Sitting of 28 July 1908

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Holderness Water Bill, London United Tramways Bill, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways (No. 2) Bill, Sligo and Arigna Railway Bill.—Lords Amendments, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 23rd July, considered, and agreed to.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill.—As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cornwall, etc.) Bill [Lords].—Read a second time, and committed.
Commons Regulation (Towyn Trewan) Provisional Order Bill.—Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Crystal Palace Company Bill [Lords].—Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time.
River Wandle Protection Bill [Lords].—Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill to be read the third time.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to, Tobacco Growing (Scotland) Bill, Wild Birds Bill, without Amendment.
Public Offices Sites (Extension) Bill, London County Council (General Powers) Bill, Gosport Gas Bill, Central Ireland Electric Power Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to Honourable Artillery Company Bill [Lords], Leith Burgh Bill [Lords], London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
Amendments to Ravensthorpe Urban District Council Bill [Lords], with an Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to Confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Edinburgh and District Water." [Edinburgh and District Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].
Edinburgh and District Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].—Read the first time; and ordered (under Section 9 of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 344.]

PETITIONS.
  HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, ETC., BILL.
  Petition from Lewisham, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Gillingham; and Rochester (two); to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Cambusnethan; and Ferry-Port-on-Craig; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LOSS OF LIFE AT SEA.
  Copy presented, of Return showing the lives lost by Wreck, Drowning, or other Accident in British sea-going Merchant Ships registered in the United Kingdom during the years 1891 to 1907, inclusive [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  LOCAL TAXATION ACCOUNT, 1907–8.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 22nd July; Mr. Masterman];

  1169
  to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 263.]

  LOCAL TAXATION LICENCES, ETC., 1907–8.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 22nd July; Mr. Masterman]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 264.]
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Commissioners for the period from 1st April, 1907, to 31st March, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Annual Report of the Local Government Board for Ireland, for the year ended 31st March, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUEZ CANAL (COMMERCIAL, No. 5, 1908).
  Copy presented, of Returns of Shipping and Tonnage passing through the Suez Canal, 1905, 1906, and 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 22nd July; Sir Frederick Banbury]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 265.]

  PACIFIC CABLE ACT, 1901.
  Account presented, showing the Money issued from the Consolidated Fund under the provisions of the Pacific Cable Act, 1901, and of the Money received, expended, and borrowed, and Securities created under the said Act, to the 31st March, 1908, together with a Copy of the Report of the Chairman of the Pacific

  District.

  Total Number of Offences.

  Cases of Drunkenness.

  Minor Offences not Drunkenness.

  Serious Offences.

  Newry

  Bessbrook

  Camlough, exclusive of Bessbrook

  Mullaghan and Tullyhaggy

  —(Mr. Sloan.)

  Cable Board [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 266.]

  DEATHS FROM STARVATION OR ACCELERATED BY PRIVATION (LONDON).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 19th February; Mr. Talbot]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 267.]

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.
  Order [23rd June] for an Address for a Return relative thereto, read and discharged; and, instead thereof:—
  Address for "Return of the names of every Member returned to serve in the Twenty-seventh Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland appointed to meet 3rd December, 1900, and dissolved 8th January, 1906, specifying the names of the county, city, university, or place for which each Member was returned (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 365, of Session 1901)."—(Sir William Bull.)

  OFFENCES IN COUNTY ARMAGH (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "showing the number of convictions for indictable and non-indictable Offences committed in the following districts in Ireland in the three years ending the 30th day of April 1906, 1907, and 1908, repectively: (1) the town of Newry; (2) the village of Bessbrook; (3) the electoral division of Camlough, excluding Bessbrook, and (4) the electoral division of Mullaghan and Tullyhaggy, in the following form:—
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Addition to Phœnix Park.
  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. Secretary Haldane.) 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 unclimable 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 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.

  Matchem and Company and the Fair Wages Clause.
  MR. W. THORNE: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that a firm of contractors named Matcham and Company are doing work at the Plymouth Post Office, and are only paying the bricklayers' labourers 4d. and 4½d. per hour instead of the recognised standard rate, viz., 5d.; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter.
  1172
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) I have made careful inquiries, and find there is no foundation for the allegation in the Question.

  Sub-letting of Messrs. Lester & Perkin's Contract.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the firm of Lester and Perkins, who have the contract for fitting up the steamship "Rohilla" for conveying troops to India, have sub-let a part of the work to Mr. G. Peacock, of Wandsworth Road, and that he is paying from 2½d. to 3½d. per hour less than the standard rate to his workmen; whether this work was sub-let with his sanction and approval; and whether he will take steps to enforce the terms of the Fair Wages Clause in connection with this sub-contract.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The work referred to was such as could scarcely be considered as involving a sub-letting of a portion of the contract, but the matter has been inquired into, and my information is that the rate paid to the workmen works out in excess of the standard rate accepted as current in the district.

  Cost of Living in Welsh Provincial Towns
  MR. REES: To ask the Postmaster-General what are the respective units and cost of living at Welshpool, Newtown, Montgomery, Llanidloes, Lllanfyllin, and Machynlleth; and whether their classification is the same as that of other towns in Welsh counties.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The information asked for as regards Welshpool, Newtown, and Machynlleth, so far as it is available, will be found on Pages 62, 64, and 65 of the Parliamentary Paper, Post Office (Changes in Wages, etc.), issued on the 11th instant. Montgomery, Llanidloes, and Llanfyllin are sub-offices, and their classification has not yet been definitely decided. The principles governing the new classification are explained on Pages 54 et seq. of the Parliamentary Paper referred to, and the list on Pages 57 to 65 of the same paper contains the classification of all head offices throughout the kingdom.

  Sunday Duty in the Post Office.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the Post Office Department obliges post office assistants to work on Sunday without remuneration; and, if so, when will the practice be discontinued and these officials placed on the same footing as those in other grades of the service.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Assistants are not required to undertake Sunday duty without remuneration. Such duty is taken into account in fixing the weekly wages.

  Promotion in the Customs—Mr. Clarke's Change.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Mr. C. Clarke, employed in the Statistical Office, Customs, was informed by Treasury letter, dated 4th June, 1907, that no application for his exceptional promotion would be considered until he had withdrawn certain charges which he had made; what was the date on which Mr. Clarke formally withdrew his charges, and how long after that date was he nominated for exceptional promotion; whether Mr. Clarke was induced to send in his withdrawal by promises made to him by his superior officers that if he took that course his name would be submitted for nomination for exceptional promotion; what was the nature of the charges made by Mr. Clarke and against whom were they directed; whether he is aware that Mr. Clarke has been unable to take up the superior post to which he has been nominated owing to the refusal of the Civil Service Commissioners to grant him the necessary certificate, and will he say how many times have they refused and on what grounds; whether it is intended to continue to present Mr. Clarke to the Commissioners until he succeeds in obtaining their certificate; to what class of officers in the Statistical Office does Mr. Clarke belong; is it the practice to select a number of specially meritorious men in that class for the discharge of superior duties, such as checking, for which certain monetary allowances are granted, and have all previous promotions from the class to superior appointments been made exclusively from the
  1174
  ranks of these selected men; and whether, in view of the distrust in the system of selection for promotion shared by all classes in the Statistical Office, he will cause an independent investigation to be made into the circumstances of the nomination of Mr. Clarke for promotion over the heads of officers who are his seniors and of whom a number are specially entrusted with duties recognised by grants of monetary allowances as being officially superior to those performed by Mr. Clarke.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The officer referred to is one of 121 assistant clerks who signed a Memorial addressed to the Treasury in which an unfounded allegation of breach of faith as regards promotion was made against His Majesty's Government. It is not the case that an intimation was made to this officer individually as is suggested, but a general reply was sent to the memorialists to the effect stated in the Question. Mr. Clarke withdrew his signature to the Memorial on 13th September last, but it is not true that he was induced to do so on any promise whatever. He was nominated for the position of port clerk on 3rd December following, and has been examined twice by the Civil Service Commissioners, but on both occasions has failed to qualify. It is the ordinary practice of the Civil Service Commissioners to allow two trials and it is not proposed to allow him a third. The monetary (i.e., checking) allowances in the Statistical Office are assigned in strict order of seniority to those assistant clerks who are certified to be efficient and of good character, but the possession of a checking allowance does not imply that the holder is of such exceptional merit as will justify the Board in recommending him for promotion to a superior appointment. No clerk with an allowance was qualified for such advancement when Mr. Clarke was nominated.

  Colonial Audit Branch.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that the old system of recruiting the Colonial Audit Branch by nomination without any actual educational test examination has now broken

  1175
  down, he will explain why Volunteers for that branch were not heretofore called for, except in one or two cases, from amongst the trained auditors of the main establishment of the Exchequer and Audit Department.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether two chief examiners and a senior clerk in the Exchequer and Audit Department now serving in London, who owe their present superior position to the fact that they were members of the Old Colonial Audit Branch, are liable to further periods of service abroad, and, if so, will he explain why the Comptroller and Auditor-General has recently threatened to bring outsiders into the Department if Volunteers are not forthcoming for foreign service.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) These Questions relate to matters that, under Section 9 of 29 and 30 Vict., c. 39, are entirely within the discretion and authority of the Comptroller and Auditor General, and I have no power of interference.

  Education Problem.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether under Article 14 of the Code of Regulations for public elementary schools in England, the phrase—The number of scholars under the instruction of any one teacher—means the number of scholars on the class register who may be under the instruction of one teacher, or the number ordinarily present under instruction; and, if the latter, is this regarded as in effect a material enlargement of the average attendance for which under Article 12 a teacher is counted as sufficient.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The number of scholars under this instruction of any one teacher means in this article the greatest number of scholars actually taught by that teacher at any one time. Article 12 supplies, subject to Article 10, a subordinate test of the sufficiency of the staff of a school or department as a whole. It is obviously necessary, in view of the difference in size of the
  1176
  various classes in a school, that some elasticity should be allowed in the number of children who may be taught by each individual teacher. Article 14 lays down the limits of that elasticity, and inasmuch as it imposes a limit upon the size of each class it is not an extension but a curtailment of the latitude allowed by Article 12, which is applicable only to the staff of the school as a whole.

  Dismissal of Married Teachers at Aberdare.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the President of the Board of Education if His Majesty's inspector of schools for the district has reported concerning the dismissal of several teachers at Aberdare who are married women, some of whom are nearing the pensionable age, and will, therefore, be unable to complete the maximum service entitling to a pension; whether he has been informed that some of the vacancies thus created are to be filled by the appointment of teachers who are related to a member of the Aberdare Education Committee; and if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I have not received a Report upon this Question; but, in view of Section 35 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, it is within the power of a local education authority to terminate the engagements of teachers in their employment, and the Act gives the Board no power to intervene. I have no information as to the last part of the Question.

  College-Trained Teachers in Elementary Schools.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the President of the Board of Education if he can state for what reason the Board of Education have abandoned the footnote to Article 10 in the Code of 1906, indicating that, after July, 1909, the Board may require the employment of a certain proportion of college-trained teachers upon the staff of the public elementary schools; and whether, in view of the number of qualified teachers unable to get appointments and the number of unqualified teachers at present employed, the Board will take steps to

  1177
  re-issue this notice, and to announce some definite provision to secure the reform indicated.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The withdrawal of the footnote was due mainly to the fact that a deputation from the National Union of Teachers represented to my predecessor that the new provision would, in their view, inflict grave hardship on a large number of their colleagues unless all teachers certificated prior to 1908 were to be regarded as "trained," irrespective of whether or not they had in fact "completed a course of training in a training college."

  Coastguard and the Naval Manœuvres.
  MR. GRETTON: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what number of coastguards was mobilised for the Fleet during the recent manœuvres; if all the coastguard stations on the coasts of Great Britain and Ireland were fully manned at war strength during the manœuvres; and, if not, in what part of the coast was there a deficiency.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) 1,300 coastguard men were embarked for manœuvres, being about half the number that would embark in war time. The war complement of the coastguard was maintained complete during the manœuvres, the men embarking for manœuvres being taken only from those stations that would be vacated in war time.

  Independent Order of Foresters—Funds in Toronto.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what amount of funds, if any, the Independent Order of Foresters, whose head office is at Toronto, has deposited with his Board as security for their liabilities in this country; and if he will take steps to prevent the withdrawal of such deposit from this country, lest, in the event of any of their member proceeding against them for a recovery of premiums paid, they should have no realisable assets here.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Independent Older of Foresters (Toronto) in November, 1892, made the deposit of
  1178
  £20,000 with the Postmaster-General of the Supreme Court of Judicature, as required by Section 3 of the Life Assurance Companies Act, 1870. This deposit was withdrawn on 29th December, 1904, pursuant to an Order of Court dated 5th December, 1904. Under the provisions of Section 35 (1) of the Companies Act, 1907, this company is required to file with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies the names and addresses of some one or more persons resident in the United Kingdom authorised to accept on behalf of the company service of process.

  Tullaghan Evicted Tenant.
  MR. F. MEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether an application has been received by the Estates Commissioners from Michael Felly, of Cragh, Tullaghan, County Leitrim, for reinstatement in the farm from which he has been evicted on the Folliott estate; and, if so, what steps, if any, they purpose taking to have him reinstated.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners proposed to allot Michael Feely, a holding on the estate of Miss Dickson, but they now find that they cannot acquire this land compulsorily. The applicant's name has been retained on the Commissioners' list, and it is intended to provide him with a farm if the Commissioners should acquire any untenanted land in the neighbourhood.

  Naval Court Martial.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will say what is the number and percentage of the men composing the crews of the Altantic, Channel, Home (Nore Division), and Mediterranean Fleets respectively, who, during the past twelve months have been tried by court martial for offences against discipline.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The number of men tried by court martial n the various fleets is given in a quarterly Return, a copy of the latest issue of which I have sent to the hon. Member It is not clear from the Question on what

  1179
  basis the hon. Member desires the percentage calculation to be made, but on any basis they would involve an amount of labour out of proportion to any advantage which it would seem could be gained from the result.

  Creech Grange Post Office.
  MR. O'GRADY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the postmistress in charge of the Creech Grange Office near Ware-ham, has to work excessive hours, week days 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., Sundays 7 a.m. to 12 noon, without relief, unless she pays for help out of her own stipend; whether he is aware that such stipend is £24 a year, out of which she has also to provide lamp, oil, coal, and blotting paper for use in the office; if so, will steps be taken to staff and equip this office as the need requires, and to see that adequate wages are paid such staff.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The circumstances are approximately as stated, and, although the attendances are not quite so arduous as they may appear, I am inquiring into the question of reducing them. The remuneration will probably be somewhat increased as soon as the new scale of pay is brought in force. The sub-postmistress is remunerated on the usual basis applicable to small post offices maintained in connection with a private business, and of course she does not depend for her livelihood on her emoluments from Post Office work. The amount of business transacted falls far below the standard which would justify me in maintaining and staffing a salaried post office.

  Sligo Post Office—Night Duties.
  MR. McHUGH: To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that in Sligo Post Office officers who perform a considerable amount of night duty, from 1.45 a.m. to 9 a.m., are required to return on overtime, on Mondays, from 2.30 p.m. to 4 p.m.; is he aware that for a considerable time past, even when the overtime attendance in this office was abnormal, the officers performing the night attendance were exempted from this overtime; and will he give instructions that this practice will be again introduced, or that a suffi-
  1180
  cient period for rest be given to officers on completion of their duty at 9 a.m.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I regret there should be any necessity for working overtime at Sligo, but it arises from the difficulty experienced at this time of the year, more especially in the North of Ireland, in providing substitutes for officers absent on leave. In the case of the particular officers in question the duty commences at 3.45 a.m., 1.45 a.m. on Mondays only, so that they enjoy an interval for rest of eleven and three-quarter hours after 4 p.m. No better alternative is feasible. The duties will be restored to their usual limits as soon as possible.

  Thames Steamers and the Conveyance of the Mails.
  MR. CARR-GOMM: To ask the Postmaster-General whether any attempt was made by the Post Office to utilise the London County Council Steamboat Service for the purpose of the conveyance of mails, in accordance with Clause 36 of the Thames River Steamboat Service Act, 1904.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The steamboats on the Thames have not been used for the conveyance of mails, as it did not at any time appear that an improvement in the service could have been affected by their use.

  Small Pox among Post Office Employees.
  MR. LUPTON: To ask the Postmaster-General what was the number of cases of small, pox and the number of deaths, if any, from small-pox among the employees of the Post Office in each of the ten years ending with 1907.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton. The following statement gives the number of cases in each year:—

  1898

  no cases.

  1899

  one case.

  1900

  no cases.

  1901

  three cases.

  These three were years of epedemic.

  1902

  sixteen cases.

  1903

  six cases.

  1904

  four cases.

  1905

  two cases.

  1906

  no cases.

  1907

  no cases.

  There were three deaths in 1902, and none in any of the other years. The approximate number of persons to whom this Return applies was 82,000 in 1898, rising to 132,000 in 1907.

  Shetland Cable Breakdown.
  MR. PIRIE: To ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been drawn to the renewed breakdown of the Shetland cable between Aberdeen and Lerwick which ceased working over a week ago; if he is aware that this cable was laid down by a private company over forty years ago; and whether, seeing that these constant breakdowns are inflicting losses on the herring-fishing industry in the North of Scotland, the business transactions of which are necessarily largely carried on through cablegrams and which is at its height at the present moment, he will see to the immediate repair of this cable, and also take steps to provide him with a little delay as possible for a new cable with a larger number of wires than the existing one.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) My attention has been drawn to this unfortunate occurrence. The cable was laid by the Post Office twenty-three years ago. A ship has been sent to repair the cable, and in the meantime I am glad to say that my engineers have been able to arrange for more rapid working on the remaining cable. The question of laying a new cable or of establishing a wireless service is under consideration.

  Bristol Post Office.
  MR. HOWELL DAVIES: To ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to a notice posted on the new Post Office works at Bristol by the contractors to the Government, stating that any workman inquiring of another workman engaged on the works if he belonged to a trade organisation would be subject to summary dismissal; and whether he will ask the contractors to so modify their notice to their workmen as to bring it within the spirit of the fair wage and condition clause which they, the contractors, signed before receiving the contract.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) The hon. Member will find my Answer to a
  1182
  similar Question yesterday to the Postmaster-General which is circulated with Votes this morning.

  Willesden Education Committee.
  MR. MACPHERSON: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that Willesden Education Committee have introduced an area scheme against the wishes of the parents, and also a scheme which imposes hardships upon the scholars, as, under the said scheme, children are being removed from the schools in which they have received all their education, and are being sent to other schools, in some instances further from their homes; and will steps be taken to see that the scheme is vetoed and the wishes of the parents recognised.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) It is understood that the Willesden Local Education Authority desire to assign a particular area to each of their council schools and to confine or give a preference in admission to each school to the children resident in that area. The arguments advanced by the local education authority in support of this arrangement are by no means trivial, and the Board agree with them in thinking that it offers substantial advantages from the point of view of organisation and would, on the whole and in the long run, be quite as convenient to the parents as to the local education authority. On general grounds, therefore, the Board are reluctant to interfere with the discretion of the local education authority. On the other hand, the introduction of such an arrangement may give rise to personal grievances in some cases, and although the local education authority are willing to make large exceptions to their rules and to allow the elder children (and the younger of the same family as elder children) to continue in attendance at the schools which they now attend, it is possible that still further provision should be made to meet the views of parents who object to their children's removal to a new school. The whole question is receiving careful consideration.

  Certified Training Colleges.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: To ask the President of the Board of

  1183
  Education whether he will state the names of the training colleges which fulfil the conditions set forth in Sections 7 (g), 7 (h), and 8 of the Training College Regulations, 1908; and also the names of those colleges which are known as certified training colleges, under Chapter 11 of the same Regulations.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I will send the hon. Member a list of the training colleges recognised by the Board. As I have already stated, the Board have no reason to believe that any of those colleges fail to comply with the Regulations. No occasion has yet arisen for certifying a training college as efficient but not as recognised for grants.

  Sheep Dipping in North Wales.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the objections of farmers in North Wales to the double dipping of sheep enforced by the recent Sheep-scab Order have been considered; and whether he is in a position to make a statement with reference to any modifications which can be made in the said Order in response to the representations made by those concerned.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The Board are prepared to alter the dates of dipping provided by the Sheep-dipping Order to meet, so far as it is possible, local convenience; but, in view of the prevalence of sheep-scab in North Wales, they are unable to relax the requirement for two dippings until a very considerable diminution in the amount of disease has been effected.

  Small Holdings Act—Tonbridge Eviction Case.
  MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been directed to the case of Mr. David Nicholls, against whom an eviction warrant was made by a bench of magistrates sitting at Tonbridge on the 20th instant, upon the application
  1184
  of Nicholls' landlord, the reason alleged being that Nicholls has applied for land under the Small Holdings Act; and whether he proposes taking any action in the matter; and, if so, what.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The attention of the President of the Board has been drawn to the case to which my hon. friend refers. It is a matter of very great regret to him that he has no power to take any action in the matter.

  Horse Breeding.
  MR. GRETTON: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, to whom the inspection and approval of stallions and mares in connection with the horse-breeding scheme is to be entrusted; and if any stops have yet been taken to organise the proposal.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The proposals put forward have not been approved, and it would be therefore premature for me to enter into the details of the scheme.

  Scottish Sheriffs and Insurance Company Directorships.
  MR. WATT: To ask the Lord-Advocate if his attention has been called to the fact that sheriffs and sheriffs' substitute in Scotland frequently act as ordinary directors of insurance companies, for which they receive remuneration, and that these companies are often engaged in litigation in the Law Courts, in many cases as defenders against workmen's compensation claims; and if, in future appointments to Sheriffships, he will make it a condition that active work in connection with trade shall not be entered on.
  (Answered by Mr. Thomas Shaw.) My attention has not been called to this, and there is no information to support the suggestion that sheriffs and sheriffs' substitute frequently act as described. The disqualifications and disabilities of sheriffs and sheriffs' substitute are set forth in Section 21 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1907, and to this I cannot

  1185
  doubt that they conform. As to the sheriffs' substitute, they are prohibited from inter alia engaging in "legal banking, or other private practice or business," and this would seem to include the directorships referred to. If any cases were found to exist in which directorships are hold by sheriffs which have produced, or are likely to produce, indirect relations with litigants or a conflict with judicial duty it would be for consideration whether the section mentioned should not be amended. As to future appointments there is, of course, no power to impose conditions not warranted by the law as it stands.

  British Museum Extension.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: To ask the First Commissioner of Works why the building operations for the extension of the British Museum in Montague Place have been suspended for nearly a year, and when they are likely to be renewed.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) The delay has arisen in connection with the settlement of internal details and the preparation of the drawings for the superstructure. It is anticipated that the works will be recommenced early in October.

  Officers on Retired Pay.
  MR. W. NICHOLSON: To ask the Paymaster-General if he can state by what authority a form has been issued to officers on retired pay demanding full particulars of their incomes from all sources, private and official, to be forwarded without delay to the Paymaster-General.
  (Answered by Mr. Causton.) Under the Finance Acts the officers of His Majesty's Paymaster-General are assessors of income-tax and act with regard to the collection of income-tax under the authority of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

  East London and the Pension Scheme.
  MR. FELL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he proposes to make special arrangements to assist the pension officers in the East End of London, where large numbers of
  1186
  claims for pensions from naturalised foreigners are to be expected, and where the double difficulty will arise of proving not only the births of these claimants in foreign countries, but also the dates of their arrival in this country and of their naturalisation.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The arrangements necessary for meeting the requirements of the district referred to will be duly considered at the proper time.

  Dromard Evicted Tenant.
  MR. McHUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners wrote to an evicted tenant named Edward Gillmore, of Brockagh, Dromard, County Sligo, on 17th January last, informing him that he had been noted as a person whom the Commissioners deemed suitable to be provided with a new holding in place of the holding, from which he had been evicted on the estate of Mrs. Ramsay, Ballintogher, County Sligo, and which is occupied by a planter; and can he state what steps have been taken to provide Gillmore with a holding, and with what result.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners wrote the letter of 17th January referred to in the Question, but they have since further considered the matter and have decided to take no action. The applicant lives with his mother on a holding of about twelve acres.

  Knocklong Evicted Tenants.
  MR. LUNDON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will ascertain from the Estates Commissioners whether they have at any time been in communication with Mr. Sanders, of Charleville, County Cork, agent to the Cooper estate in Knocklong, County Limerick, over the reinstatement to their evicted farms of John McGrath and Thomas Barry on the same estate, or are the Estate Commissioners aware that William Hatte, the alleged tenant on the farms of McGrath and Barry, is not even a planter nor a farmer, as he does not reside on the lands but in Blackrock, County Dublin, and has never farmed an acre of land, but has been chief clerk in Mr. Sanders'

  1187
  office, and latterly a partner in the firm; are the Estates Commissioners aware, or can they say, that the farms have been worked by a caretaker; and will the Estates Commissioners resume with Mr. Sanders negotiations for the reinstatement of those tenants.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have inquired into the cases of the evicted tenants in question, and intend to provide holdings for them if possible. The Commissioners have ascertained that the evicted holdings are occupied by Mr. Hatte, who lives at Blackrock, Dublin, and is partner of Mr. Sanders, the agent of the estate. Mr. Hatte has signed an agreement to purchase the holdings. The Commissioners will consider all the circumstances before making an advance to him. The case of the evicted tenants has been placed in the hands of an inspector with the object of procuring their restoration or of providing other holdings for them.

  Land Purchase in County Limerick.
  MR. LUNDON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he ascertain from the Estates Commissioners whether negotiations have been carried on for sale to the tenants on the part of Lord Massey on his Galbally property in the County Limerick, Mr. Lowe and his tenants around Galbally in Lowestown, Earl Dunraven and his tenants around Croom, County Limerick, Mr. Duncan and his tenants around Ballylander, County Limerick and, if the rural tenants have signed the agreements for purchase, will the Estates Commissioners endeavour to effect arrangements for sale and purchase between those several landlords and their town tenants; and will the Estates Commissioners open negotations for sale and purchase as between landlord and town tenants on the estate of Lord Clonmel around Down, the representatives of the Reptons around Cappamore, the Earl of Limerick around Bruff, Mr. Brazier in Kilmallock, and the agent of the Erasmus Smith property in Pallasgrean, all in County Limerick.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Proceedings have been instituted before the Estates Commissioners for the sale of the estates
  1188
  of Lord Massey, Mr. Lowe, the Earl of Clonmel, the Earl of Limerick, and Erasmus Smith, but no proceedings are pending before them in connection with the Earl of Dunraven's Croom property or the estates of Mr. Duncan, Mr. Repton, or Mr. Brazier. The Commissioners will consider any application which may be made to them in reference to any of these estates, but cannot undertake themselves to open negotiations between the landlords and tenants.

  Fermoy Urban Council Meetings.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether the Lord-Lieutenant has yet considered the petition of the urban council of Fermoy respecting their right to hold meetings of the council in the Court-house, conferred by the Fermoy Act of 1808 and renewed by the Towns Improvement Act of 1854, and if this right, exercised and enjoyed for over 100 years, will be confirmed; whether he is aware that, while the memorial of the urban council was under the consideration of the Lord-Lieutenant, Mr. Carroll, Crown Solicitor, who had been duly notified thereof, proceeded to peremptorily demand from the council the surrender of their right, under threat of eviction; if he is cognisant of the fact that Mr. Carroll, who held the position of legal adviser to the urban council, was deprived of that office a month ago by the council acting within their discretion; and whether he will take any steps to restrain the action of the Crown Solicitor in this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The petition referred to is still under the consideration of the Lord-Lieutenant, who will cause a reply to be sent to the Fermoy Urban District Council as soon as possible. As the hon. Member has already been informed, Mr. Carroll, is not acting in the matter as Crown Solicitor, but as the private solicitor of the High Sheriff, in whose custody and control the Courthouse is vested by statute. I am not aware that Mr. Carroll has been deprived of the office of legal adviser to the urban council. The Government cannot restrain Mr. Carroll from acting as solicitor to the High Sheriff.

  Irish Assistant Teachers.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the character of the salary and prospects of promotion of assistant teachers in Irish National Schools, provision will be made in the new grant for giving those teachers greater consideration for their services; what are the proposals of the Government for the future payment of those men; and is it proposed to enable them to enter the second grade.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I would refer the hon. Member to the revised Supplementary Estimate for Public Education, Ireland, which is now before the House.

  Shoeburyness Foreshore.
  ME. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the character of the estate of about 890 acres of foreshore at Shoeburyness, recently purchased by the War Office for £5,500; whether it is part of the Maplin Sands; what is its position; whether, and, if so, to what extent, it is covered at high water; what use, if any, has been made of it by the vendors; and whether the War Office has acquired it in order to acquire the right of firing over it, or for what, if any, other purpose.
  (Answered, by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This estate is part of the Maplin Sands and lies almost three miles north-east of Shoeburyness. It is entirely covered at high water. So far as the War Department is aware, no use of this foreshore was made by the vendors, but the War Department fired over it and have acquired it for the purpose of firing over it.

  Territorial Uniform Contracts.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that uniforms for the Territorial Reserve Forces are being made in the homes of employees in the East End of London, and that some of the contractors are working their employees in their factories seven days per week and whether, in view
  1190
  of the Fair Wages Resolution of this House, it is his intention to take any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I am not aware of the matters alluded to in the Question. The attention of the associations has been drawn to the Fair Wages Clause, but, as I have already informed the hon. Member, it is not practicable to interfere with their discretion.

  Bermuda Engineer Stores.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether any officer has been held responsible for the incompetency in connection with the Bermuda engineer stores; and, if so, what was his name and what notice has been taken of his incompetency.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I must refer my hon. friend to the evidence taken before the Public Accounts Committee which will shortly be in the hands of hon. Members.

  Territorials at Brecon Public Meeting.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a Mr. Thomas Davies, whilst wearing the Territorial uniform, disturbed a public meeting at Brecon on 12th June, 1908, assisted by others also attired in uniform, this meeting being addressed by a Mr. Pattison, of Ruskin College, Oxford, and not by a lady, as the right hon. Gentleman has been informed; whether he is aware that a second meeting held on 16th June, with the Territorials absent, was conducted without any disturbance; whether he is aware that a third meeting was held on 19th June, 1908, and addressed by a Mrs. Keating Hill, of Cardiff, was again interrupted by Territorials led on by Mr. Thomas Davies as before-mentioned, and, although this gentleman was allowed five minutes, during which he addressed the meeting, he afterwards continued to upset the meeting; and what action does he intend to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I have no information regarding the

  1191
  meetings of 12th and 16th June, and I am awaiting a full Report. The meeting of 19th June was dealt with in my previous Answer to the hon. Member, to which I have nothing to add.

  Orissa.
  MR. REES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the operations of keeping up-to-date the record of rights involved in the last resettlement of the temporarily settled districts of Orissa is being conducted without causing any vexatious interference to the parties concerned.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) It is presumed that the Question has reference to the operations set on foot by the Bengal Government for revising, as the first step in the scheme for their annual maintenance, the village records prepared some twelve years ago at the last land revenue settlement of Orissa. According to the latest Reports the operations are proceeding satisfactorily. The local Government has made the procedure as simple and expeditious as possible, and has confined the work to what is absolutely necessary for bringing the records up-to-date. The settlement officer reports that the revision is welcomed by the ryots and the better class of landlords, as it clears up disputes and gives effect to changes which have occurred since the records were first prepared.

  Registration of Titles in Scotland.
  MR. C. E. PRICE: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is now able to state when the Report will be issued of the Royal Commission on the Registration of Titles in Scotland which was appointed on 23rd May, 1906.
  (Answered, by Mr. Sinclair.) I am informed that the Royal Commission hope to conclude the evidence during the ensuing autumn, when they will proceed to consider their Report.

  Rates in the Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland in view of the fact that the chief contributor to the rates in the island of Lewis has failed to meet the demand for payment made on him, and seeing that there is no pros-
  1192
  pect of the difficulty being overcome in the near future, will he state whether the local authority has applied to the Local Government Board for Scotland for guidance and assistance; and, if so, will he state the nature of the advice given by the Board.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I am informed by the Local Government Board that, in reply to communications from the parishes of Barvas, Lochs, and Uig, they telegraphed that the parish councils should take immediate proceedings to recover the outstanding rates.

  Syre Settlers.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the statement contained on page 9 of the last Report of the Congested Districts Board, will he state on what ground settlers in Syre have expressed their desire to become tenants instead of purchasers.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The grounds are financial; but, under the circumstances at Syre, I think the settlers are mistaken in their view.

  Post Office Surveyors—Subsistence Allowances.
  MR. A. ROCHE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the subsistence allowance to surveyors of the Post Office when absent from head-quarters is intended as a source of profit; is he aware that the subsistence allowance of the head surveyor of the Southern District in Ireland, when absent from his head-quarters in Dublin, is not less than 21s. per diem, while his actual expenses do not exceed 50 per cent, of this amount; and, in these circumstances, will he explain why sorting clerks and telegraphists compelled to perform relief duties in country districts are expected to exist on a subsistence of 3s. per diem.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) It is a well-established Treasury principle that subsistence allowance is not intended as a source of profit, but rather as a repayment of necessary additional expenses involved by travelling. Obviously a different scale of expenses is warranted in the case of a high officer such as a surveyor and one occupying the position of a sorting clerk and telegraphist. I have

  1193
  no information as to the sums actually spent by surveyors. Their subsistence allowance is that commonly granted to all officers of similar standing in the Civil Service.

  Revenue Statistics
  MR. BOWLES: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury

  Revenue raised by Taxes, 1907–8.

  (Net Receipt.)

  Revenue raised.

  Temporary Duties.

  By Permanent Enactment.

  By Temporal Enactment.

  Total.

  £

  £

  £

  Customs

  26,355,715

  6,226,279

  32,581,994

  The whole of the 5d. the pound

  4d. per pound on unmanufactured tobacco, with proportionate increases on cigars and manufactured tobacco

  From 1st April to 30th June 1907

  1s. per barrel on beer

  6d. per gallon on spirits

  Excise

  35,104,582

  620,003

  35,724,585

  1s. per barrel on beer

  6d. per gallon on spirits

  Estate, &c., Duties

  19,108,256

  —

  19,108,256

  —

  Stamps

  7,930,584

  —

  7,930,584

  —

  Land Tax

  710,003

  —

  710,003

  —

  House Duty

  1,939,865

  —

  1,939,865

  —

  Income Tax

  —

  31,860,380

  31,860,380

  The whole of the tax, 1s. in the pound on unearned incomes and 9d. in the pound on earned incomes to 5th April 1908.

  91,149,005

  38,706,662

  129,855,667

  whether he can state, for each of the years 1907–8 and 1908–9, as estimated the amount of revenue raised by taxes, distinguishing the revenue raised by permanent enactment from the revenue raised by temporary enactment, with the totals of each.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.)—

  Amount of Revenue estimated to be raised by Taxes in 1908–9.

  Amount of Revenue estimated to be raised.

  Temporary Duties.

  By Permanent Enactment.

  By Temporary Enactment.

  Total.

  £

  £

  £

  Customs

  23,400,000

  5,800,000

  29,200,000

  The whole of the tea duty 5d. the pound.

  Excise

  35,500,000

  —

  35,500,000

  —

  Estate, &c., Duties

  19,500,000

  —

  19,500,000

  —

  Stamps

  8,080,000

  —

  8,080,000

  —

  Land Tax

  700,000

  —

  700,000

  —

  House Duty

  1,900,000

  —

  1,900,000

  —

  Income Tax

  —

  33,000,000

  33,000,000

  The whole of the tax 1s. in the pound on unearned incomes and 9d. in the pound on earned incomes to 5th April, 1909.

  89,080,000

  38,800,000

  127,880,000

  American Cattle.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if, in view of the agitation being fomented on both sides of the Atlantic for the unrestricted importation of American cattle without any quarantine regulations, he will issue a leaflet specifying such diseases as are existent there.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Board do not see their way to adopt my hon. friend's suggestion.

  Scotch Smokeless Coal.
  MR. WATT: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Scotch smokeless coal was used by the Fleet on its last visit to the Forth; if not, will he say what was the freight per ton for bringing
  1196
  the coal used to the Forth; how does the original cost plus this carriage compare with the price of Scotch coal purchased on the spot; and will he use the cheaper coal on future prolonged visits to Scottish waters.
  (Answered, by Mr. McKenna.) Welsh coal was used by the Fleet on its last visit to the Forth. "Scotch smokeless coal" is presumably a trade term, as no Scotch coals which have been tried by the Fleet have proved "smokeless," except when burnt at low powers. The Admiralty after making many trials of all descriptions of coals, have adopted Welsh steam coal as that which, taking into account all considerations, is the best coal for use in His Majesty's ships.

  Naval Paymasters.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether,

  1197
  on a survey of the paymaster's branch of the Navy, together with the few prospective retirements on account of age before 1920, and allowing a reasonable margin for deaths and voluntary retirements, there is reason to believe that the seniority of assistant paymasters will by 1920 have increased to a grave extent, thus arresting the equal and steady flow of pro motion which Mr. Childer's Order in Council of 22nd February, 1870, was designed to promote; and what steps the Board intends to take to improve the prospects of these officers.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The seniority of assistant paymasters on promotion is at the present time under nine years, which is less than it was a few years ago. It will be time enough to consider what steps should be taken when the necessity arises; but it may be remarked that the twelve officers at the top of the list did not obtain their promotion to paymaster's rank under about sixteen years seniority.

  Regent's Canal.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the defective condition of the paling separating a portion of the Regent's Park from the towing-path of the Regent's Canal, permitting an easy access of children from the park on to the towing-path; and whether, in view of the danger incurred by children thus trespassing on the tow-path, he will direct that the paling in question be kept in proper repair.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) The Regent's Canal Company is responsible for the repair of this fence, and this complaint as to its condition will be brought to the notice of the company.

  Income-Tax.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the forms for claiming a reduction of income-tax from the 1s. rate to the 9d. rate in respect of earned income, there is any reference to the need for claiming such reduction before 30th September of the year for which the tax is charged; and, if not, whether he will consider the
  1198
  desirability of having such a reference inserted.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The necessity for claiming the relief granted by the Finance Act, 1907, within the period prescribed by the Act, is clearly indicated on the forms referred to.

  Ballymahon Evicted Tenant.
  MR. J. PHILLIPS: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners will reinstate Gerald Daly, of Ballymahon, county Longford, in a farm from which he was evicted off, the property of W. Molyneux Shouldham, now in the possession of the Commissioners, or about to be purchased by them for the tenants of this estate, and if not, why will they not do so.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The reply is in the negative. The holding in which Gerald Daly claims reinstatement consisted of a house, yard, and out-offices, and was, therefore, not one to which the Land Law Acts applied. The applicant is not eligible for reinstatement under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act of 1903.

  Clonrellick Lands.
  SIR WALTER NUGENT: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the lands of Clonrellick, near Monte, county Westmeath, have been purchased by the Commissioners; and, if so, when they will be in a position to allot the same to intending purchasers.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners are unable to identify the estate referred to, but if furnished with the name of the owner or late owner they will be in a position to answer the Question.

  Claremorris National School.
  MR. CONOR O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will inquire if the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland are aware that in the recent local government elections in Ireland the Claremorris National School, which was built by the people of Claremorris, was placed at the disposal of one

  1199
  of the two parties nominating candidates for the county and district councils, and, as the result of the elections showed, placed at the disposal of the party supported by a minority of the electors; whether the Commissioners are aware that the great majority of the parents of the children attending the Claremorris school voted against the candidates to whom the school-house was lent for electioneering purposes; whether the Commissioners are aware that demonstrations were organised in the school by the supporters of the candidates of the minority, which led to regrettable scenes in the streets of Claremorris, culminating on one occasion in a baton charge which the constabulary were compelled to make in the interests of public order and tranquillity; whether any damage to school furniture, windows, maps, slates, or papers was done during these meetings, and, if so, by whom will the expense of making good the damage be borne; whether the Commissioners of Education will say if it is recognised as an essential principle in the management of Irish national schools that schools should not be made available for ore particular religious or political section in any district for the purpose of antagonising the views of another section in the same district; and whether the Commissioners propose to take any steps to prevent in future the use of school buildings for objects in connection with which differences of opinion exist amongst the parents whose children attend such schools.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that, under their rules, no political meeting can be held in any school-house, nor can any political business whatever be transacted therein, and further that school-houses are not permitted to be used for meetings called to support or discuss the claims of candidates for the office of district or county councillor. The Commissioners have no information that the Claremorris National School-house has been used in contravention of the rules in question, but they have directed inquiries to be made into the matter.

  Rathdowney Disturbance.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the
  1200
  Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the attack made by the police upon the people of Rathdowney on 20th June last; whether he is aware that peaceable inhabitants were assaulted returning from their work, inside their own houses and the houses of their employers, and that amongst those assaulted by the police on the occasion was their own officer. District Inspector Irwin, acting county inspector, who was in coloured clothes; and will he say what steps he proposes taking in connection with this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) As I informed the hon. Member yesterday, a charge of riot is pending against a number of urn in this case, and while the matter is subjudice it is undesirable that I should make any statement as to the details.

  Sir George Colthurst's Estate.
  MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any decision has yet been arrived at by the Estates Commissioners on the claims of the three tenants excluded from the purchase on the estate of Sir George Colthurst, viz., Messrs. Forrest, Henderson, and Byrne, on the alleged ground that they were demesne tenants; have the Commissioners received a copy of a valuation made in the case of Mr. Henderson in 1890 by Mr. Richard Martin, valuer for the landlord; was this valuation at the instance of the landlord and on the assumption that Mr. Henderson's holding was a purely agricultural one; is it a fact that Mr. Henderson has been paying rent since 1890 on the basis of Mr. Martin's valuation; and, having regard to the fact that these three tenants and their predecessors have been paying rent for generations for the farms held by them and used by them as agricultural tenancies, will he urge upon the Estates Commissioners the desirability of having them admitted to purchase on the same terms as the other tenants.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have made inquiries into the cases of Messrs. Forrest, Henderson, and Byrne, who occupy, as yearly tenants, certain land in the Ardrum demesne of Sir George Colthurst. The vendor has

  1201
  intimated his intention of renovating the buildings and settling his eldest son in what was for many years the residence of the Colthurst family. He is, therefore, unwilling to sell to these three tenants, and the Commissioners do not propose to refuse to declare the other holdings, some hundreds in number, to be a separate estate because the vendor is unwilling, on what would appear to be reasonable grounds, to sell these three holdings in his demesne to yearly tenants. The Commissioners have received from the hon. Member a copy of the valuation of Mr. Martin referred to, but they have no information as to the circumstances in which it was made.

  Irish School Teachers' Grievance.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to complaints of teachers of national schools in Ireland of their treatment by the two chief inspectors of the National Education Board and to the fact that complaints of such ill-treatment are rarely brought before the Commissioners, or, if so brought, are seldom properly represented by the officials in question; and whether, as foreshadowed a year or so since, he will hold an inquiry into the general working of the office, in view of the dissatisfaction therewith that prevails throughout Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that they have received no complaint from teachers regarding their treatment by the chief inspectors, and the Commissioners have no reason to believe that there is any general dissatisfaction with the manner in which the chief inspectors discharge their duties.

  New Forest Military Camps.
  SIR ROBERT HOBART: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the date when the sites of the camps for the military manœuvres in the New Forest were finally settled; whether, in accordance with his promise, instructions have been given to the military authorities to purchase supplies for the troops from persons residing in the immediate localities; and whether any contracts have
  1202
  been entered into with persons not residing in the New Forest previous to the date in question; and, if so, will he give instructions to cause his promise to be carried out.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Holmesley and Ashley Walk Camps were fixed on 17th June, and Rochford Common on 16th July. As regards the rest of the Question there appears to be some misunderstanding. I told my hon. friend on 1st June that I hoped the military would find it possible to obtain butter, eggs, and milk locally, but I gave no promise that all contracts should be placed locally or that I would give instructions to units to make their canteen purchases locally. Some of the contracts for bread and meat, forage and fuel, have been placed locally, Canteen purchases are always left entirely to the units to arrange.

  Colonial Auditors.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that special terms are now given by the Comptroller and Auditor-General to local auditors and assistant auditors in the Crown Colonies and Protectorates who have volunteered to come home from unhealthy climates, he will explain why it was necessary to give these special terms to these officials serving in such climates in addition to granting them the privilege of returning to the United Kingdom.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will explain why the ex-Second Division clerks in the Exchequer and Audit Department, who have voluntarily accepted liability to serve abroad, and some of whom are serving abroad, are not put on the same scale of salary as the nominated members who entered the old Colonial Audit Branch without any actual educational test examination.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will explain how, seeing that members of the Colonial Audit Branch now serving abroad are offered special terms on coming home on condition that they remain liable for a further term of service abroad, this liability applies in the case of a man who

  1203
  returns on, account of a breakdown in health, and who under the old system would have returned under similar circumstances to a scale of salary only equal to that of the old Second Division clerks.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will explain, why, seeing that those members of the Colonial Audit Branch who, prior to amalgamation, returned to headquarters after service abroad, either on account of ill-health or unfitness, were placed on a scale of salary similar to that of the old Second Division and remained liable for service abroad, a salary based on an initial salary of £100 per annum is now offered to those who return under similar conditions, while it was denied to those former members of the Second Division who became examiners at the reorganisation in 1905.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will explain why in the Exchequer and Audit Department two bodies of men are employed on identical work with identical periods of service to their credit, the one, however, receiving from £65 to £115 per annum more salary in consequence of service performed on petty accounts abroad for which they were liable on entry and had been already adequately recompensed financially.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will explain why, seeing that members of the Colonial Audit Branch who entered by the system which has now broken down, and who were sent abroad in many cases with insufficient training, are offered with the sanction of the Treasury special terms if they elect to come home and enter the main office, a considerable body of men who entered under the Order in Council of 21st March, 1890, who became examiners at the reorganisation of 1905, and from whose ranks men have been chosen for the examination of accounts in the Colonial Audit Branch, and volunteers have been called for to serve abroad, are compelled to remain for periods varying from twelve to nineteen years at a considerable financial disadvantage as compared with contemporaries in other offices with inferior certificates who have
  1204
  benefited under the Order in Council of December, 1907.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will explain why, seeing that members of the Colonial Audit Branch of the Exchequer and Audit Department who joined that branch before the amalgamation did so for the express purpose of a career abroad, and that the Department now finds great difficulty in filling vacancies which occur in the Colonies and Protectorates, it was considered necessary to offer them exceptional terms as an inducement to return home.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will explain why the six nominated members of the old Colonial Audit Branch of the Exchequer and Audit Department, who were serving at headquarters at the time of the amalgamation on a scale of salary, £70, £5, £100, being unfit for service abroad consequent on lack of training or health, were immediately advanced to a salary of £100 per annum, whereas certain Second Division clerks who were transferred to the Colonial Audit Branch, consequent on the breakdown of the system till then in force, were compelled to continue on the scale that the Colonial Audit Branch men had been receiving.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) I have nothing to add to the previous replies in connection with these points.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  British-built Warships
  MR. HERBERT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will make it a condition of the retention of firms upon the list of contractors to the Admiralty that they will undertake to insert in all contracts for the construction of ships of war for any foreign Power a provision that in the event of such Power desiring to sell any such warship it shall be first offered to His Majesty's Government.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): It is not proposed to insist on the

  1205
  insertion of a condition in the terms suggested. As my hon. friend will observe, once a ship built in this country has been delivered to the foreign country to which it belongs, the contractor would have no means of enforcing against such foreign Power the provision which he suggests.
  MR. HERBERT: Would not His Majesty's Government be able to enforce it?
  MR. McKENNA: The contract would not be between the Government and a foreign Power. It would be between the contractor and a foreign Power, and the contractor would have no power to enforce it.
  MR. HERBERT: Might not the Government be given the right under the contract?
  MR. McKENNA: I do not think any contract made between a contractor and a foreign Government could give the British Government such a right.
  MR. HERBERT: Are the right hon. Gentleman's advisers unable to settle any form of contract which would give such a right?
  MR. McKENNA: I do not think it is conceivable that any form of contract between a contractor and a foreign Government would give it.
  MR. HERBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me an opportunity of submitting such a form of contract?
  MR. YOUNGER: Might not the right hon. Gentleman insert a clause giving the right of pre-emption?
  MR. McKENNA: The British Government cannot impose on a contractor a condition that they shall have a right of pre-emption on his ship.

  Apprentices on Naval Contract Work.
  MR. CURRAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the firm of Messrs. Hawthorn and Leslie, Wallsend, have drafted a number of
  1206
  apprentices to Devonport to take the place of men withdrawn from work on H.M.S. "Temeraire" on account of a dispute as to wages; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. McKENNA: The question as to what action I should propose to take in the circumstances alleged by the hon. Member does not arise, as there appears to be no foundation for the statements made.
  MR. CURRAN: From what source did the right hon. Gentleman get that information?
  MR. McKENNA: From the Dockyard at Devonport. I got it by telegraph this afternoon.

  Wallsend Slipway Company's Employees.
  MR. CURRAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Wallsend Slipway Company have compelled about a dozen draughtsmen, under threat of instant dismissal, to perform fitters' work on H.M.S. "Superb," at Elswick; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. McKENNA: We have no knowledge of the circumstances set out in the hon. Member's Question; but assuming the facts to be as stated, there does not appear to be any ground for action by the Admiralty.
  MR. CURRAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a breach of the Fair Wages Clause?
  MR. McKENNA: I have examined the question and am unable to discover that the alleged circumstances constitute a breach of the clause. It does not deal with fair wages at all.
  MR. CURRAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the firm of Leslie's have Government contracts overdue, and are asking for an extension of time on the ground of labour disputes?
  MR. McKENNA: I should like notice of that Question.

  Admiralty Payments to Quantity Surveyors.
  Mr. GUINNESS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what sums have been paid by the Admiralty in each of the last five

  Fees paid to Quantity Surveyors from 1903 to 1908.

  Naval Works Acts and Vote 10 Works.

  Name.

  1903–4.

  1904–5.

  1905–6.

  1906–7.

  1907–8.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Corderoy, G., & Co.

  32,842

  30,739

  28,411

  19,894

  13,671

  Deacon, T. M.

  —

  809

  315

  —

  137

  Franklin & Andrews

  —

  128

  73

  29

  —

  Gardiner & Theobald

  —

  122

  67

  —

  —

  Hitchen, T.

