Sitting of 10 March 1908

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Greystones Gas Bill (by Order). Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.—(The Deputy Chairman.)
Mullingar, Kells, and Drogheda Railway Bill. Order [6th March] that the Report of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn. —(The Deputy Chairman.)

PETITIONS.
  LICENSED PREMISES (EXCLUSION OF CHILDREN).
  Petitions for legislation: From Crossgates; and Upper Norwood; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against: From Bristol; and Market Drayton; to lie upon the Table.
  PURE BEER.
  Petition from Hawkhurst, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Bromley; Croydon; Lingfield; Salford; and Tunstall; to lie upon the Table.
  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Redhill Reigate (two); South Kensington; and Wandsworth; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Report on the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Royal
  1282
  Colleges of Science and of Art, the Geological Survey and Mseuum, and on the work of the Solar Physics Committee for the year 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  LIGHTHOUSES, &c. (LOCAL INSPECTIONS)
  Copies presented, of Reports to the Board of Trade by the Trinity House of Deptford Strond, the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, and the Commissioners of Irish Lights, of their Inspection of Local Lighthouses, Buoys and Beacons [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 85.]
  MINES AND QUARRIES (SHAFT ACCIDENTS AT CERTAIN COLLIERIES).
  Copy presented, of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Professor R. A. S. Redmayne, M.Sc, M.I.M.E., F.G.S., on the causes of, and circumstances attending, the Shaft Accidents which occurred at the Foggs, Barrow, and Rawdon Collieries on 4th October, and 15th and 18th November, 1907, respectively [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EXPLOSION AT LORD ASHTOWN'S LODGE, GLENAHLERY, COUNTY WATERFORD.
  Copy presented, of (1) the Report of District-Inspector Preston, Royal Irish Constabulary, to the Police Authorities dated 7th September, 1907; (2) The Statement of District-Inspector Preston dated 11th September, 1907, furnished to Lord Ashtown, to the County Council of Waterford, and to the Rural District Council of Clonmel, No. 2; and (3). The Statement of Sergeant Rielly, dated 22nd August, 1907, furnished to the same parties, and referred to in the Statement of District-Inspector Preston, dated 11th September, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POSTAL AGREEMENT (SURINAM).
  Copy presented, of Additional Articles to the Agreement, dated 29th April-7th November, 1906, for the Exchange of Money Orders between the Post Office of Great Britain and Ireland and the Post Office of the Dutch Colony of Surinam, dated the 11th December, 1907–13th February, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Local Auditor at Gibraltar.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the local auditor at Gibraltar, who is the son of the Comptroller and Auditor-General's private secretary, passed any qualifying examination, general or technical, or was able to produce any academic credentials, before entering the service; and, if so, why was it necessary to prolong, at expense to Imperial funds, the visit for local test purposes of an experienced auditor from England so that the local auditor at Gibraltar might receive belated instruction in duties which could have been safely entrusted to any one of a number of really competent members of the Exchequer and Audit Department.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am informed that the present local auditor at Gibraltar was appointed to the Colonial Audit Branch in 1891, under the arrangements in force at that time, by the then Comptroller and Auditor-General, who satisfied himself as to the qualifications of the candidate. The selection has been fully justified, as he has discharged his duties to the complete satisfaction of the successive heads of the Department. The duties of the local auditor at Gibraltar are mainly connected with the audit of the accounts of the Colony and only a limited portion of his time is available for the audit of the dockyard accounts. Owing to the great increase in the work at the dockyard at Gibraltar, it was considered necessary to send out an additional auditor last summer for some weeks, and for the same reason it has now been found essential to provide as a permanency, additional clerical assistance in the audit of the naval accounts at that station.

  Thomas Dixon and Company and the Belfast Harbour Commissioners' Contract.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the firm of Thomas S. Dixon and Company, Limited, are contractors to the Belfast Harbour Commissioners; if so, whether he could state the nature and amount of the
  1284
  contract, the date on which it was entered upon, and the names of the directors, the date of registration, and principal shareholders of the company; whether one of the directors of the company is Sir Thomas J. Dixon, Baronet; whether Sir Thomas Dixon was present at any of the meetings of the Commissioners where the contract was discussed or has been present at any of their meetings since; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter with a view to enforcing the penalties for such action provided under The Commissioners Clauses Act, 1847.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I am informed by the Belfast Harbour Commissioners that the circumstances were as follows: The Commissioners hiving, in accordance with their usual practice, advertised for tenders for the supply of stores, received a large number whereof that of Messrs. T. S. Dixon and Company, Limited, was the lowest for cement and slates, and was accordingly accepted on 3rd December last. Sir Thomas Dixon, who is chairman of the company, was not present at any meeting when these contracts were discussed, and, on learning what had happened, and previous to any orders being issued to that firm or any deliveries being made upon the contracts, he requested the Commissioners to cancel such contracts, and undertook to indemnify the Commissioners against any extra cost incurred in obtaining the supplies elsewhere. The Commissioner acceded to this request, and Sir Thomas. Dixon has since attended meetings of the Harbour Board.

  Mr. James M'Connell and the Belfast Harbour Commissioners' Contract.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Mr. James M'Connell, a member of the Belfast Harbour Trust, is the chairman and managing director of the firm of W. D. Henderson and Sons, Limited, and a shareholder therein to the extent of £9,930, out of a total nominal capital share of £10,000; whether this firm is or has been a contractor, sub-contractor, or agent for the supply of cement to the Harbour Commissioners; if so, what amount has been paid to this

  1285
  firm by the Commissioners since 8th July, 1903; and whether, in view of the 9th section of the Commissioners Clauses Act of 1847, which provides that there shill be no conflict of interest between a commissioner in his official capacity and a commissioner in his individual capacity, he proposes, after due inquiry, to take steps to have the full penalty provided under the 15th Section of the Act referred to enforced in this instance.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I am informed by the Belfast Harbour Board that Mr. James M'Connell is a director and presumably a shareholder in the firm of W. D. Henderson and Sons, Limited, but that this company has not to the knowledge of the Harbour Board been at any time a contractor, sub-contractor, or agent for the supply of cement or any other goods to the board, or received any payment from them since 8th July, 1903, or previously.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Mr. James M'Connell was a member of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners on 31st August, 1903, when the contract of Walter Scott and Middleton, Limited, for £206,000 odd was accepted by the Commissioners in connection with the construction of the new graving dock at Belfast, and took an active part in dealing with the tenders submitted; that on the 8th July, 1903, Mr. M'Connell's business was formed into a limited liability company, with a share capital of £10,000, £9,930 worth of which was held by him; that all the cement required for the dock has been supplied through this limited company, which trade under the style and title of W. D. Henderson and Sons, Limited; that the adulterant of Kentish ragstone has been used in the cement so supplied, contrary to the terms of the specification; and, if so, whether he will take steps to ensure that the provisions of the Commissioners Clauses Act of 1847, prohibiting a commissioner from participating in the benefit of any contract with the trust are duly enforced.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I am informed that Mr. James M'Connell was
  1286
  a member of the Belfast Harbour Board on 31st August, 1903, when the tender referred to was received, but that he was not present at any of the three meetings of the Commissioners when the contract was accepted and such acceptance confirmed. I do not know when his business was turned into a limited, liability company, what its capital is, or how many shares he holds. The Commissioners state that they understand that Messrs. Walter Scott and Middleton, Limited, the contractors for the new graving dock, procure their cement largely, if not wholly, from the Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers, Limited, that each delivery of cement is accompanied with a certificate from the manufacturers as to its quality, and that the Commissioners employ a special expert to inspect and test each delivery of cement, in accordance with the requirements of the contract.

  Scottish and Welsh Historical Monuments.
  MR. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: To ask the Prime Minister whether the Royal Commission, recently appointed to make an inventory of the ancient and historical monuments, and constructions connected with or illustrative of the contemporary culture, civilisation, and conditions of life of the people of Scotland from the earliest times to the year 1707, and to specify those which seem worthy of preservation, has yet commenced its labours; whether it is the intention of the Government to take steps to preserve the ancient monuments specified by the Commission; and whether he is prepared to recommend the appointment of a similar Commission for the discovery and preservation of ancient and historical monuments in Wales.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) I understand that the Royal Commission on Scottish monuments has not yet begun its labours. The Government must wait for its Report before coming to a decision as to the subject raised in the second part of the Question. With regard to Wales, a country rich in monuments, my right hon. friend cannot make any announcement at the moment, but he will be prepared to consider any

  1287
  representations that may be made to him on the matter.

  Telegraphists with Knowledge of Technical Telegraphy.
  MR. SEAVERNS: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state the number of telegraphists of both sexes who, on 31st December, 1907, possessed the increment for a knowledge of technical telegraphy; and whether he can state the number of telegraphists of both sexes who were eligible to obtain it.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am afraid I have not got the information desired by my hon. friend, and it could not be obtained without considerable trouble and expense.

  Punishment of Minor Offences in the Post Office.
  MR. SEDDON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the notice recently issued regarding punishments for minor irregularities among the postal staff for the purpose of discouraging the practice of asking written explanations, and suggesting in place that verbal reproofs should be administered by supervising officials; whether he is aware that the superintendent of the Bristol telegraph staff has issued instructions to controlling officers that they should possess memorandum books and keep records of mistakes and minor offences; and whether, in view of this order, he will withdraw the recent notice, in view of its effect in securing the record of misdemeanours without the record of the officer's explanations.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The notice to which the hon. Member refers in the first part of his Question was issued by my special instructions for the benefit of the staff. Though the practice of recording minor irregularities has been discontinued experimentally, it will still be necessary to deal specially with cases of habitual carelessness, but where it is thought necessary to keep a record it should be an official record. There appears to have been some misunderstanding at
  1288
  Bristol, and I am taking steps to set the matter right.

  Lawlessness in Karachi.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the prevalent state of lawlessness and insecurity of person and property in the city of Karachi; and whether he will urge on the Government of India the necessity of a speedy reorganisation of the police.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I have seen reports in the newspapers, from which I gather that the Government of Bombay have recently made urgent representations on this subject to the Government of India. I have no doubt that the Government of India will deal with the question of reorganisation as expeditiously as possible, and I do not think that any action on my part is necessary.

  Place of Worship of the Gordon Highlanders at Jullundur.
  SIR J. JARDINE: To ask the Secretary of State for India, what arrangements, if any, have been in force in the Jullunder Cantonment to enable the 2nd Battalion of the Gordon Highlanders to have Divine Service according to Presbyterian rites; whether they have been allowed to worship in a consecrated church belonging to the Government of India; and whether they were allowed in that church to solemnise Holy Matrimony and Holy Communion.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer to his second Question on the same subject. I have no more precise information as to the arrangements made. As the hon. Member is aware, the Gordon Highlanders have now been moved to Calcutta, where there is a Presbyterian church
  SIR J. JARDINE: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that a licence was given by the Bishop of Lahore for the holding of divine service according to the rites of the Church of Scotland, and will he say whether that licence has been withdrawn;

  1289
  and whether the removal of the Gordon Highlanders from Jullundur to Calcutta has been ordered with, reference to the absence of church, accommodation for Presbyberians at Jullundur.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I understand that the Bishop of Lahore authorised the use of the Anglican church at Jullundur for Presbyterian services other than the celebration of Holy Communion. I am not aware that the licence has been withdrawn. But orders have now been given that Scottish regiments shall not be posted, save in a temporary emergency, to military stations where there is not a Presbyterian or unconsecrated church for their use; and the transfer of the Gordon Highlanders to Calcutta was presumably directed in accordance with those orders.

  Alleged Boycott of Irish Materials by the Irish Board of Works.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can explain the partial boycott of Irish materials by the Board of Works in Ireland with regard to the College of Science, the building in Tullamore, and other cases; and whether he can say why a copy of the specifications for buildings cannot be furnished to a Member of this House.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am not sure what buildings the hon. Member has in mind in his reference to Tullamore and other cases. If he refers, as I suppose, in the case of Tullamore to the contemplated new post office, I am informed that the specification for this building has not yet even been preparedf I can assure him, however, that no boycott of Irish materials by the Board o-Works has taken place in connection with the College of Science or any other building in their charge, as Irish materials are being employed wherever their use is compatible with efficiency, suitability, and economy. In the case of the College of Science about 86 per cent, of the building material to be used is Irish. Specifications for buildings are only prepared with the object of enabling firms to tender for the works, and for the use of the contractors by whom the works are carried out. The only copy of the specification issued is that given
  1290
  to the contractor for the building, and it would not be in the interests of the successful carrying out of contracts that any other copies should be distributed.

  Delay in Effecting Improvements to Irish National Schools.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that only £3,939 was expended by the Board of Works up to 10th February, 1907, out of the special building grant of £40,000, which was voted in addition to the usual Vote of about £30,000 per annum; whether he can explain the delay in expending this earmarked money; whether he is aware that it is voted to immediately remedy the unsanitary and unsafe condition of many existing national schools, and to provide better accommodation for children in Ireland; and whether he can state what steps he is prepared to take to compel the Board of Works to carry out the orders of Parliament.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) My hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury has asked me to answer this Question. Since the hon. Member gave notice of the Question, I have given a very full Answer to a Question on the subject put by the hon. Member for North Kildare on 27th February. If the hon. Member will refer to that Answer, he will see that no avoidable delay has taken place in the departments of the Board of Works or the Commissioners of National Education in connection with the work of school building.

  Licensing Statistics.
  MR. CROSSLEY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will grant a Return (relating to county boroughs) of the retail licences for spirits or wine dealers granted by the Excise for premises which are exclusively used for the sale of intoxicating liquors or of intoxicating liquors and mineral waters or other non-intoxicating drinks, and which have no internal communication with the premises of any person who is carrying on any other trade or business, with particulars for each borough.

  1291
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The Return could not be given without the expenditure of an amount of time and labour quite disproportionate to the value of the information to be derived from it.

  Fatal Accidents in Carnarvonshire Slate Quarries.
  MR. ELLIS DAVIES: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of fatal accidents in slate quarries in Carnarvonshire during the year ending 31st December, 1907, to those employed inside, and outside the quarries; and what proportion the accidents to those inside bear to the total number of workmen inside the quarry.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The number of fatal accidents to those employed at slate quarries in Carnarvonshire during the year ending 31st December, 1907, was as follows—

  Inside the quarries

  8

  Outside the quarries

  2

  The proportion the accidents to those inside bear to the total number of workmen inside the quarry was in every 386, or nearly 2·6 per 1,000.

  Swine Fever.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will publish the results of the recent investigations of the veterinary officers of the Board into the nature of swine fever with a view to its prevention; whether the pathology of swine fever shows it to be a disease against which the methods of slaughter, disinfection, etc., successfully employed against other epizootics, can be employed with similarly good results; and, if not, whether the Board considered the large expenditure involved in carrying out such methods in the case of swine fever is warranted.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) Full particulars of the investigations to which my hon. friend refers will be published as part of the Annual Report of the chief veterinary officer. The success of stamping out a disease by slaughter
  1292
  and disinfection, etc., does not depend so much on its pathology as upon its epizootiology, and the epizootiology of swine fever renders it very doubtful whether wholesale slaughter of affected and contact animals is a practicable undertaking. The Board do not consider that the large expenditure that would be involved in carrying out such an operation would be justified.

  Education Bill—Effect of Clause 1, Sub-Sections (1) and (2) on Single School Areas.
  MR. STEWART-SMITH: To ask the President of the Board of Education if he will state what will be the effect of Clause 1, Sub-Sections (1) and (2), of the new Act in the case of a single-area school administered under a trust scheme, and by which, under the terms of Section 13, Sub-Sections (1) and (2), of the Act of 1902, the whole of the rate levied for educational purposes has been paid from the trust funds since the appointed day of 1902; will the present Act empower the county council to demand this sum, or any part thereof, from the trust funds and apply the same to the relief of the rate; and, if so, will such sum be credited to the overseers of the parish by the county treasurer in reduction or extinction of the rate for the parish or area served by the said school.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) It is proposed to repeal Section 13 of the Education Act, 1902, and in that case no claims can in future arise under that section.

  Appointment of Additional Magistrates for County Tipperary.
  MR. CONDON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Lord Chancellor has been called to the necessity for the appointment of additional justices of the peace in the County of Tipperary, and especially in the Cashel district; whether he is aware that at the last court day in Cashel the suitors and their solicitors were kept waiting for some hours, and that the proceedings were eventually abandoned, owing to no justice of the peace or resident magistrate attending; whether he is aware that in the Cashel district, which

  1293
  is Nationalist, there is no popular magistrate except ex-officio; whether he can state if the Lord Chancellor's attention has been called to this condition of the magisterial bench; and whether he intends to deal with the matter immediately.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Lord Chancellor informs me that he has from time to time been considering the question of the appointment of additional magistrates in the several districts of the County Tipperary, including the Cashel district, and within the last two years he has appointed twenty-nine magistrates in that county. There are now 230 magistrates on the roll of the county, of whom twelve have been authorised to attend the Cashel Petty Sessions, in addition to the resident magistrate and the chairman of the local district council. Two of the twelve above-mentioned were appointed in August last. The Lord Chancellor had not been informed of the adjournment of cases referred to for want of the attendance of magistrates, but he will inquire into the matter.

  Memorial of Transition Teachers in Ireland.
  COLONEL McCALMONT: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a memorial and statement of claims from the transition teachers (Ireland); and, if so, whether he can see his way to giving them favourable consideration.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have received the memorial referred to. I would refer to the Answer which I gave on 3rd instant to the Question on the subject put by the hon. Member for South Down.

  Compassionate Allowance to West, Late of Royal Small Arms Factory.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a workman named West, in the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield Lock, at the age of 62, after suffering the misfortune of a series of accidents during the last twelve years, has now been discharged without any
  1294
  sort of compensation; and, if so, whether this man's case will be taken into consideration.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am carefully considering whether I can do anything to assist this man, but the question presents great difficulties, and I am unable to announce any decision.

  Territorial Army—Training of Officers on the Unattached List.
  MR. C. H. CORBETT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether facilities for drilling, attending annual trainings, and the like, will be given to officers of the Territorial Army, posted to the unattached lists of their counties, who may desire to maintain their military efficiency pending absorption in other units as vacancies occur.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Officers who become supernumerary in their units or are placed on the unattached list on transfer to the Territorial Force may attend the annual training in camp, provided that they take the place of an officer of the same or higher rank and that the total number of officers trained in camp does not exceed the total number on the establishment of the units. Officers on the unattached list may train under these conditions with any unit in the command. Pay and allowances will be admissible to officers attending training under these conditions.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Naval Gun Reserves.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether in 1904 the whole of the guns in the naval and marine gunnery training establishments were part of the reserve guns of the Fleet; whether he is aware that about two years ago nearly the whole of these guns were withdrawn and their places taken by specially made cast-iron guns; and whether the reserve of guns is now less in proportion to the guns afloat than it was before these guns were withdrawn.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): The reply to the first Question is in the negative. Only 24 per cent, of these guns were then included in the reserve. As regards the second Question, only a portion of the guns belonging to these establishments were withdrawn for fleet use, and replaced by cast-iron guns for drill purposes. As regards the third Question, the reserve remains unaltered.

    Territorial Army—Regimental Sergeant-Majors and Bandmasters.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in the Territorial Army, the regimental sergeant-majors and bandmasters will be given the rank of warrant officers as is done in the case of similar non-commissioned officers in the Regular Army.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): The reply is in the negative.

    Service Abroad—Furlough Regulations.
    SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is prepared to grant facilities to noncommissioned officers and men of good conduct serving in India or on foreign service for the means of returning home on furlough, as enjoyed by commissioned officers, in view of the fact that such a privilege would stimulate their re-engagement with the Colours.
    MR. HALDANE: This subject is now under consideration with the India Office. It is one which involves important considerations, such as increase in the pension list, diminution in the strength of the Army Reserve, and the effect of climate on the constitution of the soldier. These are matters which do not admit of being settled off-hand.

    Army Clothing Contracts.
    MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the wages paid by a firm of clothing contractors upon Government work, showing that the men's coats were
    1296
    being made and finished at the rate of 1s. 5½d. each; whether such a firm comes within the scope of the Fair Wages Clause; and whether he proposes to take any action.
    MR. HALDANE: As far as I have been able to ascertain, the rate of wages quoted by the hon. Member are somewhat below those actually paid by the contractor referred to. The case clearly does come within the scope of the Fair Wages Clause, but the difference in the methods by which work is carried on in this particular trade makes it extremely difficult to compare rates paid by one firm with those of another and thus ascertain what the current rates really are, and I am not prepared to say that this contractor is actually infringing the Clause. As the hon. Member is aware, a Committee is now sitting to consider whether improvements cannot be made in the administration of the Fair Wages Clause. An inspector is now engaged in investigating the conditions under which the Army clothing contracts are being carried out, and no conclusion can be arrived at until he has completed his inquiry, and I have called for a special report, as soon as this is done, on the case.
    MR. CURRANasked whether it was not possible for the Government to establish factories for the purpose of the manufacture of clothes for the civil, military, and naval servants under direct Government supervision, instead of letting the work out to sweating contractors.
    MR. HALDANE: It is possible, but everything the Government does is so costly. It could only be done by an enormous increase of the Army Estimates.
    MR. CURRAN: Is it not the case that sweating contractors make handsome profits by robbing the workmen? Can not that profit be employed in establishing factories?
    MR. HALDANE: We are doing everything we can to prevent sweaters from being engaged in making Army clothes. In some cases we fail.

    Volunteers and the Social Democrats.
    MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the action of a body of men, some, thirty in number, belonging to the 1st Herts Volunteer Battalion of the Bedfordshire Regiment, who, fully armed with rifles and side-arms, and headed by three staff sergeants in uniform, are alleged to have been guilty of disorderly conduct at a public meeting held under the auspices of the Social Democratic party at Letchworth on 2nd March: whether it is to be understood that members of the new Territorial force are encouraged to attend in force at public meetings held to criticise military matters for the purpose of disturbing and breaking up such meetings; and whether he will take steps to prevent a recurrence of such conduct in the future.
    MR. HALDANE: A number of Volunteer recruits on returning from evening parade went into a hall where a lecture purporting to be on the subject of the Territorial Army to which the military were invited, was being given, and were joined there by their sergeant-instructor. On finding that the lecture consisted of a series of abusive statements interspersed with what he considered to be untrue allegations against the Army and its officers and men, the sergeant-instructor protested vigorously. The meeting was noisy, but it is not the case that it was broken up by the Volunteers. The officer commanding the regiment has drawn the attention of all concerned to the provisions of the King's Regulations dealing with the attendance of soldiers at public meetings.
    MR. JOHN WARD: Is this the sort of interruption of public meetings we might expect if the policy of compulsory military training suggested by the Social Democratic party were adopted in this country.
    MR. HALDANE: These are high matters into which I will not presume to inquire.

    Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield—Compensation for Accidents.
    MR. BRANCH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury
    1298
    whether he is aware that J. West, an employee at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, received an injury to his arm in 1885; that he met with a serious accident to his leg in 1886, and also an accident by which he lost the sight of one eye in 1887; that he was ruptured in 1895; and that he met with a further accident in 1897 which injured the sight of his remaining eye, and a subsequent injury which destroyed the use of two fingers of the right hand; whether he is also aware that in 1887 he received the sum of £73 compensation for the loss of his eye, which sum, upon his being restored to work, was deducted from his weekly wages until it was repaid; and that, upon reaching the age of sixty-two, he has now been discharged without any allowance or compensation for injuries received; and whether he will consider if a sympathetic allowance can be made to this man.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): I am carefully considering whether I can do anything to assist this-man, but the question presents great difficulties and I am unable to announces any decision.

    Communication with the West Indies.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether an extra total payment of £35,000 is to be made by the British Treasury to some steamship company in order to facilitate communication between the various West Indian Islands; and, if so, what compensating benefits accrue therefrom to the British taxpayer.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: An increased payment of £3,750 a year for ten years is payable to the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company by the British Exchequer in respect of an improved Inter-Colonial Mail Service in the West Indies under a contract dated 29th August last. Full particulars will be found in House of Commons Paper No. 24 of 1908 recently circulated.
    MR. HAROLD COX: When is it proposed to take the Motion approving this contract?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: At the earliest possible moment so that there may be no interruption of the service.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question?
    MR. LEIF JONES: What will happen if the contract meets with the disapproval of the House of Commons?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: If the House disapproves the arrangement will fall through. As to the last part of the question that is largely a matter of opinion, and the benefits could only be stated at considerable length. No doubt my hon. friend will have an opportunity of hearing them.

    Income-Tax Abatements.
    SIR F. CAWLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether abatement of income-tax can be claimed on an income of £690 per annum when that income is derived from dividends which are paid tree of income-tax.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: An income of £690 free of tax represents a gross income of over £700, and does not therefore fall within the statutory limits of abatement.

    British Trade Agent at Gyantse.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the British trade agent at Gyantse has been withdrawn; and whether the like official at Gartok has been, and will be, retained.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,): No, the British trade agent at Gyantse has not been withdrawn, nor the agent who was appointed at Gartok under Article 5 of the Lhasa Convention.

    Indian Penal Code—Punishment for Sedition.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware of the many cases of printers and editors of papers in India generally who have been sentenced to
    1300
    long terms of rigorous imprisonment and mulcted in large amounts in fines, under the sedition clauses of the Penal Code, for publishing what the police term seditious articles; whether the charge of sedition is simply that of Nationalist propaganda in the majority of cases: whether the persons charged have usually been young men, many of them under twenty years of age; and whether, in view of the fact that the campaign against the Press by the Government is, in native opinion, a campaign against the faith and aspirations of a people, and having regard to all the circumstances of the matter, he will take steps to have an inquiry with a view of defining sedition within the meaning of the Code, or with a view of amending the Code.
    MR. MORLEY: My hon. friend has not acquainted himself precisely with the subject about which he questions me. The word "sedition" does not occur in the text of the Penal Code, and persons are not sentenced for "what the police term seditious articles," but for what duly constituted courts, and, in some cases, juries mainly composed of Indians, find to be violations of the law. All the terms under which charges are framed are explained in the Code, and I see no need for inquiry. So long as the persons concerned give expression to their "faith and aspirations" without attempting, in the language of the Code, to excite hatred, contempt, disaffection, or enmity between class and class, they will, I am quite sure, not be disturbed.
    MR. REES: Are not these young men the agents of syndicates for the propagation of sedition who themselves escape prosecution by elaborate precautions,; and in these articles is not British India described as a hell upon earth, and Englishmen as worse than Nero, Nadir Shah, and the devil?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Bengal Opium Exports.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that the export of Bengal opium has fallen from 53,583 chests in 1906–7 to 48,000 in 1907–8, and the further fact that the area of

    1301
    cultivation has extended from 553,697 in the former period to 562,500 in the last year quoted, he can inform the House whether the resulting crops of such extended area is or will be exported to other countries than China, or whether the habit of opium consumption is growing among the peoples of India; and that such extended area of cultivation is to meet such home demand; and, if so, whether steps will be taken to drastically reduce the area of cultivation below that of 1906–7.
    MR. MORLEY: There has been no extension of the area under poppy. The standard or maximum area fixed for regulating the grant of licences to cultivate was fixed for 1906–7 at 594,000 acres. The area actually harvested in that year was, 553,697 acres. For 1907–8 the standard area was reduced to 562,500 acres. The actual area, when returned, will prove to be below this figure. For 1908–9 the standard area has again been reduced to 500,000 acres. I am afraid the drastic reduction demanded by my hon. friend would hardly extend employment.

    Calcutta Police Court—Whipping for Political Offences.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the official statement made in the Bengal Legislative Council that the number of persons sentenced to whipping in the Calcutta police court during the last three years is as follows: 1905, 376; 1906, 321; and 1907, 402; whether he will inform the House in how many cases of political offences the punishment of whipping has been inflicted; and whether, in view of the fact that the increase of punishment by whipping has taken place while Mr. Kingsford has held the office of chief magistrate, steps will be taken to limit or abolish such form of degrading punishment.
    MR. MORLEY: I have seen the statement quoted. Under the existing law political offences are not punishable by whipping, so far as adults are concerned, and the Bill to amend the Whipping Act, which has been introduced
    1302
    into the Viceroy s Legislative Council, exempts juveniles also.

    Indentured Labour in Trinidad.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the number of indentured coolies introduced into Trinidad during the year 1907; the total cost of importing such coolies; and also the proportion of such total cost contributed by the Government and the planters on whose behalf such coolies are introduced.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): According to the latest information available, it was estimated that 1,800 immigrants would be introduced during the year 1907–8. The estimated expenditure of collecting and introducing immigrants during that period was £24,450, and of this sum one-third only is charged to the general revenue. I regret that I cannot furnish the hon. Member with figures for the calendar year, as the Estimates in Trinidad are prepared for the financial year running from 1st April to 31st March.
    MR. MOORE: Are these coolies imported under servile conditions?
    MR. STANLEY WILSON: And do they live in compounds?
    MR. CHURCHILL: The conditions are not the same as those under which Chinese labour was introduced into South Africa.

    Game Reserves in Southern Nigeria.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the statement on page 42 of the Report on Southern Nigeria for 1906 (No. 554 of 1906), that the only outcome of the present legislation in game preservation has been to limit the shooting of a few bona fide European sportsmen, whilst the constant drain of animal life caused by literally

    1303
    tens of thousands of native hunters, who shoot everything they see night and day, in season and out of season, throughout the year, remains unchecked; and whether steps can be taken to put some effective check on this wholesale destruction of wild life.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Government of Southern Nigeria is taking reasonable steps, by the creation of game reserves in various provinces, to check the indiscriminate destruction of animal life. It must, however, be recognised that with the small staff at the disposal of the Government it is not practicable to enforce the observance of game regulations over vast areas of densely populated forest country, where such legislation is not understood, and where in many districts every able-bodied man has been a hunter from time immemorial.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is any attention to be paid to the statements in the Report from which this Question is a quotation?
    MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir.

