Council itself; at any rate, that work had been done by gentlemen who were members of the Common Council. Therefore, if the Bill passed in its present form, the aldermen of the City would lose a jurisdiction which they had exorcised from time immemorial, and against which no complaint had ever been urged. The City was divided accurately and completely into two petty sessional districts, arid overlapping was impossible, owing to the fact that the whole of the City formed the Parliamentary borough. He, therefore, submitted that there was no reason whatever for disturbing the status quo. On the other hand, great inconvenience might result from bringing the county council into the City to exercise the powers with which this Bill was concerned. There were between 130 and 140 parishes in the City of London, therefore, the closest consideration and the closest local knowledge were required in order I to carry out such arrangements as these to the general convenience. He understood that the London County Council saw no objection whatever to the adoption of his Amendment, and for this reason he hoped the Committee would assent to it.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 13, after the word 'thereof' to insert the words, 'Provided that the local authority, within the meaning of the same section in the City of London, shall be the mayor, aldermen, and commons of the City or London in Common Council assembled.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid that, so far as the London County Council were concerned, they had no objection what-ever to the Amendment. On the contrary, the authority of the corporation in the City of London with regard to many county matters was already recognised.

731
The City exercised the powers of a county authority in respect of such matters as pauper lunatics, explosives, coroners, weights and measures, and other matters of that kind; and the County Council were not in the least apprehensive that any conflict of jurisdiction would arise in regard to the City, having regard to the very special position which the corporation occupied. He, therefore, hoped the Amendment would commend itself to the Government.
EARL BEAUCHAMPregretted that, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, he was unable to agree to the Amendment. It was quite true that at a later stage the London County Council in another place withdrew their opposition to the Amendment. But when it was brought before the Standing Committee it was there opposed by the representatives of the London County Council and withdrawn. It was after that—he thought on the Report stage—that the London County Council withdrew their opposition. He thought it only fair to remind their Lordships that this Bill would in no way take away a privilege from the Common Council, for, as the Earl had explained, this power rested with the aldermen, and not with the Common Council. After all, supposing the Bill were passed and the polling arrangements altered by the new authority, it was not unreasonable to say that it would be done in the interests of good administration, and he thought it was obviously desirable that the division of I districts for Parliamentary and county council elections should be the same, and should be in the hands of the same authority for both purposes. The Bill in its present form had been before their Lordships four times, and had passed through the House as often; as it had been introduced. Moreover, it passed in its present shape, and he thought that if the Bill proposed to give any very startling powers to the London County Council, an Amendment would have been suggested on one of the former occasions. In view of the fact that the present condition of affairs in another place made it unlikely that the Bill would receive favourable consideration if the Amendment were inserted, and also in view of the approval which their Lordships had given to the Bill as it
732
stood four times, he hoped the Amendment would not be inserted.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid the present condition of business in another place was a matter with which none of their Lordships had anything to do, and he did not see why their Lordships House should suffer any disability in consequence of it. He was not acquainted with the reason why this Amendment had not been moved during the progress of the four previous Bills, but it might be that if those Bills were considered before the-last County Council election, the City felt there was not much likelihood of securing that agreement which they had since secured. This was a much more important point than the noble Earl opposite seemed to think, and he did not at present feel that he would be justified in not taking the sense of their Lordships-upon it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to, and Bill reported without amendment.
Moved, "That the Standing Committee be negatived." — (Viscount Midleton).
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, if it is to be the ordinary course to move that the Standing Committee be negatived, I think the Standing Committee stage had better be repealed altogether. The Standing Committee has, since it has been established, done really useful business. Now, however, the ordinary course of things is to move to negative this stage, and it is negatived accordingly. It seems to me that, if this is to become the usual practice, the proper course is to abolish this stage altogether.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, was about to propose the abandonment of the Standing Committee stage. If and when he does so, I think we ought to take carefully into consideration the pros and cons for maintaining or abolishing it. I

733
do not propose to-day to enter into the various arguments on either side. Personally I quite concur with the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken that, in certain circumstances, the Standing Committee has been a very valuable stage in the past. I have seen excellent work done there, and I confess I am not in a position to state why it has now become the custom to move to negative this stage. I do not take any responsibility for it.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I am, of course, entirely in the hands of the House. I am afraid I am hardly aware of the forms of your Lordships' House in this matter, and if I have erred it is because I was told that this was the proper Motion to move.
On Question, Standing Committee negatived, and Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow.

TELEGRAPH (CONSTRUCTION) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order).
[Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
THE EARL OF GRANARD THE EARL OF GRANARD moved two Amendments to modify the clause so as to refer to the Railway Commission for arbitration any difference between the Postmaster-General and the authority in which was vested any land dedicated to the recreation of the public with respect to the erection of telegraph wires.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, lines 6 and 7, to leave oat the words, 'in whom such land is vested or.'"— (The Earl of Granard).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 8,"after the word 'remains' to insert the words 'Provided that if such consent is withheld or any condition is attached thereto to which the Postmaster-General objects, a difference shall be deemed to have arisen between the Postmaster-General and that person, and sections three, four, and five of the Telegraph Act, 1878, shall apply accordingly as if it were a difference arising under that Act.'"—(The Earl of Granard).
VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid the question raised by the Amendment was one upon which the Post Office and the London County Council had long been at variance. The position was this. Up to the present the Postmaster-General had not had the power of carrying telegraph wires over recreation grounds or public property without the consent of the individuals in whom that property was vested. When the Bill was considered in another place this very conclusive clause was proposed and supported by the Government, and was inserted in the Bill. Under it it would be impossible for the Postmaster-General to exercise the right of carrying telegraph wires over public parks and recreation grounds without the consent of the authority in whom they were vested. The noble Lord now proposed a modification of the clause which would take the whole question out of the hands of those authorities in whom the lands were vested, and leave it to be arbitrated upon the Railway Commissioners in case of a difference. The contention of the London County Council had always been the same. They were seized by Parliament with the responsibility for a considerable number of open spaces and parks, and considering the immense number of overhead wires already in London, they maintained that these operations should be carried on underground until the suburbs were reached. They felt that it was a very strong measure to take this matter out of their hands and allow the Railway Commissioners to be the judges of the public convenience. If the noble Earl desired to persist in this Amendment, which almost negatived the whole advantage of the clause accepted by the Government in another place, he (Lord Midleton) would move to amend the Amendment by excluding from its operation parks and recreation grounds vested in a public authority. He was, however, willing to substitute in his Amendment "London County Council" for "public authority," thereby restricting to London the power of a local authority to withstand the Postmaster-General.
Amendment moved to the Amendment—
"To insert, after the words 'Provided that,' the words in cases where such land is not vested in the London County Council,"— (Viscount Midleton).
THE EARL OF GRANARDfailed to see why the London County Council should have any special rights in this case. He could assure the noble Viscount that there was no intention of carrying wires across parks. The Bill only gave power in respect of land "being within twenty feet of any such street or road." The Amendment which he had moved was the outcome of a compromise in the other House.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I understand that the noble Earl relies upon the fact that these powers only apply to telegraph lines erected within twenty feet of a road. Would he say whether, in the case of a public park, a gravel walk traversing the park would be a road within the meaning of the Bill? The noble Earl will see that a good deal depends upon that.
THE EARL OF GRANARDsuggested that the point should be held over for the Report Stage so that he might consider it.
VISCOUNT MIDLETONagreed to this course, and withdrew his Amendment to the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.
Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee, and to be printed, as amended. [No. 186.]

COMPANIES (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order).
[Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH in the Chair.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, this Bill was before a Joint Committee of the two Houses, and we unanimously agreed to certain Amendments for the purpose of making the Bill purely consolidation. Those are the Amendments that I ask your Lordships to allow to be taken en bloc at this stage. There are certain other Amendments which I will refer to
736
later at another stage of the Bill, but which do not concern us at present.
Moved, "That the Amendments agreed to by the Joint Committee be inserted."— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Standing Committee negatived. The Report of the Amendments to be received on Wednesday next.

MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to make married women with separate estate equally liable with single women and widows for contribution, in repayment to boards of guardians for the support or relief of their parents. The Bill has boon introduced in consequence of a Resolution passed at the last annual meeting of the Association of Poor Law Unions of England and Wales, and that Resolution arose out of a case taken to the Court of Appeal by the Pontypool Union, where a married woman in fairly good circumstances refused to contribute to the support of her father, although her brothers, who were not in such a good financial position, were contributing Is. and Is. 6d. a week respectively. The Bill has passed through the House of Commons without Amendment, and, I believe, with the approval of His Majesty's Government. I, therefore, trust your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Stradbroke.)
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I would ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether, in his view, the Bill is necessary at all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like an opportunity of ascertaining what the exact position is before we proceed with the Bill. Perhaps the noble Earl will allow it to stand over for a day.
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: My only reason for pressing the matter was

737
to get the Bill through your Lordships' House before the adjournment. As I have said, the Bill has passed through the House of Commons without any Amendment.
LORD ALLENDALE: My Lords, I have to say, on behalf of the Local Government Board, that they have no wish to offer any opposition to the Bill; in fact, they are prepared to give it their support.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have no doubt the Bill is quite right, but, as a matter of fact, I have not seen it, and I should like to have an opportunity of ascertaining what the law is before we alter it.
LORD ASHBOURNE: Perhaps the Lord Chancellor, while he is applying his mind to the matter, will see whether Ireland cannot be dealt with in the same way.
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: In view of what has been said, I shall be very pleased to move the adjournment of the debate.
Moved "That the debate be adjourned." —(The Earl of Stradbroke).
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned till Tomorrow.

POLLING DISTRICTS AND REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MARCHAMLEY: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend, the Earl of Liverpool, who is detained, I believe, in camp, I have been asked to move the Second Reading of this Bill, the object of which is to confer upon county councils in Ireland the power to alter the polling districts and the method of compiling lists of voters. It is important that it should, if possible, pass through your Lordships' House before Parliament rises for the summer recess, because the Registration Courts in Ireland begin sitting in September I think I may claim that it
738
is a measure of an entirely non-contentious character, and that it has been supported by all parties in the other House. It has been supported by Mr, Walter Long and others, and by the whole of the Nationalist Party, and I understand it is approved by the Irish Local Government Board. For the purposes of local government in Ireland, counties are divided into electoral divisions, and the lists of voters are made up according to these electoral divisions; but for Parliamentary purposes the counties in Ireland are divided differently, and consequently a great deal of trouble and expense is involved in the printing and publishing of the Parliamentary lists of voters. In England the county councils have power to alter the polling districts, but in Ireland I understand that is not the case. Clause 3 provides that any county council in Ireland may, with the sanction of the Local Government Board for Ireland, arrange to have the register of voters, or any part of the register, prepared alphabetically in town-lands or, as regards urban districts, in streets. The Bill is desired by all political parties in Ireland and by all county officials; and it is urgent because as I have explained, it is hoped it will be applied to proceedings in the Registration Courts in September.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Marchamley.)
THE LORD CHANCELLORwas putting the Question, when——
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid: I assume the Government intend to tell us something about this Bill, which purports to make important and serious changes in polling arrangements in Ireland. I do not wish to offer any objection to the Bill, but I cannot conceive how it will be possible, even if the Bill becomes law this week, for the county councils to prepare the schemes in accordance with the provisions of the Bill and have them ready by September. If there was all this urgency the Bill ought to have been sent up to your Lordships' House earlier. I have, as I have said, no objection to the Second Reading, but I think we are entitled to an expression of opinion from the representative of the Government Department concerned.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I was hoping that, after the clear explanation given by the noble Lord behind me, it would have been unnecessary for me to have said anything with regard to this Bill. The Government are satisfied that this is a useful Bill. As my noble friend behind me said, it was backed in the House of Commons by Mr. Walter Long and other Unionists, and I should have thought that, in those circumstances, it would not have been opposed in your Lordships' House.
LORD ASHBOURNE: I am not opposing it. I merely asked for some explanation.
LORD DENMAN: The Bill, as my noble friend has explained, seeks to bring the electoral divisions for county councils and for Parliamentary——
LORD ASHBOURNE: I do not want to appear to be unduly critical of the Bill. If the noble Lord is in a position to tell me that the Local Government Board of Ireland have examined the Bill and think it workable and prudent, I shall be quite satisfied.
LORD DENMAN: I can assure the noble and learned Lord that the Local Government Board do approve of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord will see that it contains a provision that no scheme shall be of any force or validity unless and until it is confirmed by an Order of the Local Government Board.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for Second Heading read.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, this is a Bill on which it is not necessary for me to say more than a few words, as it is entirely of a private character. It is chiefly concerned with certain internal changes in the constitution of the University of Durham, necessitated by its growth as an institution and by the development of its work in Newcastle. It has been a matter of arrangement
740
between all the parties, and as a result it has passed the House of Commons without any difference of opinion. It seeks no new powers, and the various authorities concerned are entirely agreed upon it; but it is necessary to come to Parliament for powers because the constitution of the University was settled by Act of Parliament originally. The promoters proceed on the same method as was followed in the case of the London University Bill in 1898, by the appointment of Commissioners who are empowered to carry out changes according to the schedule of the Bill, but have no power to divert any property from the uses to which it is at present given. The Bill as it stands is approved by the Dean and Chapter of Durham and by all the educational authorities concerned. I hope that, in these circumstances, your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Viscount Ridley.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To morrow.

POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order). An Amendment moved, and negatived; Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
TOBACCO GROWING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Head 3a (according to order), and passed.
MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (MERCANTILE CORPORATIONS AND COMPANIES) BILL [H.L.]
  COMMONS BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to order), and Bills to be read 3a Tomorrow.
CORONERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  PROVISIONAL ORDERS (PROCEDURE) BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to order), and Bills to be read 3a To-morrow.
  WILD BIRDS BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  COSTS IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

IRISH UNIVERSITIES BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Beading read.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I rise to call the attention of the House to the history of this Bill, which I need not point out to your Lordships is a very important Bill. It was introduced into this House on Saturday last, two or three of your Lordships having to sacrifice your holiday, I suppose, in order to give it a First Reading. The Bill has not been circulated at all, and it was not even laid upon the Table of this House until a quarter past five this evening. Your Lordships are now asked to give the Bill a Second Reading, and, moreover, if report speaks truly, it is the intention of the Government to get through the remaining stages during the three Parliamentary days which remain of the present week. I want to know what is the special reason for hurry in connection with this Bill, because, unless very special reason can be given, I submit to your Lordships that it is treating the House with absolute disrespect. Unfortunately, we are getting used to this kind of thing. His Majesty's Government mentioned in the King's Speech a much greater number of subjects than there is any possibility of hoping to treat with anything like deliberation in the course of the session. They then used weapons of their own in another place, and, having done that, they come to your Lordships and thrust Bills down our throat one after another without our having any means of deliberating upon them. Noble Lords and their friends elsewhere are very much given to making attacks on this House and to pointing out how unfavourable this House is to the present Government. So far from that being true, this House has done more for this Government in the way of hasty, helter-skelter legislation than for any Government during the time I have sat in your Lordships' House. I moved for a Return
742
two years ago which proved that in the years 1906 and 1907 your Lordships' House passed for the present Government a larger number of important Bills in less time and with less consideration than they had done in a long preceding series of years. I should like to ask whether the Government really propose to take the remaining stages of this Bill during the next three days. The noble Earl the Leader of the House spoke with grateful memory of the stage of Standing Committee. Not only will it not be possible to take the Standing Committee stage with regard to this Bill, but I do not know how your Lordships are going to pass it through all its stages this week without offending the Standing Orders of the House. I merely utter this as a protest. I am not forgetting that we have to come back on 12th October. In the first place, what shall we have to do when we come back, at any rate for some time? Why should we not be considering this Bill? But, quite apart from that, I have not forgotten, and I do not suppose any of your Lordships have, the proceedings prior to Christmas on the last occasion that we had an autumn session. I hope we are not going to have any renewal of the discreditable scenes—it was not legislation—to which this House was then forced to become a party. I hope o your Lordships will insist that this sort of thing shall not be repeated in the closing weeks of next December. I veuture to place this protest on record, and to ask the Government whether they propose to proceed with all the stages of this Bill during this week, and, if so, for o what reason.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I think your Lordships will all agree that, under the circumstances, the noble Earl is fully entitled to make the protest which he has just made. It is perfectly true that this Bill was brought up early on Saturday afternoon, and that it has only just been placed in your Lordships' hands. It is by no means the first time that something of this kind has happened. It has happened with other Governments in power. I have never quite understood why it is, when a Bill is brought up here on a Saturday afternoon, it should be found impossible to get anybody to print it. Overtime is not unknown, and I should have thought it would have been conceivable that important measures laid

743
before your Lordships' House would have found someone to print them; but, apparently, that difficulty has arisen, and I confess that when I found the Bill had not been circulated I would have been glad to have postponed the Second Reading, but that would necessarily have involved a prolongation of the session into next week.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Why?
*THE EARL OF CREWE: Because all the other days in the week are likely to be filled with other business.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Why not October?
*THE EARL OF CREWE: I will come to that in a moment. The noble Earl asks why we should not be content to put this measure off till October. I think the answer lies in the nature of the measure itself. It is a measure which has come up from another place with a very general amount of agreement arrived at among people of very divergent opinions I do not think it is advisable to allow a measure of that kind to simmer too long. I think it is quite possible that, I do not say noble Lords opposite, but other politicians elsewhere, might, if the measure were postponed, develop some differences of opinion which so far have not occurred to them. In those circumstances I feel that it would be advantageous—I do not speak as a party man, for this is really not a party measure, but in the general interests of getting this very important question decided — if your Lordships would agree to pass it through all its stages before we adjourn for the holiday. The points at issue, as I think will appear when the Bill is debated, are not numerous. There are a number of great principles involved, but upon those agreement has been reached. The points upon which amendment is likely are, I hope and believe, exceedingly few. With regard to the general question, I should merely like to say this, that although I fully agree that it is desirable, both for the proper conduct of business and out of respect for your Lordships' House, that measures should be in the hands of Members for some time before a Bill is asked to be read a second time, yet I think one
744
is bound, as far as possible, to avoid pedantry in the matter and to differentiate between different measures. What I am going to say to my noble friend holds equally good for both Houses, and it is this. When a measure has been very fully discussed in one House and has received but little amendment, I think it is reasonable to assume that those who are interested in the subject have followed those discussions and do not come to the matter in complete ignorance and with an entirely fresh mind; and though, of course, I am very far from saying that that absolves anybody from the necessity of placing the measure in your Lordships' hands, yet I think it is only fair to consider the particular character of the measure and the kind of opposition it has received. If this Bill had been amended in important respects at a late stage in another place, the noble Earl's case would have been a great deal stronger than it is at the moment, though I greatly regret that this should have occurred.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Earl commenced his observations by frankly admitting that my noble friend was within his right in protesting against the manner in which this House has boon treated in regard to this Bill. Even to us who are accustomed to treatment of the kind, it is rather a strong order that a Bill of this importance should be read a first time on Saturday and a second time on the following Monday, and that the Bill itself should not be on the Table of the House until within an hour of the time when the discussion will probably begin. The noble Earl gave us certain reasons against the rather obvious course which my noble friend suggested—I mean the course of allowing the Bill to stand over until after the summer adjournment. His reason was, if I may say so, a rather suggestive one. He said the measure was not one of a sort that ought to be allowed to simmer for too long. We are able, perhaps, to infer from that observation what must have been the temperature of this Irish stew which has been simmering during the last few months. We may even divine that members of His Majesty's Government may have already burnt their fingers, and do not particularly wish to burn them again. I rise merely

745
because I do not wish my noble friend behind me to stand alone in his protest. It is one which I have more than once made myself from this Table. With regard to the course which your Lordships should take, I am bound to say that the noble Earl is perhaps right in saying that this Bill comes to us under rather special circumstances. We are, of course, familiar with the general outline of the case, and I hope most of us have followed the discussions which have taken place elsewhere. But I should like to remind the noble Earl that amendments, and, I believe, amendments of some importance, were inserted in the Bill as lately as Friday last. I can only say with my noble friend behind me, that if we are to submit to treatment of this kind at the present period of the session, we hope that no attempt will be made to repeat the performance at the close of the winter session. I really do not think we are using idle words when we say that a moment will come when this House will not only resent, but will resist, the kind of treatment to which we are becoming too much accustomed.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I do not desire to say anything in reply to the noble Marquess, but I will proceed, if I may be allowed to do so, to make a few observations on the measure, the Second Reading of which I shall shortly move. This question of University education in Ireland is one of the oldest and one of the most difficult that has been before Parliament. My right hon. friend has embarked upon a road which, like some of the caravan roads across the African desert, is strewn with the whitened bones which show the disasters of travellers who have passed that way before. This question, among other experiences, broke up the strongest Government which has probably ever existed in this country—I mean the Government which was formed by Mr. Gladstone in 1868.
Before I proceed to say anything about the measure, perhaps I may be allowed to make a brief historical retrospect with regard to University education in Ireland. For a long time University education in Ireland meant the University and College of Trinity, in Dublin. That college and University was founded in the year 1582 as a sort of younger sister to the famous foundation at Cambridge of the same
746
name; and over since those days it has been in its character a Protestant University. For at least 250 years it has been closely bound up with the Episcopal Church of Ireland. It was not until 1793, when Catholic relief generally was in the air, that Catholics were allowed to obtain degrees at Trinity, and in 1834 a fruitless attempt was made to allow Catholics to enjoy the scholarships and professorships of the University.
The next thing that happened to University education in Ireland was in 1845, when the Queen's University, as it was called, was formed, consisting of the three Queen's Colleges of Belfast, Cork, and Galway. Within five years from their inception these colleges were condemned by the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Ireland, and also formally condemned from Rome, and ever since then they have not been looked on with great favour by that Church. At this moment there are, I fancy, about 250 Roman Catholic students in the three colleges. In 1854, by private enterprise, what was known as the Catholic University was founded, chiefly remembered now by the famous man who was its first head and who afterwards became Cardinal Newman. That University, for reasons into which it is not necessary to enter, never succeeded as a University, and it now only exists, so far as it can be said to exist at all, as an association of Roman Catholic colleges, of which, of course, the most famous is Maynooth. In 1866 Lord Russell made an unsuccessful attempt to recognise that University, and two years later, in 1868, Mr. Disraeli attempted to take in hand the question of Irish University education. At that time Lord Mayo was Chief Secretary for Ireland, and it was announced that a Catholic University was about to be instituted in Ireland; but between the Government of the day and the Irish Roman Catholic Bishops and the supporters in this country and in Ireland of the right hon. Gentleman who was then Prime Minister the scheme fell to the ground, and the Government of that day, as it appears, were not sorry to find an excuse for withdrawing it.
Then in 1873 came the event to which. I have already alluded, when Mr. Gladstone attempted to found a great national University in Ireland, which was to include all the colleges of the first rank,

747
including Trinity and Maynooth. The fate of that measure, involving as it did that of the Government, is very well-known history, but it should also be remembered that in that same year, 1873, Mr. Fawcett at last succeeded in doing what he had unavailingly tried to do before—that was, to abolish tests at Trinity College. Since then Trinity has been, at any rate in most respects, a testless University. In 1879 a further attempt was made, also by a Conservative Government. The Queen's University was abolished, although the colleges remained, and what is known as the Royal University was instituted. That was a purely examining body, and has remained so down to this time, and its existence, I think, has been almost an unmitigated misfortune for the highest type of education in Ireland.
One thing is worth noting with regard to this Royal University—that its system of professorships acted as an indirect endowment of the Catholic University in Dublin. That was owing to the arrangement under which the different professors of the new University were paid. That is to say, those of the Queen's Colleges only received a small sum in addition to their stipend, while those of St. Stephen's Green received the full payment of professors, and that obviously acted as an endowment towards those particular colleges. Last year, taking entrance examination and degrees together, about 3,600 students entered for the various examinations at the Royal University, of whom nearly 2,400 passed, of whom 486 were women.
That has been the condition of University education in Ireland, and the improvement of that system has been a subject of anxious care and study to many statesmen of both parties. I need not mention the prominent part which Mr. Balfour has takes, greatly to his honour, because it was sometimes, I think, in opposition to his party interests, in declaring in and out of season his determination to assist if he could in the settlemens of this question. But, as a matter of fact, among the public men of both parties who have held office either as Lord-Lieutenant or as Chief Secretary in Ireland, there has been, I think, scarcely one who has returned from Ireland without a conviction of the necessity of establishing in Ireland a University acceptable
748
to Roman Catholics. I remember one singular instance of this. The late Mr. James Lowther was the least vacillating of politicians. Not long before his death he told me that he did not believe that he had modified in the slightest degree any opinion on any subject which he held when he entered the House of Commons in the year 1865, except on one, and that was this question. He was prepared to go almost to any length in assisting the foundation of a Roman Catholic University in Ireland.
The next thing that happened arising out of this general interest in the matter was the establishment in the year 1901 of a Commission over which the noble and learned Lord opposite, Lord Robertson, presided. He was assisted by various distinguished men. The late Lord Ridley the present Archbishop of Tuam, and the Sir Richard Jebb were amongst them. That Commission reported in the year 1903, and the effect of its Report was to condemn, I think, without any qualification, the system of a purely examining University. It also condemned the indirect system of endowing particular professorships, and it as a whole recommended the institution of a new college in Dublin, although I think the noble and learned Lord opposite carefully guarded himself, if I remember right, from being supposed to recommend the establishment of a Roman Catholic University as such in the capital of Ireland.
LORD ROBERTSON: I stated in my separate Report that the ground of my objection was that I thought it was a political question for Parliament to decide, and not for the Commission.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: I am very glad to have that from the noble and learned Lord. Then in 1906 a further Commission was held. The Commission presided over by the noble and learned Lord had been appointed to inquire into the question of University education outside Trinity College. Trinity did not fall within its purview, but it did fall within the purview of the Commission of 1906. That Commission was also composed of unusually distinguished men. It was presided over by Sir Edward Fry. Chief Baron Palles, Sir Thomas Raleigh, Professor Henry Jackson of Cambridge, Mr. Butcher, whom we all know so well

749
in another place, and who is also equally distinguished on the academic side, Sir Arthur Rücker, so well known as the Principal of London University, and Dr. Douglas Hyde were members of it. All but one of those Commissioners, and the one was not one of those distinguished men that I have mentioned, recommended the establishment of a college in Dublin, but on one point of the first importance their opinions were diametrically split, and that was the question whether Trinity should form part of the new University or not. Four of those gentlemen recommended that Trinity should be included. One, Professor Jackson, thought that the inclusion of Trinity was the best course that could be taken, but believed it to be practically impossible, and three were strongly opposed to the inclusion of Trinity.
In bringing in this measure the Government had to decide whether or not Trinity should be included. When we came to examine the matter at close quarters, it was quite evident that Trinity strongly objected to inclusion. About the position of Trinity College, Dublin, there can be no two opinions. It enjoys the possession of famous traditions of ripe scholarship, and of highly successful schools, both in classics and mathematics and in theology. It has enjoyed, also, a social reputation, for years and centuries, for literature and wit which no University surpasses. It may be said that among all the Universities, the kindly mothers of polite learning and of science, not one in any country has secured deeper devotion or more romantic allegiance from its sons than has Trinity. Under those circumstances it was no doubt a fascinating idea to ask Trinity to bring all its traditions to the service of the new University, and to act, as Trinity must have acted, as leader in the new combination. But Trinity did not see the matter in that light. Trinity was altogether unwilling to join. Whether, in doing so, she made one of those great refusals which are sometimes made by institutions no less than by individuals it is impossible to say; but it was obviously impossible, in view of her opposition, to press the point, and therefore we fell back on the scheme of the Bill.
The problem we had to meet was how to institute a University in Ireland which would be acceptable to the Catholics
750
without endowing a Catholic University, which would be to do something which has never yet been done in the United Kingdom. It might be said, as it often has been said: There are no tests now at Trinity; why do not Catholics who desire the highest form of education attend Trinity College? The one main answer to that is that they will not. The reason, I think, is not altogether far to seek. It is not, of course, that Roman Catholic parents and Roman Catholic clergy believe that if their young men attend Trinity College they would be turned into Protestants, but they do think that they might return from there somewhat less good Catholics. The fact that they hold that opinion, although a certain number of Catholics do go to Trinity, makes a general attendance practically impossible.
In some ways the task of the Government was easier than that of any previous Government. The question of Belfast will settle itself more easily than it ever could have settled itself before. Great towns like Belfast have now not merely become reconciled to the idea of having a University, but a, University has become almost an appanage of first-class towns. If Sheffield, with 400,000 inhabitants, can have an excellent University, there clearly is no reason why Belfast, with some 360,000, should not enjoy a similar advantage. It was found that when Lord Kelvin strongly recommended the institution of a University in Belfast, the idea was received there with infinitely greater favour than it had ever been in former years. Therefore, we leave Trinity alone. We propose to form two Universities, one with its seat in Belfast, and the other with its seat in Dublin, consisting of a new college in Dublin and the old Queen's College at Cork and the old Queen's College at Galway. As to Clause 1, I need only say that for the moment the question of the titles of these two Universities is postponed. It was felt that it would be better that they should, so to speak, christen themselves, rather than be christened by those who might not be in complete sympathy with them. But that is a small matter.
Clause 2 deals with the colleges. I need only draw the attention of the House to subsection 4 of that clause It is one on which a considerable difference of opinion has existed, which