  —

  —

  264

  —

  —

  Hodgson, H. M.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  153

  Hunt & Steward

  —

  —

  46

  —

  —

  Lawrence, B., & Co.

  —

  59

  —

  —

  94

  Leaming, J., & Sons

  —

  457

  124

  145

  —

  Lorrimer, Fairbairn & Lightbody

  —

  53

  63

  18

  18

  Mann, C. J., & Sons

  711

  1,222

  1,015

  1,562

  1,615

  Moreham & Gardiner

  —

  53

  123

  —

  —

  Rualt & Young

  —

  280

  21

  —

  —

  Strudwick, W. H. & P. B.

  622

  212

  —

  —

  —

  Welch & Atkinson

  83

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Widnell & Trollope

  1,442

  1,609

  5,142

  597

  509

  Totals

  35,700

  35,743

  35,664

  22,245

  16,197

  Defence of Sea Trade Routes.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the Report of the Treasury Committee upon the subject of national insurance for merchant ships, and of its conclusion
  years to firms of quantity surveyors; how many firms have been employed, and what amounts have been paid to each.
  MR. McKENNA:
  that the latter must depend for protection exclusively upon the Navy, and in view of the fact that the Navy list shows that we have but sixty-seven unarmoured cruisers, most, if not all, of which would be required for service with our battle fleets, with which our armoured cruisers

  1209
  are also mainly intended to serve, the Government are prepared to guarantee the security of our trade routes in time of war.
  MR. McKENNA: While we do not commit ourselves to the accuracy of the statements made in the preamble to the Question, the reply is in the affirmative.

  German Naval Policy.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, having regard to the fact that Germany has laid down thirty-six destroyers in the last three years, he will consider the advisability of increasing the number of those to be laid down during a similar period by this country from seven to a figure corresponding with that of Germany.
  MR. McKENNA: I am unable to verify the figures on which the hon. Member has based his statement that during the last three years seven British destroyers were laid down. As to the number to be laid down, the hon. Member will observe that in the present year it is proposed to lay down sixteen.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: Is it not the fact that the German destroyers for this year are already laid down?
  MR. McKENNA: The German year differs from the British year, and that makes it impossible to draw a comparison.
  MR. ASHLEY: Is it not a fact that the German destroyers for this year are already laid down?
  MR. McKENNA: It is impossible to make a comparison, as the year's programmes do not cover the same period.
  MR. ASHLEY: Are we really to understand that the Government do not know what has been the German programme in regard to destroyers for the last three years?
  MR. McKENNA: The Admiralty are perfectly aware, but that does not arise out of the Question.

  H.M.S. "Invincible"—Fair Wage Clause.
  MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the
  1210
  Admiralty if he can now say why Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth, and Company, Elswick, have not carried out the Fair Wage Clause in their contract on H.M.S. "Invincible," at the Elswick Works, with regard to the wages paid to the electrical wire-workers.
  MR. McKENNA: The contractors state that they pay the wages generally accepted as current for competent workmen in their trade, and the evidence which so far has been put before the Admiralty is not inconsistent with that statement.
  *MR. HUDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this question has been pending since March last, and as late as last week thirty-five of the men were paid at a figure below the standard rate which obtains in the district?
  MR. McKENNA: We have examined the evidence we have been able to obtain, and are not satisfied that wages below the current rate are being paid.
  *MR. HUDSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman place himself in communication with the trade union of the electrical workers and obtain from them a statement as to the wages current in the district?
  MR. McKENNA: We have had a communication, but I am not sure if it came from the trade union. I rather think it did.

  German Naval Expenditure.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state by how much the naval expenditure of Germany was above or below the Estimates in the years 1903 to 1907, inclusive; and whether any reports have been submitted to the Admiralty as to the assistance rendered to German naval administration and expenditure by the State ownership of canals and railways.
  MR. McKENNA: The difference between the naval expenditure of Germany and the money voted is as follows—In 1903–4 there was £149,162 more expenditure than was voted. In 1904–5 there was £464,600 loss; in 1905–6 there was £123,477 less; in 1906–7 there was £341,507 less; for

  1211
  1907–8 the total naval expenditure is not yet available. We have no official information as regards the latter part of the Question.
  MR. BELLAIRS: What is the authority for these figures? They do not agree with the Berlin Imperial Gazette figures?
  MR. McKENNA: They are official figures. I will inquire as to the divergence.

  The Admiralty and the Press.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions forbid naval officers holding any communications with the Press and so prevent them from contradicting statements of a defamatory character; and whether in the absence of any guidance in the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, he can state if they are free to take proceedings for libel when a newspaper of repute submits them to malicious and defamatory attacks.
  MR. McKENNA: As regards the first part of the Question, the existing rule, as laid down in circular letter of 21st November last, is that all persons belonging to the Fleet are forbidden to write for publication or to publish or cause to be published, either directly or indirectly, any matter or information relating to the naval service unless the permission of the Admiralty has been first obtained. With regard to the second part of the Question, an officer on half-pay or on the retired list would be free to act, should he so elect, without formal reference to the Admiralty, subject to the paramount interests of the naval service. An officer on full pay or serving under the Admiralty on salary would, as a matter of discipline, apply to the Admiralty for sanction of his proposed proceedings.
  MR. BELLAIRS: In the event of its being against the paramount interest of the Navy for an officer on full pay to bring a libel action, do the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues recognise their special obligation to defend an officer whose reputation is assailed by falsehoods circulated in a paper of repute?
  MR. McKENNA: I have no case before me in which it is alleged that it is not in the interests of the service that any officer on full pay should bring an action for libel. I cannot consider the question unless I have a specific case before me.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Is any statement going to be made in regard to the alleged occurrence in the Channel Fleet under Lord Charles Beresford?
  MR. McKENNA: That is an entirely different question. It has nothing to do with the Question on the Paper.
  MR. GRETTON: Does the regulation quoted apply to naval officers employed at the Admiralty or on the staff of the Admiralty?
  MR. McKENNA: The regulations would apply universally through the service.

  Chain Cable Contracts.
  MR. J. JOHNSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Government has extended the period of a contract for chain cables and mooring chains entered into with several firms of chain-makers, under which arrangement other employers have been debarred from tendering; if so, will he say on what grounds such preference is justified; and whether, in future, he will see that equal opportunity is given to all firms to tender for such contracts.
  MR. McKENNA: Pending the preparation of certain technical details for a new contract, the existing arrangements have been temporarily continued to meet current requirements. As soon as the necessary particulars are available the usual opportunity will be afforded to all firms.

  Land Trade between Persia and British India.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the disturbed condition of Persia has adversely affected the traffic to and from India by the Quetta-Nushki route.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,): The figures of the land trade

  1213
  between Persia and British India via Sind and British Baluchistan, the bulk of which, presumably, went by the Nushki route, show an increase for 1907–8 as compared with the two preceding years. The value of the total trade by the Nushki route for 1907–8 was the biggest on record.

  Sylhet Bomb Factory.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether a branch of the Manicktollah bomb factory has been discovered in Sylhet?
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State has no official information on this subject, but he gathers from the newspapers that arrests have been made at a place in the Sylhet district of persons who admit being engaged in the manufacture of bombs for revolutionary purposes.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Was this information obtained through Reuter's agency?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I cannot say.

  Gun Running on the Afghan Frontier.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the India Office has information to the effect that another large caravan of arms is in transit through Persian Baluchistan to the Afghan frontier; and whether it is proposed, by strengthening our patrol in the Persian Gulf, or by representation to the Sultan of Muscat, to deal with a state of affairs which is a menace to the North-West frontier.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Answer to the first Question is in the negative; the last caravan of which the Secretary of State has information must have reached its destination some weeks ago. Every possible means is taken by action on the coast and otherwise to stop the traffic, and, as was stated by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the 30th June, the question of the traffic at Muscat is engaging the attention of the Conference now sitting at Brussels.
  *MR. REES: It seems there is a regular gun-running season for three months in the year.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say from what country the arms conveyed by this caravan came?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I am unable to say.
  AN HON. MEMBERsuggested that the Government should send the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs out to patrol the Persian Gulf, or to act as Minister Plenipotentiary to the Sultan of Muscat.

  Sedition in Northern India.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Muslim community of Madras, in public meeting assembled, has expressed its condemnation of the growing sedition of Northern India, and assured the Government of its own staunch loyalty to British rule.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I have seen in the Press a notice of the meeting referred to, and my hon friend is no doubt aware that meetings of a similar character have been held in other parts of India.

  Indian Civil Service.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the local Governments and high judicial authorities consulted, condemned the proposed separation of executive and judicial functions in the Indian Civil Service; and, if so, whether the opinions of such Governments and authorities will be made public.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The opinions of the local Governments and other authorities consulted on this subject have not yet reached the Secretary of State: it is not possible, therefore, to say whether they are papers which could suitably be made public.

  Indian Excise Administration.
  SIR HERBERT ROBERTS: I bog to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the reply of the Government of India to the statement relative to Excise administration, submitted to him on the 17th October last and forwarded for consideration and report to the Government

  1215
  of India, has now been received; and whether he will lay Papers upon the Table before the end of the present session.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I regret to say that the reply has not yet been received.

  Calcutta Liquor Shops—Hour of Closing.
  SIR HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Indian Excise Commission recommended that liquor shops in India should be closed at 9 p.m., and that this recommendation was approved-by the Government of India; and whether any special reasons exist for the extension of the hour of closing to 10 p.m. in the case of liquor shops situated in the neighbourhood of mills in Calcutta.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Indian Excise Commission recommended that as a general rule the closing hour should be 9 o'clock, but that this limit should be relaxed in special cases, when a special fee should be levied. The Government of Bengal has been advised by the Calcutta Licensing Committee that extension is necessary in the case of particular shops in certain localities where owing to late shifts at mills, docks, etc., the workers do not leave work until a late hour. Such cases are dealt with on their merits by the Board of Revenue, under power given to it by the Excise Act.

  Calcutta Country and Foreign Liquor Licences.
  SIR HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Indian Excise Commission recommended the entire separation of the country liquor and foreign liquor licences in Calcutta, with such a redistribution of facilities as would not increase the number of sites; whether this proposal was provisionally approved by the Government of India; and whether effect has been given to the proposal under the resolution of the Government of Bengal recently issued upon this subject.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Answer to the first two Questions is in the affirmative. With regard to the last Question the Government of Bengal has not given complete effect to the recommendation, as separation cannot, in their opinion, be effected in Calcutta without an undesir-
  1216
  able increase in the number of liquor shops. But it has issued instructions which will reduce considerably the number of cases in which licences for the two classes of liquor are held conjointly

  The Sentence on Mr. Tilak.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State for India will recommend His Majesty the King to extend his clemency to Mr. Tilak, in view of the position he holds in the Indian national movement, and remit a portion of his sentence, with a view to allaying to some extent the present unrest in India."
  *MR. REESasked if the right hon. Gentleman thought that expressions of sympathy in the House with notorious enemies of British rule were likely to have the effect of "allaying to some extent the present unrest in India."
  MR. BUCHANAN: I think the Answer I have to make will cover both Questions. It is impossible for the Secretary of State to take the action suggested in the Question. My hon. friend hardly realises the nature of the charge on which Mr. Tilak was convicted and the circumstances of the trial. The trial lasted ten days before a judge of the Bombay High Court with a special jury. Mr. Tilak was convicted by seven out of nine jurymen of offences under Section 124 a and 153 a of the Indian Penal Code. At the beginning of the trial he exercised his full rights of challenge, objecting to six Europeans, one Jew, and one Hindu. He spoke for several days in his own defence. In passing sentence the judge said—"The articles are seething with sedition; they preach violence; they speak of murder with approval; and the Cowardly and atrocious act of committing murder with bombs not only seems to meet with the prisoner's approval, but he hails the advent of the bomb in India as if something had come to India for its good." I think the hon. Member will agree with me that writings of such a character cannot fairly be held to fall under the exception made by the Penal Code in favour of "comments expressing disapprobation of the measures or action of the Government with a view to obtaining their alteration by lawful means." The Government deliberately

  1217
  instituted these proceedings in a Court of Law, and in a case of this kind for them immediately to traverse the verdict of the Court or precipitately to set aside its sentence, would be to stultify themselves.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEasked if the article could now be published as a Parliamentary Paper to give the House and the country the opportunity for learning what foundation there was for the language used by the Judge.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid he could make no promise of the kind.
  SIR H. COTTON: Can a copy be placed in the Library?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I can give no pledge.
  *MR. REESasked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that copies could be obtained at the office of the paper called India.
  SIR H. COTTONasked if the substance of the article published in The Times was correct.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I cannot say.
  MR. LUPTONasked if the proportion of seven Europeans to two natives was the usual proportion on special juries in Bombay.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I cannot say. Thore wore on the jury seven Europeans and two Parsees, and the Judge was a Parsee gentleman.
  MR. LUPTON: And then there was a division of opinion on the jury?
  MR. BUCHANAN: Yes; I have already stated so.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the sentence of six years' transportation recently passed upon Mr. Tilak can be made the subject of appeal; whether a sentence of transportation involves the removal of the prisoner to a penal settlement; and, if so, what is the nature
  1218
  of the punishment to which he is there subject.
  MR. BUCHANAN: No appeal lies to the High Court from any order or sentence passed by a Judge exercising the original jurisdiction of the Court, but points of law may be reserved for consideration. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council may give special leave to appeal in cases where grave and substantial injustice appears to have been done. The appeal, in such cases, lies to the Judicial Committee. A sentence of transportation may involve the removal of a prisoner to a penal settlement, but does not necessarily do so; the prisoner may be sent instead to a Central Jail appointed for the purpose. A prisoner sentenced to transportation is subject for a time to solitary confinement: he is then put to some form of work with the other prisoners, and may obtain various privileges by good conduct.

  Bombay Factory Workers' Disturbances.
  MR. HARWOOD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether there have been disturbances amongst the factory workers of Bombay; and, if so, whether he has any information showing that these are largely attributable to the excessive hours of work; and whether the Government proposes to take any steps in the matter.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State understands that the disturbances which have occurred in the factory quarter of Bombay are not exclusively connected with labour questions, although, as my hon. friend is aware, the subject of the hours of labour has recently been investigated by the Factory Commission, whose Report is now under consideration. He is informed that they are connected with political agitation, by which pressure has been exercised on the Hindu mill hands to come out on strike, and, in some cases, to attack Europeans. The Mahomedan factory workers have not joined in the rioting, and resent the enforced loss of wages.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: Had the Factory Inspector to be afforded police protection?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I have seen a statement to that effect.

  Law of Transportation in India.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India if he can state what is the law in regard to transportation in India; and whether there is any authority or precedent for sending a convicted offender to the Andamans for a period of less than seven years.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The law in regard to transportation in India is contained in Sections 53, 55, 57–59 of the Indian Penal Code, and the sections of that code prescribing transportation as the penalty for particular offences. Section 124 a enables the person convicted under that section to be "punished with transportation for life or any other shorter term." There is, therefore, no reason to doubt the legality of a sentence of transportation for less than seven years.
  SIR H. COTTON: Is there not a statutory rule which limits transportation to cases of seven years punishment and does not permit it in the case of persons over forty-five years of age?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I am not aware of that, but I would refer my hon. friend to the various sections of the Penal Code which govern the law relating to transportation.

  Prosecutions for Sedition in India.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the "Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will grant a Return of prosecutions for seditious speeches and writings which have been instituted in India since 1st January, 1907, showing the names of the persons charged, the courts which tried them, the precise character of the charge, and the decision in each case.
  MR. BUCHANAN: If the hon. Member will move for a Return the Secretary of State will instruct the Government of India to prepare it.

  Sentences for Treason at Tinnevelly.
  SIR H. COTTON: I bog to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether Chidambaram Pillay and Subramania Siva, who were lately convicted of treason and were sentenced to transportation for life and for ten years respectively by the district judge of
  1220
  Tinnevelly, have appealed against the sentence; and, if so, what has been the result of the appeal.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State has no information as to whether an appeal has been filed.

  Treatment of Prisoners in India.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the character of the sentences which are being passed in India on persons who are accused of seditious utterances; and whether the Government will consider the propriety of issuing instructions which will prohibit the herding of political offenders with common criminals.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State does not consider it necessary to take action in the manner suggested by the hon. Member. The punishment for offences under Section 124 a Indian Penal Code varies over a wide range, from fine without any imprisonment through simple imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment up to transportation for life. As regards simple imprisonment, Inspectors-General of Gaols already have authority to order the provision of separate accommodation for prisoners in certain cases.
  LORD R. CECIL: Is there anything in Indian legislation which makes incitement to murder a political offence?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Indian Relief Works.
  MR. R. HARCOURT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed to lay before Parliament papers giving an account of the relief works recently carried out in India, particularly in the United Provinces, in continuation of Famine Commission Reports already issued.
  MR. BUCHANAN: On the conclusion of the present relief operations full reports regarding them will be submitted by the several local Governments, and the Secretary of State will then be glad to consider whether any, and, if any, what Papers might with advantage be presented.

  Bombay Factories Commission.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the India Office has information that the factory workers in Bombay have deprecated interference with the system under which they work; and whether the Factory Commission has reported that the hours of work in Bombay factories are not excessive.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Commission's Report, which will be presented shortly, will show the hon. Member that he is under a misapprehension in respect of both points of his Question.

  Carib Canal, St. Vincent.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the original cost of the Carib Canal in St. Vincent, and by whom was it borne.
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY, Liverpool, Abercromby): I cannot supply the information, but the Governor will be asked to do so, if my hon. friend wishes.
  *MR. LAMONT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the disuse of the Carib freshwater Canal in the island of St. Vincent has prejudicially affected the districts which it formerly served; and whether its reopening is stated by the Governor of the Colony to be an essential preliminary to their development.
  COLONEL SEELY: Yes, Sir, and recognising these considerations, the Secretary of State has agreed to a loan to Mr. Porter, in addition to the free grant of £1,600 already sanctioned, though not a loan from the invested portion of the Eruption Fund.

  St. Vincent Eruption Relief Fund.
  MR. LAMONT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state the total amount subscribed for the St. Vincent Eruption Relief Fund, and the amount of the unexpended balance of that fund.
  COLONEL SEELY: The amount subscribed was £73,340. The unexpended
  1222
  balance consists of the £25,000 invested. The rest or practically all the rest has now been expended or definitely allocated for expenditure.

  Carib Canal Loan.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state when the despatches from the Governor of the Windwards, recommending that the Secretary of State should assent to a loan from the Eruption Fund for the purpose of reopening the Carib Canal, will be laid upon the Table.
  COLONEL SEELY: It is not proposed to lay the despatches. The chief despatches recommending a loan are marked "Confidential," except one, and that deals with the business and family affairs of private individuals, and could not properly be published.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of the Memorandum from the Governor of the Windwards with regard to the Carib Canal question which was read by the Administrator of St. Vincent at the meeting of the Legislative Council on 30th May.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Secretary of State has just received a copy of the Memorandum referred to. He does not consider it necessary to lay it.

  Parsee Indian in Natal.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. Shapurji, a Parsee Indian resident of Charlestown, Natal, who has been arrested and ordered to leave the Transvaal as a prohibited immigrant although he was able to fulfil all the educational requirements of the Immigration Laws of that Colony; and whether, in assenting to this law, His Majesty's Government understood the test of desirability to be one of race or of education.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Secretary of State has made telegraphic inquiry with regard to this case and other British Indian complaints, but no reply has yet been received and, pending the Governor's

  1223
  Report, I am not in a position to make any statement.

  Island of St. Vincent Revenue.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the floating balance of revenue of the Island of St. Vincent at the end of the last financial year.
  COLONEL SEELY: On the 31st of March last the surplus of assets was £6,258 3s. 4d. Against this, however, there is a sum of £700 due to the Treasury at home, in refund of an overpayment from Parliamentary Grants in Aid.

  St. Vincent Belief Fund—The Carib Canal.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the purposes for which the St. Vincent Relief Fund was collected; and what was the cause of the disuse of the Carib Canal.
  COLONEL SEELY: The relief fund was subscribed for the relief of distress. The disuse of the canal was caused by the eruptions.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when he will lay Papers upon the Table with regard to his refusal of the request from the Government of St. Vincent for authority to make a loan from the Eruption Fund.
  COLONEL SEELY: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer to the hon. Member for Blackpool. It is not proposed to lay Papers on this subject.

  South African Compensation Fund.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the loss of £41,420 7s. 11d. entailed on the Exchequer through the failure of the Colonial Office to reply to the High Commissioner of South Africa as to the allocation of the charge for the administration of the Compensations Fund between Great Britain and the Transvaal; whether the responsibility for this loss has been brought home to any particular official; and what action has been taken in the matter.
  COLONEL SEELY: I would refer my hon. friend to my reply to a similar Question yesterday.

  Crown Colonists Stranded in England.
  MR. OWEN PHILIPPS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is any public fund to defray the cost of return to their native land of inhabitants of the Crown Colonies who may be unfortunately stranded in England: and, if not, whether the Government will favourably consider the question of providing a fund for this purpose.
  COLONEL SEELY: There is no public fund which could be ear-marked to the purposes which my hon. friend mentions. The matter is one of great difficulty, but the Secretary of State proposes to take it into early consideration.

  Kingston Wharves and Railways.
  MR. OWEN PHILIPPS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Governor of Jamaica, since his return to the island, has been able to advise him of any progress in the scheme for connecting the Government railways with all the wharves of Kingston; and whether he is aware that in the neighbouring island of Cuba the ports are being rapidly developed in connection with the railways.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Governor has not yet reported as to the progress of the scheme referred to by my hon. friend, but I have no doubt that he will do so as soon as he can. I am sorry that I have no official information as to what is being done in Cuba.

  King's House, Jamaica.
  MR. OWEN PHILLIPS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the damage to the King's House at Jamaica, caused by the earthquake in January, 1907, has yet been repaired; and, if not, will he ascertain when the King's House will be again fit for habitation by the Governor of the Colony.
  COLONEL SEELY: The money for rebuilding King's House in St. Andrew has been voted by the Legislative Council,

  1225
  and the Vote has been approved by the Secretary of State. The Governor's recent visit to this country was chiefly concerned with the arrangements for this and other public building work, and I understand that the question of the acceptance of a tender for the restoration of King's House is now under the Governor's consideration. The Governor will be asked when he anticipates being able to re-occupy the house.

  The Sultanate of Bruni.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government, when establishing a British residency in the Sultanate of Bruni, has also assumed any responsibility other than advisory to that State, and, if so, what are the limitations of any such authority prescribed by His Majesty's Government; will he say from what source year by year since such recent residency was established the expenditure connected therewith, either directly or indirectly, has been defrayed: and if any, how much, of the money applied as above-mentioned has been borrowed or granted from the purse of either the Federated Malay States or from that of the Straits Settlements; will he state the amounts given or lent by either or both, the rate of interest charged on such loans, and what prospect there is of repayment.
  COLONEL SEELY: The treaty with the Sultan of Brunei, which was signed in 1905, provides that the advice of the British Resident must be taken and acted upon in all questions in Brunei other than those affecting the Mohammedan religion in order that a similar system may be established to that existing in other Malay States now under British protection. His Majesty's Government, therefore, through the Resident, control the whole administration of the State, except where religious matters are concerned. The Resident of Brunei is also Resident of Labuan, which is now part of the Straits Settlements, and in view of that fact he draws a salary from Straits Settlements funds, a sum of £600 a year being paid from Imperial funds to the Straits Settlements in consideration of the Consular work performed by this officer. The other expenses of the Residential system are borne by Brunei funds. To enable the Government of the State
  1226
  to buy up a number of monopolies and concessions, and to put the new system into working order, the Federated Malay States advanced to Brunei the sum of $200,000, without interest. I cannot say when this sum is likely to be repaid. No grant or loan has been made by the Straits Settlements.

  Trade of Brunei.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the value of the export and import trade of Brunei for the last year for which figures can be obtained; whether a poll tax of $2 per head has been imposed on the Kadayans in the Muara district, and, if so, by whose authority; whether such an imposition is not directly in contravention of Clause 3 in the Farms lease held by His Highness the Rajah of Sarawak from the late Sultan of Brunei; whether it was proposed to exact a similar tax from the Brunei Malays; and whether the cause of remitting, or of not imposing, such tax in such quarters was the expressed or the anticipated intention of those Malays to emigrate from Brunei.
  COLONEL SEELY: I am unable to furnish any reliable figures as to the Trade of Bruni. In 1906 the dutiable imports were valued at $60,878 and the dutiable exports at $1,560, but no record was taken of the value of articles on which no duty was levied. The Secretary of State has no information with regard to the other points raised by the hon. Member, but the High Commissioner will be asked for a Report.

  West Indian Banana Trade.
  MR. LAMONT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that an annual subsidy, at first of £10,000 and latterly of £20,000, has been paid out of the Treasury since July, 1899, to the Imperial Direct West India Mail Service, principally in order to encourage a trade in bananas between Jamaica and England; whether during the financial year 1907–8 a total of 15,847,590 bunches of bananas were exported from Jamaica, of which 14,505,911 bunches were shipped to the United States and only 1,239,500 to England; and whether he will give notice to terminate this contract at its expiry on 15th January, 1911, seeing that £20,000 paid by the taxpayers of

  1227
  the United Kingdom for the advantage of receiving 1,239,500 bunches of bananas is equivalent to the bounty of fourpence per bunch, and that a sufficient supply of this fruit can be obtained, without subsidy, from other West Indian Colonies, from the Canary Islands, and from other parts of the globe.
  COLONEL SEELY: I am aware generally of the conditions of the service referred to. The question as to the renewal or termination of the service is one which will no doubt receive very careful consideration, but, as the contract does not expire for some years, it would be premature to consider it now.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if this subsidy was not granted in order to assist in developing the banana trade generally, and whether this proportion of 14,000,000 bunches and 1,000,000 bunches to the United States and England respectively does not represent the purest principles of free trade?
  COLONEL SEELY: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by the "purest principles of free trade." I should hardly think he is a good judge. I would only add that my hon. friend is quite right in supposing that there are other considerations involved besides the encouragement of the trade between Jamaica and England.
  *MR. BYLES: Was not this contract made in the reign of the protectionist Party?
  COLONEL SEELY: I do not know what the particular views of the Party were at the time this contract was entered into.

  Dominica Light Railway.
  *MR. LAMONT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether proposals have recently been made to the Government of the Leeward Islands regarding the formation of a company to build, on the land-grant system, a light railway into the interior of the island of Dominica, with a view to the development of its resources; whether negotiations are in progress; and, if so, whether the Colonial Office regards the project with a favourable eye.
  COLONEL SEELY: Yes, Sir, a syndicate has been in negotiation with the Government of Dominica since about a year ago with regard to the construction of a light railway up the Layou valley. The Secretary of State regards the project favourably.

  Imports of Live Cattle.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what countries have made representations to His Majesty's Government with reference to unrestricted importation of live cattle, and the nature of such representations; and whether, in view of the fact that all foreign countries impose quarantine restrictions of a severe nature, he can state if any have made any suggestions for reciprocal arrangements for free trade and abandon of quarantine restrictions imposed by them.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): Since the present Government have been in office representations have been made by the Governments of Norway and Sweden asking that the regulations prohibiting the importation of live cattle from those countries might be revoked. The Answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

  Cancellation of Venezuelan Concessions.
  MR. H. GOOCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the cancellation by the Venezuelan Government of certain concessions held by British subjects; and, if so, what steps he has taken or proposes to take in the matter.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I am aware that the Venezuelan Government have cancelled two concessions, the one for the manufacture and the sale of matches, originally granted to a Venezuelan citizen and subsequently transferred to a Venezuelan company, and the other for working the salt deposits of Venezuela, originally granted to a British subject and subsequently transferred to a Venezuelan company, the shares of both enterprises being now, it is understood, controlled by two British companies respectively. The matter is at present

  1229
  under consideration; it presents many difficulties owing to local peculiarities which operate adversely to the interests of all countries.

  Franco-Canadian Treaty.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to lay Papers upon the Table relating to the Franco-Canadian negotiations in respect of the most-favoured nation clause.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: For the present I am not in a position to add to the Answer which I returned to the hon. Member's Question on 30th ultimo.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: Are there any means of expediting the negotiations?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: As far as I understand, the subject of the treaty is still under consideration in Paris.

  The Release of Mr. Clark Kennedy.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the rapid release of Mr. Clark Kennedy from the brigands in Morocco was owing to the fact that the Government announced that no ransom would he paid; and if this resolution will be strictly adhered to in the future.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer to the first part of the Question is that I do not know. If British subjects, in pursuit of their own pleasure or business, and in no public character, are captured by brigands in Morocco, there will certainly not be any advance from the British Exchequer for the purposes of ransom, and anyone who counts upon it under any circumstances is likely to be disappointed.
  MR. FELL: Will that also apply to captures by Smyrna and other brigands?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: We have issued a warning to the effect that in no case must people expect the Government to advance money for their ransom.
  MR. ASHLEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman made an exception in the case of Raisuli?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: He is not a British subject. He is under British protection, which is not the same thing.

  The Czar of Russia.
  MR. W. THORNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information showing that it is the intention of the Czar of Russia to pay a visit to this countrv before the end of September: and, if so, whether it is the intention of the Government to associate themselves in any way with such a visit?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: No intention has been expressed by the Czar of visiting this country during the present year.

  The Scots College at Rome.
  MR. SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the cause of the delay in bringing to trial the assailants of the students of the Scots College at Rome; and whether he can state if and when the trial is likely to take place.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The trial was to have taken place this month, the delay being accounted for by the necessity of collecting additional evidence and of ascertaining how far the injuries of the victims were likely to be permanent, with a view to the proper assessment of the I penalties. It now appears, however, that the accused have appealed against the I judgment of the Court of First Instance, committing them for trial by the Court of Assize, and it is to be feared that the case will not be heard before November. His Majesty's Ambassador will continue to do all in his power to secure an early hearing, and I may add that the legal adviser to His Majesty's Consulate has been instructed to watch the proceedings.

  The Russo Japanese War—British Claims.
  MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many outstanding claims for damage to British shipping and property during the late war in the Far East remain unsettled; and what steps are being taken to obtain a settlement.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The position as it stood last year was stated generally in an Answer I gave to the hon. Member

  1231
  for the Cockermouth Division of Cumberland on the 23rd of May of last year. I have stated the present position of specific cases in answers I have given in the course of the present and last month to various hon. Members, and particularly in the replies I made yesterday to the hon. Member for the St. Austell Division of Cornwall. No later developments have occurred.

  The Imprisoned Suffragists.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the statement that the imprisoned suffragettes are more or less associated with criminals, and that their methods have been encouraged by references to former riots and breaking park railings by a Cabinet Minister, he will see that the ladies shall not associate with or be treated as ordinary criminals.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): None of these prisoners are allowed to associate with ordinary criminals.

  Medical Officers' Reports.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the apparent lack of uniformity in the reports of medical officers of health, he has considered the advisability of issuing a Circular to local authorities informing them that they must include in the Annual Report of the medical officers of health to the Home Office all premises visited in connection with infectious disease, provided home work is found to be carried on.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have no authority to issue the instructions suggested in the Question, nor would they meet the case, as Sections 109 and 110 of the Factory Act do not apply to all kinds of home work. The Home Office has done what it could to secure uniformity in the Reports of the medical officers of health by issuing forms of tables, but the use of the forms is not compulsory.

  Out-workers Returns.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the
  1232
  Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the continued and increasing discrepancy between the total number of addresses of out-workers reported by medical officers of health as forwarded to other councils, and that returned having been received by other councils; whether, according to the Home Office Return [Cd. 3986], those reported as received were only 34,377, whilst 50,579 had been forwarded; and, if so, whether he will confer with the Postmaster General as to where the 16,202 missing lists have gone.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am aware that the discrepancy between the number of addresses respectively forwarded and received by local authorities rose from 7,350 in 1904, and 5,300 in 1905 to over 16,000 in 1906. It will be seen on examination of the Return that the increase is chiefly a London increase, and probably the key to the problem lies here. I am not prepared to say positively what is the reason for it, but the increase, which cannot, I think, be accounted for as merely an increase in the fringe of out-workers outside London working for London employers, probably indicates an increasing thoroughness on the part of London authorities in enforcing the Act, both in forwarding lists themselves and in searching the lists sent to them for duplicates of names already on their lists. It may be noticed especially that the City of London forwarded 14,376 addresses in 1906, as against only 3,334 in 1904. I will consider the point further when the figures for 1907 are available.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to Table 6 in Part 2, in the Summary of Reports of Medical Officers of Health for 1906, to the Home Office, wherein it is shown that the number of names of out-workers received are greatly in excess of the number of inspections made in Stepney, Worcester, West Ham, Gloucestershire, and other places; whether representations were made last year about the places named; what steps he proposes to take in the case of these and others, such as Leeds, to bring the local inspection up to an efficient standard; and whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Ipswich, about which similar representations were

  1233
  made regarding its neglect in 1905, has made no Return at all for 1906; and what steps he proposes to take with that town.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am aware of the figures in the Return which has been issued by my directions. I would remind the hon. Member that in October of 190G the Home Office issued a circular to local authorities (printed in the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories for that year) urging a more thorough enforcement of the Home Work provisions of the Factory Act, and the figures in the Return in question relate to a period before the issue of that Circular. The above question will come up for consideration in connection with the Report of the Homo Work Committee just issued.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Can nothing be done in cases like that of Ipswich, which seems to be particularly bad?
  MR. GLADSTONE: There is much that may be done, and I will see what I can do.

  Tramcar Speeds in London.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the speed of tramcars in such places as the Vauxhall Road, and the risk of life and limb by motors passing the rapidly-driven trams on the offside, any vehicle or pedestrian passing in front of a tram being liable to be run into or run over; and if he will give necessary instructions to the police to protect the public.
  MR. GLADSTONE: In the Vauxhall Bridge Road, to which I presume my hon. friends refers, the Board of Trade regulations permit tramcars to proceed at a speed of twelve miles an hour, except when they are passing the end of Rochester Row. There is no rule of law with respect to traffic passing tramcars, and any general rule must be subject to exceptions according to the circumstances; but the common practice of passing a tramcar on the near side is usually the safest course. The police do their utmost to protect pedestrians crossing the road.
  MR. MYER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that tramcars
  1234
  in London frequently run at a speed of over twenty miles an hour? Will he not consider the advisability of making a rule that the drivers shall be supplied with an instrument which will show them the speed at which they are proceeding?
  MR. GLADSTONE: That is a matter for the Board of Trade.
  *MR. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of publishing anew the rules of the road, as it is not clearly understood on which side a vehicle should pass a tramcar going the same way.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I will see if anything can be done.

  Disabled Motor-Buses.
  MR. S. COLLINS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a recent speech of the Mayor of West Ham, in which he stated that every day in the main roads of that district there was an average of twenty-two disabled motor omnibuses; and whether, as similar breakdowns are constantly occurring in other parts of the metropolis, he will demand that greater care be exercised in the licensing of these vehicles so as to prevent the dislocation of traffic and the inconvenience of the public.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have not seen the speech referred to. Perhaps the figure quoted includes cases where the driver gets down to make temporary adjustment. The police have no knowledge of so many omnibuses breaking down, and if these vehicles had been disabled on the scale indicated, it must have come under their notice. Great care is taken in licensing motor omnibuses; but in working them the strain on the machinery is very great, and it is inevitable that a certain number, however good when licensed, should get out of order from time to time.
  EARL WINTERTON: When a motor bus breaks down, do the police take note of it?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir.

  Isle of Man Excursion Steamers.
  MR. McLAREN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on the 15th instant the boats "Ben Machree" and "La Marguerite," carrying large numbers of passengers from the Isle of Man to Liverpool, began to race on approaching port and came within a few feet of one another; and whether, in view of the fact that a collision was narrowly averted, he will take steps to put a stop to this dangerous practice.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): Yes, Sir. My attention has been called to the matter to which my hon friend refers, and I have communicated with the owners of both vessels concerned. I trust that no further ground for complaint will arise, but any instance of improper navigation which infringes the collision regulations will be severely dealt with.

  Port of London Inquiry.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the cost to date of the inquiry into the Port of London Bill before the Committee, and how much more will it probably cost; from what source this sum will be paid, and if the capital of the dock trust is to be inflated or watered by the amount of these expenses; and how much the port dues will have to be increased to pay the additional interest charge involved.
  MR. CHURCHILL: It is not possible to state at present the cost of the proceedings before the Joint Committee on the Port of London Bill. It is provided by the Bill that all costs incurred by the Board of Trade in connection with the preparing, applying for, obtaining and passing of the Act shall be repaid to the Board by the port authority. This is in accordance with the usual practice. It is not anticipated that the payment of these sums will have any appreciable effect on the amount of port dues, or that they will amount to anything approaching the cost that would have been incurred had the docks been purchased by arbitration.
  MR. FELL: Does not the cost exceed £100,000?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I can add nothing to my Answer.

  London Traffic Commission Report.
  SIR HENRY KIMBER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether there is any intention on the part of the Government to take any action on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on London traffic, appointed five years ago.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Board of Trade have constituted a special branch to deal with matters relating to London traffic. This branch is at present engaged in preparing a Report on the whole subject, bringing up to date, so far as far as possible the information collected by the Royal Commission on London traffic This report will shortly be completed and His Majesty's Government will then be in a better position to determine what further action if any it is expedient and practicable to take.

  Meat Trade Inquiry.
  MR. WATT: I bog to ask the President of the Board of Trade with reference to the appointment of a Departmental Committee to inquire into the prices of meat in this Country, whether he will have a representative from Scotland on that Committee.
  MR. CHURCHILL: As I have already stated in reply to questions on this subject, I am reluctant to add to the numbers of the Committee by the appointment of representatives of special interests or views. In those circumstances, especially as the reference to the Committee does not extend to recommendations affecting the conditions of the Importation of Cattle, I do not, as at present advised, think it necessary to include a representative of Scotland among the Members.
  *MR. WATT: How many business men are there on the Committee, and if none will he see his way to appoint one?
  MR. CHURCHILL: Mr. Weddell, a very distinguished gentleman connected with the meat trade but having no personal interest, has already been appointed.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade in

  1237
  reference to the constitution of the Committee appointed to inquire into the general supply, distribution, and price of meat in the United Kingdom, whether he has taken into consideration the views of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone on the subject, when asking him to act as chairman of the proposed Committee; and whether he will consider the advisability of appointing representatives of agricultural constituencies on the Committee.
  MR. CHURCHILL: In answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question I have to say that I have considered to the best of my ability all the qualifications of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone to preside over an inquiry of this character. With regard to the second part of the hon. Member's question, the reference to the Committee does not include inquiry into matters relating to diseases of animals in the United Kingdom or into the conditions of the importation of live cattle from abroad and I do not under the circumstances think it necessary to include in its numbers representatives of agricultural constituencies.

  The All-Red Route.
  MR. McHUGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution recently adopted by the Canadian Government endorsing the resolution of the Colonial Conference in reference to an All-Red Route; has His Majesty's Government concluded its negotiations with the Governments of Canada, New Zealand, and Australia as to subsidising the proposed All-Red Route; is he aware that all sections of Irish Parliamentary representatives are in favour of including Ireland in the proposed scheme, and will lie state what is the present position in regard to negotiations with Colonial Governments; and what are the intentions of His Majesty's Government in reference to this matter.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have been asked by my right hon. friend to reply to this Question. My attention has been called to reports of the resolution referred to, but I am not in a position to add anything to the statements which have been already made to the House by the Prime
  1238
  Minister and other Members of His Majesty's Government.

  Severn Foreshore.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, in view of the decision in the case of Lord Fitzhardinge v. Purcell, 1908, 2 Ch. 139, that a private title had been proved to part of the foreshore of the Severn and that the public have no rights in respect of that foreshore except such as are incident to navigation, whether that foreshore is taken account of in the valuation list for rating purposes; if so, whether it is valued separately or is included with the adjacent property, and at what amount it is valued or what proportion of the valuation of the property as a whole is attributable to it.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I have made inquiry on this subject, and am informed that the foreshore affected by the decision in Lord Fitzhardinge v. Purcell is mostly situate in the Unions of Dursley and Wheatenhurst. According to the information I have at present received, it is not assessed for rating purposes in either union.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: Was it assessed at all for rating purposes?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I cannot say. I may say that the hon. Member for Cambridge has presented me with a handsomely bound volume containing a report of the case, and I hope to read it in the holidays.

  Shoeburyness Foreshore.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, with reference to the estate of about 890 acres of foreshore at Shoeburyness, recently purchased by the War Office for £5,500, what was taken as the annual value of that estate for rating purposes at the time of the purchase; or, if that estate formed part of a larger subject, by how much the annual value for rating of that larger subject has been reduced in consequence of the severance of that part.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am informed that up to the present time the foreshore in

  1239
  question has not been assessed for rating purposes. I understand, however, that the valuer of the Guardians of the Rochford Union, in which it is situate, is in communication with the Treasury valuer as to the assessment of this and other parts of the foreshore belonging to the War Department.

  Motor Competitions on Public Roads.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the conviction for dangerous driving through Croydon of one of the competitors in a motor-cycle race from London to Edinburgh; and whether, in the interests of the public safety and to relieve the pressure on the police, he is prepared to take steps to make all such competitions on public roads illegal.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Probably my hon. friend refers to the conviction at Chester-le-Street of one of the competitors in a motor car run from London to Edinburgh. He came from Croydon. Some information about the case has been supplied to me since the Question appeared on the Paper. I think these competitions on public roads are much to be deprecated, and I will bear in mind the suggestion which my hon. friend makes with regard to them.

  Driffield Guardians Vaccination Contract.
  MR. FERENS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been directed to the recent action of the guardians of the Driffield Union in determining their vaccination contract with Dr. Brand, solely in consequence of his resignation of his office as district medical officer; and if he has sanctioned the utilising of emoluments, arising from the office of public vaccinator, as an inducement to Poor Law medical officers to accept low salaries and allowances for supplies of medicines, surgical appliances, and dressings, visits, and consultations in their treatment of sick poor parish patients.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: My attention has been called to this matter. I have not expressed any approval of the principle referred to in the last part of the Question. It was, however, competent for the guardians to determine the vaccination contract if they thought
  1240
  fit to do so, without any sanction on my part.

  Motor Car Dust Nuisance.
  MR. HERBERT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider the advisability of making regulations, under Section 6 of The Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, prescribing a minimum height from the ground for the bodies of motor cars, with a view to abating the dust nuisance.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The suggestion is generally similar to that which was made in the Question put to me by my hon. friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland on the 13th instant. As I then stated, I will take note of it, but I am not sanguine that it will be possible to adopt it.

  Disclosure of Official Information.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is aware that recently an extract from a Treasury Minute of 1875, against the divulging of official information, was circulated amongst the officials of the Department; and whether this was done by his authority; and, if so, will he say to what cause the revival of this Minute was due.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. CHERRY,for Mr. T. W. RUSSELL): The Minute referred to was circulated by my right hon. friend's special directions for reasons which appeared to him to render that course desirable. In my right hon. friend's opinion, the present Question, illustrates the necessity for the adoption of that course.
  MR. DELANY: Does the right hon. Gentleman hold that an M.P. should not hare access to a Department which spends so much of the taxpayer's money?
  MR. CHERRY: The objection is to the start' of the Department giving confidential information.

  Irish Department of Agriculture Official Salaries.
  MR DELANY: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of

  1241
  Agriculture (Ireland) whether, since the money for the payment of the officials of his Department is voted by this House, he can state the grounds which commended themselves to the Treasury and the Department for increasing the salaries of the three chief officials of the Department's veterinary branch, by a sum amounting in the aggregate to £350; whether he can also state how many of the assistant clerks of the veterinary branch are eligible for promotion to the Second Division, and why they are denied the right of entrance thereto; and whether he will see that no further promotions of the higher officials of the veterinary branch will be made till the claims of the subordinate gentlemen are duly dealt with.
  MR. CHERRY: My right hon. friend has nothing to add to the Answers which he has given to the hon. Member's previous Questions on this subject.

  Canadian Cattle Imports.
  MR CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if his attention has been directed to the fact that, since the last Colonial Conference, when the question of the unrestricted importation of Canadian cattle was discussed at no great length, no representations have been made by the Canadian Government to His Majesty's Government with reference to the subject; and if, in view of the dangerous infectious diseases existent in America, he will not propose any modification of the existing law unless such modification is accompanied by the stringent quarantine regulations in force in America and Europe.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): There is no present intention of proposing any legislation in regard to this matter.

  Illegal Trawling in the Moray Firth.
  MR. SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the dissatisfaction along the East Coast of Scotland in connection with existing conditions regarding fishing in the Moray Firth, the Government would consider the advisability of urging negotiations with foreign Powers with the object of bringing the present unsatisfactory state of affairs to an end.
  MR. ASQUITH: The Secretary for Scotland will, before the House adjourns for the recess, introduce a Bill to prohibit in English and Irish ports what is already prohibited in Scottish ports—namely, the landing or sale of fish caught by trawling in prohibited areas of the sea adjacent to the coast of Scotland. It is hoped that this measure may provide an effectual remedy for the difficulty which exists in relation to these waters.

  Natal Act of Indemnity.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that martial law was proclaimed and has been maintained in Zululand in opposition to the views of His Majesty's Government, and considering the purposes for which it has been used in connection especially with the arrest, imprisonment, and trial of Dinizulu, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to advise that the sanction of the Crown be given to the Act of Indemnity recently passed by the Legislature of Natal.
  MR. ASQUITH: My hon. friend will state the views of His Majesty's Government in the course of the debate on the Colonial Vote this afternoon.

  Land Law (Ireland) Acts.
  MR. McHUGH: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the promise conveyed in the King's Speech at the opening of the present session that a measure would be introduced to amend the Land Law (Ireland) Acts, and of the dissatisfaction prevailing in Ireland at the failure of the Government to carry out its promise in this regard, he will, with a view to preventing unrest and disturbance in Ireland, state what are the present intentions of His Majesty's Government on this matter.
  MR. ASQUITH: My right hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland has more than once stated that it is the intention of the Government to introduce in the coming autumn a measure dealing with congestion in Ireland—that is still our intention. The Report of the Royal Commission is at present under consideration with that object. My right hon. friend has not had sufficient time,

  1243
  since the Report was received, to formulate the necessary legislation for dealing with a matter of so much importance.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Will the Bill deal generally with the question of land purchase?
  MR. ASQUITH: I prefer to reserve my reply to that till the autumn.

  Government Army Policy.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the changes in the Government, whether they adhere to the statement of policy of the Secretary of State for War in the city of London on 4th January 1906, prior to the general election, when he announced that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet as a whole had given him a free hand in reference to the Army, and that Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman laid such stress on efficiency that, if necessary, the Government was prepared to find more men and more money for the Army.
  MR. ASQUITH: If my hon. friend will refer to the speech of the Secretary of State for War on the occasion in question, he will find that he said that while the policy was as stated in the Question, he was not at all sure that it would necessitate the finding of either more money or more men. My right hon. friend is of opinion that in this respect his anticipations have been well founded.

THE SPEAKER AND MR. SWIFT MACNEILL.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL, referring to the action of Mr. Speaker in stopping him putting a Question in which he applied the term "illegal" to certain proceedings on the part of the Natal Government, asked Mr. Speaker if he would lay down how far the term was to be barred. Did it imply or infer a rule that the term was not to be used in reference to the administration of Colonies having responsible Government?
MR. SPEAKER: When I stopped the hon. Member yesterday he had not completed his Question; but, when he had reached a point imputing illegality to the Natal Government, I thought it was time
1244
to intervene. It seems to me that it is undesirable, by moans of a supplementary question, to make observations of that kind which are very much resented by the Government to whom they apply.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I want to guard against any restriction on absolute freedom of discussion in ordinary debates in this House in reference to the internal administration of Natal.

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (IRELAND) BILL.
Lords' Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 345.]
PUBLIC OFFICES SITES (EXTENSION) BILL.
Lords' Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 346.]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
Ordered, "That on this day, not with standing anything in Standing Order No. 15, Business other than Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the Clock."—(Mr. Secretary Haldane).

SUPPLY [19TH ALLOTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee).
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

SUPPLY [19TH ALLOTED DAY].
  CIVIL SERVICES ESTIMATES, 1908–9.