    Dinizulu.
    MR. HERBERT: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether any evidence obtained at the preliminary examination of Dinizulu can be used against him at his trial; and whether having regard to the acknowledged obligations of His Majesty's Government to see that he has a fair trial, His Majesty's Government propose to allow him to be brought to trial in which evidence can be used against him, obtained upon charges so vague that he cannot defend himself against them, in a fishing inquiry.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The English law of evidence has been applied to Natal by local legislation and the Secretary of State has no reason to suppose that the Judges of the Supreme Court will allow Dinizulu's trial to proceed on inadmissible evidence. I may add that Lord Elgin has received the following telegram upon this subject from the Governor of Natal: No arrangements have
    1304
    been made for the trial of Dinizulu. No date has been or can be fixed pending conclusion of the preliminary examination. After the Crown has led its evidence at the preliminary examination the defence can at that inquiry lead evidence on behalf of the prisoner. An intimation has, I understand, been given by Dinizulu's counsel that he will require some weeks to obtain evidence when the Crown's leading of evidence is completed. Any such request by an accused person is always acceded to. Local counsel has been engaged to defend Dinizulu and Mr. Jellicoe an English barrister has officially informed His Excellency that he came to Natal with the concurrence of the Colonial Office to defend the prisoner. The utmost access has all along been given his counsel to the prisoner. Mr. Jellicoe before he was admitted to the bar here was allowed to see the prisoner to confer and act as counsel. It is impossible to say when the decision of the magistrate who is conducting the examination may be expected. If committed the trial of the prisoner will follow without any undue delay unless the Attorney-General in the exercise of his discretion thinks it desirable to remit the case (after perusal of the preparatory examinations close) to the magistrate for further investigation: or unless the Attorney-General directs that the prisoner be liberated forthwith. The Government have been informed that the friends of the prisoner have ample funds to apply to the prisoner's defence, but on this point in view of what has been suggested from other quarters it is not possible to reply to this question with any certainty.

    Che-Kiang Railway Loan.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an agreement has been arrived at with the Wai-wu-pu regarding the Che-Kiang Railway loan; and, if so, whether he can state its terms.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): I am informed that an agreement has been signed; but I cannot state its precise terms, which have been arranged at Pekin with the British and Chinese Corporation.

    Care of Children.
    MR. GULLAND: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in the inquiry about the re-arrangement of the duties of Government Departments, he will include the consideration of the advisability of combining the care of the interests of children under one Department or under a council representing the various Departments concerned.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): Similar suggestions have been made from several quarters, and, in principle, I have much sympathy with them. The practical and administrative difficulties in connection with the adoption of the proposal would be very considerable; but I will take care that the matter is borne in mind in connection with the inquiry to which my hon. friend refers.

    Licensed Property and Death Duties.
    MR. GEORGE FABER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the case of licensed properties which have been valued for purposes of death duties by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue at a greater number of years' purchase than that provided by the Licensing Bill, 1908, the excess in the amount of the duties so demanded and paid will, in the event of the Bill becoming law, be repaid by the Commissioners; and on what basis of value will licensed properties be assessed by the Commissioners for death duties during the period of time before the Bill becomes law.
    MR. ASQUITH: The functions of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in assessing properties to estate duty is not primarily the making of valuations, but the checking of valuations submitted by the accountable person. Valuations so arrived at in the past in accordance with the provisions of the Finance Act of 1894 cannot be affected by subsequent legislation, and consequently there is no ground on which—even on the hypothesis of the hon. Member—such repayment as that suggested could be made. The introduction of the Licensing Bill does not alter the basis of valuation, which remains, and will remain, if the
    1306
    Bill becomes law, the market value at the date of death, the accountable person having a right of appeal, in the event of disagreement, to the courts.
    MR. GEORGE FABER: Will the state of affairs be this, that on the one' hand the duty will have been assessed on the full monopoly value of the license, and on the other hand the Treasury intend to confiscate the monopoly value?
    [The Answer, if any, was inaudible.]

    Factory Inspection.
    MR. JOWETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether until within the last twelve months it was considered necessary for all candidates for inspectorship of factories, probationary and otherwise, to qualify in factory law and sanitary science; and, if so, whether he will state what recent events or considerations have led him to the abandonment of this principle.
    I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what distinction will be made to enable occupiers of factories and factory operatives to know whether they are being interviewed by an inspector who is, or by a probationary inspector who is not, qualified to express an opinion as to whether the Factory Acts are being complied with and sanitary requirements are being met.
    I beg further to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the fact that the duties of inspectors of factories are comprised in the administration of factory law and the application of sanitary science, he will consider the desirability of issuing an alternative syllabus, under which persons who have received nominations for inspectorships may, if they so desire, qualify for appointment in these two subjects, and postpone their examination in literature, languages, etc., until the end of two years probation.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): The principle referred to by my hon. friend has not been

    1307
    abandoned. As I informed him last week, all inspectors, with one or two special exceptions, such as the medical inspector, are required to qualify in factory law and sanitary science. The only change is that, whereas these two subjects previously formed part of the entrance examination, they are now deferred until a subsequent examination, which takes place at the end of two years' probation. The reason for this is that a candidate's knowledge of them can be more thoroughly tested after he has had practical acquaintance with the administration of the Acts, than before his appointment, when his knowledge will be mostly book knowledge crammed for the purpose of the examination. It is not the case that under the old system a candidate entered the service fully qualified to administer the Act, and express opinions whether its requirements were complied with. Under that sytsem, as under this, he had to learn his work under the direction and supervision of his superior officer, and no system could be devised which would do away with this necessity. I do not propose to make any alteration in the present scheme of examination.

    Earthenware Manufacture—Special Rules.
    MR. JOHN WARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is contemplating the appointment of a Departmental Committee to consider the revision of the special rules for the manufacture of earthenware and china, as a consequence of the passing of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906; and whether, having regard to the technical nature of some of the processes, he will appoint a representative of the workers and e representative of the manufacturers upon such Committee.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; I propose to appoint such a Committee. It is required on other grounds besides the passing of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and its scope will be somewhat wider than the mere revision of rules. I propose to include in the Committee representatives of the workers and of the manufacturers.

    Hamstead Colliery Disaster.
    MR. HAZEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the-Home Department whether, when a fire broke out recently in the Hamstead. Colliery, South Staffordshire, entombing, more than twenty men, no properly equipped rescue-party could be found, nearer than Yorkshire; whether the only fully equipped colliery rescue-parties in England pre at Barnsley and Norman ton, in Yorkshire; and whether, in view of the importance of beginning rescue operations at the earliest possible moment, when a colliery disaster has occurred, he can take any steps to require or encourage the provision of the latest and best form of rescue-apparatus within easy reach of all important mining districts.
    MR. BYLES: Before the Question is answered, may I ask whether the local miners have not shown, extraordinary courage and readiness ingoing to the help of their imprisoned fellow-workmen?
    MR. GLADSTONE: Oh, yes, most certainly. As regards the Question on the Paper I have to say that the two places mentioned in the Question are the only ones at present possessing stations at which breathing apparatus are provided and men are regularly trained in their use. The Royal Commission on mines considered this subject at an early stage of their inquiry, and issued an interim report upon it last year. In view of the risks attending the use of such apparatus, risks only too clearly demonstrated at Courrieres and at Hamstead, and the difference of opinion as the best appliance, they did not feel justified in recommending that its provision should be made compulsory at the present time; but they made certain proposals for the establishment of central rescue stations. I have been in correspondence with the Mining Association of Great Britain or the subject, with the result that steps are being taken towards the formation of other stations, and one station recently completed in Lancashire will shortly be available for use. What is much needed is further improvement in the construction of rescue apparatus, and I hope the establishment of these

    1309
    stations will give a stimulus to such improvements as well as to the further organisation of rescue work.
    MR. W. E. HARVEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information as to what is going on at the mine?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have given instructions to the Inspector of Mines to let me know if he has any information with regard to the men, but I regret to say I have received no information up to the present.
    MR. BRACE: Is it the intention of the Government to assist financially in the establishment of these rescue stations?
    MR. GLADSTONE: We are doing all we can to promote the establishment of these rescue stations. With regard to the appliance itself, experiments will soon be made on a large and effective scale to test the various forms of apparatus at present under our notice. I should be prepared to consider the giving of financial assistance if I was assured that the present position of the question is sufficiently advanced to make such assistance of real practical service. At present our knowledge on the subject is imperfect, and we do not know what appliance to recommend. In two cases —at Courrières and Hamstead—the use of two different appliances has been accompanied by loss of life. It is too soon to consider the question of a Treasury grant.
    MR. BRACE: The House will perhaps forgive me if I press this matter urgently, but I want the right hon. Gentleman to try and realise the point I am endeavouring to make. In the effort to provide the necessary appliances in the respective districts, will the Government give financial assistance to those experimenting, because if it is left to voluntary effort alone that will rather defeat the object of the right hon. Gentleman?
    MR. GLADSTONE: We are giving very assistance we can to promote indention, and I would remind the hon. Member that this particular question is
    1310
    still under the consideration of experts, representing both masters and men, on the Royal Commission. We are anxious to do anything practical on the subject, but I can add nothing to what I have said.

    Mines (Eight Hours) Bill
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, in view of the depressed condition of some of the industries of the country, and especially those industries which use large quantities of coal and are therefore largely dependent on the price of coal, he will defer the further progress of the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill until another session.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The Answer is in the negative.
    CAPTAIN CRAIGasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that there was a growing feeling in the country against this Bill on the ground that it was for the benefit of the few and would inflict incalculable hardships on the many.
    MR. W. E. HARVEYasked whether that growing feeling was not due to the inaccurate statements which had been and were being made.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I would refer the hon. Member for East Down to a speech I made a year ago in the House, in which he will find my views fully stated, and in which I deliberately called the attention of the country to the possible risks to the consumer which were involved in, at any rate, any hasty legislation on this subject. I would remind the hon. Member that he took no part in that discussion.
    CAPTAIN J. CRAIG: Is it not the fact that since that time the feeling in the country has emphasised the very expressions he made use of in that speech?
    [No Answer was returned.]
    MR. WATTasked whether it was not the fact that much of the unemployment in the country was due to the high price of coal.
    MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir. The state of the coal industry has given employment to a great number of men previously unemployed. I may say that last year that reached the extraordinary total of 58,000.
    MR. JOHN WARDasked whether it was not the fact that similar statements as to its injurious effect have been made against all industrial legislation during the last fifty or sixty years.
    [No Answer was returned.]
    MR. GEORGE FABER: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the speech he made the other day to a deputation, he has not himself changed his views on the advisability of this legislation?
    MR. GLADSTONE: Certainly not.

    Coast Erosion—Damage to the Humber.
    MR. STANLEY WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that evidence has been recently given before the Royal Commission on Coast Erosion that, unless some immediate steps are taken to further protect the sea banks in the districts of Kilnsea and Easington, there is danger of the sea breaking through into the Humber and causing damage to the navigable channel, the Government will be prepared to make special provisions for the adequate defence of the Humber and of the Spurn.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): As I informed the hon. Member on 30th April last the protection of the lowlands of Kilnsea and Easington is a duty devolving not upon the Government, but upon the owners of the land liable to be flooded and upon the Commissioners of Sewers for the east parts of the East Riding of York. Any proposals which may be submitted to His Majesty's Government by the Commissioners of Sewers will receive careful consideration.
    MR. STANLEY WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this danger is likely to become national and
    1312
    not merely local, if it interferes with the navigable channel of the Humber?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is not my information. There is a Commission inquiring into this and other matters, concerning the erosion of the coast.
    MR. STANLEY WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Commission is not likely to report for a considerable time and that this question is one of immediate and pressing urgency?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: If the matter is pressing surely the landowners immediately concerned will deem it then-duty to protect their own property.
    MR. STANLEY WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 300 acres of land is lying absolutely derelict and is being sacrificed altogether by the landowners of this district?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Dock Accident.
    MR. JOHN WARD: I beg to ask the-President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to an accident which happened on 3rd March, during the construction of the King's-Dock, Swansea, by which a train of muck waggons ran into a gang of navvies, killing two and injuring several others; whether, in view of the recent increase-in accidents of a similar character upon public works, he will order a Government inquiry under the Notice of Accidents Act, 1894, into the cause and circumstances of such accident; and, if so, when and where will such inquiry be held.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The accident in question has been reported to the Factory Inspector under the provisions of the Factory and Workshops Acts, and is not one coming within the scope of the Notice of Accidents Act, 1894, as amended by subsequent Acts. I understand that an investigation of the circumstances attending the accident has already been made by the Factory Inspector.
    MR. JOHN WARD: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that docks do not come under the Notice of Accidents Act, 1894? Has his attention been drawn to the schedule in which docks are particularly mentioned as being still under the operation of that Act?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is very important that cases of this kind should not be inquired into by two Departments. I understand that the Home Office, under the later Act, have assumed the responsibility for that, and the Board of Trade therefore cannot interfere. Any further question should be addressed to the Home Secretary seeing that a Factory Inspector is inquiring into the matter already.

    West Riding Appeal.
    MR. LANE-FOX: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has yet been able to come to a decision upon the appeal made to the Board on 21st March, 1907, against the decision of the auditor of the accounts of the West Riding County Council, that sums representing fees in respect of the instruction of pupil teachers could, be charged in the accounts as expenditure in respect of elementary education.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): The appeal is still under consideration, but I hope shortly to be in a position to give my decision with regard to it.

    Government Employment.
    MR. JOHN WARD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that while some Government Departments are discharging workmen other Departments are working numbers of their workmen long hours; and whether, under these circumstances, he will ask for a conference of the heads of the great employing Departments, such as the War Office, Admiralty, and Office of Works, with a view to devising means for automatically reducing the hours of labour in cases of general shortage of work, or the exchange of suitable
    1314
    workmen from one Department to another as occasion requires, and so prevent the unnecessary discharge of Government workmen.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: My hon. friend has called my attention to the replies given by the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary to the Admiralty respectively, to Questions put to them with regard to the discharge of men at Woolwich, and the working of men overtime at Devonport. I cannot say how far the suggestion which he makes would be found to be feasible, but I will bring it under the notice of the head of each of the Departments mentioned by him.

    Non-Provided Schools.
    MR. LANE-FOX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, under the provisions of the Education Bill, non-provided schools which contract out will, while remaining subject to the control and inspection of the board, be entirely free from the control, inspection and interference of the local education authority.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. McKENNA,): Yes, Sir subject to qualification in regard to anything that may be necessary for the purpose of medical inspection and the School Attendance Acts.

    Royston School Teacher.
    MR. LANE-FOX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that last year the West Riding local education authority refused to confirm the appointment of Mr. O. B. Milnes as head teacher to the Royston School on educational grounds; whether the Board confirmed such refusal; whether he has now been appointed head teacher to a larger school at a higher salary; and whether the Board have confirmed such appointment.
    MR. McKENNA: The Board decided that the grounds upon which the local education authority refused their consent to Mr. Milnes' appointment to the headmastership of the Royston School

    1315
    were educational. They have received no notification of his appointment to another school, and such appointment would not require the board's confirmation.
    MR. LANE-FOX: Has the right hon. Gentleman refused the request of the managers to conduct an inquiry into the circumstances of the case.
    MR. McKENNA: If the hon. Member is referring to something which occurred months ago, I must ask for notice. I shall have to refresh my memory.
    MR. RAWLINSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries into the subject-matter of the Question?
    MR. McKENNA: If the hon. Gentleman wishes I will do so.

    Commons Interest in the Lords.
    MR. GULLAND: To ask the First Commissioner of Work, in view of the advisability that Members of this House should be aware of the proceedings in the other House, whether he could make arrangements to place in the Member's Lobby an indicator showing the subject under discussion and the name of the speaker in the House of Lords.
    MR. STANLEY WILSON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, is not this Question, in view of the fact that legislation is to be brought in which would destroy the House of Lords, entirely unnecessary?
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,): I am not certain whether the gain to Members of the House would be commensurate with the cost entailed upon the taxpayer. I will, however, consider the matter thoroughly, though it is impossible now to insert any provision in the Estimates for the coming year, and therefore I shall have time to consider the eventualities foreshadowed by the supplementary question.
    MR. STANLEY WILSON: Leave it till after the next general election.

    Kew Gardens.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can state the number of British gardeners now on the books as qualified applicants for service in the Royal Gardens at Kew.
    MR. J. A. PEASE (; for Sir EDWARD STEACHEY): Eleven.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can state whether the Richmond Borough Council recently appealed to his Department for better wages for the gardeners employed at the Royal Gardens at Kew; whether in such appeal the council drew specific attention to the high rate of living in the district as a reason for such increase; and, if so, will he state whether any action was taken thereon.
    MR. J. A. PEASE: A communication on this subject was received from the Mayor of Richmond and was carefully considered. As my hon. friend is aware it has been decided that the present weekly allowance made to the gardeners is sufficient to provide them with adequate means of subsistence. The gardeners are not to any very great extent affected by the somewhat high rentals charged in the district inasmuch as they are all of them unmarried.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he is aware that his Department recently paid £1 per lecture for two courses of such lectures, that only one student attended, and that such student was not on the staff at Kew; and, if so, would he state what fees were paid by such student.
    MR. J. A. PEASE: The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The student to whom my hon. friend refers was employed as a temporary technical assistant and on that account was allowed the privilege of attending the lectures without payment of a fee.

    Scottish Veterinary Surgeons.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether all local authorities, either county or Thorough, in Scotland are bound to appoint a veterinary surgeon; whether the duties to which he is appointed include the inspection of all live animals exposed for sale for human food in all markets within his jurisdiction; and, if not, will he see, in the interest of public health, that the duties and regulations of the office of veterinary surgeon are so amended as to secure that all animals intended for human food and offered for sale in any public market shall be inspected and certified as being free from disease.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): A local authority may appoint a veterinary surgeon for purpose of dealing with inspection of any animal alive or dead intended for food of man, and, while such an appointment is not expressly imperative, the Local Government Board use every influence to induce local authorities to make one. A veterinary surgeon appointed under Public Health Act is not bound to inspect all animals exposed for sale for human food in all markets within his jurisdiction. The duties of their veterinary surgeon have teen extended by special arrangement by certain authorities to include matters other than those specifically mentioned in Sections 43 and 60, but any general amendment of duties of veterinary surgeons, contained as they are entirely in the above sections, is a matter for legislation. I cannot at present give any undertaking in this respect.
    MR. WATT: May I ask if the Local Government Board in Scotland have yet established uniformity of inspection throughout the country?
    MR. SINCLAIR: They have no such power, so far as I am informed.

    House Rating at Stenhousemuir.
    MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that in parts of Stirlingshire, notably in the Stenhousemuir district, strong feeling has been aroused by the
    1318
    rating of the houses of the working classes as compared with the houses of the leisured classes; that in the district named it is alleged that houses of annual value under £20 are subjected to systematic increased rating every alternate year; that the local co-operative building society, which has existed for forty years and has built many streets of workmen's houses in Stenhousemuir, is being killed by the gradual crushing process; that the houses of the leisured class are under-assessed: and whether he will cause an immediate public inquiry to be made and redress given.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I have no information on the subject referred to by my hon. friend. He is no doubt aware that householders aggrieved at the valuation put upon the houses they occupy by the assessor are at liberty to appeal to the Valuation Appeal Court, and I am unable to take any special steps in the instance referred to.
    MR. SMEATON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the tribunal to which working men have to appeal is composed of the very men whose houses are under-assessed?
    MR. SINCLAIR: No, Sir.
    MR. SMEATON: May I give the right hon. Gentleman a list of houses under-assessed?
    MR. SINCLAIR: We shall be glad to have any information the hon. Member can give.

    Illegal Trawling in the Moray Firth.
    CAPTAIN WARING: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the gunboat H.M.S. "Skipjack" has been detailed for special duty off the coast of Donegal for the purpose of protecting the line fishermen against the trawlers; if so, whether he will cause a gunboat to be detailed to the Moray Firth, where the line fishermen are also greatly in need of additional protection.
    MR. SINCLAIR: On the first point raised by my hon. friend I have no information. Special instructions have already been given to use every effort with

    1319
    the fleet at the disposal of the Fishery Board to afford protection to the interests of the fisheries in the Moray Firth.

    Carrickfergus Harbour.
    COLONEL McCALMONT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he has received a memorial from the Urban District Council and the Harbour Commissioners of Carrickfergus relative to the free use of the harbour by Government vessels, and the expense thereby to which the local authorities are put; and, if so, whether, in consideration of these facts, he will give favourable attention to the prayer of the memorial by giving pecuniary assistance to the local authorities, as has been done recently in Sligo and other places.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: As regards the memorial and the general question of giving further assistance to the harbour, I must refer the hon. and gallant Member to the Answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for South Down. I cannot admit that the statutory exemption of Government vessels from harbour dues affords any reason for altering the conditions of this loan.
    COLONEL McCALMONT: Is it proper for the Government to make use of harbours constructed by private enterprise, and the quays and roads leading thereto, without paying anything for them?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The Carrickfergus Harbour is treated in exactly the same manner as every other harbour in the United Kingdom.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: Has the hon. Gentleman now received the memorial as to which I asked yesterday?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: When? Yesterday you said the Treasury had not received it.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: A day has intervened since then.

    Ballintubber Prosecution.
    MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the remarks at a recent prosecution in Ballintubber, County Roscommon, made by Mr. Rice, resident magistrate, to the effect that, in any other country but Ireland, a man situated in the position of one of the witnesses would have drawn firearms on the crowd, and of the protest made on the occasion by the defendant's solicitor against such an incitement to a breach of the law made from the bench; and whether, under the circumstances, he will direct that this magistrate be not permitted in future to adjudicate in cases of this description.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): I have referred this Question to the resident magistrate mentioned, who informs me that his remarks are not quite correctly stated in the Question. A case was being heard in which five men were summoned by the police to give sureties to keep the peace. The evidence showed that these-men formed part of a crowd of about thirty persons who pursued the occupier of a grazing farm along the public road for almost a mile, yelling, screaming, booing and blowing horns at him. The police who were protecting the man were obliged to surround him in order to protect him from the violence of the crowd. In calling on the defendants to find sureties to keep the peace, Mr. Rice remarked that in many countries, a man so attacked would be tempted to use force and even firearms to protect himself, and that it showed wonderful forbearance on the man's part to have put up with it for so long. The Government do not propose to take any action, in the matter.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Is not that exactly the same advice as the right hon. Gentleman himself gave to the House?
    MR. BIRRELL: No, Sir; it is not. [Cries of "Very nearly."]

    Irish Arterial Drainage.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to

    1321
    the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the serious and pressing need for drainage works in Clare and other parts of Ireland, the Government will give the matter their immediate consideration.
    MR. BIRRELL: The question of arterial drainage in Ireland is one of considerable magnitude. Legislation would be necessary, and a very large amount of money must be forthcoming before the many drainage schemes brought to my notice can be taken in hand. It would therefore be futile for me to promise the immediate consideration which the hon. Member asks for. I can only say that the Government will consider the matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Butler Minors Estate, Clare.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the Butler Minors estate, Ballylire, county Clare, there is a landlord in the county Galway, Mr. William J. De Blacquiere, who resides at present in America, and who holds a farm of untenanted land on the above estate containing about 80 acres at Carrow-craheen, in the parish of Kilkeedy, county Clare, and has the same let on the eleven months system; whether his mother, Mrs. Annie De Blacquiere has signed the purchase agreements on his or her behalf for its purchase; and will the Estates Commissioners sanction the advance of money in this case, to the exclusion of small occupiers and farmers' sons.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they cannot trace any proceedings as having been instituted before them. I have not yet heard whether proceedings for the sale of the estate are pending in the Land Judge's Court, but am making inquiries on the subject.

    Return of Evicted Tenants.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say when the quarterly Returns which are required under Section 3 of
    1322
    the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907 will be laid upon the Table.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Com missioners inform me that the Return for the period ending 31st December last is in a forward state of preparation, and they hope that it will be ready for presentation before the end of the present month.

    Lisburn Registrar of Births and Deaths.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that Dr. Orr has resigned the position of registrar of births and deaths to the Lisburn Board of Guardians; whether the guardians-have refused to appoint a successor whether he is aware that the difficulty has arisen in consequence of the fact that the Belfast Corporation erected an infectious diseases hospital outside their city boundary and within the Lisburn Union, thus throwing upon the Lisburn. Union the cost of the registration of deaths in that institution; whether he is aware that two deaths have occurred in the union owing to infected diseases communicated to residents by persons visiting patients in the Purdysburn hospital; and whether he will use his-influence with the Local Government Board to exercise its powers to make the hospital a separate area, and thus place the cost on the Belfast Corporation, instead of the Lisburn Union.
    MR. BIRRELL: Dr. Orr has tendered his resignation as registrar of births and deaths because he objects to persons, from fever-infected areas in Belfast attending at his office to register the deaths of persons in Purdysburn hospital. The board of guardians have declined to appoint a successor to Dr. Orr, and the appointment now rests with the Lord-Lieutenant. No difficulty is anticipated in finding a suitable successor to Dr. Orr, if he should persist in his resignation. It is the fact that the fever hospital in question was erected by the Belfast Corporation outside the city boundary, and in the Lisburn Union. The Local Government Board are aware; that one death from spotted fever in that union last year was attributed to

    1323
    the cause mentioned in the Question, but the medical officer described the source of infection as unknown. The Local Government Board have no power to make the hospital a separate registration area. That power, however, rests with the Registrar-General, who regrets that he cannot accede to the proposal. It would, he informs me, be entirely without precedent, in England, Scotland, or Ireland, to constitute a public institution, situate in a certain union, into a separate district to form part of another union.

    Irish School-House Plans.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the official plans for the erection of school-houses in Ireland are yet ready; and, if not, when are they expected; and whether, owing to this delay, the manager of Ardamore National School, Lispole, county Kerry, has been unable to build, though Dr. Starkie described the existing school as one of the worst, If not the very worst, in Ireland.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the standard official plans are now ready for issue. As regards the proposed new school-house at Cloncurra which is intended to replace the present Ardamore School-house, the manager in November last intimated to the Commissioners that lie would have special plans and specifications prepared, but these have not yet been submitted to the Commissioners. If the manager does not now desire to furnish the special plans, the Commissioners are prepared to proceed with the case according to the standard official plans.

    The Ventry Estate, Kerry.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board agreed to open negotiations for the purchase of the Ventry estate; whether, as a result of this, landlord and tenants came to arrangements as to price, arrears, etc., which they thought would end the connection between them.; whether, after months of waiting, the Board
    1324
    returned maps, papers, etc., to the landlord, saying they could not buy because they had no money; and whether, seeing the injustice done both to landlord and tenant, and the certainty of trouble and confusion in the district through the action of a Government Department, immediate action will be taken to provide money for the Congested Districts Board to carry out the sales which they undertook and led the public to believe they could carry through.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board decided at their meeting in November last to open negotiations for the purchase of the Ventry estate, and they conveyed this information to the agent and asked him for particulars of the property. Subsequently, owing to the want of funds for the improvement of estates, the Board had to postpone negotiations in this and other cases, and consequently the particulars of the estate were not furnished to them. The Board were not cognisant of any arrangements between the landlord and the tenants. They informed the hon. Member a month ago that they had postponed negotiations solely on account of the want of funds for effecting improvements. As regards the concluding part of the Question, I can only refer the hon. Member to the very full statement which I made on the subject last Wednesday.

    County Cavan Lieutenancy.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state when the present lieutenant of county Cavan received his appointment, and the name of the first magistrate who was appointed on his recommendation, with the date of appointment.
    MR. BIRRELL: The present lieu-tenant of county Cavan was appointed by Letters Patent dated 15th March, 1907. The Lord Chancellor informs me that the lieutenant's first letter recommending the appointment of magistrates contained the names of four gentlemen, Messrs. P. McQuaid, E. Kieran, S. Saunderson, and S. Whyte. These gentlemen were forthwith appointed, and their

    1325
    Commissions bear the same date, namely, 18th June, 1907.
    MR. MOORE: Is it the fact that no statutory qualification is required to enable a gentleman to be appointed lieutenant of a county?
    MR. BIRRELL: My ignorance is so great that I cannot answer that Question without notice.
    MR. LANE-FOX: Are there any military duties appertaining to the office and, if so, are they satisfactorily carried on?
    MR. BIRRELL: I hope so; I know nobody so well qualified to fulfil them as my hon. friend.

    Business Arrangements.
    MR. BRAMSDON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, for the convenience of Members of the House, he will arrange that an announcement shall be made as early as possible in the No Lobby of the items of Government business that will be taken on the following day.
    MR. ASQUITH: It is usual to make an announcement every Thursday of the business to be taken during the following week, and, when the course of business so outlined is departed from, due notice is given to the House.

    Goodall Estate, Roscommon.
    MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many agreements have been lodged with the Estates Commissioners on the Goodall estate, county Roscommon; how many of those applications are for an advance in respect of holdings not in the occupation of the applicants; can he state how many years purchase have those owners agreed to give the landlord; what is the estimated average number of years purchase of the Estates Commissioners' inspector on the holdings of the non-purchasing tenants; have the Commisioners excluded those tenants from the sale, and, if so, for what reason; have the Estates Commissioners received any applications on behalf of evicted tenants, and, if so, have they taken
    1326
    steps to bring about their reinstatement; and, if not, is it their intention to take such steps.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that twenty-five purchase agreements have been lodged, in connection with the estate referred, to in the Question. All the applicants for advances are in occupation of their holdings. The average number of years purchase is twenty-one and one-third. The report of the inspector is confidential and it would be contrary to practice to disclose the details of the report as regards the tenants who have not agreed to purchase. The Commissioners propose to make advances to the tenants who have agreed to purchase, with the exception of three occupiers of grazing farms, portion of whose lands the Commissioners hope to acquire for the enlargement of some of the other holdings, and for the reinstatement of two evicted tenants from whom applications have been received.