751
was not altogether reconciled when the Bill was discussed in another place. Sub section 4 provides for the recognition — that is the word in the Act—or affiliation, of other colleges by the new University, and although that recognition is carefully guarded, yet it has met with a considerable degree of objection. We should all agree that if this matter could be considered in the abstract the objection would be fatal to the scheme. It is not, as a purely abstract question, a desirable thing that a University degree should be obtainable by anybody who has not shared in the corporate life of the University and has not, as a matter of fact, lived at the University itself. On the other hand we were confronted by the practical necessities of the case.
The two colleges principally concerned in this matter are Maynooth, which will naturally be recognised by Dublin, and Magee, which will naturally be recognised by Belfast. It is only fair to state that, although those colleges are spoken of as theological colleges, they are not purely theological, as anybody will know who has visited them, because there is a faculty of arts at both; and at Maynooth, of which I have the most personal knowledge, that is a side of education which it would be improper to speak of as being neglected. It was suggested in another place that although it might be proper to affiliate Maynooth, yet out of three years arts course—the whole course, I think, is seven years— two ought properly to be spent in the immediate neighbourhood of the University. If that is the ultimate outcome of this Act, nobody would be more glad than myself. One has no right to speak in any critical or advisory tone of the educational arrangement of a Church to which he does not belong; but it is common knowledge, I believe, that among Catholics there are a very considerable number, even in Maynooth itself, who would welcome the possibility of such a course as this. But it is not practicable at this moment.
In the first place we must remember the important point that we are not in a position to found a residential college, and it is not possible to provide in Dublin at this moment hostels for students who, in view of the fact that they are intended for the priesthood, would have to be kept under careful supervision whether
752
they were at Maynooth or Dublin. Under those circumstances it is quite clear that to have insisted on this provision would be fatal to the reception of the Bill in Ireland by those who are responsible for that side of education. To begin by a controversy of that kind, whatever you may think of the merits of the case, would have been a poor start for the measure and would have undone a large part of the good we hope the Bill may do. It is important to bear this in mind, that the terms on which these colleges are to be recognised are susceptible of change from time to time, and therefore it would be open to the senate of either University, whenever it thinks that the time has come when such a provision of this kind ought to be enforced, to make it a condition for the continued recognition of either of the colleges.
Clause 3 deals with the important question of tests, and on that I may say, because it is a kindred though not an identical subject, that it was decided in another place, after some discussion, not to allow the erection of chapels in connection with these Universities. As regards the question of tests, subsection 2 provides for a custom that does not obtain greatly in England, though it is well known in Ireland, and that is the declaration by professors on taking office. No faculty of theology or divinity can be endowed by public money under the Act, though those who desire to found professorships in theology are, of course, at liberty to do so, but those who hold them will not be in all respects in the same position as the other officers of the University, and the religious belief of the students is carefully safeguarded by a conscience clause.
The next point is one over which a degree of controversy has arisen. It is with regard to the statutes of the Universities and the constituent colleges. That has been a matter of some discussion, because the Bill as it stands only provides for the regulation of these statutes by Parliament. The question has arisen whether the practice of the new Universities might not be assimilated to that of the Universities in this country. That is a question that is to some extent still under consideration, but I hope that my right hon. friend may find means of meeting

753
the wishes of those who have raised this point in another place. Then temporary Commissioners are appointed. My right hon. friend has stated they are a distinguished body of men, both English and Irish. They are appointed for the transition stage, to draw up statutes and deal with the property and the obligations of the existing colleges and the Royal University.
As to the finance of the Bill, at present Queen's Colleges each receive £7,000 a year from the Consolidated Fund. This is brought up by votes and allowances to £13,000 in the case of Belfast, £11,250 in that of Cork, and £10,600 in that of Galway. The Royal University gets £20,000 a year from the Irish Church surplus, making a total endowment of £55,456. The new proposal is that the £20,000 of the Irish Church surplus is to be divided between the two Universities, Belfast getting £10,000 and Dublin £10,000. In addition to that, Belfast gets £18,000 a year, Dublin £32,000, Cork £20,000, and Galway £12,000, making altogether a total of £102,000, which is £46,544 more than they have hitherto been receiving. As regards buildings, Dublin University and College receive a building grant of £150,000, Belfast one of £60,000, Cork £14,000, and Galway £6,000. Then to Dublin the site and buildings of the Royal University, which cost £77,000, are handed over, and the Queen's Colleges which form part of the new University and cost originally and with additions altogether £186,000, making a grand total of £493,000. That, I think, cannot be said to be illiberal finance. No building grant, as far as I know, has ever been given to an English University. To Wales very little has been given, for Wales is the good child in these matters, and the amount raised there by private subscriptions has been considerable, and the Principality has not got much from the Treasury. Scotland, on the other hand, is an astute country, and has had at one time or another £380,000 in the shape of building grants.
This is not to be a residential University. It is to be regretted, I think, in any case, and all the more in view of the fact that Trinity is a residential University, and, therefore, comparison between the two is certain to be instituted, although in many respects the new
754
University cannot hope to rival the ancient traditions of Trinity. We hope that some benefactors will come forward from time to time and part with some of their superfluous money by way of gift or legacy for the purpose of instituting a residential University in Dublin. I will give only one other sot of figures—that of the numbers of students at the Queen's Colleges. They show to my mind more than anything else the necessity of instituting this new foundation. They have come down progressively since 1802. Belfast has fallen from 502 in that year to 390 in 1906, Cork from 348 to 261, Galway from 144 to 111. I think it is clear that that is due to the setting up of the Royal University. It cannot, I think, be otherwise explained. If people could get the same degree purely by examination and by living where they pleased, they were less likely than otherwise they would be to attend colleges. Therefore I think we may fairly expect, if the Bill is passed, a very considerable and steady increase in the numbers in these colleges
I pass rapidly over a great many other provisions in the Bill. Clause 10 provides for the institution of scholarships by the Intermediate Education Board of Ireland and by county and borough councils. Clauses 11 and 12 deal with various points connected with professional education. Clause 13 deals with the interests of existing graduates and students, and saves the interests of those who are at present students of the Royal University, because it would be obviously unfair for them if, having entered a University course to pass a certain examination, they were confronted in the middle of it with something quite different. Then follow long and rather complicated clauses upon which I do not think controversy has arisen.
The first schedule gives the constitution of the governing bodies of the Universities, and, in addition, draft charters of both the Universities and colleges have been circulated. The draft charters in the case of the colleges provide a scheme for the governing bodies which is not placed in the Bill, and, therefore, the charter can be altered without the necessity of coming to Parliament. The composition of the proposed governing bodies of those

755
colleges is one of the points which has formed the subject of some discussion. We have been told they are not sufficiently academic in character, that the outside element is somewhat too large. That, of course is a matter for discussion, and one upon which any man is entitled to hold his own opinion. If I may take Dublin as an instance, of the governing body of thirty-four members, sixteen may be taken as being directly academic, ten appointed by the City and county councils, four appointed by the Crown, and four co-opted. That gives a large majority to the academic side. Whether it is large enough may be argued, if an Amendment is moved on the subject. I think it must be borne in mind that it is very important to excite the interest of the locality and all those who represent it. It is our belief that that is best attained by allowing important local authorities to send representatives to the governing bodies.
Such is the character of the measure which I ask your Lordships to read a second time; and, I think, it is pretty clear from the history that I gave earlier that it is a kind of measure which any Government might well be tempted to leave alone. My right hon. friend the Chief Secretary, however, has shown great energy in promoting it, and has earned many handsome and generous compliments, not only from his own side, but from those generally opposed to him in politics. I hope, therefore, that the caravan, if I may use the simile again, is drawing in sight of home. Ireland has waited a long time for some measure of this kind; certainly she has waited for a full hundred years. Every year a new generation of young Roman Catholic students has arrived at manhood without in most cases obtaining the highest class of University education. That has a political side to it. The young student at the time does not always recognise his misfortune, for the average young man does not usually complain that he is being under-educated. But when he gets older and finds various avenues closed to him and various careers thwarted, he must blame somebody; he knows he need not blame himself, and, therefore, he blames the British Parliament, which has failed for so long to deal with this question, and I cannot help thinking that the existence of this real
756
grievance has been one important contributory cause to the ill feeling which, as we know, has existed from time to time between the two countries. Our view is that we are very glad to believe that this measure offers a settlement.
We have been taunted—we may be taunted again—with being untrue to our principles by instituting something in the nature of endowments of denominational education. Those taunts, I confess, do not greatly affect me. I think they can only be made by those who are exceedingly prejudiced, or who take a very shallow view of the facts. The popular education of a country must be what the people of that country demand in view of their beliefs and opinions, whether social or religious. That is exactly the spirit in which we approached our attempted settlement of the question of elementary education in England. We approach this question in precisely the same spirit. What we desire to do is to give to every man, to every boy, freedom of opportunity so far as that is compatible with the establishment of a great national system. In the highest education in Ireland there has existed this great gap in the national system. That gap this measure is intended, if possible, to bridge.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Grewe.)
*LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, after the full and clear statement of the provisions of the Bill which has just been given by the noble Earl, I will venture to assume that there is no one in your Lordships' House who has not a very good idea of the proposals of this Bill. It would be impossible for any of us, after the discussions that have taken place in Parliament, after the proceedings of the two Royal Commissions, and after the frequent discussions of this matter in. the Press, not to have a very ample knowledge of all that is meant by the words Irish University question. It is one of the most, difficult and thorny of Irish problems. I think the noble Earl, if I may presume to say so, might have left out his closing sentence. Nothing that I know of has been said of a taunting character in reference to the Government in connection with this Bill. But really it is something of a challenge to ask us

757
to recognise that this Bill is conceived on the same lines as the solution of the English primary education question that was presented to your Lordships. The noble Earl waved a gentle flag at the close of his speech, but this is not a time of the evening that lends itself to going out of the way to take up any extraneous topic.
I am obliged to the noble Earl for the way in which he has referred to the University of Dublin, of which I had the honour to be a representative in the House of Commons for many years. That great University, founded in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, was the sole University in Ireland until the foundation of the Queen's Colleges. It has had a great history and a splendid career, and it is worthy of note that in the Report of the last of the Royal Commissions referred to by the noble Earl these gratifying words are to be found—
"Trinity College as it stands to-day is a noble institution for the advancement of sound learning, not unworthy of its great traditions and of the affection and veneration with which it is regarded by its children."
Those are worthy and generous words, and they are founded upon absolute truth. The connection of the University of Dublin with this great question of Catholic education is a worthy one, too. Long before the great Universities of England thought of granting their degrees to Roman Catholics, in the year 1793 Trinity College threw open her degrees to the Roman Catholics of Ireland without stint or hesitation. In the history of this question it should never be forgotten that the first of the great Universities of the Empire that recognised the claims of Roman Catholics to University degrees was the great University of Dublin. Mr. Fawcett's Act, passed within our own memory, threw open every prize, honour, distinction, and office within its control to everybody, and the portals of Dublin University since the passing of Fawcett's Act have been open to all.
As an Irishman, and as a former Member for Dublin University, I would have preferred if my Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen had been satisfied with the opportunities presented by that University, and I much regret that the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church set themselves against that solution of
758
the question. Then came the founding of the Queen's Colleges. The Roman Catholic Bishops declined to accept that solution, and the colleges were put under the ban of being regarded as godless. As we all know, the demand for a Roman Catholic University has grown immensely within the last ten years. It is not for us in this House, or for the other House of Parliament, to say whether we approve or do not approve of the demand of the Roman Catholics. It is not for us to sit in judgment on the opinions and desires of other men. Every one has a right to his own view as to what he desires, and it is not for us to say whether the Roman Catholics are right or wrong in the demand that they have made. They are within their constitutional rights, and we are bound to pay attention to the way in which they have presented their case. Mr. Gladstone, a man of genius and a great University man, thought that he could solve the question. Well, he tried his hand and failed; and he was wise enough never to try it again. Two Royal Commissions have sat, presided over by men of high eminence and composed of men of great distinction, and they have given their views. I will not discuss the proceedings of those Royal Commissions. Then came Mr. Bryce's scheme, and that was the only omission in the speech of the noble Earl. The noble Earl never mentioned the name of Mr. Bryce. That scheme pleased nobody. It touched every point of the greatest resistence, and it is not unnaturally passed by in the solution found in the present Bill.
The noble Earl has told us the way in which the Government approached this question. They appear to have applied their minds to it with an anxious desire to reach a solution that would as far as possible, be acceptable to Roman Catholics and would not hurt the feelings of other people — a very difficult combination to work out. The Chief Secretary is entitled to, and has got, full credit for the ability and the skill with which he framed this measure. He is entitled also to the fullest measure of credit for the diplomacy and the adroitness with which he carried the Bill through the House of Commons. It was passed there by great majorities; some important criticisms were made, but the