    CLASS II.
    1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £31,450, 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 the Colonies, including a grant in aid of certain expenses connected with emigration."
    *MR. LYTTELTONsaid that South Africa was the centre of interest in Colonial matters;

    1245
    but, while his remarks would be devoted chiefly to South African subjects, he had a word or two to say in the first Instance on a matter relating to the opium traffic, which, unless it was cautiously handled by the Government, might bring us trouble in our great Eastern Dependencies. In discussing the Resolution of the House for the discouragement of the opium traffic, it was presumed by everyone who took part in that debate that any action taken by the Government would be deliberate and cautious, and in particular that they would seek to enlist the co-operation of the authorities of the various Colonies concerned. Unless he was misinformed, there had be n a grievous departure from that wholesome rule in Hong kong, and a similar disposition seemed to be likely in regard to the Straits Settlements. The Legislative Council in Crown Colonies consisted of official and unofficial members. The latter were a kind of advisory council in a permanent minority, but their advice was extremely valuable. It was axiomatic at the Colonial Office that the utmost consideration should be shown to those gentlemen, and that they should be consulted on every occasion of importance. Such an attitude was preeminently desirable in the case of the question of opium. The opium habit had boon an engraved habit in the East for centuries, and a large portion of the revenue of these Colonies was raised from opium. In a matter so delicate, therefore, as that, he would have thought it hardly credible that the Government should not have consulted the Legislative Council of Hong-kong before taking any specific action in regard to the matter. He was informed that, a peremptory telegram was sent by the Secretary of State on 6th May saying to the Colony of Hong-kong that His Majesty's Government had decided to close the opium establishments in Hong-kong. That telegram reached Hong-kong three hours before the statement was made public in the House of Commons, and therefore before any information was vouchsafed to the Colony on the matter. Absolutely no previous consultation had taken place, so far as he was informed, and no opinion taken of the members of the Legislative Council Naturally this excited a great deal of feeling amongst the members of that body. They moved and voted for a
    1246
    resolution of censure on the Government for that very high-handed proceeding. He hoped there would be some explanation given of this proceeding, because, in his opinion, it was calculated rather to hinder than advance the object—the reduction in the consumption of opium. There was another matter which he thought would interest the late Under-Secretary more than the present, because it referred to some sarcastic comments which he made with regard to a certain concession that had been made in the pearl fisheries of Ceylon. The late Under-Secretary, who, if he might say so, was the youngest and most inexperienced of any official who had had any dealing with this subject at all, selected and identified himself as the only person among the officials to condemn that particular concession. His ground was—and he was good enough to absolve him (Mr. Lyttelton) from any fraud in the matter—but his ground of condemnation was that this was not a speculative but a very valuable and stable undertaking, and that therefore the Ceylon Government had acted very wrongly in parting for twenty years with the pearl fisheries. For 100 years the profits had averaged £10,000 a year. There had boon sometimes years without a pearl being taken at all; on other occasions the profits had been very large. The Government did not like to spend their revenue upon so unstable a product, and accordingly they thought it desirable to put the matter upon a proper footing. The fisheries wore therefore leased to a company for twenty years at a rental of £20,000 a year, and there was an obligation on the part of the concessionaires to spend 3,000,000 rupees on the development of the fisheries during the period of the concession. At the end of that time the Government were to resume possession. If, therefore, the large expenditure was successful the Government would have the results of that success, and if it was a failure the company would have to boar the expense. It might be thought that that was not altogether a bad arrangement, but the late Under-Secretary, cheered by the reflection that the company had an extremely good first year, spoke in very opprobrious terms of the wisdom of the grant, but unfortunately he forgot that time sometimes brought correction even to the

    1247
    youngest of them. This year the company was in the position of having to pay the Government £20,000 to execute 150,000 rupees worth of development work, while they had not been able to recover a single pearl. He thought that was worth mentioning.
    Passing to the position of affairs in the Transvaal, he said that the minority there had borne themselves like men in the last two years. There had been no unmanly laments as to the consequences of the action that had been taken; they had courageously and toughly accepted that which was inevitable. He admitted that after self-government was granted they were bound not to indulge in any factious criticism nor to embitter feeling by any partisan comment. At the same time he utterly repudiated the indolent and pusillanimous counsel that, in the circumstances which existed in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony, they were entitled to absolve themselves from all criticism, to shut their eyes, and to say lazily after all the sacrifices which our fellow-subjects had made and the immense financial aid this country had given them, that these Colonies were immune from all criticism because they had self-government. On the contrary, the condition of these Colonies and the financial obligations we had undertaken not only entitled Parliament to exercise, but demanded from them, an unceasing vigilance and also criticism where it could be honestly made and where it was sincerely felt. There were some features of the situation in the Transvaal to which he thought they were all entitled to look with satisfaction. The great fabric that had been erected by the labours and genius of Lord Milner and his colleagues after the war in the main stood. That fabric included the railways, the roads, the bridges, public works, schools, municipal self-government, a system of education which needed only wise and tolerant administration, a system of law remodelled so as to bring the Colony fully up to every modern need, a judiciary equal to any in the Empire over seas, a scientific system of agriculture which, by the assent of the Dutch and the British, had done great good in bringing classes together, in improving agriculture
    1248
    in the Colony, and in increasing its productiveness. There was also a progress towards unification of the Colony, a, progress which had been recognised by General Botha as being largely due to the results of the war. That unification was furthered by the Progressive Party in South Africa. He thought they were entitled to congratulate them, and to congratulate the country upon the progress that had been made towards it. Let those who had denounced the war from the beginning permit him to read a passage from a speech by General Botha. He said—
    "If we go back into the history of South Africa we find that there were not only Colonies here, but also republics, and as long as there was more than one flag, it was impossible to think of a united South Africa. The dissension which has existed in the past has led to serious difficulties. We know that it has led to difficulties between the Colonies and the republics, and has led to one of the most bloody wars that South Africa has ever seen. … Before the war was over it was impossible to think of a united South Africa."
    They might congratulate Lord Milner and those who supported the war at the tune on the fact that such an authority should have uttered so striking a statement. He might say parenthetically that the main source of difficulty which he anticipated in the future in respect of the problem of unification was one about which he had warned the Government two years ago. It was the lowering of manhood suffrage in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony, contrary to all South African precedent, with the result that when the position of the natives came to be discussed in connection with the entire subject the only argument left for those opposed to a native suffrage was "your skin is black and the white man's skin is white." That was a position of which the Government were warned at the time, and he was sorry that the warning had come only too true. Having pointed out some of those matters, which were matters of legitimate congratulation, he was bound to say that there were three main sources of irritation and bitterness which still existed in South Africa, and which he thought the influence of the Government ought to be enlisted to allay. First, he was glad to recognise that since there had been a change

    1249
    in the personnel of the Government the same abuse of the British minority which they used to have from the hon. Member's predecessor had been absent. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Withdraw."] He was speaking in the recollection of the House when he declared that on almost every occasion when South African matters were discussed they were prefaced or concluded by the late Under-Secretary by whoops of invective and sarcasm more fitted for other assemblies than the House of Commons. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] Then there had been—he knew some hon. Gentlemen did not like it, but he was going to say it—repeated and injurious comments made on the system of labour which had prevailed in the Transvaal for a number of years; and lastly, and most conspicuously, there had been a failure, as he read the difficult and obscure facts, to carry out towards the Civil servants employed in the country the honourable understandings which they owed to all those who served the King in any department. He maintained that the minority in South Africa endured the chiefest burden of the war. They also endured at the present moment the heavy taxation which was necessary. Seven-eighths of the taxation was borne by them. He did not think that any candid opponent would deny that a heavy strain had been placed upon them when, contrary to the policy of the last Government, to the treaty, and to the expressed intentions of many authorities, responsible government was granted to the Colony. He did not go back upon that, but he did not think that any candid opponent would deny that a serious strain was imposed on their cheerful loyalty and their temper by the handing over to the custody of a great majority of their political opponents the actual government of the country. He would have thought that every chivalrous adversary and every lover of concord would have thought them worthy of respectful treatment. But so far from receiving respectful treatment these Colonies had received in the House of Commons jeers and insults. The late Under-Secretary had delivered speeches containing many injurious attacks and he had caused them to be circulated in South Africa in official telegrams. It
    1250
    was one of those lucubrations which poured suspicion on the voters list, and the consequential alteration of the voters' list caused the minority to be a good deal smaller than it would have been. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] That, at any rate, was the opinion of those on the spot. What could be more odious to men of great industry and ability doing this work than an imputation cast on their good faith? That imputation had never been frankly withdrawn by the former Under-Secretary, notwithstanding the fact that Lord Selborne had absolutely denied that there was any grounds for suspicion, and that the present Under-Secretary was good enough to say the Government did not associate itself with the imputation. There were other matters tending to cause exasperation, imputations on the good faith of those who managed the recruiting of native labour, and reflections made, not here, but in South Africa, upon the financial administration of the Crown. Colony Government. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman would give some information in regard to this matter. It was reported that the Treasurer last year had condemned the extravagence and incompetency of the Crown Colony Government, by alleging that there was a large deficit, but it had been pointed out by the official auditor that the deficit had been created by putting a sum of £67,000 in the accounts of the following instead of the current year. He would not say that an apology was due, but a retractation should be made of the statement, because the honour of the Crown Colony Government ought to be dear to no one more than to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represented that Government in this House, and who was bound, when an accusation of that kind was made, if it were true, to call attention to it. He knew that offensive imputations of that kind had provoked the bitterest feelings in South Africa, and had done much to weaken the spirit of conciliation which they all desired to see in the Colonies. No one on the Unionist side ever doubted that there were mischiefs attendant upon indentured labour in South Africa. What were the facts about native labour at the present moment? What was the difference between indentured native labour and Chinese labour, about the

    1251
    abolition of which hon. Gentlemen opposite congratulated themselves so much, and asked the country to congratulate them? He would tell the House what the condition was now with respect to Portuguese natives, say, 50 per cent. of the native labour employed in the Transvaal mines. It was foreign alien labour. It was indentured foreign labour. It was brought thousands of miles, and from a climate which made those who came a great deal more susceptible to illness than Chinamen. These labourers were brought without their wives or their families, and the arrangements were such that there could be no holding of land and no holding of property by those who came.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY, Liverpool, Abercromby): Why?
    *MR. LYTTELTONsaid he would tell the hon. Gentleman in a moment. The arrangement provided also for the repatriation of the labourer immediately his in denture was terminated. The disability from holding land arose from the fact that the person who was subject to the indenture was bound under penalties to work in the mines for the whole period of his indenture, and he was obliged to return to his own country at the end of it. The recruiter was bound to effect and defray the cost of repatriation in accordance with the obligations undertaken by him. The native was under an obligation to return to Portuguese territory immediately the period of his contract was ended unless; he effected a re-engagement. He quite agreed that, in the absence of an Ordinance, there was no opportunity compulsorily to exercise the provisions of that contract. But Lord Selborne had stated explicitly that the Government were bound in honour not to countenance the settling of Portuguese natives in the Transvaal. What occurred was this. The Foreign Office had made an arrangement with the Portuguese authorities by which the system of indenture was permitted on condition that the Portuguese natives should spend the money they had earned in Portuguese territory. Not merely were we bound in honour
    1252
    to fulfil that obligation; but, if it were not fulfilled, the arrangement would be at once terminated.
    COLONEL SEELY: It is not fulfilled.
    *MR. LYTTELTONsaid it might not be fulfilled in every case. But the Government had bound themselves to fulfil it, and if they did not, the Portuguese Government had a grievance against them, not merely because of an obligation of honour unfulfilled, but because of an actual injury done. If the Under-secretary did not value his opinion in regard to the character of this indentured native labour let him listen to the opinion of his great friend Mr. Cresswell, whose sincerity had never been controverted. That gentleman in a Report on the subject of native labour in the mines, after giving figures in regard to the natives imported into the Transvaal, said—
    "It is clear from these Inures that so far as the Transvaal is concerned the supply of indigenous cheap coloured labour is wholly insufficient for the carrying on of the mining industry, and that the great mass of coloured labour employed upon the mines has to be obtained from outside its borders. The supply is, therefore, not a natural supply, indigenous to the Colony; it is not even a natural supply indigenous to British South Africa. So far as the natives imported from outside British South Africa are concerned, constituting a further 41 per cent. of the coloured labour force, these consist for the most part of East Coast natives, whose importation is dependent on arrangements between this country and the Portuguese authorities. The continuance of these arrangements on our side depends, among other things, upon the view being upheld, that while it is undesirable, and has been made unlawful, to import indentured alien coloured labour—from China—it is beneficial and deserving of State help to do so overland—from adjacent territories in Africa. In the opinion of the Commission, the imported Portuguese East African offers no advantages to the country, from a social or economic point of view, more than the imported Chinese coolie did. Both fill the place of, and do work which would otherwise be done by white, men. Both take out of the country a large proportion of the wages fund which ought to be spent in the country by a resident industrial population, thereby stimulating the prosperity and development of the country. There remains the 17 per cent. of the coloured labour force recruited in British South Africa, and the 5 per cent. recruited in the Transvaal."
    There they had the opinion of the greatest opponent of Chinese labour, given after months of investigation, that the difference between Chinese labour and the

    1253
    native labour, upon which, hon. Gentlemen opposite were always congratulating themselves, was the difference between bringing indentured alien coloured labour overseas and bringing black labour over land. Perhaps the subtlety of hon. Gentlemen opposite might be able to see some essential difference; he confessed he was unable to do so. The mischiefs such as they were attendant upon indentured labour arose from the settled determination of every white man's community in the world, in which there was a great preponderance of native labour, not to take any part in the work done by the lowest class of coloured labour. If they looked into the matter with a candid mind they would find that the mischief existed with regard to natives who were brought thousands of miles overland as well as with regard to those brought from China; and the one serious and lamentable difference was that the death-rate in the case of the former was two or three times what it was in the case of the latter. He came now to the third cause of exasperation, the retrenched Transvaal officials who had been employed when the Transvaal was a Crown Colony. He admitted that the facts were very difficult to get at, but many of those to whom notice of retrenchment had been given believed themselves to be dependent, first on His Majesty's Government and, perhaps, in a second degree on the Transvaal Government, for standing between them and absolute ruin. Naturally enough they were timid as to giving information. He did not wish to, and he did not believe that anyone would for a moment, impute to the present Government that they would bear hardly against any man whose name was mentioned in a debate like this, or who made any complaint as to the wrongs he believed that he had suffered. The position was this. Nobody denied that there was and had been a need of retrenchment; but the Civil servants in the Transvaal were given to understand that when they took that position—of course at that time the rule was that of a Crown Colony—that at any rate the rule of Great Britain in South Africa was going to last much longer than it actually did. They were assured by Sir Arthur Lawley on 1st December, 1905, that—
    "Many of them had acquired vested rights, that the country was under obligation to them,
    1254
    and that he had sufficient confidence in his countrymen that these obligations would be fulfilled."
    Lord Selborne, at a meeting of the Intercolonial Council on 30th May, 1906, said of the constabulary—
    "It would be quite impossible to ask the existing officers and men to accept reductions in their pay and allowances and not, at the same time, to fulfil those hopes which had always been admitted and encouraged, that the South African constabulary would one day be a permanent police force and their services pensionable."
    Sir Richard Solomon, acting Lieuten-ant-Governor of the Transvaal, at the Legislative Council on 25th May, 1906, said in no less strong terms—
    "This session gives the present Government its last opportunity of redeeming its pledges to the Civil servants, and of that opportunity it intends to avail itself. An ordinance regulating the pensions of officers of the service will, therefore, be introduced, substantially based on the recommendations of the Public Service Commission, to which I believe no possible objection will be take a by any section of the people of this Colony. I wish it clearly to be understood that the Government firmly believes that the new Parliament of the Transvaal under responsible Government would deal fairly with the Civil servants of this Colony, and it would with the greatest confidence leave any legislation relating to the status and pensions of Civil servants to such Parliament; but it feels that it cannot honourably leave the pledges it gave to these Civil servants any longer unfulfilled, especially in view of the fact that the principles on which the legislation will be based will have been decided by an independent Commission, whose personnel has been approved by the people of this country."
    The opportunity was not taken and there were now scores of Civil servants who were being retrenched without pensions. He inferred—of course, he had never seen the report—from a letter that Sir West Ridgeway had written and which appeared in The Times that he had reported so as jealously to safeguard the rights of the Civil servants. If that were so, it would only be candid if the Government would tell the Committee what the facts were, what they had done in order to fulfil the three separate promises which had been given, afterwards confirmed by the West Ridgeway Commission. He did not intend to weary the Committee with a long list of names, but those who had acquainted themselves with this subject of retrenchment knew that many British officers and, officials in the Transvaal had been retrenched and replaced by Dutchmen.

    1255
    He might mention the cases of Colonel Curtis and Colonel O'Brien, the heads of both police forces who had had eight years of honourable service. These distinguished men were replaced by a gentleman by the name of Papenfus who had had no active service in the police, and the outcry against whose appointment out there as well as here was so acute that he learned a day or two ago that that gentleman had resigned.
    COLONEL SEELY: He was only appointed temporarily.
    *MR. LYTTELTONsaid he was quite aware that he had been replaced, but he was not aware that his appointment I was temporary. Then there was the case of Dr. Sansome, a gentleman who had rendered eminent services in the Medical Department of the mines, and during the course of whose service in Lord Milner's time and afterwards had been able to reduce the death-rate amongst the natives by at least 50 per cent. Two persons had been appointed in his place, but he did not gather that there had been any reduction in the cost of the Department. Then there was the case of Mr. Thornton, the General Superintendent to the Victoria Hospital, whose dismissal could not be looked upon with other than grave indignation by those who valued the honour of this country; and the cases of the three magistrates, Major Bolton, who had filled his office of resident magistrate at Pietersburg for five years with conspicuous success, and who had given up the prospect of commanding his regiment to join the service; Major McInerney, the resident magistrate at Barberton, Mr. Rolleston, resident magistrate at Lichtenburg, and others. He did not wish to assume that all the facts in favour of the case which he was putting before the Committee were absolutely correct in every detail. He frankly admitted that he had found it impossible accurately to inform himself, except in a few instances, of all the details. He did not think he would be justified in asking the Committee to draw the inference which he had drawn if it were not for the fact that new circumstances had occurred since the time that he and the hon. Member for
    1256
    Gravesend had brought this subject before the House of Commons on a previous occasion. The position then taken up by the Government in regard to it seemed a very strong one. It was said that Lord Milner himself had pointed out the necessity for considerable retrenchment, and that many of the retrenchments had been made under the advice of a distinguished Indian Civil servant, Mr. Marriss, who had been appointed by the late Crown Colony to superintend the reconstruction of the Transvaal Civil Service. But these pleas were no longer open, for on 15th May, 1908, Mr. Marriss wrote to the Transvaal Government in these terms—
    "I have decided with reluctance to ask your Government to relieve me from my present appointment under it, in connection with the public service reorganisation. I do not feel that retrenchments and appointments are being made in such a way that I can remain associated with them. I will send you a further memorandum on the subject, and need not go into details now. I place myself in your hands as regards the actual date of my departure. It may be convenient that I should wait a few days to finish half-completed proposals, and to give the Government time to decide what arrangements, if any, it will make to carry on the work. But I do not propose to undertake any fresh work, and should be glad to leave as soon as it is convenient."
    A valuable authority speaking with respect to the manner in which the grievances were to be redressed, said that a Bill was before the Transvaal Parliament to enable the Government of the colony to make the appointments to the Civil Service exactly as they pleased. There was no provision for entrance examinations, and it was truly affirmed that if that policy was carried out it might be said with perfect accuracy that there would be no test at all of the ability of the men to be appointed to the Civil Service in the Transvaal; and that the Government would not be able to resist the pressure put upon them by their supporters for appointments. Two years ago, it was pointed out in the frankest possible manner that the spoils should be given to the victors. He thought he had shown the Government the facts of the case, but he appealed with all the earnestness in his power to hon. Gentlemen opposite not to assume the facts as he had stated them, but to influence the Government

    1257
    to have an inquiry by three men of Impartiality from this country, who "would go into the facts, and who would say whether the case, which rested on the very strong prima facie grounds put before the House, was one which did not mark the action which should be taken by His Majesty's Government. He was extremely sorry to detain the House so long, but there had been no opportunity of discussing these matters at all this session. The only discussion of the affairs of Natal in which they had engaged in that House was afforded of what he thought, was the most exasperating form of controversy, namely, by Questions put to the Government by zealots below the gangway. In this controversy it should be remembered that our policy had added to the work of the Natal Government the very formidable problem of Zululand as well as the very formidable problem with respect to natives in their own territory. Natal was a small Colony with honourable traditions, and in the humanity of whose rulers he had the most implicit confidence. This controversy, so far as he was able to judge, had gathered round four principal points. One was the arrest by a strong force of the Chief Dinizulu; the second was the proclamation of martial law; the third was the question of the prolongation of the, preliminary examination of Dinizulu; and the fourth was the question of Dinizulu's salary. Speaking entirely for himself, he thought we were in this difficulty. We were bound to believe that the Natal Government were acting with reasonable cause. At the same time we were bound by all our honourable traditions to presume the innocence of a man until he was found guilty. These two positions were extremely difficult to reconcile in discussing this matter, and the House would bear with him if he might seem not always satisfactorily to recognise them. He was bound to assume that the Natal Government had good cause for arresting Dinizulu; he was glad to assume it, and he could assure them he would not do so unless he thought that they had good cause. He thought that the Natal Government were absolutely right, if they undertook that step, to use a force to effect the arrest which would make resistance impossible. That was both
    1258
    a humane and an expedient thing to do. They had also acted legally in putting Dinizulu through a long preliminary examination. A Statute had been passed by the House authorising them to do it. He spoke with diffidence, for there were lawyers present who would correct him if he was wrong, but he thought that even in this country there had been occasions in which two or three months had been spent in preliminary investigations in important cases.
    MR. MACKARNESS: Without formulating a definite charge?
    *MR. LYTTELTONsaid he did not think that was quite the point. The arrest took place under a warrant or under an information in this country, but frequently the result of a preliminary investigation was an indictment to be made of entirely different character from the cause of the original warrant. Now the length of time required for the purposes of the law was about double what was needed in this country. The distances in Zululand were enormous. The difficulty of finding the witnesses was exceedingly great, as was also the amount of time occupied in bringing them up to Court. The Attorney-General had also distinctly stated that he regarded it as in the interests of the prisoner, that every fact to be relied upon at the trial should be given notice of to him and his advisers in the preliminary examination. It was stated that the view which the Attorney-General had taken had met with the approbation of those who defended Dinizulu. Although it was natural that comment should have been made on the length of time occupied, yet on reviewing the circumstances in comparison with our own system, which, of course, possessed facilities infinitely greater for ensuring speed, he doubted whether any just condemnation could be cast on the Natal Government in respect of this delay. He did not pass any opinion in regard to the circumstances in which martial law was proclaimed, but he was entitled to say that martial law never had been administered in a more lenient way than by the Natal Government. Not a single

    1259
    execution had taken place under it, and it would be unjust and ungenerous in them at this distance from the scene to pronounce a hasty opinion against the proclamation until they were fully acquainted with the circumstances under which it was made. In regard to the payment of Dinizulu's salary, he thought that His Majesty's Government were right in having paid it to him. He thought that the documents showed that there was a primary obligation on His Majesty's Government to pay that salary, unless the circumstances could be established affording not technical but real and convincing reasons why they should not do so. He did not attach much importance to the question, but for what his own personal opinion was worth, he thought that His Majesty's Government were right, having regard to the length of the proceedings that were taking place and to the poverty and unjust needs of the Chief Dinizulu, in recognising that the obligation to pay the salary to him, even if their view did not coincide with that of the Natal Government. He did not believe that there would be much difficulty for anyone in whom they had confidence to persuade reasonable men in Natal on this point, and he did not think that he should have any difficulty now. He was afraid that he had detained the House longer than he had intended, and he knew that he had tried the good-will of the hon. Gentleman opposite once or twice. He had endeavoured, as he should always endeavour, to speak on these matters in no partisan spirit. He thought that that which had taken place with reference to questions in the East was of very serious importance. Unless the House was satisfied that the Government were really going to consult and pay some deference to the views of legislative councils in the Crown Colonies, an infinite amount of trouble would come upon us. He admitted that the problem of South Africa was more vital than even those other questions in the East to which he had referred. How could we expect to retain the confidence and allegiance of our fellow-subjects in South Africa if His Majesty's Government stood by and allowed Civil servants to return ruined from the country to which they had
    1260
    rendered good service? No country, however great, could afford to lose such allegiance, and he appealed to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who he knew felt as strongly as he did upon this subject, whether this was not a problem which closely touched the honour and reputation of our own country. He had made no reflection on the Transvaal Government, and he would be unwilling to do so, unless the facts were more fully known. He had asked that an inquiry should take place in order to satisfy the people of this country. The honour and reputation of the country ought not to suffer at their hands, and he made this demand for an inquiry in terms which he had striven to make moderate in tone, and he commended it with the utmost earnestness to the consideration both of the House and the country.
    COLONEL SEELYsaid he had listened with much pleasure to the right hon. Gentleman, and although he had said that it was a long speech, it had not proved too long for those who had heard it. He would endeavour to answer all the points which the right hon. Gentleman had raised. He might say that he welcomed the moderation with which he had spoken, as he always did, with the exception of an allusion which he had made to his right hon. friend, to which he would revert later. On the last point to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred he thought that he had a complete answer—so complete that he made an appeal to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in that House, and to all persons outside, especially those who had a knowledge of or were connected with our Civil Service, to take note of the official figures, which were an absolute refutation of the charges made against the Transvaal Government. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the opium traffic, and said that they had taken action without consulting the authorities at Hong Kong. It was impossible fully to consult the authorities. It was not certain until a short time before the debate that that particular debate would take place. Although they did their best to ascertain the views of those cognisant of the matter, it was quite impossible to get anything like a reasoned opinion from the inhabitants of Hong

    1261
    Kong. He reasserted what he had said in a previous discussion, that it was the policy of the Government to close the opium dens in Hong Kong. That remained the policy of the Government, and as regarded that policy itself the right hon. Gentleman would forgive him if he quoted some words of his. The right hon. Gentleman said on a former occasion—
    "I congratulate the Government and the Under-Secretary on having taken steps which are entirely reasonable in the circumstauces."
    *MR. LYTTELTON: Of course, I agreed with, that policy, but what I said was that every person of sense presumed that the ordinary steps had been taken that would make the policy palatable.
    COLONEL SEELYsaid the ordinary steps could not be taken for reasons that he had given. The ordinary steps were now being taken, and the Government would act throughout on the advice they had recently obtained, and would obtain, from the Governor. He believed he would be able to satisfy the House that the best public opinion in Hong Kong, and the opinion of the Governor himself, coincided with the policy of the Government as to the measure they proposed to take. With regard to Ceylon pearls, the right hon. Gentleman opposite was extraordinarily persistent on that point, which he would have thought anyone in his position would have desired to forget. In a public career which had been distinguished by almost uniform success, in the opinion of the man in the street, there were two matters on which the right hon. Gentleman had come croppers. One was the question of Ceylon pearls and the other Chinese labour. But the right hon. Gentleman would return to them. The right hon. Gentleman said that his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade had used some sarcastic language on the subject; but that language seemed to him to be well justified, and, speaking on behalf of the Colonial Office, he said they still thought that the right hon. Gentleman made an uncommonly bad bargain, for he thought he was right in saying that the company that got the concession, greatly to the right hon. Gentleman's surprise, made a profit of
    1262
    something over 60 per cent. That was a I fairly large percentage. When a man made a bargain with another man to exploit something which he had in his possession, and that person made a profit approaching even remotely 60 per cent., the man in the street would say that he had made a bad bargain. That the profits in this particular year had not been so great was exceedingly likely, but, of course, this was rather a barren controversy, because they would not know for many years, with certainty, who was right. But if they took the contract as far as it had gone and the profits made, the right hon. Gentleman had made a very bad bargain. Now he left these two points, and came to the question of Natal, which had occupied the House at Question-time very fully for many days past. He would say that the matter was critical and important, for at this moment the Natal Parliament was discussing it. The Natal Government had not seen fit to pay Dinizulu's salary. He did not wish to go over the ground again, but it would be remembered that their reason was that Dinizulu was in the position of an ordinary civil servant, and that, therefore, they were entitled to withhold his salary. To this the Government had replied that whatever their view might be, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham made the bargain he said that the salary should not be withdrawn without the consent of the Secretary of State. The Government were convinced that if the right hon. Gentleman were present—and he need hardly say that every one in the House wished ardently that he were—he would agree with the Government that to take away a man's salary just at the moment when he wanted it most, just at the moment when by the operation of martial law he was debarred from getting resources from his own countrymen, was action they could not take and action to which they could not and would not give their consent. The Government had said they would wait until the Natal Supreme Court had decided whether the Natal Government were liable or not—because the Natal Government said they wished to submit the question to the tribunal—but they were not able to wait, first, because the action did not come on,

    1263
    and also for two other reasons which were conclusive to them and he understood to hon. Gentlemen opposite. The first was that they had found out that Dinizulu had got no more money, and that those who supported him had no money either. He did not know what the expenses of the defence of this native chief were, but he was told they amounted to £100 a month, and if they amounted to anything like that it was apparent that there had been a strain on his resources, and it was not surprising that he and his friends should be denuded of resources. Convinced that what they were told was correct and that he had no more money, the Government decided that that was an added reason why they should themselves pay in accordance with the statement made by the Attorney-General. The third reason why they considered that they must take action was that they were threatened with legal proceedings as a Government, based on the statement of the Attorney-General, for the payment of the salary from Imperial funds. So far as the payment of the salary was concerned, they would have been most willing litigants, for they wanted to pay the salary, and nothing would have pleased them better than to have been ordered to do so by the Court; but they foresaw; that were a case brought, either by petition of right or by some other method, against the Government in the Courts here the pleadings and the speeches of counsel would have contained violent indictments of the Government of the Colony of Natal for their action in not paying. They were anxious, and especially in view of the effect it might have on natives in Natal, that no such state of affairs should arise. A public controversy between the Government of this country and the Government of Natal on a matter of honourable obligation, would have been so injurious to all concerned that it was their bounden duty to put an end to it at once by paying the salary; and in taking that action he felt confident that the Government had the assent of all their friends on their own side of the House. And he must add that all on his side of the House would welcome the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that he was convinced that in this case the Government had acted rightly; but even
    1264
    more were they grateful to the hon. Member for Darlington, who, yesterday, knowing the views of the Opposition, and that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman would come too late to be brought to the notice of the Natal Parliament, who would wish to know the opinion of the Members of the House of Commons, with characteristic courage and straightforwardness, stated in the form of a supplementary question the view to which he had referred. He thanked the hon. Member for his courage and assistance in the matter. With regard to the Special Court, hon. Members wished to know how it would be constituted. It would be constituted on similar lines, though not precisely the same, to the Special Court which tried what were called the rebels in Natal. He wished at once to explain that, of course, the forming of a Special Court of Judges was greatly to the interest of the prisoner. No one would wish to suggest that a jury of white men in Natal would not wish to come to an absolutely fair conclusion, but it was also true that when even the most honourable men were asked to try a prisoner whom they had lately been mobilised to capture they would find it a matter of almost superhuman difficulty to arrive at an unprejudiced conclusion.
    EARL WINTERTON: Oh, Oh!
    COLONEL SEELY: Perhaps the noble Lord has an excess of superhuman virtue.
    EARL WINTERTON: My interruption was directed against the amazing assertion of the hon. Gentleman that because a man was sent out to capture this unfortunate chief he would not be able to form an unbiassed opinion on his case.
    COLONEL SEELYsaid he had stated that it would be more difficult for such a man than it would be for the Judges who would be appointed under this Act. He knew the noble Lord was a soldier, but he was sure he would agree with him that were he to mobilise his Yeomanry in order to capture somebody with whom he disagreed in some portion of his constituency his judgment would possibly not be quite so sound as that of a man

    1265
    who had had nothing to do with the capture. But in order that the noble Lord might set his mind at rest, he wished to read from a despatch sent to the Government by Sir Matthew Nathan. Speaking on behalf of his Government, he said—
    "Mr. Carter gave me various instances, some of which, I know, are recorded in your lordship's office, in which trial by jury, owing to racial feeling, had proved most unsatisfactory, and he told me that it had been generally recognised that, the special tribunal above referred to had served its purpose excellently."
    The noble Lord and every one in the House would see that by the appointment to this special tribunal, which was recommended by the Attorney-General in Natal, it was more certain that they could ensure an absolutely unprejudiced trial for this chief; and for that, he thought, all in the House would be grateful to the Natal Government. It might be supposed that pressure from home had induced them to take this step. So far as he was aware, that was not the case. Of their own motion the Natal Government proposed this Special Court in order to secure the most unprejudiced trial possible for this native chief. He had been asked what the constitution of the Court was to be. He could not say definitely, but he thought it was very likely that Sir William Smith, a puisnc Judge of the Transvaal, would serve, and every one who knew anything of South African Judges would agree that a more admirable and impartial appointment as President of the Court could not be made. The other representatives would be also judicial functionaries, and there would be at least one with a special knowledge of native affairs. Mr. Schreiner who, he thought, might be said to be the greatest lawyer in South Africa, had been retained for the defence of Dinizulu, and by the generosity of those who were anxious to see complete and unprejudiced justice done, the funds would be forthcoming for the defence. Much of the funds had been provided from Natal, and some by members of that House and others, irrespective of their general views, simply because they were anxious to see full justice done to the prisoner in the matter of legal assistance. Dinuzulu had been in prison seven months. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had very properly made the best
    1266
    case he could for the Natal Ministry, but the fact remained that to keep a man in gaol seven months without a definite charge was unprecedented, at any rate in recent times. It was impossible to expedite the matter from here, but he was sure the House would be glad to hear that Dinuzulu was not suffering in health from his confinement. The following telegram had been received from the Governor of Natal that morning in reply to a telegram sent by his noble friend the day before—
    "Have spoken to Dr. Ward, medical officer in charge of Central Gaol, Maritzburg, in whoso sympathetic treatment of prisoners I have full confidence. He informs me that Dinizulu's general health considerably better than when he arrived in December, and that chief recently told Governor of gaol he had not been so well for years. He is less puffy, and unsatisfactory kidney symptoms are less pronounced. He has all exercise he wants and such dietary and medical treatment as suited to his state of health."
    He was sure the House would be glad to know that Dinizulu was not suffering from ill-health. The prosecution would be brought to an end very soon indeed. He understood that the extraordinary idea had gained ground in Natal that there was some intention on the part, of His Majesty's Government, as a consequence of undertaking the obligation of paying Dinizulu's salary, to take an active part in this matter and send him away from the legal proceedings which I were now going on and return him to Zululand. Such a statement was absolutely absurd. The Government had neither the power nor the wish to interfere in any direction of that kind and to attempt to send Dinizulu back to Zululand before any Court had pronounced judgment on a charge definitely brought against him was absolutely out of the question. With regard to the Indemnity Act, the point that had excited most; interest was whether, if His Majesty were advised not to disallow it, the Home Government would not be assenting to a proclamation made deposing Dinizulu from his position as chief—a position which was assured t o him by the Member for West Birmingham. It had been stated that a pronouncement had been made by a military officer that the sanctioning of the Indemnity Act by the Home Government would for ever deprive the supreme chief of his position as such

    1267
    in Zululand. They were informed by the Governor that he did not think that was the case, but he had induced his noble friend to send a further telegram with a view to making quite sure on the point, because he believed that irrespective of party the House would hesitate to assent to this Bill if the result of it was likely to be as stated by Miss Colenso and others. In reply to inquiries, the Governor of Natal had telegraphed—
    "I have reason to believe that McKenzie did make statement imputed to him, but that he was not authorised by Governor Natal. I certainly gave no authority to exercise powers of supreme chief, nor was I advised by Ministry to do so."
    It would thus be seen that whatever pronouncement had been made by Colonel McKenzie was of no effect in law. The Indemnity Act would not legalise the action which he had taken, which was illegal from the start. The House, therefore, need have no fear that the Indemnity Act would prejudice the status of Dinizulu. In the view of the Home Government to take the step of hesitating to pass the Indemnity Act would be most unwise. The Act was the only means by which they could get rid of martial law, and to refuse to pass it would be quite contrary to precedent, and would have a most prejudicial effect. The Home Government were so convinced that to hesitate in this matter would be prejudicial to the interest not only of good relations between ourselves and the Government of Natal, but especially to the natives in that territory, that they would ask the House to raise no question as to recommending His Majesty not to disallow the measure which was shortly to be presented to them. He came to the question of the Transvaal, and Lord Milner's judiciary and agricultural proposals. He agreed that the judiciary and many other things set up by Lord Milner did admirable work; but they were set up on an altogether extravagant scale, and when the right hon. Gentleman asked them to say that all the retrenchments and reductions were due to the policy of General Botha's Government, he must remind him that the greatest retrenchment and reductions were made under Crown Colony government.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERasked how many of those reductions
    1268
    were made during Lord Milner's administration.
    COLONEL SEELYsaid he could not say how many. With, regard to manhood suffrage, the whole question was whether we ought to have granted it, and in so doing indirectly set up a colour bar. He could not say more than that the thing was done. He remembered very well his right hon. friend below the gangway raising this point when the Constitution was first granted. He did not then fully apprehend the dangers which might follow from that course. He was not there to criticise in any way the conclusion which was come to, but he declared that the Government fully realised the difficulties which were created by this situation. It might be said that had they taken the other course, the difficulties would have been as great, in some respects even greater. That was all he now had, to say on this matter. The thing had been done and could not be undone. To deprive white people of the vote they had enjoyed was a thing which it seemed to him they could not seriously propose. With regard to federation or unification, he could only repeat that the Government would welcome proposals from the South African Governments to that end. They were fully aware that the unification or federation of the South African Governments in whatever form it came, must tend to make things easier in almost every respect, and especially in regard to the relations between this Government and the Governments out there. But the Home Government did not propose to make any proposition themselves; they thought it would be unwise to do so. They awaited confidently and with great interest the conference shortly to meet at Durban, and would take every step to render it due dignity. The right hon. Gentleman had said that they ought to remove the causes of irritation and bitterness which now existed in South Africa. He mentioned four, but before doing so he poured what he could hardly describe as less than vitriol on the head of the President of the Board of Trade. He admired the right hon. Gentleman's adroitness in choosing for the purpose a moment when the President of the Board of Trade was out of the House. Besides

    1269
    that his right hon. friend had left that Department and, therefore, could not speak for himself.
    MR. LYTTELTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman meant that they were to abstain from criticism of Ministers bemuse they were absent from the House when important questions were being discussed, in regard to which their presence was required.
    COLONEL SEELYsaid that when any Member criticised another in far more violent terms during his absence than during his presence, it might naturally be imputed to him that he was using a wise discretion.
    MR. LYTTELTONsaid he himself gave the hon. and gallant Gentleman notice of the general line of his argument and, therefore, he ought to have acquainted his right hon. friend.
    COLONEL SEELYsaid he thought his right hon. friend was fully justified in the statements to which the right hon. Gentleman took exception. Those statements were almost always directed against persons who introduced a particular form of labour in South Africa. That form was regarded on the opposite benches with favour; on the Ministerial side with disfavour. As to the voters' list, he did not wish to reopen the controversy. He must repeat that, whilst the Government did not disagree with or demur to Lord Selborne's statement that he was satisfied that the list was accurate, it could not be surprising that people in South Africa did demur to it when they found that several thousand more persons were on the register than they believed there were adult males in the country. There was great reason for people calling in question a roll of this kind with so remarkable a discrepancy. He himself was of the opinion that there had been an extraordinary influx into the Rand, and he should think there was no proof of any kind that the roll was not accurate. He submitted that it was most unwise to reopen a controversy which could only have the effect of reviving certain class and race bitterness in South Africa now happily passing away. With regard
    1270
    to Chinese labour, the right hon. Gentleman said there was no difference between Chinese labour and black labour imported from Portuguese East Africa. To that he listened with amazement, thinking such a statement could not be made by any reasonable man. What did the Liberal Party say about Chinese labour? They said first of all that it was introduced against the will of the people. They went to an election and by a majority of two to one they said the Liberal Party was right.
    MR. STUART WORTLEYhere interjected a remark across the Table which was not heard in the Press gallery.
    COLONEL SEELY: I trust that remark will not be recorded in the journals of the House. A more disgraceful and unworthy suggestion—[Loud MINISTERIAL cheers.]
    MR. STUART WORTLEYrose, but Colonel SEELY refused to give way.
    The CHAIRMANalso rose amid cries of "Name" and "Withdraw."
    MR. STUART WORTLEY: I rise to order.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: I think hon. Members on the front benches ought to know that it is not in order to remain standing when I rise. If the right hon. Gentleman rises to a point of order I will hear him.
    MR. STUART WORTLEY: I wish to ask whether the expression of the hon. Gentleman is Parliamentary—the word "disgraceful."
    COLONEL SEELY: On that point of order may I ask whether the original statement of the right hon. Gentleman in Parliamentary? [SEVERAL MEMBERS: What was it?]
    *THE CHAIRMAN: I did not hear what the original statement was.
    MR. STUART WORTLEY: I said the people of the Transvaal arrived no such vote as the hon. Gentleman said

    1271
    they did, and I added, not till the loan of five millions was offered, and not even then did the people of the Transvaal arrive at such a vote.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think, whatever opinion hon. Members may form of what the right hon. Gentleman said, that he said anything unparliamentary. Then I am asked whether the word "disgraceful" is unparliamentary. I do not consider the word s essentially an unparliamentary expression.
    COLONEL SEELY: I remained standing, Sir, only because I thought it was the custom in this House that the hon. Member speaking should give way or not at his option, and I did not wish to give way until I had concluded my sentence. I apologise to you, Sir, for the mistake I made.
    MR. STUART WORTLEY: In remaining standing, Sir, while you were standing I was undoubtedly guilty of a mistake, but I thought you were securing to me the right to raise my point of order.
    COLONEL SEELYsaid he was saying when he was interrupted, that such a statement commenting in such language upon a Government friendly to this country, which had rendered us such signal service, or under any circumstances, seemed to him absolutely contrary to the best traditions of this House, and he ventured to hope that the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw it. [Cheers and cries of "Withdraw."] The suggestion was one which he could not characterise in Parliamentary language. Reverting to the retrenchments the hon. Member said that, although he did not consider there was any blame to be attached to the Transvaal Government in this matter, the Colonial Office had done their best to find places for those who were retrenched. The total number of these retrenched candidates since the beginning of 1907 was 164, and the committee of the Colonial Office had found room for thirty-nine and twenty-one and eight, making 56 per cent. of the vacancies. There were persons outside who had made the I extraordinary allegation against General
    1272
    Botha's Government to the effect that they were making wholesale displacement of British officials and replacing them by Dutch, that no Englishmen need apply, and other wild statements of that kind. It was admitted there was a larger Dutch population than an English in the Transvaal. It was almost certain that the adult males of South African descent were larger ' in number than the adult males of English descent. If there were any word of truth ' in the allegations made, one would expect to find that there were about 60 or 70 Dutchmen to 20 or 30 or 40 Englishmen in every 100. What were the facts? In the whole Transvaal Civil Service, including the police and prison department, but excluding the railways, instead of there being about 70 Dutchmen and only 30 Englishmen in a country where the Dutch preponderated, out of every 100 there were 84 Englishmen and 16 Dutchmen. He asked the House to realise the significance of those figures. He asked that the campaign of misrepresentation against General Botha's Government should come to an end. It was absolutely unjustified. What about the new appointments? He would not have been surprised if, in that case, there had been a preponderance of Dutch to redress the balance, though he would have deplored it. Yet, instead of 70 or 80 Dutchmen being appointed to 30 or 20 Englishmen, since General Botha took office the number of new appointments made were 59 English, 41 Dutch. Well, they had now scotched and killed that calumny, and he was glad they had. Looking at those figures which had just come to him, and certified officially to be correct, it would be observed that General Botha and his Government had treated the minority politically with extraordinary generosity. He did not himself admit that the cleavage was on racial lines. Then there were the railways. In 1907 there were employed of South Africa, born (English and Dutch descent) 2,195; English born, 3,629; other nationalities, 329, the percentages being 35 per cent., 58 per cent., and other nationalities 7 per cent. He could not add, therefore, to the statement he had made, and directly the figures were presented he thought that the whole argument fell to the ground. One could not help being

    1273
    sorry for the gentlemen whose appointments had been brought to a close. He had seen nearly all of them personally, and in several cases the Department had managed to get them suitable appointments. He had received an announcement, indeed, to the effect that on the previous day an important appointment had been secured for one gentleman, and he would make an appeal to the other Departments of the Government to see whether they could not give help in a similar direction. He thought, however, that he had disposed of the allegation that had been made. The right hon. Gentleman said it still stood on record that the Opposition protested against the grant of self-government to the Transvaal. He was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman continued to make that statement. It was a, great experiment, but its success had been most surprising. Of that there could be no question, for, whereas a few years ago we had there a hostile population, it was now true to say that in matters of great difficulty and delicacy during the last eighteen months no man had been so loyal a friend to the British Government as General Botha. That opinion was not confined to Englishmen in this country. He, did not know whether hon. Members had read the speech which had recently been delivered by Sir H. de Villiers during the celebrations at Quebec, but it was so interesting that he would quote it—
    "South Africa in recent years has passed through a terrible ordeal, but she is slowly recovering from the effects of an injurious war. Only those who have lived there and had friends and relatives fighting on both sides can fully realise what that war meant to us. It was undertaken for the purpose of obtaining equal rights for all, but for some time after peace was established it looked as if political rights were to be withheld for an indefinite period from the new subjects of the King. At length, however, different counsels prevailed. A policy of trust was adopted, with the novel result that a, sullen and discontented people were, as if by, magic, changed into law-abiding, loyal subjects. From that quarter no danger need be apprehended for the future. On the contrary, if ever any foreign Power should attempt to wrest South Africa from the Empire, you may be quite sure that history will repeat itself, and, just as the French-Canadians were foremost in defending their country against attacks from without, so the Dutch inhabitants of South Africa will fight shoulder to shoulder with their British fellow-subjects for their King and country "
    1274
    The Government were persuaded that the eloquent words littered by this speaker represented the truth in South Africa, and His Majesty's Ministers rejoiced that they had enjoyed the privilege of helping to carry out this great and beneficent work.
    MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid that he adhered to what he had stated. He said that the hon. Member's description of the South African elections was inaccurate, and that it had been adopted for the purpose of casting obloquy on his right hon. friend. Personally he had said nothing which had not already been said both in and out of the House. General Botha had stated that the Government returned from the polls not pledged to abolish. Chinese labour—[Oh, oh!]—and for some time after they announced their intention not to abolish it. Thereafter the Government thought fit to accord to the Transvaal exceptional financial treatment which had never been accorded to any self-governing Colony; and he said that according to the historical sequence the evidence was accurate, and he had nothing to take away from the statement. It was for the Government to explain why they offered that financial assistance at that particular period of time. He had never seen any satisfactory explanation of the circumstance, and he refused to admit any inaccuracy in his statement.
    COLONEL SEELYpointed out that General Botha in his speech before the poll, said that—
    "We will not have Chinese labour with indenture or without indenture."
    The policy adopted as to Chinese labour had been justified by its complete success, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see that his statement with regard to the programme of the Government was incorrect. General Botha's statement was conclusive on that point. He regretted that the insinuation of the right hon. Gentleman had been made, and he hoped that before the sitting was closed he would withdraw it.
    MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid that the statements were made by the Minister in the Transvaal to the effect that they returned from the polls to continue

    1275
    this Chinese labour policy. Hon. Members could only speak according to the general evidence that reached them.
    *MR. RAMSAY MACDONALDdrew attention to the attitude of mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, as shown in his opening remarks. The right hon. Gentleman had treated the Committee once again to the now familiar doctrine that if they persisted in their criticisms on the action of Natal, they were doing something that was showing disloyalty or that was giving embarrassment to the loyal minority in that Colony. It was a most extraordinary doctrine to be preached from the front Opposition bench that in that Imperial House they must not say what they believed to be true of the political conduct of Ministers of our self-governing Colonies lest they laid themselves open to the retort of the right hon. Gentleman that they were putting obstacles in the way of and creating embarrassment for what he called the loyal English minority.
    MR. LYTTELTONsaid that, on the contrary, he claimed and had always claimed in that House to criticise the action of the Government with regard to the Transvaal, and especially with regard to giving them self-government.
    *MR. RAMSAY MACDONALDadmitted that that was perfectly true, but before the right hon. Gentleman made the general statement, he made with special reference to Natal the observation to which he (Mr. Macdonald) now referred. If the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to convey that impression, he could only say that that was the way it struck him. Those who had ventured to make these criticisms and who honestly believed they were entitled to do so, had met with the criticism outside that they were doing something to disrupt the Empire and putting difficulties in the way of Natal. It was perfectly true that they might sometimes criticise things that had happened in Natal during the last two or three years with a strength of feeling and in a way that might create offence in Natal, but hon. and right hon. Members must
    1276
    remember that whilst that criticism on Natal might be objectionable and indiscreet, those who exaggerated the meaning and value of that criticism and who came to that House and misrepresented that criticism were doing more than those who uttered it to contribute to the unrest in Natal. The person who exaggerated what was said in the House and caused it to be exaggerated out in Natal, forgot that it was his exaggeration quite as much as the criticism in this House that caused unrest there.
    MR. LYTTLETON: Let the hon. Member quote the words that he imagines I made use of.
    *MR. RAMSAY MACDONALDsaid he was sorry he had not taken down the observations which were made by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the criticism that was offered both inside and outside the House on affairs in Natal. With regard to the Transvaal Civil Service appointments, his hon. and gallant friend had completely and in the strongest way disposed of the complaints which were so common on that subject. But there was something more that he (Mr. Macdonald) might say. He happened to be in the Transvaal shortly after the peace, and he saw the influx of those extraordinary Civil servants whom Lord Milner appointed to carry out the pacification. He did not wish to refer to what went on, it would be sufficient for him to say to any hon. Member of the House who had made himself acquainted with the affairs of the Transvaal that the whole body of imported Civil Service which Lord Milner placed in authority in offices in the Transvaal was known to the people of the Transvaal as "Milner's Kindergarten." Anybody who went into the Government offices of Johannesburg, Pretoria, or Bloomfontein must have seen that since the War a great change had taken place. Firstly, the staff, numerically, was far too large; and, secondly, the men whom Lord Milner appointed were not the proper men for the duty imposed upon them. Every Dutch Civil servant he had had the pleasure of consulting in the Colony held up his hands in horror and

    1277
    said that as soon as self-government was granted the unfortunate thing they would have to face was the complete reconstruction of the personnel of the Civil Service that had been imposed upon the Colony by the Governor. That had taken place. It was inevitable that it should take place, and it was an evidence of the common sense of the Government put into power both in Johannesburg and Blœmfontein. Last session he took part in the debate in the House on the question of the franchise in the Transvaal, and he then expressed some doubt as to the advisability of the manhood suffrage which the Government had instituted in the Transvaal, not because he was opposed to manhood suffrage but because he believed that everybody who had studied affairs in South Africa would see the enormous disadvantage of such a franchise when the time came to enfranchise the natives. It was certain that the question of the native franchise would not be left long, and directly that question came up it would be a great obstacle to the enfranchisement of the natives all over Africa that there was manhood suffrage in the Transvaal. His democratic principles, he was sorry to say, had struggled in vain to justify the action, the Government took on that occasion, in view of the larger question of native rights. He thought greater good would have been done if the white men had been subjected to a higher standard of franchise. He thought we should not have established a franchise in the Transvaal which might he a permanent bar to the enfranchisement of the natives of South Africa. He hoped the Government would do its best to see that the Cape solution was followed when the new Federal Constitution was being framed. Although he knew that the Home Government might not want to interfere unofficial members might express a hope that Cape Colony would stand by the native franchise when the Federation Convention meets. The first thing to observe about Natal was the extraordinary Indemnity Act, which he regretted the House was not going to have a further opportunity of discussing. The extraordinary feature of the present Bill, a feature that had never been known in connection with
    1278
    an Indemnity Bill, was the change that had be made in the Bill now on its way to this country as compared with the Act of 1906. In the Act of 1906 the preamble recited—
    "That whereas serious disturbances accompanied by rebellion have recently arisen and still continue among certain parts of the native population of this Colony."
    Some Members doubted the rebellion. Some of them had never yet been convinced that there was ever a rebellion in Natal, though there were people who alleged from their point of view that there was a rebellion which justified the proclamation of martial law in 1906. The Bill did not allege rebellion. This was an example of the "Rake's Progress." The Natal Government were now going to withdraw "rebellion" and put in "several crimes of violence in Zululand creating a state of unrest and insecurity among the inhabitants." Was ever a more flimsy pretext made for martial law? What were we going to come to if we were going to jump from rebellion, from a state of war, from a hostile state of things under which it was impossible for the ordinary civil and criminal Courts to sit—the proper justification for martial law hitherto—to a state of things where "several crimes of violence" created a "state of unrest"—not even of civil disturbance but unrest—and insecurity among the inhabitants as the justification? Why, the brewers in this country at the present time could say that owing to the Bill in this House a state of unrest had come among them, and something akin to martial law should be established. He did not believe that political differences divided them on this matter. Hon. Members above the gangway shared their sense of British justice and were not going to countenance martial law in Natal because of "several acts of violence." Later on the words "disturbance and rebellion" were omitted, and the words "crimes and the restoration of order and good government" were inserted. Another reason given for the proclamation of martial law was to facilitate the investigation of crime and the arrest and detention of the persons charged. There was, he would venture to say, not a single Member of the House, even of the most old-fashioned Conservative type, who