    Glenahiery Outrage—Suggested Public Inquiry.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDasked the Irish Secretary whether, having regard to the fact that the appeal in the claim for damages for malicious injury made by Lord Ashtown in respect of the explosion at Glenahiery, had now been disposed of, and having regard to the fact that the only issue in that appeal was the question of malice, the Government would now institute a searching public inquiry into all the circumstances surrounding this case, with the view of discovering the guilty parties.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Irish Government are not at present in possession, of any information which would justify the belief that a public inquiry upon oath would secure proof of any facts which would lead to the discovery of the guilty parties. Such information, may, however, be hereafter forthcoming, and whenever it is we shall be perfectly willing to take the steps most likely to discover the real authors of this outrage.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: In view of the fact that the circumstances

    1327
    connected with, this outrage are surrounded by a cloud of suspicion, and that insinuations of all sorts have been made, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, in the interests of the public as well as of individuals, a full inquiry ought to be held?
    MR. BIRRELL: I wish I could attach the same importance as the hon. Member to the results which must follow from a public sworn inquiry. If I thought there were any facts which we could lay before such a body which would result in the removal of these insinuations, I should be the very first to adopt the suggestion. We are watching to see whether such information can be obtained, but a public sworn inquiry by itself is no certain instrument for the discovery of truth.
    MR. BYLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman keeping in mind the fact that this gentleman is the author of a publication called "Grievances from Ireland"?
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks a discussion in this House would be unsatisfactory, is it not desirable to have a tribunal which could hold a public inquiry?
    MR. BIRRELL: I will consider what the hon. Member says, but I do not see what the reference to this inquiry would be or what evidence could be laid before it which is not already before the public. Some day soon we may become possessed of further facts which would enable a public inquiry to be of some utility, and not merely a means of spending public money.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: If the Government maintains that attitude it will be necessary for us to raise the whole question in this House.
    MR. MOORE: If you do not, we will.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I hope you will move for an inquiry. I will second the Motion.

NEW BILL.
  FRUIT GROWERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To give increased security of tenure to Fruit Growers in Scotland," presented by Mr. Menzies; supported by Mr. Gulland, Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Eugene Wason, Mr. Beale, and Mr. Dundas White; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 148.]

  POLICE (WEEKLY HOLIDAY).
  MR. REMNANTasked permission to introduce a Bill which he was sure would command the sympathy of every Member of the House, viz., one which sought to give one day's rest in seven to members of the police force of this country. He did not propose to dilate on the excellence of that force which was admitted and appreciated by everybody who lived in this country as well as by a great many who lived out of it. But he felt that he must call attention to the extraordinary diversity of the duties of the police, a diversity so great that it became almost bewildering. The more one became acquainted with the work of the constabulary the more one recognised the absolute necessity that great strength of character should be possessed by every member of that force, especially when they considered the forbearance necessary to be shown in dealing with various sections of the community, and that the police officer had himself in his own person to give an example of order, sobriety, integrity, and propriety of conduct to the rest of the country. Might he remind the House of the position to-day with reference to the rest given to members of the Metropolitan Police Force, with which he was more closely connected. When a man joined that force he became entitled to one Sunday out of every four, and as a sort of set-off to that he was granted thirteen weekdays in the course of the year. He had to work full time on Christmas Day, Boxing Day, Good Friday, and Bank Holidays. He was allowed ten days leave during the year. He was allowed no extra pay for overtime. He was in a

  1329
  much, worse position than the ordinary working-man, who in addition to his Sunday's rest enjoyed his Saturday half-holiday, and had in fact to give up the equivalent of eight weeks of six working days in the course of a year. Surely those facts ought to be sufficient to justify the demand which was being made for this small boon to the members of a very deserving force. They had only to recollect the very exacting duties which they were called upon to perform, and which they performed in a fashion whose excellence was admitted on all sides, and the demand became almost unanswerable. There was no body of men in whom it was more important that they should find a very high standard of physical and moral strength. New York had got the one day's rest in seven. In France, members of the force had one day off in ten, and they were shortly to get one day in seven. Why was it that we lagged behind those two authorities, who, at all events, amongst other had learned to recognise that the health and strength of their police constituted a very valuable civic asset? His hon. and learned friend the Member for Reading, if he were present, would be able to support him when he referred to the borough which he represented. At Reading where they had put this scheme into practice, it had worked smoothly, and with admirable results, and had set the rest of the country an example which it might well follow. What was it that stood in the way of this great reform? Was it the same cause that stopped so many other urgent and necessary reforms? Money? He was afraid it was, but surely in a matter like this, demanding but a small sum of money compared with its great results, it behoved them to take the question firmly and courageously in hand to see whether they could not meet the expense. The Home Secretary in answer to two or three Questions he had addressed to him in the House, had named a sum of £148,500 as the likely expenditure in regard to this one day's rest in seven to members of the Metropolitan Police Force. In his opinion, he did not think the expense would be £50,000, and he was supported in his conviction by authorities outside the House. But let them take
  1330
  the figures of the Home Secretary; let them put it at £150,000 excluding the superannuation allowance. The Home Secretary, in answer to another Question of his, had stated that the increased rate produced by the last assessment amounted to close on £33,000. It was admitted that in the hands of the Commissioners of Police there was a surplus balance from the rates collected in the past of £750,000. If that sum were allowed to be used in granting this great boon it would very materially reduce the expense which was estimated by the Home Department. No allowance was made in the estimate of the right hon. Gentleman for the reduction which was likely to be caused in the sick list if this boon was given. Allowances might properly be made ii other directions to further reduce the Government's estimate, and therefore they must take it that the official estimate was one that would and could be considerably reduced. When Mr. Ritchie was Secretary for the Home Department, he gave the extra 1s. 6d. allowance to the police force per week, plus 1s. 6d. extra lodging money, on the official estimate of £90,000 to £100,000, but according to the statement issued by the Government quite recently, the cost of this change did not exceed £50,000. They had a splendid example in Reading, where the change had led to a reduction of no less than 40 per cent, in the sick list; the men were contented, and appreciated the boon, and remained longer in the service than before. He hoped hon. Members would not regard this in any Party sense, but join in helping forward this great movement to give the police force what they so richly deserved, viz., a small relaxation from the hardening influences of their occupation, an occupation which must unhappily bring them more in touch with the darker than the brighter side of life. This gift of one day's rest in seven, he was sure the country would feel, was worth the small cost which it might entail. He begged to move.
  Motion made, and Question, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide one day's rest in seven to the police,"—(Mr. Remnant.)—put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Remnant, Mr. Goulding, Sir William Bull, and Mr. Claude Hay.

  POLICE (WEEKLY HOLIDAY) BILL.
  "To provide one day's rest in seven to the Police," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed [Bill 149.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on the Business of Supply, if under discussion when the Business is postponed this day, be resumed and proceeded with, though opposed, after the interruption of Business."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  The House divided.—Ayes, 270; Noes, 87. (Division List, No. 34.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Crossley, William J.

  Hogan, Michael

  Alden, Percy

  Cullinan, J.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Hudson, Walter

  Armitage, R.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Delany, William

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Barker, John

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

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

  Duckworth, James

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Beale, W. P.

  Duffy, William J.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

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

  Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Elibank, Master of

  Kilbride, Denis

  Black, Arthur W.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Boland, John

  Erskine, David C.

  King, Alfred John(Knutsford)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Brace, William

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lambert, George

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Branch, James

  Ffrench, Peter

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

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

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Lough, Thomas

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Gill, A. H.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

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

  Lynch, H. B.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Maclean, Donald

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Grant, Corrie

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Gulland, John W.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  M'Crae, George

  Cleland, J. W.

  Halpin, J.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Clough, William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  M'Kean, John

  Clynes, J. R.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

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

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

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

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Meehan, Francis E.(Leitrim, N.)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Menzies, Walter

  Cowan, W. H.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Montagu, E. S.

  Cox, Harold

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

  Mooney, J. J.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

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

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Summerbell, T.

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John j

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Morrell, Philip

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Morse, L. L.

  Reddy, M.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Toulmin, George

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Redmond William (Clare)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Murray, James

  Rees, J. D.

  Verney, F. W.

  Myer, Horatio

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Vivian, Henry

  Napier, T. B.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmth

  Walton, Joseph

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Nicholls, George

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wardle, George J.

  Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Waring, Walter

  Nolan, Joseph

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E (Dundee)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E.(Clackmannan

  Nuttall, Harry

  Robinson, S.

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Watt, Henry A.

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Weir, James Galloway

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Whitbread, Howard

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Rowlands, J.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  O'Dowd, John

  Runciman, Walter

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  O'Grady, J.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  0'Kelly,James (Roscommon, N.

  Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Wiles, Thomas

  O'Malley, William

  Sears, J. E.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Seely, Colonel

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  O'Shee, James John

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Williamson, A.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Partington, Oswald

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

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

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Winfrey, R.

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

  Soamea, Arthur Wellesley

  Perks, Robert William

  Soares, Ernest J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fell, Arthur

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Percy, Earl

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

  Gardner, Ernest

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Glover, Thomas

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gordon, J.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Gretton, John

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Guinness, Walter Edward

  Seddon, J.

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Starkey, John R.

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

  Jenkins, J.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

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

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

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

  Younger, George

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Arthur, Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Moore, William

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

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1908–9.
  1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £7,129,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Wages, etc., to Officers, Seamen and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that by common consent between the two sides of the House it was arranged that the general debate on the Navy should be continued on Vote 1. This is not permissible unless some such arrangement has been concluded by common consent. I do not rise to make a second speech upon the broad question of the naval shipbuilding policy of the Government, but I wish to repeat a question which I put at some length yesterday and which I will content myself with restating in terms which are, I think, quite unmistakable. The question is whether in the latter months of 1911 there will not be thirteen ships of the "Dreadnought" and "Invincible" types belonging to Germany and only twelve belonging to Great Britain, it being assumed, in the first place, that the ordinary date at which they (both Germany and Great Britain) begin to build is adhered to; in the second place, that the German statutory shipbuilding programme is fulfilled—and up to the present date it always has been fulfilled; and in the third place that the rates of shipbuilding in Germany and Great Britain are, as it has been asserted by the German Minister of Marine, practically identical or largely identical. That is a very clear and specific question which I have isolated from all the details which encumber the debates on the Navy Estimates. I am quite sure that the Government will be doing a great public service not only to the House, but to those of us who are deeply interested in this navel problem, if they
  1336
  can give us a clearer answer than was to be expected or indeed was possible yesterday from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty to whom I gave no notice and to whom I could give no notice because the question itself was suggested in the course of last-night's debate.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): I do not in the least complain of-the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has addressed himself to the matter or to his putting this question, which I agree with him is of the greatest interest to the community at large. Before I proceed to answer to the best of my ability let me repeat what I said more than a week ago, that I do not think there is the faintest difference of opinion: between us on two points—one of which may be said to involve the other. The first is that we must maintain the unassailable supremacy of this country at sea; and that for that purpose the two-Power standard, as it is commonly called—whether a scientific formula or not—is a good practical and workable one. There is no difference of opinion— as was pointed out by the First Lord of the Admiralty in his Memorandum— between successive Administrations. The question of the right hon. Gentleman, however, does not affect the second question at all, because in dealing with, the two-Power standard you must not simply consider the "Dreadnoughts" and "Invincibles." Everybody will agree that there are other classes of ships which must be brought into account also. I myself am not an expert, but from such knowledge as I have of the subject, I should say that the "Lord Nelson" and "Agamemnon," although they may not be quite in the same class as the "Dreadnought" and "Invincible," yet are so superior to other battleships, and in some degree so little inferior to the "Dreadnought," that they ought to weigh very heavily in the balance. But, the question put by the right hon. Gentleman is confined entirely to the vessels; of the "Dreadnought" and "Invincible" class. First of all, let us see what the; assumption is with regard to Germany. The right hon. Gentleman's assumption is that in the months of December or

  1337
  November, 1911—I think I can safely say within the last two months of the year 1911—Germany will or may be in possession of thirteen ships of this class. That, of course, is based on two preliminary hypotheses. The first is that the whole of the German programmes laid down between now and then will be carried out to the letter; and next, that the German rate of construction will be such as at any rate to admit of the building of one of these vessels within thirty months of the date of its being laid down.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I agree with you.
  MR. ASQUITH: I think it is mathematically demonstrable that if the ship takes longer than thirty months from the date of its being laid down, the thirteen vessels will not be there at the time the right hon. Gentleman mentions. I need not say I am not going to discuss whether these two hypotheses are or are not well founded, or whether the Germans will find it possible to adhere to their programme or whether they will be able to maintain this rate of construction. I think there is very grave reasons to doubt whether they will maintain this rate of construction. Let us admit that they will, but it must be clearly understood that it is on these two hypotheses—these two assumptions— that the problem presents itself. Let us look at the other—the British side of the question. By the end of the year 1910—to be quite accurate by January, 1911—when the battleships and cruisers which form part of the programme of new construction for this year will be completed, to put it at the latest, in the month of January, 1911, we shall be in possession admittedly of twelve ships of this class. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's proposition is this. He says: "I admit that by January, 1911, we here shall have twelve ships of this class, but when you come to the month of November or December, 1911, the Germans, if they have completed their paper programme and are able to carry on their shipbuilding in the time I have suggested, will have thirteen. In other words, we shall be one short." That assumes either that nothing at all
  1338
  is done next year in the way of new construction, for the twelve vessels referred to are provided for in the programme of past years and the present; or that whatever is done in the way of new construction or whatever is proposed, the vessels will be laid down at such a date that they will not be completed in the months of November or December, 1911. I agree that upon there assumptions that will be so, but without in any way forecasting the shipbuilding programme for the next year, I will say this without the faintest hesitation, that if we find at that time there is a probability or a reasonable probability of the German programme being carried out in the way the paper figures suggest, we should deem it our duty to provide and we should provide not only for a sufficient number of ships, but for such a date for laying down those ships that at the end of 1911 the superiority of Germany which the right hon. Gentleman foreshadows would not be an actual fact. I hope that is quite explicit. That is the policy of His Majesty's Government. It remains on record and I think it ought to reassure the House that we do not intend in this matter to be left behind.
  MR. BRAMSDONsaid there had been considerable discussion on the subject of providing ships for the Navy, and on the number of men to be employed. He wanted to change the venue of the discussion a little, and to deal rather with questions of the discipline of the men, and of their comforts, and to ask that justice might be done to them in their various positions in the service. He wanted in the first place to say how grateful the men of the Navy were for the great benefits which had been bestowed upon them in the past year. He wished to thank the Admiralty, and his right hon. friend the Secretary to the Admiralty, and those associated with him, for a great number of boons which had been bestowed on the men. He put in the forefront the question of victualling, canteen reform, the reforms-concerning officers' cooks and stewards, and the ships' cooks of the Navy. This; was a very large and comprehensive programme. It meant that the men of the Fleet had had a very great

  1339
  blessing bestowed on them of better food, cooked and served in a better way. The question of the cooking of the food had been a very long and tiresome subject, but he thought at last the difficulty in connection with the serving and supply of food had been met, and he desired as in some sense representing the men, to thank the Admiralty for the great efforts which had been successfully made in this matter. He wanted to thank them also for the new regulations as to clothing, which had bestowed a great boon on the men. During the past year also there had been established the wireless telegraphy class, creating more petty and warrant officers, and enabling the men to obtain speedier promotion and better positions in the service. He wanted to thank them, too, for the extra pay and the better conditions among the military branch of the warrant officers, but he wished the Admiralty could have seen their way clear to show some appreciation towards the carpenters branch of the Navy, which he thought richly deserved it. He hoped the Admiralty had this matter still under consideration, and that something would yet be done. There had been a new scale of pay for the seamen and signal class, and he understood that that new pay was in some sense a benefit to the men. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would forgive him when he said that the men were unable to appreciate that new scale of pay. They were unable to understand that it was any further benefit. In the First Lord's statement it was mentioned that arrangements would have to be made to meet some difficulties, and he would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could tell him if as the result of the issue of this scale there was to be an extra grant of money supplied, as then the men would understand it would be of benefit to them. At the present time it was a sort of Chinese puzzle, and there were many parts which the men were unable to understand. If his right hon. friend could tell him that it would result in an extended grant he thought they might assume that more benefits were being given to the men. He wished to thank the Admiralty very heartily also for the attention they had given to the numerous letters which
  1340
  he, as a representative of a dockyard constituency, had had to address to them. There had been a great improvement made this year in the lot of the general body of naval men. Upon this improvement he had to congratulate his right hon. friend the Secretary to the Admiralty, especially as it was a greater advance than had perhaps ever been recorded in any year in modern times or in the history of the Navy. That was a great deal for a Member representing a naval port to admit, but whilst tendering his thanks in that respect he must say that there was a good deal more to be done, and in this connection he would mention the important question of disrating in the service. In 1905, no fewer than 951 men were disrated summarily, which meant that their careers were spoiled, as it were, in consequence of the summary act of the officer of a ship. He took it that the commanders of ships meant to do justice to the men when they disrated them, but it was done in such a summary way and without proper evidence that the men had to contend with a very great injustice. In 1906, 902 men were disrated. He would explain the procedure which was followed in these cases. A man got into disgrace and was put into the report, and on the following morning he was brought up on the quarter-deck; no evidence was taken in writing, but there was some general evidence taken upon which the captain of the ship decided that the man should be disrated. That was especially bard upon the ship's steward, because if he was disrated he was disrated from the position of a chief petty officer to that of a leading seaman, and if once a man was disrated his career was practically gone. He might recover his position in the ordinary military branches after six months if his superior thought fit, but if he was an assistant steward it would take him two years before he could hope to be restored to his old position. He thought the committee would appreciate what that as regarded pay and pension meant, viz., a serious injury to a man throughout the whole of his career, and if the money alone which it meant to him were computed it would mean a very large sum. He wished to make a suggestion to remedy this state of

  1341
  things, viz., he wanted his right hon. friend to consider the advisability of taking down the evidence in writing, and keeping it as a record. He firmly believed that if that were done the number of cases of disrating would be reduced by one half in twelve months. The men complained that they did not get justice done to their cases as they were not properly considered at this hasty trial on the quarter-deck, and if they tried to get a word in they were told that they were rude and must not speak, and were in various ways prevented from making a statement. This was a very serious thing to many men in the Navy, and he made this appeal, that as the Admiralty had during the past year done so much, they would try and consider this measure of justice which would be very much appreciated throughout the Navy. The existence of a feeling that justice was not done could not be for the good of the service. He also wanted the right hon. Gentleman to consider the question of badges. One set of men got badges and were paid for them, another set of men got badges and were not paid for them, while a third did not get any badges at all. One general system should be adopted so that these anomalies should be done away and all ratings should be allowed badges and paid a penny per day for each. The main question upon which he wished to address the Committee that day was in connection with the status of the engineer officers of the Navy. He supposed that if one were to ask anyone connected with the Navy what was the most important thing in regard to the personnel they would reply that it was the question of discipline. Unquestionably it was. Our ships would be nothing and our personnel would not be able to be properly organised if it were not for the discipline carried out in the most effectual manner. That discipline meant that every man connected with the military branch of the Navy —he meant the fighting force of the Navy—should readily respond to the order of his superior officer and carry out that discipline which alone could bring about the best results in all matters connected with our ships and the fighting of our ships. That existed throughout the military part of the Navy, but there
  1342
  was one part of the ship in which that discipline could not be said to be carried out with that perfection that it ought to be, and that was in the engine-room and stokehole part of the ship. The men were loyal enough and respectful enough, but unfortunately, the engineer officers who had charge of them, and who had their supervision, had no control over them, no command over them, and when he told the Committee that the Engineers' Department of His Majesty's Navy consisted of one-third of the whole of the personnel of the Navy they would see how important this question was. There were few hon. Members of this House who knew that the engineer officer, no matter what his position was on board ship, had absolutely no power to enforce an order except that he could in case of disobedience take a man to some officer of the military branch. They ought to have some departmental power. This was not a matter that had arisen to-day, but one which arose many years ago. The engineer officers of the Navy demanded that there should be amongst the engineer officers of the Navy disciplinary power to command and control their men. In the case of war what was more important than the engine department of His Majesty's Navy? The ready response to an order, the way in which it should be carried out, the readiness for war, in fact, the instant an order was given that it should be immediately complied with throughout the whole of the engineer's staff, he thought they would agree were matters imperative. Let them consider that there was a war going on, and that the ships were either chasing the enemy or being chased by the enemy. In. that particular case one could easily see that the parts of the ship which stood the most severe strain were the engine departments, because if they had to chase another ship it was absolutely imperative that the whole organisation in connection with the engine department should be placed on a perfect footing, and every order should be immediately obeyed; and the same thing applied if they had to organise the chase from an enemy or had to approach the enemy; but no power whatever was given to an engineer officer to punish his men, however

  1343
  slightly. He could not keep his men in even for an hour, he could not give them extra work for an hour, he could not stop their leave for an hour, and he was not able to give the slightest possible punishment in order to control and command his men. He had no control or command of his men as he should have. In two navies of the world which had recently been engaged in battles, an alteration in this respect was brought about. He referred to the United States and Japan. The United States had given to the engineer the position of a military officer, and so had Japan. After the great battles with the Russians, the Japanese had come to the conclusion that the engineer officers in their department should have complete command and control of their men, and that they should be made military officers. Indeed, the Admiralty themselves had admitted that this was a proper thing to do, because the new officers to be created were to be military officers, and they were to have the same powers as regards the command of their men as officers in the executive branch of the Navy. With reference to the old engineer officers and the present military officers he would like to read to the Committee a statement made by Lord Selborne, who, was First Lord of the Admiralty in a previous Administration. Lord Selborne said:—
  "I ask you and the country, What is the most important thing on board a battleship to-day? The machinery. I defy anyone to give any other answer. It has been said that these engineer duties proposed for executive officers are not really duties for combatant officers. Brushing technicalities aside, who are the combative officers? I say he (the engineer officer) is one of the officers essential to the fighting of a ship. It might be very unfortunate for a ship, but if you land every doctor, surgeon, servant, chaplain, and accountant before action, the ship could be fought just as well as if they were on board; but if you landed seamen, marines and their officers, the ship would be helpless, as she would be if you landed the engine-room personnel."
  He hoped he had made it clear that the engineer officer of the future was to be, and in fact, was admitted by the Admiralty to be a military officer with control and command of the men under him. But then they would have this anomaly, that when these young officers came to be commissioned officers, they would, in accordance with an
  1344
  answer given by his right hon. friend, pass into the engine-room, and they would have this peculiarity, namely, engineer officers under the new regime with military authority, while the old engineers, holding higher positions than they, would have no power of control over their men. He wanted his right hon. friend to tell him what was to happen in such a case, would the military officer, in any respect, have command of his senior officer? Such a thing as that would be ridiculous. It would be the reductio ad absurdum, because they would get back to the anomaly under these regulations that the military officer of junior rank would take precedence in certain cases of officers of superior rank. He thought the Committee would fully understand the relative rank which existed between officers in the engineer branch and those of the military branch. There were lieutenants of the military branch, and commanders and captains, and some few years ago the Admiralty, in considering this question, conceded military rank to the engineer officer, but without conceding military control or military powers. The engineer officers had consistently and persistently pointed out that unless they get power of control over their men, it would be a positive danger to this country should there be at any time in the future a battle fought when the urgency and importance of the discipline and organisation of the Fleet became absolutely necessary. The present engineer officer would remain in the Navy for some fifteen or twenty, or twenty-five years. Yet there would be in the Navy young men holding military positions, and unless something was done to bring about a change it would be a great disadvantage to the Navy and to this country in time of trouble. The only way to enforce discipline was for the engineer officer to have respect shown to him by those beneath him, and how could a man have respect shown to him when he had no power to enforce his orders? Why, in civil life a man had power to discharge. Of course, they could not do that in the Navy. What engineer officers asked for was really more modest in character. What they said was that they wanted the power to punish on a similar basis to that of the Marine officers of the ship. Marine

  1345
  officers of the ship had control of nothing like the proportion of men that were under the engineer officers in the Navy. There were 34,000 men in the engine departments of the Navy, and if anything arose to create discord, it would affect the security of the ship and lead to that want of readiness for war and ready response to orders which were so necessary. If the orders of the Engineer Department were not fulfilled in a perfect manner, then he suggested that a very serious danger would arise. He thought the House was entitled to say to him that if this thing had been going on so long, why had this measure of justice not been granted to the engineer officers before? He would tell them why. It was simply prejudice on the part of the officers who now had command in the Service. They did not like to concede to other branches the position which they themselves held. At the same time the House might say: "But surely we shall get the new officers and, in the long run, things will right themselves." He would be very sorry if that view were taken for a moment, because it must be fifteen or twenty years before any military officers could obtain high positions which others held at the present time; and if they had friction between the two it must be to the disadvantage of the Navy. Let him again read what Lord Selborne said upon this question, in a speech which he made in another place. He said—
  "There is a school which says 'Let things alone'; but things, when they are great forces, will not let you alone, and it is not my idea of the Junctions of the Board of Admiralty that it should sit still and be moved in spite of itself by forces which it did not recognise until it -was overwhelmed by them. Again, I am told that everything that is given to any other officer is so much detracted from the value of the executive officers' positions. That is base coin, and it exasperates me when I hear it jar on the counter."
  There had been several Departmental Committees on this question, and he thought he was light in saying that there was only one answer to this point, and that was that the power to control and command their men, the power of punishment, must be given to the engineer officers; it was the logical outcome of all discussions and all reasoning. There was a Committee presided over by Admiral Douglas, which sat not very long ago, and in which
  1346
  this question was asked to be decided. The Committee sat for some time. It was composed of some six executive officers, four marine officers and four engineer officers, and the result was a Report which used most hostile and injudicious language on the part of the military branch of the Navy. His right hon. friend on a question being asked him by the Member for Dulwich, as to whether this Report was to be made public, and in reply to two other questions, said—
  "This Report is still under consideration. As the Committee was appointed for the confidential guidance of the Board in contingencies which have not yet arisen, it is not proposed to publish the Report."
  He would like his right hon. friend to promise that the Report would be published, because he believed if it were published it would be in itself a sufficient justification for all that the engineer officers demanded. It would show the reason why there was a very great necessity in the organisation of the Service. He hoped that even now his right hon. friend would consider the advisability of making this Report public. What he was afraid of was that his right hon. friend, acting on the part of the Admiralty, would have the usual stereotyped answer which had been given in reply to this question so many times. He would say, perhaps, that the matter was not ripe yet, and was still under discussion. But the matter was ripe, and it had been discussed twenty or thirty times. They kept on giving concessions to the engineer, and he observed, in connection with the First Lord's statement, that now they proposed to give the engineers more pay, which they had been demanding for years, and which they deserved. But on this very vital question which the engineer officers of the Navy had asked for several years—that they should be given not anomalous military positions, but a real power of control over their men, so that they might be able to punish them in a departmental way for breach of duty—they had fever got a reply. It was not meant that the engineer officer desired to assume the powers of the captain of the ship; all he wanted was, in connection with his own department, that he might be able to give some correction to his men—all he wanted

  1347
  was that he should have the same power as a marine officer at the present time. He thought it was called seven days 10A. He could stop their leave or their grog for seven days or less, or he could keep them in for an hour to discharge extra work in consequence of disobedience on their part. He introduced this question solely from its national importance, and because it was demanded by every engineer officer and everyone who had any knowledge whatever of the duties of the Engineer Department of the Navy.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid the pronouncement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although extremely satisfactory as far as it went, did not materially advance the question of whether or not the Government were going to adhere strictly to the two-Power standard. The fact that we were going to have a superiority of heavy ships over Germany in December, 1911, did not put forward the question of the two-Power standard any further than it was before. Though probably the majority of Members opposite were perfectly sound on this point of the two-Power standard, there was, as they knew, a considerable section of them which accidentally or otherwise seemed to be led by the hon. Member for Falkirk, who did not appear to think it necessary to maintain that standard. There was nothing in the hon. Member's speech to show really what he meant in reference to the two-Power standard. His Motion was that there should be a reduction of armaments because of the friendly relations which at present existed between this country and foreign nations. The burden of the hon. Member's argument was that there was not now the same necessity for heavy armaments as before the Japanese Alliance and the Agreements with France and Russia. He would like to ask the hon. Member and those who followed him what they meant by there not being the same necessity for the same armaments. Did they mean that we had more than a sufficient margin over the two-Power standard or, as on the whole he gathered from the speech, that we should give up the two-Power standard altogether and go back to the one-Power standard.
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present.
  House counted and forty Members being found present,
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG(continuing) said there was a certain amount of doubt in certain Members' minds as to the exact meaning of the mover of the Resolution, but they had no doubt as to the exact meaning of the hon. Baronet who seconded it, and who said in the most plain and straightforward way that the reason for a two-Power standard was gone, and that no attempt should be made in the future to keep it up. The hon. Baronet also warned the Government in very strong terms that if all the members who sympathised with the Motion voted against the Government, His Majesty's Ministers would be in a minority. That was a point which it would be well to clear up. They had had a comparatively specific statement from the Government that they were determined to maintain the two-Power standard, although they had refused to allow those words to be introduced at the end of the Motion the other day. They also had it from the mover and seconder of the Resolution that a large section of members opposite felt so strongly on the subject and held the views which were held by the hon. Baronet, that if they had allowed themselves to vote according to their feelings and consciences they would; have voted for the Resolution. That was a very serious state of affairs. He did not approach the question at all in a Party spirit. He believed the majority of Members opposite agreed with him rather thin with the hon. Member for Falkirk. But it seemed worthy of being cleared up, and the House and the country should know what section of the present Members of Parliament felt that we could safely fall off from the standard which this and preceding Governments had set up as being absolutely necessary for our welfare. He hoped the hon. Member for Falkirk would make it perfectly plain what he meant. Let him say in specific terms that the time had come when it was no longer necessary to maintain the two-Power standard, so that they might know exactly where they were and what they were voting on.