759
Chief Secretary always met them most genially and eloquently, and his view was supported by large numbers in the division lobby. All must admit, I think, that the Bill was fairly dealt with on both sides in the House of Commons, and that it was met frankly and not unkindly. It is obvious to anyone who has studied those debates that there was a desire, as far as possible, to reach a settlement of this long fought out question, and, if possible, to find that settlement in the Bill of the Government. The speech of Mr. Balfour on Saturday last was a fine speech, full of generous and cordial sentiment towards the Bill, and of ungrudging praise of the statesman who had carried it.
I myself have no desire to suggest any doubt as to my action in reference to the Bill. I am prepared to support the Second Reading, and to do what I can to assist the progress of the Bill through your Lordships' House, of course, reserving to myself the right, at the next stage, of offering such reasonable and fair criticisms as may be right and just. The noble Earl, naturally enough, hardly mentioned the portion of the Bill that has reference to Belfast. I can quite understand that, because there is little or no question about it. Belfast Queen's College has had a great and successful career, and no one can doubt that, under new conditions as a University, it will grow in fame, utility, and distinction. The real crux of the Bill is to be found in the legislation with reference to the new University in Dublin. The matters that require examination and explanation, the obvious and serious difficulties, are all in connection with the Dublin University. Mr. Birrell was in an enormous difficulty—the noble Earl has skated over it very delicately—in having constantly to meet the charge that this is a denominational measure, and, bearing in mind the composition of the House of Commons, one can well understand that he did not like that charge being made so often. There is, however, no reason for having any hesitation in putting the matter perfectly plainly.
The Bill, so far as the drafting of it goes, is framed on undenominational lines. Anyone who reads the clauses,
760
and particularly those to which the noble Earl has referred, will see that the structure of the Bill is technically undenominational. But when one turns to the charters which are to work out the Bill, when one sees the mechanism to be applied by the charters, and the constitution of the governing bodies to be called into existence by the charters, it is obvious that it is a denominational measure, and intended to be a denominational measure. No one with any desire to be as frank as the circumstances would permit would dream of nesitating to admit, in the most candid way, that the charters must work out a system of education that will be denominational. If they do not do that, the Bill will not satisfy the wishes, the desires, and the ambitions of those at whose demand it has been produced; and it cannot but be a failure if it does not satisfy those demands. That is really the position of the case at the present moment. Take the Senate of Dublin University. There are no end of loopholes by which the atmosphere can come in in a fine, vigorous, and robust way at every second of its existence. It is better to recognise that as an intelligible and obvious result.
Anyone who regards this Bill as an undenominational settlement of the University question in Ireland must indeed be willing to be deceived; but then, there are none so blind as those who will not see. When the senate is in working order there can be no manner of doubt as to the atmosphere which will control its operations. The senate is given great authority as to those whom it will recognise. The Bill says that there should be a power given to recognise students in the colleges; the charter says there is to be power given to recognise the colleges. That shows what advance was made when the promoters applied themselves to the preparation of the charters, and what is the matter that is intended. Power is given to confer privileges and to swell the roll of graduates in a manner which may have considerable result ultimately on the management of the Universities. It may be that as time develops and the matter is further considered the power will be used in a more moderate way, and that efforts will be made to avail

761
themselves of the power to confer some of the advantages of residence on all pupils of the colleges. But at present the whole decision in this matter is given to the senate. Why? The noble Earl said that the Commissioners appointed were distinguished men. I agree. Then why are they not given the power to recognise and affiliate? Why should not the Commissioners have this power while their tenure lasts, and when it ends it could devolve upon the Senate. The Robertson Commission unanimously recommended that the Royal College of Science in Dublin should be affiliated. Why not give the Commissioners power to affiliate that college which has the advantage of now being fully equipped? I do not know why the power of affiliation or recognition is not given by statute. That is a suggestion I venture to throw out.
Then there is the very large civic element in the Senates. That is a matter which has been acutely discussed elsewhere. I will not refer to it now; but the noble Earl must not be surprised if it is mentioned in future discussions in your Lordships' House. To call into existence a civic clement out of all proportion is a very serious thing, and may have considerable effect. It is impossible to make any real contract here with the new English Universities. Then there is the question of chapels. It is impossible not to sympathise with Mr. Birrell in his difficulties in trying to meet the Nonconformist conscience. In Grand Committee on the Bill, Mr. Butcher, a man of great ability whom everyone likes to praise, moved an Amendment that a chapel might be erected by private benefaction within or without the precincts of the University or college in Dublin. Mr. Birrell saw the sense of the Amendment and accepted it. But the working of the human conscience is sometimes strange; and it was intimated to him that the Nonconformist conscience was restive under this proposition, and, accordingly on Friday last the erection of a chapel, even by private benefaction, had to be given up. I quite understand it, but it is one of those things that it is difficult to explain. I should not be in the least surprised, however, if at the
762
Committee stage some of my noble friends presented that question for reexamination. From my knowledge of Dublin I am quite aware that next to the Catholic University College there is a very handsome and fashionable Catholic Church, which will, no doubt, be available while they are waiting for the building of a chapel, but its locality may not be convenient.
We have to consider this question apart from our own wishes, apart from our own University ideas, and apart from our own opinions of scholastic requirements. We have to look at it as practical men. What are we to do with this solution of the Government? The Bill has passed the House of Commons by large majorities and with a great deal of approval; it has commended itself, as far as we can see, to the general approval of the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church. As practical men we must recognise that a settlement is desirable, and that we are nearer a settlement now than at any previous time in the history of this extremely thorny question. I am in favour, as I have said, of granting the Bill a Second Reading, and, subject to fair discussion, placing no obstacle in its progress. Yet it is impossible to look to the future with regard to some important points of the Bill without serious misgivings. But I know that Irishmen are clever, that they love learning and thirst for education. I place reliance upon the general desire of the Roman Catholic body in Ireland to make the new scheme a success; and, therefore, I trust that it will realise the hopes of its authors and in time become a potent agency to assist the spread of learning throughout the land.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords, it has been the fate of those of your Lordships who have been connected with Ireland during the last forty years to find yourselves on nearly every occasion in active opposition to the wishes of the majority of the people of that country as expressed by their representatives in another place. I think the reason of that is very easy to explain. It is because the subjects which have been dealt with have been nearly always

763
concerning either property or the Government of the country. I think it is universally acknowledged that land legislation, whether good or bad, has seriously reduced the value of the land, not of the whole of the land of Ireland, but of that part of it which belonged to the landlord in contradistinction to that part which belonged to the tenant So far as the measures which have been introduced have related to the Government of Ireland, your Lordships will agree that the opposition which was offered to those measures was actuated by the sincere belief and conviction that those measures would have resulted in a loosening, if not a snapping, of the links which bind the two countries together. But the Bill which is before us to-night is of a very different nature. No one can say that it affects the stability of the Empire, and the only way in which it affects property is so far as the tenth clause is concerned. That clause certainly gives very large powers to county councils to raise funds in aid of this University if they obtain the consent of the Local Government Board, although that consent confines them to a sum not exceeding 1d. in the £. I think, therefore, the people of Ireland will look with much interest to see what attitude your Lordships will take with regard to this measure, and it seems to me that it ought to be regarded by us only from two points of view. In the first place, we have to consider whether another University is needed, and in the second place, if such a University is necessary, whether such a one as it is proposed to establish will satisfy the wishes and the requirements of the Roman Catholics of that country. I do not propose to discuss at all the question of the University of Belfast. So far as I can make out that University is not desired and it is not required, and it is only inserted in this Bill for the purpose of satisfying that extremely valuable, but at the same time, exceedingly liquid asset of the Radical Party, the Nonconformist conscience.
I propose, with your permission, to consider very carefully in detail what are the chief objections which are urged against this Bill. The first is a very old one; it is that Maynooth was originally intended for the education of ecclesiastics and also of the Roman Catholic laity,
764
and that until the Roman Catholic clergy agree to restore it to its original use, no steps should be taken with regard to the higher education of Ireland. As an argument that sounds very well, but as practical men we know that the Roman Catholic clergy will never allow it to be restored to its original use, and consequently those who advocate that higher education should be put off until that is done, really wish to postpone the establishment of a Roman Catholic University until the time of the Greek Kalends. The second objection which is urged is that Trinity College, Dublin, amply satisfies the requirements of the people of Ireland; she has opened her doors wide, as we have heard, to students of all denominations, and she is proud to reckon amongst her most distinguished alumni members of the Roman Catholic Church. I will not give a list of them to your Lordships, but there is one who will be well remembered by you—the late Lord Morris. I think this objection is a serious one, and deserves to be considered. I, for one, wish that on this occasion the Chief Secretary had not chosen the path of least resistance; that, instead of arranging for three watertight compartments, in order that Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and Nonconformists might be bottled up for three or four years and then launched on the world filled to the brim with the odium theologicum, he had tried to found a really national University, where Irishmen of all religions, at the age when friendships are made, might have met and foregathered; where the religious convictions of all would have been respected; where they would have learned that good fellows wore to be found in every denomination, and where, above all, they would have been taught that lesson which, more than any other, I think my fellow countrymen need to learn, the lesson of mutual toleration. But in fairness to the Chief Secretary, I think it must be acknowledged that there were lions in the path which he would have to fight, had he chosen what I believe would have been the better and the braver course. I honestly admit that if I were a devout Roman Catholic I should hesitate about sending my son, at a most susceptible age, to a University whose atmosphere is distinctly Anglican,

765
and if I were, what I fear many of my Roman Catholic fellow countrymen are, disloyal, I should certainly not have sent him to a University whose proudest boast is that it is loyal to the Union. And I do not think the whole blame lies on the side of the Roman Catholics, because although Trinity College was perfectly willing to make certain concessions I cannot help believing that a deep sigh of relief was heaved when she found she was allowed to pursue her way along the old paths on which she had been so successful, unhampered by a new and unknown element which might have swamped her.
There is another objection which is urged by many educated Roman Catholics—that the University is absolutely unnecessary. A well-known Irish gentleman, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, said to me the other day, "Why do you give us this University? We do not want it. There is nobody to go to it. There is virtually no middle class in Ireland, and we do not want a University for ploughboys." I said: "If that is your view, and that is what educated Roman Catholics in Ireland think, why do you not express it in public?" He replied: "We cannot do that, it would not do for us to go against the priests; it would make us too unpopular." I for one am not willing to help those who are not willing to help themselves. I say that the case goes by default, and I do not believe any of your Lordships would be willing to take up the cudgels on behalf of those who had not the courage to take them up for themselves. The last objection which is urged against this University is that it will be priest-ridden; in other words, that it will be governed by clerical influence. Of course it will, and if it were not, I do not believe that in the present state of feeling in Ireland it would satisfy the wishes of the Roman Catholics in that country, I know the Chief Secretary thinks it will be an undenominational University, but I am told that the Chief Secretary believes his administration of Ireland has been successful, and a man who believes that will believe anything. I wish myself that it were not necessary for political reasons to continue this farce of calling it an undenominational University. I wish it could
766
be a purely Roman Catholic University, with a whole bench of Roman Catholic bishops as its governing body, for I do not believe, unless the University is governed by the bishops or by their nominees, that Roman Catholics will attend it, and I would like to throw upon them the responsibility of showing that they are able to manage a University so as to satisfy modern requirements.
We live in democratic times, and this is a democratic Bill. We no longer affect to give the people what we believe to be good for them; we give them what they want, and my opinion is that what they want nowadays is generally what is very bad for them. But I believe, at any rate, that if we were to take a plebiscite of Roman Catholics in Ireland at the present time, we should find a large majority in favour of a University to be governed by the clergy. I should like to say a word about the Roman Catholic clergy. I used just now the word, "priest-ridden," and I should not like it to be thought that I said anything inimical or unfriendly towards the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland. I have lived amongst them all my life, and amongst their number I can count old and valued friends. It used to be said in old days that the Roman Catholic priest was the centre of every form of political intrigue. I believe that much of that is changed nowadays, and when you find a Roman Catholic priest at the head of a political organisation, it is nearly always more for the purpose of governing and controlling that institution than for the object of urging it politically. I can say that in my part of the world, the West of Ireland, priests are generally occupied in looking after the spiritual and temporal welfare of their flocks, and I must acknowledge that when they look after their temporal welfare, they sometimes wander into political fields where I find myself in acute antagonism to them; but except in those matters and on certain questions of discipline, where they take what I hope they will forgive my calling a rather narrow view of a particular case, I am sure that their object is to live on terms of friendliness with their neighbours be they Roman Catholic or Protestant. Of course, they wish to retain control of education, but I have still to discover the church whose clergy do not wish to do the same, and I have no hesitation in

767
saying that I would far rather that my countrymen were brought up even under the strictest form of ultra Monotheism than that Ireland should follow the example of those nominally Roman Catholic countries where the attendance of a man at Mass is sufficient to bar him from promotion in the Army, Navy, or the Civil Service.
I should like to say one word about an Amendment which was proposed on the Report stage in another place and alluded to by the noble Earl the Leader of the House, by which it was proposed that no one should be able to take his degree without being resident two years at the University. I am very sorry that Amendment was not adopted with qualifications, because, as I am in favour of a national University where Irishmen of all religions might mingle, so, in this Roman Catholic University, I am in favour of the establishment of a hostel where those who are destined to be priests will reside, segregated to a certain extent, but yet not cut off altogether from the laity who are there. It is said that the Roman Catholic hierarchy strongly objected to this, but it is whispered that some younger bishops are not so unfriendly to the idea, and I cannot help thinking that if this Amendment had been adopted, with perhaps a proviso that it was not to take effect for ten years, it would not have been so unfavourably regarded in Episcopal circles as the Chief Secretary seems to have imagined. But whatever chance there may have been of having a hostel for the education of priests in Dublin, it was absolutely done away with by the only Amendment of importance which was accepted by the right hon. Gentleman. I mean the Amendment which forbade the establishment of a Roman Catholic chapel in or without a college. I was extremely sorry to see that Amendment accepted, because I am sure that there are many Roman Catholics who would gladly have contributed towards a chapel which might have vied with Trinity College, Dublin, and I feel perfectly certain that there is no chance of a hostel for Maynooth students if there is not a place where those students may perform their religious duties in common. I hope that when the Committee stage arrives your Lordships will reconsider that point.
768
One word in a lighter vein. Various questions have been asked as to what shall be the name of this University, arid no satisfactory answer has been given. There is one name which would appeal to Irishmen as a suitable name for the University, that of the University of St. Patrick, but I am told that that is impossible because that name has already been taken possession of by St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, which will become no doubt an affiliated college. Therefore I should like to suggest another name, a name which will recall the great Roman bishop who brought Christianity to this island, and will at the same time, commemorate the right hon. Gentleman who is giving an undenominational University to Ireland; I need hardly tell your Lordships that the name I suggest, is The University of St. Augustine. I shall vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, not because I believe it is the best possible University that could have been devised, but because I should like to show Roman Catholics that where the interests aid stability of the Empire are not in danger, where justice is done between man and man, the minority in Ireland are only too anxious, too willing, to do whatever lies in their power to further the wishes and to benefit the majority of their fellow-countrymen.
*LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, I cannot profess complete satisfaction at the Bill now before us, establishing as it does a new University, nominally undenominational but having a strong denominational character. I should much prefer to see the youth of Ireland of all denominations educated together, and I believe this might be done without danger to their religious faith. In the course of a tolerably long life I have been fortunate enough to count a considerable number of Roman Catholics among my personal, and some among my intimate, friends, many of them earnest and devout men deeply attached to the doctrines of their Church, and I have never known one jarring note struck which might disturb the harmony of our intercourse or friendship or prevent us joining cordially together when opportunity offered for any public object. It may be said that this is the experience of maturer years when a man's convictions are grounded and