    1279
    would maintain that the allegations in the Blue-book were adequate for a proclamation of martial law. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had said that if we did not accept this Bill things would remain as they were. That brought up the question of Dinizulu. What about evidence for defence? That was just the wickedness of it, because it proved that they went and did a certain thing which created injustice, and then at a certain point the Government turned round and said that unless they were excused from their wrong-doing the evil of that wrong-doing would be visited on the heads of innocent people. He was not going to argue the point, he only stated it and left the Committee to draw its own conclusions. The Committee would at all events agree that it was the duty of the Government to see that this sort of thing did not happen again. That was the general case against the Natal Government, not from a petty sectional point of view, but from an Imperial point of view; not from the point of view of Labour or Liberal Members, but from the point of view of the national, the inherited liberties of the British race. The right hon. Member for St. George's in his almost ladylike and drawing-room account of what was going on made him wonder if he was really listening to a statement of how Dinizulu was being tried. The right hob Gentleman left out the salient points. He did not tell them of the continued campaign of calumny, he did not tell them that they had to wait day after day and week after week before the Government could make any charge against Dinizulu; he did not describe the vagueness of the charges made against the chief; he did not refer to the long campaign of calumny which preceded the arrest when the Natal Government refused to protect Dinizulu from the libels. The Government were cognisant of the fact that these calumnies, amounting to libel, were published day after day in the South African Press, and the Government of Natal never gave any reason to show that they were the protectors of Dinizulu. They were, therefore, bound to say that the Government held on, waiting for an opportunity which inevitably came for arresting Dinizulu, not on any charge, but on a vague basis of assertions not one of which was definite enough to make it possible
    1280
    for Dinizulu's solicitor to deal with it, Dinizulu was accused of murder—the murder of whom, where, when—ten years ago, twenty years ago, or yesterday? Not a single definite statement was made in support of the accusations on which Dinizulu's solicitor or his friends could go and search for witnesses to enable them specifically to show that this or that particular story was untrue, because there was never a particular story told. The Natal Government had secured to themselves a roving commission to spread their emissaries and agents all over Zululand under martial law to inquire into this, that, and the other, not to find out whether this or that statement was true, but to find out whether Dinizulu had ever done anything which would enable them sooner or later to formulate a decent indictment to place before the Court. And not only that, but it had been alleged that in the course of gathering the evidence there had been certain floggings. He was perfectly well aware that this had been denied, anal he was not going to make the statement as absolutely true; but he thought that no one who read the Blue-Book published yesterday would be very, much impressed with that denial; nor did he think that anyone who read the newspapers would be very much impressed by it, seeing that Miss Colenso had offered to prove twenty-nine definite cases, with the names of the persons and circumstances under which they were flogged, and submit them for impartial investigation in Natal itself. But he was bound to say that hi this case his mind was open. It was said, also, that Dinizulu's wife had made a statement, it was not definitely said whether on oath or not, but he thought it must have been made under oath. She stated that Sir Duncan McKenzie had threatened to shoot her unless she gave evidence against her husband. That had not teen contradicted so far, and a statement given under those circumstances made it presumably accurate. Apparently a, good many Members of the House had come in contact with the native. He did not care where they met him, whether in the Southern States of America, where they saw him generally in railway carriages, or elsewhere, he was always willing to tell

    1281
    one anything that seemed to please. He remembered very well an interesting incident which happened to himself, which established this characteristic of which he had spoken. He got into a train exceedingly tired one morning about four o'clock, and the negro attendant, seeing he was weary, was very anxious to assure him that he would have breakfast immediately. It did not come, however, until eight o'clock. Anyone who had come in contact with the native knew perfectly well, that, owing to the social habit of obeying which he had acquired, it was easy to put statements in his mouth, and get him to say what his questioner required. If the Government came and said they wanted evidence it was a perfectly certain thing that some native would give it. It was the psychology of the native to do a thing like that. Martial law being proclaimed in Zululand, emissaries, who were known to be agents of the Government, had gone hither and thither across the face of Zululand asking for evidence on which Dinizulu was to be tried, telling the natives what the evidence was for and what sort of evidence they wanted. Would any hon. Member who understood the native psychology tell them for a single moment that evidence would not be forthcoming? That was the sort of way in which the Natal Government was conducting this trial. It was necessary to say that. He knew that right hon. Gentlemen above the gangway might think it exceedingly criminal on his part to express such sympathies and opinions; but he held them very honestly, and he could assure them that he held them not from a party or sectional point of view, but from the Imperial point of view, because he and those with him felt that the future of this Empire would be decided by its honour and by the way in which it administered justice. Then as to Dinizulu's salary. From every quarter of the House there came thanks to the Government for having determined to pay Dinizulu's salary. There was absolutely no distinction of opinion on that point, no dissentient voice on the matter. It was what they had expected from His Majesty's Government; and they were delighted that it
    1282
    had done precisely what they believed it would do. There was one little unpleasantness, however. Yesterday they had been told that after the reply to the despatch of His Majesty's Government, policemen were sent up into Zululand, and again there was the cry of "unrest in Zululand." Whenever anything was said by His Majesty's Government which seemed to run counter to the will of the Natal Government, the latter were in a position to have telegrams sent to this country, specially and carefully preserved telegrams, which appeared exclusively in certain organs of the Imperial press, for the purpose of trying to deceive the people of this country, who were ignorant of what was going on, and also for the purpose of getting responsive telegrams from this country to Natal to strengthen the hands of the Government of that Colony by misrepresentation of public opinion here. The reply to the despatch was the first step towards creating another defence so as to justify themselves. He had a cutting from the Natal Mercury which said—
    "The whole Press of Natal is unanimous in condemning the Government's action in these matters as severely as any newspaper in England has done, and this expression of opinion is endorsed by the Colonists generally. The sooner the people of England are impressed with the fact that the Government are in these matters acting in direct conflict with the ideas of Natalians, the sooner they will recognise that a gross injustice is being done to the good sense and the good taste of people of Natal."
    That was the published opinion of an important Natal newspaper. Yet in spite of that, the moment His Majesty's Government ranged itself on the side of the majority of the people of Natal, some policemen were sent into Zululand in order to give His Majesty's Government reason to pause. In reference to Dinizulu's salary, his hon. friend had said that he could not understand the delay and Dinizulu's solicitor not applying for it. He had an extract from the Natal Witness giving the complete series of Mr. Renaud's letters. He was not going to read them, but this was one of them, written on 18th May to the acting Attorney-General—
    "We beg to refer to the correspondence which has passed between us with reference to the cession of Dinizulu's salary to us. You wrote us on 30th January that the matter was receiving

    1283
    attention, but since that date we have not heard from you."
    Therefore, the explanation was that the delay was not due to Dinizulu's solicitor, but to the Natal Government. When there was nothing more than a mere acknowledgement required, they took a day or two to give it, when more was required, they took weeks and months to investigate the matter, and make their reply. He had said all that he need say on the subject. He had spoken not as what was called "a Little Englander," but as an Imperialist. He had spoken as one who believed that this Empire was going to depend, not merely upon its size or its physical strength, but upon its justice, and he was perfectly certain that if they gave way one inch in their desire to see justice done to the unenfranchised negro, then it would be absolutely impossible to keep the Empire so clean and so pure as to enable it to survive the stress and storm which time had in store for it.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERthought he would not be alone in regretting that the debate had not been absolutely free from heat. Perhaps he regretted it more than anyone else, because of a rather painful interruption which occurred in the last Parliament and in which the hon. Gentleman opposite was responsible. His right, hon. friend below him was making his speech concerning South Africa, and was making statements in good faith and with great moderation as he always did, when the hon. Gentleman and several of his friends sitting below the Opposition gangway made remarks which he himself thought wholly unparliamentary concerning his right hon. friend and his statements. They questioned his good faith.
    COLONEL SEELY: No; I may say——
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Allow me to finish. They questioned his good faith, and he interjected, but not loudly, the word "disgraceful." The hon. Gentlemen opposite, the President of the Board of Trade, the President of the Board of Education, and the President of the Local Government Board, entered
    1284
    a loud protest, and demanded that the Member for Gravesend should be pilloried by the Speaker. The Speaker rose, and the Member for Gravesend rose also, stating the cause of his interjection, and immediately, without being called upon to do it, withdrawing the word "disgraceful," which the Speaker had pronounced as un-Parliamentary. He only wished to say this because he thought it was the hon. Gentleman himself who had imported heat into the debate that afternoon. Remembering his career, I however short it might have been in the Colonial Office, and his urbane and admirable manner in all other debates, he regretted exceedingly that he had given them cause to feel that they were not safe in future in making reasonable, and as he believed, just criticism. He wanted to say something very quietly land he hoped without offence. He understood the position taken up by his right hon. friend. He had stated that the elections in the Transvaal were not decided on the question of Chinese labour. I He thought the right hon. Gentleman was correct. Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman had suggested, as it had been suggested before and no doubt would be again, that considerations concerning the repatriation of the Chinamen entered into all the relations between this Government and the Botha Government, and also affected the granting of the Constitution itself, but he hoped I to be able to quote, the words of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies himself in which he frankly said, for no one eevr doubted his courage or audacity, that considerations of the repatriation of the Chinamen did enter into the granting of the Constitution and into our relations with the Transvaal Government, and the Transvaal Government would never have got the £5,000,000 loan if they had not agreed to repatriate the Chinamen. At any rate hon. Gentlemen would say he had said nothing offensive.
    COLONEL SEELY: There is not a word of truth in that.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he might very well be angry at the hon. Gentleman's saying there was not a word of truth in what he said, but he was

    1285
    too broad minded. He understood what the hon. Gentleman meant, though the hon. Gentleman did not always understand what he meant. The hon. Gentleman he thought could not be speaking with absolute accuracy. It would be better for him to consult with his friend the late Under-Secretary, who, if he was sometimes vituperative, could stand ft good deal of vituperation in return. He was a gallant fighter. He did not want to say that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not a gallant fighter—they knew that he was—but he must not really pretend to this splendid indignation against a right hon. Gentleman on that bench when he made perfectly Parliamentary statements. In the last debate he thought the statements of the hon. Gentleman opposite would not add to the smoothness of debate, and he had expressed himself strongly about it. How much more strongly could he express himself concerning the speech made by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He had no fault to find with the underlying argument of that speech, but he had every fault to find with the manner in which it was expressed. He did not think the terms in which his argument was couched would tend to good feeling between Natal and this country, though he thought his main argument was sound, that martial law as it was applied by the Natal Government was not wisely applied. But he said in the last debate, and said very strongly, that the Government now in power was responsible for the present position, and it was responsible for the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down. They had it in their lower, when martial law was to be proclaimed, through their Governor, through their supreme official, the King's representative in Natal, to prevent martial law being proclaimed. They had since acknowledged that the conclusion drawn by the Attorney-General was wrong, that in effect the Governor was the servant of the Natal Government. No one would stand up more strongly than he for the rights of a Colony or a Colonial Governor, but no one would stand up more strongly for the Imperial connection. The only thing they had was the Privy Council and the power of the Governor in regard to just such things as martial
    1286
    law. Our hold was very slight. Destroy the technical and constitutional hold that we had just through the Governor, and we destroyed our Imperial Power altogether. On the other hand, the refusal by Members to believe that Natal was acting in good faith, honestly and sincerely, did infinite harm to the Imperial connection. Suppose the Natal Government had made a mistake. Every Government desired to keep its self-respect and it was Natal who would pay the price of its mistakes, if it had made mistakes. It paid the cost in blood. This Government threw the whole responsibility for the late trouble upon Natal, and in a certain despatch, of which the hon. Gentleman was fully aware, said in effect: "We wash our hands of this whole business." But having washed their hands of the whole business they still intervened. Did they not see the absolutely absurd position in which they had been placed, not by Members of the House but by the Government? One word about Dinizulu's salary and the trial. He said deliberately that he thought Natal ought by every means in its power to expedite the conclusion of the examination of Dinizulu. Seven months was a long time. If the Government could not in seven months gather enough evidence against this man to formulate definitely a charge, he should be discharged. Of that he had no manner of doubt. Natal could only act, as he understood it, as a Government, compatibly with the relations of the executive and the judicial. It was a difficult situation, but lie believed the Attorney-General could expedite the conclusion of the examination either here or in Natal. He believed in Natal's bona fides absolutely. He believed it had acted honestly and sincerely, but he was firmly convinced that it would do well in all the circumstances, even if the guilty were to go free, to bring Dinizulu to trial immediately. As to the salary, he had his doubts in the last debate whether it was correct to pay the salary—whether the suspension of the salary did not go with the suspension of the office. But it was certain that if the Government on the best advice possible interpreted the arrangement made by his right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham as meaning that the salary should in no

    1287
    case be suspended without the consent of this Government and this Government did not grant its consent, it was the duty of this Government to pay that salary. He knew the House recognised the consequences that must flow from such action. It practically overrode the act and the policy of the Natal Government. It was a dangerous thing to do at any time. It was extremely dangerous to do it now when events were so acute, and when feeling ran so high. Recognising the consequences that would flow, and it being a small matter, the Natal Government would have been well advised if it had paid the salary. Having said that he desired to pass to another subject. The position of the retrenched officials had been dealt with most effectively by his right hon. friend. The Under-Secretary read some figures which seemed entirely conclusive to hon. Members opposite. The figures showed that there had only been a very limited number of changes and that of those changes the preponderance of applicants had been of British born subjects. He hoped the hon Gentleman recognised that a great many of the names that appeared as English names were names of those who fought against us in the last war, and who were not Britishers in the true sense of the term. They knew perfectly well that the retrenchment of officials would go on slowly, and that the replacement of British officials by Dutch would also be slow. He had never made any wild statements. He had been most conservative in a double sense, in speaking of the action of the Botha Government. He had never accused the Botha Government of deliberately and wilfully throwing out British officials and putting in Dutch officials. If ever men worked, no matter how young they were or how inexperienced, for the country, giving their whole life and energy, it was the men who went out from this country to what had been called Lord Milner's Kindergarten. He could mention cases which ought to go to the heart of every Member of the House. It was idle to say that there were only a few. They knew that many of them suffered uncomplainingly. A petition was presented yesterday to the Prime Minister on this subject, and anyone who read it must be impressed by the quiet reserve and the diginity of its
    1288
    terms. There was no complaint, but there was an appeal, and that was what they all heard in every letter from South Africa. He had received two letters that morning, and he would venture to read one of them, because it was very important. The hon. Gentleman had said that there were practically no replacements of British officers by the Government. He would make the following quotation from one of the letters he had received—
    "Owing to the characteristic thinness of the Boer methods it is difficult to produce evidence at this distance of specific cases such as this Gazette provides. Hitherto, many of the replacements have been indirect, that is to say, British officials have been 'retrenched ' from the established Government Departments and new offices embracing similar duties have been created to which only Dutchmen have been appointed. I refer in particular to the re-establishment of the Field Cornet system of pre-war days. In connection with these new appointments I would point out that when a number of us were retrenched at the end of last year on the ground of reduction of establishment, it was stated that in the event of vacancies occurring at a subsequent date the names of those officers who had already served for a good many years and who were leaving through no fault of their own, would be considered in preference to any new candidates. This promise like many others has evidently been ignored."
    To what did he refer? He referred to the appointment of eight acting inspectors of constabulary in the place of British officers, he being one of those who had been retrenched. When the hon. Gentleman said that British officers were not retrenched and replaced by Dutchmen, he made a statement which was not accurate. He did not deny the right of General Botha and his people to be represented in the Civil Service of their country; it would be a monstrous thing to assert that after his own experience of another country, which had two races, and he would be the last man to suggest that there should not be Dutchmen in the Civil Service. What he did say, however, was that to turn out Britishers in order to put in Dutchmen, and turn them out without adequate compensation or pensions, was quite a different thing. He did not accuse the Botha Government of this, but he accused the present Government in this country of being responsible for that, because they failed when they were grafting the new constitution to

    1289
    the Transvaal, to secure and safeguard the rights of British Civil servants. He assumed that the sympathy of the hon. Member representing the Government, and his patriotism disapproved of the action of the Government to which he belonged in making no provision for the seretrenched Civil servants. Had the hon. Gentleman any real reason for not inquiring further into this matter? The late Under-Secretary for the Colonies promised that every effort should be made to draft the retrenched officials into other departments at home. The figure which had been given amounted to 56 per cent, out of 164, and although that was not bad it ought to have been 100 per cent. [An HON. MEMBER: Why?] Because, as the hon. Member knew, if there was one man who could not get a job it was a man who had been a Government servant. Men who had been employed in general professions or general trades could get a job anywhere. But in the case of men who had been in the Government service their chances were much less of getting employment. They all knew that those who had served in the Army or in the public service had always a difficulty in getting a situation. The Governments in every other country, in Italy, Prussia, Canada, or anywhere where responsible government was granted, always took care that the Civil servants should have their interest safeguarded, and he thought the letter he had read might very well be framed and hung up in the Colonial Office for the guidance of his hon. friend and his colleague. Whoever wrote that letter was well informed as to what was the duty of the Government in the matter, and there was an element of ugly meanness in a representative of any Department of the State not even going extravagantly in the direction of protecting civil servants. There was not a right hon. Gentleman sitting on the Ministerial front bench who did not hold that the members of this Department and of all Departments of State deserved the best of treatment by this House, and this Government did a brutal thing in throwing upon the Botha Government the necessity of providing for the retrenched civil servant. They found money to pay Dinizulu's salary, and to
    1290
    repatriate Chinamen. He had evidence in his pocket in the shape of a letter showing that a distinguished officer, holding the C.M.G. Order, was given a third class indulgence passage by the Transvaal Government home to this country. He submitted that that was a case which ought to bring the blush of shame to the representative of any Government. Would it not have been a fair thing, after deciding that the compensation should be one month's salary for every year's service, to have sent that man and his five children home. Would it not have been fair, having deprived that man of that which he believed was a permanent position and pensionable, to have given him a second-class passage home? Not a single retrenched Civil servant had had his passage paid from Johannesburg to the Cape or from the Cape home, and many of them had been assisted in regard to their passages by people in this country. He thought the Government would do well even if they set apart in the Estimates a sum of money for these retrenched officials. [Cries of "Oh, oh"] Why not? They had no hesitation about voting £10,000 to Jamaica. He desired to draw attention to the railway which was being built in Uganda. Already a number of officers had gone out as engineers, and there were a good number of retrenched officials who were very capable and competent engineers. He would like to know why they could not be employed on those railways.
    COLONEL SEELYdissented.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he had presented a concrete case where something could be done, and he did not see why these men should not be given a chance. The conduct of the Government was to be wholly reprehended. It was not too late to redress this grievance, because these men had been led to believe that their positions would be permanent and pensionable. He thought it was the duty of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies to see that none of these men should suffer so severely and cruelly as many of them were now suffering. He wanted to speak briefly on the question of land settlement in the Orange

    1291
    River Colony and the Transvaal. He wanted to warn the House that an effort was going to be made to force the Land Board into making an arrangement with the Government. The Land Board which had been established was independent of the Government for five years. Both sides of the House agreed to that. Since the Board was set up there had been steady pressure to force it into an arrangement with the Government. The Board had behaved extremely well, and it had refused to do this. He did not hesitate to say that they had been incited to quarrel with the Land Board, in spite of the fact that the Board had been eminently successful in all it had done. He thought it was perfectly natural that the Orange River Colony should try to quarrel with the Board. Why? There was a revenue of £40,000 a year from rents and payments for land, and they would take that sum and apply it to the interest on the £1,200,000 loan which went for land settlement. The £40,000 now went to get fresh land on which to put the few settlers who did go there and to make it easy for the settlers when bad times came, and to shepherd them over the rough places. The Orange River Colony would be glad to have that money. A member of the Orange River Colony Government had said that it was inequitable that they did not get that money. They forgot that the Government here in its magnanimity wrote off a loan of £5,000,000 for which the Orange River Colony was responsible. He did not think that the Orange River Colony had really any ground of complaint. He still believed in the policy of the late Government in regard to Chinese labour and other matters, but he thought they made a great mistake when they guaranteed the £5,000,000 loan. What was the basis of his argument in saying so? It was that, when two races were together in a country, having to face prosperity and disaster together, they ought mutually to be responsible for all their liabilities and all their needs. He believed the hon. Gentleman opposite agreed with him that it would have been far better to have said to those people: "Work out your own salvation and raise your own loan within your colony. Struggle together until you find common working
    1292
    ground." The two races would have come more closely together infinitely sooner if they had been jointly responsible for the £5,000,000 which this Government secured to them, not without a political purpose behind it. [An HON. MEMBER: What about the £30,000,000?] Passing to West African affairs he said he did not think he would shock the susceptibility of any hon. Gentleman opposite in regard to the question he was about to raise. The Committee might be surprised if he appeared in the rôle of temperance advocate, but he did so that afternoon. He was going to challenge this Government, the past Government, and all past Governments in this country for their dealings with the natives in regard to the liquor traffic. There were certain portions of His Majesty's dominions where the sale of liquor was prohibited. He had always taken the ground that the vices of one race should not be made possible or incorporated in the nature of another race. The oriental could bear the effects of opium much better than the occidental. A European would find himself upset if he took a small portion of Kaffir beer, but a native would drink it by the gallon and not feel any evil effect. To every race its own vices. For this Government or any Government to yet 67 per cent. of its revenue out of the sale to the natives of spirits made from potatoes chiefly in Germany was a thing which made one's Christian blood boil. In our own race there was he supposed, a natural microbe which resisted to a very considerable extent the effects of our own liquors and spirits. The native had no such microbe. He thought the view expressed by the late Lord Salisbury in 1888 was one which would commend itself to all members of the Committee. He said—
    "I need not inform you that I am not a temperance enthusiast myself. I do not coincide with many of the views which I hear urged with great controversy in this country. But the controversy here and the controversy with respect to the native races have nothing in common. The native races are for all practical purposes children, and so far as we can do it, like children they must be protected. No one who even looks at history, still less at contemporary history, can doubt the extreme character of the evil which this unrestricted traffic causes. It has before this swept whole races away; it is now producing the greatest havoc in all parts of the world. We are so

    1293
    deeply convinced of that, that any efforts on our part would never be wanting, nor would our attention for a moment relax, from the purpose of inducing that common effort by which alone this miserable traffic can be restrained."
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in 1889 said—
    "I do not think I am a fanatic, and no one, I hope, has called me a sentimentalist, and I am certainly not a teetotaller. I hope I am not extreme with regard to any subject; but I hold, as a matter of deep conviction, that the liquor trade, and above all, the increase of the liquor traffic in West Africa amongst the native races, is not only discreditable to the British name, not only derogatory to that true Imperialism—the sentiment which I desire to inculcate in all my countrymen—but it is also disastrous to British trade."
    He believed that to be the indubitable truth. What were the places where the sale of spirits to natives was prohibited? It was prohibited in the northern territories of the Gold Coast and Northern Nigeria. It was also prohibited in British Somaliland, the British East Africa Protectorate, Uganda, Nyassa-land, and Rhodesia. In all the countries of the South African Customs Union, namely, the Cape, Natal, Orange River Colony, Transvaal, Southern Rhodesia, Basutoland, Swaziland, and the Bechuana-land Protectorate, more or less stringent prohibition of sale to natives existed. Lord Crewe, the other day, replying to a letter from an association which took a great interest in this subject, said that the question of revenue had to be looked to. Of course if once they established the principle of getting revenue from liquor, it was very hard to do away with it. It was very hard to get it out of cotton. A certain amount was got now out of cotton in Nigeria. Wherever the revenue from drink was highest the record of cotton was lowest. This Government and hon. Members opposite were always on the side of the angels, and they often said that the Members of the Unionist Party were on the side of the diable. When hon. Members opposite were challenged to carry out their good intentions they always hesitated if it was a question of revenue. They hesitated on the Licensing Bill to apply their principles to the off-licences. He wondered whether the hon. Gentleman would make a sympathetic reply now. Would the hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Cape Government prohibit the
    1294
    sale of drink to the natives in Southern. Nigeria? If he would not do that, would he promise that the Committee which the Colonial Office had promised to appoint would be guided in the conclusions it came to on the merits of the drink question? Would he appoint a Committee to sit in London with power to send out a Commission to take evidence in West Africa? Southern Nigeria was a small place so far as the trading community was concerned and there were going to be difficulties in carrying out the examination there. There were local difficulties to be contended against. The native hesitated to give evidence in regard to the people with whom he was associated. The clerk to the small trade knew the effects of the drink trade, but he would hesitate to give evidence if a Member of the Committee happened to be his official superior in the district. He did not question the impartiality of any man in West Africa, but he did say that the choice was narrow. They could not argue this case from the purely official standpoint, or as the case of those who were necessarily more or less interested in the production of revenue. He suggested that the Committee be appointed here, and from that committee one commissioner should be sent out to Africa who would act as chairman of a local committee. He believed that this was one of the gravest questions with which the Imperial Parliament had to deal. He had always been a prohibitionist where native races were concerned. There was going to be in South Africa an increase of the native races. And they would increase still more if liquor did not destroy them. This country was bound to lead, as he believed it led at the Brussels Convention when it secured that there should be a minimum taxation of liquor, so as to have some effect in checking the trade. He believed that this country should lead all other countries in the matter of the treatment of the native races. We knew more about them than all other nations and we had the faculty for governing them. But we must go with clean hands to other nations and not say to them that out of potato spirit we got 67 per cent, of our revenue. He trusted that the Committee would have a favourable reply from the hon. and

    1295
    gallant Gentleman. He knew that the, hon. and gallant Gentleman tried to meet the views of the Committee so far as was compatible with his position as Under-Secretary and the difficulties of his Department. He appealed to him to exercise to the fullest extent his influence with his Department, and when he was told that they could not get revenue otherwise, he should say they must. They tried for years to get cheaper postage of magazines to Canada before getting it and now the Post Office was going to make it pay. They could make temperance pay. He hoped that when the hon. and gallant Gentleman replied, he would make it clear that there were no longer to be mere vain pledges, but that a real reform in this respect would be introduced which would redound to the credit of the Empire.
    *MR. G. GREENWOODsaid he would not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Gravesend, but as one of those Members alluded to by the right hon. Member for St. George's, Han-over Square, as guilty of putting Questions, he desired, with the permission of the Committee, to say a few words on the subject of Natal. He thought they were all agreed on one thing, that when we granted self-government to a colony, the less we interfered with that colony the better. But he ventured to say that there should be some limit to the doctrine of non-interference. A self-governing colony, after all, was not a separate and independent country. He had listened to speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite, in which opinions were expressed which, if carried out to a logical conclusion, came to this; that if a self-governing colony were to establish a system of undoubted slavery in their territory, it would, nevertheless, be the duty of this country to acquiesce in it. To that doctrine he could not subscribe. There must be a limit, and after that limit had been passed—as he thought it had been passed in this matter by Natal—it became the duty of the predominant partner in the concern to interfere to save the credit and honour of this country. There was that going on in Zululand and Natal which it would not be time wasted carefully to consider.
    1296
    Sometimes it was said that they were making an attack upon the colony of Natal. He wanted to repudiate that idea. Even if they ventured to criticise the Government of Natal it could not be said that they were making any attack or criticism against the colony, because he did not believe that the Government of Natal really could be said to represent the colony. He was entitled to say that, for he had in his hand what he believed to be an authentic document which purported to be the declaration of combined committees in Natal who asked for redistribution in the Colony. These combined committees pointed out that the Prime Minister of Natal was returned to Parliament by 327 votes, that Mr. Carter, Minister of Justice and Attorney-General only polled 302 votes, whereas both the senior and junior Members for Durban had each polled more votes than Mr. Moor and his whole Cabinet put together.
    EARL WINTERTON: Are there any bye-elections in Natal?
    *MR. G. GREENWOODsaid he saw no relevancy in that interruption. The combined committees went on to say that—
    "The numbers of the white population are decreasing at a rate that already makes it questionable whether we are entitled to the status of a self-governing Colony, sufficient to itself, in maintenance of its authority, unaided."
    He thought it would be well to bear that in mind, because, as was pointed out, owing to the gerrymandering of the constituencies in the colony, it could not be maintained that the present Government represented the colony. The question of the treatment of Dinizulu had been often discussed. From the Blue-books which he had carefully read, he found that in September, 1907, the Natal Ministers and the Native Affairs Commissioner had apparently come to the conclusion that cost what it might, he might almost say whether the Chief was guilty or innocent—it was absolutely necessary that Dinizulu should be arrested and deported front the country. That was in strong contrast to what was said during the rising in May, 1906, when Sir C. Saunders and Sir Henry McCallum consistently

    1297
    bore witness to the correctitude of Dinizulu's conduct and his loyalty. But opinion changed and the Ministers and the Commissioner asked that Imperial troops should be sent into Zululand, and they decided that a secret inquiry should be held as to the guilt or otherwise of Dinizulu, and whether he was implicated in the rising of 1906. Lord Elgin replied in September, 1907, that the Government could not possibly become parties to the proposed policy, nor could they defend it in Parliament. Time went on and it seemed to those gentlemen that if they could not get their own way in this matter, there was another expedient open to them: they could suspend the constitution of the colony and govern it at their own sweet will by martial law. Accordingly on 3rd December, 1907, martial law was proclaimed in Zululand, followed by martial law being proclaimed in the Northern districts of the colony. The Governor of the colony when he announced that decision to the Home Government said that in his opinion the proclamation of martial law was premature. And why? Because there was no armed resistance. Lord Elgin on 11th December asked on what charge was Dinizulu to be tried and before, what Court, and when the proclamation of martial law would be withdrawn. The Natal Government replied that they would not assent to the withdrawal of the proclamation of martial law, although on 23rd December the Governor telegraphed to Lord Elgin that the forces were to be demobilised, except 200 men, showing that it could not be maintained that there was any danger of a rising. The Governor telegraphed again that his Ministers, against his advice, would—
    "Maintain martial law pending the arrest of criminals and further search for arms."
    Lord Elgin telegraphed that it was unjustifiable to maintain martial law for that purpose, and that martial law ought never to be extended whore there was no armed resistance, and that he had confidently expected to hear that the proclamation of martial law had been withdrawn. There was one extract which he asked to be allowed to read. On 28th December, 1907, the Governor said that he had urged upon Mr. Moor—
    "(1) The immediate withdrawal of martial law; (2) the release of all men in prison in
    1298
    connection with last year's rebellion except those at St. Helena and those awaiting trial; (3) the proclamation of a general amnesty"
    (with certain exceptions), and that he had pointed out to him—
    "that the continued maintenance of martial law tended to bring the civil law into contempt, and to prove the Government devoid of moral power."
    Nevertheless the Government of Natal insisted on maintaining martial law although there was no suspicion of a rising and although they knew that it would "tend to bring the civil law into contempt, and to prove the Government devoid of moral power." What was martial law? It had never been better stated than when stated to the Governor of Canada as long ago as 1838 by Sir John Campbell and Sir R. M. Rolfe, the then Law Officers of the Crown, each of whom subsequently became Lord Chancellor. They said:
    "Martial law is stated by Lord Hale to be in truth no law, but something rather indulged than allowed as a law, and it can only be tolerated because by reason of open rebellion the enforcing of any other laws has become impossible. It cannot be said in strictness to supersede the ordinary tribunals, inasmuch as it only exists by reason of those tribunals having been already practically superseded. The right of resorting to such an extremity is a right arising from and limited by the necessity of the case—quod necessitas cogit, defendit."
    If it was said that that was an old authority he had a more modern one, and one to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite would pay the greatest deference. Lord Alverstone speaking in the House of Lords in April, 1902, quoted Vice-Chancellor Kent to this effect—
    "Martial law is quite different from ordinary military law. It is justified by paramount necessity and proclaimed by a military chief."
    And further on Lord Alverstone stated—
    "The acts must be acts done by necessity for the defence of the Commonwealth where there is war within the realm. … The whole question is, is there such a state of war or rebellion that it cannot be put down by the civil authority, or by the military authorities acting under the orders of the civil authorities?"
    And finally—
    "The limits of what the executive may do under military law are limited by that necessity," because "the foundation of martial law is necessity."
    That was in entire agreement with what was stated in Lord Carnarvon's circular despatch of January, 1867, which had

    1299
    been reprinted in the Blue-book of May, 1906, in which he said that to justify martial law there must be men rising in armed resistance to the authority of the Crown. He could hardly conceive why it was said with all these cumulative authorities that there was any doubt upon the point. In Natal it could not be suggested for a single moment that any of these conditions existed. There was no armed resistance, no paramount necessity, and no rebellion. As the hon. Member for Leicester had pointed out, the proposed Act of Indemnity omitted the word "rebellion," so that it really came to this that martial law was applied unconstitutionally and illegally, against the advice of the Governor and the Secretary of State. They continued it in order that they might search for arms and arrest prisoners. They not only flogged natives because they would not give the evidence they required them to give, but they also prevented Dinizulu's solicitor going into Zululand to get evidence. They did exactly what the Stuart Kings did in the past, and which the Petition of Right declared to be illegal—they tried to govern by martial law in time of peace. He had called the attention of the hon. Gentleman, the Under-Secretary, to the fact that in Lord Carnarvon's circular despatch it was stated that the Governor was solely responsible both for the proclamation of martial law, and the withdrawal of that proclamation at any moment—that the responsibility for proclaiming martial law and the power of declaring it at any moment to be at an end must rest with the Governor as the representative of the Crown. He asked the late Under-Secretary whether that applied to the Governor of a self-governing colony, and he was told that it did not because he was bound to act on the advice of his Ministers. He ventured, with respect, to submit that that answer was given on imperfect consideration, because it was perfectly clear that this was a matter peculiarly within the prerogative of the Crown. There were certain things the responsibility for which rested on the Governor alone; there was the prerogative of mercy, and the prerogative of amnesty, and the dissolution of Parliament. Though a Governor
    1300
    ought, of course, to consult his Ministers, the responsibility in these cases was his alone. If they referred to the highest authority in this matter, such as Todd's Parliamentary Government in British Colonies, they would find it laid down that—
    "It must always be remembered that the Governor is not bound to comply with the advice of his Ministers. In the event of a recommendation being submitted to him that involved a breach of the law, or that was contrary to express instructions received from the Crown, he would be obliged to refuse to sanction it. For no violation of the law could be excused on the plea that it was advised by others."
    Surely that must be so when the Governor was asked to supersede the civil law in the country in favour of martial law which was no law. This question of martial law was considered in this House by a Committee which sat in 1849, before which Sir David Dundas, then Judge Advocate General, gave evidence, and said—
    "I believe the law of England is that a Governor, like the Crown has vested in him the right, where the necessity arises, of judging of it and being responsible for his work afterwards, so to deal with the laws as to supersede them all, and to proclaim martial law for the safety of the Colony."
    He, therefore, submitted that it was for the Governor and the Governor alone on his own responsibility to proclaim martial law or to issue a proclamation putting an end to it. He ventured to point out that the mere proclamation by the Governor did not make anything legal which would be illegal without it. All that such a proclamation amounted to was a notice that in future the country was to be governed by martial law and that was an answer to the suggestion that if this Bill of Indemnity was refused martial law would continue. When it was considered that the ordinary Courts, civil and criminal, were open during the whole time, because there had never been any armed resistance, he should think there was no necessity for accepting that Bill. He respectfully submitted that if the Governor was responsible for proclaiming martial law or putting an end to it, the Government should advise the Governor of the Colony to issue a proclamation putting an end to martial law, which could be done without assent being given to this

    1301
    Act of Indemnity. The Bill of Indemnity was on the model of the Act of Indemnity of 1906. That was an Act to which, in his opinion, in its present form, the assent of the Crown should not have been given. He did mot believe any precedent could be found for such an Act of Indemnity. Not only did it legalise things to be done in the future under martial law, but provided that there should be no appeal from any sentence by court-martial which had been pronounced before the Royal assent was given to the Act. Here he might refer to the case of the unfortunate chief Tilonko, now undergoing a sentence of ten years imprisonment in St. Helena. Martial law was proclaimed on 9th February, 1906. On 12th April the Minister of Justice of Natal, with the knowledge of the Governor, wrote to the Commandant of Militia that in view of the suppression of the native insurrection he thought it undesirable to try any more natives under martial law. It was on 7th July that the Bill of Indemnity passed the Legislative Assembly, and on the 12th it passed the Upper House of Natal. It was not till the 30th that Tilonko was tried by court-martial under martial law. On 13th August Lord Elgin telegraphed to the Governor that he might give his assent to the Bill of Indemnity on the assumption that martial law should be withdrawn. For some reason or other that assent was withheld until 1st October, and the Colonial Parliament was dissolved in the meantime. The result was that this unfortunate chief, because of the delay which had taken place in the assent being given to the Bill of Indemnity, was told when he appealed as he did, to the Privy Council and the Supreme Court of Natal, that he was deprived of his legal remedy, because under the Act of Indemnity there could be no appeal from any sentences by court-martial pronounced before the Royal assent was given to the Act. The same thing was in this present Bill. It was laid down that there should be no appeal from sentence of court-martial, and more than that this Bill did not conform to what the Duke of Buckingham, in his despatch to the New Zealand Government, laid down as being the proper form of a Bill of Indemnity.
    1302
    The Duke of Buckingham in his despatch of 18th May, 1867, said—
    "In my opinion the Indemnity Act should have been limited in its phraseology to an indemnity from acts ordered or approved by some responsible military or civil authority."
    That despatch had not been published, but it was to be found in the Colonial Office, and it had been reproduced in the debates of the Parliament of Newzealand at the time. What the Duke of Buckingham said in his despatch applied to this Bill, and the Government ought not to give their consent to it in its present form, for it would be an evil precedent. It would actually provide an indemnity for acts done wantonly and maliciously. They heard a good deal at the present time about Imperialists. He thought they were all Imperialists now. But there were Imperialists of different shades and complexions, and for his part, he thought the best and truest Imperialist was he who was most jealous and sensitive for the honour of the Empire and the sanctity of its obligations, for the justice of its dealings, and for the rights and liberties of all its subjects on British soil throughout the world, whether their colour were white or whether their colour were black.
    EARL WINTERTONsaid he did not propose to touch on the case of Dinizulu, but if he might say so without impertinence, he thought the attitude of the Under-Secretary was entirely correct and proper. Although, of course, he disagreed with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken said, he did not think he could accuse him of unfair bias in favour of Dinizulu; but they must remember, in dealing with this subject, that whatever view the Committee might hold as to the action and attitude of the Natal Government they could not too much emphasise the special circumstances by which that Government found themselves surrounded. Natal had an enormous black population, with only a small handful of white men. They must remember further, and it was a point which some hon. Gentlemen opposite or their friends in the country apparently had not realised, that the Government of of Natal had been aggravated beyond

    1303
    human endurance. For the last six or nine months, indeed long before the case of Dinizulu came up, every species of inuendo and suggestion had been made against the Natal Government by so-called responsible newspapers in this country, and it could not be wondered at, in these circumstances, having regard to the situation in which the Natal Government found itself, that it had shown natural indignation, and had resorted to measures which did not meet with the support of the people of this country. Moreover, hon. Gentlemen who had taken up the attitude they had done on this question, an attitude which certainly he did not think they could complain of that day, must remember that certain hon. Gentlemen were altogether suspect in the matter of native administration, because they belonged to a body of people who for the last four years had done their very best in England and elsewhere to make native administration an impossibility. Probably they had done it with the best intentions. He did not refer to the hon. Member for Newbury, but to some of the hon. Members below the gangway, and chiefly those below the gangway who had done their very best to make native administration an impossibility. They had not realised that their attitude was not supported by a single section or class of the population of those countries where there was a native question to be dealt with. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr Tydvil was not supported by a single man of his own class or any other class in the Colonies. Though he thought it was most regrettable, yet the hostility which he was met with in South Africa was a demonstration which represented the very strong feeling which his action had caused, and the entire lack of sympathy on the part of the people who had to deal with such problem with his views on the subject. He hoped the Committee, whatever their views might be as to what Natal had actually done, would not be too hostile in their views towards it. There was another matter which had not been, sufficiently ventilated and which had been referred to by his right hon. friend in his speech, viz., the retrenchment of the Civil service in the Transvaal. He did not think the answer which the
    1304
    Under-Secretary had given was at all an adequate reply to the contention put forward by the Opposition. He wished to put aside the question of race prejudice. He was fully aware that it was difficult to form an unbiased opinion on that subject, and for various reasons he thought it better to leave it entirely alone; but he would say, referring to what had been said by his hon. friend the Member for Gravesend, with reference to the statistics and tables which were put forward, it was abundantly clear, but not sufficiently known in this country, that the vast majority of Britishers, or rather men bearing British names, were renegades in the South African war. A large proportion of them fought for the Boers, and they must remember that circumstance when the hon. Gentleman put forward his figures and tables so triumphantly. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to General Botha, and had paid a great tribute to his loyalty, which he had been surprised to hear loudly cheered by the hon. Members below the gangway. Indeed, it was a very pleasing feature of that afternoon's debate that loyalty should be cheered by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway on the other side of the House, and most pleasing of all by the hon. Member for Newbury. The Under-Secretary finished his speech by saying that he did not think any prejudice had been shown in the matter by General Botha. He thought that if the Under-Secretary went to South Africa and, ascending any platform, Dutch or British, said that General Botha had shown no kind of prejudice towards men of his own race, he would be laughed out of the Transvaal. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that General Botha had shown no prejudice in favour of men of his own race was ludicrous.
    COLONEL SEELYsaid that General Botha had been freely denounced by people of Dutch extraction because he had not employed enough of them.
    EARL WINTERTONsaid that that was no doubt true, because a large number of Dutch people voted for General Botha believing that when he came into power there would not be a Britisher left in

    1305
    Africa, apart, perhaps, from some half-hearted men among the Dutch population, but he would find no one really prepared to support him in that contention. The point with which both sides could deal that afternoon with a more or less unbiassed mind was what was to be done with these unforunate men who had been retrenched. They held on that side of the House that there had been unnecessary retrenchment, and that it had not by any means resulted in increased economy. He did not see how anybody on either side could disagree with the statement that those men had been led to believe, both by the late Government and the present Government, that they would have something in the nature of permanent employment and a pension at the end of it. For the first time in British administration the honourable continuity which had lasted for scores of years, the continuity of the relations between many of the Colonial Governments and Civil servants, had been broken. That relationship had been referred to in eloquent terms by the President of the Board of Trade in the life of this Parliament, and by writers on politics. In future, any man sending his son into the Civil Service of Egypt or India or elsewhere would say that he could not trust that some Government would not come into power and at one stroke sweep away the future of the men in its service. It was the bounden duty of the Government to make inquiry into the circumstances and do something for these unfortunate men. His right hon. friend had mentioned that there were many cases of Civil servants, who had been retrenched, a very large number of whom were men who came from other parts of the Empire—New South Wales, Australia, from Canada, and other places, where they had been previously in employment and occupied high positions. [An HON MEMBER: Not high positions.] These men had filled high and honourable positions. He would like to ask hon. Members to think what His Majesty's dominions beyond the seas would think of the Government of a country which could treat its servants as this country had treated these men in South Africa. These men who raised contingents and
    1306
    did yeoman service to the Empire during the war would now go back to their part of the Empire penniless and broken men, and it would be a warning to the people in those Colonies not to place any reliance upon the gratitude or the good faith of the British Government. What would happen in the next time of crisis when this country relied, as she would have to rely, upon assistance from other parts of the Empire in fighting her battles? What would they say when they remembered these men who fought for their country and were afterwards so badly treated? There had been no attempt made, either by answer across the House, or in the course of debate, to deny the charges which had been brought against them. They knew perfectly well that there had been many hard cases; men had been put out of employment through no fault of their own, pledges had been shamelessly broken, and though they had not perhaps excited the interest of the country as they ought to do he believed when the next election came round the people of the country would not forget the Government's treatment of these faithful Civil servants in South Africa. More especially it would not forget the sneers delivered by the hon. Member for Leicester against men who did more yeoman service for the Empire in a time of stress and crisis, than perhaps had been done for the last 100 years. As a protest against the refusal of the Government to make an inquiry into these circumstances and to treat these men justly, he moved to reduce the Vote by £1,000.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £31,350, be granted for the said service."—(Earl Winterton.)
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid the question on which he wished to say a few words was whether it would not be practicable to have a conference to consider the whole question of oriental immigration as it affected the Empire—a conference in which our Colonial and Foreign Offices could take part, and in which the India Office would

    1307
    be represented, as well as the Governments of the great Dominions and Colonies beyond the seas. It was a matter in which we should properly take the lead, not to dictate, but to endeavour to clear away the difficulties with which the Empire was confronted. We had the greatest responsibility in this matter, both with respect to Imperial as well as foreign affairs, and yet we were apt to look on whilst each Colony in turn had to deal piecemeal with oriental immigration as each incident occurred. It would be well if we upon our side realised more fully the difficulties with which the Colonies had to deal and if they upon their side could realise a little more clearly our responsibilities. If such a Conference could be held we should get a clear statement from them, and even if no solution were in the first instance propounded, if we had to face the facts and obtain a clear statement of them, that of itself would promote a solution and might be the only way to do so. It was not a matter which should be treated piecemeal by the exigencies of each Colony. The Indian was told that everywhere within the Empire he was treated as an equal under British rule. He found out that that was not so and what they had to find out were the parts of the Empire where oriental immigration could be allowed and those parts where it must be subjected to some restriction or limitation. If they were to have restrictions and limitations they should be applied so as to create as little friction as possible. The matter was put forward in some detail in a letter to The Times last April—a letter to which he was one of the co-signatories, but which he did not himself write. He could say, therefore, that it gave a very excellent statement of the case. He would like to know that that matter had been considered at the Colonial Office. As matters stood the questions arising from oriental immigration into the different parts of the Empire hindered in some respects the unity of Imperial interests and therefore he would urge that they should find out by a Conference whether it was possible or not to have a more comprehensive policy than we had now in the Empire as regarded restrictions or limitations upon oriental immigration. The question was whether these could not be applied
    1308
    with less friction and danger than now existed. He trusted that this very important matter would have received the attention of the Colonial Office and t at some information might be given to the House upon it, because he regarded it as one on which the House was entitled to have some information.
    *MR. HAMAR GREENWOODsaid he was clearly of the view, speaking as a Colonial, that the attitude of all the self-governing Colonies required no conference to be well known. Hon. Members might take it that Canadians, Australians, South Africans, and New Zealanders, reinforced by the whole of the American people, would not allow any unrestricted immigration, whether the Orientals were Chinamen, Japanese, or our own fellow-subjects from Hindustan. One of the peculiarities of discussing Colonial questions in that House was that the debate seemed to get off on an academic line, leaving out of consideration the strongest instincts of those white men who lived on the frontiers of the Empire, who were not interested in academic definitions of Empire or of martial law; but who were brought face to face with one of the most profound and mysterious problems, the racial problem, as well as the problem of how to keep out, or co-exist with, this Oriental immigration. At present it threatened to swarm on the Pacific edge of both Americas, from Alaska to Patagonia. The Conference would do good in this, that it would show the Home Government once and for all that in dealing with Orientals the mind of the self-governing Colonies was made up, and that made-up mind should receive, as in reference to the Chinese in South Africa it had received, the endorsement of the present Government. He had risen especially to speak on the Natal problem. It presented to him but two points, one a point of detail, namely, the imprisonment of Dinizulu, and the second, a point of substance, namely, the whole of the negro problem in South Africa. As to the point of substance, namely, the relationship of the white people of Natal, to the million of negroes that surrounded them, he believed it ought to be the principle of the Government to endorse the view and uphold the attitude of the

    1309
    Natal Government in dealing with the black races, unless they had the clearest and most unmistakeable sign that that view would ultimately work against the white population in Natal. He had no sympathy whatsoever with those learned and finely spun discussions as to whether or not there was really a rebellion, or any of those minor matter that in no way touched the great and awful problem of the relationship of the white races to the great and numerically predominant black races in South Africa. There they were discussing in an almost empty House one of the most profound conflicts that the human mind could conceive, namely, of conflict between two races. He believed the consideration of His Majesty's Government of to-day and of the great to-morrow should be primarily the consideration of the Britishers living in those distant Colonies, and they should trust them to see that justice was done between black and black, and between black and white. It was very easy to find fault with the Government of Natal because perchance they had made a mistake in arresting Dinizulu. Whether they had or had not, far be it from him to prejudge, the Natal Government. He would rather trust the Natal Government on that question than the Government of any party in that House. There were in Natal about 100,000 white men, women, and children, surrounded by 1,000,000 of the most militant of the black races of the world. To these colonists there was a constant source of impending menace. This black 1,000,000 might for some unknown reason rise up, and that would mean the annihilation of the white people who came within their sphere of operations. The Natal Government was not only the best but the only judge as to the proper action to be taken to repress a supposed riot. He had always held that the return of Dinizulu was a mistake. The return of this hereditary king to the Zulus was an invitation to those great native warriors to resume hope that j Natal, or at any rate that part of it which they thought was theirs, would be once more under the dominion of a negro monarch. He hoped that the Government would not continue on the lines on which he was compelled to think they had started, of finding fault with
    1310
    the Natal Government in terms and tones which to his mind, in the first place, were undignified to the Mother Country's Government, and, secondly, detracted from the dignity and self-respect of those Ministers of the Crown in the Colony of Natal. They had to face the problem free from all this threadbare discussion as to whether martial law should be declared to-day or to-morrow afternoon. They had to make up their minds at once because the lives of thousands of men and women were in danger at the seat of trouble. Surely it was possible for this Imperial House to refrain from endeavouring to draw out of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies day by day every little detail in regard to Dinizulu, and the visits paid to him by this man or that woman, the only effect of which might be to make the loyal government of Natal appear unworthy in the eyes of this country and of the world. He thought that more respect should be shown to the views of a self-governing Colony and more consideration paid to the Ministers of the Crown who were faced with difficulties which the Government of this country knew nothing about. He could not see why the communications of the Colonial Secretary live the communications of the Foreign Secretary should not remain private, and not always be made public. If it became necessary for the Home Government sympathetically to complain of the attitude of the Natal Government surely it could be done in courteous terms, and if they must be strong let their despatches remain secret as between this and that Government and not be dragged out in such a way as to make the Government of the Mother Country appear querulous. He had every sympathy with the Government of Natal, and if he were in Natal he would be the first to resent, as that Government had resented, the unfortunate attitude the late Colonial Secretary took up in reference to this matter between the Home Government and Natal. He would go so far as to say that neither the present Government nor any other Government would venture to take up that attitude in dealing with General Botha. They would not write those despatches to Sir Wilfred Laurier, and he was inclined to believe that some