  1349
  Abstract resolutions no doubt gave an opportunity for Members to express their views.
  THE CHAIRMAN: We are not dealing with an abstract Resolution, but with a very concrete one.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsubmitted that the question of the two-Power standard and the general reduction of the Navy was the whole essence of the debate. He regretted that in the whole of these discussions the representatives of the Admiralty had sheltered themselves too often and too completely behind the expert advisers of the Admiralty, and he submitted that they had entirely misconceived their position with regard to the Navy and the position which the Admiralty bore with reference to that House, and which that House bore with reference to the Admiralty. In a debate on affairs dealing with the Home Office or the Board of Trade it was very rarely that one heard the responsible Ministers quoting the permanent Civil servants who were their subordinates. The Admiralty was subservient to that House in precisely the same way as any other great public department, and the Secretary to the Admiralty was absolutely responsible for all the acts that were done, whether by himself or by the Civil Lord or by the naval members of the Admiralty, or the Civil servants employed in the office. In all departments Ministers were to a cert-in extent guided by the experience and advice of Civil servants, but it was not more so in the Admiralty than in other offices. The right hon. Gentleman regretted very much the newspaper campaign against the Home Fleet. He (Mr. Craig) did not regret that the Home Fleet had formed the subject of so much discussion in the public Press, and he was quite sure that Members who had listened to the debate would agree that all was not what it should be with regard to the Home Fleet. He thought the explanations with regard to the nucleus squadrons of the Home Fleet given by the Civil Lord, and the supplementary figures given by the hon. Member for Fareham, would go very far to endorse the opinions which many people and many news-
  1350
  papers had previously made up their minds to on this subject. The explanation with regard to the ships in the dockyards for repairs was entirely unsatisfactory. He questioned whether any hon. Member, unless he was very well versed in naval affairs, knew really what class of ships belonged to these nucleus divisions and what class did not. They had been told that when a ship in one of the other fleets was sent home for repairs it was generally necessary to send out another ship to take its place. He would like to know whether the ship so sent out was ever taken from one of these divisions of the Home Fleet, and if so, did the ship which was sent home take its place in the nucleus squadrons. A ship was not going to be sent home from the Mediterranean or the Atlantic for repairs unless there was a comparatively serious need, and if that was the case the ship could not be in a very efficient condition for the carrying out of evolutions at sea, and therefore she did not form a very important part of a nucleus or any other squadron. The hon. Member for Fareham had shown that the Portsmouth division at any rate was not in an efficient condition, in fact, could hardly be said to be in a condition at all, because there were only two out of six ships fit at the moment to go to sea. If that was the case with the Portsmouth division it was a fair inference that the Plymouth division was not in a very much better condition. The Secretary to the Admiralty had spoken of the Home Fleet as a whole as being a real fleet in being. He was afraid his conception of a real fleet in being was very different from that of the right hon. Gentleman for with the exception of the Nore division, so far as he had been able to gather, it was not in a ready and efficient condition for war. He saw that the Nore division had gone-to Invergordon for gunnery practice. Of the six battleships of the latest type-which it included only four had gone, and it was hardly correct to say that the-"Majestic" and the "Cassar" were of the latest class. The "Majestic" was over ten years old. He thought they might claim that instead of being in an efficient condition there was a most

  1351
  lamentable want of homogeneity about the Fleet. It was divided into three parts which very rarely assembled under its Commander-in-Chief. With regard to the new programme, the Civil Lord in a rather impatient and peevish way had said he wished Members would not be continually harping about what other countries were doing. That was n very extraordinary statement. How could they male up their mind what our programme was to be unless they knew what other nations were doing? It was of the very essence of our programme to keep pace with the shipbuilding prgramme of other countries. The hon. Gentleman probably referred principally to Germany. There had been a great deal of nonsense talked about the danger of mentioning the doings of Germany or any other nation. It might be that the right hon. Gentleman or the Leader of the Opposition had to be guarded in their statements, but lie had no misgivings and no fears of creating any unpleasantness in any country by what he might say, and he had no hesitation in saying that to his mind a great part of their calculations as to the size of the Fleet must depend on what other countries were doing, and especially upon what Germany was doing. They were constantly being informed in the Press and in the House that the great increase which had lately been made in the German Fleet was not in any way directed against us. Tie could not characterise that statement as anything but nonsensical. The Germans, to his mind, had but one central idea in rapidly building up their Fleet. They had determined if possible to construct a Fleet equal to ours, and (he saw no reason why they should not frankly admit the fact, and with equal determination set themselves to the task of keeping ahead of them, as he was quite sure the present and each successive Admiralty would do. He hoped the question of whether or not the House and the country were thoroughly determined to maintain the two-Power standard would be disposed of at an early date definitely and once for all. He considered that that was (h? most important question in naval matters they had to discuss, and although they were content with the statement made by
  1352
  the Ministers responsible for the Navy, they wanted to know to what extent the feeling voiced by the hon. Member for Falkirk existed on the opposite side of the House.
  MR. E. H. LAMBwished to say how very dissatisfied he was in common with some others with the reply of the Civil Lord to certain questions that had been asked with reference to the establishment. For years past the establishment had been held out as an inducement to men coming into the Royal dockyards. Now for some months the establishment had been suspended and a great incentive had been taken from the men, and they were entitled to some fuller explanation than they had had. The Civil Lord had practically replied that the matter was now being considered by the Government. He assumed that that meant the Government were considering the matter in conjunction with the Treasury as distinct from the Admiralty. He wished to emphasise the discontent there was in dockyard towns because of the want of faith in this matter. He pressed for an assurance that the First Lord would use his influence with the Cabinet to see that justice was done. He wanted to refer to another matter which did not brook delay. Provision was made for further dredging operations in the River Medway. They had been told in days gone by that the docks at Chatham were not sufficient to take in the "Dreadnought," but that could not be argued in the case of the cruiser class, and what he pressed for to-day was some assurance that in the allocation of the cruisers included in this year's programme, Chatham would be considered. He pleaded for a Royal dockyard as distinct from a private yard. He hoped one of the cruisers would be allocated to that dockyard. He and his friends were convinced that it would be more economical for the nation to carry on a certain amount of new work in conjunction with repairs. As to the dredging of the Medway, during the past few days he had witnessed one of the dredgers at work. There he found hoppers were in attendance, and on the soil being taken from the bed of the river it was taken right down the Medway over

  1353
  Sheerness bar, on past the Nore, and right out beyond Barrow Deeps to the Black Deeps, a distance of thirty-five miles, or seventy miles there and back. Some time ago they were told by the Admiralty that one of the difficulties in connection with Chatham dockyard was the silting up of the bed of the Medway. One of the contentions of the Admiralty, though he did not admit it, was that from the great clay holes in some of the creeks of the Medway the soil silted back with the outgoing tide into the bed of the river. Some time ago the Admiralty bought a large marsh called the Hoo Marsh, just off Gillingham Peach, and adjoining it was a creek. He would suggest to the Admiralty that they should make some alteration in the dredging operations. Instead of having hoppers alongside of the dredgers, and the consequent delay in the carrying away of the soil, and especially in view of the fact that there were not a sufficient number of hoppers to keep the dredgers all at work, he suggested that some of the many barges obtainable on the Medway might be employed. These barges could deposit the soil at the back of the Hoo Marsh, which an attempt was being made to reclaim by the deposit of ashes from Chatham Dockyard. Besides saving expense on account of the lesser distance which it would be necessary to carry the soil, employment would be given to much local labour. There were at present a large number of unskilled workmen sadly in need of employment. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would show that the words he had used since the present Government had been in power were justified and that the interests of Chatham would be very really safeguarded.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid these were questions which really ought to be raised on Vote 8. They did not arise on the general discussion.
  MR. E. H. LAMBsaid he would leave these matters. He wished to emphasise the need which was generally felt as to the fortifying of the East Coast. The nerve centre had now been transferred to the east as distinct from the south, and, therefore, he urged that greater attention
  1354
  should be paid to that part of the coast and especially the lower end embracing Chatham. That was an ideal base, and he asked the Secretary to the Admiralty to use his influence to secure its retention as a first-class naval dockyard where new construction and repairs might go on side by side.
  MR. SOARESsaid he desired to raise a question which was of considerable interest to his own constituency, namely, the question of the coastguard. He was not quite satisfied with the statement which the Secretary to the Admiralty made the other day. The duties of the coastguard, he understood, were threefold. They had to look after war vessels on the coast; they had duties in connection with the prevention of smuggling; and last, but by no means least, they had a considerable amount of duty so far as life-saving was concerned. Unfortunately there was a somewhat mixed and muddled jurisdiction with regard to the coastguard. It was somewhat difficult to see where that of the Board of Admiralty ended and that of the Board of Trade began. There was, for instance, a wreck recently near Hartland Point, and a Board of Trade inquiry was at once ordered. At his request the Board of Trade undertook to inquire into the efficiency of the coastguard service. That was to say, the Board of Trade inquired into the efficiency of men paid by the Admiralty; but, to make confusion worse confounded, the gentlemen who sat on the Board of Trade inquiry were naval men, who, therefore, had to judge of tie efficiency of the department they formerly served. One question entirely within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty was whether there was to be an increase or a decrease in the service, or whether it was to be abolished. It was on that point that he wished to speak, and he would deal only with their duties in relation to the saving of life, because in his opinion that was the most important duty now confided to the coastguard. The right hon. Gentleman stated the other day that there was an admitted redundancy of men and coastguard stations. He would be able to prove that in respect of his own constituency that remark did not apply. The seaboard of the division he represented was of a peculiarly

  1355
  dangerous description. The cliffs rose almost precipitously from the sea and in times of storm they were nothing more nor less than death traps for mariners. He had received a letter from Lynmouth in which the writer stated that there were only two coastguards and there ought to be three. That station was very much undermanned, and the men could not perform their life saving duties properly. In regard to Morte Hoe he had received a letter from the vicar containing the following—
  "There has been a coastguard here since the year 1870, First one man, and a few years later two were stationed here up to quite recently when they were removed. Now the watching the coast at night is done by members of the rocket brigade by order by telephone from Ilfracombe. These men are labourers who after a hard day's work are called upon in turn to turn out and watch for four hours at a time at 2s. 6d. per call. The head of the brigade is my gardener and he calls upon men as required. They are not bound to go and he may call a man from outside, but after a hard day's work a man is not fit to turn out in the teeth of a gale to watch the coast. The beat is from Rockham Bay to the end of Woolacombe sands which includes Morte Point and the Morte Stone outside, where I can show from the church burial registers, scores of men have lost their lives. There is no day watch.… The beat from Rockham to the end of the sands is one of the most dangerous of this dangerous coast, and I speak as one who has known it well for the past fifty years, and if there is one part of our coast which needs the coastguard service it is here."
  He did not say that these men did not try to do their duty when called upon, but after a hard day's work they were not fit to go out and watch the coast on a stormy night. He did not think that the lives of men should be left to such a watch as that decribed. He went further down the coast and came to that part in the midst of which Clovelly is situated. Only a week or two ago a ship was wrecked there and lives were lost, but no coast guard saw the wreck or gave any assistance whatever. He could tell the right hon. Gentleman of a tragedy which happened on that part of the coast which might move him. On a very stormy night the schooner "Goonlaze" was wrecked close to Cockingeton Point. There were three men on board. One was drowned at sea; and two were washed on to the beach. One of the two died almost immediately and the other managed to climb up the
  1356
  cliff, but dropped down dead from exhaustion. If there had been a coastguard patrol watching that part of the coast they would have seen that ship in difficulties, because the evidence showed that she burnt flares, and these men might have been saved. Moreover, these men were in the Royal Navy Reserve, and their valuable lives were lost to the Navy by the neglect to watch that part of the coast. He sincerely trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would consider this question favourably. He was glad to see the Civil Lord of the Admiralty present, because the hon. Gentleman knew this coast well and, he was sure, had every sympathy with Devon sailors and fishermen. So far from abolishing the coastguard there was every necessity for the number of men employed in it being increased.
  MR. HUNTsaid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told the Committee that if it was found that Germany had more vessels of the "Dre dnought" type than we had in 1911, the number of our battleships would be increased. The right hon. Gentleman had also said that the Government were very strong in their determination to keep up the two-Power standard; but he would ask how the right hon. Gentleman was going to manage if one of the other Powers—say America— took it into her head to build six or seven ships of the "Dreadnought" type? He asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if it would be possible in that not improbable event for this country to build battleships so as to keep up to the two-Power standard? He noticed that the hon. Member for King's Lynn had made the very definite statement which the Civil Lord of the Admiralty did not deny, that Germany at the present time had more unarmoured fast cruisers than Great Britain, and also—which he himself believed was the case—that Germany had more torpedo craft that could be effectively used in the North Sea than Great Britain had; and further that at the present time our other torpedo craft were too far from their base. If that were so, it must be a fact that our big battleships and big cruisers could not keep at tea in the North Sea at night next week if they were

  1357
  wanted to do so, because they would have no fringe of small ships round them to protect them at night. Surely that was a very dangerous position. From the little he knew of land warfare, it seemed to him to be exactly the same as if there was an army containing artillery in South Africa with an enemy all round it and no outposts stationed at night round the army to protect it from surprise. The Secretary to the Admiralty must know that the British admiral of the Channel Fleet made a trial of what torpedo craft could do against battleships and cruisers, and the result was that the admiral gave four battleships torpedoed. It would be very pleasant if we woke up one morning and heard that four of our biggest battleships had been torpedoed during the night! He had also information from men who were at the show that four other armoured vessels were also torpedoed. Some of the torpedoes were lost, and the Admiralty had therefore issued an Order that no more torpedoes were to be used at night. If that were so it meant that our torpedo flotilla could not practice at night when torpedoes were really dangerous, and when they were of most use. He wanted to call attention to the very insufficient pay which our ordinary seamen received. This was the cause of grave discontent in the Navy at the present time. With ordinary allowances an ordinary seaman got 1s. 7d. a day, and out of that he had to pay £5 a year for the upkeep of his clothes, which were often rendered unfit to wear in getting back torpedoes fired during practice and in other ways. The officers were often obliged to order the men to get new clothes at a cost of 10s. 6d. to the men, although sometimes the officers paid for the new clothes out of their own pockets. This was because the men got so angry about the spoiling of their clothes and having to pay for new ones through no fault of their own, that they were apt to go on shore at the first opportunity and get into trouble. Then the men had to pay £10 or £12 a year for extra food and also travelling expenses when they had a chance of going home. In the Navy men were allowed to marry, and he asked the Civil Lord how he thought these men were to provide for
  1358
  their wives and families and pay rent for their houses out of their small pay. Of course it was impossible to be done; and the officers in the Navy were continually receiving the most heart-rending letters from the starving wives of their men. The Civil Lord laughed.
  MR. LAMBERT: No, only a smile.
  MR. HUNT: Well, the hon. Gentleman smiled; but in any case he had taken very great care to state what he had been actually told by officers who had charge of these men. They told him that there was very serious discontent in the Navy at the present time on account of the state of things he had described. If that were the case the Government were paying not only sweaters' wages but bad sweaters' wages to the only men who could prevent the invasion of this country and the destruction of the Empire. If the Government were to be good employers they ought to be good employers, above all, to the only defenders of this country who could at present be depended on. Nobody could pretend that the Territorial Army could at the present time save the country in the event of any approach to a serious invasion. Last year he had given figures showing how much less carpenters, shipwrights, blacksmiths and other skilled workmen on board ship were paid compared with the same class of workmen in the dockyards, but hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench had taken no notice of his complaint. These men on shipboard had much more discomfort and worked harder than the men in the dockyards, and instead of being worse they should be better paid. He thought it a most extraordinary thing that the hon. Member for Glasgow, one of the most prominent of the Labour Members, should have told the Committee that he did not disapprove of the workmen who were discharged from Woolwich being obliged to emigrate in order to obtain protected work in protected Canada and Germany which they could not find in free trade Britain.
  COLONEL SEELYsaid he wished to emphasise what had fallen from the hon. Member

  1359
  for Barnstable as to the great importance of retaining the coastguard if we were to maintain the life-saving service in a state of efficiency. He ventured to point out to his hon. friend the Civil Lord that since he spoke on this question last week, the necessity of increasing the coast guard had been proved in the most dramatic fashion. Many men's lives had been saved by that service, and one man in the lifeboat service had been drowned in rescue work during the late gales. In three cases the lifeboats would not have been launched but for the warning given by the coastguard. If the policy of reduction of the coastguard had been pursued the lives of many men saved from wrecks last week would assuredly have been lost. This was a really urgent matter. For instance, Greenore was one of the cases where the lifeboat was partly manned by the coast guard in consequence of the reduction, and it was extremely difficult to obtain a crew, and the lifeboat in case of necessity would have to put to sea for rescue work short-handed or with a less efficient crew. He also hoped that the coastguard stations would be put in communication with each other in order to be efficient for the purpose of saving life. The case of Sidmouth would appeal to his hon. friend because it was near his constituency. There, there had been a coastguard communication and one coastguard was left, but this was not found satisfactory, and this week that one coastguard had been removed, so that no means of communication now existed upon that dangerous part of the coast. These two instances would prove how important this matter was. He wished for answers to three simple questions so as to enlighten the House as to what was meant by the term "redundancy in the amount of stations," and whether at any time the words meant a considerable reduction of the coastguards, to which he contended the House of Commons had never assented and which it was now called upon to support. The first question was whether his hon. friend could undertake on the part of the Admiralty that, where the coast required watching for the purpose of saving life in case of shipwreck, the coast would continue to be watched as in the past by His Majesty's coastguards. His second question was
  1360
  in places where the coastguards assisted in launching the lifeboats and the maintenance of the rocket apparatus. Would the hon. Gentleman undertake that the coastguard should be maintained in order to assist with life-saving and in the management of the rockets? Thirdly, would the hon. Gentleman undertake, if he found it necessary to make any reduction at all of the coastguard service, to consult with the officials of the Lifeboat Institution and the Board of Trade, so that those who were responsible for the 290 lifeboats around our coasts might know where they stood with regard to the manning of lifeboats and the watching of the coasts? In conclusion he would point out to the Committee that this was not a matter of expense. The coasts had to be watched and the duties of the coastguard had to be fulfilled, and the question was whether this was to be done by men of the Royal Navy who had done it in the past so admirably or by another set of men. It was a matter of book-keeping between the departments, and it would be a deplorable thing if the service which had done such work in life-saving in the past were displaced, and the best life-saving work in the world jeopardised in any way in order to carry out a matter of book-keeping. He did not move the Amendment he had on the-Paper, because he anticipated a favourable reply, but if he did not get it he should move and proceed to a division.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid he went fully with the hon. and gallant Member in what he had said with regard to the coastguards, but while expressing his approbation of what he had said he could hardly accept one statement in which he apparently contemplated that the expenditure upon the coastguards was to be dealt with as a matter of book-keeping between Government Departments. He did not look upon it in that light at all. Unless there was an increase in the Board of Trade Estimates proportionate to the decrease in the Navy Votes it was obvious that the Service was going, he would not say to be starved, but to be reduced. He assured the Financial Secretary that the coastguard excited a very real interest not merely on the

  1361
  seaboard or seacoast. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke from below the gangway opposite represented a great seaport, and one might assume that he was specially interested in the coastguard service; but he (Lord Balcarres) represented an inland constituency, and he was perfectly certain that that class of district also was often indirectly if not directly affected by this service, and also very much interested in its maintenance. The question he wanted to ask the Civil Lord was about cordite. In the First Lord's Memorandum at page 5, the announcement was made that last year a committee of experts— a very distinguished committee—was appointed to consider a very important question about the danger of cordite when stored. Acting upon the recommendation or at all events subsequent to Lord Reay's Committee, the War Office had determined to spend a large sum of money on cooling apparatus—refrigerating machinery. He wished to know whether he was not correct in saying that in the present financial year a considerable sum had been devoted to that purpose out of savings. The hon. Member said last night that £300,000 had been spent on that service, and another £500,000 was apparently being required. But this committee recommended that all cordite which had been long in a hot climate should be destroyed; again the Government had acted upon that recommendation and accordingly that particular cordite had been so destroyed. Would the Secretary to the Admiralty be so good as to tell the Committee what was the value of the cordite destroyed? Apart from the point, with which he was sure hon. Members would agree, that all dangerous cordite must be got rid of, even if it cost a considerable amount of money to do so, he would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would tell him what the sacrifice involved had been. Further, and he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would think this was an improper question on his part, it would be interesting to know what period was covered by the words "long in a hot climate; was it a matter of months or years? He would not press the right hon. Gentleman on that point, but it was important from the financial standpoint, because if we
  1362
  could not keep cordite in a hot climate for more that a few weeks or months our cordite bills would increase steadily. He thought this wais important in view of the large reductions on the votes for the particular services for ammunition for guns, projectiles, and making of cordite. On the Votes for 1908–1909 enormous reductions were being made amounting to some £400,000. That was in itself rather alarming, and when this reduction come on the top of the scrapping of a large amount of cordite, which had, been kept at stations south of the line, it became much more serious. He hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would deal with that point. There was one more question he wished to-put to the Government. Last year they understood that money was likely to be provided in this year's Estimates for a range finder, but he could not find it in the Navy Estimates at all. The Estimates were not comprehensive, and it was not easy to put one's finger on any particular item, and he would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would tell him in what Vote that item appeared, and how much it amounted to. He would also like some amplification of the First Lord's statement about cordite and the exact value of the stores that had been destroyed owing to the Report, of Lord Reay's Committee.
  MR. ANNAN BRYCEwished to associate himself very strongly with what had been said as-to the necessity of retaining undiminished the numbers of the coastguard service. Already a great deal of mischief had been done by the reduction of the numbers, and he was sure consequences still more deplorable would follow if the policy which the Admiralty seemed to have been thinking of adopting was carried any further. There was another way other than those indicated in which the maintenance of the coastguard service at its full strength was of value to the maritime districts of the country, and that was in helping to detect invasions of the three mile limit by the foreign trawlers which now infested our coasts. Before the Dudley Commission in Ireland, a gentleman from East Down gave evidence as to the great depredations on the coast of that

  1363
  county since the removal of the coastguard stations. The same kind of evidence would, no doubt, be forthcoming from many parts of the country where trawlers plied their avocations. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not allow the diminution of the coastguard to go any further.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAYas representing a constituency with a considerable seaboard, strongly supported the maintenance of the coastguard there. It was a place beset by smugglers in former times, and a great deal of smuggling was done along that coast. He would not forecast the effect of legislation which was before the House, but it might result in a great scarcity of liquor, and the cliffs and valleys of the coast of the constituency which he represented would be very convenient landing places as in former times. He most earnestly hoped that this most valuable force would be maintained.
  MR. WEDGWOODsaid the hon. Member for South Antrim was anxious as to the views of the gallant fifty-six who went into the lobby in favour of a reduction of armaments. He, at least, as one of the fifty-six, was very strongly in favour of the two-Power standard being maintained, and he thought the country would admit that others in that body were more anxious to reduce expenditure on the Army than expenditure on the Navy. The Motion was for the reduction of either or both Services, and not particularly the Naval Estimates, and so far as the Naval Estimates of this year were concerned, he had perfect confidence in the Estimates put forward by the Government. But he had risen to say a word or two in support of the proposition put before the House by his hon. friend the senior Member for Portsmouth. He wished to deal with the question of the status of the engineer officers of the Navy. It was not perhaps an interesting subject to this House, but he had himself had the advantage of serving at College for three years with the engineer officers of the Navy, and he had had, therefore, a special opportunity of judging both
  1364
  of those officers and of the relative status of the naval officer on deck and the engineer officer below deck. Now these engineer officers in the Navy were specially selected men who had come up from Keyham, and from the dockyards, and were usually picked men, gathered from the lower middle classes of this country. They had to undergo a series of stiff examinations, and they had to attend special schools of mechanics, mathematics, and other branches of knowledge. Then as soon as they got into the Navy, these officers had charge of the most important part of the ship. They had not only the propelling machinery in their charge, but, in battleships, they had no less than 110 auxiliary machines in their charge—the air compressing machinery, the hydraulic machinery, the machinery for turning the guns, the machinery for hoisting the shells, and the machinery for getting coal into the bunkers. All this machinery was in charge of the engineer branch of the Navy; these officers had to control over one-third of the whole personnel of the Navy, and, in his opinion, their duties were so important that they should have every possible advantage given to them by the Admiralty, in dealing with the problems by which they were confronted in our naval service. Now these engineer officers were treated in such a way as absolutely to impair the fighting value of the Navy. If the House would allow him to speak personally on the matter, he would like to go back to his experience at the Royal Naval College, at Greenwich. There were engineer officers on one side and executive officers on the other, but they were not allowed to mess together, to do their lessons together, nor to live together during the whole three years he was there, and during that time he did not suppose that he exchanged half-a-dozen sentences with members of the executive branch. The system of the separation of the engineer and the executive branches begun at the college in that way, was carried on, though happily not to so great an extent, throughout the naval service, and it was in order to break down that curious social and fictitious barrier between the engineer officers and the executive officers of the Navy that he now ventured to address

  1365
  the Government. The Government had recognised this to be a disadvantage to the discipline of the Navy, for in 1902 they introduced a system of joint training for torpedo work, for gunnery work, and for engineering work or for the work of the Marines. In 1902, under this scheme officers, including engineer officers, were being trained together, and they were going to receive exactly equal treatment and status in the Navy. That would make them all right in twenty, twenty-five or thirty years' time, when they were filling posts in the naval service and all the old engineering officers had gone. But, meanwhile, they would be perpetuating this double classification of our naval officers, those who were below deck and those who were upon deck. It was in order to break down that barrier immediately, to make the working of this scheme more practical, and to make the fusion earlier than it would otherwise be effected, that he ventured to urge the Government to deal at once with this question of the engineer officers, and to put right now their position relative to the fighting branches of the Navy. Were we to wait twenty-five or thirty years and leave this sore festering in the middle of the naval service? The Committee fully understood that the engineers' grievance was not connected with pay. They did not ask for any more wages; they did not ask for a rise of salary or better treatment in that respect. What they did want was to be treated as though they were the equal in rank of deck officers. They wanted their status to be made quite clear, and to have the rights and powers which the engineer officers were to get under the new Osborne scheme in future. At present one could only say that they received what must be called contemptuous treatment at the hands of the Admiralty. They were treated in a manner which was positively humiliating to the engineer officers of the service, and which derogated from their position in relation to the men under them. All the engine-room hands, the artificers and stokers saw their own officers set on one side and treated in a humiliating manner, not only by the Admiralty, but by the excutive officers of the ship. It not only made their work
  1366
  unpleasant, but it made it positively more difficult than it otherwise would be, to get discipline in the engine-room and in the stoke-holes. The engineer officers wanted their charter, to to speak. There were six points in their charter. Their first point was that they should have control over their own men, instead of indirect control through the hands of the deck officer, who might be a lieu-tenant, and very often a junior officer. Really, they wanted to be put exactly in the position of the officers of the Royal Engineers of the Army. They asked that the naval engineers should be the exact counterpart of the Royal Engineers of the Army. Could the House imagine a major of the Royal Engineers bringing up one of his men on some trumpery charge before the captain of Artillery? Yet that was exactly what happened in the naval service. The engineer officer had to bring his man before the lieutenant on deck; he had to bring his charge sheet, and refer it to him before he was allowed to do anything in the matter at all. If the conditions under which the engineer officers had to work at the present time were explained to the Committee, they would think that they were back in the time of Charles II. The whole power was taken away from the engineering branch because they were not considered to be fighting officers, just as in the time of Charles II. the master of the ship was not supposed to be a fighting officer. The first point was, then, control over their own men. Their next point was that they rejected absolutely and entirely the idiotic title of "engineer lieutenant" and "e0ngineer commander." What they wanted was that the title should be "Lieutenant E." or "Commander E." just as they had "Lieutenant N." or "Commander T." Engineer officers were classified as non-combatant, but if it came to that, the danger in the engineering branch was infinitely greater than on deck. He had never gone down into the stoke-hole when they were working under forced draught, without an inward prayer that he might get out again alive. If an hon. Member went down into the stoke-hole, on a trial trip, when the engines were at full speed, he would appreciate what were the duties of the engineer staff of the Royal Navy. They