769
settled and when his mind is no longer so receptive of new ideas or strange influences. That is no doubt the case to a certain extent, but I believe the same Conditions might obtain in earlier days. I have been assured by friends who have gone through Trinity College that hot only was there no attempt at interference with their religion, but that they did not find themselves in any way debarred from associating in every manner with the rest of the undergraduates of other denominations. I need hardly point out the great advantage it would be in the future if young men as they grew up would no longer stand arrayed against each other in opposite camps, but would be actuated by feelings of friendship towards those around them, and be able to combine together for any object of public advantage.
I would even go further and say, as my noble friend has done, that I should like to see those who are destined to take holy orders educated together with other undergraduates. I firmly believe, and my old University recollections, although dating from a great many years back, confirm it, that it is a great advantage for a society of somewhat thoughtless young men to be leavened by the inclusion among them of those of a more serious character. I also believe it to be a great advantage to those who intend to take holy orders; that they thereby acquire greater knowledge of the world and a keener insight into the various phases of the thoughts, feelings, and aspirations, of those whose course in fife will be different than they possibly could do if they only associated with students of their own character. I believe all this might be done without any danger to the faith of those who would participate in such education. Indeed, if I thought that it was fraught with danger to any young man, that he would be shaken in the faith in which he has been brought up, I should not advocate united education. But unfortunately this feeling of security is not shared in by the great mass of Roman Catholics in Ireland or rather perhaps I should say, of those to whom they naturally look for guidance. They refuse to accept University education Under those terms and I do not think it is right to force upon people an education of
770
which they conscientiously disapprove, or, what comes to the same thing, to force upon them the alternative of accepting this system of education or going without a University education altogether.
Therefore, my Lords, I certainly am not disposed to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. There are many points that have been raised in discussion in the other House which I trust will be considered in Committee when it comes again before your Lordships' House. There is one great merit, in my idea, in the Bill—that it leaves Trinity College absolutely intact. I think anyone who dispassionately considers the great work that has been done by that venerable institution during three hundred years, the distinguished men who have been educated within its walls, and the high standard it has ever maintained, would think it nothing short of a public calamity if any change were introduced that might impair its efficiency or reduce the value in which its degrees are deservedly held throughout the civilised world. In this respect, therefore, I consider this Bill to be a marked improvement on other schemes that have been brought forward. I can only hope that the educational advantages which it offers will be largely availed of in Ireland, and that they will have the result which must be the result of any system of higher education, of widening the ideas of those who profit by them, of softening asperities of feeling, and of rendering them more ready to combine with others in anything that may advance the interests of their common country.
*LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD: My Lords, with your permission. I shall offer a few remarks upon the Bill which it is proposed to read for the second time. I have taken a deep interest in the question of University education in Ireland, and I have paid special attention to the subject whilst still connected with Irish Government. I am not willing, therefore, to give a silent vote or to abstain from defining my position in regard to this Bill, and expressing my views upon the general question. Happily, it is no longer necessary to state the reason or to demonstrate the necessity for the provision of greater facilities

771
for University education in Ireland. All political parties are in practical agreement on that point, and if in recent years any divergence of opinion has existed upon it, that divergence has been composed by the labours of the two Royal Commissions which have recently considered the subject. We in Ireland have been looking forward with hope to the result of that agreement. Whatever may be the particular measure to be adopted for giving it effect it cannot fail to promote intellectual progress in Ireland and the material prosperity of the country. The Bill before your Lordships proposes to carry that general agreement into effect by a multiplication of Universities in Ireland. It establishes two Universities in addition to the University of Dublin, and I think I am correct in saying that by a natural process of evolution a fourth or even a fifth University may eventually come into existence. This, it is argued, proceeds on the analogy of recent academical developments in England and derives support from the actual state of things which prevailed in the Scottish academical world. This method of dealing with the University question in Ireland was very clearly before the minds of those who considered the question before the present Chief Secretary ever addressed himself to the subject. I can only speak for myself, but I may perhaps be permitted to say that in considering the subject there was complete unanimity of view and absolute identity of purpose between the distinguished men who considered the subject and myself. Speaking, therefore, for myself, I confess that I entertained very serious doubt as to whether those Scottish and English models were suitable for the existing state of things in Ireland. In my humble opinion the success of the Scottish University system depended not so much upon the number of Universities as upon the excellent system of primary and secondary education which exists in Scotland, and upon the co-ordination of that system with the higher teaching of the University. But Ireland is lamentably behindhand both in regard to primary and secondary education, whilst no serious attempt has yet been made to co-ordinate the work of the two classes of school. Even if we were sanguine enough to hope that this most necessary co-ordination of
772
primary and secondary education in Ireland would be taken in hand at once, many years must elapse before the new Universities would be able to derive from the schools the assistance which they would want, before they could themselves bring to bear upon the schools the influence necessary to stimulate them to activity. Passing to the English developments, my opinion was that the analogy between the great commercial centres in England which are the seats of the Universities and the state of things in Ireland is extremely remote. The demand for higher and better technical education in England was, I think, the chief factor which led to the establishment of the newer Universities, but that demand can hardly be said to exist at all in Ireland at the present time. Moreover, the population of the districts served by those new Universities is far in excess of the population of the whole of Ireland, and if regard be has to the resources of the two localities the comparison would be still more adverse. These were some of the material considerations which induced myself and others with whom I worked to think that a scheme of multiple Universities was unsuitable for Ireland, and our conclusions upon that point were confirmed by considerations of academical efficiency and political expediency upon which I should like to touch.
It is known to your Lordships that one of the greatest difficulties we experience in the administration of Ireland is due to the religious dissensions which distract the energies of our population and divide it into hostile camps. We may have been over-sanguine, but we believed that that difficulty was not insuperable. The promise of events in recents years had led to some assuagement of those hereditary animosities, and my own experience as a student in Queen's College convinced me that the association, under proper safeguards, of young men of all religious beliefs would powerfully contribute to advance mutual toleration and comprehension, objects which should be dear to the heart of every patriotic Irishman. We thought that by bringing Irish University colleges within the University of Dublin in accordance with what the Charter of the University and extant legislation show to have been the intentions

773
of its founders and supporters, we should be giving a powerful impetus to the cause of religious and political toleration in Ireland. Still more, we believed that the bringing of the new colleges into association with the older University, with its great teaching and its high traditions, offered the best guarantee for the maintenance of a high standard of academical efficiency of a lay, though reverent spirit in University and collegiate administration and of general repute. I have never heard of any objection from an academical point of view to this plan which did not on examination prove either invalid or susceptible of easy removal. The plan was approved by a majority of the last Commission as the best which could have been adopted. It was received with acquiescence and favour by the entire Roman Catholic hierarchy of Ireland, and by the Roman Catholic laity, by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, by distinguished representatives of the Episcopal Church of Ireland, lay and the clerical, and by some of the prominent supporters of Nonconformity in England. I myself will never cease to regret that the plan, which was not only a measure for the advancement of education in Ireland, but for the mutual reconciliation of contending parties, did not commend itself to the authorities of Trinity College. In my opinion the authorities of Trinity College made the great refusal when they declined to place themselves at the head of this great movement, which was a movement not only for the renaissance of learning in Roman Catholic Ireland, but also a movement which would have lead to the reconciliation of contending parties and to the promotion of prosperity throughout the country.
I have heard it urged as an objection to the Bill before your Lordships, that the new Universities will undersell the University of Dublin and starve it to death. If this be the result the responsibility will rest on the authorities of Trinity College, who have, I believe, sacrificed the best interests of their country and University to what I regard as an outworn prejudice. Should this event come to pass I can only hope that the wise aspirations of the senior Member for the University of Dublin
774
will be borne in mind, and that the opportunity of fusion which was rejected in 1907 may be turned to good account at some future time.
Failing the plan of a national University, I should have been glad to have seen another plan adopted in the place of this Bill. I should have liked to have seen a new college situated in Dublin included in the Dublin University in accordance with existing legislation on the point, and the colleges united into a revived University with charters and constitutions somewhat similar to those in the Bill. But as the Government deemed the support of Trinity College necessary to any Bill which could pass through Parliament, and as Trinity College would only give its support on condition of "Hands off Trinity," I admit that the Bill now before your Lordships is as good as any that could be accepted from that unholy alliance.
I am, therefore, not disposed to subject this Bill to any meticulous criticism. I accept it as a whole, but with one reservation. Wherever and whenever in Ireland in recent times the cry of University reform has been raised, that cry always contemplated the creation of not merely teaching but also residential colleges. It is, therefore, to me and to all Irishmen a source of extreme regret to find that the colleges which are now presented to us are to be mere collections of classrooms and laboratories. It has been said in the course of these discussions that the modern idea of a University excludes all that association of students and all those amenities of college life upon which every University man's memory loves to linger. If that be the case, I must only regard this modern idea of a University as a Bæetian; I think I heard from the noble Earl on the front bench that it comes from Sheffield. At all events, I wish to quote to you, in comparison with that idea, the following passage from a great and revered master, the late Cardinal Newman—
"If I had to choose between a so-called University which dispensed with residence and tutorial superintendence, giving its degrees to any person who passed an examination in a wide range of subjects, and a University which had no professors or examinations at all but merely brought a number of young men together

775
for three or four years, if I must determine which of the two courses was the more successful in training, moulding, enlarging the mind, which sent out men the more fitted for their secular duties, which produced better public men of the world, men whose names would descend to posterity, I have no hesitation in giving the preference to a University which did nothing."
My Lords, I commend that extract to your consideration. The subject is not one of detail. It is one of principle, and I think that the Government will not launch this great undertaking in a manner suitable and in accordance with the wishes of the Irish people unless some further grant is made for the purpose of establishing residential colleges. I would also suggest that by this means, by establishing residential colleges, you will bring about that result which so many speakers have desired, the bringing of young students from Maynooth to attend lectures at the University. If it be impossible to obtain a further grant from the Treasury, I would submit to you that there is one place in Dublin which could be utilised for the purpose of the Dublin College. It is a place and a site around which many memories, inspiring memories, of Irish life linger. In ancient Celtic tradition it was a place of learning and of saintliness; in mediæval times, of Norman prowess, of the doings of the Knights Templars and Knights Hospitalers, and later on down the centuries from Tudor times to present days the name of the hospital at Kilmainham frequently occurs in Irish annals. If the Treasury are unable to find the money, let them make over that Institution to the new college, and in that way throw some lustre upon, and attach some dignity to, this new creation.
*THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, we have listened with the greatest interest to Lord MacDonnell's speech, but there is one remark I wish to make arising out of it. The noble Lord said that the scheme which we in Ireland know as Mr. Bryce's scheme would have brought about the mutual conciliation of contending parties and that practically the contending party was Trinity College. To that statement of the noble Lord I agree. Then he went on to say that as it was a case of "Hands off Trinity," we had to accept the present Bill.
776
I agree, and what I want to say-to your Lordships to-night is that I, for my part, accept the Bill, because Trinity College is not in any way to be interfered with. Then as to the remarks from the noble Earl who introduced the Bill into this House. The noble Earl said that there was haste in the matter and that it was bad to allow the matter to simmer too long. That was followed by a remark from the noble Marquess who leads us on this side of the House to the effect that it might be an Irish stew that was simmering. Then the noble Earl, in dealing with the Bill, went on to say that it was like a caravan that was marching through the desert with the dry bones of the different preceding schemes lying on each side. Well, I only hope that the dry bones will not prove to be the dry bones of the Irish stew. I assure your Lordships that we are not going to allow this matter to become dry bones; we have the Bill and we are going to work together to try and make it a success. I think it is right that we should congratulate the Chief Secretary that at last he has succeeded in bringing in, and passing, a measure of education, and that that education is to apply to Ireland. But there can be no doubt, no matter what has been said about it; that this is a denominational measure, because the charters and their working must result in there being a denominational University with a college in Dublin. I do not quite understand how the Nonconformist conscience has been got over in this matter. The other day I was speaking to a Nonconformist minister and he said to me—
"Well, in this matter we consider Ireland to be quite outside the range of our thoughts; in regard to education we have put aside the question of Ireland altogether."
It comes, therefore, to this, that in this matter Nonconformists consider Ireland to be absolutely a separate entity.
No doubt the Bill will pass the Second Reading to-night and we shall follow the Leader of the House of Commons in this matter. At this point I must unhesitatingly congratulate the Chief Secretary on having got all parties and all creeds in Ireland to agree on this measure and I am sure the Bill, within its limitations, will be a success. As to its defects,