    1311
    unfair advantage had been taken of the fact that the Government of Natal was a small Government of a small white population in a small Colony, although in his opinion that should be all the more reason why they should have greater consideration, more dignified treatment, and more respect shown them than had been meted out to Natal. So much for the relations between the self-governing Colony of white people and the black population. As to the treatment of Dinizulu, that was a point of detail which in his opinion had been exaggerated out of its true position in the proper perspective one should have in dealing with native affairs. He was a Chieftain whom the Government of Natal thought fit to arrest. As to whether they should have withheld his salary or not he did not express any opinion, but that could not be fairly urged as a reason why this Chieftain was unable to prepare his legal defence. He knew something about the Bar and the long time one had sometimes to wait for fees. He knew that in Natal there would never be the slightest difficulty for Dinizulu to get the money necessary for his legal defence. Whether Dinizulu was guilty or not it was not for him to say, and he expressed no opinion as to whether he should have been arrested or not. As a Colonial himself, as a Liberal, and as one who believed that Liberalism had made the British Empire, in spite of the sneers of the noble Lord the Member for Horsham; as one who believed that Liberal principles in dealing with self-governing Colonies alone were the sound and safe principles upon which to continue the structure, he said that this Government had been ill-advised in not more cordially endorsing the attitude of the Natal Government. Even now the Natal Government should be made to know clearly that in their dealings with Dinizulu, which was a point of detail, and in their dealings with the black races, which was a point of substance, they had the whole-hearted and cordial support of the Government, and he would also like to think the cordial support of this Imperial House of Commons.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid that no doubt the
    1312
    powerful speech of the senior Member for York would carry great weight upon the other side of the House. If he did not follow him it was not because he did not appreciate that speech, but because of the fact that the time which remained for the discussion of Supply was so short that a thrice told tale should be avoided. He wanted to bring to the attention of the Government two matters connected with the West Indies and British Guiana. One of those questions related to a question of principle, and the other touched some commercial interests. The first question was in relation to the Island of St. Vincent. Six or seven years ago in that island, in the year 1902, there was a great disaster. There was a violent eruption, the countryside was devastated, and the island laid in ruins, and an appeal was made to charitably-minded persons. A large number of subscriptions were collected in this country towards a fund for the relief of the distress caused by the eruption, and to assist in rehabilitating the industries of that island. This country responded nobly, and a sum amounting to £73,000 was collected for this purpose. He wished to point out that to-day, £25,000 or 40 per cent, of that sum still remained unspent. In view of the purpose for which the fund was collected the greatness of the sum which was left seemed to indicate a rather grave state of affairs. Its gravity had been accentuated by circumstances which he might be pardoned if he pursued a little in detail, because it illustrated the importance of the principle he wished to emphasise. Before the eruption there was a canal called the Carib Canal which conveyed the water to the inhabitants of a country which was otherwise waterless and destitute of any hydraulic power whatever. That canal was constructed he could not say when, and it was almost impossible to ascertain by whom. It had been in existence for a very long time, and its upkeep was borne by various estates through which it passed. There were five estates in all and the upkeep cost something like £500 a year. That canal served a considerable area of the country, and hon. Members would appreciate what a water supply meant in

    1313
    that island. They would also appreciate the benefits conferred by the presence of this canal, because it was now impossible, without the presence of a water supply, to rehabilitate the industries of that part of the country, and continue the cultivation which previously went on there. In the course of the eruption that canal was destroyed. It was blocked up with ashes and broken down by lava. The water supply was cut off, and the country which the canal served was evacuated and became a desert and had remained a desert ever since. Therefore, the importance to the island of reconstructing that canal must be obvious to the Committee. Its importance had been insisted on in Reports presented to the Colonial Office from Sir Daniel Morris, from Mr. Powell, and from a local committee which inquired into the administration of the eruption fund and how the fund could best be employed. All those people recommended that among the objects towards which the money should go was the reopening of this canal. This canal passed in large measure through an estate or upon the borders of an estate which belonged to one person. That was a fact which ought to be stated at once, although it was of no weight in considering the question, because the representations which had been made on the subject came from a very wide area and strata of society which showed that the demand was a genuine one. So far as he was concerned personally, he did not know this gentleman and it was only the other day that he heard his name. He had never had any communications with him, and he was simply stating the facts as they were laid before the local committee. That supply had been lost in consequence of the eruption. Proposals were made by the owners of the land to the Government and they were accepted. The Government gave a grant of £1,600 out of the fund, and the owners spent between £3,000 and £4,000 in advancing the work. At a certain stage it was discovered that the damage done by the eruption had been more serious than was at first supposed. The lava had filled up ravines, and it was found that the water would have to be carried by pipes for irrigation and power purposes, and that must
    1314
    necessarily be an expensive method The owners were put in the position of being £5,000 out of pocket, and they had to decide whether they would go on or not. They decided to drop the project. So serious did the matter appear with regard to the industries of the island that the matter was considered by the local committee and public meetings were held regarding it. The committee recommended that a loan from the fund should be made for the purpose of carrying on this work—a loan from the fund subscribed by charitable people in this country. The loan was to be terminable and interest-bearing. The Secretary of State refused assent to that course. He was aware that when a colonial in any portion of the British dominions had a grievance to state it was the Colonial Office that was cast for the part of the wicked uncle. He had found that that was sometimes done in circumstances which were entirely undeserved. When there was a conflict of opinion between the official and the non-official members of the legislative council the duty of the Colonial Office was plain, and that was to support the official members. Unless the Colonial Office carried out the policy of trusting the men on the spot there would be difficulty. But that was not the question here, because among those foremost in recommending that a loan should be made for the purpose mentioned were the official representatives of the Government. It was they who had been repeatedly urging this policy on the Colonial Office. The policy had been recommended by the legislative council, by the officials in charge of the island, and by the Governor in charge of the group of islands. The reply of the Colonial Office was that they had no objection to the loan being made, but that if it was made it ought to be out of the floating balance of revenue. He was bound to say that from the point of view of financial theory there was a good deal to be said for that policy, but in the circumstances it was ludicrous, for the floating balance only amounted to £5,000, and from that had to come provision for secondary education, provision for a subsidy to the West Indian Telegraph Company, and a contribution for a new jetty which was now under construction. The floating balance was already earmarked and it

    1315
    was absolutely impracticable to take the loan out of it. When that suggestion was made a special meeting of the legislative council was called to consider the question. Apparently there was an objection to laying the dispatch sent by the Secretary of State on this matter on the Table of the House, but it had already been published in the island. The Governor telegraphed to the Secretary of State asking him to reconsider his decision. The administrator made, a speech in which he quoted a Memorandum setting forth the whole details of the subject. That Memorandum, which had teen published in the Colonial papers, was one which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refused to lay on the Table of the House of Commons. He took the greatest exception to the despatch being laid before the legislative assembly, while the representative of the Colonial Office refused to place it before the House of Commons. That was quite a novel proceeding, and he vent red to say that it was unconstitutional. The whole of the legislative council, official and unofficial members, were united in refusing to have anything to do with the scheme which the Secretary of State put forth. He submitted that that constituted a state of affairs which was really in principle rather grave. He would support the Colonial Office in acting on the advice of the officials on the spot, but the position was rather grave when they set up their own view against that of the local representatives and their own officials. He appealed to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to give further consideration to this point. The fund was subscribed for the relief of distress and for the rehabilitation of the industries of the natives, but the Colonial Office desired that a portion of it should be left so as to form an insurance fund against future disasters. That might or might not be a desirable thing to do, but he maintained it was ultra vires to devote any portion of the money subscribed for the relief of distress to that purpose. When a fund was being raised for the relief of the people of St. Vincent many of the subscribers pointed out that 40 per cent, of the money subscribed to the Jamaica fund was still in the coffers of the Colonial Office, and they
    1316
    subscribed on condition that the money would be applied to the purpose for which it was given. Referring to the question of cable communication with the West Indian Islands, he said that the cable service with Jamaica was above reproach. There were two competing lines at about 3s. a word, and there had been remarkably few interruptions during the past ten years. With regard to the southernmost islands, Trinidad, Barbados, and British Guiana, the very reverse was the case. The cable service was costly and unreliable. The service had been always and was at the present moment costly and unreliable. The rate to Jamaica was 3s. a word, which was reasonable. It was not a light rate, for a telegram could be sent longer distances for less. The rate to Siam, Australia, and Japan, half-way round the world, was 4s. 10d. a word, while it was 4s. 9d. to Barbados, 5s. 1d. to Trinidad, and 7s. to Demerara in British Guiana. That showed that the service was costly, which was partly in consequence of an agreement with an American company to Cuba to "route" the messages. That the service was unreliable was demonstrated by the fact that during the last six months of this year, to the end of June, or 182 days, cable communication was interrupted between British Guiana and Trinidad and Barbados on forty-five days, or two days out of every five. The best practical evidence as to the unreliability of the service was shown by the way the Colonies concerned had reduced their contributions to the cable company by way of subsidy. The subsidy cost this country nothing; the charge fell only on the exchequers of the different Colonies, amounting in all to £13,000 a year. Barbados had reduced its contribution from £2,500 to £1,500; Demerara from £4,500, to £3,000; Trinidad from £6,000 to £3,000. The hon. and gallant Gentleman would agree that it was time that something was done to improve matters. It was evident that from the commercial and political point of view great use was made of the cables by the Colonies, and from a strategic point of view cable communication would become more important when the Panama Canal was an established fact. The Government of British Guiana in November last made an agreement with a cable company

    1317
    for the establishment of a system of wireless telegrams, but he understood that nothing had been done to carry it into effect. If that were so, would the hon. and gallant Gentleman see that something was done soon? He was far from saying that wireless telegrams would prove less costly than cable messages; all he was anxious to see in the meantime was that something should be done to establish communication between British Guiana and Trinidad. As regarded the link between Trinidad and Barbados and between Barbados and Bermuda, the strongest possible case had been made out for an all-British cable. A direct cable between Bermuda and Trinidad was recommended by an Inter-Departmental Committee which sat in 1902, and by a resolution passed unanimously by the chambers of commerce of the Empire in 1906. The only question that remained to be settled was that of finance; and he wished to make a suggestion. The Colonies used to contribute £13,000 a year; they now contributed £7,000, and had expressed their willingness to make an increased contribution if this direct cable were laid. He had been told that the cost would be £23,000 per annum.
    COLONEL SEELY: Including Demerara?
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes, including Demerara. Of course a great saving would result in the rates. If the Colonies contributed their original subsidy—which they had practically agreed to do—of £13,000 that left £10,000 to be provided for. Canada at a conference held last year at Ottawa had expressed willingness to contribute towards this cable £5,000, leaving only £5,000 to be borne by the Colonial Office. He did not put forward this financial method as final, but he thought it was worth consideration by the hon. and gallant Gentleman in view of the value such a cable would be from administrative and strategic considerations to the Government. In the meantime he pressed on the hon. and gallant Gentleman the great importance of doing something in regard to the existing state of things, which constituted a burden which could hardly be borne by the Colonies
    1318
    and an injustice which required immediate remedy.
    MR. SUMMERBELLsaid that the noble Earl above the gangway had gone out of his way to sneer at the Labour Members, more especially the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil and the hon. Member for Leicester. There was a great deal of difference between the way people looked at things, but he would like to say that if the noble Earl was prepared to change places with the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, and had gone out to the Transvaal to expose how the country was being ruined by men whose only desire was to make wealth, he might not have got a better but rather a worse reception. He had great admiration for officers who did their duty, but men who went into the factory and the mine could be just as great heroes as any man who served under the colours; and whatever might be said in regard to the Transvaal War the Labour Members had felt that they were speaking in the interests of the common workers of the country. Last year on this Vote he had called attention to the Government of the West Indian Islands, but without much effect, and he hoped he would have more success with the hon. and gallant Gentleman than with his predecessor. He asserted that the administration of the West Indian Islands was altogether too costly and that it imposed on the people of those islands an enormous burden of taxation which was altogether out of proportion to what it should be. The revenue of the islands last year amounted to £3,000,000, and how had that been raised? What he was about to state ought to appeal to a free-trade Government. He found that in Jamaica the duty at present on bacon was 20 per cent. He asked the hon. Member what he thought of Customs taxation which ranged from 33 per cent, on biscuits and bread, and 45 per cent, on flour, to 70 per cent, on domestic lighting oil. No one supporting a free trade Government could argue that such a state of things could continue. This taxation it must be remembered, weighed on the people of these islands very heavily. Of course if reductions in the Customs were to be made it was necessary to find

    1319
    some way of reducing the expenditure, and he suggested that Governors of these islands were considerably overpaid as compared with the Governors of self-governing Colonies. In Tasmania, with an average export of £16 a head the Governor's salary was £2,500. In Jamaica, where the exports were £2 a head the Governor's salary was £5,000. The same remarks applied to other islands. They ought therefore to commence by reducing the salaries of the Governors of these islands. The importation of coolies from the East Indies to these islands had reduced the wages of the agricultural labourers from fifty-five cents to thirty-two cents per day, and they objected to the subsidy of £8,000 taken out of the taxation which they had to pay being given to the planters of these islands in order that they might bring in cheap labour. There were plenty of men to work if the planters only paid a proper price, and it was unfair that these people should be compelled to pay this taxation and that out of that taxation £8,000 should be given to the planters to import cheap labour from the East Indies. Year after year he had applied to the Opposition when in power for this redress, but instead of giving it they did exactly the opposite in 1896. In the Straits Settlements the planters themselves had to pay for the introduction of this labour and the Government should now see to it that they did not subsidise the planters in these islands any longer. He also appealed to the Government again to allow the Port of Spain to have a municipal council. In 1896 they had a municipal council which was suppressed owing to a riot. They had been without now for thirteen years which, he thought, was punishment enough for what had taken place, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would, in his reply, indicate to the Committee that the municipal council would be re-established next year. He also objected to the power which was placed in the hands of the town board of the Port of Spain summarily to sell by auction the property of anybody who was indebted to them. He knew of a case of a man whose house, which was worth £250, was sold for about £17 at auction because there were some £2 or £3 due from him for certain work in the shape of municipal repairs done by
    1320
    the town board. With regard to the Gilbert Islands he had seen a document signed by several chiefs on those islands which stated that the laws were badly administered and flagrantly broken by the Governors; that people were wrongfully deprived of their land; that their trees were cut down; and that there were numerous floggings and other outrages. He asked that these matters should be investigated because, if they were as stated, it was quite time that some reform took place. He also appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consider the case of Mr. William Davis of Dominica which had now been hanging on for several years. That gentleman had, it appeared, a genuine grievance, and he hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would consider the matter and, if he found that the case was as stated, see that justice was done.
    *MR. THEODORE TAYLORdrew attention to the question of the opium consumption in Hong Kong. The people there resented the action of the Home Government in bringing their action upon this question into line with the action of the Chinese Government. All that the Colonial Secretary had done was to say that sooner or later the opium dens must be closed. That was two months ago, and not a single den had yet been closed; so that time was certainly being given for the change. The old argument had been brought up that if opium was bad it was not so bad as drink, as if that had anything to do with it. On 28th May in the Hong Kong Legislative Council a resolution of protest was moved against the dens being closed. In seconding that resolution a Chinese member of the Council said he desired to maintain the council's rights, but he described the existence of the dens as "a blot on Hong Kong's fair fame, dragging the splendid Colony in the mud." He "urged that the opium dens and farms should be destroyed root and branch." That was the attitude of the respectable Chinese members of the Colony. The objection to suppression was merely a question of revenue. He begged the Government to persevere in their policy of suppressing the opium habit. The colonists were complaining that there would be a loss of revenue and asked to be relieved

    1321
    of their contribution of $1,250,000 towards military expenditure. The same question arose in the Straits Settlements. Sympathising with this complaint, he supported the Government in giving them a little time, but he implored them to stick to their policy and not to be dismayed in the very least by whatever was said. There were interested parties who helped to create a local public opinion in favour of the traffic, and, though he did not want to overstate the matter, he had the very best evidence for saying that many of the Chinese were afraid to move to show their anti-opium feeling. As a matter of fact, whereas in China the Government encouraged by edict anti-opium societies, the natives in Hong Kong feared to promote these societies because they were afraid to offend the British there. He had good ground for stating even more than that, and he was quite certain there was in this Crown Colony, owing to the fact that a large proportion of the revenue depended upon the opium dens and habits, a considerable European opinion in favour of the continuance of them. The question affected not only Hong Kong and the Straits Settlements, but the other day they heard of it in connection with Ceylon. He thanked the Government for the action they had taken there. Contrary to common belief there was not only opium-eating but opium-smoking in Ceylon. He had a letter written by the late Sanitary Officer of Colombo to a local newspaper stating that, "as the Sanitary Officer, he was well acquainted with all the slums in Colombo, and there was no part of the city when making inspection of the poor parts where he did not find opium-smoking; the pity of it being that the habit was prevalent among the women." It was very important that they should not allow this habit to grow. They had the same story from South Africa. A memorial lately presented by the Witwatersrand Church Council in the Transvaal stated that there were twenty opium dens with 300 regular customers, whilst the number of victims was increasing and included white people as well as coloured. The Secretary of the Transvaal Government replied that they could not do anything this year. Mr. Mackenzie
    1322
    King's inquiry for the Canadian Government into the damage resulting from the anti-Asiatic riots of last September discovered that a large trade was being carried on in the manufacture of opium. There were seven factories in Victoria, Vancouver, and New Westminster, the majority of them only recently established. The opium was mostly consumed by Chinese, but the habit was making headway among white men and women, and even among white boys and girls. The Canadian Parliament had just passed a law prohibiting the importation, manufacture, and sale of the drug except for medical purposes; and that was the kind of thing they wished to press upon the British Government. They wanted the non-medical use of opium prohibited, whether inside or outside dens. It was not a question of opium dens merely. If the opium dens were closed the practice would be carried on in private houses, though no doubt to a less extent. They had to follow the practice wherever they found it. Australia and New Zealand had stopped it, and in every country public opinion was waking upon this question, and it was becoming the policy of the civilised world to suppress the traffic. He urged the Government not to fall short of that policy, lest we should soon find more opium dens in our own country. There were a few already. They largely existed in Crown Colonies for which we were specially responsible. In the United States, in Japan, in our own chief self-governing Colonies, and elsewhere public opinion now apprehended the seriousness of the matter, and it was becoming the policy of the world to stop the smoking of opium. They were told by those who excused this easy method of raising revenue that they might follow it wherever they liked, but they would not stamp it out. It was no doubt very easy to smuggle. He remembered when our own sugar duty was imposed, the Government had to take very stern measures to stop the smuggling of saccharin, an article of high value and small bulk; and if the Government meant business, the opium traffic could be stopped. Where there was a will there was a way. There was no need for the Government to be mealy-mouthed. Why should it

    1323
    deal more gently with the traffic than Japan? They only needed a thoroughgoing law and to have it properly administered. If the Government was determined and passed stringent laws and saw they were rigidly enforced, the traffic could be put down in our territory as it had been put down in Japanese territory and in our own self-governing Colonies. The United States also were about to pass a law prohibiting the traffic.
    *MR. BOULTONsaid the Opposition had laid down a new and extraordinary doctrine, and they were making the most of it inside and outside the House: they said that the Government were acting in an anti-Imperial way when they made suggestions in the mildest form to the Natal Government, and refused to take any steps to interfere in the internal policy of the Transvaal. The Opposition drew a great distinction between Natal and the Transvaal and Orange River Colony. It was wrong to interfere in the slightest way with Natal, but it was right to interfere with the Transvaal. That, in his opinion, was absurd. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, the late Colonial Secretary, had suggested that the Government should appoint a Committee to investigate the local policy of the Transvaal. He had never heard of a precedent for doing anything of the kind. The local affairs of a self-governing Colony had never been investigated in such a way as the right hon. Gentleman suggested in the history of the Empire, and the suggested Committee of Inquiry would be entirely unconstitutional and quite uncalled for. At the same time, the Opposition attacked the Government for making a mild suggestion to the Natal Government in a matter of exterior policy—the question of the government of the natives. It had been suggested that the Government had entered into some sort of disgraceful conspiracy with the Transvaal by which they lent a large sum of money in consideration of the Transvaal Government doing away with Chinese labour. The Transvaal Government had decided to do away with Chinese labour before any negotiations were
    1324
    opened for a loan. It was, in his opinion' a disgraceful charge to bring against His Majesty's Government and the Government of a self-governing Colony. There had been some strong language used, and he thought the words of the Under-Secretary were largely justified. He protested against any such suggestion. It never ought to have been made. He had felt a considerable amount of doubt about the retrenched officials of the Transvaal, but the speech of the Under-Secretary had satisfied him that the position in the Transvaal was not at all unsatisfactory. That was a matter of satisfaction on that side of the House. He was very glad to hear that steps were being taken to find positions for these unfortunate men. He knew several of them who came from Canada, and got positions after the war was over, and had now lost them. At the same time knowing something about those gentlemen and their capacity he could understand perhaps that while capable for positions while the war was going on they were not altogether suited to fill very responsible positions in the civil administration of a self-governing Colony. That might of course have had something to do with their retrenchment. At any rate it was perfectly obvious from the start that the Civil Service of the Transvaal was very much overstaffed and would have to be very largely retrenched, and consequently what happened was only what might have been expected. They were satisfied that the retrenchment had been principally under the last Administration—under the Administration of Lord Milner—and not under this, and further he felt very great satisfaction that the new appointments had been made without any respect to race. In these great Colonies where they had two races side by side, the only chance of amalgamation and fusion of the races was to treat them as Transvaalers, and not as Boers and Englishmen, and in that way they might hope some day to have one race in the Transvaal, a race of Transvaalers living under the Union lack. The speech of the Under-Secretary would give great satisfaction to the country generally.
    LORD BALCARRESasked how the authority of Parliament was to be obtained for the payment of the salary to Dinizulu. It was a new service, and could not be paid out of any economies in the Votes they were going to pass that evening and the next day, and it could not be done by Supplementary Estimate. He did not know how the authority of the House could be obtained. The proper thing was a Supplementary Estimate, but if it was introduced during the autumn session a Consolidated Fund Bill would be necessary.
    COLONEL SEELYsaid the proposal was to take a Supplementary Estimate in the autumn session. In any case they would have had to come to Parliament for a supplementary sum, and this small sum of £400 for Dinizulu would be included. The money would be paid and would be forthcoming, and he thought he could undertake that it should be done in due form. With regard to the opium question, he had been asked whether some action would be taken to deal with the evil effects of opium derivatives as well as of opium itself. That was no doubt most important. There could be no question that, bad as was the effect of smoking opium, the injection of morphia was even more injurious. He had received a most interesting letter from one of the Governors of the Straits Settlements, in which he pointed out from personal experience how awful were the effects of the injection of morphia, making a man a wreck in a year if he once took to it. He trusted the International Commission, which was to assemble shortly, would include in its purview these opium derivatives. He understood, though he did not know this officially, that the American representatives were anxious to take this course. The Government would of course agree on that point. The International Commission would meet in Shanghai, on 1st January next. Our representatives would be present and would take part in the deliberations with a view to at least coming up to the standard of China, if not of going beyond it. The hon. Member for Lanark had devoted some time to the question of
    1326
    St. Vincent and the Carib Canal. He was sorry to find himself in disagreement with the hon. Gentleman on the subject, because on the whole of the other matters connected with the West Indies he gladly availed himself of his help and saw eye to eye with him. If the hon. Member was of opinion that they were wrong about the Carib Canal he must continue to endeavour to convert them. They were not converted yet. The situation was this. A benevolent public subscribed £73,000 to repair the damage done in St. Vincent at the last eruption and in general terms to relieve distress. It seemed good to Lord Elgin that of this amount £25,000 should be retained as a nest egg for future eruptions. A gentleman who was specially concerned in these matters, and had personal acquaintance with the West Indian Islands, had said regretfully to him that he could guarantee either an eruption, an earthquake, or a hurricane within ten years. It was very unfortunate that this should be the case, but if there was any truth in it surely it was wise to keep this sum of £25,000 for the moment when the next disaster occurred. They trusted it might never occur, but unless a fresh cataclysm of Nature occurred, which should transfer the earthquakes and eruptions to another part of the world, something of that kind, or even a drop in the price of sugar of a phenomenal kind might occur which would need immediate application of relief. They would then have this £25,000 available under the scheme laid down by Lord Elgin. The hon. Gentleman said—"But the Carib Canal will remain full of ashes, and without a fresh water canal you cannot expect to have the island properly cultivated." This Mr. Porter who owned the land at the edge of the canal was digging out the ashes as fast as might be, and if the hon. Member said in point of fact he would give up digging, his only answer was that he was coming over to this country, and they hoped to have an opportunity of seeing him, for they would then know just how they stood. They would, of course, see Mr. Porter and learn all he had to say; but as at present advised they were not disposed to devote this sum to the digging of the ashes out of the canal believing as they did that Mr. Porter would do it.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid his point was that although it might be desirable to provide a fund for future contingencies, they had no power to divert this sum, which was subscribed for the relief of immediate necessities and earmarked for that particular purpose.
    COLONEL SEELYsaid he knew the legal aspect of that matter had been considered, and he himself had looked into it, and he was of opinion, speaking as a lawyer, that they were fully justified in the action they had taken. If it should turn out that they were bound to expend the sum, they would have to reconsider their attitude, but they had taken the best advice and were quite sure they were right. He thoroughly agreed with what the hon. Gentleman had said as to the importance of doing something to improve the cable communication both between the West Indies themselves, and between this country and the West Indies. It was certainly a most remarkable fact that the cost should be so great. The hon. Member told them it cost 7s. to Demerara, and that it cost to telegraph to the West Indian Islands, which were only a fortnight's steam from here, within a penny what it cost to telegraph to Japan, which was half-way round the world. He agreed that they ought to do something, and the Secretary of State proposed to take what action he could. There was this difficulty, that there were the two competing systems of submarine cable and wireless telegraphy. The hon. Member was quite right in what he told the Committee about the superior efficiency of cable communication, and the fact that they had taken to it in one case if not two. This made it difficult, because the inhabitants of the Islands themselves, who had subscribed the money, were not at one as to which was the best method. There must come an end to knocking people's heads together, and the Secretary of State was anxious to try the experiment of wireless telegraphy in one place, and, it might be, to increase and improve the cable communication elsewhere. These Islands were not very rich, and although it might be desirable to improve cable communication, when any concrete proposal was made, the Islands frequently
    1328
    took exception to making a contribution. But they had shown a disposition to join together to increase their contributions for a particular cable, and although he could not give any assurance on that particular point he could tell the hon. Gentleman on the authority of the Secretary of State that they were anxious to improve communication with the least possible delay. The hon. Member for Sunderland had addressed them on the subject of the finance of the West Indies. It was true that the salaries paid appeared to be large, but they must take into account the climate and the liability to earthquakes in estimating the salaries of Governors. The hon. Member had also referred to the coolie question and to the fact that in some of the West Indian Islands there was assisted immigration. It seemed to him that there were sound grounds for protesting against that system. It did not seem reasonable on the face of it to assist immigration which might be supposed to cut down wages. He consulted the Governor of Jamaica on the question of indentured coolies when he was over here, and with regard to the cutting down of wages he assured him that wages had gone up, and that the work done by the coolies was work which would not be done by the natives of Jamaica.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: Not at the same wages.
    COLONEL SEELYreplied that he was convinced that the system did not operate in Jamaica in the way it might be expected to operate in other parts of the world; but the Government did not propose to extend the system, and they would watch the experiments closely. His Majesty's Government were not in favour, as a rule, of indentured labour, but such indentured labour as existed they could not sweep away except in South Africa where it would be swept away; but in other parts of the world they could not sweep it away. He would return to that subject later on. As to the Gilbert Islands, there was in the Pacific a gentleman well known for his sympathy with the natives, Sir Everard im Thurn, and his Report did not bear out the statements

    1329
    that had been made. That gentleman was on his way home, and he would bring before him what his hon. friend who raised the question had said. Although it might be very unfortunate that people should have to work four days a week when three days work was enough, and that they should be only allowed to dance on Saturday afternoons, he hardly thought his hon. friend was justified in viewing the situation in the Islands with the alarm which he professed.
    MR. SUMMERBELLsaid he had only asked the hon. and gallant Gentleman to give his attention to the state of things alleged to exist by the chiefs.
    COLONEL SEELYsaid he understood that the people alluded to were what were called "the old men." He did not wish to appear to be in any way throwing ridicule upon this question, but he wished to defend those whom he had reason to believe were administering affairs with due regard to the conditions under which those people were working. With regard to West Africa and the liquor traffic, he admitted that there they were by no means on strong ground. The hon. Member for Gravesend had pointed out that 60 or 70 per cent. of the revenue in some Colonies was drawn from drink. That was, no doubt, approximately accurate. The Secretary of State viewed with concern the immense amount of liquor imported into West Africa and the immense ratio which the liquor tax bore to the rest of the revenue. That was not a desirable state of finances in the interests either of the natives or of the country, and the Secretary of State was anxious to amend it. They were of opinion that demoralisation followed from the importation of this spirit, and as he understood that it only cost 8d. a bottle he was not at all surprised at that. One would suppose from what had been said that this spirit was highly injurious and was killing the natives in great numbers. To his great surprise he found on inquiry from persons who were qualified to judge that the actual harm done was slight. It seemed to him that that was very unlikely, but the Secretary of State had decided to appoint a Committee to investigate the matter, That Committee would be ap-
    1330
    pointed without delay to investigate the matter on the spot, first, to find out the extent of the evil, and secondly to make suggestions as to a remedy. Of course the hon. Member for Gravesend was aware, and other hon. Members who had spoken on the Ministerial side were also aware, that the Government were somewhat tied in this matter by the contiguous frontiers of foreign countries. They had entered into engagements with foreign Powers to raise the duty in order to check the traffic. Some of those Powers were anxious to go much faster and some of them were not anxious to go much further. Unless they could come to some agreement with those foreign countries which had contiguous frontiers the drink which was being smuggled in might cause as much damage as the other drink evil. Unless they could get the consent of foreign Powers in this direction they could not check the sale of the article. He could assure hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Secretary of State viewed the whole situation with concern, and he proposed to appoint this Committee to consider what action was possible.
    MR. LEIF JONESasked if the hon. and gallant Gentleman could say of whom the Committee would consist?
    COLONEL SEELYreplied that he could not. The association of which the right hon. Baronet the Member for Honiton was a leading light had been asked to communicate their proposals on this subject, and he was now waiting to hear from them as to their suggestions.
    SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: They are now on their way.
    COLONEL SEELYsaid he was glad to hear it, and as soon as they were received they would be considered without delay.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERasked if the Government had considered the suggestion to appoint someone from this country to act as Chairman of the Committee?
    COLONEL SEELYsaid he would bring that suggestion to the notice of his noble friend, and ask him if he could see his way to follow it. With regard to Natal his hon. friend the Member for York had addressed the House at some length on this question, and he had begged of the Government not to interfere. They hid endeavoured not to interfere in Natal; for over seven months they had endeavoured to avoid any undue interference and he did not believe that any words which had been addressed to the House from that box could give offence to anyone in Natal. He had always endeavoured that that should be the case. With regard to Natal, the Home Government had endeavoured to avoid any undue interference. It was necessary for them to take the action they had taken. He was glad to have the approval of every Member of the House who had spoken on this subject. It augured well for the bringing of Colonial matters out of the scope of ordinary party politics. In this matter every hon. and right hon. Gentleman who had addressed the House had expressed himself in the main satisfied that His Majesty's Government had acted in this matter with every wish not to offend the Natal Government, and they desired that the promise of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham should be fulfilled. Points had been raised in regard to the Act of Indemnity by the hon. Member for Gravesend, the hon. Member for Leicester, the hon. Member for Huntingdon, and the hon. Member for Peterborough, and they had given a long and accurate account of the circumstances which had led up to the present situation. The omission of the word "rebellion" from the Act might be, in the view of the hon. Member for Peterborough, an indication that the
    state of affairs did not amount to rebellion. He submitted respectfully to the Committee that that made no difference whatever as to the policy of assenting to the Indemnity Act itself. It was a fact that the operation of martial law had not been attended with violent measures, and it was admitted that it had not been attended with much disturbance. If the Government were in any way to demur to assenting to the Act, the practical effect would be to the disadvantage of the natives. It was said that the Governor had an absolute right to proclaim martial law; but some things were possible which were not expedient. He wished to say a word or two about the Transvaal officials. It had been assumed in the course of the debate that although the figures were more or less conclusive that General Botha's Government had not unduly favoured the Dutch, there was an impression that those officials who had been retrenched had not been adequately compensated, and one hon. Member had said that they had received nothing. Altogether the retrenched officials, 345 in number, had received £87,000 from the Transvaal Government. That might not be enough to compensate them for the loss they had sustained, but at least any obligation undertaken by the Transvaal Government had been loyally fulfilled. He had no time to deal with Asiatic exclusion. It must be the subject of careful consideration, and the Government were most anxious to co-operate with the Colonies in finding a solution of the difficulty.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 92; Noes, 247. (Division List No. 228.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

    Ashley, W. W.

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Balcarres, Lord

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

    Duncan, Robt.(Lanark, Govan)

    Baring, Capt. Hn. G(Winchester

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Faber George Denison (York)

    Barnes, G. N.

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

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

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

    Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

    Fell, Arthur

    Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Forster, Henry William

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Gardner, Ernest

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Snowden, P.

    Gill, A. H.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Starkey, John R.

    Gordon, J.

    M'Arthur, Charles

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

    Guinness, Walter Edward

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Summerbell, T.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Nicholson Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Nield, Herbert

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Valentia, Viscount

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)

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

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Warlde, George J.

    Hudson, Walter

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n

    Jenkins, J.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

    Joynson-Hicks, William

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

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

    Keswick, William

    Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

    Law, Andrew Bonar(Dulwich)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Younger, George

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

    Rutherford, W. W.(Liverpool)

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

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Earl Winterton and Mr. Gretton.

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Seddon, J.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Herbert, T. Arnold(Wycombe)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Cooper, G. J.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Agnew, George William

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

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Cotton, Sir; H. J. S.

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Cowan, H. W.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

    Crooks, William

    Hyde, Clarendon

    Astbury, John Meir

    Curran, Peter Francis

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Jackson, R. S.

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eikon)

    Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

    Beauchamp, E.

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Duckworth, James

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Bell, Richard

    Duffy, William J.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

    Erskine, David C.

    Kearley, Sir Hudson, E.

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

    Essex, R. W.

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Findlay, Alexander

    Lambert, George

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Lamont, Norman

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

    Branch, James

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Brigg, John

    Glover, Thomas

    Levy, Sir Maurie

    Bright, J. A.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Brodie, H. C.

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Brooke, Stopford

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J.T(Cheshire

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Lynch, H. B.

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Gulland, John W.

    Maclean, Donald

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J

    Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

    Hall, Frederick

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Carr-Gomm, H.; W.

    Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Causton, Rt Hn. Richard Knight

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

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

    M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

    Chance, Frederick William

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

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

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston.

    Harwood, George

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Cleland, J. W.

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Marnham, F. J.

    1334

    1335

    Massie, J.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Roberts, Sir John H.(Denbighs.)

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

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Robinson, S.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Torrance, Sir A. M.

    Mond, A.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Toulmin, George

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Verney, F. W.

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Wadsworth, J.

    Morse, L. L.

    Rowlands, J.

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Myer, Horatio

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Walsh, Stephen

    Napier, T. B.

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Walters, John Tudor

    Nicholls, George

    Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester)

    Walton, Joseph

    Nolan, Joseph

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

    Waring, Walter

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Sears, J. E.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Seely, Colonel

    Waterlow, D. S.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Watt, Henry A

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    O'Connor, T, P.(Liverpool)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Whitehead, Rowland

    O'Malley, William

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Partington, Oswald

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Wiles, Thomas

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Pearce, William(Limehouse)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Pearson, Sir W.D. (Colchester)

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Williamson, A.

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

    Stanger, H.Y.

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

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

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh'e

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Pollard, Dr.

    Steadman, W. C.

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Winfrey, R.

    Radford, G. H.

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Rea, Russell, (Gloucester)

    Stuart, James (Sunderland)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

    Sutherland, J. E.

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

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Richardson, A.

    Thomas, David Arthur (Merthyr

    Question put, and agreed to.

    And, it being after Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration.
    The CHAIRMAN The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put Severally the Questions, "That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in each Class of the Civil Services Estimates, including Supplementary Estimates, and the total amount of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for the Navy, the Army (including Ordnance Factories), and the Revenue Departments, be granted for the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates—

    CLASS I.
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £608,168, be granted to His Majesty, to
    1336
    defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.—

    £

    1.

    Royal Palaces

    42,500

    2.

    Osborne

    7,300

    3.

    Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

    79,900

    4.

    Houses of Parliament Buildings (including a Supplementary Sum of £5,000)

    37,000

    4A.

    Salisbury Memorial

    1,100

    5.

    Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

    48,000

    6.

    Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

    55,000

    10.

    Surveys of the United Kingdom

    116,815

    11.

    Harbours under the Board of Trade

    32,840

    12.

    Peterhead Harbour

    22,000

    £

    14.

    Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

    134,259

    15.

    Railways, Ireland

    31,454

    £608,168"

    Class II.
    3. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,145,045, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.—

    £

    1.

    House of Lords Offices

    15,956

    2.

    House of Commons Offices

    19,900

    3.

    Treasury and Subordinate Offices

    62,917

    4.

    Home Office

    139,967

    7.

    Privy Council Office

    6,217

    8.

    Board of Trade

    213,169

    9.

    Mercantile Marine Services

    80,347

    10.

    Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

    5

    11.

    Board of Agriculture and Fisheries

    83,124

    12.

    Charity Commission

    15,308

    14.

    Exchequer and Audit Department

    39,900

    15.

    Friendly Societies Registry

    5,819

    16.

    Local Government Board

    156,500

    17.

    Lunacy Commission, England

    11,384

    £

    20.

    Public Record Office

    14,820

    21.

    Public Works Loan Commission

    2,507

    22.

    Registrar-General's Office, England

    26,825

    24.

    Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, &c., Office

    13,613

    25.

    Works and Public Buildings Office

    53,693

    26.

    Secret Service

    10,000

    Scotland.

    27.

    Secretary for Scotland's Office

    11,600

    28.

    Fishery Board

    14,998

    29.

    Lunacy Commission

    3,901

    30.

    Registrar-General's Office

    3,063

    31.

    Local Government Board

    11,592

    Ireland.

    32.

    Household of Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland

    2,627

    33.

    Chief Secretary for Ireland

    18,101

    35.

    Charitable Donations and Bequests Office

    1,053

    36.

    Local Government Board

    52,616

    37.

    Public Record Office

    3,625

    38.

    Public Works Office

    27,413

    39.

    Registrar-General's Office

    7,338

    40.

    Valuation and Boundary Survey

    15,147

    £ 1,145,045"

    Question put.
    The Committee divided; Ayes, 282, Noes, 81. (Division List No. 229.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Brigg, John

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Bright, J. A.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Bell, Richard

    Brodie, H. C.

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Brooke, Stopford

    Agnew, George William

    Benn. Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

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

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

    Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J.T(Cheshire

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Astbury, John Meir

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Byles, William Pollard

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Branch, James

    Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Jackson, R. S.

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

    Chance, Frederick William

    Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

    Radford, G. H.

    Charming, Sir Francis Allston

    Jenkins, J.

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

    Cleland, J. W.

    Jones; Leif (Appleby)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Kekewich, Sir George

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

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Richardson, A.

    Cooper, G. J.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

    Lambert, George

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lamont, Norman

    Roberts, Sir John H.(Denbighs.)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Robinson, S.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Cowan, W. H.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Crooks, William

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Curran, Peter Francis

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Rogers, F. K. Newman

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Rowlands, J.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lundon, W.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Dilke, Rt. Hon Sir Charles

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Lynch, H. B.

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

    Duckworth, James

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Sears, J. E.

    Duffy, William J.

    Maclean, Donald

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Seddon, J.

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Seely, Colonel

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S)

    Shackleton, David James

    Erskine, David C.

    M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Shaw, Charles Edw.(Stafford)

    Essex, R. W.

    M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

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

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

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

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Everett, R. Lacey

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Maddison, Frederick

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Findlay, Alexander

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Snowden, P.

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Marnham, F. J.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Massie, J.

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Gill, A. H.

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

    Glover, Thomas

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Steadman, W. C.

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Mond, A.

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Morse, L. L.

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Gulland, John W.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Stuart, James (Sunderland)

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Myer, Horatio

    Summerbell, T.

    Hall, Frederick

    Napier, T. B.

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

    Nicholls, George

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

    Nolan, Joseph

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Harmsworth, R L.(Caithn'ss-sh

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

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

    Nuttall, Harry

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Harwood, George

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    Haslum, James (Derbyshire)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Thorne, G. K. (Wolverhampton

    Helme, Norval Watson

    O'Malley, William

    Tomkinson, James

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Torrance, Sir A. M.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Partington, Oswald

    Toulmin, George

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

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Verney, F. W.

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Wadsworth, J.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

    Walsh, Stephen

    Holland, Sir William Henry

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

    Walters, John Tudor

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Walton, Joseph

    Hope, Bateman (Somerset, N

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Wardle, George J.

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Waring, Walter

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Pollard, Dr.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T,

    Hudson, Walter

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Hyde, Clarendon

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Idris, T. H. W.

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

    Watt, Henry A.

    1340

    1341

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Weir, James Galloway

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Winfrey, R.

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Williamson, A.

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Whitehead, Rowland

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

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

    TELLERS FOE THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hn Sir Thomas P.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Wilkie, Alexander

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

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

    NOES.

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

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Gordon, J.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Ashley, W. W.

    Gretton, John

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Guinness, Walter Edward

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Baring, Capt. Hn. G(Winchester)

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

    Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Starkey, John R.

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Keswick, William

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

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

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

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

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

    Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Craik, Sir Henry

    M'Arthur, Charles

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

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Winterton, Earl

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Younger, George

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

    Morpeth, Viscount

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

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. George Faber and Sir Frederick Banbury.

    Fell, Arthur

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Nield, Herbert

    Forster, Henry William

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Gardner, Ernest

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Class III.
    4. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,685,768, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.—

    £

    1.

    Law Charges

    54,190

    2.

    Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

    22,564

    3.

    Supreme Court of Judicature

    189,867

    4.

    Land Registry

    21,750

    5.

    Public Trustee

    1,500

    6.

    County Courts

    3

    7.

    Police, England and Wales

    24,858

    Scotland.

    11.

    Law Charges and Courts of Law

    51,316

    £

    12.

    Register House, Edinburgh

    26,966

    13.

    Crofters' Commission

    2,345

    14.

    Prisons

    60,790

    Ireland.

    15.

    Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

    38,078

    16.

    Supreme Court of Judicature and other Legal Departments

    60,446

    17.

    Irish Land Commission

    160,978

    18.

    County Court Officers, &c.

    70,475

    19.

    Dublin Metropolitan Police

    36,632

    20.

    Royal Irish Constabulary

    739,902

    21.

    Prisons

    64,661

    22.

    Reformatory and Industrial Schools

    55,225

    23.

    Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

    3,222

    £1,685,768"

    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 299; Noes, 86. (Division List No. 230.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Duckworth, James

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Duffy, William J.

    Lambert, George

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

    Lamont, Norman

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

    Agnew, George William

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Erskine, David C.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Essex, R. W.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Lupton, Arnold

    Astbury, John Meir

    Ferens, T. R.

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Lynch, H. B.

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Findlay, Alexander

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Maclean, Donald

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Bell, Richard

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Gill, A. H.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)

    Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp'rt

    Gladstone, Rt Hn, Herbert John

    K'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

    Glover, Thomas

    M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Greenwood G. (Peterborough)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Manfield, Harry (Northants)

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Branch, James

    Gulland, John W.

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Brigg, John

    Haldane, Rt. Hon Richard B.

    Marnham, F J.

    Bright, J. A.

    Hall, Frederick

    Mason, A.E.W. (Coventry)

    Brodie, H. C.

    Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

    Massie, J.

    Brooke, Stopford

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Masterman, C. F. G.

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

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J. T(Cheshire

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

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Mond, A.

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

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

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Harwood, George

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Burns, Rt. Hon John

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

    Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Morse, L. L.

    Byles, William Pollard

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Myer, Horatio

    Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Napier, T. B.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Nicholls, George

    Chance, Frederick William

    Henderson J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Higham, John Sharp

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Cleland, J. W.

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

    Horniman, Emslie John

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J,

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Grady, J.

    Cooper, G. J.

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Malley, William

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

    Hyde, Clarendon

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Partington, Oswald

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Jackson, R. S.

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Jenkins, J.

    Pearce, Willliam (Limehouse)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

    Crooks, William

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

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

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Curran, Peter Francis

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Kearley, Sir Hudson, E.

    Pollard, Dr.

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

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

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Ward, W. Dudley (S'thampton)

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

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Wardle, George J.

    Radford, G. H.

    Snowden, P.

    Waring, Walter

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

    Rea, Walter Russell, (Scarboro'

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Stanley, Albert(Staffs, N. W.)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th

    Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

    Steadman, W. C.

    Weir, James Galloway

    Richardson, A.

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Robinson, S.

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Stuart, James(Sunderland)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Summerbell, T.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n

    Rowlands, J.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Williamson, A.

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

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

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

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

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Sears, J. E.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

    Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Tomkinson, James

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

    Seddon, J.

    Torrance, Sir A. M.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Seely, Colonel

    Toulmin, George

    Winfrey, R.

    Shackleton, David James

    Verney, F. W.

    Wodehouse, Lord

    Shaw, Charles Edw.(Stafford)

    Wadsworth, J.

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

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

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Walsh, Stephen

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Walters, John Tudor

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

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Walton, Joseph

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Ward, John(Stoke upon Trent)

    NOES.

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

    Fell, Arthur

    Nield, Herbert

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Forster, Henry William

    Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)

    Ashley, W. W.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gordon, J.

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Banner, John S, Harmood-

    Gretton, John

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

    Guinness, Walter Edward

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

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

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Starkey, John R.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Keswick, William

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cave, George

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

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

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

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

    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

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

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Winterton, Earl

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

    Craik, Sir Henry

    McArthur, Charles

    Younger, George

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Samuel Roberts and Sir William Bull.

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

    Class IV.
    5. "That a sum, not exceeding £8,217,512, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.—

    £

    1.

    Board of Education

    6,594,150

    2.

    British Museum

    115,137

    3.

    National Gallery

    7,414

    4.

    National Portrait Gallery

    2,621

    5.

    Wallace Collection

    4,173

    6.

    Scientific Investigation, &c, United Kingdom

    28,295

    7.

    Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales

    146,800

    £

    8.

    Public Education, Scotland

    1,198,557

    9.

    National Galleries, Scotland

    2,497

    Ireland.

    10.

    Public Education (Supplementary)

    114,000

    11.

    Endowed Schools Commissioners

    515

    12.

    National Gallery

    1,153

    13.

    Queen's Colleges

    2,200

    £8,217,512"

    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 261; Noes, 129. (Division List No. 231.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William(Cork, N.E.)

    Causton Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Chance, Frederick William

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Agnew, George William

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Gulland, John W.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Astbury, John Meir

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

    Hall, Frederick

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Cooper, G. J.

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

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

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

    Beauchamp, E.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

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

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Harwood, George

    Bell, Richard

    Cowan, W. H.

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    Benn, Sir J. Williams-Devonp'rt

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Helme, Norval Waltson

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Dalziel, James Henry

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

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

    Higham, John Sharp

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Duckworth, James

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Branch, James.

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Brigg, John

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Hope W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

    Bright, J. A.

    Erskine, David C.

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Brodie, H. C.

    Essex, R. W.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Brooks, Stopford

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

    Hyde, Clarendon

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

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Jackson, R. S.

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

    Ferens, T. R.

    Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Findlay, Alexander

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

    Byles, William Pollard

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Lambert, George

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Stuart, James (Sunderland)

    Lamont, Norman

    Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Pollard, Dr.

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

    Lupton, Arnold

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

    Tomkinson, James

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

    Torrance, Sir A. M.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

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

    Toulmin, George

    Lynch, H. B.

    Radford, G. H.

    Verney, F. W.

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Wadsworth, J.

    Maclean, Donald

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

    Walters, John Tudor

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Walton, Joseph

    M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

    M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

    Roberts, Sir John H.(Denbighs.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

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

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Waring, Walter

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Manfield, Harry (Northants)

    Rowlands, J.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Weir, James Galloway

    Marnham, F. J.

    Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

    Massie, J.

    Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Sears, J. E.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hn Sir Thomas P

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Mond, A.

    Seely, Colonel

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Williamson, A.

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

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

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

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

    Morse, L. L.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Myer, Horatio

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Napier, T. B.

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

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

    Nicholls, George

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

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

    Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

    Snowden, P.

    Winfrey, R.

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Wodehouse, Lord

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Nuttall, Harry

    Stanger, H. Y.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

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

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    O'Malley, William

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Partington, Oswald

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn Sir Alex, F

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Duffy, William J.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

    Balcarres, Lord

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Cave, George

    Edwards, Clement-Denbigh)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

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

    Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

    Fell, Arthur

    Barnes, G. N.