  1367
  worked in a temperature of 110, and they ran the risk, if a shell or a splinter of a shell got into the engine-room, of being par-boiled without the possibility of escape. The hatches were battened down, so that, in action, the position of the engineer was probably the most dangerous part of the service. Engineer officers asked not only to be given control of their men, but that they should be given now, and at once, the title which future engineer officers were to hold. The third point was as to the uniform of the engineer officers. They did not want to have a uniform which was distinct from that of the fighting branch of the service. What they wanted was that all officers of the Navy should have exactly the same uniform, because they did not desire that their men and the country should see that they were distinguished as inferior in rank. If they were put on the same basis as the other officers, the country would get much better service out of the engineer officers. These were three points—control, title, and uniform, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman to give the engineer officers now the privileges and position which they were bound to hold in ten or fifteen years, and give them as quickly as possible in order to make these men satisfied with the service. At present engineer officers were not permitted to sit on courts martial, though men of their own department were perhaps being tried for a technical offence. If they were to be allowed the rank of military officers, then, ipso facto, they would be members of the court martial. Then there was the question of a representative on the Board of Admiralty. It was really absurd that one-third of the personnel of the Navy had no representative on the Board of Admiralty. There was nobody representing machinery on the Board of Admiralty. We rushed into first one class of boiler and then another, the Belleville, the water tube, and turbine machinery, yet there was not at the Admiralty any skilled officer representing the engineering branch of the service. The sixth and last point of the engineer officers' charter was this. The engineer officer had to draw up a report upon his machinery, but he was not allowed to sign that report; he had to take it to the executive officer who was possibly half his age, and might not have so
  1368
  much education. This executive officer went through the report, altered the grammar and spelling, and tried to make little alterations just to show his authority. It was these pin-pricks which seemed to make a man's life more miserable than anything else. These were the six points—the question of status, uniform, title, a seat on the court-martial, a representative on the Board of Admiralty, and the right of the engineer officer to sign his own report and not have it signed by an officer who knew nothing about it. Of course the whole of this difficulty had grown up from the fact that engineers thirty or forty years ago, even civil engineers, used to be looked upon as "engine drivers," and were spoken of as "oilers," and with an adjective in front of that. They were looked down upon as mere mechanics. But the engineer branch had become more and more important, and would become still more important; and until they made the members of that branch satisfied with the service, until they they gave them a position equal to, and face to face with, the other branches of the service, they would not get the personnel of the Navy to work smoothly.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): the fourth day of the naval debate, and I suppose I must count it as a personal failure that I have not be n able to obtain e single farthing of the money which is required. The noble Lord asked me a question about cordite, but I have not got the information on that matter, which is relative to Vote 9. I suggest that either a Question should be put at Question time, or that the matter should stand over to Vote 9. I can add nothing to the multitudinous statements I have already made on a question of general interest to the Navy. It is a subject of complaint by hon. Members behind me and by some hon. Members opposite, that the time has been occupied during the debates by Members of the two Front Benches. I know I have made a good many speeches, but it has not been my fault, and it has been with great unwillingness that I have prolonged my remarks, and then I did not allow them to go beyond what was absolutely necessary. My hon. friend raised the

  1369
  question of the new scale of pay, and whether it will involve an increased grant. It will, and the amount of the grant will be £10,000. The two most important questions relating to this Vote are those referring to the engineer officers and the coastguard. My hon. friend who spoke at the beginning, and my hon. friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme who followed later, will not expect me, I am sure, to give them the answer of the Admiralty to the question which they have raised, if only for this reason, that I do not think that I had any notice of their intention to raise it, certainly not of the exact scope which it was going to take. I was a little astonished to hear from my hon. friend who spoke last that the engineers had no complaint to make on the score of pay.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: They have complaint to make, but they do not urge it; they want the status.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: But they have a grievance as regards pay, and on that question the Admiralty's decision has now been reached. The pay of engineer captains is to rise from 35s. to 40s. a day (the existing minimum and maximum rates) by two annual increments of 2s. 6d. instead of five annual increments of a 1s. a day, so that the maximum will be reached in two years instead of five as at present. As to the engineer commanders, who have bitterly complained an the matter of pay; the rate of 24s. a day is to be granted after sixteen years seniority. There are other modifications which are of too technical a character for me to trouble the Committee with. The ages for compulsory and optional retirement are to be reduced. A new scale of retired pay, a new and improved scale, framed on the same lines as that for officers of the military branch, is to be applied in the case of officers accepting the new conditions. Good service pensions will be introduced for the first time for engineer officers. I mention these things as regards pay, but not for the purpose of staving off the much larger but not less material question of status which we have been discussing to-day. I do not hesitate to express my sympathy
  1370
  with that point of view in regard to the grievance of the engineer officers, and I admit that the new condition of things that will be brought about by the training of officers in the future necessitates a reconsideration of the relations between the old engineer officers and the new engineer officers, and the executive officers. But my hon. friends will not expect me to give a definite answer at the moment to the suggestions which they have made. But I am bound to make them this concession, that I will faithfully report to the Board of Admiralty the strong arguments that have been used to-day, and the perfectly specific and clear character of the reforms demanded. Beyond that I am sure that my hon. friends will not expect me to go to-day. As to the question of the coastguard, I am not surprised at the interest excited on both sides of the House. The proposals for the abolition of the coastguard have been considered by a Departmental Committee. The Admiralty, however, have undertaken to consider the question for themselves de now. My hon. and gallant friend has asked me whether those parts of the coast requiring to be watched for life-saving purposes will continue to be watched by His Majesty's coastguard. To that I can give an answer in the affirmative. His second question was —Will the coastguard be maintained wherever they assist in any material degree in manning and launching lifeboats, and in working the rocket apparatus? The answer is "Yes." And the third question was—Will the Admiralty confer with the Lifeboat Institution before making further reductions % I do not know that the Admiralty could very well do that, but, if I might offer myself as a substitute for the Admiralty, I would be glad to hold such a conference as my hon. and gallant friend has suggested. I hope the Committee will now allow me to take this Vote.
  MR. FELLmoved to reduce the Wages Vote by £100. He had, he said, listened to the statement made by the Government with regard to the coastguards and the answers given to questions, and they did not appear to him to have gone to the root of the matter. The Government were

  1371
  reducing the coastguards and the amount of the Vote which supported them, and yet they said that the coasts would be patrolled, that the life-saving apparatus would be served, and that the lifeboats would be manned by the coastguards. How could that adequately be done if there were continual decreases in the coastguards? Last year there was a decrease of some 300 men, and an equal decrease in the Vote. This year the amount was to be reduced by £1,495, and the men by 363. This would reduce the total to 3,500. Three or four years ago it was well over 4,000. That was a very considerable reduction, and the coast must either have been over-patrolled in the past, or it would be under-patrolled in the future. Coastguardsmen must be thirty-eight years of age, have served eight years continuously in the Navy, be either trained gunners or seamen, and recommended by their captain. The men in the Navy were picked men, and coastguardsmen were therefore picked men from picked men, and the very best trained men in the country, and the last men whom he would have thought they would wish to reduce. The question affected his constituency particularly. He had had many letters expressing considerable anxiety with regard to the reductions which had taken place. He knew of a small coastguard station where there used to be four men, and where now there were none, and where the cottages of the men had been let for lodgings. He did not know whether that would be the desire of the House. It certainly was not the object with which the cottages were built,
  and for which the coastguard, service was instituted. It did not appear to him that sufficient explanation had been given why so much as the amount proposed should be knocked off the Estimates for coastguards this year, and he was therefore bound to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item B (Coast Guard, Wages and Allowances) be reduced by £100."— (Mr. Fell).
  MR. MALLETsaid he had intended to ask some questions in relation to certain Naval Rating, but as the right hon. Gentleman had given the assurance that there would be other opportunities for raising questions of that kind, he would not prevent the Vote being taken now.
  COLONEL SEELYappealed to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth not to press the Amendment. He had taken a leading-part in this matter, and he would say that with respect to the three points he put to the right hon. Gentleman he did not anticipate getting so complete and so favourable a reply. All those interested in the life saving services of the-coastguard were deeply grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the reply he had given.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 46;: Noes, 235. (Division List No. 35.)
  The Vote was agreed to.
  2. £2,306,700, Works, Buildings, and Repairs at home and abroad.
  MR. LAMBERTthought it would be for the convenience of the Committee if he made a few introductory remarks in introducing this Vote. He promised in his brief statement to endeavour to cover the most important of the subjects with which the Vote was concerned. This Vote represented an apparent decrease of £451,700, but that apparent decrease was in reality an increase, as last year there were loan works completed out of revenue and borne on Vote 10 of £870,825, whereas this year the loan works on Vote 10 amounted to £307,000, a decrease of £563,825. The total of the Vote did not represent total works expenditure this year, because they were spending a balance of money for which they had borrowing power of £896,925, which, together with the amount of Vote 10, brought the total expenditure on works to £3,203,625. The decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pay for works out of revenue, instead of introducing a new loan Bill, meant that they would have to bear upon Vote 10 £2,246,180. Had this not been borne on Votes, there would have been an increase in the annuity of £117,000 a year for twenty-nine years. This was a very good sample of paying as they went. The annuity this year which represented the borrowings of past years was increased by nearly £50,000, and the amount was £1,264,000. The cost of dredging a-mounted this year to £107,800, and it was proposed, in addition to the ordinary dredging, to dredge the bar at Sheerness. A certain depth of water in the new channel at Sheerness was required to facilitate the passage of vessels over the bar, and they wished to bring it to a depth of 26 feet below low water at ordinary spring tides, so that large vessels
  1376
  should not be unduly delayed by tidal conditions in getting in and out of the, harbour. Then there were large new commitments in the Vote, the first being for the new lock at Portsmouth. There had been some delay in that matter, but it had not been the fault of the Admiralty. They had employed a very eminent outside firm of engineers, who-sent in an excellent report, but, to the credit of the Works Department, the scheme of that department was equally good, and it was therefore decided to goon with the scheme of the Works Department. The normal length of the new lock between caissons would be 850 feet, the width at the entrance 110 feet, and the depth over the outer sill at low-water ordinary spring tides 33 feet, in order to-enable a ship of the "Dreadnought" size to get in and out without imperilling the other ships in the basin. The scheme included the erection of a pumping-station, which would be capable of pumping the new lock and the old locks and docks. The present state of the work-was that the drawings were completed, the quantities were nearly completed, and it was hoped to invite tenders either in April or in May. The time of completion stated in the contract would be four years.
  MR. JOHN WARD: Are you going to invite tenders publicly, or only from selected firms?
  MR. LAMBERTthought only from selected firms. The Admiralty had-very carefully to investigate the financial standing of these firms, in order to see that they were capable of carrying out a work involving a cost of nearly £1,000,000. Another new commitment was that at Rosyth. In 1900 the late Board of Admiralty appointed, a committee to inquire into the dock accommodation for the ships, then existing, but the policy of scrapping old ships obviated the immediate necessity for new

  1377
  dock accommodation. Still it had been shown that on the East Coast a dock was needed, more especially since the "Dreadnought" era. The "Dreadnought" could be got into Chatham at certain states of the tide, but the locks were not large enough to enable ships of that type to go into the basin for repairs and for other purposes. The great work to be carried out at Rosyth had been very fully described in the newspapers. He would be willing to answer questions with respect to it which hon. Members might ask. The basin would occupy 52½ acres, the entrance lock would be 850 feet long and 110 feet wide, with sufficient depth at low water to allow battleships to get in, even fully loaded. There would be a dry dock 750 feet long and 100 feet wide, which would be sub-divided into two parts should it be required for smaller craft. The works were capable of expansion in the shape of the new basin and other docks. The £3,000,000 included the works he had stated, and also the necessary workshops, oil fuel storage, and cambers for destroyers and submarines. With regard to the progress of the work, the contract drawings were well advanced, and quantities would be shortly taken out. There was only £30,000 placed in the Vote for the work at Rosyth, but any contractor could only earn a small amount of money this year, because he had to get his plant and other necessary materials ready. The hon. Member for Stoke had made some reference to the rumour that in boring they could hardly get to the bottom of the mud. He could assure the hon. Member that a very satisfactory foundation had been found. At a moderate depth they had got to rock or glacial clay which he was told was a very good foundation indeed for works of this character. The design had been very carefully considered by those who had experience in designing and constructing Government dockyards.
  MR. JOHN WARDasked if the design was the work of the same gentleman who had been sent by the late Government in 1903 to study dock construction on the Continent?
  MR. LAMBERTsaid that the design of the dock had been very carefully
  1378
  worked out in the Department of the Admiralty by gentlemen qualified to do so. Preliminary steps had been taken in regard to a smaller but still important public work, and these had been brought to a successful issue. He referred to the Loch Long torpedo range. Torpedoes had to be be proved and adjusted, and that could be only done by running them a certain distance. The disadvantage of the present range at Portland was that it had only a length of 3,000 yards, while, owing for the extraordinary improvements which had taken place in the manufacture of torpedoes in recent years, a range of 7,000 yards was required. Moreover, the torpedoes were at present manufactured at Woolwich, and in the course of transit by rail to Portland their mechanism was often deranged. After searching round the coasts of Great Britain and Ireland the Admiralty officials had selected Loch Long as the range that best fulfilled the requirements for testing torpedoes. It was necessary that the range should be in a sheltered position and as free as possible from tidal influence, and that there should be as little interference as possible with ordinary shipping. The factory would be erected at Greenock. Negotiations had boon in progress for some time, and he was glad to say there had been a disposition on the part of the owners of the land, of the corporation of Glasgow, and of all concerned to allay rather than to raise difficulties. The Admiralty hoped that they would be able to protect the rights of the public and yet create an efficient torpedo range on Loch Long and erect a factory at Greenock. The estimated cost of this work was about £113,000, including the purchase of the land. The Admiralty also had in hand the extension of the dock at Haulbowline from 410 feet to 600 feet, it order that it might take battleships of the most modern class. The contract had been let, and good progress has been made.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that the discussion on this subject of Rosyth had been commenced on two occasions previous to this year, and this year on going into Committee of Supply when he himself

  1379
  spoke, and on the previous day when the matter was taken up by the Leader of the Opposition in much detail. Up to the present time no answer had been given to the contentions put forward on those occasions. The Works Vote had been explained by his hon. friend in Committee fashion. The Committee had been reminded of what had occurred owing to the dropping of the Works Bills, and the gradual discontinuance of the expenditure of loan money. On the whole, the Works Vote this year was much lower than the Admiralty believed it would be last year or the year before. That statement did not rest on ordinary private gossip, but on an official document. In the Appropriation Accounts which had been circulated last week, there would be found official correspondence between the Treasury and the Admiralty which contained the following passage:—
  "24 July, 1906. Apart from the necessity of the work, my Lords are anxious to adopt this course, having specially in view the desirability of relieving as far as possible, the Navy Estimates for 1908–9, which must, as a consequence of the discontinuance of the Naval Works Loan, reach an abnormal figure in that year as a result of works expenditure."
  Now, that abnormal figure had not been reached; and he submitted to the Committee, as a matter of public policy, that when looking forward to the certainty of a very large increase in the Navy Estimates, either next year or the year after — and they would be enlarged, at the lowest view, in the face of the pledges given to keep the Navy up to the two-Power standard — it would have been better to have executed in the present year every possible branch of Naval works which was beyond all doubt necessary. He was entirely at one with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the belief that we had spent out of our loan money large sums which had been wasted. The House and the Government did not hold a tight enough hand on these works, and ought never to have thrown on loan a great many of the least important of them. But there were important works, docks and basins in which big ships could be accommodated, and these by universal admission should be made as rapidly as possible. Big ships were worse than useless if there was no dock or basin accommodation for them. They must accept the authority of experts for details
  1380
  of construction, but the policy of construction of these works was admitted by all. The case which had been made by the critics needed some reply, so that in the next year's Estimates the policy of the Admiralty, as laid down in the official correspondence two years ago, might be carried out, and all the necessary works should be rapidly executed in the coming year. As a matter of economy in the actual building of such works, he believed it was better to build them rapidly than spread their construction over a period of eleven or twelve years. In the case of Rosyth the land was purchased many years ago, but the execution of the works had been constantly put off, although small sums of money had been spent on soundings and the like. All the information as to Rosyth which his hon. friend had just given had been given them in the same speech last session.
  MR. JOHN WARD: The same speech was made six years ago.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that they had been constantly informed that the Admiralty were prepared to state to the House that the works at Rosyth must be carried forward. The necessity for a safer base on the East Coast was much more pressing this year than last. That could not be denied after the results of the Hague Conference. The use of mines was contemplated by foreign Powers in a much greater degree than formerly, and the increase of the German mine establishment, by means of which 30,000 mines could be laid from each of two ships, was notorious. There was no doubt about the unsafety in certain possible wars of Portsmouth as a base, and they were all agreed that some base on the East Coast was necessary.
  MR. JOHN WARDsaid he understood that in 1905 a large expenditure was contemplated at Chatham.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that it was admitted by the present Government, as it had been by the last Government, that there must be a new base further north than Chatham. The present Government had put its need very high indeed, and they could only

  1381
  draw the inference from the correspondence that they had accepted the responsibility that immense expenditure should be incurred in the present year, and not put off. His right hon. friend the Secretary to the Admiralty on 2nd March this year announced that the Government had finally decided to proceed with Rosyth for the reasons which were given in the Memorandum, and in that they were told that the necessity for the work was now apparent. From the point of view of good construction and good finance was it wise to put off the expenditure again this year, and then to spread it over ten years of time? The limited establishment of one dock and one basin contemplated was only to be completed in eleven years. He believed that was bad economy from the financial standpoint, and he believed it was also from the engineering point of view as well. The Secretary to the Admiralty had said that surely time must be given to make contracts. He thought the delay of the late Government was not justifiable, and surely the time required to make contracts was not a whole year, and these contracts might have been made a year or a year and a half ago. The need for this expenditure had long been foreseen, and it seemed to him that there was a plain case of avoiding to meet in the coming financial year a far larger proportion of this admittedly necessary expenditure than had been taken in the Estimates now under discussion.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid he found himself in very close agreement with the right hon. Gentleman who hid just sat down, and he did not think it possible to reinforce in any way the very strong argument which he hid put before the Committee. He did not wish in following the Civil Lord to go again into the old question as to the merits or demerits of loan expenditure. It was a very much debated subject and lie would only say this with regard to it. He quite agreed with the right hon. Baronet that under a system of loan expenditure they did not get the same close supervision of expenditure that they did under the Estimates and that
  1382
  undoubtedly in the past there might have been objections on that score.
  MR CHARLES DILKEsaid he did not lay down a principle.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEassented, and said that in certain cases the system might have led to extravagance, but under it they did get the works. They got the money necessary for the works at the time it was wanted, whereas under the system instituted by the present Government, which might be a sounder system from an economical point of view, the pressure which had inevitably to be put upon the year's Estimates delayed necessary works and made those works individually more costly on account of the long period over which their construction was spread. The right hon. Baronet had commented very naturally upon the singularly small provision for new works in this year's Votes in view of the facts that two new large items had come upon the Votes and that loan expenditure had very largely been stopped. He thought that that circumstance required a little more explanation. They had really gone back in the expenditure on new works to the old average, as far as he remembered it, that existed in regard to Vote 10 whilst the loan system was in full operation. He thought the Committee would see the results in the case of the two largest items that had been specially referred to, the new lock at Portsmouth and the Rosyth base. He was aware that the Civil Lord had put forward the technical excuse which was quite sound, that if they did not begin the work until a certain period of the year they had to let the new contractor get his plant upon the ground and the expenditure of the remaining part of the year must be small. That was true, but their answer to that was, why did not the Government let their contracts sooner? That was the point, and whilst he was quite ready to admit that the late Government might have furthered this matter a little more than they did when they were in office, at all events they did get it to the point where the scheme of Rosyth had been worked out and submitted to this House in August, 1905, when he held

  1383
  the office of Civil Lord. That scheme was drawn precisely or nearly precisely in the same way as that which the Admiralty had now communicated to the House, and they advanced the matter so far that they put a considerable estimate on Vote 10 for that year which they handed on to their successors and they were prepared to let the main contract in June, 1906. They were apparently at that point just as far advanced as the Admiralty was to-day. Therefore two years had elapsed in which apparently nothing had been done beyond making the very interesting model which had now been placed in the tea-room. He did not think the hon. Gentleman could contend that the delay had been in any way necessary from the technical point of view; it had merely been occasioned by financial considerations. Then there was very much the same story with regard to the Portsmouth lock, which was a very urgent work, because, as he pointed out last year on more than one occasion, the safety of first-class battleships costing a million and a half sterling had been imperilled by the impossibility of getting them into the basin at Portsmouth except through passages not really large enough to admit them with safety. The hon. Gentleman told them he thought two years ago that the Admiralty recognised this matter as being of the greatest urgency, but those two years had elapsed without any progress being made. The excuse was that they wished to consult different experts as to the best plans. He refused to believe, however, that the Works Department of the Admiralty, which contained some of the most experienced engineers in the world in these matters, were unable to design such a comparatively small affair at this Portsmouth lock but the Admiralty said: "No, we wish to consult outside experts." They did consult outside experts and they admitted that their own plan was the best and they had adopted it. Really the whole of the delay had been quite unnecessary, and this vitally necessary work, of which they ought to have had nearly 50 per cent, complete now according to the hon. Gentleman's estimate of the time it would take, was not commenced. The contract was not going to be let till the middle of this year, and
  1384
  practically for four and a half years to come the only available dock for "Dreadnoughts" at Portsmouth would! be practically unapproachable. That was a very serious state of affairs. He did not know that there was anything to choose between the urgency of that work and the work at Rosyth. At any rate he thought they were entitled to ask the Government to explain more fully than they had done why they had not pressed on these works before, and why it was not possible for them, as suggested by the-right hon. Baronet, even now to press on at a greater pace than was apparently contemplated by their provision in the Estimates. The right hon. Baronet had said that the Rosyth base would not be ready for eleven years. He hoped that he was pessimistic about that, because: he understood the Civil Lord to say the other day that in five or seven years they would have the base in use.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that was merely the official figure of ten years. It was spread over ten years and did not begin for a year.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEhoped that it might be possible to accelerate; these works; it was really more economical in the long run that expenditure should not be stinted, and he hoped that everything possible would be done to press forward these works at the greatest speed. He was aware that there was a great deal of controversy as to whether Rosytk was or was not the best place for this base, but if there ever was any doubt in his mind—and sometimes a base further north had appealed to him— he thought it must be set at rest by the cutting of the Forth to Clyde Canal. If that Canal became a fact, in addition, to the commercial advantages into which it would be improper to enter now, Rosyth would have behind it not only a short cut from the North Sea into the Atlantic, but the almost unlimited shipbuilding and repairing facilities of the Clyde. Then it would not be necessary to spend as much money upon ship building plant, and Rosyth would become a port of the utmost importance, almost the most important naval port in the Empire. Under those circumstances he-hoped that the Admiralty would give

  1385
  its benediction to the efforts that were being made in Scotland to have this great venture taken up as a commercial Undertaking, and, if necessary, give financial assistance. He was sure that if financial assistance were given by the Government they would be more than repaid by the advantage which would accrue to the Port of Rosyth. Before he left the question of Rosyth he wished to urge upon the Government, now that they were going to let the main contract and undertake the work, to recognise that one dock in that position was an absolutely inadequate provision in view of the growing size of the fleet. He was delighted to see in the model in the tea room that there were two sites laid out for future docks, in addition to the one that had been laid out for construction. It was absolutely certain that these extra docks would be needed, and would be needed before they could be built, because of the large new construction of these ships of the "Dreadnought" class, which would be very far advanced long before the docks wore built. There was an absolute dearth of these docks on the East Coast and it would be cheaper, save time, and be more economically efficient to undertake that work now rather than to put it off to some future time. In settling the final dimensions of the docks he hoped the Government would be careful to look far enough ahead. In the past no Board of Admiralty had ever been able to look far enough ahead in the matter of the size of the dock? The result was that years after their construction the increase of size by only a few inches meant an overwhelming expenditure, whereas if the extra space had been allowed and foreseen at first the extra cost would have been very small indeed. Consequently he urged the Admiralty to err on the side of size if need be, even if there was a little additional cost. As regarded Chatham he could not help feeling that in addition to Rosyth docks it would be absolutely necessary to have additional accommodation at Chatham. It had been stated that a "Dreadnought" could not be docked at Chatham. Under the peculiar conditions of that port it was impossible to enlarge or repair the existing lock entrance, because if they did the whole
  1386
  dock would be rendered useless. Therefore it was essential to have at least, two more docks at Chatham, capable of accommodating a "Dreadnought." He felt that the general position in regard to the scarcity of "Dreadnoughts' "docks in that region where they would! probably be most needed was a very serious one. They had been told that such docks existed already at Hong-Kong and the Caps, and that there were two at Gibraltar, and he believed, four at Devonport, all capable of accommodating a "Dreadnought," but in the North Sea on the East Coast there was not one, and yet within a very measurable distance of time, some three years hence, they would have at least twelve "Dreadnoughts" afloat. If they started to-day they could not build the new docks in time. It was essential that the docks should be built even before the ships, and he urged the Admiralty to take this, matter in hand at the earliest possible moment. The borrowing of money for such necessary work as this ought not to be allowed to stand in the way, and whatever system of finance was adopted these docks ought to be constructed as soon as possible.
  MR. HOLTsaid that he did not propose to enter into any discussion as to the expediency of undertaking the proposed works at Rosyth. He would like, however, to ask if he was correct in assuming that the plan now on view in the tea room with regard to the docks at Rosyth was that which had been definitely adopted. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty had said that he expected to get that plan complete for £3,250,000, including an engineering shop and requisite machinery. It seemed to him that it would not be a bad bargain at all if he got all that provided for the sum which had been named He wished to know if for £3,250,000 the Admiralty were going to get the whole of the dredging done outside the basin as shown on the plan.
  MR. LAMBERT: Yes, that is included.
  MR. HOLTsaid it seemed a very cheap price for what the Admiralty hoped to get and he trusted it would work out at the estimated cost. With regard to

  1387
  the time occupied in construction, he found himself in accord with what had already been stated; his view was that if this work was to be done at all it ought to be done promptly. He assumed that the entrance lock would be the last thing to be finished but he suggested that it might be possible to use the emergency entrance at an earlier date because in that case they would get the use of the graving dock considerably earlier than otherwise. Was there any reason why they should not be able to get the use of the graving dock before ten years had elapsed? Another suggestion he would make was that they should mate the graving dock Mg enough to take in two "Dreadnoughts" at one time. For such matters as the painting of the be toms of ships and small repairs there was no reason why they should not have two ships in the dock at once. The only inconvenience they would encounter would be that the repairs to both ships would have to be simultaneous, because they would have to go in and out together. If the Admiralty adopted his suggestion they would not need duplicate gates and machinery. He agreed with the hon. Member for Fareham that there was a tendency not to look far enough ahead and allow a sufficient margin for future development. The "Dreadnoughts" and the "Invincibles" were called very large ships, but there were ships in the mercantile marine much longer and as he did not think it wise to assume that warship he specially criers might not attain the dimension of the "Luetania." he suggested that it would be a wise thing for the Admiralty to reconsider the dimensions of the proposed graving dock at Rosyth. He also wished to know whether it was intended to spend any money in erecting a new shipbuilding establishment at Rosyth. No case had been made out for any additional shipbuilding establishment, and it would be a great relief to many hon. Members if they had from the Government a specific pledge that it was not intended to establish a ship-building yard at Rosyth. He assumed that what the Government were asking for now was a transfer and not a new licence, if he might be allowed to put it in that way. He assumed that something was going to be
  1388
  taken away from some of the other ports in order to compensate the taxpayer for the additional expenditure which must be annually incurred for the upkeep of Rosyth. He knew that a reduction in the expenditure at any of their great naval ports generally meant the loss of a couple of seats to the Government, but he thought in he interest of the taxpayers it was their duty to put it strongly to the Government that they should in entering upon this expenditure do something in the interest of the general body of taxpayers to reduce naval expenditure at other places.
  MR. PIRIEsaid it was with some satisfaction that he heard the hon. Member for Fareham urge upon the Government that they should take into consideration the question of supporting the scheme for the widening of the Forth and Clyde Canal. He remembered ten years ago when the Liberal Party were sitting in Opposition they drew attention to this question of the Forth and Clyde Canal, and they were then met by nothing but a blank refusal. Of course it was better late than never, and he was glad to hear that project now being advocated by an expert like the hon. Member for Fareham. This question could not be pressed with too much urgency, not only from the point of view of its strategic value, but also on account of the great commercial advantages which would accrue not only to Scotland but to the whole of the Empire. He did not hesitate to say that in any other country but ours such a great public work would have been long ago undertaken, not only from a naval point of view, but also from the great commercial advantages which it would confer. He hoped that the Admiralty in view of the close proximity of an unparalleled supply of granite on the coast of Scotland would find out some way of using native stone instead of foreign for the construction of the docks at Rosyth. It would be a thousand pities when a supply of perfectly unequalled stone was available almost on the spot if the owner of those local quarries were not given an opportunity of tendering upon equal terms with the foreigner. This was a question of immense importance to the people living on the east coast of Scotland, and he

  1389
  strongly urged this point upon the attention of the Admiralty.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he felt certain the Secretary for the Admiralty must have been greatly impressed by the unanimity of feeling with regard to these very necessary works. Some hon. Members had spoken on this subject in previous years and what struck him most that afternoon was that the position was very much the same, as the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean pointed out, as it was a year ago. He felt sure the Admiralty would have had behind it the whole country and the whole House, if they had decided to spend next year £500,000 upon the docks at Rosyth.
  MR. LAMBERT: That is impossible.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he felt certain that no hon. Member representing labour would have refused to support the Admiralty had they come to such a decision. Any one who had studied the question could not help but feel great anxiety about the future. One hon. Member had already stated that any other country but this would have pushed forward such, works with much greater expedition.
  MR. PIRIE: Yes, I had Germany and the Kiel Canal in my mind.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that Germany was in a far better position than this country with regard to the new ships of the "Dreadnought" type and their possibility of coming home in time of war as wounded ships. On the East coast we had absolutely nothing. Portsmouth was a possible port in time of peace to house a "Dreadnought," but in time of war it was admitted that all the Channel ports must be counted out as places of absolute refuge and safety. We had, therefore, to look to Rosyth. He thought that it was a very serious thing that in 1911 we would have twelve "Dreadnoughts" and not a single port on the East Coast which could give those ships a home. In time of peace it was supposed to be unnecessary. But they had to talk about a state of war, and the fact that
  1390
  the Army and Navy were fighting machines was sufficient for them to-insist that they should be in such a state of preparation and in such a condition, as to be ready to fight at any moment. That was the spirit which animated the countries which the hon. Member had quoted as being progressive and decisive, in the matter of their great naval and military works. No one could travel in. Europe without being struck with the tremendous military work which one found on the borders between France and Germany. Those countries with land boundaries must have gigantic military works and they never allowed them; to fall the least behind. Germany was applying exactly the same assiduity, the same constant attention, the same determined system of construction to her sea defences as to her land defence.
  AN HON. MEMBER: She is only doing the same as ourselves.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he would like to think that this country was giving the same devoted attention to necessary naval works that Germany was giving to her naval and military works. He did not think these debates upon Rosyth and Portsmouth gave one absolute confidence that the Admiralty were doing all that could be done. Much had been said about the Loan Acts and building upon loan. He agreed it was a very wicked kind of business, but it had its advantages.
  SIR F. BANBURY: Why wicked?
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that "wicked" might not be the proper word, but as a general system building on loan was not satisfactory. He wished, to point out, however, that in abandoning the policy of loans and making it a sort of righteous act they might be sacrificing too much. At present, according to the naval programmes, we should possess twelve "Dreadnoughts" within, three years, which would have no real home, no place of refuge, and no base on that coast where they would probably be most needed. There might be an emergency arise under which we should, have those ships on the water with no base for them to retire on. The Civil