777
there is first and foremost the fact that this University of Dublin is not residential. That, to the minds of those of us in the south of Ireland, is one of the most important things. The Royal University is swept away, and I noticed that the Chief Secretary, in dealing with this matter on Saturday last, mentioned that Lord Castletown, the present Chancellor of the Royal University, helped him in every way to annihilate himself and to annihilate the University! The University was solely an examining body, and another had been put in its place with the difference that the new University in Dublin is to teach as well as to examine.
As regards the non-residential factor in this Bill, it is a question whether parents will be willing to send their sons to lodgings in Dublin. It will also have this effect, that there will be no kind of discipline. There is a college but no college life, and there are no college friendships formed— friendships of long endurance. Then as to the buildings, which buildings I know very well, and which were the old Exhibition buildings of 1868, I have no hesitation in saying that there is plenty of room in the grounds that exist there for the building of, at all events, a small residential college. A small one would be a commencement. I do not think there is any great hurry in this matter, and small beginnings make great ends, whilst I am sure that there are many who would be willing to help materially out of their own pockets to build a residential college and to meet the Government in the matter. Maynooth would, no doubt be affiliated, and in regard to that I should like to draw attention to a most remarkable passage in the evidence given before the Robertson Commission by Dr. O'Dyer, the Bishop of Limerick, who strongly advocated a residential University. Remembering the criticism that has been poured on this measure by Dr. O'Dyer, it is interesting to note what he said. His words were—
"We are, in Dublin, within very easy distance of Maynooth, which is our great ecclesiastical college, so that if we had a central institution in Dublin we might hope in a very short time to have in it a very large number of students. I should not be at all surprised if our numbers were well over 1,000, or, perhaps, 2,000 students in a very short time, and then we
778
should have really an immense institution in the country. Then, again, we think it ought to be a residential institution. Trinity College is residential and, while we do not think that residence or attending University lectures ought to be an absolute condition of getting University degrees, yet we think that there ought to be an opportunity for an adequate number of our students getting the education of a residential University, because we believe that residence, by itself, and the mixing of students with one another, and with the fellows and their teachers, has a great educational effect upon them. It is particularly desirable therefore that we should get a residential institution in Dublin, and we consider that it would be rather unfair and unequal treatment to have Trinity College here, in Dublin, for the Episcopal Protestants who can reside there, and to have our Catholic young men without any home knocking about in the lodging-houses of the town."
I think that is a very remarkable statement, and one with which many of your Lordships will agree. It would be of incalculable benefit to young men who will be our future priests, and who will take care of the Roman Catholics throughout Ireland, to go up to Dublin for a short time and live in a college away from Maynooth, mixing with the other collegians in their work and in their games.
The noble Earl who leads the House knows Maynooth very well, and I should like, I hope without hurting the feelings of any Roman Catholic, to mention a little incident which occurred. We had a meeting of the Archæological Society of my county at Maynooth and were addressed by Dr. Brown, now a bishop in the South of Ireland, on the antiquities in the neighbourhood, and then we were shown over the place; going into the library I asked the assistant librarian: "How do you teach history, and have you got a History of England in the library?" He replied: "No; history is taught by the lecturer." That shows, therefore, that history is taught not from the books that one would find in any ordinary library but by the lecturer whose ideas about history are communicated to the young men who have charge more or less of the population of Ireland. Then with regard to the finances of this Bill: there were some figures dealt with by the noble Earl about which I was not quite clear—the mention of a sum of £46,555 out of the present endowment. I do not quite understand what that means.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: That is the sum total of the additional grant, as compared with the present grants paid to the various Queen's Colleges. It is the difference which comes from the Treasury.
*THE EARL OF MAYO: That is satisfactory. Then there is the £20,000 per annum. That is a fairly generous gift, and I should have thought there would have been enough money to build a residential college. It must be remembered that that £20,000 is part of the monies acquired by the disestablishment of the Irish Church and it is to be divided between Dublin and Belfast. That is all very well, but it is Irish money. In Dublin there is to be a Roman Catholic atmosphere and in the other a Presbyterian atmosphere. The Chief Secretary said on the First Reading of the Bill in another place—
"Where Ireland would be, or where should I be, without this Church fund, I dare not think; it is indeed a horn of plenty."
I am a member of the Irish Church, and I like to have it recalled to my mind that the horn of plenty is being used for a Roman Catholic University in Dublin, and a Presbyterian one in Belfast. It is an interesting fact that has now become almost a historical fact. I make these remarks not in any carping spirit whatsoever. I welcome the measure in every possible way, and say that this Bill has every reason for passing both Houses. We shall all, I think, try to make it a success, and I, with many others, will watch with the greatest interest the progress made by our latest University, and I feel it will depend almost entirely, talking of Dublin, on the way the Roman Catholic hierarchy and the Roman Catholic laity work together for the good of this great—I think it will be a great—University. We may criticise details, but one great principle remains: the Roman Catholic population have as much right to a college with an atmosphere of Roman Catholicism as we have to help to hold Trinity College.
*LORD KILLANIN: My noble friend Lord Macdonnell is, as far as I know, the only Catholic Member of the House who has as yet spoken, and I think, therefore, that possibly it is only right
780
that some Member from this side of the House who is a Catholic should, however inadequately, endeavour to put before your Lordships some of the views which many of us Catholics hold in connection with this question. I can say myself, honestly, that in so far as I have taken any part in political life either in Ireland or in this country in another place, this question of Irish University education for the Catholic people of Ireland has always deeply interested me, and it has for many years seemed to me to be far and away the most important question in connection with Irish matters. Also, my Lords, the reality of the grievance under that heading, and the urgent and ever growing necessity for dealing with that grievance, has always received, whether in public or in private, whether in sympathetic or in unsympathetic company, my unwavering support. And in later years, inasmuch as I am a Senator of the Royal University, which University is to be dissolved under this Bill, and inasmuch as I am also a Commissioner of National Education in Ireland, it has also more or less teen my duty to give some attention to the state of affairs in connection with this matter, and to the consequences arising therefrom. Accordingly, I should like, with your kind indulgence, to endeavour this evening to give expression to some of the views which I hold on this question, and some of the considerations which influence me in connection with this matter, and also I should like, on this important occasion in the history of Ireland, to give expression for my part, to the great pleasure and the great hopefulness with which I see at last this question apparently about to reach a satisfactory solution. In the first place, and I think it only right, I should like to add my humble tribute of sincere admiration for the courage and perseverance, the tact and patience, to say nothing of course of his well-known abilities and eloquence, which the Chief Secretary for Ireland has shown in tackling this most difficult problem, which had baulked so many great men before him. For my part, I warmly admire the bold, and even chivalrous, determination with

781
which the Chief Secretary for Ireland has insisted upon finding a solution to this problem, and with which he has insisted furthermore in carrying that solution to a successful issue, and that in spite of great difficulties and great and threatening dangers and risks, both to himself personally and to the Party to which he belongs. When I have said that, I think that even he, the triumphant hero in this matter, will generously agree with me that, although nothing can deprive him of the credit of having settled this question, or of the victory, the rough and difficult way which I admit he has trodden to the goal had been, to a large extent, smoothed and paved by the earnest and the powerful advocacy which Mr. Balfour has now for twenty years given to the furtherance of this question. When I recall to mind the many speeches which Mr. Balfour delivered on this question in another place, specially the famous speech delivered nineteen years ago, at Partick in Glasgow, when I recall further a passionate speech of his in response to a hostile deputation of his own constituents that waited on him in Manchester, I cannot but feel that, although Mr. Balfour was denied the satisfaction of adding the settlement of this question to the many other remedial measures which he passed for the benefit of Ireland, the eventual settlement of that question owes a great deal to, and was largely facilitated by, his powerful advocacy and loyalty on this subject. But, my Lords, when I think of that advocacy, when I recall to mind the many eloquent speeches which he delivered on this question, when I recall to mind what I might almost call his pathetic appeals to his own Party to let him, their leader, and above all, their chosen leader in Irish matters, deal with this question, it is painful to me to think of how he was obstructed and successfully prevented from dealing with this question by the intolerance and the selfishness of a small section of his own Party. Many of us in Ireland felt that very much, because we considered that this was one of those Irish grievances that stood out from others as a just complaint of the Irish people which this Parliament, as long as it is responsible for Irish affairs, was bound
782
to listen to and bound to remedy. We considered furthermore that the duty of settling that question devolved especially on that Party in the State whose principal maxim and pledge was, in reference to Irish affairs, that the Imperial Parliament was willing and capable of dealing with any real Irish grievance, which is to my mind the only possible position for any feasible Unionist policy in Ireland. It is, if we come to think of it, but a continuance of that policy known as justice to Ireland which even O'Connell advocated many years ago as an alternative policy to repeal of the Union, and certainly, as far as I am concerned, it is the only Unionist policy that I have ever supported, and the only Unionist policy that I can ever imagine myself supporting. Accordingly, my Lords, it was with dismay, amounting almost to despair, that many of us in Ireland in the later days of Unionist administration saw the weakening of that policy, and saw a great and just complaint of the Irish people such as this shelved and put on one side and actually contemned, and Mr. Balfour beaten in his own Party and in his own Cabinet, on this puestion. Many of us in Ireland winced under what we felt was a true indictment, namely, that the treatment of this question by the official Unionist Party had furnished an unanswerable argument in favour of Home Rule, and had struck a heavier blow at the Union than it had ever received before. However, fortunately sometimes, even in this world, things turn out better than anyone expects, and now, the carrying of this great, measure of justice for the people of Ireland, carried in the Imperial Parliament, in a Protestant Parliament, in what I might call, to make use of a much abused word, a denominational Parliament, with the assistance and co-operation of both the great Parties in the State, is to my mind a redemption and an eloquent exemplification of what I have said must be a fundamental and essential pledge and maxim of any possible Unionist policy in Ireland, namely, that Irishmen can look to the Imperial Parliament for the removal of any real Irish grievance.
The question then arises: Is this a real Irish grievance and has the settlement of

783
this question been urgent? I do not want, to go into the whole history of this question, especially at this late hour of the night, but I think, in order to understand somewhat the genesis and the growth of the demand of the Catholic people in connection with this matter, it is necessary to take a brief glance at Irish history. It is necessary, however shortly, to look to past times in Ireland, when the Catholic people, who were the majority of the people, had all their property confiscated, their churches and their schools destroyed or taken from them, when education was a crime, and their whole social and political position was ruined and destroyed, and when the people lived as serfs or banished from their own country. We see them then living on for generations, and for centuries, without churches, without schools, without property, without education, but still true to and steadfastly holding by the faith of their fathers, in spite of every worldly temptation and inducement to do otherwise. I do not wish to dwell on that part of Anglo-Irish history. I am only too glad to turn my back upon that dark passage of history, but if I do so, I do so on one condition, and that is that we remember that we have left the Catholic Irish people very poor and very uneducated and without any opportunity of being in any other position. But when we turn from that period, and come down to pleasanter times in the history of Ireland, we see down through the decades of the last century the Catholics being gradually emancipated, gradually given means of education, gradually being enfranchised and allowed to take some part in the government of their own country. And as we come to the last decades of the last century what is the position? We then find that, so to speak, a new class has grown up in Ireland, a new generation. They are the same people, but they hold a different position. There is a great body of Catholic people whom this House and Parliament emancipated, whom this House enfranchised, into whose hands Parliament has given all local and political power in Ireland, and in whose hands rests, for good or for bad, absolutely, the future destinies of Ireland, When that is the position, when you have that class in Ireland holding that great
784
position, that great power, and those great responsibilities, it has always passed my comprehension how anyone could hesitate to give them every possible facility far education and refuse to give the democracy, which is going to rule in Ireland as elsewhere, every opportunity of taking an enlightened and broad-minded view of its own powers and responsibilities. My Lords, it is for the purpose of meeting the needs of that new class, of that new generation who are so powerful in Ireland, that a Bill like this has been brought into Parliament. It is for the purpose of meeting the needs of those classes that for the last forty years the Catholics of Ireland have been asking Parliament to assist them in making arrangements for the higher education of the Catholic people of Ireland, and it is on account of that situation that almost every statesman, as the noble Earl the Leader of the House has pointed out, during the last forty years, who has had any connection whatever with the Government of Ireland, has borne testimony to the necessity of settling this question. Those gentlemen have for the most part, my Lords, been Englishmen. They have been Protestants, and their natural prejudices would not have inclined them to take this view. There are such well-known instances as the noble Viscount who sits on the Front Opposition Bench, Lord St. Aldwyn, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, who was for so many years Chief Secretary for Ireland; Viscount Morley, also Chief Secretary; and such statesmen and well-known politicians in connection with Ireland as Mr. Lecky, Sir Edward Carson, Lord Cadogan, and Mr. Wyndham. Also, as has been pointed out, two Royal Commissions composed of the greatest educational experts that could be discovered in these islands, Scotsmen and Englishmen, for the most part Protestants, have also borne testimony to the necessity of settling this question, and the tragedy of the situation is that we should be only now settling it when it is almost too late. I say it is almost too late because, although it is impossible to exaggerate the injury that has already been done in Ireland by the neglect of this question, the whole of the higher and nobler life of three-quarters of the population of Ireland has been thwarted and stunted during that period.

785
A bitterness has been created in the Catholic class in Ireland that did not exist and need not have existed. All the influences of higher education and culture, which do so much for the general good of the community in innumerable ways, have been almost entirely absent during all this period as far as the great body of the Irish people are concerned, and it is because this state of affairs, even though late, is going, I believe, to be remedied, that I have no hesitation in welcoming this Bill.
I believe that under this Bill you will be founded a great national popular University, reflecting public opinion and therefore able to guide public opinion, reflecting popular aspirations and therefore able to guide popular aspirations, reflecting the popular opinions and tastes of the Irish people, and therefore able to guide them. It is for these reasons that I, although like other Members of this House, I do not consider this in all respects an ideal measure. I welcome it. I welcome it as, to my mind, the best under all the circumstances. I welcome it as a practical solution of a practical question, and I say that it should not be judged on rigid principles or on abstract theories or ideals. The case of Ireland is always a concrete, practical one, and to my mind many of the mistakes that are made in the government of Ireland arise from the fact that questions are treated on theoretical lines. Ireland fits in with no theory or ideal or principle that was ever heard of. Its people are too varied, its history has been too checkered, and its Governments are too fickle, and therefore in this matter, as in every other Irish matter, all we should ask for and all we should look for is the best under all the extremely contrary Hibernian circumstances. Although, I welcome this Bill as a practical solution of a practical question, there are, of course, in it some blemishes which I regret to see. I think it is a thousand pities that the Chief Secretary has not been able to make some provision for residential quarters. That fact will disappoint the people of Ireland. They are unanimous on that subject. It will temper, I fear, the enthusiasm and gratitude that this Bill is going to arouse in Ireland, and it will create jealousies of other Universities, and to my mind
786
it will prevent this measure having finality. When I think of how far the Chief Secretary for Ireland has gone, of how successful he has been in carrying this measure so far, I think it is a pity that he should not even now meet the wishes of the Irish people on this subject.
I shall not detain you any farther at this hour of the night by going into many other points, which I could easily do, that have been raised, such as whether the University is denominational or not. To my mind it is not denominational in any proper sense of the word. There are no tests, there are no barriers, there are no means, of excluding anyone, it will not be denominational and only Catholic; because the people of Ireland are Catholic, and if all the people of Ireland went to bed to-night Catholics but woke up tomorrow morning Mahomedans, with turbans on their heads, this Bill could be sent over to Ireland without a single change in its constitution, and it would suit the Mahomedans of Ireland just as well.
I shall not detain your Lordships further, but conclude by again expressing my sincere pleasure and my great hopefulness in connection with the settlement of this question. I consider that the settlement is in the first place a noble work in the cause of the education of the people of a country. I do not see how you could do a greater work. When, furthermore, I consider the difficulties of the situation, I think it is an act of the highest statesmanship. I also look upon it as a great measure of justice, of conciliation, and of reparation to the people of Ireland. This Bill removes the last disability from which the Catholic people of Ireland suffered and which through so many centuries and generations handicapped them so hopelessly in the struggle of life, and late as this measure of relief and justice has come to Ireland, I, nevertheless, think now that it has come that there should be recognised and seen in this settlement of this question a generosity of spirit, a toleration, a liberality of thought, and a friendliness of disposition on the part of the people of England and of Scotland which deserve and ought to receive the grateful appreciation of the people of