    Coates, Major E.F. (Lewisham)

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

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

    Forster, Henry William

    Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Gardner, Ernest

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Crooks, William

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Curran, Peter Francis

    Gill, A. H.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Glover, Thomas

    Bull, Sir William James

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    1350

    1351

    Gordon, J.

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Steadman, W. C.

    Gretton, John

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Summerbell, T.

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Guinness, Walter Edward

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Nield, Herbert

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

    O'Grady, J.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Walsh, Stephen

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Wardle, George J.

    Hudson, Walter

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Idris, T. H. W.

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

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Jenkins, J.

    Richardson, A.

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Keswick, William

    Robinson, S.

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

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Winterton, Earl

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

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

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

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Younger, George

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Seddon, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Shackleton, David James

    Mr. Leverton Harris and Mr. Bertram Straus.

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

    M Arthur, Charles

    Starkey, John R.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Class V.
    6. "That a sum, not exceeding £366,236, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909, for expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.—

    £

    1.

    Diplomatic and Consular Services

    323,103

    3.

    Telegraph Subsidies and Pacific Cable

    42,133

    4.

    Cyprus (Grant in Aid)

    1,000

    £366,236"

    Class VI.
    7. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,684,845, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.—

    £

    1.

    Superannuation and Retired Allowances

    375,022

    £

    3.

    Hospitals and Charities, Ireland

    110

    4.

    Savings Banks' and Friendly Societies' Deficiencies

    109,713

    5.

    Old-Age Pensions

    1,200,000

    £1,684,845"

    Class VII.
    8 "That a sum, not exceeding £382,104, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.—

    £

    1.

    Temporary Commissions

    25,000

    2.

    Miscellaneous Expenses

    7,867

    3.

    Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

    4,404

    4.

    Ireland Development Grant

    85,342

    5.

    Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund

    41,491

    6.

    Expenses under The Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905

    200,000

    1353

    £

    7.

    Relief of Distress (Ireland)

    13,000

    8.

    Government Hospitality

    5,000

    £382,104"

    Navy Estimates, 1908–9.
    9. "That a sum, not exceeding £5,562,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, viz.—

    £

    2.

    Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

    2,286,400

    4.

    Martial Law

    13,900

    6.

    Scientific Services

    66,000

    7.

    Royal Naval Reserves

    368,300

    9.

    Naval Armaments

    2,048,700

    11.

    Miscellaneous Effective Services

    409,200

    12.

    Admiralty Office

    370,200

    £5,562,700"

    Army Estimates, 1908–9.
    10. "That a sum, not exceeding £13,505,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services, including Army (Ordnance Factories), viz.—

    £

    2.

    Medical Establishment, Pay, etc.

    451,000

    4.

    Territorial Forces

    2,005,000

    5.

    Establishments for Military Education

    142,000

    6.

    Quartering, Transport, and Remounts

    1,839,000

    7.

    Supplies and Clothing

    3,912,000

    8.

    Ordnance Department Establishments and General Stores

    498,000

    9.

    Armaments and Engineer Stores

    1,490,000

    1354

    £

    10.

    Works and Buildings

    2,515,000

    11.

    Miscellaneous Effective Services

    73,000

    12.

    War Office and Army Accounts Department

    580,000

    Ordnance Factories

    100

    £13,505,100"

    Revenue Departments Estimates, 1908–9.
    11. "That a sum, not exceeding £11,821,531, 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 Post Office, including Telegraphs, and Telephones."
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Resolved, "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909, the sum of £69,157,274, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—(Mr. Joseph Pease.)
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

    EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL [LORDS].
    As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
    PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
    As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
    AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL [LORDS].
    As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clauses 1 to 29 agreed to.
Clause 30:
THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STEACHEY, Somersetshire, S.)moved a verbal Amendment providing that the reference in Clause 30 should be, not to the Acts of "1883 to 1906," but to the "Act of 1908." This Amendment was made necessary in consequence of the Consolidating Bill which had just been read a third time.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 20, line 7, to leave out the words 'Acts of 1883 and 1906,' and to insert the words 'Act of 1908.'"—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
EARL WINTERTONthought the Committee were entitled to some further explanation of this Amendment.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYmade some further remarks which were inaudible in the Press Gallery.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he could not quite understand the explanation which had been given. [An HON. MEMBER: Tell us what it was.] He under-stood that the hon. Member told them this Amendment was necessary in consequence of the passing of the Consolidating Bill which had only just passed through the Report stage. The House ought clearly to know whether they were entitled to include a Bill which had not actually passed this House or at any rate which had not yet received the assent of the Crown. He had for a long time been a careful student of Parliamentary procedure and he did not remember anything of this kind having been done before. It might be necessary to do this when they were approaching the end of the session, and when they were anxious to get the business through. The reason given by the hon. Member for taking this course had no solid foundation, and he believed that this was the first time such a proposition had ever been
1356
made to the House of Commons. Until they had the authority of the Law Officer of the Crown upon the point he had raised he did not think they ought to pass this Amendment.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON, South Shields)said they were dealing here with a simple question of drafting. In the first part of the Bill now under discussion there was a reference to the Agricultural Holdings (England) Acts for 1883 and 1906. They had now passed a stage of the Consolidating Bill which made it unnecessary to refer to all the previous Agricultural Holdings Acts, and, therefore, it was much more convenient that the one Act of 1908 should take the place of the preceding Acts, They were now proposing to strike out the old reference which had now become inaccurate and to put in the new reference. That was all the Committee were being asked to do. Both these Acts would become law together, and no difficulty was likely to arise from making the reference more convenient.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the hon. and learned Member had given them a very lucid explanation of the object of this Amendment, but he had made one mistake. It had always been held that they could not move an Amendment which would make nonsense of a Bill. The words which it was proposed to insert were "Act of 1908." Now as a matter of fact there was no Act of 1908, and, therefore, they could not insert it. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the Bills were going up together, and that probably they would, receive the Royal Assent. The hon. and learned Gentleman could not tell whether the Crown would give the Royal Assent or not. Supposing that the Royal Assent was given in one case and not in the other, this Bill would be nonsense. In that case the words in regard to the Act of 1908 would be meaningless, because there would be no Act of 1908. It was really only a question of form. He was sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree with him that they ought to do things in proper and orderly form. Nobody objected to these Bills passing. If they were objected to,

1357
they would be discussed. It should not be assumed that the Crown would give its assent, and, therefore, the Amendment was out of order and could not be put.
*THE CHAIRMAN: On the point of order I think the hon. Baronet is not quite correct. There are precedents for this kind of thing. I do not see how what the hon. Baronet wants can be achieved except by the method proposed or by the putting off of the Bill. That however is not a question for me. The Amendment is not out of order.
THE PRIME MINISTER And FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. Asquith,)congratulated the hon. Baronet on having made a good point. Technically, the Consolidating Bill, which had received a Third Reading, was not an Act of Parliament until it had received the Royal Assent, but it was put down first in order that it might receive the Royal Assent a moment before this Bill. When this Bill received the Royal Assent the previous Bill would be "the Act of 1908." In these circumstances he put it to the hon. Baronet whether it was worth while pressing his point. If it were pressed he would be obliged to move to report progress on the Bill, and the passing of a useful measure would have to be postponed for two or three months, when it was desirable to have the two Consolidating Bills on the Statute-book at the same time.
MR. WALTER LONGthanked the Prime Minister for the fullness of his reply and the clearness with which he had dealt with the technical point raised. He ventured to say that it was rather more than a technical point which they were now discussing. The Prime Minister had appealed to them not to press the point on the ground that it was very desirable that these two Consolidating Acts should be passed into law. He entirely accepted the statement on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that
1358
they should be passed in order to consolidate a number of measures affecting one of the greatest industries in the country. But the Prime Minister knew better than anybody—certainly as well as anybody in the House—the danger of creating a bad precedent in regard to the business of the House. They were all in favour of the passing of this Consolidating Bill, and they had no objection whatever to the insertion of Amendments in order that the Statute should be intelligible after passing into law, but the Prime Minister had admitted—and he thought note should be taken of that admission—that this procedure was exceptional. When the learned Attorney-General dealt with the case a few moments ago he began by asking whether the objection which he had raised was a serious one. Having stated that it could easily be disposed of, the hon. and learned Gentleman showed the force of his own conviction by evading altogether the point raised. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not deal with the difficulty at all. He appealed to the Attorney-General, as the highest authority on constitutional law in the House, to state whether there was any precedent for the House, when dealing with that which was only a Bill, calling that Bill an Act of Parliament. While the hon. and learned Gentleman said he had no doubt there were many precedents, he did not cite one. He doubted whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was able to do so.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman had invited him to give a specific precedent. There was one exactly to the point. [The Attorney-General gave the name of a Bill, but it was inaudible in the Press Gallery.]
MR. WALTER LONG: Was that an Act passed by the present Government?
SIR W. ROBSON: Yes.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid the only precedent was one created by the present Government. The fact remained that the Prime Minister had admitted that if the point was pressed, the only course he could adopt would be to move to report progress and leave the fulfilment of this scheme of legislation to another period. That was a course which he had no desire to press on the Prime Minister, and he was sure that his hon. friends did not desire to press it. They had justified the raising of the question. As an old Member of the House, and one who was more jealous of its traditions than some who had not been so long in the House, he still believed that this was a matter of first rate importance. The Prime Minister had not only dealt fully with the case, but had frankly offered to postpone the Bill, and in the circumstances, he had no desire to press the point. The right hon. Gentleman had met him and his friends in a perfectly fair and courteous spirit, and they were willing to meet him halfway by withdrawing their opposition.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that this was a situation which could only occur when two Consolidating Bills were being passed side by side. Obviously it was not in the interest of the public generally, and still less in the interest of agriculture, that one should be passed into law and the other not. It was on that ground alone that he asked the House to accept the advice given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and not to press the point which had been raised.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid he would point out that this Bill as it stood now did not come into operation until 1st January next year. This certainly ought not to become a precedent, and it was obviously a matter on which, if the other House did it, many Members would make it a subject of complaint. [An HON. MEMBER on the Ministerial Benches:
1360
Why do not you divide? Further, he asserted that the necessity the Prime Minister referred to would bring out many other inconveniences. For instance, here were two Bills which they were passing that night. In the first there was a definition of a provision about Small holdings referred to in the Small Holdings and Allotments Act of 1907. This Bill repealed that Act altogether, so that they were introducing quite the worst form of legislation—legislation not by reference, but by anticipation. This must lead to complexity and difficulty on the part of many people. He did not wish to go back on anything said from the front bench, but it was a bad precedent, was constitutionally wrong, and would cause inconvenience.
MR. ASQUITHsaid he would, point out most respectfully to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Government would not have taken this course except in the case of two parallel Bills. His hon. and learned friend and he both belonged to a profession in which they knew many people who brought out text-books to inform the public what was the state of the law, and it was very desirable that they should have the whole subject before them so that they might occupy their time in the Vacation.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that during the speech of his hon. and learned friend the Member for Cambridge University an hon. Member opposite said: "Why don't you divide against the Bill?" He only rose on account of that interruption. They on that side of the House had accepted the very courteous assurance of the Prime Minister that he did not regard this us a precedent and that he would like the House to allow it to pass now. He always thought that if they on that side of the House were met in a considerate way, they waived a point. The Prime Minister had acknowledged

1361
that this was not a good form of procedure, and that he did not wish to make a precedent of it; and on that understanding the Party on that side of the House did not divide. He would point out that there would be no necessity to divide because the Prime Minister had assured the House that without a division, if they chose to press the point, he would accept it.
Amendment—
Clause as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 31 to 46 inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 47:
Amendments proposed—
"In page 30, line 6, to leave out the words 'three of the Market Gardeners' Compensation Act, 1895,' and to insert the words 'forty-two of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908.'"
"In page 30, lines 19 and 20, to leave out the words '(England) Acts, 1883 to 1906,' and to insert the words 'Act, 1908.'"
"In page 30, lines 24 and 25, to leave out the words 'three of the Market Gardeners' Compensation Act, 1895,' and to insert the words 'forty-two of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908.'"
"In page 30, line 28, to leave out the word '1900,'and to insert the word '1908.'"
"In page 30, line 38, to leave out the words '(England) Acts, 1883 to 1906,' and to insert the words' Act, 1908.'"—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
Amendments agreed to.
Clauses 48 to 54 inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 55:
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out Cause 55."—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 56, 57, and 58, agreed to.
Clause 59:
Amendment proposed—
"In page 37, line 25, to leave out the words '(England) Acts, 1883 to 1906.' and to insert the words' Act, 1908.'"—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 59 to 64 agreed to.
Schedule:
Amendments proposed—
"In page 42, line 22, to leave out the words '(England) Acts, 1883 to 1906,' and to insert the words 'Act, 1908.'"
"In page 42, line 23, to leave out the words 'those Acts,' and to insert the words 'that Act.'"
"In page 42, lines 24 and 25, to leave out the words 'those Acts, and to insert the words 'that Act.'"—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
Amendments agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, reported, and to be considered To-morrow.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS (MASTERS) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. RAWLINSONsaid he did not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill altogether. He merely desired to draw attention to the provision relating to the time of dismissal of a master as being contrary to the ordinary practice of the common law and as being liable to lead to considerable inconvenience. He also desired to draw attention to Clause 2, which contained a peculiar provision stating that nothing in the Act should prejudice the operation or enforcement of any judgment pronounced or made before 1st April, 1908. Why had that date been chosen for the beginning of the Act? He suggested that it should be altered to the day of the passing of the Act.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN,)said that he agreed with the points which had been put I by the hon. Member; but the Bill had been the result of agreement between the assistant and head masters' associations and others interested in endowed schools. The words mentioned

1363
were pressed for by the assistant schoolmasters, and the date mentioned was about the period when an agreement was fixed. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his objection. An agreement had been arrived at after long and intricate negotiations, and he would be vary sorry if it was disturbed.
MR. CAVEsaid the effect of the Bill was to alter the rights of parties, and it might be that somebody had brought an action on the basis of the existing law and had not got judgment. If that had been the case, he did not think the other party to the action should be prejudiced by legislation. The two associations were no doubt representative bodies; but they did not represent every member of the profession, and they ought to consider everybody when altering an Act of Parliament. He ventured to think that Clause 2 required careful consideration and possibly radical alteration. The Bill ought not to prejudice any judgment pronounced before it was passed, nor ought it to prejudice the rights of any parties who had already commenced proceedings.
MR. RUNCIMANthought he could reassure the hon. Gentleman. There had been no case in recent years under the existing law except that of the Marquess of Zetland.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONhoped the Bill would be allowed to pass before the adjournment. It was the result of the settlement of a long-standing difficulty arising out of the power of a new head master to dismiss without notice upon his appointment the whole of tin staff of a school. If the Bill was not passed, the trouble would be accentuated.
LORD R. CECILhoped the right hon. Gentleman would give careful consideration to the second clause. If the Bill was not
1364
designed to take away the rights of somebody who had already commenced an action at law, why was it not in the ordinary form? Such a clause, if it got into an Act of Parliament, was apt to become a precedent, and might be inserted in another Act where there was no excuse for it. It was not desirable to have this kind of clause unless there was some over-mastering reason.

NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1906–7.
Resolutions reported.
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 aggregate 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.
1. "That the application pf such sums be sanctioned,"

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

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.
2. "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."

Schedule.

Number of Vote.

Army Services, 1906–7. Votes.

Differences between Exchequer Grants and Net Expenditure.

Surpluses.

Deficits.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

1

Pay, &c, of Array

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

366,429

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

1,336,708

4

1

42,029

13

4

Net Surplus

£1,294,678 10 9

CRAN MEASURES BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
LORD R. CECILsaid the clause was very strangely drafted. It seemed extraordinary that it should be necessary to enact that four times a quarter cran measure was equal to a cran measure.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid they were following the precedent of the Scottish Bill, and the Government draftsman had no doubt been very
1368
wise in doing so, in order to make it perfectly clear what was meant. The whole object of the Bill was to give the local authority power, if they thought fit, to adopt the cran measure and to allow the fisherman to use his cran and quarter cran measure.
Bill reported, without Amendment; Bill read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Whereupon Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Order of the House of 10th July, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at nineteen minutes before Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Dover Graving Docks Bill.—The King's consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.
Marriages Provisional Order Bill; Usk Fisheries Provisional Order Confirmation Bill; Wye Fisheries Provisional Order Bill.—Reported, without Amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 11) Bill.—Reported, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 8) Bill.—Reported, without Amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole a House forthwith.
Ammanford Urban District Council Water Bill [H.L.]; Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Railway Bill [H.L.]; Keighley Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan Electric Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Bill [H.L.]; Wath and Bolton Gas Board Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered and agreed to.
South West Suburban Water Bill; Blackburn Corporation Bill.—Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [H.L.].—Commons Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill.—House in Committee (according to order). Bills reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived, and Bills to be read 3a To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill.—House in Committee (according to order). The Amendments proposed by the Committee made. Standing Committee negatived The Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow, and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 8) Bill.—House in Committee (according to order). Bills reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived, and Bills to be read 3a To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 11) Bill.—House in Committee (according to order). The Amendments proposed by the Committee made. Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow, and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Gas Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.].—Commons Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.
Lanark Corporation (Extension of Boundaries, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill.—Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
Edinburgh and District Water Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.].—Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2.) Bill [H.L.]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3.) Bill [H.L.].—Commons Amendment considered (according to order) and agreed to.

PETITIONS.
  OLD-AGE PENSIONS BILL.
  Petition against proceeding with until the Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law has been issued; of person signing; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (PARLIA- MENTARY BOROUGHS) BILL.
  Petition against: Of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Councillors of the City of Westminster; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (LOSS OF LIFE).
  Return showing the lives lost by wreck, drowning, or other accident in British sea-going merchant ships registered in the United Kingdom during the years 1891 to 1907 inclusive (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper [Cd. 3695.).
  COMMERCIAL, No. 5 (1908) (SUEZ CANAL).
  Returns of shipping and tonnage, 1905, 1906, and 1907 (in continuation of Commerical, [No. 6. (1907)].
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
  Annual Report for the year ended 31st March, 1908.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Report of the Commissioners for the period from 1st April, 1907, to 31st March, 1908.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PACIFIC CABLE ACT, 1901 (ACCOUNT 1907–1908).
  Account showing the money issued from the Consolidated Fund under the provisions of the Pacific Cable Act, 1901,
  1072
  and the money received, expended, and borrowed, and securities created under the said Act, to 31st March, 1908; together with report of the Chairman of the Pacific Cable Board. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BATTLESHIPS, ARMOURED CRUISERS AND DESTROYERS.
  Moved, that there be laid before the House a Return showing the comparative strength in First Class battleships less than twenty-five years old; armoured cruisers less than twenty years old; and destroyers built and building of Great Britain, the United States of America, France, Germany, and Japan, on 1st April, 1908, (The Earl of Cawdor); agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
  COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  TELEGRAPH (CONSTRUCTION) BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee without further Amendment. The Report of the Amendments m de in Committee of the Whole House to be received on Thursday next.
  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Brought from the Commons, and read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Earl of Crewe). [No. 187.]
  NAVAL MARRIAGES BILL.
  Brought from the Commons, and read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Granard (E. Granard)). [No. 188.]
  PUBLIC OFFICES SITES (EXTENSION) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order). The Amendments proposed by the Committee made. Standing Committee negatived. Then Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to order) and dispensed with. Amendments reported; Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  OLD-AGE PENSIONS BILL.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(Viscount Wolverhampton.)
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, on that Motion I wish to submit to the consideration of the House whether it is wise, or, indeed, worth while to proceed with the Amendments which are being moved from many parts of the House, except the front bench opposite. It seems to me that there were two courses open to the House with regard to this measure. One was to reject it on Second Reading, either by a direct negative or by an Amendment which was equivalent to a direct negative. Your Lordships, very wisely I think, refused to negative this Bill. If I had moved the Amendment which would have most recommended itself to my mind I should have moved that this Bill be made the subject of a referendum to the country at large, because we know from the express announcement of the Prime Minister that it was no part of the programme on which the Government consulted the country at the last election. I think, therefore, that such a proposal could have been justified, and that the country was entitled to be consulted before so grave an operation was entered upon. But I reflected that the referendum was a new measure in this country, that there was no machinery to carry it out, though such machinery might easily be found, and that in any case so great an innovation on our constitutional practice should not be introduced in an indirect manner in the House of Lords. Well, your Lordships decided neither to adopt any rejecting Amendment nor to reject the Bill. Now the question I have to ask is this: Do you think it worth while, by inserting Amendments which are not likely to be accepted by the House of Commons, and which in any case cannot very considerably limit the operation of the principle, to share any part of the responsibility for this great measure? I for my part do not. I do not doubt that the Government have at their disposal plans and schemes of finance which they rightly do not com-
  1074
  municate to the public, at this time, and which will cover without injustice to other classes, and without compromising our means of national defence, all the cost of this vast operation. They may even possess means of limiting its future extension—means of which I am not aware, and which will prevent its increasing to the enormous amount to which it is likely to increase under the operation of electoral necessities.
  This is a vast policy, it is not an ordinary Bill; and those who are willing to touch this Bill must be ready to undertake their shire of the responsibility. Some of us objected to the Bill on the ground that it was non-contributory. No Amendment making it contributory can be inserted by this House. Some of us objected to it on the ground that it was inopportune, that with everything falling and shrinking—revenue, commerce, all except unemployment, which already in the summer has reached dangerous proportions—it was not an opportune moment to add enormously to the burden of taxation. I know very well—I think it was expressed crudely by a Member in the other House—that there is a rough and ready policy at work which finds some not insignificant favour elsewhere, that the great object of all government now must be to make the rich poorer and the poor richer. It is easy to make the rich poorer, but there is a long interval between that and making the poor richer.
  The surplus of income which I presume you propose now to devote to one helpless class in the community is a surplus income largely given in the payment of wages and in employment, both of which may shrink largely, if not nearly disappear, under the operation of this measure. But financial opportuneness is not a ground which this House can take in opposition to the other House, which has unanimously declared that it is financially opportune. That we may gather from their vote. The third ground on which some of us objected to it, or doubted with regard to it—because none of us, I think, either felt or expressed any objection to its benevolent aim—the third ground was this, that it compromised our means of national defence. We have to find

  1075
  men, we have to find ships, and soon, it appears, we shall have to find an aerial armament—all imposing a vast and increasing burden on the community. One of the greatest resources of Great Britain in all our wars, as everybody who has read history with even the most careless eye must know, has been the great reserve of national wealth which enabled us to wear out some of the greatest of our foes. That reserve of the national wealth this Bill proposes seriously to tap, because we are living under war taxation now, and this Bill must indefinitely increase that war taxation in the time of profound peace. But that, again, is a ground on which the House of Lords has no standing as against the other House. The other House that finds the funds, that provides the money, is the guardian of our national defence; and there is no resolution that I can see which could be brought within the limits of the privileges of this House which would enable us to put that consideration into the Bill, if indeed any practical form could be found of doing so. I say, then, that according to all the doubts which I have been able to ascertain with regard to this Bill on its Second Reading you can do nothing effectually, you can do no good, but you will assume some share of the responsibility that attaches to His Majesty's Government and the other House in this matter.
  There is one Amendment, I confess, which I view with some sympathy, which is that of my noble friend on the cross benches (Earl Cromer). That is a limiting Amendment which is in the nature of a Second Reading Amendment, and which I think, if it wore practicable, might have some influence on the future. But I greatly doubt if it be practicable, and if it would be found binding when the limit of time had been arrived at. I do not myself think that the House of Commons for a moment would adopt that limit, and I do not suppose that this House is disposed to outer into serious conflict with the other House with regard to such a question as that.
  May I put one point to my noble friend, and only one? It is this. If this old-age pension scheme is ever to be limited in its operations, if it is ever to
  1076
  be put a stop to, and put on a different or contributory footing, if in any sense it is to be reversed or amended, that, it seems to me, can only be one by the full action of Parliament after experience of the working in a certain definite time. If the country finds that it compromises its means of national defence-in such conjuncture as that portrayed in vivid colours by my noble friend the other day, it will retrace its steps without any limit of the kind which he seeks to impose. On the other hand, the limitation that he seeks to impose by the Amendment is one of a paper description which, though I admit it was adopted in the case of the Ballot Act by the other House by way of compromise, I do not think they would take as a limit to a financial Bill of their own. It is quite easy to imagine a position of affairs when the country will find itself unequal to the task of national defence, and may say that, great as this scheme of benevolence was, we were not able to afford it, and, while respecting existing beneficiaries, we were obliged to retrace our steps.
  May I say in passing that I do not consider as altogether justified the lurid colours in which the noble Lord painted he general situation? But I do share us views to this extent, that the situation would become quite as alarming as he described it if we were found to be weak or unequal to the task of the responsibility of the armaments that encumber us. That would be a dangerous moment, and that may be a dangerous moment if our finances are unequal to be demand. I have nothing further to say. I have delivered my soul, and have washed my hands free so far as I can from any responsibility for this vast measure of policy, which must rest in the responsibility of His Majesty's Government alone. I do not doubt that they welcome and rejoice in that responsibility with the means and information at their disposal. But we have not those means. We have not, in my judgment, any adequate means or practically or largely improving this Bill as a measure, and yet we are about, by tinkering with it, to assume a share

  1077
  of the responsibility which, in my judgment, we should be most reluctant to take on our shoulders.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, before the Amendment of the noble Earl (Earl Cromer) is considered, I shall ask your Lordships' leave in accordance with precedent to make a very few observations on the occasion of this Committee entering on these Amendments. I need not dwell on the nature and extent of the privilege always claimed by the House of Commons which is embodied in the well-known Resolution of 1678—a Resolution which has been repeatedly affirmed by the action of the other House and is now a part of the Constitution. I wish merely to refer to the particular application of that Resolution and of the privilege to these Amendments. This is a Bill which orignated with a financial Resolution in the House of Commons, and was throughout treated in the House of Commons as a part of the Budget of the year, and it is in the strictest possible sense a money Bill. It is a Bill which deals almost entirely with the application of public money to a specified purpose. I believe it will appear that the House of Commons will regard as an interference with their privileges any Amendments which in substance either increase or diminish the charge or which affect the conditions upon which the money is to be spent. It may be, of course, that the House of Commons may take a different view from the view which I take, but it is my duty, I think, to tell your Lordships that, in my belief, that House will take that view, for I know, and we all know, how jealous they are of any encroachment upon their privilege. There is one part of the Bill, that relating to machinery, on which no doubt, there may be a different opinion. It stands somewhat apart from the clauses relating to the application of the money, and I
  1078
  do not think that Amendments relating to machinery would be treated as coming within the privilege. But as regards the Amendment which is in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, I think it is my duty, in accordance with precedent, to state to your Lordships that, in my opinion, that Amendment will be certainly regarded as a violation of their privileges by the House of Commons.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am sure the House will not take amiss the friendly warning, if I may so call it, given to us by the noble and learned Lord; and I entertain so much respect for his high authority that I hesitate very much to suggest anything to your Lordships which might seem not in accordance with his advice. But the matter is a very grave one for this House. We have to think, not only of the privilege of the House of Commons, but of the rights of the House of Lords. And I must say that there seems to me to be a tendency to restrict those rights in a manner dangerous to the public interest. These restrictions are particularly dangerous at the present time because, owing to the arrangements under which business is conducted in the House of Commons, it happens again and again that important measures pass through that House without discussion of some of their most important clauses. It comes then to this, that you may have a Bill of first-rate importance, of which a large part is not discussed in the House of Commons, because no room is left for that discussion under the guillotine arrangements now so much in vogue, and which is not discussed in the House of Lords because we are brought up short by a reference to the privilege of the House of Commons. That seems to me to disclose a very serious danger.
  Now this question of House of Commons privilege has been not unfrequently discussed in this House. We have the right—I believe that is not contested—to reject a Money Bill altogether, but there seems to be a very considerable difference of opinion as to the extent to which we are free to deal with Amendments to a Money Bill, particularly if it is not a Money Bill pure and simple, but one of those Bills which, dealing with financial questions, also involve

  1079
  important legislative issues. The noble and learned Lord told us a moment ago that this was a Money Bill in the strictest sense of the word, because it was introduced after a Resolution passed by the House of Commons. I shall be able, I think, to show presently that there have been other Bills introduced in an exactly similar manner under cover of an exactly similar resolution which the House of Lords has been allowed to amend.
  I am tempted, and I am afraid I shall have to ask the patience of the House while I cite one or two authorities in support of my view. The matter is so important and is one that cannot be hurriedly passed over. I shall endeavour to show to your Lordships that there has been in the past a reasonable interpretation of the rule of privilege as well as an unreasonable interpretation of that rule, under which it is sought to deny to this House all opportunity of dealing with Bills of this class. So far as I am able to gather from the precedents to which I have referred, it has been on previous occasions' admitted that this House did not encroach on the privilege of the other House if its Amendments were distinctly within the scope and intention of the Bill under discussion, and, in support of that view, I should like to cite to your Lordships the following cases. One of them arose as long age as the year 1838, and I find that Mr. Speaker Abercromby used these words. Dealing with the Lords' Amendments to the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill, he said—
  "As the Bill was one of a very peculiar character, affecting not only the proprietors of the land, but the great mass of the people of Ireland, and, as the principle of rating was necessarily incidental to such a measure, he considered that, if the privileges of this House were strictly pressed in such a case, they would almost tend to prevent the House of Peers from taking such a measure into its consideration in a way that might be on all grounds advisable."
  He then gave this remarkable advice to the House—
  "He thought the privileges of this House would be best secured by being not too far pressed."
  That was the view of the Speaker, and, upon that, Lord John Russell made the following comment—
  "He hoped, therefore, that the House would enter upon the consideration of these Amend-
  1080
  ments, which were doubtless framed with the view rather of forwarding the objects of the Bill than otherwise."
  I find that the subject arose again in the year 1847, when somewhat similar language was used, which I will not trouble your Lordships by reading, and again, in the year 1849 in connection with another Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill. Upon that occasion Lord John Russell said this—
  "I own it appears to me that, so long as the House of Lords confine themselves to amending the Poor Law, with a view to effect better legislation on the subject of a legal provision for the poor, and not for the sake of increasing the amount of rates, or with the especial view of imposing a tax upon the subject, it is not expedient that we should assert our privileges in that respect. With regard to legislation in reference to the condition of the poor, it must be acknowledged by all to be a subject of very great importance, and one concerning which both Houses of Parliament should be entitled to give an opinion. I think legislation is likely to proceed more harmoniously between, the two Houses of Parliament if we do not assert our privileges on an occasion of this kind."
  I cannot conceive language more exactly fitted to the circumstances through which we are passing at the present time. Lord John Russell went on—
  "I believe that the Amendments have been, introduced by the House of Lords with a view to amend, in their opinion, the law relating the poor in Ireland. That I conceive to be a subject upon which they are fairly entitled to give an opinion, and respecting which they have a right to propose such Amendments as they think would conduce to the better management of the poor in Ireland."
  Those are, no doubt, comparatively remote cases, and I wish to mention one or two of more recent date.
  I come to the Free Education Bill of 1891. That Bill, like the Bill upon the Table, was a Money Bill in the sense that it began with a Resolution in the House of Commons. The Resolution with which the Free Education Bill of 1891 began was really word for word the same as the Resolution upon which this Bill is framed. The two Resolutions are in precisely similar terms. The House of Lords amended the Free Education Bill of 1891, and some of the Amendments were accepted by the House of Commons. With others the House did not agree, and the Speaker advised the House not to accept them. The House of Lords did not accept that decision of the Speaker without demur,

  1081
  for I find that the late Lord Salisbury drew attention to the matter in this House and made a very remarkable statement. Lord Salisbury said—
  "It appears to me the claim set up in the reasons sent by the House of Commons is an excessive claim, and much in advance of any that has been made before, and I do not think the decision of the Speaker is tenable. … I think, in assenting to this Amendment, we ought to indicate that, though we do so for the sake of the Bill being passed, we cannot consent to the doctrine stated in the reasons sent up by the House of Commons being made a precedent hereafter, that anything which may indirectly lead to an increase in the public charge is outside the competence of this House."
  Lord Salisbury then moved, and the House accepted, the following Resolution—
  "That this House, in agreeing to the said Amendment, makes no admission in respect of any deduction which may be made from the reasons offered by the House of Commons, and does not consent that the said reasons should hereafter be drawn into a precedent."
  That shows that this House guarded itself against accepting what I ventured to call just now the extreme interpretation of the privilege of the House of Commons.
  I am afraid that I must trouble your Lordships with one more case. It is a case of recent date that appears to me to go even further in support of the view that I have ventured to maintain. In 1906, when we sent down the Education Bill of that year to the House of Commons with a very large number of Amendments, a Member of the House of Commons suggested that the whole of those Amendments were an encroachment on the privilege of the House and should therefore be rejected en bloc. I want your Lordships to consider what was said on that by the present Speaker of the House of Commons. He said—
  "The hon. Member asks me to rule that all the Amendments are infringements of the privileges of this House. In asking me to do that I think he is asking me to press the position which this House has taken up on questions of privilege far beyond the rule which has hitherto obtained. If the argument of the hon. Member were pressed to its logical conclusion it would prevent the House of Lords from dealing with any question which affected the Army, or the Navy, or the Civil service, or with any object whatever for which any grant is voted by this House. I do not think that that is the intention of the Resolution which he cited, and it certainly has not been, up to the present time the practice of this House to press its privileges so far.
  1082
  Therefore, I am driven to the conclusion that the hon. Member has asked me to lay down a rule which has never hitherto been adopted by this House, for which he himself said he was unable to find any direct precedent, and for that reason I cannot accede to the view he has put forward."
  Well, my Lords, these cases seem to me to show that it has been again and again conceded that this House is within its rights when it amends a Bill which, although in a sense a Money Bill, deals with matters which are not mere financial matters, but go a great deal beyond mere question of finance. I will go further and say that it is the duty of this House, if it considers that a Bill coming from the House of Commons is capable of useful amendment and that the Amendments are not inconsistent with the general scope and effect of the Bill, to suggest those Amendments even if they touch the border of privilege and leave to the House of Commons the responsibility of rejecting them.
  The matter is one of very great difficulty and delicacy, because it involves the relations of the two Houses of Parliament. I am almost disposed to think that it is a matter that deserves to be thoroughly inquired into with a view to the establishment of some rules more distinct than any which can be gathered from the text-books; but in the meanwhile I humbly suggest that the opinion expressed by Mr. Speaker Abercromby that the privilege of the House of Commons can be best secured by not pressing it too hard, is a reasonable and statesmanlike view. For that reason I trust that your Lordships will not be deterred from discussing the Amendment of my noble friend on the cross benches, or, indeed, any of the Amendments on the Paper, merely because we are to be told that this is a money Bill and that, therefore, the House of Lords has not a right to lay a ringer upon any one of its provisions.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of entering into a general controversy on the subject of privilege, and I do not find anything in what was said by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack with which I can specifically disagree. But I wish, in the first place, to point

  1083
  out that the discussion is in one sense inopportune. No one has ever doubted for a moment the right of this House to discuss at any length all the provisions of any Bill, whether a money Bill or otherwise. The House of Commons his repeatedly adopted suggestions intended to promote the general object of a Bill, without considering whether they were or were not an infringement of their privileges. The question, therefore, would only arise after Amendments had been made by your Lordships, and when the Bill as amended was presented to the House of Commons for its assent. Another proposition has also been repeatedly pointed out in the House of Commons. That is that, even assuming, in the strictest sense, that it is an invasion of privilege, an Amendment moved by your Lordships might, nevertheless, be such an improvement to the Bill that the House of Commons were quite prepared to accept it and make it part of the Bill. Those two propositions appear to me to show that a discussion at present makes it inopportune to determine what should or should not be the course of proceeding with regard to Amendments. I may say, in passing, that the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, if he will forgive me for saying so, assumed a contradictory position. If these Amendments, such as they are, are rejected by the House of Commons as not being within the competence of this House to insert, where is the responsibility for the Bill hereafter when that which we have suggested in the way of Amendment has been rejected by the House of Commons? It appears to me that that is an argument which defeats itself. The only mode in which we could be supposed to be responsible for the consequences of this Bill would be by the adoption on the part of the House of Commons of any of our Amendments.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I did not say that all the Amendments were against the privilege of the House of Commons.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Then that restricts my observations to the particular Amendments to which the noble Earl did refer. No responsibility
  1084
  on our part can be involved if our Amendments are rejected, but it seems to me that it is our duty to try and make the Bill, if it is to pass, as good as it can be made. Apart from the merely technical question of privilege, there are cases which might be quoted which show that other questions arise. I remember that on one occasion, when the House of Commons had passed a provision appointing certain agents in Jamaica to hold office for three years, this House altered the period to five years, thereby adding another two years salary; and that Amendment was accepted. But the technical question is not just now before us. Nothing could be more true or more absolutely pertinent to the position than what the noble Earl Lord Rosebery said when he spoke of the vast change in public policy involved in this Bill, and is it to be said that this House alone is to be silent in such a case? I should be very sorry, indeed, if any technical rules of privilege prevented the fullest and amplest discussion of the various provisions of this Bill. If it ever were true that we ought to assert the right of discussion, at all events, it is certainly true at a time when some of the most important provisions of this Bill have been passed over without discussion at all, at the instance of the Ministry for the time being. It appears to me that it is time for us to assert our right of discussion, and that one of our institutions, at all events, should insist upon the right of free discussion, and not be entirely controlled by the Ministry for the time being.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, I have indeed very little to add to what has been said by my noble and learned friend. He said with perfect truth that we are not the guardians of the privileges of the House of Commons, but in saying what he did he acted according to many precedents in drawing attention to certain Amendments on the Paper which, in his opinion and in the opinion of others, might, if adopted by this House, be regarded by the House of Commons as a breach of privilege.
  That has happened before. The noble and learned Lord opposite will very well

  1085
  remember what happened on the Voluntary Schools Bill in 1897. On that occasion an Amendment was moved by my noble friend Lord Spencer, the effect of which would undoubtedly have been somewhat to diminish the charge under the Bill; and the noble and learned Lord opposite, then upon the Woolsack, drew attention to the fact that this proposed Amendment was in contravention of the famous Resolution of the House of Commons. He considered it his duty, with, I think, the general agreement of the House, to call attention to the fact. That is what my noble and learned friend behind me has done on this occasion. The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, adduced various precedents of varying age, and also, if I may say so, of varying value. I do not think that he added much to the strength of his position by alluding to the Motion which was made by Mr. Paul, the Member for Northampton, in respect to the Education Bill of 1906, or to the observations which at that time fell from Mr. Speaker. Mr. Paul's contention was that because the Bill in certain repects dealt with money it should in no way be touched or amended by your Lordships; that is to say, that, supposing your Lordships had inserted an Amendment that one of the managers should be a woman, it would be a breach of privilege of the House of Commons. I think it would be generally agreed that that was straining the theory of privilege beyond anything that has ever been attempted before, and the hon. Member himself fully admitted that that was the case.
  On the other hand, it seemed to me that in the observations which he made the noble Marquess opposite took a line in the other direction, which, so far as I can understand, this House has not previously attempted to take. I understood him to say that, although an Amendment affected the charges either in the way of increase or diminution, as long as it was within the scope and purpose of the Bill it ought not to be considered a breach of privilege. I ask the noble Marquess whether the House of Commons would not consider it to be outside the province of this House to double or halve the charges connected with a Bill. It could not be said that to do that would be foreign to the whole scope and purpose
  1086
  of the Bill, but I think it must be generally agreed that that would be regarded by the other House as a very distinct breach of privilege.
  The noble and learned Lord who has just sat down said that this was a great change of public policy, and the House of Lords ought not to be debarred from considering it. There I fully agree with him, but I do not think that because a change of policy is important a breach of privilege becomes more venial. The other House might be prepared in a particular case to waive their privileges, or might not consider the matter of sufficient importance to call for the assertion of them; but it certainly would not be on account of the magnitude of the interests involved that that course would be taken. The object of my noble friend was, as I think the object of us all ought to be, to avoid anything in the nature of a collision of opinion between the two Houses if it can be reasonably avoided. My noble friend simply uttered a warning, as I think he was not only entitled but bound to do in the position which he holds.
  *EARL CROMER*EARL CROMER moved to amend Clause 1 (right to receive old-age pension) by inserting at the beginning the words: "until the 31st day of December, 1915." He said he was unable to respond to the appeal which Lord Rosebery had made to him. His noble friend's argument appeared to be that their Lordships would be less responsible for this measure if they did not attempt to amend it than if they did amend it. Personally he would feel much less responsible if he had done his best to amend the Bill than if he had taken no step in that direction. The Bill, as the noble Earl the Leader of the House had remarked on a former occasion, was not a long one, but it was one of very great importance. It was scarcely an exaggeration to say that not only every clause, but every line of each clause bristled with difficulties. The Bill had been in their Lordships' hands for little more than a week, and he submitted that that was far too short a time for the proper study of a matter of such importance.
  He wished to draw attention to the very great difficulties under which private Members of their Lordships' House

  1087
  laboured in dealing with a question of this sort. They could, indeed, through the medium of the reports, necessarily abridged, which were published of the proceedings in the other House, gain some imperfect knowledge of the arguments advanced for and against the various provisions contained in the Bill, but they could not apply themselves seriously to the work of amendment until the Bill, in the form in which it finally left the other House, was in their hands. Then some of their Lordships would, he had no doubt, like to consult the many authorities outside the House who had made a special study of the questions with which the Bill dealt. Finally, when any individual Member had made up his mind as to the nature of the Amendment he would like to propose, he generally had to get it put into proper form by some one versed in the somewhat abstruse science of drafting. A month or six weeks would not have been too long for the study of this question before the Committee stage was taken. In the course of the last few days he had received a great many letters on the subject of the Bill. He would like to read an extract from one of them. It was from a working man. In the course of a somewhat lengthy letter he wrote—
  "I can assure you that there are some even among working men who endorse your views, and I exceedingly regret that greater opportunities for discussion were not allowed. I heartily wish you success in your Amendment. The limited experience it would impose would, I am sure, be sufficient to convince even ardent supporters of the measure of the grave mistake they are so cheerfully making."
  Many suggestions had been made to him by persons whose opinions were entitled to respect, as to how the Bill could be amended, and he had not the least doubt that if time were available for further discussion some very useful Amendments in detail might be made without in any way striking a blow at the principle of the Bill. All Amendments of this nature, however, required careful consideration before they were brought forward, and the time for adequate consideration had not been given to them. He need hardly say that he was far from blaming any individuals for that state of things. He was aware that they owed it to the unfailing courtesy displayed by the
  1088
  noble Earl the Leader of the House that a few days' grace had been accorded to them, and that the Committee Stage was adjourned from last Thursday till that day.
  The system was at fault, and he must say that anything more unsatisfactory than the practical working of the legislative machinery of this country at present could scarcely be conceived. In the first stage of any important legislation there was generally what would seem to be almost a plethora of talk. Then they rushed from the extreme of procrastination to the other extreme of precipitation. The guillotine was ruthlessly applied and the measure reached their Lordships' House without any adequate discussion having taken place in the other House on some of its most important provisions. In the House of Lords they were, fortunately, free from the operation of any guillotine, but he submitted that a moral pressure was put upon them which produced a very similar effect. They were hustled into precipitate legislation, and thus became in some degree responsible for measures which all were fully aware might be greatly improved if time for improvement had been allowed. So fully convinced was he of the unwisdom of haste in dealing with the Bill before them, that it was with great reluctance that he abandoned a proposal which at one time he had thought of submitting to their Lordships to the effect that the Committee stage should be adjourned till the Autumn Session. He was aware that the adoption of that course would have postponed by a few months the passing of the Bill, but that would not have been too high a price to pay for eventually producing a measure which would have been well-considered, instead of one which bore throughout the stamp of undue haste and want of foresight. He trusted their Lordships would pardon him for this digression. He had wished, however, to enter a further protest, in addition to those which had frequently been made on former occasions, against the legislative procedure now in vogue.
  Of the two Amendments to the clause standing in his name the second was merely a natural consequence of the first, and he would deal with them together.

  1089
  Under the Bill as it now stood, not only every person now living, but everyone born hereafter would, on attaining the age of seventy years, be entitled to receive a pension if he or she fulfilled the conditions laid down in the Act. His proposal was that the obligation to five pensions on attaining the age of seventy under the conditions of the Bill should expire on 31st December, 1915, but that no person in receipt of a pension under the Act on that date should be deprived of his pension by the expiry of the Act. He need hardly say that this did not mean that the system of granting old-age pensions would cease and determine in 1915. Far from it. All that the Amendment provided was that at some time prior to the close of 1915 the subject must again come before Parliament, with a view to the introduction of a new and probably more complete system based on the experience which by that time would have been gained.
  The Amendment was not conceived in any spirit of hostility to the Bill. It was in no sense what was generally called a wrecking Amendment. On the occasion of the Second Reading, he spoke somewhat strongly against the Bill as a whole, on the ground that no adequate provision was made for the heavy expenditure which would be incurred. But he had never in the least doubted the desirability of making better provision than now existed for the aged poor, and, moreover, even if this were not the case, he would consider that now that the principle had been affirmed by both Houses of Parliament, it was far too late to call it in question. Nor did the Amendment contain any covert attack on a non-contributory system. Whatever might be said for and against that system, the Bill was based upon the principle that a non-contributory system was to be recognised by the law of this country. He therefore wished to say that he accepted that principle loyally. But this did not imply the absolute negation of some sort of contributory scheme for all time.
  In the course of the debates which had taken place in this and the other House, it had been fully recognised by Members of His Majesty's Government that the plan embodied in the Bill was of a
  1090
  provisional, and not of a permanent nature. The Prime Minister, speaking in the other House on June 17th, distinctly said—
  "The Bill does not prejudice any action Parliament may see proper to take in the years to come"—
  and he thought he was also right in stating that in a speech made to a meeting held in, London the Prime Minister said that the Government Bill would not prevent the enactment of a contributory measure hereafter. What he wanted to see was the essentially provisional character of the measure stamped upon the face of the Bill. If once a distinct promise was given, not only to the present but future generations, that all were to be entitled to a pension who fulfilled the conditions set forth in the Bill, it would, he conceived, be very difficult to do anything which would render the Government of the day open to the charge that the promise had been broken. He wanted, therefore, to limit the liability of the Government.
  One of the main objections to a contributory scheme was that it would be a great many years before it would come into operation. Under the Amendment which he proposed this difficulty disappeared. To use a term which had been frequently employed in these debates, it enabled the transitionary period before a more thorough scheme could be devised, to be bridged over. He did not hesitate to say that he would like to see some sort of contributory scheme grafted on to the present measure. Neither was he at all convinced that such a process would be impossible, though he did not in the least say that he was prepared to bring forward a cut-and-dried scheme at present for effecting this object. But the Amendment did not pledge the Government to the adoption of a contributory scheme. On the contrary, it left the field quite clear. All it did, in effect, was to say—This is a temporary measure; we provide by this Bill for people who are already advanced in life, and we await the Report of the Poor Law Commission and the experience which will be gained by the practical working of this temporary measure, in order to reconsider the matter and bring forward some more thorough

  1091
  measure for dealing with the whole of this important question.
  There could not be any doubt that the Bill as it stands would strike a very serious blow to the operations of the friendly societies. Under his Amendment the effect of this blow would be very much mitigated. There would still be a strong inducement to all persons under sixty-three years of age to make provision for themselves, with the result that thrift would not be discouraged.
  After the discussion that had taken place he could hardly hope that His Majesty's Government would accept the Amendment, which had been brought forward after consultation with many who had devoted their lives to the consideration of this important question, and which would be very warmly received by the very numerous classes who viewed with much alarm the very sweeping nature of the scheme involved in the Bill. The date of 31st December, 1915, had been, mentioned because, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, the noble Viscount (Lord Wolverhampton) stated that probably Lord George Hamilton's Commission would report in the autumn, and that then it might take four or five years to frame a Bill for the reform of the administration of the Poor Law. He did not hold any strong opinion as to the date which should be mentioned the Amendment; but for purposes of discussion, he had given six years, or one more year than, the maximum period named by the noble Viscount.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 5, to insert at the beginning of the clause the words 'Until the thirty-first day of December one thousand nine hundred and fifteen.'"—(Earl Cromer.)
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid he did not quite see what advantage would accrue by the adoption, of this Amendment. The Amendment proceeded on the assumption that Parliament would, on the passing of the Bill, lose its power for so many years. But the Bill could not bind a succeeding Parliament as to the duration of the Act, and it could be repealed by any future Parliament whenever it thought fit so to do. Referring to the question of
  1092
  privilege as between the two Houses, he quite agreed that there were Amendments in regard to which the House of Commons wisely waived the question of privilege. It had been done in a great many cases. He reminded the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition that there was one precedent which he did not quote, and that, he thought, was the most recent of all. That was the precedent of the Voluntary Schools Bill of 1897 when Lord Halsbury, then Lord Chancellor, called attention to the position in which an Amendment moved by Lord Spencer stood. The noble and learned Lord said—
  "He called attention to the matter at once for the sake of saving time, for he thought the same question would arise on most, if not all, of the Amendments proposed to be moved."
  He thought that, so far as he could forecast the future, the same state of things would be repeated on this occasion. Lord Halsbury continued——
  "The Bill was for the purpose of making certain grants-in-aid to voluntary schools. The rule—he called it a rule, for, although it was originally a protest and a Resolution of the other House, it had, as Sir Thomas May said in his book, been acted upon as a rule of Parliamentary procedure for some 300 years—was: 'That all aids and supplies and aids to His Majesty in Parliament are the sole gift of the Commons and all Bills for the granting of any such aids and supplies ought to begin with the Commons, and that it is the undoubted and sole right of the Commons to direct, limit, and appoint in such Bills the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations, and qualifications of such grants which ought not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords."
  Lord Halsbury then quoted Sir Thomas May's comment upon this, which was—
  "It is upon this latter Resolution that all proceedings between the two Houses in matters of Supply are now founded."
  The noble and learned Lord continued—
  "Upon this Parliament had acted ever since and in the circumstances he put it to the noble and learned Lord opposite whether he agreed with him in the construction to be put upon the words. He had no authority, although Speaker of the House, to decide questions of order. Had he that right, he should decide that the Amendment standing in the name of Earl Spencer was out of order, but he now only put it to the noble Earl and the noble and learned Lord beside him whether it was possible, in the face of the authority he had quoted, to say that the Amendment was in order? If it were not in order then it would be hardly respectful to the House to discuss the matter and to come to a decision to which their Lordships could give no practical effect, because if

  1093
  the Amendment were passed it would, as a privileged Amendment, have to be again struck out of the Bill."
  That was exactly the position which His Majesty's Government took up with regard to the Amendment now moved by Earl Cromer. It was an Amendment which they certainly could not, and
  EARL CROMERexplained that his second Amendment was consequential upon the one which their Lordships had just adopted.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 10, after the word 'pension,' to insert the words 'the person who is in receipt
  should not, accept, because, in their opinion, it would be a violation of the privileges of the other House.
  On Question, "That these words be here inserted,"
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 77; Not Contents, 45.