  1391
  Lord to the Admiralty had said that it would be five or six years before the docks at Rosyth would be so far complete as to allow a "Dreadnought" to take refuge there. He thought they might safely add another two or three years to that estimate, because he had never found a Minister defending this position anything else but optimistic, and if they made allowances for the optimism of the Civil Lord and his colleagues, it might safely be said that we should not have twelve, but eighteen "Dreadnoughts" upon our waters without a base for them in the North Sea upon which they could rely. That was a very serious thing, and what he had foreshadowed was quite possible. Such a problem might be thrust upon them, not by any act of Germany or France, but through the great Powers in the East, which might provoke complications in Europe at any moment which might bring about an international conflagration. In the precipitation of such a conflict we should be faced by a situation for which we were not prepared. He was sure no Member of the House hoped that any such peril would arise within the next eight, ten, or twenty years. They all desired peace, but they all realised at the same time that the safety of this country, the safety of its trade, territory, and everything which Englishmen held dear, depended upon the efficiency of the Navy, and upon the naval works supplied by those responsible for the Government of this country. It was not predominance alone that was required, but crushing capacity—a capacity to crush the strongest opposition that could be brought against us. If the Government had thought it well to devote £500,000 or even £1,000,000 to the establishment of such naval works, he thought they would have had the whole country behind them. It seemed to him that the representatives of the Admiralty tad to face in this House a situation which they scarcely expected, for they had not been attacked from the Opposition side of the House. They had found out what he believed was the sentiment of the people of this country, viz., that there should be adequate naval expenditure for all necessary naval works.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINwished to ask one question in connection with the docks at Rosyth. There seemed to have been a general opinion that once this work was undertaken the quicker it was completed the better. The question he wished to put was whether the Board of Admiralty, in calling for tenders, would intimate to the contractors that the time taken to finish the work would be a consideration in awarding the contract, and that if necessary, the Admiralty would pay a somewhat higher price in order to secure the use of those works at an earlier date.
  MR. LAMBERTpromised that he would put the suggestions which had been made before his colleagues as strongly as he could.
  MR. CARLILEsaid that with regard to the production of torpedoes at Greenock, he wished to know whether, if the work was to be transferred from Woolwich, the men now engaged on the work at Woolwich would be transferred to the Greenock Factory.
  MR. LAMBERTsaid that the men at Woolwich were skilled in these matters, and it would be essential to transfer them. As far as he was concerned he felt sure the Admiralty had no fault to find with the discussion which had taken place. With regard to the money which had not been spent, they had been met with some great engineering difficulties, and therefore it was not the fault of the Admiralty. The delays which had occurred were mostly due to the weather. The Admiralty had hurried on the works but it was a matter for the contractors, and if they had not done the work the Admiralty naturally could not pay for it. The suggestion which had been made by the hon. Member for Hexham would be taken into consideration. The hon. Member had drawn his attention to the fact that the new dock at Rosyth would not accommodate the "Mauretania," and that gave him a little surprise. He had brought the matter to the attention of the Admiralty, and they had told him that they could

  1393
  make the dock so that it could easily be lengthened. The suggestion made by the hon. Member that they should put two ships in one dock was a very excellent one, and he promised that it should be considered. He asked the House now to allow this Vote to pass as they wanted to get on with the works, and they could not make any progress until the Vote was passed. If there should happen to foe any matters of detail which he could answer privately a further opportunity would be given.
  MR. PIRIEsaid he would like his 'Question about Scottish granite answered.
  MR. J. M. HENDERSONsaid that there were merchants in England and Scotland who brought into this country large quantities of Norwegian granite, and they were trying to sell it under a series of pretences that it stood a greater strain than either English, Scottish, or Welsh granite. Such statements were absolutely untrue, and he asked the Admiralty to guard themselves against them. If they would only test Scottish granite they would find that it would stand the strongest possible test.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONpromised that the remonstrances and protests which had been made would be borne in mind, and the Admiralty would examine for themselves the qualities of the various kinds of granite. He would guard against being misled by any of the statements which had been referred to.
  MR. FLYNNprotested against the action taken by the contractors in regard to what was done at Haulbowline. At the last moment the Irish contractors got Norwegian granite substituted, and this caused a very great loss of employment in the locality. As Scotsmen and Welshmen had protested against this unfair importation of foreign granite he thought at least one Irish Member might be allowed to say a word.
  SIR JOHN BENNsaid that when the right hon. Gentleman was considering granite he hoped he would
  1394
  bear in mind that Cornish granite was the best of all.
  MR. HUNTasked the right hon. Gentleman also to bear in mind Shropshire granite.
  CAPTAIN DONELANsaid he desired to support the protest which had been made by his hon. friend the Member for North Cork. Undoubtedly a large number of working men in his constituency had complained very bitterly of the action of the Admiralty in regard to this question of foreign granite. Excellent granite could have been obtained in the immediate neighbourhood just as lasting and useful as the Norwegian granite. Good granite was also to be obtained in the North of Ireland. But to go to Norway when excellent building stone could be obtained in the local quarries almost adjoining was action which deserved very strong condemnation.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  CONTEMPT OF COURT (IRELAND).
  MR. N. J. MURPHYin rising to call attention to the Law of Contempt of Court in Ireland, and the arrest and imprisonment of Mr. Lawrence Ginnell, a Member of this House; and to move, "That the jurisdiction of Judges in dealing with Contempt of Court is practically arbitrary and unlimited, and, especially in view of recent exercises of that jurisdiction in Ireland, calls for the action of Parliament with a view to its definition and limitation," said that he had got out of a sick bed to come to the House. He did not feel that his strength was equal to making a speech in support of his Motion, and therefore he could not do more than move it formally.
  MR. P. A. McHUGH (Sligo, N.),in seconding, said the Motion was of a two-fold nature. It particularly referred to an absent colleague and to recent exercises of the jurisdiction of contempt of Court in Ireland, and it was otherwise of a general nature, and in regard to

  1395
  the general portion of it their statement was that the jurisdiction of Judges in dealing with contempt of Court was practically arbitrary and unlimited. It was in the interests of the ordinary citizen and of the Judges themselves that there should be a change in the law. They held that the law should be respected and that Judges should not be humiliated, but Judges had been humiliated by executive Governments, and might continue to be humiliated as long as the law remained as at present. He might refer to one case in which a Judge had sentenced a man named Cradock to twelve months imprisonment for contempt of Court in England in 1875. The conviction was discussed in that House, and the Executive Government released the man a few days after his conviction. In that case the Judge was humiliated, and it was not expedient in a properly governed community that such incidents should arise. They had no intention whatever of casting any reflection upon any Judge in Ireland, but it was only reasonable in bringing forward a Motion of this kind that they should consider it especially from the point of view of the conditions prevailing in Ireland. He admitted that the law was the same in Ireland as in England, but the practice and administration in Ireland were different. There appeared to be a general agreement amongst all parties that the law ought to be amended. A similar Resolution to this was agreed to by all parties on 4th April, 1906, but, on that occasion, the Attorney-General for Ireland said the Government had no time for such a purpose during that session. He hoped the Government would now tell them they intended to introduce legislation. He believed all parties in the House were practically agreed that contempt should be defined, that there should be a clear line of distinction drawn between civil and criminal contempt, that the punishment which might be inflicted by way of fine or imprisonment should be limited, that there should be an appeal in all cases, and that the Royal prerogative should apply. If he was right the Attorney-General had no excuse for postponing dealing with the matter. They all agreed that there should be inherent
  1396
  in Courts of Justice the power to protect themselves from insult, and that Judges-very properly exercised the right of committing for contempt of Court in the case, for instance, of absconding; debtors and of unsatisfactory answering; in Bankruptcy Courts. But when they as>ked what was contempt of Court no one could answer the question. They might as well ask what was truth, or what, was Socialism. There was no definition. Every Judge on the Bench might have a. a special code and definition of his own. If they laughed or sneezed in Court it might be contempt of Court. All depended upon the Judge who presided. Irish, Members had taken a very deep interest in the matter for some years past, and at their instance Returns had been made from year to year of persons sentenced to unlimited terms of imprisonment for contempt of Court in Ireland. In 1895 one of his constituents, named Daniel O'Donnell was committed for contempt for trespassing on a farm from which he had been evicted, and which was situated on an estate managed by the Land Judge. It was a doctrine universally accepted by English Judges that the jurisdiction for contempt of Court should be used only when there was no other remedy. In the case of his constituent there was no necessity for applying this jurisdiction. The ordinary law should have been appealed to. He found also his own name in one of these lists. There was no definition of the crime of which he was held to be guilty, and there was no record to say whether the contempt was civil or criminal, and he contended that the Judge in sentencing him should have clearly stated whether his contempt was of a civil or criminal nature. The question was only decided when the matter came up in that House, and it was held without evidence and without any authority or information that he was guilty of criminal contempt. He did not propose to review that decision, because it was a matter of the utmost indifference to him what decision of that kind was given in the House of Commons. He was satisfied with, his position before his constituents and his countrymen at large. Under the law as it stood at present a Judge had power to commit to prison for life, though he did not know that there was any

  1397
  record of its being exercised. A Judge could also impose any fine that he thought fit. He might impose a fine which would render the offender bankrupt and leave him penniless and homeless, or he might impose a condition for his release which the person imprisoned would not be willing to accept even on pain of long years of imprisonment. These were powers which, in his judgment, should not be left in the hands of any man no matter how distinguished or upright he might be. It could not be claimed for Judges that they were infallible or that they were angels. On 4th April, 1906, those who poke from the benches above the Gangway, representing Irish constituencies, all stated that the law was the same in Ireland as in England. And they appeared to him to think that the whole case was answered by making that statement. He asked the question: "Have you a Judge's Court in England similar to the Land Judge's Court in Ireland?" They had nothing of the kind, and his reply was that very probably this Motion would never have been made if they had not had such a court in Ireland entirely different from anything to be found in England. He would say that he had been a member of this House with Mr. Justice Ross, and he was not going to take advantage of his position there to say one word which would reflect upon that Judge in his judicial capacity. He maintained that Judge Ross had been badly treated by successive Governments in Ireland. In this House he was regarded as the champion and spokesman of the landlord as against the tenant class. And what did the late Government do? It set him over a Court whose function it was to decide between the conflicting interests of those two classes. He held that that was very unfair to Judge Ross, because it placed him in a very difficult and invidious position. That fact had been recognised by all parties in the House. On 13th April, 1904, the following Resolution was adopted by this House—
  "That the time has arrived for taking immediate steps to wind up the business of the Land Judge's Court in Ireland in the interest of all concerned."
  He held that that included the Judge himself. On that occasion the then Chief
  1398
  Secretary for Ireland, the right hon. Member for Dover, supported the Resolution; but he took no steps to give effect to it, and matters remained to-day practically the same as they were when that Motion was brought before the House. Sometimes they were charged with saying harsh things about Judges in Ireland, but the hardest thing ever said about Mr. Justice Ross was said by the present Attorney-General for Ireland, who on 4th April, 1906, said—
  "The Judge of the Land Judge's Court was transformed into a kind of rent-agent."
  Nothing worse could be said of a Judge in Ireland, and he would not attempt to improve on it. In looking over the Returns of persons sentenced to imprisonment for contempt of Court in Ireland, he found a very large proportion of them sentenced to long terms of imprisonment for some reason or other arising out of disputes in Judge Ross's Court. He found the following. Michael Daly, Aranmore, County Donegal, kept in prison for 158 days; Patrick Farelly, Enaghay County Longford, 191 days; Francis D'Arcy, Cualeyhen, County Cavan, 142 days; Batt. O. Doherty, Shanara, County Kerry, 163 days; Michael Roche, Costle Ireland, County Kerry, 236 days; Myles Synott, Courtown Harbour, Wexford, one year, fifty-nine days; Thomas Eaton, Towerstown, County Kilkenny, 298 days; Thomas Walsh, Scariff, County Clare, 291 days. A man named Patrick Kavanagh, of Furzditch, County Wicklow, was kept in prison for contempt one year and 237 days by the Vice-Chancellor. Kavanagh was afterwards transferred from the prison to Richmond Lunatic Asylum. Rightly or wrongly there was a feeling in the minds of a very large section of the people of Ireland that the power of committal for contempt of Court was used in the Land Judge's Court in the interests of the owner as against the interests of the occupier. He contended that that was a most regrettable fact. He had stated that there appeared to be general agreement in regard to the principle laid down by English Judges that the power of committal for contempt of court should be availed of only where there was no alternative. He would refer to the case of Daniel O'Donnell, who was committed

  1399
  to prison for a trespass he was said to have committed, and for which, had it been committed in this country, he would have been tried under the ordinary law, that was to say if they admitted that the principles laid down by Justices Coleridge, Matthew, and Jessell were correct. He maintained that Daniel O'Donnell was wrongfully committed to prison, because there was an alternative means of punishing him for the offence he had committed. The offence was committed on an estate in the Land Judge's Court, but had O'Donnell's trespass been on an estate in the hands of its owner, he would have been tried under the ordinary law. In that same year a branch of the United Irish League was formed at Drumkeeran, and at a meeting of the branch a resolution was adopted condemning land-grabbing. Land-grabbing had been made the subject of discussion throughout Ireland, and would continue to be so until the practice was abolished. There was no power in the hands of any Government which could prevent the people of Ireland from expressing their opinion in regard to that matter. It was quite possible that the Drumkeeran branch in passing that resolution and making special reference to a particular land-grabber, broke the law. He did not question that, but if a man broke the law, whether in England or Ireland, he should be tried according to the law. But what was done in the Drumkeeran case? The grabbed land was part of an estate in the Land Judge's Court. The receiver a Mr. Hewson, made an affidavit, and he got the land-grabber, whose name was Hetherington, to make another affidavit, and on the charges made in these affidavits four of his constituents were sentenced to indefinite terms of imprisonment on a charge of contempt of Court. He took particular interest in the case, and went down to Drumkeeran, and made inquiry as to the statements contained in the affidavits submitted by Hewson and Hetherington; and he found that in the main these statements were absolutely false and unfounded. He was present at the Court when the men were tried. The accusers did not put in an appearance, and answering affidavits were put in by the four men, but the Judge absolutely refused to listen to them, and used very violent
  1400
  language in committing them for contempt of Court. Three of the men evaded capture for some time, but one of them, Mr. Joseph Gallagher, secretary of the branch, who was in delicate health was arrested at once, and lodged in Sligo Gaol. He visited Gallagher, and found him in a cold dark cell, where he could not read except far about two hours a day. He was kept in solitary confinement for twenty-two out of the twenty-four hours. There was no way he could see of getting Gallagher out of prison. The Judge insisted as a condition of release that Gallagher had to swear what he believed to be false, viz., that he was sorry he had been a party to passing a resolution condemning land-grabbing. That, in his judgment, was intolerable, because it had been laid down by more than one Judge that no such conditions should be imposed in such cases, and that the terms of imprisonment should be defined and limited. This poor man Gallagher, who had to be carried out of his cell every day by the warders to get the air, was dying by inches, and his friends came to him and said: "Why don't you give in?" Of course, in the end the poor fellow had to give in. He maintained that the law of contempt of Court was used as an instrument for the repression of agrarian agitation, and there was nothing worse than this abuse of the power of committing to prison for contempt of Court. Every device had been used to stop agrarian agitation in Ireland. Coercion. Acts had been passed, without avail, and, of course, no justice could be had from two paid magistrates who came down to the Courts with the sentences to be passed on the accused in their pockets. Another means of repression was packed juries; but none of these things were half so bad as this power of committing for contempt of Court when a man has no right to be confronted with his accusers and to cross-examine them. But this was not the worst of it. This jurisdiction might be invoked by outsiders as it had been in the Drumkeeran case, where, to his personal! knowledge, the statements made against his constituents were unfounded. He met Hewson at a public meeting, and explained the whole situation to him, and called him names which he would

  1401
  not repeat in the House. Hewson however, had taken no action against him, and his constituents were tried and imprisoned on false and perjured testimony. He said that to use the power of committal in such a case was to turn it into an instrument of torture and of terror, and was calculated to bring the Court into odium. No man was safe in the country. If he went down to his own constituency to address a meeting, he would have to make inquiries as to whether an estate was in the Courts or not, and if it was in the Courts he could say nothing about it. He tried to bring public opinion to bear upon the treatment of his constituents in this matter, and he called a public meeting, but it was suppressed by proclamation. In England they did not hear many complaints about the abuse of this power, because it was not abused here as it was in Ireland. Even if it was abused in this country there was always the safeguard of public opinion. This country was governed in accordance with public opinion, but that was not the case in Ireland, and it would be more true to say that Ireland was usually governed in defiance of Irish public opinion. In England, moreover, no carrion crow winged his way to the judicial bench, and a different system prevailed altogether. He would refer to a case in which he was concerned, but he would not have done so had not his colleagues asked him to bring the facts before the House. He was sitting in the smoking-room downstairs on 22nd February, 1902, when a colleague drew his attention to a report which appeared in the London Times of that date, and which went to show that on the previous day a matter cropped up in the Land Judge's Court about a Conference held in Highwood, County Sligo, and reported in the Sligo Champion of 11th January, 1902. The resolution passed was one condemning the eleven months system of letting land, and special reference was made to a grazing farm on an estate called the Weir Estate, which was then in the Land Judge's Court. He would read an extract from the report that appeared in the London Times on 22nd February, 1902. The Judge said—
  "There was no doubt that the tenants had been interfered with. If it could be proved that
  1402
  any two men had proposed and seconded the resolution that had been cited, he would deal with them for contempt of Court. The receiver must take steps if he could to prove the origin of the resolution. The persons who moved and supported these resolutions would be punished if they were brought before him. The newspapers, in publishing the resolutions, were the principal agencies in the conspiracy. If the editors were brought before him he would teach them that to publish such a resolution was a gross contempt of Court, and they would be punished severely."
  He had never denied responsibility for what appeared in the paper on 11th January, which contained a report of the Conference, including the resolution condemning the eleven months system, references being made to a particular farm. He admitted that in all probability he committed an offence before the law, but if he had committed such an offence let him be tried by the law. He might have been charged with intimidation or conspiracy, and he would have stood his trial and paid the penalty, but he did not get a trial, and what he complained of then, and what he complained of now, was that his liberty was taken away without a fair trial. He was never confronted with his accusers, and they were never put in the witness-box for cross-examination. It was said that all men were equal before the law, and he supposed that that was universally admitted. He said that all estates were equal before the law. They were equal before the law in England, but not equal before the law in Ireland, and that was the kernel of their complaint against these proceedings. Were they to be told that what was intimidation on one side of -the ditch was contempt of Court on the other? He refused to subscribe to so preposterous a doctrine. Were they to be told that cattle-driving was an offence against the Common Law on one side of the ditch, and would be tried under the Common Law, but was contempt of Court on the other side? That was the case of their colleague. If he had done certain acts of which he was accused on an estate which was not in Court, he would be tried according to the ordinary law, button an estate which was before the Court it was contempt of Court. He said that if that; was the law, then surely the law was an ass. The hint thrown out by Mr. Justice Ross that proceedings should be

  1403
  taken against him was acted upon very promptly by the receiver of the estate. He was served with a notice to appear before Judge Ross, and the case was tried on 19th April, 1902, in Dublin. On that occasion he was represented by an eminent counsel, Mr. O'Shaughnessy, now the Recorder of Dublin, and Mr. Kehoe, who was made a County Court Judge. An affidavit having been read by the prosecuting counsel, his answering affidavit was read. In it he said—
  "I have read the affidavits made in this case. It is a fact that reports of such meetings of the United Irish League appeared in my paper. It is a fact that I am proprietor of the Sligo Champion, and as such I acknowledge my responsibility for the publication of the reports. I say that with regard to the publication of the said reports I am not guilty of contempt of this honourable Court, as I did not know of the existence of this estate until I saw reference to it and to myself and to the remarks of Mr. Justice Ross in the London Times some time last month. I did not know until then that the estate of Weir was in the Courts, or that there was any dispute about the management of the said estate. I never read any of the said reports before or after publication, until after I was served with a summons. On my attention being drawn to The Times report, I wrote to my manager directing him to insert no more reports without first submitting them to me, and my instructions in this respect have been carried out."
  And counsel for the prosecution proceeded—
  "There is the whole of the affidavit. He is responsible for everything that appears in his paper, and it is his duty to know whether, in these publications, he is interfering with the management of an estate in this Court. In no place in that affidavit does he express regret, and one would have expected that a gentleman, such as Mr. McHugh, if he did not intend to interfere with the management of an estate in this Court, would have made in his affidavit an expression of regret for what he had done. Not one word of regret is here, and one would have thought that he would have given an undertaking that such would not occur again. There is no undertaking given that he would not repeat the conduct he has been guilty of. All he says is that he directed his manager not to insert any such reports without first submitting them to him. There is no guarantee given that the same thing would not occur again."
  Certainly not. Why should he give a guarantee? He held then and he held now that the management of all estates whether in Court or not was a legitimate subject, of public discussion. He gave no undertaking, and, when he was asked to give one he was required to give
  1404
  up the right, if there was to be a free Press, to print the reports of meetings. He did not comment upon the matter and knew nothing about it, but he was charged with having inserted a report of a conference of a National League Branch at which the resolution to which he had referred was passed. He did not see how he could be held guilty of contempt, and Mr. O'Shaughnessy, who appeared for him, said—
  "Is it not perfectly plain that he neither committed a contempt nor intended to commit a contempt? I quite admit that your Lordship is entitled and bound to exercise your jurisdiction where it is necessary; but I say this is a case where it is not necessary."
  Mr. Kehoe, also on his behalf, said—
  "These are merely reports of meetings which were not proclaimed. His Lordship would believe Mr. McHugh when he stated in his affidavit that he had no knowledge that the estate was in Court; and no case could be found on the books of contempt where knowledge was not brought home in some form. It was the duty of some officer of his Lordship's Court to inform Mr. McHugh that he was committing a contempt, as there was no duty devolving on Mr. McHugh to make inquiry about it."
  He said that in all the authorities he had read it was laid down that there could be no contempt without intent and surely there could be no intent where there was no knowledge. Counsel having been heard on his behalf, judgment was delivered by the Land Judge who said—
  "Accordingly, I adjudge and declare Patrick Aloysius McHugh, Member of Parliament, guilty of contempt of Court. I order him to be attached until further order. I order him to pay all the costs of this motion, and a fine of £50 to the Crown. To prevent any further attempt to deal with this estate in this matter, I order an injunction to issue to restrain Mr. McHugh, his agents, assistants, employees, or servants from interfering with the Receiver, by publishing matters calculated to prevent the letting of grazing in this estate; and I direct service of this notice to be substituted by sending it to the office, directed to Mr. McHugh. I have only one further thing to remark. I can see reference to other estates in this paper; and I now warn all Receivers that when they notice matters of this kind calculated to interfere with the performance of their duty and with the rights of the people, if they do not promptly bring such before this Court, I will have their names removed from the list of Receivers."
  M. Leech (prosecuting counsel) asked for the costs of the Receiver and the answer of Judge Ross was—
  "I am not satisfied that the Receiver should not have sent notice to the paper long before

  1405
  he brought the matter before this Court, if he had done so I would have dealt with the matter in a very different way."
  Therefore it appeared that the Judge held that his crime was somewhat mitigated by the fact that he had no notice from the Receiver. If he had a notice he wondered what the sentence would have been. He thought the sentence was hard enough because as his release would be subject to a condition he could not possibly accept it was tantamount ^o a sentence of imprisonment for life. For reasons with which he need not trouble the House that order of Judge Ross remained in abeyance till June, 1903. In the meantime peace had fallen upon the land. Before going into prison he thought he would give the Judge an opportunity of reviewing his sentence, and accordingly he had e Motion made asking him to rescind the Order. He refused to listen to his counsel and said—
  "We are very patient in this Court. But he (the hon. Member) must go in first, and then make his application."
  He was therefore to go into gaol where the learned Judge would have the thumbscrew on him and where he hoped, by twisting it to a certain extent, to extract from him an acknowledgment of regret and a promise not offend again. That in his judgment, would have humiliated him, and he was determined he would not be humiliated by Judge Ross. The Judge added:
  "He (the hon. Member) was the proprietor of the paper, and he must express regret for the publication, otherwise, I cannot hear him. There is no expression of regret in the affidavit at all. He must clearly understand that the contempt must be purged and got rid of. I must have an expression of regret for the publication in the paper before I consider it at all. Let there be no mistake about that."
  Rightly or wrongly, he believed that Mr. Justice Ross desired to humiliate him as his constituents had been humiliated, and, after that judgment, he went down to Sligo and got arrested immediately. He made no application for release, and yet within fifteen days he was released. The thumbscrew was ready, and he was behind the bars. Judge Ross, he supposed, expected he would approach him and ask to be let free, and that he would say that, if he promised not to do it again, he would let him out. Why, however, should he apologise for a con-
  1406
  tempt of which he was innocent? He made up his mind he would do nothing of the kind, and neither he nor any of his friends approached the Executive Government. Why was he released? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would tell the House. Did the Executive Government humiliate Judge Ross? He had prepared humble pie for him, but it was not he who ate it. It was Judge Ross. He did not know up to this moment why he was released. He expressed no regret; and he did not ask to be released. Probably, when the case of the hon. Member for West Meath came up the right hon. Gentleman would say they had no power to release him except by order of the Judge. By what power was he (the hon. Member speaking) released? The power which was considered enough to force Mr. Justice Ross to release him still remained and should be exercised by the Chief Secretary, and, on behalf of his Party, and in the name of decency and of fair play, he demanded the immediate and unconditional release of his imprisoned colleague. It was no use to say they could not release him. There was the case of Craddock and his own case. Let them do in the case of his imprisoned colleague what was done in his own. The Chief Secretary's administration up to the present had been clean. Let him not shelter himself behind this rusty tool of contempt of Court, which ought to be left in the lumber room of dead tyrannies with the thumbscrew and the rack.
  Motion made, and Question proposed "That the jurisdiction of judges in dealing with contempt of Court is practically arbitrary and unlimited, and especially in view of recent exercises of that jurisdiction in Ireland, calls for the action of Parliament with a view to its definition and limitation."—(Mr. Nicholas Murphy.)
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,)said that it was certainly not the first time this subject of contempt of Court had been before Parliament; and he found that as far back as 1882, twenty-six years ago, the late Mr. Gladstone stated in this House that the matter was a

  1407
  pressing one and that he proposed to introduce almost immediately legislation on the subject. In 1883 a Bill was actually introduced in the House of Lords by the late Lord Selborne, and it provided in a very substantial way for the limitation of the power of Judges as regarded committals for contempt. It limited the penalty of imprisonment to a period of two months and the fine which might be imposed to £500. And what was more important, it gave the right of appeal in every case of committal by a single Judge. That Bill failed to became law. He believed it passed through all its stages in the House of Lords, but in this House, owing to pressure of business, it was dropped. Although that was so very long ago, nothing had been done by way of legislation since. They were now exactly in the same position as they were then. Again, he found in 1892 a Bill was introduced—it was backed by his right hon. friend the present Chief Secretary— with the object of giving the right of appeal not only to the Court of Appeal but also to the House of Lords in the case of committal for contempt. It shared the fate of so many other Bills introduced by private Members, and failed to become law. In 1906 the subject was brought forward, and a Resolution, almost identical in terms with the Resolution now before the House, was unanimously accepted. He therefore apprehended that there would be no difficulty to-night in accepting the resolution, but he thought it was unnecessary for him to mention how unfavourable would be the prospect of passing any measure on the subject this session with the legislative programme before the House.
  A NATIONALIST MEMBER: It could be made a one-clause Bill.
  MR. CHERRYsaid the hon. Member suggested that it could be done in a one-clause Bill, but could a one-clause Bill be passed in one minute? It was not a question of the number of the clauses, but of the time to be given to a matter of this kind. He was not in a position to control the time of the House, and he could not undertake on behalf of the Government at the present moment to
  1408
  introduce legislation on this subject. There was legislation in contemplation, not only for England and Scotland, but also for Ireland, which they all knew there was a great deal of difficulty in passing in the present session owing to the limited amount of time at their disposal, and he did not think hon. Gentlemen opposite could really press them too much to take up this matter in the present session in addition to other matters they had to deal with.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that a Bill was passed in all its stages in 1883 by Lord Selborne and the Law Lords, in the House of Lords, and it was only stopped because there was not time in the Commons. They had the Lords in their favour and an overwhelming majority in this House in their favour. Surely it could be done without the smallest difficulty and without the loss of four hours of time!
  MR. MOORE: May I just say there was not time in this House to pass a little Bill for Belfast the other night?
  MR. CHERRYthought the last interruption showed the hopelessness of passing the Bill as a non-contentious measure in a few minutes. If there was a chance of passing it, he would suggest that the hon. and learned Member should present his Bill. He was glad to hear the hon. Member for Sligo, in the course of his moderate speech, disclaim any intention of making any attack upon any Judge in Ireland. There was no necessity for him to disclaim any attack or any attempt to attack the Judges in Ireland; but he agreed that the power of a single Judge arbitrarily to commit for contempt was a power which ought not to be conferred. In a matter such as contempt, which affected the Judge personally, he should not be allowed to be the judge in his own cause. In a great many cases where questions of contempt arose, the question was a personal one between the Judge and the person brought before him. He thought everybody would agree that in such matters it was desirable that there should be the right of appeal from the order of the Judge. The whole