787
Ireland. For my part, my Lords, I earnestly trust and pray that this crowning act of conciliation to the Catholic subjects of His Majesty in Ireland may do much to increase that peace, that mutual confidence, and that mutual good-will which we should all desire to see existing and growing between the people of these two islands that God and nature have put so close together.
*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: In view of the late hour of the evening, I am unwilling to detain your Lordships for long, but I am also unwilling to give an entirely silent vote in supporting the Bill which is now before us. I am sure it will be admitted by the noble Lord opposite, who, I believe, is to wind up the debate on the part of the Government that whatever criticisms have been made from this side of the House have been friendly criticisms. They have not been criticisms attacking the Bill with the object of destroying it, but have been rather criticisms expressing dissatisfaction that the scheme which is at present before us is not complete enough in certain respects. I do not think that can be said of the criticisms in the speech of the noble Lord opposite, the late Under-Secretary for Ireland. His criticisms I do not think I describe unfairly when I say that they attacked the structure set up by the measure now before your Lordships far more than did the criticisms levelled from this side of the House, and I confess that if I had been blindfolded and had heard the speech without knowing who was delivering it, I should not have been very surprised to hear it finish with a Motion for the rejection of the Bill. I think it will be interesting for the future historian—it is not our business to do so to-night in view of our ignorance of all the facts of the case—to puzzle out how it is, in view of the contrary views which the noble Lord holds, that the Bill is in its present shape. And here, my Lords, I want to disagree a little with the speech of the noble Lord and the noble Lord who introduced the Bill as to some of the history that has been put before your Lordships. The noble Earl, the Leader of the House, gave us a most complete resume of the efforts to supply a University education which
788
would be satisfactory to the wants of our Roman Catholic fellow citizens in Ireland, but I noticed he passed by very lightly what is known familiarly as Mr. Bryce's scheme, whereas on the other hand, the noble Lord opposite devoted the most part of his remarks to pointing out its excellencies. The noble Lord assured us that practically that scheme was received in Ireland with open arms. I did not quite catch, but I think he suggested, that it was so received by the Anglican Church of Ireland.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD: Distinguished members of the Church of Ireland.
*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation. My Lords, I am a loyal member of the Church of Ireland, and I desire, to remain at all times loyal to its most distinguished men, but I think I can promise the noble Lord that if it had ever been suggested in our synod that we should have approved of Mr. Bryce's scheme, some of my friends in Ireland could have given the proposer of that measure a very lively time. The scheme was undoubtedly received by some people at first acquaintance, with favour, because we were all disposed to receive any attempt to deal with this long delayed question with favour, but on examination I do not think there were many people in Ireland in favour of the scheme, and I am certain there is nobody in favour of it now outside the immediate circle of its authors. It was very soon after its creation damned with extremely faint praise, and surely a justification and a final proof of that fact lies in the fact that it forms no part of the present scheme. I want, if I may—I think I can do it accurately—to amplify a little some of the history which has been put before us this evening. The noble Lord opposite had a great deal to talk about, and, therefore, I am sure it was only an accidental omission on his part, but I think he showed a tendency to attribute the failure of adoption of Mr. Bryce's proposals solely to the attitude of Trinity College. I do not think that is a fair reflection

789
to put upon Trinity College. I do not think it is fair to argue that this scheme is only brought forward because the Opposition of Trinity College made Mr. Bryce's scheme impossible.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I certainly did not mean to say that, although I may have seemed to imply that that was the only cause, but it undoubtedly was a ruling consideration.
*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I quite agree that the opposition of Trinity College was a cause, and an important cause, but it was not the sole cause, and I do not think it was even the most important cause, which, I think, lies in the fact that the scheme would have been absolutely unworkable in practice, in view of the invariable practice of the Roman Catholic Church in dealing with educational matters, because, word it as you like, the Bryce scheme would have set up a system of mixed education, a system of education which Protestants and Roman Catholics were to be asked to share together, a system of education that we Protestants, many of us, approve of, but a system that hardly any Roman Catholic can be found to advocate. I take that from the action of the Roman Catholic bishops. They in times past could have had systems of mixed education on several occasions. Trinity College did their best, by offering them the provision of a divinity school, to bring the Roman Catholics into Trinity College on absolutely equal terms with their Anglican fellow-subjects. The Roman Catholic bishops did not like the proposal. I do not blame them for that. It was a subject on which they, and they alone, were qualified to judge as to whether they would accept it or not. Whether you look at the system of elementary education in Ireland or in England, whether you look at the treatment of the negotiations of Trinity College on this matter, it has been made perfectly clear that the Roman Catholic hierarchy will not countenance any system of mixed education, whether it be, as I say, elementary education or higher education. I do not grumble at this, because they are the
790
proper people to make up their minds on that subject. But I believe that that state of things, which exists to-day just as strongly as ever, would have made the working, although it would not have prevented the passing, of any scheme founded on Mr. Bryce's proposals absolutely impossible. That, my Lords, is all I desire to say beyond this. I have ventured to say several times before that I live in Ireland every day when I am not in London for Parliamentary purposes, and I realise to the full, that, whereas I have had the advantage of a University education, I am surrounded by neighbours in many walks of life who tell me, not in a spirit of complaint, but in a spirit of regret, that they have never had the advantage of a University education, and have never had the opportunity of receiving a University training, the advantages of which they all recognise. My noble friend who has just sat down spoke of the Chief Secretary for Ireland obtaining a victory in bringing the Bill as far as he has brought it. But I think my noble friend was a little sanguine. I do not deny the great work which the Chief Secretary has done, and I do not as an Irishman deny him the fullest gratitude that we find the present Bill to-day placed Upon our table, but victory, my Lords, is not yet. Victory is only in sight. It is in the working out of the proposals and in the administration which is made possible by the Bill before us this evening, that we can hope, and that we must hope, to attain to victory, if victory is to be attained, and I as an Irishman cannot be any less sincere than any who have spoken in saying that I sincerely hope that victory may come to us, and that victory may come to us rapidly, as the result of the passing of this Bill.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think the Government are to be congratulated on the reception which has been accorded to this Bill in your Lordships' House. There has been criticism, but it has been criticism of the fairest and most temperate description; and I do not think I misinterpret the feelings of noble Lords who sit behind me when I say that it is their desire that this Bill

791
should pass into law, and that without too much delay. We are led to this predisposition in favour of the Bill by various causes. In the first place, I think I am right in saying that in the minds of most of us there is a feeling of great weariness in connection with this subject of University education in Ireland; and that were it only for somewhat ignoble motives of that kind, we should be glad to see the question disposed of.
But apart from motives of that kind, there is a higher motive which points in the same direction. I think most of us feel that it is little short of a calamity not only to the people of Ireland, but to the whole United Kingdom—I will go further and say the whole British Empire—that the Roman Catholics of Ireland, who number a large majority of the people of that country, should during all these years have found themselves unable to avail themselves, at any rate to anything like a sufficient extent, of any of the opportunities which we have been able to afford them for the purpose of acquiring what we usually speak of as higher education. Therefore, most of us are, I think, ready to welcome a settlement of this difficult question without inquiring too scrupulously into the conditions attaching to it. The spirit in which this problem is now approached is much more tolerant than that which prevailed within the recollection of many of us, and there is a general inclination to adapt our theories to the convictions of other people rather than to force the convictions of other people to fit themselves to our theories.
Speaking for myself, I may say frankly that I am deeply convinced, in the first place, that it is highly desirable that this question should be settled; and that, in the next place, it is no manner of use to offer to the people of Ireland a settlement which they are not willing themselves freely and readily to accept. That leads me to two conclusions. In the first place, in regard to Trinity College, Dublin, that we should be extremely careful not to impose upon that distinguished and illustrious body any combination which it is not prepared to accept. When we come to the question of the manner in which we ought to deal with the Roman Catholics of
792
Ireland, then I say do not let us be so foolish as to assume to ourselves credit for generosity when we offer to the Roman Catholics conditions which we know perfectly well the Roman Catholics will not accept or will not be allowed by their advisers to accept.
Holding these views, I share the feeling of my noble friend, Lord Clonbrock, when I find that, in the first place, the Bill leaves Trinity College, Dublin, severely alone. Next I come to the terms which the Bill offers to the Roman Catholics. What are those terms? We offer them a University which is to be something more than a mere examining University. It is a University which, we hope, will have some—I wish I could say all—of the attributes of what we in this country associate with a teaching University. But, at any rate, we hope it will offer the students who resort to it some of those opportunities for contact with their fellow-students and for association in the life and studies of the University, which play so large a part in the Universities of other parts of the United Kingdom. We hope that this new University will have a local colour and produce something which can be described as "local patriotism." I was struck by a statement of the Chief Secretary in the course of the debates which we have followed with so much attention lately, in which he said that, in his view, it was essential that Dublin men or Belfast men should really be Dublin men or Belfast men. I hope that is an object of which we shall not lose sight.
Now what are the conditions under which we are going to offer this University to the Roman Catholics in Ireland? There has been a great deal of playing upon words in connection with this subject. Is it, or is it not, going to be a denominational University? Is it going to be a Roman Catholic University or a University for Roman Catholics? I confess I am not very much moved by these verbal distinctions. What seems to be important is that we are going to establish a University which, from the force of circumstances, must inevitably be a Roman Catholic University. I do not see why we should for an instant be ashamed or reluctant to face that fact.

793
If this scheme stands any chance of being accepted by the Roman Catholics of Ireland it is for the very reason that the scheme in its operation will give the Roman Catholics that kind of University which they desire—a University with a strong Roman Catholic atmosphere, guided, and in fact dominated by the Roman Catholic Church. That fact—and I believe it to be a fact, weighs with me much more than the fact that in the Bill upon the Table tests are specifically excluded. We have learnt, at any rate, this much from these discussions, that the absence of tests is perfectly compatible with the presence of a distinct denominational atmosphere, and that is a point which, I daresay, many of us will bear in mind when we come to consider other educational controversies which are not yet concluded. In this case the whole machinery of the the new University is so constituted that it cannot fail to have eventually a distinctly denominational complexion, and the Roman Catholic hierarchy make no secret of the fact that it is on this account that the scheme finds favour in their eyes. We may say that all this is very retrograde, that other Universities are emancipating themselves from these influences; we may say that these things are injurious to the highest interests of education, but I confess I look upon the matter in this light and in this light only—are these conditions or are they not the only conditions upon which you can obtain a settlement which will be acceptable to our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens in Ireland? I take it that that is a matter which is beyond dispute, and His Majesty's Government have left us in no doubt that that is a condition sine qua non in the understanding which has been arrived at between them and the representatives of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland.
But, my Lords, I am afraid I must go on to say that the desire of His Majesty's Government to render this scheme acceptable to the Roman Catholic hierarchy has led them at one or two points to make a somewhat serious departure from what I conceive to be the principles which they had in view, when the scheme of this Bill was first formulated. I desire, in the first place, to refer to those
794
provisions of the Bill which have reference to the recognition of other colleges—that recognition which the noble Earl who leads the House frankly told us was simply another expression for what we commonly describe as affiliation. If your Lordships will look at the fourth section you will find no doubt that it bristles with safeguards as to the manner in which this right of affiliation is to be exercised. The noble Earl told us that the right was carefully safeguarded, and it is quite true that we are told that affiliation can only take place when the Senate are satisfied that students are pursuing a course of a University type—a course approved by the governing body of the University, conducted under teachers recognised by the governing body for the purpose, and subject to conditions or limitations contained in the Charter.
All these safeguards are, I venture to say, safeguards of the very thinnest description. What I think will take place under this clause—and I do not think there can be the slightest doubt about it—is that Maynooth will come in, will be recognised, will be affiliated, and it is perfectly well understood that this is to be the case. If that takes place, then at once the condition of residence in the new University disappears entirely, because we know that the authorities of Maynooth are not content to accept any conditions necessitating residence on the part of their students. What it will come to will be this, that the Dublin degree will become not a Dublin degree, but a Maynooth degree, and that the Dublin man will turn out to be a Dublin man in name, but in fact a student of Maynooth. That seems to me to be a very serious departure from the principles upon which this Bill professes to be founded.
The result, cannot fail to be this, that the influence of Maynooth will swamp the new University and that, to use a very apt expression which fell from a friend of mine who was describing this clause the other day—
"The centre of academic gravity will tend to shift from Dublin to Maynooth."
What I confess somewhat puzzles me is this. Why was it, when you screwed

795
up your courage to the point of contemplating the admission of Maynooth, that you could not screw up your courage a little further and allow the Roman Catholic students of the new University to have a chapel of their own? I understand that a chapel might have been provided at the expense of munificent donors, who were ready to come forward. The proposal providing such a chapel was accepted by the Chief Secretary, and then at the last moment, owing to influences which I need not particularise, the clause was dropped out. I confess that seems to me to have been a very deplorable exhibition of weakness on the part of His Majesty's Government, and I hope attention will be called to the matter when we come to the Committee stage. I am inclined myself to go further still and to say that, if you have made up your minds that there is to be in Dublin a University which is to be a University for Roman Catholics, you might just as well have provided them, not only with opportunities for divine worship in a suitable chapel, but with some kind of opportunities for residence in buildings, call them hostels or what you please, which would have prevented these young men from being scattered over the city of Dublin without that protection of which youths of that age stand so much in need when they are pursuing their University studies. I therefore say that I regard these proposals of affiliation with the utmost suspicion.
On the merits I should have been disposed to support a proposal for diminishing the facilities for such affiliations, but I noted the words of the noble Earl opposite when he told us that in his opinion any attempt to diminish these facilities would have been fatal to the reception of the Bill in Ireland. That is a very serious statement. I take it as meaning nothing less than that if this House were to insert in the Bill clauses which would prevent an operation of this kind from taking place, the Bill, which the Roman Catholic hierarchy are now prepared to accept as a settlement of the question, would not be accepted by them as such a settlement. If that is so—and I do not think that I misunderstood what the noble Earl said— much as I dislike the possibilities which
796
this clause unfolds, I will not take the responsibility of suggesting that it should be materially modified in Committee.
But, although that is my feeling, I cannot help thinking that the clause at other points stands in need of further examination. I cannot, for example, see why this process of affiliation should be rendered as easy as it is under this Bill. I cannot see why it should be in the power of the Senate of the University by simply a resolution to effect a great operation of this kind. I should have thought that the proper machinery to set in motion would be that of statute, and that such statutes should be laid on the Table of the Houses of Parliament, and that there should be an appeal to the Privy Council for any persons who took exception to the terms proposed.
There is one other point at which the provisions of the Bill seem to me to be open to considerable criticism. I refer to the composition of the governing bodies, and particularly the governing bodies of the constituent colleges. These governing bodies contain a very liberal representation of what has been spoken of as the civic element. Now, my Lords, the civic element apparently means the representation of the Irish county councils, and I confess that I have the gravest doubt, knowing what we do of the manner in which these local Irish bodies approach their duties, whether it is desirable that they should have so important a part in managing the affairs of these new Universities. We who have some knowledge of Ireland know perfectly well that these local bodies are conducted on extreme political and partisan lines, and we know that in the case of the most ordinary appointments which fall within the patronage of these bodies regard is had not so much to the fitness of the individual competitors as to their political connection and antecedents; and to my mind it seems altogether wrong that people actuated by feelings of this kind should be given an opportunity of using an influence which may be in some cases a preponderating one in the conduct of the affairs of the Universities, and in the appointment of professors and other