  CONTENTS.

  Marlborough, D.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Ellenborough, L.

  Northumberland, D.

  Estcourt, L.

  Rutland, D.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Faber, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Goschen, V.

  Forester, L.

  Hill, V.

  Hindlip, L.

  Bath, M.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Hylton, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Killanin, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Knutsford, V.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  St. Aldwyn, V.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Lichfield, L. Bp.

  Lamington, L.

  Carnwath, E.

  Peterborough, L. Bp.

  Lawrence, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Abinger, L.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Cromer, E.

  Addington, L.

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Denbigh, E

  Allerton, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Eldon, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Muskerry, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Avebury, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Halsbury, E.

  Basing, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Lovelace, E.

  Biddulph, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Borthwick, L.

  St. Oswald, L.

  Mar, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Sanderson, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Morton, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Mount Edgcombe, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Orford, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Tweeddale, L. (M. Tweeddale.)

  Plymouth, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Powis, E.

  De Mauley, L.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Stamford, E.

  Digby, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Ebury, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Morley of Blackburn, V.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Ridley, V.

  Haversham, L.

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Wolverhampton, V.

  Headley, L.

  Hemphill, L.

  Northampton, M.

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Herschell, L.

  Joicey, L.

  Allendale, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)

  Armitstead, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Boston, L.

  Macdonnell, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Marchamley, L.

  Craven, E.

  Colebrooke, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Crewe, E.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  St. Davids, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Eversley, L.

  Sandys, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Farrer, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Fitzmaurice, L

  Tenterden, L.

  Russell, E.

  Glantawe, L.

  Welby, L.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.) [Teller.]

  Wrottesley, L.

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  of a pension on the thirty-first day of December one thousand nine hundred and fifteen shall not be deprived of that pension by reason of the expiry of this Act.'"—(Earl Cromer.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE moved to insert three new subsections in

  1095
  Clause 1. The noble Duke expressed his confidence that their Lordships would extend to him the indulgence which was always given to one who, however practised a speaker, addressed their Lordships for the first time. He had put down the Amendment in the hope that it would elicit from the Government an explanation of how it was proposed to carry the Bill into effect. Machinery would have to be devised by which a sum, at the very lowest computation, of £150,000 a week would have to be distributed in pensions, ranging from the maximum of £13 a year to the minimum of £2 10s. a year, in all parts of the United Kingdom. At present the machinery in the Bill consisted of a Central Pensions Board, which was to have power to delegate its authority to any committee or individual. It seemed to him that the President of the Local Government Board for the time being would be the central pensions authority. The other machinery was the local pensions committee and the pensions officer. The last-named was a Treasury official, and upon him to a great extent would depend the success or failure of the Act. The Government had left it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Postmaster-General, and the President of the Local Government Board to devise schemes as to how this Act was to be carried into effect. They were taking a very great step in delegating what were really the functions of the Imperial Parliament to the Ministerial officials for the time being. Very many of the difficulties in putting the Territorial Forces Act into operation were due to the uncertainty of the Act itself, and to the fact that the country had to wait to see what the orders of the Army Council would be. In this Pensions Act they were dealing with a very large sum of money, and there was no information in the Bill itself as to how that money was to be brought down to the pockets of those whom Parliament intended to receive that money. He understood the agency to be employed would be the Post Office, but what authority would the Post Office require in disbursing these monies? What were the rules and regulations which would deal with the distribution of this large and increasing sum of money? The
  1096
  whole system of the machinery in the Bill was vague and loose. Those of their Lordships, who, like himself, had been connected with the Public Accounts Committee in the House of Commons would know how essential it was that Parliament should clearly and distinctly lay down the source by which money was to flow from the Treasury. That was the only way in which an effective control could be maintained. He did not pretend that in the face of the somewhat vague and faulty machinery in the Bill his Amendment would convert it into a satisfactory machinery; but he had adopted practically the same phraseology as was to be found in the Small Holdings Act. If his Amendment were accepted it would enable Parliament to be placed in receipt of the necessary accounts to enable a thorough and systematic audit to take place. At the present time there was no provision in the Bill for any audit at all.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 15, after subsection (3) to insert the following new subsections: '(4) For the purposes of this Act there shall be opened an account at the Bank of England called "The Old-Age Pensions Account," and there shall be paid to this account such money as may from time, to time be provided by Parliament towards defraying the costs and expenses incurred in Great Britain in the execution of this Act, and all other sums received in respect of old-age pensions under this Act, and directed by regulations under this Act to be paid into the Old-Age Pensions Account. (5) The costs and expenses incurred in Great Britain in the execution of this Act shall be paid by the Local Government Board subject to regulations to be made by the Treasury out of the money standing to that account. (6) At the end of every financial year, accounts of the receipts and expenditure of the Old-Age Pensions Account shall be made up in such form and with such particulars as may be directed by the Treasury, and shall be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General as public accounts in accordance with such regulations as the Treasury may make, and shall be laid before Parliament together with his report thereon.'"—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONexpressed his pleasure at hearing again the voice of the noble Duke, opposite to whom he had sat for many years in the other House. He regretted that the Government could not accept the Amendment. The regulations for the

  1097
  distribution of the money would be laid before Parliament as soon as possible. The schemes and the details of the schemes had been prepared and considered by the Treasury officials, to whom the finances of this country had been entrusted for so many years and with so much success. There were reasons, which the noble Duke would appreciate, why it would be most unwise to put a great deal of the machinery into an Act of Parliament, because it could not then be altered or amended without going through all the various stages of passing a Bill through both Houses of Parliament. The machinery for distribution would have to be carefully tested under the supervision of the Ministers of the Crown, and when the defects had been ascertained then those defects could be administratively altered without delay. It was desirable to avoid having separate Acts of Parliament for these Amendments in machinery. He could assure the noble Duke that his fears in the matter were groundless.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid their Lordships were indebted to the noble Duke for having called attention to the deficiency in the Bill in the most important matter to which he had alluded. What had been the answer of the noble Viscount? It was merely that regulations would be made and would be presented to Parliament. He was quite aware that it would be impossible to insert all the necessary regulations in an Act of Parliament. The noble Duke had explained that in the Small Holdings Act there were certain definite principles laid down with regard to the expenditure of money which it would be perfectly possible, mutatis mutandis, for His Majesty's Government to have embodied in this Bill. But that was not done. Would it not have been very much better, considering how long this matter had occupied the attention of the Government, and that they must have arrived at certain conclusions upon it by this time, that those regulations should have been laid before Parliament before they were asked to vote upon the matter, so that they might know exactly what they were doing? He thought, however, after what had been said that his noble friend
  1098
  would probably not desire to press the Amendment, although he had done a public service in moving it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD AVEBURY LORD AVEBURY moved the insertion of a new clause which, he said, raised the whole question as between a contributory and a non-contributory scheme. The price of an ounce of tobacco or a glass of beer a week when a man entered life would find the money. He had shown in the debate on Second Reading, and His Majesty's Government had not attempted to controvert it, that with a few exceptions our workmen could easily provide themselves with pensions. Some 250,000, indeed, had done so already. The Board of Trade had shown that German workmen had lower wages, longer hours, dearer food, and dearer clothes than our people. They could and did provide themselves with pensions, and yet they were told that Englishmen could not. The Government had stated that contributory pensions were impossible in England. They had given no reason, except that Mr. Chamberlain once said so. Mr. Chamberlain, however, said they were impossible because you could not bridge over the interval. But the Germans had bridged over the interval, and the Bill with their Amendments would do so. True charity would promote independence and encourage thrift. The Bill as it stood would increase dependence and discourage thrift. Thomas Tucker long ago said that husbandry (by which he meant thrift) was not an English virtue. They were doing their best to prevent its ever being so. They were penalising prudence, and subsidising self-indulgence. The advocates of a contributory scheme said to the workman, "if you will save something the State will double it." The Government said to the workmen: "if you spend your savings in beer and tobacco we will give you a pension; but if you are fool enough to put it by for old age we will do nothing for you." And yet the Government professed to be, and he knew really were, in favour of temperance. The expenses of the Bill would be enormous, but that was

  1099
  not, to his mind, the great objection. If their Lordships rejected the Amendment the Bill would seriously lower the character and independence of the people, but if they passed it they would really confer a boon on the working classes.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 1, to insert the following new clause: '(1) A person born after the first day of January nineteen hundred and nine and a person who on that day is under sixty-five years of age shall not be entitled to a pension under this Act. (2) The Treasury may make regulations enabling persons not entitled to pensions under this Act to provide the like pensions for themselves, and shall cause tables to be constructed for that purpose in which interest shall be calculated at the rate of four per cent, per annum. (3) Where a person, who on the first day of January nineteen hundred and nine is above the age of forty-one and under the age of sixty-five desires to provide a pension for himself as aforesaid, but is unable to pay the full contribution that is required by the tables from a person of his age, the Treasury may pay for him so much of that contribution as exceeds the contribution that is required by the tables from a person of the age of forty-one.'"—(Lord Avebury.)
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid the proposal of the noble Lord reopened the whole controversy about contributory schemes. The Amendment could not be accepted, because the decision of both Houses of Parliament and of the country had been given against a contributory scheme. The question, so far as the Government were concerned, was a chose jugee.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEYhoped the noble Lord would not press the Amendment at this moment. If he did he would be reluctantly compelled to vote against it, not because there were not merits in the proposal, but because there had been no time properly to consider it, and because, though many people for many years had been endeavouring to arrive at a satisfactory contributory scheme, there was no great body of opinion behind any particular scheme of that kind.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNassociated himself with the appeal of the noble Viscount behind him, not so much for the reason his noble friend had given, but because the Amendment seemed to be a clear breach of privilege since it
  1100
  proposed a grant from the taxpayers for a purpose for which the House of Commons-had voted nothing at all. Although he could not see that the Amendment moved by the noble Earl on the cross benches, Lord Cromer, necessarily raised the question of privilege, yet this Amendment did raise it in so clear a way that he submitted it should be withdrawn.
  LORD AVEBURY, while he did not understand how an Amendment that would effect a great saving to the Exchequer would be a breach of privilege, in deference to the noble Viscount's opinion, asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2:
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON moved an Amendment to Clause 2 ("Statutory conditions for receipt of old-age pensions") which would add to the condition as to recipients of pensions having attained the age of seventy the words "as verified by certificates of birth or baptism, or, in the absence of such certificates, by census returns or other official documents." He apprehended that this Amendment would not come under the ban of privilege. If it were contended for a moment that it was improper for their Lordships to attempt to lay down how the age of seventy should be arrived at, then he thought the question of privilege would invade almost every measure which came before their Lordships' House. This was an Amendment which merely attempted to secure the fair administration of the Bill, if it became an Act, in a particular as to which at the moment there was no regulation at all. This particular provision of the Bill contained nothing but uncertainties. There was no method in it whatever. They could not doubt that, as the Bill stood, the door was open to a distribution which had not got solid foundations, and in which naturally the impulse of every man would be on the side of liberality, especially in the poorer districts. In Ireland there were the fewest records, and there was also a traditional open-handedness and a very wide and hearty appreciation of the depth of the public purse. He did

  1101
  not think his Amendment would in any way add difficulties to the scheme. In England there were registers of births going back to the year 1837. In Ireland the registers only went back to the year 1866. There were, however, marriage registers, and a married man who did not know the place of his birth would certainly remember the place of his marriage. There were also other official statistics. Every man who had served the Crown in any capacity had to state his age, and was officially accepted as being of a certain age. Those who had passed through the various forces of the Crown must number several millions, all of whose ages could be ascertained from the records. Where there were no other records, he relied on the Census Returns. He did not think it was asking too much to say that only cases which could be verified in this way should be dealt with by the Pensions Committee, and that where there was difficulty in verification of any kind the matter should be dealt with by a separate and special body. Many anomalies would arise unless some such provision were inserted. He thought it would be evident to their Lordships that this was a case in which some concession should be made.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 21, after the word 'seventy,' to insert the words 'as verified by certificates of birth or baptism, or in the absence of such certificates by census returns or other official documents."—(Viscount Midleton.)
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid that the practice in the Colonies where pensions had been established was that the Court were not bound to require legal evidence in this matter. Of course people would endeavour to get pensions to which they were not entitled, but the pension officer was a representative of the Exchequer, and he could be trusted to be a very favourable watchdog for the Treasury. There might be unjustified generosity in the local pension committees, but there was an appeal to the Local Government Board. The Government had given attention to this point. They had not thrown this Bill upon the Table absolutely ignorant of all its difficulties, but they were confronting them and doing their best to conquer them.
  LORD ATKINSONsuggested that Viscount Midleton's Amendment might fairly be accepted if the words "wherever practicable" were inserted after the word "verified." In many cases in Ireland there would be no official evidence available beyond the census returns, except in the case of men who had served the Crown. A great many of the parish priests, however, had kept registers which might be available, and he therefore suggested the insertion in the Amendment of words to include true copies of any register of births or marriages kept by a clergyman of any religious persuasion in connection with any office he might have held.
  Amendment moved to the Amendment—
  "To insert, after the words 'as verified,' the words 'wherever practicable.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I hope that either with or without the Amendment His Majesty's Government will accept some such words as my noble friend has suggested. It is abundantly clear that, unless this clause is fortified in some way, the taxpayers of this country will be exposed to wholesale fraud. The noble Viscount in charge of the Bill tells us that we need have no misgivings lest this difficulty should have been ignored by His Majesty's Government, and that these matters are to be provided for in rules and regulations. But we have to take all these things upon trust. I do not want to be told exactly what the letter of the rules and regulations is to be, but I want to know on what general lines it is intended to ascertain whether these claims are genuine or not. Upon whom, for example, is the burden of proof to lie? Has the claimant to prove to the satisfaction of the authority that he is seventy? I do not find that in the Bill as it stands, but unless there is some official evidence to support the pensioner's claim, the door is wide open to fraud. Something has been said as to evidence of age in the case of recruits. My noble friend and I well remember what took place in that matter. There was a great difficulty in getting recruits of full age, and many of them were

  1103
  entirely without the means of satisfying the War Office what their age was. Thereupon the military authorities invented the ingenious plan of directing the recruiting officers to be content with what used to be called the "physics equivalents" of the age of eighteen. We had no idea what those physical equivalents were, but we knew that a great number of youths of sixteen and seventeen and even younger were considered to possess those equivalents. In this case you have to produce the physical equivalents, not of eighteen, but of seventy. What are the physical equivalents of seventy? We know that a great many people resort to ingenious plans for making themselves appear younger than they really are, but I am afraid you will have a regular industry for the purpose of making people appear a great deal older than they are in order to obtain these pensions. The risk is a serious one, and I hope, in spite of what fell just now from the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, that His Majesty's Government will accept some form of words, either that suggested by my noble friend behind me, or another form of words in order to make it clear that there really is to be full and adequate proof that the claimant has reached the age entitling him to be pensioned.
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONpointed out that the Bill provided that the Treasury should make regulations for prescribing the manner in which claims to pensions might be made and the procedure to be followed to secure the fulfilment of the statutory conditions. But he had no objection to accepting the Amendment with the insertion of the words "wherever practicable" after the word "verified," as suggested by Lord Atkinson.
  LORD ATKINSONinquired whether the noble Viscount would also accept his suggestion as to inserting words with regard to true copies of any register of births or marriages kept by a clergyman of any religious persuasion.
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTOMthought this would be introducing a religious element, and might give rise to a good deal of dispute. Moreover, he
  1104
  saw no necessity for the addition of those words. If the registers were official documents they would be got at. There would be no difficulty in the way of the pension committee or the pension officer asking for these documents.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsympathised with the view taken by the noble Viscount. The object of Lord Midleton's Amendment was to give a preference to the utmost extent to official documents, but if they specified in the Bill something which the noble and learned Lord had said was not official at all, would it not rather suggest that evidence could be taken which was not of the character indicated by Lord Midleton? He thought it would be better to amend the Amendment by inserting the words "wherever practicable," and confine themselves to that.
  On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
  On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD AVEBURY LORD AVEBURY moved to amend Clause 2 so as to provide that a person applying for an old-age pension must "satisfy the local authority" as to his residential qualifications. He argued that this would throw the onus of proof upon the person applying for the pension and make it quite secure that he had to satisfy the pension authority. He hoped to have the support of Viscount St. Aldwyn, because in the debate on the Second Reading the noble Viscount distinctly laid it down that in his judgment the onus of proof should not rest with the pension authority as in the Bill, but on the applicant. He gathered that that was also the opinion of the Marquess of Lansdowne, and he hoped His Majesty's Government might accept the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 22, after the word 'must,' to insert the words 'satisfy the local pension committee that.'"—(Lord Avebury.)
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONpointed out that the Amendment assumed that the local pension committee was the

  1105
  solitary and final authority, whereas under Clause 7 the claim first of all went to the pension officer, then to the local pension committee, and possibly, on appeal, to the Local Government Board. Those three authorities had to be satisfied, and the Bill was drawn upon that basis.
  LORD AVEBURYsaid the point he wished to raise was that the onus probandi should rest on the person applying. The word "local" was, however, not wanted, and he would delete it.
  On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON*VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON moved an Amendment to add to subsection 2 that the twenty years residential qualification, should be subject to any exceptions provided by the regulations under the Act.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 25, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'and subject to any exceptions provided by these regulations.'"—(Viscount Wolverhampton.)
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNhoped their Lordships might have some statement as to what exceptions were intended. The noble Viscount proposed to amend the Bill so as to enable the pension authority to do what certainly it always must have intended to do—to make certain exceptions, which he hoped would not be very wide exceptions, to the provision of residence. He thought they ought to know precisely what was intended by the exceptions. Was it merely intended that, for example, persons in the Army and Navy abroad on this duty should be excepted from the term of residence, or was it intended to go very much wider than that and exempt persons who spent the whole, or nearly the whole, of the term abroad on their own private avocations, and pension them even if they had not really done any work in this country during the twenty years? He did not think the Government could intend to go as far as that, but meant to maintain the spirit of the residential qualification while allowing
  1106
  some reasonable exceptions in cases where those exceptions ought to be made.
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONexplained that a legal objection had been taken. The Government themselves were perfectly satisfied with the Bill as it was drawn, but the Law Officers of the Crown raised the doubt whether the provision was enough to enable regulations defining residence to include that which was not "residence" in the ordinary sense of the term. Personally he thought there would be no object in the provision unless it had that effect and he did not think the Amendment necessary. On the other hand very distinguished lawyers had taken the point, and it might be well to make it clear in order that people who were abroad in the Army, Navy, or merchant service might be duly protected. The intention of the Government was to prevent a dispute arising as to the true meaning of the section.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: It is quite clear that if this Amendment is adopted, a very considerable latitude of interpretation would be given to the authorities which they would not possess under the Bill as it now stands. I desire, in passing, to call the attention of the House to the fact that according to the rendering of the privilege doctrine to which we listened early in the evening this Amendment would appear to be an invasion of the privileges of the House of Commons, because it is intended to widen the scope of the clause and to throw an increased burden upon the Exchequer. But I gather that what is desired is that the Department that administers this Act is to have the right of ruling that the word "residence," which I have always understood was a legal expression with a very strict interpretation, is to be considered in a sense not at present known to the law. The matter, however, does seem to be rather a serious one, and I am very glad that my hon. friend beside me called the attention of the House to it.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNagain asked for some answer from the noble Viscount as to the exceptions which it was intended to make.
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid the question was as to how they were to define the word "residence." It was a very difficult word to define in regard to people who spent the great portion of their time abroad. There were a large number of cases—men in public works in the Colonies and in European countries, although practically their residence was in England. If they had a wife and children at home that would be their residence, but there was no reason why men should be deprived of their pensions, who had not homes in England, but had gone out from England to do work and then come back. The intention of the Government was that Englishmen, Scotsmen, and Irishmen should not be disqualified simply because they had not continuously resided in England during the twenty years. They would do great injury by raising legal points which might deprive some deserving people of their pensions. The Law Officers thought it was a desirable thing that the words in the Amendment should be put in.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid the two Amendments which stood next upon the Order Paper in the hands of Lord Clinton and Lord Muskerry had the same object as that of the noble Viscount. They were agreed that certain exceptions ought to be made, but what the noble Viscount suggested to the House was that it should be within the power of the Government to dispense-entirely with residence or with anything corresponding to it, because the words were absolutely wide. Any exceptions which the pension authorities chose to lay down were to have the same force as if they were enacted in the Act. The noble Viscount who was in charge of the Bill asked them to trust the Government. He was making a very large demand upon their confidence, and although they had great respect for him and for those whom he represented they hardly thought he was quite fair to them. The exceptions ought to be defined so that the House should know what they were, and not be asked to give an absolutely blank cheque to the Government to make any exceptions they pleased to send up. It seemed hardly necessary to discuss the Bill at all.
  VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON: The Government do not make the regulations, but the pension officer, the pension committee, and the Local Government Board.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Of course, it is quite clear; they are going to be made by a Department of the Government.
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid that the two Amendments next in order on the Paper, to which the noble Marquess had referred, answered his own arguments. Those two Amendments dealt with certain classes of exceptions to the general rule, and had occurred not at all unnaturally to the minds of those two noble Lords, thereby showing that there wore certain classes of cases which might give rise to considerable hardship if not dealt with. They were agreed that those cases ought to be dealt with in some way or another, and the only question was whether the rules should be embodied in the body of the statute, or whether they were to trust the regulations made by a Government Department. He ventured to ask the noble Lords opposite to carry their minds back to a few of the recent statutes for which they were responsible. Were there no regulations, for example, under such Acts as the Workmen's Compensation Act with which the name of Mr. Chamberlain was so honourably associated? Were there no regulations dealing with questions just as complicated as that before the House? It was a matter of common knowledge to every man who had a seat in Parliament or who practised at the Bar that they were thrown back more and more in these days—and, in a way, it was a source of regret—upon the action of Government Departments, because the burden of legislation and of administration was becoming so onerous that the legislative machinery of Parliament was likely to begin to break down under it. If they tried to embody in the Act all those things which might be dealt with by regulations they would be sitting through the whole of the months of August and September. Further, if they once began placing limited classes of exceptions in the Act they would immediately be deemed by a Court of law to have practically determined that those cases, and

  1109
  these cases only, should be dealt with by way of exception. The Government claimed that their machinery, by regulation, would meet all the views and objects of noble Lords opposite and with which they entirely agreed. There ought to be a method of dealing with exceptional cases, and that being so he hoped noble Lords opposite would see that the Government had not, for a moment, overlooked the importance of the matter; it had been most carefully considered by them.
  *LORD MAYOsuggested that the Law Officers of the Crown might define the word "residence," in order to assist His Majesty's Government in the passage of the Bill.
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid there was no more intricate or difficult subject in English law than that of domicile. Practically what they were asked to do in defining "residence" in the Act of Parliament was to touch on the fringe of that most difficult and dangerous law. That would really be a most unwise thing for the Committee to do.
  LORD ASHBOURNEasked whether the noble Lord meant to convey that it was the opinion of the Law Officers that it could be held that if a man had retained, not abandoned, his domicile in the United Kingdom he had retained his residence.
  LORD FITZMAURICEreplied that that was a good instance of the sort of conundrum that the Government thought they ought to avoid in an Act of Parliament.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that everyone knew that "domicile" depended upon intention. A man might live for the best part of his life out of England, but if he had left the country without the intention of abandoning his domicile he would be held to have retained it. Did the noble Lord say that one of the points submitted for the decision of the law officers was that if a man retained his domicile he was held to have retained his rights to a pension?
  LORD FITZMAURICEreplied that that was the sort of point that could only be dealt with effectually by regulation.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid they were entitled to know the result of whatever consideration had been given to the subject, before they gave a blank cheque. The debate would also be somewhat illuminated if they knew how the House were going to deal with the next two Amendments, in which they represented specific points. They had a right to know what was in the minds of the Government as to the nature of the exceptions that would be put into the regulations, so that they could see how the Government would fill up their blank cheque. He did not unduly press the point of domicile, which was, however, a legitimate one.
  *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid the House had great cause to complain of the answer they had received from the Government on the matter. Noble Lords had realised the hardships that might arise under the Bill as it now stood. The Government, while asking for general power to make exceptions, said they could not tell the House what the exceptions would be. He confessed that what he was afraid of was that in attempting to remedy hardships in that general way the exceptions which might be forced upon the Government by their supporters elsewhere might be so numerous that practically the requirements of residence would be altogether done away with. From the point of view of the British taxpayer there was much to be said on the subject, because it would be quite unreasonable that a mere retention of a domicile in England should entitle a person who had spent his twenty years abroad to receive a pension at the cost of the taxpayers of the United Kingdom. That would be obviously unfair unless a certain part of that time had been spent in service rendered to the country, either in the Army or the Navy. There was danger that the Amendment might enable large additional burdens to be imposed on the British taxpayer by persons who were certainly not entitled to receive pensions.
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONattached no importance personally to the Amendment and was quite willing to withdraw it if the House was against it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved to add that the regulations should provide that a person should not be disqualified by reason only of absence beyond the seas during the whole or part of the qualifying period, either in actual naval or military service on behalf of the Crown, or where his domicile in the United Kingdom was continuously retained in the performance of any duty arising from, or incidental to, any office, trade, service or employment. He welcomed very much the announcement that soldiers, sailors, and men of the merchant service ought not to be subject to disqualification, yet it seemed a matter of very sincere regret that the Government had refused in this particular instance to include actually in the Bill itself the terms which would appear in the regulations. In regard to cases coming under the statutory conditions it seemed obvious that the mind of the Government was made up, and if that was so he saw no reason why it should not appear in the Bill. The second part of his Amendment was tolerably widely drawn and should include almost all cases where hardship could arise out of any construction put upon the word "residence." But after the assurance of the noble Viscount it was unnecessary that he should include the cases of soldiers and sailors. He gathered that their case was admitted and that it was an overwhelmingly strong one. He believed, however, that the cases of many people who had to go abroad in the ordinary course of their employment, always with the intention of coming home again, was scarcely less strong. They were told that pensions under the Bill were to be given not as a charity but as a matter of right, that they were to be a sort of deferred pay for veterans of industry, and a man was no less a veteran of industry if, during the course of his life and of his employment, he had had to spend a year or two abroad, possibly for the very purpose of pushing forward some English trade or business in a foreign country. There were, for instance, the cases of men, and even of women, who, in the course of their ordinary employment as domestic servants, went out in the households of Ambassadors or of any other person who was bound to be abroad. It would be a hardship if such people, when they came
  1112
  home, should find themselves in an intolerably worse position in regard to these pensions than the men in exactly the same class of employment who had remained at home during the whole qualifying period. There was another instance which was a very common one in country districts. A man, in order to escape unemployment, and to endeavour to prevent himself becoming a burden upon the rates, accepted the offer of an emigration society, or by other means went to Canada or some other part of the world. When he arrived he found, as so many did, particularly these of mature age, that work was not so easily obtainable as he had supposed and he was driven to accept the inevitable and return home again. When he returned home he found he had got to live and to work in this country another twenty years before he could qualify for a pension. Such a man had, it was true, failed, but he had made a really great and supreme effort to achieve success. Why should he be in a worse position than the man who had remained at home and who had equally failed but who had not made the same effort? He thought that would be a case of very real hardship. It was quite unnecessary for him to multiply instances, which would occur very readily to their Lordships, but he would like to make a comparison of the disqualification which came under the condition of "residence." In subsection (2) of Clause 3 it was provided that a person who was convicted of any offence and ordered to be imprisoned was disqualified during the time of his imprisonment, and for a further period of ten years, from receiving an old-age pension. In the same way an habitual drunkard who was liable to have a detention order made under the provisions of the Inebriates Act, 1898, might be disqualified for ten years, but a man who went abroad for one year might be disqualified for twenty years. Taking a concrete case, a man at the age of fifty-nine was, perhaps, convicted of a crime and was sentenced to one year's imprisonment. He came out at sixty but his disqualifying period was no disqualification to him, because he had worked it out before he had reached the age of seventy. But a man of the same age, fifty-nine, who went abroad for a year and returned at the age

  1113
  of sixty, was disqualified for twenty years—that was until he had reached the age of eighty, which amounted practically to permanent disqualification. Therefore they discovered at once a really serious case of hardship which ought to be considered and which, he had no doubt was being considered by the Government. He thought, however, that there should be in the wording of the Bill some recognition of the fact that such cases of hardship were prevented.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 26, after the word 'Kingdom,' to insert the words 'and such regulation shall provide that a person shall not be disqualified by reason only of absence beyond the seas during the whole or part of the qualifying period, either on actual naval or military service on behalf of the Crown, or where his domicile in the United Kingdom is continuously retained in the performance of any duty arising from, or incidental to, any office, trade, service, or employment.'"—(Lord Clinton.)
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONdeclared that they must either throw regulations overboard altogether or stand by regulations. If they commenced putting classes of exceptions and conditions into the Bill it would be fatal to the carrying out of any satisfactory legislation on the subject. He agreed with almost every word the noble Lord had said, but he could not consent to the Amendment, simply because if they began defining in the Bill the question would arise as to what had been left out. That would create the presumption that every case not mentioned was not intended to be included. The Government knew their own intentions as to what they would put into the regulations. These regulations would be submitted to Parliament and possibly disapproved of, but it was impossible now for them to take item by item the classes of people who under certain conditions ought to be entitled to pensions. It would be better to leave the whole question in the hands of the framers of the regulations. He was confident that there would be an opportunity in Parliament to discuss the regulations. The desire of both Houses would be that while all economy should be exercised, nobody being allowed to have a pension who was not properly entitled to it, yet, at the same time, nobody who was justly and fairly
  1114
  entitled to it should be shut out by any technicality.
  LORD AVEBURYsaid that the Amendment went very far indeed. A man for instance, might be engaged in the service of a foreign railway or firm, be away for years, and get an English pension.
  *LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTHsuggested that the mover of the Amendment should consider the advisability of dividing it into two parts, leaving out that relating to "domicile." There would naturally be much doubt as to whether domicile were "continuously retained in the performance of any duty, etc." It was rather difficult to define exactly what that meant. The Bill related practically to poor men of small means and such men would hardly retain continuously a domicile in the United Kingdom if they went abroad for any length of time for the purpose of working. The first part of the Amendment was open to very little objection, and it was just possible that the Government might see their way to adopt these or some similar words.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I do not think there is any difference between both sides of the House as to the necessity of providing in some measure for the class of cases covered by my noble friend's Amendment. I am under the impression that a distinct promise was given in another place that the case of sailors, sailing in registered vessels, was to be expressly provided for. What many of us feel is that some means or other should be found of making that appear upon the surface of the Bill. The matter is so important that it is not one that can be left to the chapter of accidents. The noble Viscount has told us that the matter will be dealt with in the regulations, and he laid stress upon the fact that the regulations will come before Parliament. I should have been disposed to accept that as a sufficient explanation, but the ground has been cut from under that argument because earlier in the evening we were told that the law officers of the Crown had advised that unless something was put into the Bill on this point, it might be

  1115
  found impossible to deal with the cases of sailors and others whom we desire to protect.
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON: The noble Marquess quite misunderstood me. The law officers advised that litigation might arise as to what was the true meaning of the clause as it stood, whereas the non-professional advisers thought the clause was sufficient, and the House thought it sufficient. I myself have considered the words of no importance or value whatever. We thought the classes we wished to include were safe, but the law officers thought it might stop any possibility of argument if these words were put in.
  *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid that after what had been said it was clear that the scope of the Amendment was too wide, particularly when they took into account the difficulty in introducing anything about domicile. If the noble Lord would consent to leave out the words after "Crown" and to insert the words "or seamen in the British merchant service or others engaged in some temporary service," he thought it would cover all the cases desired to be covered.
  LORD CLINTONwas very certain that a large number of persons would be abroad for quite a short time, and would suffer a very serious hardship if there were not some further exceptions made in the Act.
  THE EARL OF MOUNT EDGCUMBEasked whether the noble Lord would have any objection to widening the first portion of thee Amendment to include all these actually in the service of the Crown, not merely specifying the Army and the Navy.
  *VISCOUNT KNUTSFORDsuggested the withdrawal of the Amendment, in view of the statement of the Government that they would be prepared to accept Lord Camperdown's Amendment that the regulations should be submitted to Parliament. That undertaking had not been given when Lord Clinton's Amendment was prepared, and there was, therefore, good reason for pointing out
  1116
  some exceptions; but he must admit that there was a considerable danger in picking out specific cases and dealing with them. That might mean the exclusion of cases that did not come within the exceptions, and he ventured to suggest that the bent course would be to withdraw the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYaffirmed that the fact was the Government had consulted their own law officers and their own law officers thought that what the House wanted to be done could not be done by regulation.
  VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON: We said that doubts might be raised.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid it would be a most unfortunate thing if, in consequence of their not dealing with the matter when before the House, doubts were afterwards raised, and it might turn out to be impossible by regulation to confer pensions upon the two classes—these who served the State and these who went abroad for purely temporary purposes. That would be a most unfortunate result, and he could not help thinking that his noble friend would be unwise to press his Amendment at the present moment, but they could not allow the Bill to go back to the House of Commons without making it absolutely certain that seamen and these who went abroad for purely temporary purposes were not prevented from getting a pension. If there was really a doubt it ought to be cleared up.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): I have not the faintest doubt that under the regulations we can provide for the things desired.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: In confirmation of that I am given to understand that the expression of the Law Officers applied to what might happen in the case of individuals, and not in the case of classes of persons. That, I suppose, would equally hold good whether the provision appeared in the Act or in the regulations.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: After the very categorical statement

  1117
  made by the Lord Chancellor, and considering that we have received an asurance that these regulations will be laid before Parliament, and that a full opportunity of considering them will be given, I suggest that the Amendment should not be pressed.
  LORD CLINTON: Is it the intention that the classes to whom I have referred should be provided for not in the Bill but in the regulations?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is not the least doubt that anyone who wishes for fair play would desire to include the persons referred to.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD MUSKERRYproposed to insert that in the case of masters and seamen of British nationality service at sea should be deemed sufficient to constitute a residence. He argued that under the Act a master was not a seaman and therefore it was absolutely necessary to make it clear that masters were provided for.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 26, after the word 'Kingdom,' to insert the words 'in the case of all masters and seamen of British nationality, service at sea shall be deemed sufficient to constitute a residence under the terms of this Act.'"—(Lord Muskerry.)
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONassured the noble Lord that the Government would do their best to meet his view. There would be an opportunity for the noble Lord to raise the question if he thought the regulations defective, but he did not think it would be necessary.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON*VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON moved to amend the statutory condition for receipt of a pension by providing that the "yearly" means of the persons as calculated under the Act must not exceed £31 10s.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 1, after the first 'the,' to insert the word 'yearly.'"—(Viscount Wolverhampton.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD AVEBURY LORD AVEBURY moved to provide that the person applying for a pension must satisfy the local pensions authority that his means as calculated under the Bill do not exceed £31 10s. He explained that his Amendment was really consequential upon the one just accepted.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 1, to leave out the words 'means of the,' and after the word 'person,' to insert the words 'must satisfy the local pension committee that his means.'"—(Lord Avebury.)
  THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESpointed out that having inserted the word "yearly" the Committee could not now leave out the word "means" without making the clause ungrammatical.
  LORD AVEBURYaccordingly altered his Amendment to enable the provision to read "That the person must satisfy the pension authorities that his yearly means, etc."
  On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3:
  *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN moved to omit the words "the thirty-first day of December, 1910 unless," so that the disqualification for a pension should apply to a person "While he is in receipt of any poor relief (other than relief excepted under this provision) and until Parliament otherwise determines, if he has at any time since the first day of January, 1908, received, or hereafter receives, any such relief." He said that this was the disqualifying clause by which a person who was in receipt of relief on 1st January last, or might be in receipt of such relief in future, would be disqualified from a pension "until 31st December, 1910, unless Parliament otherwise determines." He supposed it was common ground to all that outdoor relief of the ordinary kind and pensions should not go together, and he imagined that His Majesty's Government had inserted this disqualification in order to prevent any sudden transfer of persons now in receipt

  1119
  of out-relief by the boards of guardians in different districts to the old-age pensions list. There was no doubt whatever that there were a great many persons over seventy years of age in receipt of out-relief, especially in country unions, who would be more properly the recipients of old-age pensions, and whom the boards of guardians would be likely to transfer at the earliest opportunity. He imagined, therefore, that this disqualification had been inserted with a view to preventing anything of that kind. But he did not understand what was the object of the particular words "31st December, 1910, unless," which he was moving to omit. He could quite understand that a person who had been since 1st January last in receipt of such relief, or might hereafter receive it, should not be qualified for a pension, and that such disqualification should last until Parliament otherwise determined, because he understood it was the intention of the Government to connect this Bill with an alteration and reform of the Poor Law by which Poor Law relief would be subject to a better classification than was the case at present, and that pending the passage of such a Bill it was not desired that any persons in receipt of Poor Law relief should be qualified for pensions. The clause as he proposed to amend it would carry out that intention completely The disqualification would last until an Act was passed which would deal with the matter; but why the disqualification should cease on 31st December, 1910, whether such an Act were passed or not, he did not understand. These words, he believed, were not in the Bill at the time of its introduction, but were inserted in another place, for what reason he did not know, unless it was considered to be perfectly certain that a Poor Law Reform Bill would pass before the date named. Nothing of the kind could be certain in Parliamentary proceedings. The time of Parliament was already mortgaged by His Majesty's Government with proposals for the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church in Wales, for a great Reform Bill, and for other smaller matters which he need not enumerate, but which would
  1120
  quite take up the time of Parliament without any measure of Poor Law reform. No Government, therefore, could be certain that by 31st December, 1910, any measure of the kind would be passed. He wanted to ask the noble Viscount what was the reason for these words and what they meant. Was it in contemplation that Parliament might remove this disqualification before 31st December, 1910, if it so chose, or was it in contemplation that Parliament should extend the term of disqualification in the event of no Poor Law Reform Bill passing? He submitted that it must be intended that the disqualification should last until poor Law reform was an accomplished fact, and that being so it would be very much better that the clause should so provide.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 7, to leave out the words 'the 31st day of December, 1910, unless.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid the noble Viscount had correctly described the intentions of the Government at the present time. The words were inserted in the House of Commons to give effect to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's pledge that the Poor Law question would dealt be with before the end of the year 1910. It was clear that these words were a pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in order to make it binding upon him they wore inserted. He perceived the objection of the noble Lord, but the answer was that any Government that was in power would take care to deal with this question in order to prevent a large number of people being made pensioners so as to relieve the rates. The majority in the House of Commons were of opinion that these words ought to be inserted so that there would be no chance in the meantime of Poor Law reform being put on one side. He quite appreciated the noble Viscount's point as to the impossibility of making these pledges binding as events might alter them, but that was the sole explanation why the Government pledged themselves to take that view, and these words were simply put in as a record of the pledge.
  THE EARL OF CROMERasked if the noble Viscount could say what would be the complete cost if the Poor Law disqualification were removed on 31st December, 1910.
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid he had no figures which would justify him in making such a statement, but it would be a very serious increase on the Exchequer.
  THE EARL Of CROMER: It has been stated to be £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 sterling.
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON: I am not responsible for that.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: It has certainly been stated that the removal of this disqualification would involve a loss of £3,000,000 to the public, and that figure still holds the field.
  *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he was anxious to save the £3,000,000 if possible. He quite accepted what the noble Viscount had said as to the reason for the insertion of these words. It was a pledge on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Poor Law reform should be carried before the date named, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not omnipotent in such matters. He might find it impossible to carry anything of the kind. What would happen then? As the clause now stood, all these people would come upon the old-age pension list, unless the Government of the day brought in a Bill to provide that they should not. Was it likely that the Government, not having had time to pass a Poor Law Reform Bill, would take up again so difficult and controversial a question as to how and when persons in receipt of Poor Law relief should come on to the old-age pension list? He was afraid if these words remained in the Bill the Government would not be able to carry out their pledge for Poor Law reform by the date named, and they would not bring in a Bill for disqualifying all these people though, their coming into the old-age pension list would increase the cost by some
  1122
  £3,000,000. The very thing that the Government did not wish to do would be done by the retention of these words. That was why he ventured to move their omission.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNbelieved he was correct in his recollection that on the Second Reading of the Bill the noble Viscount said that the Poor Law Reform Bill could not be passed for four or five years.
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON: I did not say that.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked if the noble Viscount would explain, the difference of opinion which appeared to exist between him and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Supposing for the moment that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was wrong, and, what was much more likely, the noble Viscount was right, what would happen?
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid he quite agreed with the noble Lord that it was impossible for the Government to give a binding pledge of this sort which under all circumstances they would carry out. His individual opinion was that this was the first question with which the Government ought to deal, as soon as the Report was presented by the Royal Commission, no matter what Government was in power. The House of Commons were very anxious that that should be secured, and the pledge was given by the Government to comply with that request. What he had said was that when that Report was presented it would require the most careful consideration by the Government, who would have to construct a scheme, and before it could be brought into actual working it would take probably four or five years. That would not at all interfere with the pledge the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given. He was quite sure that if the noble Viscount opposite were at the head of the Treasury the pressure which would result from this sum coming out of the Exchequer would make him insist on this pledge being carried out. It was not an individual pledge in that sense but an official one.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Whose pledge is going to be carried out?
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid the pledge of the existing Chancellor of the Exchequer to the existing House of Commons.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: But the noble Viscount speaking from his own judgment says that is impossible.
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON: No.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Viscount could not have put it more fairly to the House. These words were a pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the present House of Commons. That is a very interesting historical fact which it is well to have on record. But I submit that this is not the kind of thing that we want to put into an Act of Parliament. Here is a disqualification which affects the taxpayers of this country to the extent of about £3,500,000 a year. I desire that that disqualification should hold until Parliament otherwise determines. That is a perfectly simple and clear-cut issue, and I submit that it is not wise to complicate it by such personal matters as the pledges given by Ministers.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved to amend the second proviso in paragraph (a) subsection (1) for the purpose of ascertaining whether the medical or surgical assistance, the receipt of which would not disqualify a person from receiving an old-age pension, would cover a case like the following: a person was suffering from a complaint or the effects of some accident, and could not be treated at home, possibly on account of the unsuitable accommodation or because of the nature of his complaint, or it might be because of the impossibility of getting proper attendance. In these cases the ordinary course was to remove the person to some charitable institution—a cottage hospital or a free infirmary, but in the event of such charitable institutions not being available there was no course left open but to take the person to the workhouse infirmary. That was a case very
  1124
  closely allied to the case of these who received free surgical assistance. The only difference was that in the one case the persons could be treated outside, but in the other, owing to limitations perhaps in accommodation, they could only be treated inside, and it was something of a hardship that these who were slightly better off in their house accommodation should not be disqualified while these who were worse off in that respect should be disqualified. He would like to know if this point had been considered or would be covered by the section.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 17, after the word 'of,' to insert the words 'the temporary or occasional maintenance of that person or by means of.'"—(Lord Clinton.)
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid that this was clearly a matter of privilege, as the Amendment would add to the cost, and the Government took their stand upon that ground.
  LORD CLINTONsaid he would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN VISCOUNT GOSCHEN moved to omit the words which disqualified a person for receiving an old-age pension, if he had habitually failed to work "according to his ability, opportunity, and need," and to substitute the word "diligently." He said that the Amendment was not hostile to the Bill, but its intention was rather to make the section plainer in its working. He thought that whatever opinion might be held with regard to the form or nature of a pension Bill, they would probably all be agreed that, provided the statutory conditions were fulfilled, the Bill should be drawn sufficiently wide to admit within its scope the hard-working and deserving without difficulty, while, at the same time, there should be sufficient restriction to keep out the idle and undeserving who might be ingenious enough to find a hole in the Bill by means of which they might derive some benefit. Surely this could only be done by making the language as simple as possible, and equally intelligible to these who had to administer

  1125
  the Act and these for whom it was administered. He ventured to think the word "diligently" would be sufficiently understood by all and would be intelligible to all, but he could not imagine three words about which there was more likely to be contention than "ability, opportunity, and need." They had to recollect that the onus of proof lay with the pension officer and the pension committee. If there wore any case in dispute, it was not the claimant who had to prove that he had habitually worked according to his ability, opportunity, or need, but the pension officer had to prove that he had failed so to work, which would be much harder to prove. He doubted if there was any quality about which there would be more difference of opinion than with regard to a man's ability, either mentally or physically, to work. It would be extremely difficult to prove that a man had not worked according to his ability, or to prove what ability a man had to work. He supposed the word "opportunity" meant the means or the chance of working. It could be proved whether a man had worked or not, and whether he had worked diligently or not, but surely there would be extreme difficulty during the course, of a man's life in finding out whether he had had the opportunity of working or not, if he said he had not. With regard to the third word, what was a man's "need"? He supposed it was what a man liked to make it. There were many cases of men who preferred to do quite casual labour and earn a very precarious means of livelihood in order that they might only work a few days in the week and have a holiday during the rest. Surely they would not be deserving of a pension, and yet they would be able to assert that they had worked from their view according to their need. By this Bill very heavy responsibilities and a great burden would be placed upon the pension officers and these who were responsible for the administration of the Act. Surely, therefore, they ought to make their duties as light as possible, and he believed they could only do this by lessening the opportutities for friction, dispute, and discussion, and it was because he believed that this Amendment went somewhere in that direction, while
  1126
  at the same time it assisted the deserving and lessened the opportunities of misuse of the Act by the undeserving, that he ventured to submit it to their Lordships.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 30, to leave out the words 'according to his ability, opportunity, and need, in order to insert the word 'diligently'."—(Viscount Goschen.)
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid he was advised that this Amendment, as qualifying the conditions upon which a pension could be granted, was inadmissible on the ground of privilege, but apart from that, he could not help thinking that the noble Lord would see there were grave objections on the merits of the proposal. The aim of this subsection was to attain an object which he thought the whole Committee would agree in considering desirable, that was to say, to hit heavily the person who was popularly known as the wastrel. None of their Lordships, whatever their ideas might be about old-age pensions in general, would hesitate to say that an habitual wastrel was a person who at the end of a dishonourable career, as it would have been, ought not to receive a pension. That was the object of the clause, and the words ''according to his ability, opportunity, and need," had been considered by those upon whom for the purpose of drafting the Government had to rely as being the words best calculated to describe the sort of person with whom they had to deal. But the words which the noble Viscount wished to introduce did not affect the person, but the character of work, and they opened up a very difficult and, it seemed to him, almost impossible set of considerations; that was to say, they were to consider whether a man had or had not for a long period of years been working diligently. That struck him as being almost impossible. In addition, it would in many cases land them in a position to a certain extent of absurdity, because these words would be open to the obvious objection that a man who up to the age of, say, sixty or sixty-five years, had had the means to live without working bard, or perhaps without working at all, and then, through