  1409
  House, he thought, would agree that the power of committing for contempt ought to be strictly confined to what was really contempt, and that it ought not to be used as an instrument for the repression of land agitation. He did not say it had been so used or that Mr. Justice Ross, in the exercise of his jurisdiction, had had in his mind any idea of a political nature. He had protected the land within his jurisdiction and from time to time imposed sentences upon persons who, he thought, interfered with the management of the property in such a way as to prevent him doing his duty towards the owners. But the House would, he thought, agree with him that the power of committal for contempt was not intended to be used as an instrument for the repression of land agitation or for any political purpose whatever. With regard to definition and limitation of the jurisdiction, it was a very difficult matter to deal with, and he did not know how they could attempt in any Bill to limit or define what was contempt of Court. He was not aware that it had ever been attempted, and if any attempt had been made he would be very glad to see how it had been expressed. There must be always, if the law was to be administered, this power of committal for contempt, otherwise it would be impossible that the administration of estates in Chancery or the conduct of judicial business could be carried on. But what they were entitled to insist on was that the power and the duty of committal for contempt should be strictly confined to cases where it was necessary and where it was merely for the purpose of allowing the business of the Courts to be fairly and justly conducted so as to do no injustice to any individual. He agreed that in Ireland, although the law was the same as in England, the circumstances were very different and greater strictness was required. There was no Court in England in the same position as the Land Judge's Court in Ireland. There was no Court which had the management of a very large portion of the area of the country and where the Judge was really in the double position of being both Judge and landlord, because substantially in the case of every estate in Ireland under the jurisdiction of the Land Judge and for
  1410
  sale in his Court, the Judge exercised the rights of a landlord, and the law of landlord and tenant as between the Judge and persons who held under the Court was administered by means of this law of contempt. A tenant who refused to give, up possession at the end of the term for which he had contracted to hold the land, if he held under an ordinary landlord, was proceeded against in the ordinary way. If he held under the Land Judge and refused to give up when his tenancy expired he was guilty of contempt of Court and might be treated as so guilty. During the last forty or fifty years the law of contempt of Court had been put into force again and again by the Land Judges, and not only was it used as between the owner, represented by the Land Court, and the tenants in occupation, but it was also used with reference to outsiders who had no dealing with the Court at all. In their case the matter was more grave, because their contempt was treated as criminal and not merely civil contempt. The Resolution in so far as it suggested that an amendment of the law was required to limit the term of imprisonment and the amount of the fines that might be imposed and to confer the right of appeal upon persons who were sentenced by a single Judge, was a moderate Resolution, and might be reasonably accepted by the House, and he would ask the House to accept it. The hon. Member had dealt with a particular case. He did not think this was the time to deal with any individual case. If there was any question of exercising the prerogative of pardon it was open to hon. Members to take measures to bring the matter before the Executive Government. So far as he was aware, in no instance in the last fifty years had the prerogative of the Court ever been exercised in reference to committal for contempt and it was a doubtful point whether such jurisdiction existed. The hon. Member for Lietrim had been committed and released, but he was released by the Judge who committed him. Of course it was open to Mr. Justice Ross to deal with a case as he thought right. In regard to the Resolution the Government accepted it and were willing that it should be passed, but the House would not expect that

  1411
  he should make any promise or pledge on the part of the Government in regard to legislation during the present session.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he wished to refer to what the Attorney-General had stated with regard to having the Resolution detached altogether from the case of the gentleman whose name was mentioned in the preamble. He could not take that view. He conceived that there was a matter affecting the House which ought to be very carefully inquired into, and was a proper topic for debate at the present moment. When Mr. De Cobain, who was a very eminent member of the Conservative Party in Ireland, and for whose misfortune he, for one, felt extremely sorry, had been guilty of some offence that he would not now mention, the House proposed on the Motion of the present Leader of the Opposition or of the late Mr. Smith, without any notice to Mr. de Cobain, to try to expel him. He (Mr. Healy), had objected, and pointed out that he had neither been convicted nor had he any notice or advertisement of the censure of the House being about to be pissed upon him. So precise and scrupulous was the House in regard to a Conservative Member, although he was quite sure the Leader of the Opposition would have been equally scrupulous if his attention had been called to it in regard to a political opponent, that the House sent a special messenger across to some Continental port and advised Mr. de Cobain of the proposed censure of the House and invited him to go and attend. It was only after he had been advised of the censure that the House proceeded to expel him from its membership. What was the case with regard to the hon. Member for North Westmeath? It might or might not be right to exercise the power of committal for contempt of Court, but the House should be most scrupulously careful in considering the circumstances in which any of its Members might suffer arrest and imprisonment. He was one of the Committee that inquired into a similar case in 1883, and he could not think that their procedure or their respect for the dignity of the position of a Member of Parliament had improved.
  1412
  It was upon the recommendation of that Committee that Mr. Gladstone proposed to introduce into the House of Lords a Bill to limit the duration of imprisonment to two months. Nor did the Prime Minister of that day think it derogatory to his great office to preside-over that Committee which was representative of all sections of the House. There they were now, however, after a quarter of a century, without having made an inch of progress, and the House had, in fact, refused to appoint a Committee on privilege. He was as strongly opposed to cattle-driving and all its incidents as any Conservative Member or Ministerialist, and therefore, he was not speaking out of any sympathy with the movement in connection with which the hon. Member for North Westmeath was committed to prison, but he did say that the hon. Member had the rights, not only of a citizen, but of a Member of that House, and they should be jealous to see that no wrong had been committed. He conceived that it was a gross hardship on the hon. Member for North Westmeath, who no doubt thought he was bearing a proper and creditable part in the movement. How was the hon. Member or anybody else to find out that a particular area of grazing land was, or was not, under the jurisdiction of Mr. Justice Ross's Court? He remembered reading in connection with the American War how some of the-northern soldiers described the one case in which the United States inflicted the punishment of death after the Civil War, and the great grievance was that there was an imaginary line drawn which they refused to mark, chalk, or delimit in any way when the poor hungry prisoners used to come out picking up snails and worms off the ground. But the moment any of them crossed that line bang went the rifle of a soldier, and the northern soldier was a corpse. Where was that line drawn in Ireland I He might make a speech in favour of cattle-driving in one field, and he would be absolutely free from the jurisdiction of Mr. Justice Ross; but if he crossed the ditch into the next field and made the same speech he might get six months, imprisonment. Whichever side of the ditch he spoke on, his speech and the sentiments would be the same, and probably

  1413
  the effect upon the neighbourhood would be the same. The hon. Member for North Westmeath had no notice that he was speaking on ground under the jurisdiction of Mr. Justice Ross, and, therefore, he did not commit contempt of Court in making a speech which was not intended to be a contempt of Court. Moreover, he had stated, and his word had not been controverted, that he never received any summons from Mr. Justice Ross, or from his Court. He thought it would be within the province of that House to inquire as to what were the facts upon which one of its Members had been sentenced to six months imprisonment. A Member of that House had been laid by the heels, and yet until now not a single voice had been raised to question the prudence, legality, or even the technical justice of his imprisonment. If the hon. Member for North Westmeath had been a Macedonian, or a Chinaman, or even a Congolese, the matter would have been different. If he were Dinuzulu, his imprisonment might be made a matter of considerable sympathy; but as he was only an Irish Member engaged in making speeches with which few had sympathy his liberty seemed to be a matter not merely of no interest, but of no importance. He strongly hoped that on the occasion of some strike or labour movement in England some distinguished member of the Labour Party would be committed for contempt of Court. But English Judges were so wise; they never came into real conflict with that House or even with its humblest Member. Going back for forty or fifty years, in spite of the very great friction which existed in the labour movement in regard to such matters as the law of conspiracy, he could not understand why no English Member had ever succeeded in getting committed for contempt of Court. Whether the English Judges were in the habit of passing over their strong speeches or not he did not know, but undoubtedly they had a state of affairs under which English Members could treat Irish affairs in this extraordinary manner. He agreed with what the Attorney-General had said in regard to the advisability of making no attacks upon the Judges, although he did not believe the Judges
  1414
  minded these attacks. If he abstained: from challenging the judgment of the learned Judge in this case, it was not because he knew that the Judge would disregard it, but because he would like to make an appeal even there for some consideration for the position which the hon. Member for North Westmeath occupied. The Attorney-General had said that in no case had the prerogative of mercy been exercised in a case of contempt of Court. But he would remind the Attorney-General that many years ago-there was a case in county Limerick when Mr. Justice Boyd himself released Tom Moroney from prison, and made-no bones about it. The heat of the-cattle-driving movement had passed away, and the Government might now take action, or Mr. Justice Ross-himself, who was far from being a, harsh or ill-natured man, might take-some action which would enable the hon. Member for North Westmeath to be discharged from prison. The Member for Trinity College knew the circumstances under which the hon. Member was committed, and he enjoyed the extraordinary advantage of being the only man in this House who did know, because he held the brief upon which the hon. Member was committed. He would, therefore, appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he thought the very severe sentence which the hon. Member had undergone was not sufficient, and to throw out a hint that a sufficient period of incarceration had passed. If he did that, he could assure him that nothing but good would come from the discharge of the hon. Member from what must be an irksome and onerous punishment. The law on this question-was not in a state which anybody could regard with satisfaction either for England or Ireland. Whatever might be their desire to marry their deceased wife's sister, or to escape from vaccination, or to shut up public-houses, or any other of the great works upon which the Liberal Party had been engaged for the last two years, he respectfully submitted that the liberty of the subject in Ireland was a still greater right. Nevertheless, this right had remained year after year clouded, although so conservative a body as the House of Lords had condemned the existing state of the law, and what made

  1415
  matters worse was that in Ireland there was no right of appeal. There were a large number of matters upon which they had a right of appeal in this country which was denied to Ireland. An amendment of the law was required, and lie thought this was one of the occasions when the Government's profession that it was on the side of liberty should be put into actual practice.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid he quite agreed with what had fallen from the Attorney-General as to the importance of limiting and defining the jurisdiction of the Courts in this matter. He was quite sure the Judges themselves would gladly accept from Parliament some relief so that there should be a statutory limitation as to the sentence and imprisonment and as to the Amount of the fines. It would also be in the interests of personal liberty if a right of appeal was conferred from the decision of a single Judge in these matters. The great difficulty was that in Ireland there was no right of appeal to the Court of Appeal in criminal matters, and Members on that side of the House above the gangway who represented Irish constituencies, had been anxious to have the law in that respect altered so as to confer such rights of appeal in all criminal matters, but hon. Members below the gangway had never received that suggestion with any friendliness or with any promise of co-operation. When it had been proposed to take advantage of an English Bill before the House to insert a clause giving this right of appeal to Ireland, they had always been told that they might count on the opposition of the bulk of the hon. Members from Ireland below the gangway.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he remembered the instance to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. It was the Prisoners Evidence Bill, and the Irish Members said they would oppose it because they felt that prosecutions would not be conducted in the same manner in Ireland as in England, and that innocent men might be convicted.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid the hon. Member was referring to a wholly different matter. There being in his view a strong
  1416
  case for legislation which would limit and define the jurisdiction of a single Judge in this matter, he would have been quite prepared to let the Motion pass without any discussion, had it not been for the suggestion that the acceptance of the Motion involved a decision by the House that the use of this power of contempt of Court was condemned in all cases in which it of necessity became an element in the repression of agrarian agitation. He could not find anything of that kind in the Motion. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it necessarily involved that, and if it did he would be inclined to oppose the Motion and divide the House on it.
  MR. CHEERY: I do not think I said that, I did not intend to say it. All I said was that I agreed with the statement of the hon. Member for Sligo, and I myself condemned the use of this process for the purpose of repressing agrarian agitation.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid the Attorney-General had left Members on that side under the distinct impression that he evolved that out of the Motion. With regard to the exercise of this jurisdiction in the Court of the Land Judge, he was glad to hear the hon. Member for Sligo, who might be pardoned for indulging in strong language by reason of his reminiscences, say that he had not the slightest intention of making any attack on Mr. Justice Ross. He afterwards, when he got warm, forgot that observation and rather suggested that in some particular case the learned Judge had practically denied justice to the accused person because he would not allow the witnesses against him to be cross-examined and would not listen to the affidavits filed on his behalf. He was certain that the hon. Member must be under some misapprehension, because that was the ordinary right of every person against whom such an application was made. He had never known Mr. Justice Ross in any single case depart from the recognised practice and law. It had been admitted with candour by the hon. Member for Sligo that for all intents and purposes the law in Ireland was precisely the same on this point as in England. If any one attempted to interfere with the Court of Chancery in this country the Court at once came down on that person, exercising its

  1417
  inherent jurisdiction of contempt of Court to protect the property under its own control. That was exactly what Mr. Justice Ross claimed to have done; he had invoked the protection of that jurisdiction with which Parliament entrusted his Court. The hon. Member's complaint was that because they had in Ireland a particular Court which Parliament itself had set up and which of necessity had to deal with Irish land, they ought to take away from that Court, the Court which above all required it, the power inherent in every other Court in England and Ireland that had to deal with property. The Court of Chancery in England had inherent jurisdiction to protect the property which it controlled. That was exactly what Mr. Justice Ross claimed to do, nothing more and nothing less, and he had never strained his jurisdiction. Some suggestion was made by the hon. Member for North Louth with reference to some alleged defect in the notice that was given in the case of the hon. Member for North Westmeath. He was not going to discuss the merits of that case, but he would remind the House that the affirmative evidence satisfied the Judge that notice of this process had been brought to the knowledge of the hon. Member for North Westmeath. It was only a prima facie case, but it was not attempted to be displaced by the hon. Member for North Westmeath. He did not appear before the Judge, nor put in any affidavit to contradict proof of service which had been put in. Therefore, the Judge was bound to act on the proof of service which was not challenged. With regard to the position of the hon. Member for North Westmeath, hon. Members below the gangway knew that he took no pleasure at all in coming into direct conflict with any of them, nor did he take the slightest pleasure in seeing them come into conflict with the law. But he must say this. It was the settled practice in England and Ireland in any case of contempt of Court that it was impossible for the Court to listen to the person
  1418
  undergoing sentence until he had what was technically called purged his contempt. So long as he remained in contempt he could not get his sentence reduced or remitted. One other point. It was said, and not unnaturally said, by one Member, that a man in speaking in one field might come under this particular jurisdiction, whereas by going into the next field he was free from that jurisdiction. So long as the Member for North Westmeath confined himself to properties that were not under the jurisdiction of the Land Judge, though he might make himself amenable to the general law of the land, that law overlooked him for nine months and allowed him to go on with impunity committing these offences. There was no peculiarity whatever about the administration of the law in Ireland. It was the same as in England. If anyone in England interfered with property that was being administered by the Court of Chancery they were liable to be had up for contempt of Court. But if they went to the next farm they were made amenable to the ordinary law. The only difference between Ireland and England was that Parliament had set up a tribunal in Ireland to take charge of these estates. Another reason why those cases were more numerous in Ireland than in England was—and he did not think hon. Members below the Gangway would take offence at the statement—that there was not in Ireland, speaking universally, that great respect for law and order which was to be found in many parts of this country, more particularly if the property attacked was the subject of political agitation. And thus those parties suffered more in Ireland than in this country. But, taking this Motion simply as calling the attention of the House to the necessity for putting some restriction upon the extent of imprisonment which might be inflicted, and the amount of the fine, and also providing for the right of appeal, he saw no objection to it, and was prepared to support it
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): said that there was common agreement between the right hon. Gentleman and himself in what the former had stated in the beginning and conclusion of his speech, although in the middle portion of it the right hon. and learned Member had touched upon more controversial matters. It so happened that this question of contempt of Court was one which had long engaged his attention, although he must confess that in former days his knowledge was entirely confined to England. He saw that his name was on the back of a Bill introduced in this House in 1892. His right hon. friend had referred to him, but far more distinguished people than he had shared that honour with him. There were the names of Mr. Warmington, Mr. Finlay, the late Attorney-General for England, Mr. Cozens-Hardy, now Master of the Rolls, Mr. Coleridge, now a Judge of the High Court, and Mr. Gainsford-Bruce, also a Judge of the High Court, now retired on his pension. In fact he was the only one of this celebrated galaxy who was still unrewarded! The object of the Bill of 1892 following on a Bill which actually passed the House of Lords under the guidance of that distinguished Chancellor, the late Lord Selborne, was to secure a right of appeal in cases of contempt of court. Confining himself for a moment to England, a country with which he then had better acquaintance than with Ireland, he might say that the whole notion of the theory of contempt of court was based on the fiction that the King is present in all his Courts, and that therefore any disturbance in the court or any disrespect shown to the Judge was an insult to His Majesty himself, and therefore, something which required to be dealt with summarily by the Judge in order to secure order and proper decency in the Court. Consequently, they saw the law exercised when a person reading a newspaper was directed by the usher to leave off doing so, since his attention
  1420
  to the news was a disrespect to the gravity of the proceedings, or if anyone laughed, or talked too loudly, or laughed at any joke other than a judicial joke, he might be reminded by the usher that that was not seemly. Everybody would agree that that kind of contempt was one which must be preserved. Based upon that, in English Courts there arose the undoubted practice that if any person disobeyed an actual order of the Court, he also was guilty of contempt. If the Court of Chancery had directed that a wall should be pulled down in order to preserve ancient lights, the man who refused to pull it down was liable to be proceeded against for contempt of Court, because he had actually disobeyed the order of the Court. Then there was the case to which his right hon. and learned friend referred as occurring so frequently in Ireland—the case of a person interfering with an estate in Chancery. From, long experience he was certain that it had always been the practice in England that Judges were most anxious never to punish anyone for contempt of Court unless he had refused to obey an order of the Court with which he had been served, to do or abstain from doing some particular act. For instance, if anyone ran away with a ward of the Court he was proceeded against for contempt. Then they came to the case with which Lord Selborne dealt in 1892. They were then dealing with English cases, not contemplating that people were sent to prison for disobedience of an actual order of the Court, although even in those cases the House of Lords conceived that there ought to be some restrictions placed upon the term of imprisonment of, or the amount of fine imposed on, such persons, and that there should be a right of appeal in every case. Therefore, in England there prevailed a very different law from that under which the hon. Member for North Westmeath was now suffering imprisonment in Ireland. He did not quarrel with the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Member for

  1421
  Dublin. University, that if an estate was under the control of the Court it might be a technical contempt of Court for a person to do anything which would prejudice that estate. But it was contrary to the English practice, and contrary to the general idea of the law, to punish a man for contempt of Court when he might be perfectly ignorant that he was doing anything in the nature of contempt of Court. He agreed with the statement that there could not be, or ought not to be, contempt without intent. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman was quite right in putting the case that it seemed unreasonable to send to prison for six months a man who did not know that he was committing a contempt of Court. That was good sound common sense and a criticism which an Englishman would pass on the law, Disobedience to the law they could all understand to be punishable and contempt also by fine or imprisonment within limitations as to the amount of the time of imprisonment and the maximum of the fine. But he went beyond that and said that justice required that a person should not be punished for contempt unless he knew that he was guilty of this particular kind of contempt. Therefore, in his opinion, the present state of the law required definition and limitation. It had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for North Westmeath got six months' imprisonment from Mr. Justice Ross because he as Chief Secretary had neglected his duty. He had the pleasure of the acquaintance of Mr. Justice Ross, and believed he was a man who strove to do his duty as a Judge and a lawyer. Therefore the idea that it was quite possible Mr. Justice Ross thought it his duty to vindicate law and order because he had failed in the discharge of his duty as Chief Secretary never crossed his mind until it was
  1422
  raised by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid he had never hinted, even in the most remote way, anything of the kind. What he did say was this: that the hon. Member for Sligo had said that if the hon. Member for North Westmeath had done this on the other side of the fence, he would be subject to the ordinary law of the land, and he pointed out that for nine months he had done this on the other side of the fence, and had escaped the law of the land.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid that that was the sentence in the right hon. Gentleman's speech which had made him a little bit uneasy, and made him feel that it was eminently undesirable that the law of contempt which was a very special law, which weak Judges were very fond of, but which strong Judges confident in their powers, their knowledge, and their strength, were slow to put into operation, should be used in that way. It was because he thought it would be a very lamentable thing if it were suggested that the law of contempt of Court was to be made a sort of balance to enable Judges to equalise things in the maintenance and observance of the ordinary law, and that only made it more desirable that this most arbitrary and most opposed to liberty kind of thing should be confined and denned as strictly as possible. However, they were all agreed that the terms of this Motion were of a character that the House of Commons was bound to accept. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in dragging in the supposed opposition of some Gentlemen below the gangway to an Act only just passed, giving an appeal in criminal cases. He did not know whether Gentlemen below

  1423
  the gangway were opposed to that measure or not, but that measure was only passed last year. It was passed in spite of a great deal of opposition on the part of English lawyers, and he believed almost the whole of the British bench were opposed to it. Everybody had agreed that this matter of contempt of Court had nothing whatever to do with the general right of appeal in criminal cases. He was a strong advocate of the Bill that passed recently, giving an appeal in criminal cases under certain conditions. He would listen with curiosity to know why Nationalist Members objected to it, but it had nothing to do with dealing with this particular excrescence, this particular and most limited subject. Therefore he thought it was a pity that the right hon. Gentleman should have introduced that into his speech. He understood he would not oppose a short Bill having for its object the limiting of the sentence, the fixing of the fine, and giving the right of appeal. All lawyers were in favour of a right of appeal. He could not help thinking that the whole House would agree to such a measure. He would make it his business to see whether that agreement existed in all parts of the House, and he did not deny himself the hope that among the useful legislation of the session this measure might pass nemine contradicente.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that this was certainly a most remarkable discussion. It was not often that a Resolution moved from those benches received the practically unanimous assent of the House, and he had only risen to say just one or two practical words. He had no intention of introducing the slightest contro-
  1424
  versial element, but had risen to express his joy at the concluding words of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken about this being something of a scandal, and it seemed to him that in a case where all parties were agreed and where the House of Lords had actually passed a similar measure, if time could not be found to pass an uncontroversial measure of this kind demanded on all sides it was not only a great scandal but would reduce not only the House of Commons but the whole of Parliament to a farce. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he hoped this matter might be set right this session; he would ask him to get the Attorney-General at once to draft a short Bill on the subject, and, giving the right hon. Gentleman on the front Opposition bench full credit for meaning what he said, and that it was not merely a benevolent expression of good will, he trusted he would support such a measure.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: Certainly, if it applies to the whole country.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDassented. The Motion they had moved did not apply to Ireland only; it dealt with the law of contempt throughout the so-called United Kingdom. The Bill would be a Bill amending the general law of contempt on three points—the limitation of the sentence of imprisonment, the limitation of the fine, and the right of appeal. The precise limitation could be arranged between the different sides of the House, but no one would be inclined to go behind the limitation, agreed upon in 1883 by the House of Lords. That, however, was a detail, and he thought they could congratulate themselves, if the right hon. Gentleman

  1425
  would promise them to have a Bill drafted and immediately introduced, in the hope that it would meet with universal assent and be passed. They would then at least have the consolation of knowing that one Irish debate, at any rate, had led to a practical result.
  MR. GORDONsaid he would like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to one matter on which he thought he was under a misapprehension. The same law applied in England as in Ireland with reference to property in the Court of Chancery. Where there was any interference, such as interference with an auction, the Court exercised its functions, and he thought the House ought not to be under any misapprehension in reference to what took place before Mr. Justice Ross. The hon. Member for North Westmeath referred in his speech to two properties which were under the control of the Court of Chancery. He lived in the neighbourhood and knew all about it. The burden of his speech was that no persons should renew their agreements for taking this land. The rent was something like twelve or thirteen hundred pounds per annum, and there were about a score of tenants. It was to protect the people who were taking this land and also the estate that action was necessary. The owner of the property might have lost the rent if these speeches had been allowed to go on. Surely some steps were to be taken to put an end to interference with the letting of the land. Where speeches were made in other places, no attempt was made to interfere with the hon. Member, but that would have been no justification for Mr. Justice Ross' allowing them to pass over cases in which there was interference with the
  1426
  property under his control. He thought that upon examination and inquiry, it would be found that in every single case Mr. Justice Ross exercised the greatest, care and discretion in applying the law and only applied it where absolutely necessary to protect the property under his care.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he objected to the Resolution as it stood. If it was for the general welfare, quite apart from the question of the imprisonment of the hon. Member for North Westmeath that this Motion was brought forward, he could not conceive that the hon. Member who introduced it would have any objection to leaving out the words "especially in view of recent exercises of that jurisdiction! in Ireland." If he did object to it, he was afraid he would not be able to vote for the Motion. The inclusion of these words contained a distinct and direct rebuke to Mr. Justice Ross. He thought it was the duty of every person who desired to see law and order maintained in Ireland to do everything in his power to back up the Judges in the discharge of their duties. They had had it stated from all sides of the House that hon. Members had no complaint to make against Mr. Justice Ross for the manner in which he had acted in this case. He proposed as an Amendment the omission of the words he had quoted.
  MR. LONSDALEseconded.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the words 'especially in view of recent exercises of that jurisdiction in Ireland.'"—(Mr. Charles Craig.)
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 184; Noes, 59. (Division List No. 36.)

  AYES.

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Balcarres, Lord

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Moore, William

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Nield, Herbert

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Gardner, Ernest

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Stafi'slu

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Gretton, John

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Mr. Fell and Sir William Bull.

  Clark, George Smith(Belfast, N.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Clive, Percy Archer

  King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Montagu, E. S.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

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

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Morse, L. L.

  Alden, Percy

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Myer, Horatio

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Gill, A. H.

  Napier, T. B.

  Armitage, R.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

  Nicholls, George

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Glover, Thomas

  Nicholson, Charles N(Doncast'r

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Goddard. Sir Daniel Ford

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Gooch, George Peabody

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Barker, John

  Gordon, J.

  O'Grady, J.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Gulland, John W.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Barry, Redmond (Tyrone, N.)

  Hall, Frederick

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

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

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Benn, Sir Williams(Devonp'rt

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

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

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

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Black, Arthur W.

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

  Radford, G. H.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Brace, William

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

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Rees, J. D.

  Branch, James

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rendall, Athelstan

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

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmth

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hudson, Walter

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Cameron, Robert

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Jackson, R. S.

  Robinson, S.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. P.

  Jenkins, J.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Cleland, J. W.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rowlands, J.

  Clough, William

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Runciman, Walter

  Clynes, J. R.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Sears, J. E.

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

  Kearley, Hudson, E.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Sedden. J.

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

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Seely, Colonel

  Gory, Sir Clifford John

  Lambert, George

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Cox, Harold

  Lamont, Norman

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Crossley, William J.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

  Davies, David(Montgomery Co.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Strauss, E. A. (Abindgon)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lough, Thomas

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lupton, Arnold

  Summerbell, T.

  Duckworth, James

  Luttrell, Huph Fownes

  Taylor. Austin (East Toxteth)

  Duncan, G. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Callum, John M.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Erskine, David C.

  M'Crae, George

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

  Esslemont, George Birnie

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

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Toulmin, George

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Menzies, Walter

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Fenwick, Charles

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Vivian, Henry

  Ferens, T. R.

  Middlebrook, William

  Walton, Joseph

  Fiennes, Hon, Eustace

  Mond, A.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  1374

  1375

  Wardle, George J.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton).

  Waring, Walter

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Winfrey, R.

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  Whitley, John Henry Halifax)

  Younger, George

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Watt, Henry A.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Whitbread, Howard

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Pease.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

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

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Gooch, George Peabody

  O'Brien,Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Gulland, John W.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud),

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Armitage, R.

  Halpin, J.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

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

  O'Dowd, John

  Barnard, E. B.

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Grady, J.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

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

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Barry,Redmond (Tyrone, N.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Malley, William

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Benn, Sir Williams (Devonp'rt

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  O'Shee, James John

  Bennett, E. N.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

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

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Boland, John

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Bowerman, C. W.

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

  Reddy, M.

  Brace, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Hogan, Michael

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Brodie, H. C.

  Hudson, Walter

  Richards,Thomas (W. Monm'th

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

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Rowlands, J.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Clough, William

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Clynes, J. R.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Seddon, J.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kine, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Seely, Colonel

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

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lambert, George

  Sheehy, David

  Crean, Eugene

  Lamont, Norman

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S

  Cullinan, J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Davies, David(Montgomery Co.

  Lough, Thomas

  Summerbell, T.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lundon, W.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Delany, William

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Duckworth. James

  Maenamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Duffy, William J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Tomkinson, James

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

  Verney, F. W.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  M'Crae, George

  Walters, John Tudor

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Waring, Walter

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  M'Kean, John

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Meagher, Michael

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Wiles, Thomas

  Ffreneh, Peter

  Middlebrook, William

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Williamson, A.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Gill, A. H.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Captain Donelan and Mr.

  Glover, Thomas

  Nicholls, George

  Patrick O'Brien.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  NOES.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Beckett. Hon. Gervase

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Bull, Sir William James

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  1428

  1429

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

  Gordon, J.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend.)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Gretton, John

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Cave, George

  Guinness, Walter Edward

  Percy, Earl

  Cavendish,Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Keswick, William

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Salter, Arthur Glavell

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone,E.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Clark, George Smith (Belfast, N.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Sloan. Thomas Henry

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

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

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Moore, William

  Fell, Arthur

  Morpeth, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Nield, Herbert

  Charles Craig and Mr.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Lonsdale.