797
officials who will be responsible for their management.
I will not detain your Lordships longer. I am deeply convinced that whatever this Bill may be in theory, the fruit of it will be, so far as Dublin is concerned, a University which will be for all practical purposes a denominational University, and I believe it is because that is to be the result that the Bill has been accepted as it has been by those concerned. I am under the impression that His Majesty's Government were in this position—that they had to agree to a Bill of this kind or else leave matters untouched, and I frankly confess, if that was the choice put before them, I can quite understand that they should have preferred to propose the Bill which lies upon the Table of your Lordships' House. I trust that it may do much good in Ireland, that it will bring some, at all events, of the advantages of higher education within the reach of a large section of the population to whom those advantages have hitherto been denied, and I also trust, therein sharing the feelings of some noble Lords who have spoken from this side of the House, that in a future which may, perhaps, be distant, but to which we nevertheless may look forward, this Bill may lay the foundation for a more liberally conceived arrangement, which may bring within the reach of the Roman Catholic population of Ireland University life and the opportunities of higher education in a manner more closely analogous to what we understand by those words in this country and in Scotland. At any rate, if I criticise this Bill, I do so in no unfriendly spirit, but with a sincere hope that the most favourable anticipations which have been indulged in with regard to it by noble Lords opposite may eventually be realised
*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE POR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE): My Lords, the Government certainly have no right to complain of the manner in which their effort to deal with the long standing question of Irish University Education has been received by the House. Least of all have we to complain of anything which fell from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ashbourne, earlier in the evening
798
in his able and interesting speech, or from my noble friend who has just summed up the debate for those who sit behind him. Indeed, the only real criticism of the principle which underlies this Bill has come from our own side of the House in the interesting speech, to which we all listened with the deep attention it deserved, of my noble friend who sits behind me (Lord Macdonnell). In the few observations which I shall address to your Lordships I may have a few words to say with regard to that speech. Dealing for the moment with the speeches of noble Lords opposite, I observe, in the first place, that a very large portion of the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ashbourne, was taken up, quite legitimately, with matters no doubt of importance but nevertheless matters more properly discussed in Committee. Some of these points were dwelt on a few moments ago by my noble friend. First of all there is the question whether the affiliation of these new colleges, to which it is proposed to give a certain position in the University in regard to their students, had better be done, as is proposed in the Bill, by resolution of the Senate, or whether it would be better to do it by a statute. There is a kindred point as to whether, so long as the University Commission is in being, the recognition of the student courses in such colleges, and, indirectly, of the colleges themselves, might not, as the noble Lord seemed himself to prefer, be entrusted to the University Commission. And there is, lastly, the point, upon which both my noble friend who spoke a a moment ago, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ashbourne, dwelt, as to whether or not the civic element, as it has come to be called, should be accorded so large a representation as is accorded to it in the government of the new University and of the constituent colleges. I do not understand that it is disputed that it would be desirable to give some representation to the civic element, but what is disputed is whether we may not have gone too far. I venture to say that all those points, important as they are, are points which are more properly raised in Committee.
I think the answer with regard to the Question of affiliation, as a matter of principle and not of detail, was given by my noble friend when he introduced the

799
Bill. I am not going to conceal—it would be idle to do so, because these facts are publicly known—that the concession which the Government have made to the views of the Roman Catholic body upon the question of affiliation has gone far to strain the allegiance of some of our most sterling supporters in both Houses of Parliament. On the other hand, it is the undoubted fact that we were desirous to lay broad and deep the foundations of an edifice to which time, no doubt, might make some additions, but which in principle would not be altered, and the desirability of which would not be called in question; and we came to the conclusion that unless we made this concession to our Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen we should have laboured in vain.
I cannot help saying, in connection with this matter—it was not in the speeches either of Lord Ashbourne or of my noble friend, but in some of the more pronounced speeches elsewhere—that bitter, and, as I think, unjust, taunts have been levelled at the Nonconformist Members of the Liberal Party on account of what has been, as I think, cruelly and unjustly called their hypocrisy, because while they had accepted this concession with regard to the affiliation of Maynooth, for that is what the clause in practice will mean, they at the same time objected to the provision of a University chapel. Both of these are matters which, with perfect consistency, in England, Scotland and Ireland, the Nonconformist body has opposed; and it seems to me to be a curious and unjust thing that when the great body of Nonconformists have accepted the larger concession which was asked of them with regard to the Roman Catholic position, they should be charged with political hypocrisy because they did not make the other concession—that is to say, that when they have made the major concession in regard to the affiliation of the colleges, they should be charged with hypocrisy because they did not make the minor. That is absurd, unjust, and illogical, and even although some appearance of contradictory conduct may be alleged, the world is not governed in these matters by the strict application of logic, and what I believe will be recognised—and recognised outside Nonconformist and Liberal circles—is this, that at a critical moment in the history of Uni-
800
versity education in Ireland the great majority of Nonconformists did come forward and did accept a position most distasteful to them in order to satisfy their Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen. If anyone likes to amuse himself by charging Nonconformists and the Nonconformist conscience, at which it is so easy to sneer, with hypocrisy in this matter, I make him with pleasure a present of their merriment. But I venture to say that in this matter the Nonconformists have shown, not only generosity, but the highest statesmanship. If anybody desires to see the Nonconformist position in this matter stated with great clearness, moderation, good feeling, and ability, let him read the letter in the Westminster Gazette of to-night by one of their most trusted leaders, Mr. John Massie, who is so honourably known in the life of the University of Oxford.
We have heard a good deal about the poverty of this Bill in that it does not provide a residential college in the University of Dublin. Far be it from me to say that a residential college in that University might not be a very desirable thing in many ways, but, after all, there must be some limit, especially at starting, in regard to matters of expenditure, and I unhesitatingly say that to set up a residential college in a proper and substantial manner—and it would have been no use to do so unless we did it in a proper and substantial manner—would have added something like £100,000 to the cost of the Bill. Therefore, I say that upon grounds of economy alone we were not in a position to make that great addition to the schedule of expenses. I think the evils caused by the absence of a residential college have been a little exaggerated. It is quite possible to have collegiate life and to have social and athletic clubs and associations in a college which is not a residential college. I was, until the other day, for many years a member of the Council of University College, London—that great building in Gower Street, with the existence of which I find many people in London are not at all acquainted; and I can only say that in that college, which was not, and, I believe, never will be, a residential college, there is most active social life amongst the students, and they have all the athletic, scientific, and

801
artistic clubs and associations which are to be found in any college at Oxford or Cambridge. Therefore, while I think it would have been a desirable thing, if our means had permitted it, to have had a residential college, I do not at all despair of there growing up in the new University at Dublin, nearly, all those movements which are so desirable in the encouragement of good feeling amongst the students themselves.
The noble Lord opposite, Lord Killanin, to whom we listened with great interest and attention, dwelt upon the early history of this question. He showed the House, with unanswerable force, that this is an ancient question, and I have no intention, especially at this late hour of the evening, of following him over the ground, interesting as it is, which he attempted to open up. I took part many years ago in the great debates on the University Bill on which Mr. Gladstone's first Government fell. Those debates, if referred to now, will be found to be mines of information as to the historical origin of this question. Nobody—not even those, and I was one of them, who disagreed with my own party and opposed the Government Bill—would deny for a moment that the speech which Mr. Gladstone made on that occasion, not only in its great eloquence, but also in its historic learning on this great question, was one of the most remarkable monuments of his genius. We are undoubtedly in this matter the inheritors of the difficulties of a remote past. The University question began really as soon as the occupation of Ireland in the reign of Henry II.; but, if we are the inheritors of the difficulties of a remote past, I think it would be ungracious of us if we did not recognise that we are also in recent years the inheritors of the goodwill and of the previous labours of our immediate predecessors.
I agree with my noble friend to whom I have just alluded, that it would be ungracious if we did not recognise that in some of the provisions of this Bill we were anticipated by Mr. Balfour. I make that acknowledgment with perfect sincerity. Those very parts of the Bill upon which we had to make the strongest demand upon the loyalty of our Radical and Nonconformist friends are precisely those parts of the question upon which Mr. Balfour laboured for
802
many years to convert the public. I do not deny that some portions of this Bill, which I support, may not be consistent with some of my own speeches, but, as Emerson says—
"Too great a belief in consistency is the virtue of weak minds."
There are moments when you have to accept unwelcome facts. You have to bear in mind that compromise is the very elixir of political life, and, therefore, it is that, though I am willing to grant that I very largely share on this question, as I always have shared, the views of my Nonconformist friends, I am not ashamed to say that, for the sake of peace, in order that this long chapter may be closed, I am willing to stand and defend things which are not absolutely consistent with what would be my own personal and individual views in the matter. If a man is not prepared to do that upon given occasions, I think he is not fit to take any part in public life at all.
But this much I do venture to say, that there is one essential difference between this Bill, even with its undoubted concessions to denominationalism, covered as these concessions are by the abolition of tests and the prohibition of rules, and other demands in regard to religious belief, and the Bill in regard to which it was the misfortune of very many active Liberals—Professor Fawcett, Dr. Lyon Playfair, Mr. Harcourt, and many others whom I could name, who since those days held high office in Liberal Governments—to differ from Mr. Gladstone in 1873. There were two great objections to Mr. Gladstone's Bill, which were urged in the House of Commons and which destroyed that Bill. The first was one which, perhaps, was in importance rather exaggerated but it seized hold of the public mind and struck the public imagination. There was a prohibition in the Bill against the University teaching either history or mental or moral philosophy. Nor was the prospect improved when somebody discovered that this prohibition was borrowed from a clause in a charter to a Spanish University in the darkest days of Jesuit supremacy in Spain in the early eighteenth century. That however was, comparatively speaking, a matter of detail perhaps, though it caused a great amount of excitement; but the other and really vital point was this, that Mr. Gladstone's

803
Bill would have made one University in Ireland just as in Napoleonic times there was one University only in France. We objected to that, in the first place because we thought it would be bad for University life on educational grounds that there should only be one central University, as in France was still the case at that time, in 1873. I may remind the House that since the days of those debates the whole University system of France has been entirely altered, the great central University having been largely broken up and the old provincial Universities restored.
But there was another reason. Religious and political passion at that time, as my noble friend observed just now, were running higher than at the present day. I never recollect a time when the air throbbed with religious and political passion more strongly than in that great debate which caused the fall of Mr. Gladstone's first Government. It was argued, with almost unanswerable force, that the affiliation clauses relating to new colleges in Mr. Gladstone's Bill within a time easily calculable would so have packed the senate of the only University in Ireland with delegates of small Roman Catholic colleges that the whole control of University education would have passed into the hands of the archbishops and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, and a document had been published which told the Prime Minister of 1866, Lord Russell, that the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland demanded, and would be contented with nothing less than, the absolute control of all the professors, of all the books, and of all the students, and we accordingly feared even risking to give them under such circumstances an absolute monopoly of power in a not distant future.
There was, in the speech of Lord Donoughmore, almost a challenge as to whether we had any reason to suppose that this Bill would be received in the spirit in which it was intended. That is a perfectly reasonable question to ask. I am quite aware that that criticism has been made, though it has been made, oddly enough, more abroad than here. Naturally, in the position which I hold in connection with foreign affairs, I have to be a student of foreign newspapers, and I have observed this criticism. It has also been made in one or two quarters in England. The
804
Liberal Government are told that they are making this experiment, which depends so largely upon the goodwill and support of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Ireland, at a singularly unfortunate moment, because the authorities of the Church of Rome have selected this moment to plunge into a great controversy which has embittered University life all over Europe, known as the Modernist controversy. I am not alarmed by that. I think that we may I not unreasonably hope from what we see that, so far from the Roman Catholic hierarchy being dragged at the heels of an unprogressive clement of their communion on the Continent, it may work out the other way, and that when the Roman Catholic Church sees the desire of this Protestant nation to do justice and to march with the times, the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church generally in Europe may be influenced thereby, and become in the whole assimilated to what I know is her position in America to University education, where practically none of these difficulties about the class of books which students are to read exist at all.
I may be over-hopeful, but there are signs in Ireland that the old passions are dying down with regard to education. There is, I think, a real and genuine wish for conciliation. It is realised that this question must be settled; that, as my noble friend said just now, it has gone on too long; and that the credit of Parliament is involved in a settlement. In the great debate to which I just now alluded, when political passion ran so high, there was one speech which caused an immense effect, and it did so because it struck a rather different note from all the others. It was a speech made by one who afterwards became a distinguished statesman and held high office, by a man who was one of the greatest living scientists in England, and a distinguished University professor, and himself at that time a representative of a Scottish University—I allude to Dr. Lyon Playfair. In a speech which can be perused even to-day with advantage, he asked the House not to look at this question simply and solely as, a political and religious question, but to think of nothing except the educational needs of Ireland. He said—
"I have endeavoured to look upon Ireland as part of this Kingdom not split into sections

805
by religious differences, but inhabited by our fellow-countrymen, who hare a right to all the advantages which the State can give them in regard to higher education. I have remembered the circumstances of the country, which render it more important that Ireland should enjoy these advantages without stint or hindrance than either England or Scotland. Ireland has had many obstacles to progress, some political, others material. She possesses hardly any of those great raw materials of industry, which give such advantage to other divisions of our country. She has to import the chief part of her coal from England and Scotland, and that is the mainspring of all industries. With small natural resources, except those for agriculture, it is above all things essential that the intellectual resources of Ireland should supplement her deficiency in natural resources. As civilisation progresses science and knowledge, applied to production, become more important factors than the mere possession of raw materials.
"Not only then as regards industrial development but also to increase the fund of intelligence among the youth of Ireland, so as to give them outlets for employment which the restricted industry of their country does not afford … a case is made out for a juster development of the new system."
My Lords, it is for that reason that the Government have brought forward this Bill, in the earnest hope that by it they may abolish and clear away the gloomy distrust bred of the fanatical intolerance in past days of Catholics and Protestants, and as has been well said by a modern author "may restore to Ireland the consoling vision of widening education and disappearing hates."
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
House adjourned at five minutes before Twelve o'clock, till to-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.