  1127
  misfortune, had lost his money, would lose his pension because he had not diligently worked in the period during which he was able to live in the capacity of a gentleman at large, if he might use the expression. He did not think it could have occurred to the noble Lord that the words he had put on the Paper would have that effect. Therefore, for the whole of these reasons, but especially the first, he hoped the noble Lord would not press the Amendment.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The suspicion with which we regard this formula arises from a certain humility of mind which is perhaps peculiar to us on this side of the House, because when we examine ourselves, we come to the conclusion that there are few of us, if any, who can really say with confidence that we always work according to our ability, opportunity, or need, and therefore we desire, if possible, to find some formula of a more precise description. My noble friend suggests the substitution of the word "diligently." It seems to us a very sensible and easily understood expression, but my noble friend who spoke for the Government objected to the substitution of the word on the ground of privilege, and on the contention that it qualifier the financial effect of the clause. I should like to have it from His Majesty's Government in what sense they qualify it. Do they mean that a man can have worked according to his ability, opportunity, and need, and yet, nevertheless, has not worked diligently? That seems to me rather a difficult position to assume. What we feel throughout these discussions is that we are unable really to grasp the first principle upon which this proposal is based. Is it your object in this Bill to relieve poverty or to reward industry? Which principle is it you are working upon? You profess that there are many clauses in the Bill which are intended to reward industry, and your idea apparently is to leave the relief of poverty to the Poor Law. When it comes to defining what you mean by industry, you are compelled to fall back upon these extremely woolly formulas which no persons in the House interpret alike, and which it would be absolutely impossible for the
  1128
  pension authorities to interpret. I take it that the object of my noble friend was to elicit from His Majesty's Government some idea of the spirit in which these regulations are to be interpreted, and I am afraid he has failed altogether in his object.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN VISCOUNT GOSCHEN moved an Amendment with the object of obtaining an interpretation of the proviso that a person should not be disqualified "If he has continuously for ten years up to attaining the age of sixty, by means of payments to friendly, provident, or other societies, or trade unions, or other approved steps, made such provision against old-age, sickness, infirmity, or want or loss of employment as may be recognised as proper provision for the purpose by regulations under this Act." He believed the words in regard to the ten years meant what his Amendment expressed, namely, during the last ten years immediately preceding the attainment of the age of sixty, but as they stood they seemed liable to be construed to mean continuously for any ten years up to attaining the age of sixty. As the clause was framed to favour thrift he presumed that it would naturally be drawn to favour the man who during the last years of his life had made some provision for his old age; but as the clause stood it seemed liable to either construction being placed upon it.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 34, to leave out the word 'for,' and to insert the words 'during the last.'"—(Viscount Goschen.)
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid that, sympathising as he did with the wish of the noble Viscount that this clause should be clear, he could not help thinking that the words were sufficiently clear as they stood. The matter was very fully gone into in the House of Commons, and there was a general agreement that these words on the whole expressed the view intended.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Oh, no.
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid that, by agreement he did not mean that there was no difference of opinion expressed in the House of Commons on the subject but that eventually these words were accepted as the words which expressed the general feeling, and he believed that if their Lordships sent them back again they would only involve themselves in a minute verbal discussion without any object sufficiently great to warrant an alteration leading to a great deal of discussion between the two Houses He was not saying that there was any objection on the merits of the words of the noble Viscount, or that it was not conceivable that his words were slightly better than these, in the Bill, but, bearing in mind that on the whole there was agreement that these words expressed the very meaning which the noble Viscount himself desired should be in the Bill, he could not help thinking that they had better be kept as they were.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid the noble Lord had been misinformed if he thought there had been a general agreement in the House of Commons on this point.
  LORD FITZMAURICE: I did not say there had been no discussion, but eventually there was agreement.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid his information was rather different. During the debate in the other House there was great doubt as to the meaning of these words, and a large section of Members interpreted them just as his noble friend thought they might be interpreted, namely, that all that was exacted was that for any ten years before the age of sixty a person was to subscribe to one of the friendly societies. A large section of the House of Commons took that view, and he could not conceive why the Government should resist words which clearly expressed what they said was their intention. Being rather interested in this matter he took the precaution of consulting good legal opinion as to the meaning of these words, and the gentleman who advised him at once said that he thought it meant any ten years before reaching the age of sixty. Under these circumstances it was hardly worth
  1130
  arguing the case. The Government wanted it, and his noble friend suggested it, and of course they ought to accept it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, lines 34 and 35, to leave out the words 'up to attaining,' and to insert the words 'immediately his attainment of.'"—(Viscount Goschen.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  *THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESpointed out that an Amendment in the name of Lord Saltoun had been handed in, but had been omitted from the list of marshalled Amendments, and it would be necessary to take it.
  LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved an Amendment providing that a person sent to prison without the option of a fine should only be disqualified for a pension for a further period of ten years after the date on which he is released from prison, "if the Court before whom he is convicted so orders." He said that there were crimes and crimes. Of course, a very serious crime might be committed, and then probably the imprisonment might be of greater duration; but if they took the case of an old man, say, who had gone to sleep while driving a cart, he might be fined for such an offence on more than one occasion by the Justices. If he continued to do it he might be put in prison for a week perhaps. For that he was penalised to the extent of ten years, and if he were a man of over sixty years of age, it would naturally put him out of court altogether. That seemed to him to be a very serious hardship, and he wished to draw attention to the subsection which gave the protection of His Majesty's Government to the drunkard, who, under the Inebriates' Act, was not to be disqualified. He thought a distinction should be drawn between trifling offences and serious crimes, and to secure that he begged to move the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 17, to insert the following words, 'If the Court before whom he is convicted so orders."—(Lord Saltoun.)
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid the objection to the principle of this Amendment was that it was introducing an option, so to speak, in this matter to the Court. He thought there was a good deal of force in what the noble Lord had said, and that there were occasions when offences which were punished by a short term of imprisonment—perhaps for a day, as sometimes in a bigamy case the person convicted was sentenced to imprisonment only until the rising of the Court. That, he thought, would be a very hard case, and the words that he would suggest to meet it would be words providing that the imprisonment which was to act as a disqualification should be "for any period not less than one month."
  THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEEShoped the noble Viscount would not object to his pointing out that the line in question had been passed, and as they had not left much over to a later stage, he suggested this might be left to the Report.
  VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON: I am quite agreeable to that.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4:
  *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN moved an Amendment to provide that in calculating the means of a person for the purpose of the Act, account should be taken of the yearly income which might be expected to be derived from any property belonging to that person, "if such property being at the time capable of realisation were realised and invested in the purchase of a Government annuity for the life of such a person. Provided that the house in which such person resides, and any furniture or effects necessary for its occupation, shall not be considered as property that could be realised for the purchase of such annuity." He said this was a very important point which was raised in another place on the Third Reading, but to which, so far as he was aware, no answer had been
  1132
  given by His Majesty's Government. By an Amendment already inserted in the Bill the means of a claimant for a pension were interpreted to be a yearly means; in other words, the income derived from any source of labour or property. The fourth clause laid down a rule for calculating the yearly means of a person for the purposes of the Act. Subsection (a) of the clause said that in the absence of other means for ascertaining the income the income might be taken to be that actually received during the preceding year, and then subsection (c), on which he was raising this question, said the yearly income which might be expected to be derived from any property belonging to that person which, though capable of investment or profitable use, was not so invested or profitably used by him. The Committee would see that under these words the income derived from any form of investment would be calculated as the yearly income. The result might be that, supposing a person invested a certain sum in Consols, returning an income of not more than 2½ per cent., he might possess as much as £1,200 in Consols and yet be the recipient of a pension of 1s. a week under the Bill. That was of course an extreme case, but it was a case that ought not to occur. It would be ridiculous to say that a person possessed of that kind of property should be entitled to the benefit of a pension under the Bill. These old-age pensions were not intended for any case of that kind, yet as the Bill stood it would be possible. If a husband and wife lived together, each of them possessing the amount of Consols he had mentioned, they might each get 1s. a week under the provision of the Bill as it now stood. If they possessed about £800 each in Consols, each might obtain the full pension of 5s. a week. It could not be the intention of His Majesty's Government, yet that was what would result from the provisions of this Bill. This matter was called attention to by Sir Henry Norman, a supporter of the Government in another place, on the Third Reading of the Bill. Clearly there ought to be some kind of limit as to the amount of realisable property which a person might own who was coming under the provisions of the Old-age Pensions Bill. In New Zealand,

  1133
  which he understood from a speech of the Prime Minister on the Budget had been rather a model to His Majesty's Government in framing this Bill, the limit was £200. What he suggested by this Amendment was that where a person possessing property which, if realised and invested in a Government annuity, would produce £31 10s., which was the income debarring a person from receiving a pension under this Bill, such a person should not be the recipient of a pension. That appeared to be perfectly fair because he had added the proviso that it should not apply to the house in which any pensioner resided, or to the furniture or effects necessary for its occupation. If the Government thought that too hard a condition—and he would say that it did not compel the realisation of the property for that purpose, but simply related to the income which might be derived from the property if realised—would they insert in this clause something to show that at any rate the claimant for a pension was bound to make the best he could reasonably make by way of income from any property which he possessed? The words as they now stood did not carry that out. For example, a man who possessed £1,200 in Consols could with perfect safety transfer his investment to East India 3½ per cent, and he would get a much larger income in that way. There ought to be some kind of rule laid down in the Bill to prevent the abuse of giving old-age pensions at the cost of the taxpayers to people who did not need them. That was why he placed the Amendment upon the Paper, and he hoped the noble Viscount opposite would be able to give some satisfactory assurance that he would insert words to carry out the principle he had mentioned.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 40, to leave out the words which, though capable of investment or profitable use, is not so invested or profitably used by him,' and to insert the words 'if such property, being at the time capable of realisation, were realised and invested in the purchase of a Government, annuity for the life of such person. Provided that the house in which such persons resides, and any furniture or effects necessary for its occupation, shall not be considered as property that could be realised for the purchase of such annuity.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid that this was a question on which there was a good deal to be said on both sides. The noble Viscount had put a case of the claimant to a pension with £1,200 invested in Consols. That was an extreme case, and he quite agreed that such a man ought not to have an old-age pension. A more likely case was that of a man of seventy who had accumulated, say, £300, and who had carefully husbanded that amount to provide for his widow or child. According to the noble. Viscount's Amendment, as it appeared on the Paper, he would be bound to invest that sum in the purchase of a Government annuity.
  *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: He would not be bound to do it. His income would be calculated as if he had done so.
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid the man might live only a year, and the Government annuity would be calculated upon his expectation for life. They might almost call it a gamble with his money. The man had to risk at once the sacrifice of his capital in order to increase his income. He thought that would be discouraging thrift to a very great extent. He thought there ought to be some mode of dealing with the point, but he did not like the noble Viscount's proposition, and he did not like his own. He had, however, great confidence in the noble Viscount's fairness, justice, and ability, and perhaps he would bring up at the next stage of the Bill an Amendment, and then the Government could see if they could carry out something that would be fair and just in all the circumstances of the case. He thought they ought, as far as they could, to encourage thrift, but this Amendment would shut the door against it.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: No.
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid he was afraid it would, but he was quite sure that His Majesty's Government would be willing to co-operate with the noble Viscount in anything reasonable and fair in the matter.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid the noble Viscount had met the principle he

  1135
  wanted to establish to some extent, though he had not made any definite suggestion. Would the noble Viscount insert in place of the Amendment words which would establish the same principle and which would make the section run: "The yearly income which might be expected to be derived from any property belonging to that person which, though capable of investment or profitable use, is not so invested or profitably used by him so as to insure the largest income which might be reasonably derived from it"?
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid that this suggestion commended itself much more to him, but he would like to consult the Treasury officials upon it, because, after all, it might involve more than he saw at the moment. He quite sympathised with the noble Viscount's views that the income should be calculated upon the largest sum the claimant could safely expect to get for his money, but if they allowed an annuity principle to come in they were dealing with part of his capital. Of course, as the noble Viscount said, a man could get 4 per cent. with perfect safety.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid that if, as he understood, the noble Viscount would consult the Treasury, he would not press the Amendment now.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYasked the Government to explain the meaning of paragraph (d), which ran:—"The yearly value of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by that person." The object of the clause was to provide that in calculating the needs of the applicant for a pension, any benefit or privilege he enjoyed was to be taken into account, and he wanted to know from the Government how they would apply that principle in the case, say, of a cottager whose house was worth 2s. a week. That would be all right if the house were worth £100, as the 2s. would fairly correspond to its value. But many landlords would not be satisfied with a cottage on their property worth only £100. They might be persons interested in the proper housing of the working classes, and they
  1136
  might put up cottages worth £200 each That would be a benefit or privilege to the occupier. There might be two old labourers, each seventy years of age, receiving equal wages or no wages at all, both paying a rent of 2s. a week, but one occupying a house worth £100 and the other occupying one worth £200. In all other respects they were in exactly; the same position. Was the proper interpretation of the Bill that the means of the man who lived in the more expensive cottage were higher than the means of the man who lived in the less expensive cottage? In that case the man who lived in the better cottage might get the worse pension. He did not know whether that was the interpretation the Government put upon the Bill, but if so it was a very unfortunate result. What it came to was that in order to get the highest possible pension the man would prefer to live in the bad cottage rather than the good cottage. The whole effect of that would be that the labourer would be in favour of bad houses rather than good houses in order to get the largest amount of pension under the scale. It all turned on the words "the yearly value of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by that person," and if that value varied according to the value of the house the result would be very unfortunate. He would, however, like the Government themselves to explain what they conceived to be the interpretation of their own clause.
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid his noble friend had put a number of conceivable cases, and he had asked the Government whether they could lay down any general rule and standard such as could tie stated then and there as to how the different pension authorities would deal with each one of the different cases he had put. No doubt it would have been very easy for each one of their Lordships to have mentioned cases out of his own experience, where circumstances varied and difficulties could be put in the way, as the noble Marquess had done. His answer to his noble friend was that the points that would arise in this case were questions of fact of which the pension officer and the pension committee, and, in the last resort, the Local

  1137
  Government Board, would have to judge. He was not saying that difficult cases would not arise, and the noble Marquess had put an exceedingly fair instance of the sort of difficulty that might be expected. The noble Marquess started by taking the case of a cottager living rent free. What, he asked, would be the manner in which the pension officer would judge a case of that kind? He (Lord Fitzmaurice) should say that the pension officer, being a local man who would be cognisant to a certain extent of the value of the house, would judge the value of it to the neighbourhood, and so on, in every case where cottages were let, as they often were, at a comparatively low rent, upon the estates of a large landowner who very often built exceedingly good cottages and let them at low rates. Those cases, no doubt, would have to be judged one by one as part of the very arduous task of the pension officer. He could not in reply to the noble Marquess lay down any general rule to show how these difficulties would be solved. They would have to be solved on the principle of solvitur ambulando. Beyond that he really did not think he could go.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYasked whether it was not a marvellous state of things that the noble Lord, who was one of the most intelligent Members of their Lordships' House, explained that he was unable to solve these great difficulties, but said: "Do not distress yourselves, there is always the exciseman in every county who is qualified to solve all these difficulties." This wonderful Imperial officer, whom the noble Lord, speaking with great humility, credited with far more intelligence than himself, was going to solve all the difficulties which the noble Lord could not approach. Was it not perfectly clear that the Government had not thought out what the provisions of this Bill were? Notwithstanding the assurance of the noble Viscount that these things had been thought out for the last twelve months, he thought the Government really had not fathomed the effects of the Bill, and were absolutely unable to give any answer to this simple conundrum. He ventured to say that the points he had raised had not occurred to the Government until he
  1138
  spoke. The Bill had gone right through the House of Commons—very ill-discussed, he admitted—and it came up to their Lordships' House at the end of July, and then the most simple question put to the Government could not be answered by them.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Marquess has paid my noble friend the compliment of having one of the finest minds in the House. I think we should pay the noble Marquess the compliment of having one of the most ingenious. In this particular instance I can assure him he is wrong. This question was very carefully considered indeed. The noble Marquess thinks that he has put us into a difficulty by mentioning the case of a house worth £100 and one worth £200. But the difficulty does not stop there. It is quite conceivable under any old-age pension scheme that an inmate of the noble Marquess' house at Hatfield might be perfectly competent to receive an old age pension. Conceive the possibility of some aged retainer of the noble Marquess who did not receive from him or from any other source an income of £30 a year. He or she would undoubtedly be qualified to receive an old-age pension, even though inhabiting the residence of the noble Marquess, which is worth a great deal more than £100 or £200.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved an Amendment with the object of discovering whether the sum paid by a son or daughter towards the support of a parent by an order of a board of guardians was to be counted in the income of a pensioner.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 6, after the word 'person,' to insert the words 'but this provision shall not include the value of the maintenance of a person by relatives who are by law compellable to maintain that person.'"—(Viscount Ridley.)
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid the Amendment on the Paper went a great deal beyond the point the noble Viscount said he wished to raise, which, if he followed him correctly, was that he wished to inquire what would happen in the case of a certain amount of poor relief finding its way into a household. The

  1139
  Amendment went a good deal beyond that and said that the yearly value of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by the person whose case was under consideration should count towards his income. That would cover a great number of cases. A man, whom he would call William Smith for the purpose of argument, might have a relative living with him who paid something towards the household expenses. That went into William Smith's pocket. As the Amendment stood it would not count in the calculation of William Smith's income, and the noble Viscount was getting distinctly within the meshes of the question of privilege, because if the Amendment were carried it was quite clear that one of the safeguards of the Bill would be knocked away, and though there might not be a great increase of expenditure it would arise in a certain number of cases. Then there was the more limited class of cases where a certain amount of money would come in from certain members of the household for payment which went, so to speak, into the common pot, and therefore went to the help of the household. He understood the noble Viscount to ask what was the intention of the Government with regard to sums of that kind. He (Lord Fitzmaurice) desired to speak rather under correction, and possibly it might be desirable that this point should be gone into on Report, but as the words stood at present he thought there could be no doubt at all that any sum of that kind would come within the meaning of the word "benefit" and would count towards income. Some people might think that hard, but no doubt the Government had had to hedge round the granting of these pensions with a great deal of precautions and limitations. Hitherto the Government in this House and elsewhere had chiefly been attacked for not having put in safeguards enough, but now and again criticism was directed against them from an exactly opposite point of view, and noble Lords wanted to knock away some of the safeguards the Government had erected.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEYsaid the noble Lord had certainly misunderstood the object of his Amendment. This case of William Smith, so far as he could understand it, certainly would not come under his Amendment, because the
  1140
  Amendment suggested the maintenance of a person by relatives who were by law compellable to maintain that person, whereas William Smith was being maintained voluntarily.
  LORD FITZMAURICE: But they might be persons compellable by law to make the payment though they were making it voluntarily.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEYsaid the case he wished to put before their Lordships was that of poor people who, by order of the guardians, had their support helped by sons or daughters with whom they lived. They might perhaps have a small income of their own, and the board of guardians might make an order for the payment of more, and he could not help thinking that it was not the intention of the Government that such sums when so ordered should count as part of the regular income.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he certainly interpreted his noble friend's Amendment in that way, though he did not think it would carry it out as it was at present worded. If it read, "shall not include any sum paid for the maintenance of a person by relatives who are by law compelled to maintain him," that would probably meet the case. He thought it would be better to postpone the point until the Report stage, because he would be sorry, and he thought his noble friend would be sorry, to include such cases as these to which the noble Lord referred.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEYsaid he would withdraw his Amendment and bring the matter up on Report.
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid that before the Amendment was withdrawn he desired on the part of the Government to reserve the question of privilege on this point, because although the amount affected was not large, there would be some increase, and therefore the question of privilege could be raised.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he could not help thinking that if the Amendment were altered in the way he suggested there would be no question

  1141
  of privilege at all, because it could not be intended by the Bill that orders of the kind referred to should be included in the income.
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid that that was not quite the point. There might be some person at the head of a household receiving sums from persons in the house which would go into the common pot, and practically be part of the income of the head of the household.
  LORD AVEBURYasked whether there was not a danger of a person having an income being handed over to his children who were compelled to maintain him.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEYasked the meaning of subsection (2) of the clause which provides that in calculating the means of a person being one of a married couple living together in the same house, the means shall not in any case be taken to be a less amount than half the total means of the couple. He asked what was the object of the provision. It might lead to very considerable hardship in certain cases. When the Bill was originally brought in, the idea was that persons entitled to pensions should not receive more than 3s. 9d. a week if they lived together, and it was altered on its being pointed out that a husband and wife would be penalised. But the effect of this would be that if they took two old people of seventy who were sisters or brothers, or no relations at all, and A had £21 a year and B £29, A would get 5s. a week and B 1s. a week, but in the case of a married couple enjoying the same respective incomes A would only receive 3s. and B 1s. If that was the effect of these words it would in certain circumstances penalise old married couples who lived together.
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid that if the noble Viscount would put down an Amendment to express his views the Government would give it consideration. They could not answer off-hand what construction could be put upon it.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEYsaid he did not desire so much to put down an Amend-
  1142
  ment, because he fully agreed that the Government could not meet every possible case arising under the Bill, but he would be satisfied if a member of the Government could tell him what the object of this particular subsection was. If the noble Viscount wished time, he would raise the question on Report.
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid that perhaps the noble Viscount would refer to it on the Report Stage.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid he was sorry that the Government took that line, because he wished to ask a question on the subsection. How were married couples going to be treated under the Bill? He took the case of an old man of seventy who had an income of £32 a year, while his wife of seventy had nothing. He would get nothing, while presumably his wife would get 5s. a week. But if each had £16 a year, making the total income of the same amount, both would come in on the lowest limit and would be entitled to the highest pension, and the household would get 10s. a week. Did the Government defend that the two households should be treated so differently in the same circumstances?
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid he must enter his protest against the noble Lord's question, as to what the Government intended. They had put all they intended into a clause and if the noble Lord was dissatisfied with their wording the legitimate mode of proceeding was for him to put down an Amendment. He had had as much, experience as the noble Marquess in Parliamentary history and never heard of such a thing as being cross-examined.
  *LORD SANDERSONasked if the noble Viscount would not say what was the meaning of the subsection. It provided that the means of one of a married couple should not be taken at loss than half the total means of that couple, yet there was no provision that the means of the other one might in certain cases be taken at less than the full amount belonging to that individual.
  VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON: It means what it says.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid he was sorry he should have incurred the rebuke of the noble Viscount. He had had the honour of sitting opposite to him for many years, and had watched his conduct of important measures, including the Local Government Bill, through the other House. In the House of Commons the noble Viscount would no more have thought of refusing to answer a question put by one of his opponents than he would have thought of flying. It was reserved for their Lordships' House to be treated in that way by the Government. He asked a perfectly respectful question. He took a perfectly simple instance and wanted to know the meaning of the Bill. If the noble Viscount objected to the point being put in the form of a question, he would make it in the form of an assertion. His point was that in precisely similar cases the pension in one would be 5s. a week and in the other double that amount. Whatever their opinion might be as to the policy of old-age pensions all would agree that the Bill ought to be a fair one. That was why he did not very much care for the Bill, though he had done his best in anything he had said to put the Bill into proper shape.
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid that nobody had complained of the way in which the question was put or of his noble friend illustrating his view by stating a concrete case. His noble friend had said that, as there was no Amendment on the Paper, his attention had not been specially drawn to the concrete case which had been put forward, and, therefore, he asked that he might be allowed to give an answer on the Report Stage. That was all. The case stated by his noble friend was a reasonable one, so far as he had been able to follow his argument. He must confess he was not aware that on this subsection these points were going to be raised, and, therefore, he was not so fully prepared on these points as on others. All these points, the Committee would agree, especially when they worked them out by mathematical calculation, were extremely complicated, and it would be fairer to his noble friend to give his answers on the Report stage, when
  1144
  they would be able, he had no doubt' to give complete answers to the perfectly legitimate points raised by the noble Lord.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEYsaid that so far as he was concerned, he would be perfectly satisfied to defer the Amendment to the Report stage, but he would point out the extreme difficulty in which the House was placed. The Bill was only brought into their Lordships' House a few days ago and there had been very little time to put down Amendments, and he desired to ask for information concerning rather an important subsection in order that, if he thought fit, he might put down an, Amendment before the Report stage was reached. That would be impossible if he did not get the information until then. Considering the amount of time the Government spokesmen had been giving to the details of the Bill, he could not help feeling sorry that they had not been able to give him information upon a subsection which at any rate, needed explanation.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7:
  LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON moved to add that if the pension committee, after the receipt of the report of the pension officer upon a claim or question referred to him, do not, within the time prescribed, proceed to give their decision on the matter, the recommendation or opinion of the pension officer shall, as far as practicable, be treated as a decision of the pension committee. They wished, he said, that the pension committee, when application was made either for the granting of a pension or the forfeiting of a pension that had been already granted, should not put it aside and do nothing. It was possible that the pension officer's report might not contain anything like a decision either in favour of or against the applicant or claim. Therefore, there might not be any decision. He admitted that his Amendment was not perfect, but it was lucidity itself compared to the Amendment next on the

  1145
  Paper in the name of the noble Viscount. There were complaints that the pension committee would do nothing, but the noble Viscount proposed that there should be an appeal against their decision. That was exactly the defect. The Bill provided that when they came to a decision the pension officer and any person aggrieved might appeal to the central pension authority against the decision of the local committee. It seemed to be a strange misapplication of language to say that they were also to appeal when there was no decision. He did not understand how any human being could perform the operation of appealing against a blank. What the noble Viscount and he himself both desired was that when a pension committee did nothing the central authority should be in a position to hear the question and to decide it, putting the pension committee entirely aside when that committee refused to do its duty. He suggested that if the noble Viscount would leave out all the words from the word "may" and insert "apply to the central pension authority to consider and finally decide such claim or question which the said last-mentioned authority shall have power to do," that would meet the case. He would withdraw his Amendment if the noble Viscount would say he would consider the matter so that on the Report stage they might decide as to the form of words whic wouldh carry out the common intention they both entertained.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 11, after the word 'question,' to insert the following new subsection: '() If the pension committee after the receipt of the aforesaid report do not within the time prescribed proceed to give their decision on the claim or question so reported upon, the recommendation or opinion of the pension officer as expressed in his report shall, as far as practicable, be deemed and taken to be a decision of the pensions committee upon the same, and shall be acted upon and treated accordingly.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONwas glad the noble Lord had understood his meaning in the clause which had been drafted and put down. They were perfectly agreed as to what the evil was which the noble Lord feared, and perfectly agreed also that it should be
  1146
  checked. It was a question simply of which machinery was the best. He would adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord and hoped that before the Report stage they would have arrived at the best means of dealing with what would be a very serious evil unless dealt with.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 20, after the word 'them,' to insert, 'If a local pension committee refuse or neglect to consider any claim for a pension or to determine any question within a reasonable time, any person who would have the right under this provision to appeal against the decision of the local pension committee may appeal as if the pension committee had given such a decision.'"—(Viscount Wolverhampton.)
  On question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON moved to provide that a member of the committee who disapproved of the decision should be deemed to be a party aggrieved. The object was, he said, to make it clear what was meant by the words "person aggrieved.'' Apparently the appeal was practically confined to the pension officer and to the applicant whose claim was refused or who was held to be disqualified. That was a most unsatisfactory position. He did not want to go into the position which the pension officer would have to occupy in very many parts of Ireland. Viscount St. Aldwyn had said that the pension officer would be the watchdog of the Treasury. In the West of Ireland he wished no dog an unhappier fate than would be the fate of a pension officer who decided against a popular man or in favour of an unpopular man. He should think the famous "dirty dog," or a dog sent out into a street filled with his enemies, and with a tin-kettle on his tail, would have a peaceful, dignified, and happy life compared with that of the pension officer who decided on the lines of which he had spoken. He thought the member of a committee who disapproved of the decision at which the committee had arrived should be deemed to be a person aggrieved within the meaning of the section, and should have a right to appeal to the central authority against their decision. Everyone desired to have an administration of

  1147
  the Act which was pure, efficient, and carried on with ordinary celerity. To expect a pension officer to appeal against a popular decision, however unjust, was absurd.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 20, to add the words, "That a member of the committee who disapproves of the decision shall be deemed to be a party aggrieved within the meaning of the Act.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONthought the Amendment would require a little consideration and might be allowed to stand over. He would like to know what the Irish Office thought of it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8:
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE moved an Amendment to provide that the majority of the local pension committee (a pointed by the council of the borough, district, or county, and, according to the clause, the persons appointed need not be members of the council) should consist of members of the appointing council. The clause was, he said, an important one, as he understood, that, although practically the local pension committee would not have the means of administering any public funds, it would practically be on their advice that the lists of these to whom pensions were ultimately given would be compiled. He understood, however, that the ultimate decision on the matter was still in the hands of the Government so far as the regulations were concerned. The point he wished to raise was this: Under the clause as it now stood the councils, either borough, urban or district, were placed in a position of trust, and had to act with the Government in finding out who were eligible for the pensions. At one time it was an axiom of the Liberal Party that taxation and representation should go together. By the present Act they were placing the control of vast sums of money in the hands of individuals who certainly had not been elected by any constituency of any description for the purpose of
  1148
  administering those funds. All he asked was that the authority to which they gave these far-reaching extensive powers should have some responsibility cast upon them and should not, in the words of the Act, have the power of delegating the whole of their authority to some committee of whose constitution they had no knowledge whatever. Therefore he made the suggestion that any committee which might be appointed by these different authorities should have at any rate a majority of the appointing committee serving on it.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 30, after the word 'county' to insert the words 'and shall consist either wholly or partly of members of the appointing council, but the members of such council shall be a majority of the whole committee.'"—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid he could quite realise that when his noble friend moved the Amendment he had perhaps some feelings running in his mind similar to these which animated Mr. Pitt when, on a celebrated occasion, thinking that his great rival, Mr. Fox, had made a mistake, he said he would "un-Whig" him. He quite felt that it was difficult for them on the Liberal side of the House to appear to resist an Amendment of the kind moved, even if it were moved from the Opposition side of the House, based as it was upon an appeal to the great canons of popular representation, and indeed to a strict application of what he might call democratic doctrine. The noble Duke objected to the Bill as it stood because the pension committee might consist of outsiders, and was in no manner compelled to have upon it a majority of members of the actual appointing authority, the county council, and no doubt he would say that there he was standing upon essentially Liberal ground, a strong Liberal foundation, and he (the speaker) was the very last person to regret seeing the noble Duke standing on these grounds. But, notwithstanding, he could not help thinking that there were some reasons for leaving the Bill as it stood. The other day the noble Viscount, Viscount St. Aldwyn, dwelt upon what he thought was the great difficulty and future danger of county government, namely, that year after year Parliament went on piling new duties upon

  1149
  those bodies until they were almost breaking down under the burden. That was most true. Not a year passed by without very complicated duties of a burdensome character being put upon the county councils, and all that work had to be done by committees. They had to man their committees, and must man them with men who were able to attend, for it was essential to have continuity of policy, and, therefore, the presence of people who were able to give their time to the work. He could not help fearing that, bearing in mind the enormous increase of work placed in recent years upon county councils, if they were to throw upon those bodies the duty of finding the greater portion of the members of these committees they might be getting into a very considerable practical difficulty. He might perhaps point out to the Committee that there was a very great difference between this committee and many other committees of local bodies such as county and borough councils that had been appointed, because in all those other committees Parliament had very wisely insisted upon a majority of the members of a committee consisting of members of the council. The county council had been administering funds which, if not wholly, had in any case in part come out of the local rates, but that was not at all so in the present case. The county council would be administering Imperial funds, and he took it that what a county council ought really to try to do was to pick out men who were skilled administrators. They ought to look a great deal towards the example of the German municipalities. A very great portion of local administration in Germany was carried out by experts, appointed and selected by the local authority, but not necessarily members of the appointing body. They were a mixture of the permanent official such as was known in this country and of the local member, because they were selected from persons living in the areas in which the committee had to act. Therefore, he was not inclined to think that he was really offending against sound Liberal doctrines when he said that in this case the balance of argument was contrary to the proposal of his noble friend, although he thought it was not at all an unnatural thing to consider or to discuss,
  1150
  and he hoped, whatever the decision of the Committee might be it would see that the Government, in making this proposal, had been animated, not by distrust of popular representation, but simply by the desire to obtain the best practical machinery for carrying out the exceedingly difficult and important duties it would have to perform.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON moved an Amendment to make a Metropolitan borough and the City of London the authority under the section by which the local pension committee is appointed. The Amendment, was, he said, one of those that had the misfortune to come under the guillotine in another place, and he imagined the Government would be prepared to accept it. He believed the intention was that the London County Council should nominate all these pension committees, and he submitted it was highly desirable over so great an area that the committees should be nominated by the borough councils which were representative of very large masses of the inhabitants, and had a much greater local knowledge as well as being the authorities for such business as appointing distress committees. The committees ought to deal with the present matter, which involved Imperial and not local funds, direct with the controlling body and not through the machinery of the county council. He suggested that the present system could only result in the whole work being done by inter-communication between them.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 30, after the word 'county' to insert the words 'for the purpose of this subsection the expression "borough" means and includes a metropolitan borough and the City of London.'"—(Viscount Midleton.)
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid that in London there was a strong difference of opinion, and so far as the Government were able to form any impression of what the view of Parliament was it seemed to be most decidedly in favour of the county council being the authority in London. So far as efficiency of administration was concerned in London, he certainly thought it would be better

  1151
  —it had proved to be so in educational matters—that the county council should be supreme and not the borough council. Therefore the Government could not assent to the Amendment.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONthought it was laying upon the County Council of London a duty which they could not hope to perform satisfactorily. They could not force the borough councils to undertake the duties, and if they themselves had throughout this vast area to find local pension committees where they themselves had not the local acquaintance which the borough council had, it would really mean putting upon them not only a duty which they could not satisfactorily discharge, but an amount of correspondence and work which they would be most unwilling to undertake. Certainly in a matter of this magnitude he should have thought the Corporation of the City of London would have been the proper authority within the boundaries of the City. He asked the House to consider the Amendment further.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE moved to insert a new subsection providing that the Local Government Board should have power to appoint such persons as they should select not exceeding three in number to serve as ex-officio members of any local pension committee. He understood that these committees were at present capable of being entirely appointed by the different county authorities, but the Amendment in his name simply gave the power of appointing to serve on those committees two or three gentlemen whom the Local Government Board thought fit. They had but little experience as to what these pension committees might lead them into, and the Amendment was a safeguard against either mal-administration or failure on the part of these nominated bodies to carry out the intentions of the Act.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, to leave out lines 31, 32, and 33, and to insert the following new subsection: 'The Local Government Board may have power to appoint such persons as they shall select, not
  1152
  exceeding three in number, to serve as ex-officio members of any local pension committee.'"—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
  LORD ATKINSONsaid he had on the Paper an Amendment which had the same object. Probably this was the first time in the course of English legislation that a body that did not represent those who supplied the funds were given the power to spend them in the way the pension committees were in this Bill. He had no doubt that the committees would be most generous in the expenditure of these funds. It was absolutely necessary that experts should be employed, and in that he agreed with the noble Viscount, Viscount Wolverhampton. Where they differed was as to the person who was to nominate the expert. The noble Viscount had said that the expert ought to be nominated by the pension committee, whilst he suggested that he should be nominated by a Government Department in some way representing the taxpayer who would really have the paving for all the operations carried on by the pension committee over which, that taxpayer had no control whatever. It would also ensure that there would be somebody on the committee to stand up for the pension officer; to argue and support his report and to defend his action if necessary. If that was not done no person outside would know why a report was ignored. In addition to that there would be somebody who would be able to bring the proceedings in committee on appeal to the central authority. He could see no reasonable objection that could be urged against the Amendment. It was not opposed to any principle of taxation and representation. On the contrary, it carried out that principle, for an expert appointed by the Local Government Board would more truly represent the Imperial taxpayer than the members of the county council who represented the ratepayer, and in no way represented the Imperial taxpayer whose money they had to spend.
  LORD FITZMAURICEthought the Committee would have come to the conclusion that this particular question was really an Irish question. They had had put before them by the noble Lord, Lord Atkinson, certain special dangers which might arise in certain districts in

  1153
  Ireland in regard to the conduct of the pension committees. Assuming that those arguments were sound, that those kinds of difficulties might arise in particular places owing to party, local, religious, or personal feelings, he was bound to think that that difficulty was really met by giving a claimant to a pension the right of going on appeal to the Local Government Board, if the pension committee refused, for instance, to meet and thereby to do justice to the individual. But while such a course as that proposed by the noble Duke and the noble Lord might be desirable in some parts of the West of Ireland, to give this really gigantic power to the Local Government Board all over the country would be an exceedingly difficult and invidious power to exercise. If the Local Government Board exercised it generally a great cry would arise that the Government were not trusting the local committees, and if they did not trust the local committees on the ground that those committees were not fit to deal with Imperial funds they had better not have appointed them at all, but simply have put the matter into the hands of officers—Excise officers or other officers who might be appointed. Then, on the other hand, if they picked out particular places—he was speaking generally, in the light of English experience—it would still be an exceedingly difficult thing, because it would give rise to great controversy and comment, to complaints that different places were being treated in different ways, and the Local Government Board would be called upon to justify the appointment of the representatives. They would be asked, for example, if something had gone wrong, or whether they suspected something wrong or improper was going to be done in particular districts. The Local Government Board would be brought into constant collision with the county authorities. He did not see that there was any halfway house between appointing these county councils and trusting them or doing what would have been a perfectly conceivable alternative, namely, saying that as these funds were Imperial funds they were to be entirely administered by Imperial officers. The Bill was, he admitted, to a certain extent, a compromise, because they had brought in an Imperial officer in the shape
  1154
  of an Excise officer. On the other hand, the noble Duke and the noble Lord wished to go further in bringing in the Imperial element, not in the representative of the Treasury alone, in the person of the Excise officer, but also the Local Government Board. That, he was inclined to think, was pushing things rather too far. In any case the Government, having made up their minds to start by giving the full confidence, subject to the control in the Bill, to the county and borough committees, were not in a position to accept these two Amendments or either of them. At the same time, if there were districts in Ireland where the difficulties described might arise, that would be met by the provision giving the claimant power to go by the pension committee and appeal to the Local Government Board. He hoped that in any ease at starting the pensions that would be sufficient to remedy any difficulty that might arise in the West of Ireland.
  LORD ATKINSONsaid the noble Lord had misunderstood the Amendment. Its object was to protect the Imperial taxpayer. There was no difficulty whatever in carrying out the administration of Ireland, in the Local Government Board appointing as their officer a Poor Law inspector who did exactly for every Board of Guardians in Ireland what he would be asked to do under the Amendment, namely, to attend to give the people the benefit of his advice and to prevent abuses, corruption and extravagance.
  *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid they did not consider that this was purely an. Irish question. It was a question of importance to Imperial taxpayers in England, Scotland, and Ireland. The proposal under the Bill was the strange one of allowing local committees appointed by local authorities full scope in the expenditure of Imperial funds. He looked upon that as a dangerous proposition, especially when they all knew that it would be to the interest of these local authorities to transfer certain Poor Law charges from the rates to the Exchequer. The Government had thought fit to empower county and borough councils to appoint these committees. What had the county and borough

  1155
  councils to do with the matter at all? They did not find the funds. The only reason was that they possessed the local knowledge which would enable them to choose more easily the pension committees than the Local Government Board could do. What was asked now was that the Local Government Board which represented the taxpayer should have some voice on these pension committees in defence of the taxpayer. They were to appoint not more than three members of such committees. This was characterised as a gigantic power on the part of the Local Government Board. He had really never heard an assertion which appeared to him more absurd, because all that it would involve was that there should be some representation of the taxpayer on bodies which almost naturally would be rather antagonistic to the interests of the taxpayer. He hoped that one of the Amendments would be pressed to a division, because he was quite sure something of the sort ought to be embodied in the Bill.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: Two entirely separate questions are involved in this Amendment. What is spoken of as the Irish side of the question appears to us to depend upon the possibility that some person might be deprived of a pension because for some reason or other he was locally unpopular, and that the pension officer would be debarred by threats from doing his part in representing the case. The other side of the case is the one which has been alluded to by the noble Viscount, Viscount St. Aldwyn, who feared that pension officers would, be too easy-going, and that being local people their tendency would be to transfer charges where they could from the rates to the taxes. I admit at once that the county council, as such, have no locus standi in this matter at all. They nave no more power to decide the allocation of this money than any other body of taxpayers. They are selected to choose these committees because they have local knowledge and a very real and substantial position in a particular locality. The committees, it is hoped, will be composed of what are sometimes called people of "good-will," people who are willing to give their time and trouble without remuneration to the
  1156
  service of local duties in their own neighbourhood. It is perfectly true, as the noble Viscount has said, that there may be a temptation on the part of those people to be too easy-going in admitting cases, but when the noble Viscount said that they have an unrestricted power of allocating public money he cannot have read the Bill. The allocation in every case is subject to the consent of the pension officer, who, of course, represents the taxpayer. It is perfectly arguable that the pension officer by himself may not be strong enough to-resist the committee, and ought to be strengthened. The noble and learned Lord suggested that the Local Government Board would put its inspectors on these committees. There are, of course, not enough inspectors of the Local Government Board to go round to all the committees to the number of three in each, so you come to this difficulty, that the only people the Local Government Board could nominate are people who will be subject to precisely the same limitations as members of the pensions committee. They could not all be officers, because the officers do not exist, but they will have to be some nominated people in the neighbourhood Those people will be subject to exactly the same temptation to save the rates and impose on the taxes. The mere fact that they are nominated by the Local Government Board will not remove, that.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved an Amendment to provide that the local pension committees should be so constituted as; to contain representatives of the other local authorities within their area. He said that the object of the Amendment was that certain members of the pension, committees should be men of local knowledge and men belonging to the minor order of local authorities. This part of the clause appeared to him to be so widely drawn that it might result in the whole local pension committee being appointed from outside the areas of the pension committee. Consequently, no member of the committee would be in any way acquainted with the locality or its people. Personally, he would have

  1157
  preferred that a very large number of these committees should have been members of local authorities, but he had contented himself with suggesting that some, at all events, of the minor local authorities should be represented on the committees. It was true that any county council would probably wish to appoint such men, but the second part of the clause said that they need not do so, and in fact appeared to imply that it would be better if they did not do so at all. He knew that was not the intention of the Government, because although the clause was not discussed in another place, yet in answer to a deputation the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed himself as being entirely in sympathy with the idea that members of the guardians should be unofficially upon these committees. He went as far as that with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but also one step farther, when he suggested that the other local authorities, such as the parish council, should also be represented. It was of extreme importance that these committees should have sufficient local knowledge to deal with many of the difficult and oftentimes delicate questions which would come before them.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert the words 'Each local pension committee should be so constituted as to contain representatives of the other local authorities within their area.'"—(Lord Clinton.)
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid the proposals of the Bill were in reality to a certain extent a compromise, and he did not think the Government could go beyond the stage that they had reached in regard to recognising local information. They had heard a good deal of criticism for which no doubt theoretically a very great deal could be said, but with all respect for local government he thought that in a matter of this kind it would be going a very great deal too far to bring in representatives of not only what were known as the minor local authorities, but of the boards of guardians and even of the parish council, and might give rise to very considerable confusion. Anybody who had sat on a board of guardians knew that one of the very great
  1158
  difficulties of Poor Law administration, unless the chairman of the board happened to be a very strong man and had one or two members to back him up, was the tendency of each parochial representative to look after what he called his "own poor." That very often took the shape of a guardian coming into the room, and after doing what he thought was his duty, "looking after his own poor," going away and leaving the remaining guardians to do likewise. That was how mal-administration and jobbery arose. If they desired this pension scheme to work well they must take every precaution against anything of that kind happening, and for that reason the Government, when they decided to trust local authorities, selected the large authorities, leaving them to be the masters of the persons to whom they were delegates, and he sincerely hoped that in practice the county councils and other bodies would make up their minds to rise a little superior to the ordinary British prejudice against what was called the expert. There was nothing in the world so difficult as administering poor relief, and this would also be an exceedingly difficult duty. In fact a man might almost devote a very great portion of his life to attaining the know ledge which was necessary to administer matters of this kind faithfully and skilfully. There was another objection to the proposal, namely, that by bringing in the representatives of boards of guardians as such——
  LORD CLINTON: I did not bring them in by name.
  LORD FITZMAURICEpointed out that local authorities would include boards of guardians. They all desired to keep the administration of the pensions and the Poor Law entirely distinct. If there was any member of a board of guardians who from long experience had become an expert in the subject he felt convinced that the county and borough council would not require any spurring to call in their assistance.
  *LORD LANSDOWNE: I quite agree that these committees should be strengthened, but I cannot help thinking that there are practical objections in the way

  1159
  of this proposal. The proposal makes it obligatory upon the county councils to include on the local pensions committees representatives of every local authority within their areas. It would be obligatory under those words to include members of the minor councils and also of the boards of guardians, and I think there is force in the objection that this Bill desires to keep the administration of the Poor Law entirely distinct from the administration of the pension law. I am afraid, therefore, that if this Amendment were to be inserted in the Bill it would give rise to a good deal of complication and trouble, and I respectfully suggest that my noble friend had better not press it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO moved the omission of the words "either absolutely or under such conditions as they think fit," from the provision giving local pension committees the power to delegate to sub-committees powers and duties of the local pensions committee. He submitted that the words were not the least necessary, and if they were left out the subsection would have exactly the same effect as if they were in.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, lines 37 and 38, to leave out the words 'either absolutely or under such conditions as they think fit.'"—(The Earl of Mayo.)
  LORD FITZMAURICEthought there would be no difficulty in proving that the words ought to be left in. In the first place there was precedent for them. He was practically certain that the same words would be found in the Education Act of 1902, in regard to the delegation clause under which practically the education of the country was carried on. Considerable trouble arose at one time in the working of the Local Government Board Acts, because there were certain powers there which it was stated could be delegated, and some great lawyers took the view that delegation, if not qualified, was absolute and irrevocable. That danger was to be guarded against. What the words really did
  1160
  was that they enabled the county council to delegate and at the same time to remain members of their own delegation. If the words were left out, there might be considerable danger of unqualified delegation, putting the county council or other authority in the position of having parted with some of their powers and rendering it difficult for them to get them back.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE moved to add, at the end of subsection (2), which ran—
  "(2) A local pension committee may appoint I such and so many sub-committees, consisting either wholly or partly of the members of the committee as the committee think fit, and a local pension committee may delegate, either absolutely or under such conditions as they think; fit, to any such sub-committee any powers and duties of the local pension committee under this Act"—the words" other than the power to give a decision on a claim within the meaning of this Act."'
  He moved this Amendment in the hope that the power of actually dealing with claims might be reserved to the pension committee. The sum of £7,000,000 was I delegated by the Treasury to the local authorities. Those local authorities had power to appoint a committee, and this committee in its turn was empowered to appoint a sub-committee which would possess absolutely every power conferred: upon the local pension committee by the Bill. Thus it would be possible for the local pension committee to delegate all or any of its powers, either absolutely or under such conditions as they might think fit, to this sub-committee. It would be possible, under this clause, for the pension committee to delegate the power of granting pensions to the vicar and churchwardens. He did not know whether such a provision would commend itself to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His Amendment would leave full discretion to the sub-committee to gather information and collect as much material as possible to enable the local pension committee to arrive at a decision, but the giving of the decision would rest with the responsible local pension committee.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 40, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'other than the power

  1161
  to give a decision on a claim within the meaning of this Act.'"(The Duke of Devonshire.)
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid that, if it was thought that the pension committee were going to act in the manner proposed, they ought not to give them these powers at all. It was surely a fair thing to assume that bodies of this kind would act in a reasonable manner. He could not imagine any county or borough authority with which he was acquainted acting in the way suggested, merely because the funds with, which they would be concerned did not come from the local rates but from the Imperial Exchequer. Therefore he thought the precautions proposed to be taken quite unnecessary. If they could not trust these committees, the only rational alternative would be not to give them the powers at all.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 40, alter the word 'Act,' to insert the following new subsection: '() The Local Government Board may appoint any person or any persons not exceeding three in number to be a member or members of any local pensions committee, or of any sub-committee appointed by the latter, who shall, when appointed, have all the rights of ordinary members of such committees.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9:
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 7, after the word 'obtaining,' to insert the words 'or continuing.'"—(Viscount Wolverhampton.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 8, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'either for himself or for any other person, or for the purpose of obtaining or continuing an old-age pension under this Act for himself or for any other person at a higher rate than that appropriate to the case."'—(Viscount Wolverhampton.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to add words in the same subsection to
  1162
  meet an obvious omission, and said he understood the Amendment was accepted by the Government.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 9, after the word 'misrepresentation,' to insert the words 'or if it appears that any person has directly or indirectly deprived himself of any income or property in order to qualify himself for the receipt of an old-age pension, or for the receipt of an old-age pension at a higher rate than that to which he would otherwise be entitled under this Act.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONaccepted the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON moved the insertion of a new subsection. He said that as the Bill stood nobody was interested in making an inquiry to ascertain whether the recipient of the pension had ceased to be qualified to receive it. Subsection 2 provided that—
  "If it is found at any time that a person has been in receipt of an old-age pension under this Act while the statutory conditions were not fulfilled in his case or while he was disqualified for receiving the pension, he, or in the case of his death, his personal representative, shall be liable to repay to the Treasury any sums paid to him in respect of the pension while the statutory conditions were not fulfilled, or while he was disqualified for receiving the pension, and the amount of those sums may be recovered as a debt due to the Crown."
  But there was no person or tribunal whose duty it was to make the inquiry. His Amendment met that point, and placed the duty of making the inquiry upon the pension officer. If that were not done, he failed to see the value of the disqualifying clauses. Unless this duty were imposed upon somebody the inquiry would not be made, and a person once in receipt of a pension might easily continue to receive it though he had become disqualified.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 11, after the word 'labour,' to insert the following new subsection: '() The pension officer may at any time, without the matter having been referred to him, call upon and require a person in receipt of an old-age pension to establish that he has not since the same was granted to him become disqualified to receive it, and the pension

  1163
  officer shall inquire into the matter of the pensioner's disqualification and report on the same to the pension committee, who shall receive and, as far as applicable, act upon the said report as if it were a report received under the provisions of Clause 7, subsection (7).'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONthought this a case that might be left to be met by the regulations.
  *LORD HAVERSHAMsupported the Amendment and said he had received a letter from Sir John Young, for many years Secretary of the Royal Patriotic, Fund, with whom he served for fifteen years as a member of the Executive of the Patriotic Fund, in which he stated that it was of the utmost importance that there should be personal visits by the pension officer to the pensioners. The areas allotted to the pension officers should not, therefore, be too large. He hoped there would be stringent regulations on this matter, and that every pensioner changing his residence should notify it to the pensions officers.
  LORD ATKINSONwarned the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill that he was taking a very dangerous step in embarking upon the task of giving jurisdiction by regulations. He admitted that it was possible to draft regulations as to the mode in which jurisdiction should be exercised,; it was a very different matter to attempt to give jurisdiction by regulations.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 10:
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to insert a new subsection providing for the laying of the regulations before Parliament. He said it was not without considerable hesitation that he had adopted the period of twenty-one days in his Amendment, but, in the circumstances, it would, perhaps, be sufficient to give Parliament an opportunity of examining, and, if necessary, objecting to the regulations. He was surprised that the Government had not inserted in the
  1164
  Bill some provision akin to this, because the whole administration of the Bill depended upon regulations. If Parliament were not to insist upon having the regulations laid upon the Table and did not take power, if necessary, to object to them, then he thought Parliament would be surrendering a most valuable power.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 7, line 17, after subsection (2) to insert the following new subsection: '(3) Every regulation under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such regulation is laid before it, praying that the regulation may be annulled. His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONaccepted the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to
  Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Standing Committee negatived.
  The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 189.)

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS DUTIES) BILL.
  SEED POTATOES AND SEED OATS SUPPLY (IRELAND) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a to-morrow.
  WHALE FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL.
  POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (MERCANTILE CORPORATIONS AND COMPANIES) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  COMMONS BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order.)
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, at the request of Lord Fortescue and the men of Devon I have to ask the House to allow me to insert an Amendment. Subsection (9) of Clause 1 provides that the expression "animals" shall mean "horses, asses, cattle, sheep, and swine." The men of Devon are anxious to add goats.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 17, after the word 'sheep,' to insert the word 'goats.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  CORONERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  PROVISIONAL ORDERS (PROCEDURE) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL.
  Debate on the Motion for Second Reading resumed (according to order).
  THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: My Lords, I understand that the noble and
  1166
  learned Lord on the Woolsack is satisfied on the point of law raised in this Bill, and I therefore hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

  POLLING DISTRICTS AND REGISTRA- TION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL. UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bills reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived, and Bills to be read 3a To-morrow.

  GRAND JURY (IRELAND) ACT, 1836, AMENDMENT BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, this is a Bill of a non-contentious character which I do not think requires any lengthy explanation. Its object is to amend Section 67 of the Grand Jury (Ireland) Act, 1836, with respect to piers, quays, and other works, and for other purposes connected therewith, and it provides that the maximum sum which the council of a county may resolve to levy off the county for any work undertaken under the section shall be raised from £300 to £1,500. 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.

  BATTLESHIPS, ARMOURED CRUISERS, AND DESTROYERS.
  Return respecting; laid before the House (pursuant to Order of this day), and to be printed. (No. 190.)
  House adjourned at ten minutes past Twelve o'clock a.m., till a quarter past Four o'clock p.m.