  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Before the Motion is put finally I wish to make it perfectly clear that, while we accept the general decision at which the House has arrived, as argued by both the Ministers who have spoken, we do express regret that the Government have not seen fit to accept the Amendment to omit these words, inasmuch as neither of the Ministers, not even the Attorney-General, who is not slow as a rule to argue cases which find favour with gentlemen below the gangway, has attempted to justify these words, namely, that the necessity for this reform lies in any administration of the law in Ireland. The justification for my intervention would be found in this comment which I heard below the gangway immediately after the numbers were announced: "Not a friend is to be found above the gangway for Mr. Justice Ross." If that is the comment made in this House, what is likely to be the kind of comment or criticism passed on our action in Ireland, where some will consider that this involves the condemnation of the action of an Irish Judger I only intervene in order to remind the House that the representative of the law in Ireland in this House, the
  1430
  head of the Irish bar, and the chief Minister for Ireland, have both disavowed in the most explicit terms any association with any charge against Mr. Justice Ross in the administration of the law in any case, and particularly in the one which we have debated, and therefore it is surprising that the Government were not prepared to accept the Amendment which was the logical conclusion of their own speeches, and which would have expressed the views that they had themselves given utterance to, namely, that an amendment of the law is necessary. Further, when it was suggested by my right hon. and learned friend beside me in the form of an interruption, that his assent to the reform must be conditional upon applying to the whole of the United Kingdom, the Government immediately assented, and yet they are going to put on the Paper a Resolution which contends that this reform is necessary in consequence of what has taken place in Ireland. It is a most illogical conclusion to arrive at. I do not desire to carry on the debate. Everything that I would desire in regard to the general question has been said by my right hon. friend, and I am of course not competent to discuss the legal aspect. There seems to be

  1431
  a general desire that there should bean amendment in the law, and so far as I have ascertained all lawyers in the House agree. With all the respect which I honestly profess for the law and the bar, I am a little suspicious when I find lawyers of all parties, lawyers past and lawyers present, all deciding that some change in the law is necessary. It does not augur well for the litigants and for those who may come within the limits of the law. As I understand there
  is nobody prepared to resist this change in the law, I certainly should not offer any resistance to it. But in assenting to the Resolution, I must not be supposed to assent to that part which appears to censure the administration of the law by certain Judges in Ireland.
  Main Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 181; Noes, 66. (Division List No. 37.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lamont, Norman

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Ambrose, Robert

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lough, Thomas

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lundon, W.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Barnard, E. B.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

  Gill, A. H.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Glendinning, R. G.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Crae, George

  Bennett, E. N.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  M'Kean, John

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Meagher, Michael

  Black, Arthur W.

  Gulland, John W.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.

  Boland, John

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Halpin, J.

  Middlebrook, William

  Brace, William

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

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

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Harrington, Timothy

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Brodie, H. C.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

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

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Nicholls, George

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hayden. John Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid.,

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Clough, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Doherty, Philip

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

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Crean, Eugene

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Dowd, John

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Grady. J.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  O'Kelly,James (Roscommon, N

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Malley, William

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Delany, William

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Shee, James John

  Duckworth, James

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Duffy, William J.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Radford, G. H.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Seddon, J.

  Waring, Walter

  Reddy, M.

  Seely, Colonel

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Richards,Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Williamson, A.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Summerbell, T.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  Robertson,Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd

  Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Rowlands, J.

  Thompson,J. W. H.(Somerset.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Samuel. Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Tomkinson, James

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Pat

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Verney, P. W.

  rick O'Brien.

  Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Wadsworth, J.

  NOES.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Nield, Herbert

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Fell, Arthur

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Parker,Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Forster, Henry William

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Percy, Earl

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Gordon, J.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bull, Sir William James

  Gretton, John

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Guinness, Walter Edward

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Cave, George

  Kennaway,Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Keswick, William

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thomson,W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Clark, George Smith (Belfast, N.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Clive, Percy Archer

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

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

  Younger, George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Moore and Captain Craig.

  Resolved, That the jurisdiction of Judges in dealing with Contempt of Court is practically arbitrary and unlimited, and, especially in view of recent exercises of that jurisdiction in Ireland, calls for the action of Parliament with a view to its definition and limitation.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ADMISSION OF THE PRESS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONin moving the
  1434
  Second Reading of this Bill said there was general agreement in all sections of the House that in the interest of the public it was desirable that by statutory right the Press should be admitted to the public meetings of local authorities. There might be a little difference of opinion as to the advisability of admitting the Press to some of the committees referred to in the Bill, but the promoters of the measure would be prepared to give serious consideration to any objections that might be urged during the Committee stage. It had been the custom for a good many years for the Press

  1435
  to be admitted to the ordinary meetings of public authorities, but the decision in a recent case had altered the position of the Press in the eyes of the law. The promoters of the Bill felt that in the interest of all that was good in connection with public affairs, the question ought to be settled by statute. He drew attention to the proviso in the Bill which gave power to the local authoirity by a two-thirds majority to exclude representatives of the Press. He thought this should be sufficient to satisfy the opponents of the measure. He begged to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR F. BANBURYadmitted that there was a great deal to be said for the Bill, and if it had been what it appeared to be on the face of it, he did not know that he would have made any objection to it. It was now five minutes to eleven and from the few moments study he had been able to give to the Bill he was convinced that the question was one which ought to be very carefully considered before the House committed itself to the Second Reading. He expressed disapproval of the proposal that a local authority should have power to exclude the Press by a two-thirds majority. It seemed to him that the Press ought to be admitted or they ought not. There were other matters which deserved the serious consideration of the House, because the Bill went very much further than was apparent on the face of it. He called attention to Subsection 2 of Clause 1 placing on the clerk
  1436
  of the local authority, or other responsible officer, the duty of sending notice to a newspaper of meetings on receiving a written request from the editor. He should have thought that that was outside of the power implied by the title of the Bill.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: May I say that we are prepared to consider that in Committee?
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid his point was that the Bill ought never to have been brought in in this state. The very first essential in a Bill was that all its provisions should conform to the title, and it was a dangerous precedent to allow a Bill to pass the Second Reading which contained provisions which did not conform to the title. If the hon. Member who moved the Second Reading did not attach any importance to Sub-section 2 of Clause 1, why was it put in the Bill? If the hon. Member would withdraw this Bill and bring in another providing for the admission of the Press to meetings of local authorities, he would have his support.
  And, it being Eleven of the Clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

  INCEST BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
  Adjourned at four minutes after Eleven o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Pontypridd Water Bill [H.L.].—A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee; Skegness Urban District Council Bill [H.L.].—Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 19th of February and the 2nd of March last discharged, and Bill committed; Bristol Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order), and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection; Upton Town Hall Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order), and committed; Herne Bay Pier Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to Commons.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  POSTAL AGREEMENT (SURINAM).
  Additional Articles to the agreement of 29th April—7th November 1906 for the exchange of money orders between the Post Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Post Office of the Dutch Colony of Surinam, dated 13th February 1908— 11th December 1907.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Report for the year 1906 on the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Royal Colleges of Science and of Art, the Geological Survey and Museum, and on the work of the Solar Physics Committee.
  MINES AND QUARRIES (SHAFT ACCIDENTS AT CERTAIN COLLIERIES).
  Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Professor R. A. S. Redmayne, M. Sc, M.I.M.E., F.G.S., on the causes of and circumstances attending the shaft accidents which occurred at the Foggs, Barrow, and Rawdon Colleries, on the 4th October and 15th and 18th November 1907 respectively.

  EXPLOSION AT LORD ASHTOWN'S LODGE, GLENAHIERY, COUNTY WATERFORD,
  Report of District Inspector Preston, Royal Irish Constabulary, to the police authorities, dated 7th September, 1907; Statement of District Inspector Preston, dated 11th September 1907, furnished to Lord Ashtown, to the county council of Waterford, and to the rural district council of Clonmel, No 2; Statement of Sergeant Rielly, dated 22nd August 1907, furnished to the same parties, and referred to in the statement of District Inspector Preston, dated 11th September 1907.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 TO 1903.
  Order, dated the 27th February 1908, revoking Order No. 5179 of the 19th May 1894, defining a foreign animals wharf at the port of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

  LIGHTHOUSES, &c. (LOCAL INSPECTIONS).
  Reports to the Board of Trade by the Trinity House of Deptford Strond, the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, and the Commissioners of Irish Lights, of their inspection of local lighthouses, buoys, and beacons (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 95, of Session 1907).
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, the Bill to which I am about to ask your Lordships to accord a Second Reading is substantially the same as that which I introduced in the month of August last. That Bill did not pass, and the course which this House took with regard to it is one which I regretted at the time. Since it was rather late in the session the Government withdrew the Bill for the purpose

  1239
  of reintroducing it again this year. It has now been again read a second time in the House of Commons by a majority of three or four to one. Another event has happened. Two Bills corresponding to the double purpose of this Bill have been introduced into this House by members of the Opposition. That certainly to some extent simplifies the task which I have to discharge, and I for one have never regretted that these Bills should be introduced, because they show what is in the minds of the majority of this House.
  The Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, attaches that part of the Government Bill which relates to the crofters and crofter tenures strictly so-called. The Bill pays us the compliment of being very largely taken from our own measure. There are, however, grave differences, and there are also, I think, grave defects in the Bill of the noble Lord. It is so restricted by various conditions that very few will be able to come in under it. It imposes rates upon crofters in respect of improvements other than those which are agricultural, on which in theory a good deal may be said, but which would raise a storm in practice. The powers for the enlargement of holdings created by this Bill are very insufficient, the transfer of powers of the Congested Districts Board to the Crofters Commission as proposed by the noble Lord, is, I think, a mistake, for it is transferring administrative functions to a judicial body, and, lastly, no pro vision is made to enable the Commission to create new holdings. I say those are grave differences, and some of them are grave defects, but I do not propose to dwell upon that subject this evening, having indeed an abundance of other matter, and because I think, if nothing was before the House except the strictly crofting proposals contained in the Government Bill, there would be no difficulty about the Second Reading after the support which was given to the Bill introduced by Lord Lovat. The main lines are the same, and I shall therefore part from that Bill at once.
  I come to the real subject of controversy —namely, the proposals of the Government in regard to the Lowlands and
  1240
  non-crofting districts. Upon the subject of the need for a Small Holdings Bill I need not say much, because the need is admitted, but I must say a few words in view of the criticism made last year that no such explanation was offered. My Lords, I desire to place this Bill upon its true foundation without exaggerating it. There is great rural depopulation going on in the country districts of Scotland, which is a source of sorrow and danger. The population in the rural districts, in the Census of 1891, was 23·06 of the whole population; in 1901 it had sunk to 19·81. The emigration has been increasing, and the migration into the towns has been increasing also. Last year I mentioned it, but the reference was treated, not indeed, with derision, because I think no Member of the House questioned the extraordinary significance and importance of that fact, but it was regarded as an irrelevant fact. I will not repeat the figures I then gave, but I will say this, that great and distressing as is the overcrowding in London and in the great cities of England, which themselves transcend the worst features of Continental countries, it is small in comparison with the overcrowding in some of the great cities of Scotland, and I say again it is a serious danger to the community at large.
  I am perfectly aware that other measures will be required before that overcrowding in the centres can be effectively dealt with, but I say that this Bill will, in the belief of the Government, tend to relieve and to check the rural depopulation which is one of the main causes of the increase in the overcrowding in the central parts. This is only one of the different methods by which we are seeking to approach, with difficulty I grant, what is called the problem of social reform, the most difficult, the most appalling problem of modern times, affecting this country in such a way that unless we can solve it the most serious and fatal consequences must arise. The Government and the majority of the House of Commons by three or four to one present this Bill to your Lordships as a bit of concrete social reform, in regard to which we desire to make it just and also efficient, and to welcome assistance from any quarter which will have both the one effect and the other.

  1241
  It is now admitted that small holdings ought to be increased by Government assistance, and we have the two Bills of Lord Lovat and Lord Camperdown brought in as witnesses to that necessity. The only point, therefore, is how is this purpose to be effected? We have been told that purchase is the only honest method. Now this subject has a history. In 1892 an Act was passed, applicable alike to England and Scotland, which empowered the county councils to acquire by agreement land for the purpose of small holdings. In England that Act has had some measure of success, but it has been local and very partial, so much so that it was thought necessary to pass an amending Act. In Scotland the Act of 1892 has been an unredeemed failure from beginning to end. I believe in the whole sixteen years of its existence there has only been one instance of its application—in the County of Ross, I think, and in peculiar circumstances.
  In point of fact there has been, at all events in Scotland, two causes which operated fatally against the success of that measure. The first was that the county councils were naturally reluctant to risk the rates upon enterprises of a somewhat unknown character in advance. That was in itself enough to check the success of the measure, notwithstanding which Lord Camperdown told us that some counties, including his own, Forfarshire, did make an effort, but found the tenants were not willing to take the land. Why? Because they are not men of great capital. They look after their own interests naturally and legitimately, and they were not prepared to lock up such capital as they possessed in the purchase of land, but thought that if they could hire it at a fair rent they would be able to do better. I believe these two reasons for the failure of the purchase system established under the Act of 1892, will be acknowledged by all who are conversant with this subject.
  Why have the Government not proceeded by way of the purchase system? To begin with, it would be a great financial operation. The present is not a propitious time for embarking on a considerable sum or adding to the liabilities of the country in respect of land purchase. I believe that, anxious as all parties were to promote the scheme of land purchase
  1242
  in Ireland, and although the Act of 1903 had produced beneficent results, and will, I believe, produce more beneficent results, yet in the present circumstances no Government would have had the courage to come forward and propose that Act for Ireland, because of the condition of the money market and the notorious difficulties which it has produced in the administration of that Act. We do not propose to proceed by purchase, because it is utterly impracticable from a business point of view. The second reason is that the experience of the Act of 1892 has shown us that even if the Government were prepared to come down with a lavish hand for the purpose of promoting land purchase in Scotland it would not be operative. The third reason is that as a solution it was rejected by this House and by the other House last year in the case of England.
  We are accustomed to hear the English Act of last year spoken of as if it were a purchase Act. It was nothing of the kind. It was a compulsory hiring Act, though t small part of it did deal with purchase. The preceding Act of 1892 had bestowed upon the county councils in the United Kingdom the power of the voluntary purchase of land for this purpose. The Act of last year gave to the English county councils the power of the compulsory acquisition of land. If adopted in Scotland such a proposal would be inoperative. I am not aware that anyone proposed to convert the voluntary powers of the Act of 1892 into compulsory powers for Scotland. If any such Amendment were brought forward the Government would, of course, be perfectly prepared to consider it, but that merely touches the fringe of this question, and is in no sense a solution either for England or for Scotland. Purchase having failed, something else must be found. Here again I am glad to think there is agreement between both sides of the House.
  The Government propose compulsory hiring. Lord Camperdown also proposes compulsory hiring, as in the English Act of last year. But I am not sure that everyone quite realises what necessarily follows from the adoption of the compulsory hiring system. You must have some third person to choose the land

  1243
  which is to be the subject of the hiring, to fix the rent, to fix the other conditions of the tenancy, and to lay down the period of years for which the tenancy is to subsist. Emphasis has to be laid upon the article of compulsion when one is speaking of compulsory hiring, because it means that the landlord, for reasons no doubt satisfactory to himself, is not prepared to make an agreement, and every clause and condition, therefore, must be made the subject of decision by some outside authority. That is all involved in the principle of compulsory hiring which has been accepted by both sides of the House.
  Let me use the English Act of last year as an illustration. That Act was accepted by this House—I do not say it was in all respects heartily accepted—but it was accepted from public reasons, and I think, if I may be permitted to say so, reasons which were wise and sufficient. Under the English Act, which Lord Camper-down proposes to apply to Scotland, the landlord may be compelled to let his land to the county council for from fourteen to thirty-five years at the option of the county council, and the tenancy is renewable in perpetuity, if the county council thinks fit, on conditions fixed by the Board of Agriculture, against the will it may be of the landlord, but necessarily containing provisions for good farming. There is to be no renewal after the first term if the amenity or convenience of the landlord's property requires that this should be so. The landlord may resume for mining, industrial, or kindred purposes. The county council, being the tenant, is to re-let to whom it pleases, and the occupant may, under the English Act, resign his tenancy with the permission of the county council. Those are the familiar provisions of the Act of last year applied to England.
  I have heard denunciations of dual ownership. What is dual ownership? Some people may say that nothing except the three F's in their perfection constitute dual ownership; others may say there is dual ownership whenever there is a long lease. But I put it to your Lordships that, judged by the ordinary common sense of mankind, the tenure under the English Act complies with every reasonable description of dual ownership. You take a man's land
  1244
  against his will, you fix a fair rent against his will, you give to the county council exclusive occupation in perpetuity, subject to their own right, if they think fit, to throw up the lease at intervals of fourteen or thirty-five years against his will. I put it to every candid controversialist that that is dual ownership in every real sense of the word. The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition last year said—
  "What gives reality to ownership, what makes it a valuable and precious thing to many-people is that we have hitherto associated with it the power of guiding the destinies of the estate, of superintending its development-and improvement, and, above all things, the right to select the person to be associated with the proprietor in the cultivation of the soil."
  I believe that is a fair description of the line which is drawn between dual ownership and ownership which is not dual. Under the English Act does the landlord retain the power of guiding the destinies of the estate? Can it be said that he has the right to select the person to be associated with him in the cultivation of the soil? That person is chosen by the county council and placed upon, the land, and the landlord never may know him.
  I now turn to the Scottish Bill of the Government, and I will endeavour to confine myself to what I may call Second Reading points. The landlord may be compelled to let the land for small holdings to persons selected by the Agricultural Commission at a rent fixed, if disputed, by the Land Court. The conditions of tenure are very similar to those in the English Act, but of the two the Scottish conditions are more favourable to the landlord. The land is to be permanently small holdings, except that the leave of the Land Court is required in the last resort. The landlord has power to evict for breach of conditions, and he can resume possession for purposes substantially the same as those specified in the English Act. The tenant can renounce his holding, not as in England, at intervals of from fourteen to thirty-five years, but at any time after twelve months' notice. The clauses as to the compensation of the landlord and the farmer are substantially the same as in England. The power of assignment, however, is denied to the tenant in Scotland; he has only this power to bequeath his holding to members

  1245
  of his own family. The State give a guarantee under Section 16 of the Bill as to the rent and conditions being paid and fulfilled by the existing small holders who come into the Act; but they do not get the benefit of Section 16.
  This, my Lords, is our model for Scotland. The other was our scheme for England, which is the model for Scotland of the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown. Of course the Scottish Bill, in my opinion, unquestionably comes within the description of dual ownership as the English Act does. Let me examine the differences between the two Bills from the point of view of the Scottish landlord who approves of the English Act but does not approve of the Scottish Bill. What are the crucial points of difference between the suggestions of the noble Earl and those of the Government? The first great difference is that under the English Act the county council is the tenant. Lender the Scottish Bill the county council is not introduced into the scheme, and I have been sorry to hear on more than one occasion that omission treated as an affront, or outrage, or indignity to the Scottish county councils.
  Scottish county councils have, I suppose, a full share of pride not generally inferior to the pride of other people; but not a solitary county council in Scotland has made any complaint to the Government of having been omitted, and when this Bill was first brought in in 1906 no complaint was made in the House of Commons about the omission of the county councils. When the Bill came on in 1907 for Second Reading no objection was made in the House of Commons on the ground that the county councils were omitted. It was only after the English Bill was brought in, which introduced the county councils, that complaints were for the first time heard. I do not know whether this objection is largely shared or not. Last year, when Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who has himself been Secretary for Scotland, made his speech in this House, if my memory does not deceive me, he never made any complaint that the county councils were not included; and subsequently, I observe, he wrote an interesting letter to the Scotsman making a powerful indictment against this Bill, but I do not think he said a word in it
  1246
  in regard to the county councils being omitted from the scheme. I am sure Lord Camperdown, when he introduced his Bill the other evening, laid no particular emphasis on this feature; and I have read the Amendment of the noble Duke and find nothing in it about the county councils. In these circumstances I think it is very curious, if the feeling is that the county councils should be brought in and that they are entitled to regard their omission as something in the nature of an affront, they should not have been more vocal on the subject.
  The reason for their omission lies, I think, on the surface, or, at all events, one sufficient reason. This Bill does not propose to throw any charge or any liability at all upon the rates. The English Bill did, and when you charge the rates you must bring in the county councils. The county councils in Scotland would not have been at all prepared, as they were not prepared under the Act of 1892, to risk rates in this enterprise. In Scotland the county councils are very particular to avoid everything which may increase rates, and very properly, for Scotland contains about one-seventh of the population of England and the area is about one-half of the area of England. The consequence is that over the same area a penny rate, apart from the lesser wealth of the country as a whole, produces less than it does in England. I really think that opinion in Scotland, when it appreciates it, will at least be indulgent to the view I put. This Bill does not propose to bring the rates in at all, but wholly to rest on the taxes if money is required; and let me explain that there is no subtle design to benefit Scotland at the expense of the rest of the United Kingdom. We all know that a rough and ready account is kept of the sums of money which each part of the kingdom derives from the public purse and a fair equality is observed between the different parts of the kingdom, and whatever amount is spent from the taxes for this Bill will of course be debited to Scotland. I think I have given a real reason for not introducing the county councils into the Bill, and it is not necessary to have recourse to a strain of the imagination that we have any desire to affront the county councils.
  Still, it may be the landlord will say, "Where is the security for my rent? My

  1247
  English neighbour has the county councils. I have not the county councils. I have a person I have not chosen and he is placed in possession of my land without my will, and you do not give me a solvent and thoroughly trustworthy tenant like the county council." I think that is a fair representation of his point of view, and it is perfectly true. What is the answer to it? With regard to new holdings that are compulsorily created, if the tenant fails to pay the rent or perform the conditions, the landlord may turn him out, and on doing so is to be compensated under Section 16 for all the failures of tenants except those he has brought on himself by allowing the tenant to remain in unduly long. That is, I believe, the true construction of Section 16, and if it ever comes to discussing the subject in Committee I shall be able to make good that statement. That, at all events, is what the intention of the Government is.
  But, still, the landlord may say, "Section 16 gives me compensation, gives me security for rent, and also for anything causing depreciation of the land or for any damage that arises from its being used for small holdings, but that is not the case with regard to existing tenants." He may say, "My English neighbour has small holdings upon his estate. You do not interfere with them. You only create new holdings. The Scottish Bill proposes that all small holdings under £50 a year shall come under the operation of the Bill." That is perfectly true. The Government are very anxious to create security in the case of these existing tenants, not in the smallest degree from a desire to do what is unjust; but the mischief in the present condition is this. The present condition of small holdings tends to squeeze them out. The equipment of small holdings is more expensive relatively to their size. The landlord often cannot afford to pay for adequate improvements, and the tenant has not the security which would induce him to do so; and, therefore, the tendency is that small holdings are apt to be swallowed up in larger farms by the working of economic causes. We believe that if you can, without injustice, create the necessary security, the tenant will
  1248
  find the means for effecting improvements himself, and will do them better and more economically, the rent will be more safe, and the conditions better for all. In this respect we do not in the least desire to impose unfair terms on the landlord or to treat him unfairly. I have not heard in this House any proposals made either to limit the class of existing tenants to be brought within the Bill, or to safeguard the legitimate interests of the landlord; and if Amendments are proposed—again on the supposition that the Bill will arrive at a stage when such Amendments will be appropriate—the Government will be ready to consider them and, as far as they fairly can, meet reasonable suggestions.
  There is one more capital difference, or a difference which has been treated as capital, between the two Bills. In Scotland a tribunal is established, a permanent tribunal, with salaries upon the Consolidated Fund with the usual irremovability attaching to judicial office, to be called a Land Court, and I believe that grave apprehensions have been excited as to the operations of this Land Court, and the dangers supposed to lurk within the proposal, apprehensions that it will follow the Irish model, and other similar alarms. I propose to say a few words on this subject. In the first place, let me consider the functions of this Land Court, and again I say I hope I shall be excused if I only deal with salient points. I think I shall state all the functions, but if I omit minor points I am sure your Lordships will allow me to do so with a desire not to obscure the subject with excessive detail. A function of the Land Court is to decide, if it is disputed, whether certain land is to be taken or not to be taken. In England, under the Englist Act of last year, the Board of Agriculture decides that. The next function is to determine compensation on all points, valuation, and rent. In England these functions in the main—again I speak generally—in the mains these functions devolve on one valuer, and upon this I will say a word in a moment. The next function is to decide whether a landlord is entitled to resume possession for industrial, mining, or analogous purposes specified in the Act, a judicial function to determine whether the case put by the landlord comes

  1249
  within the provisions of the Act. In England this duty is discharged by the Board of Agriculture. These are the main duties of the Land Court—I think I may say, in substance, the only duties of the Land Court—and they are all judicial in their character.
  It is the intention of the Government, the wish of the Government, that the Land Court shall be a judicial, not an administrative, body, that it should not have the initiative, but shall discharge judicial functions in a judicial manner. I am aware that it is regarded with apprehension and even terror in quarters where I do not think it is really quite understood. The functions are in substance judicial, and they are necessary functions, and in England, under the English Act, they are shared between the Board of Agriculture, a valuer, and in one or two instances by an arbitrator appointed in each case by the Board of Agriculture. Now, these functions, if you are going to have compulsory hiring at all—and this is why I dwell upon the subject of compulsory hiring—these functions must be discharged, these points must be determined. I do not know whether it is really the view of many that a valuer, as in the English Act, is preferable to a Land Court. The valuer under the English Act is appointed by the Board of Agriculture for each particular case, who is not obliged to hear the parties or witnesses; he may go and judge for himself. I think that is perfectly defensible as applied in the English Act. I am quite prepared to defend it, and did so last year when it was suggested from the other side that there ought to be someone bound to hear witnesses and parties. The Land Court in Scotland is bound to hear witnesses and parties, and so far as attainment of a conclusion by judicial process is concerned, the interests of landlords—and others also, for we have not to consider the landlord's interests exclusively—are safeguarded more carefully by a Land Court than they can be by a valuer, always supposing that the Land Court is fairly appointed and consists of impartial men.
  But it is said the Land Court is not, like the Department of Agriculture, responsible to Parliament. No, it is not because its duties are judicial, not
  1250
  administrative. We have stripped the Land Court so far as we know of administrative functions it originally possessed, and if there is any remnant of administrative functions remaining, it is our wish that these functions shall be discharged by persons responsible to Parliament in the usual way. Commissioners are responsible to their Parliamentary chiefs, but our object is to isolate those duties which are judicial and put them into the hands of an independent body composed of men who will command popular confidence. It is at least worthy of recollection that Scottish people are accustomed to the idea of a Land Court by the Crofters Acts. These have been, in operation for 20 years, and there has been no accusation of partiality.
  There is only one other point I will advert to, and that is the objection made that the money paid is insufficient. We propose to add" £65,000 to the £35,000 supplied to the Congested Districts Board, making £100,000 in all. In the first place I desire to say it is the belief of the Scottish Office, a belief in which, so far as I am capable of forming an opinion—and I admit I am not so capable as some of your Lordships—I concur, that this Bill will not require much money; that it will call up the energy, the enterprise, the resources of the country, and help in many ways. But putting aside that as a matter of anticipation, let me say this is not a money Bill, and if more money is required it will have to be provided by Parliament. The English Act of last year prepared a great scheme of compulsory hiring without reserve of liability in certain matters. I am not sure that any money was appropriated last year, but I believe there is now appropriated £100,000 for working the English Act of last year. Well, it seems to me, if your Lordships were willing last year to pass an English Act for compulsory hiring without any greater assurance than that £100,000 would be forthcoming for the purpose, surely £65,000 for Scotland is in proportion a larger sum.
  This is not a money Bill, nor was the English Act. It proposes a scheme, and if to carry it out more money is required, Parliament must provide the necessary amount, or restrict the operation of the Act so that no more money may be

  1251
  required. What was no objection to the English Act should not be an objection to this Bill. I have no desire to say anything further beyond this. I do not, of course, know what course the House may take. The Government have stated their policy, and of course we cannot be a party to the substitution for our measure of a different scheme, but, subject to that, we are ready and even anxious to meet in a reasonable conciliatory spirit any reasonable and fair amendment that may be proposed.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSE,who had given notice, on the Motion for the Second Reading, to move to resolve—
  "That this House, while desirous of facilitating on sound economic principles the extension of small agricultural holdings in Scotland, and of considering such amendments of the Crofters Acts as are shown to be required, declines to pass a measure—

  1. Which unnecessarily extends the provisions of the Crofters Acts throughout Scotland;

  2. Which establishes a Land Court for the whole of Scotland; and

  3. Which does not enjoy the general approval of the agricultural interests proposed to be affected."—

  said: My Lords, I desire at once to acknowledge the conciliatory spirit in which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has introduced this measure, but I have not observed in his speech any material concessions which would induce me to withdraw the Amendment standing in my name. I feel bound, my Lords, to deal with this Bill as it has come to us from the other House of Parliament. If, as the noble and learned Lord infers, there are any suggestions of a compromise, then we must have an; assurance from noble Lords on the other side of the House that they will accept Amendments on the lines of the Bills introduced by my noble friends Lord Camperdown and Lord Lovat. I must apologise to your Lordships for addressing you for the second time upon this Bill, when, in my view, the situation is so very similar to what it was last autumn. But there is this difference, that we have been able in the meanwhile to ascertain more fully the opinions of those who are interested in agricultural matters in the
  1252
  Lowlands of Scotland, with the result that your Lordships' judgment of last August has been most triumphantly vindicated.
  Some wise man has said that there are three classes of individuals—those who think, those who think as others think, and those who do not think at all. When I observed that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland had introduced his measure into the House of Commons for a second time without any Amendments, I felt almost inclined to include him in the third category. The result of the autumn campaign in Scotland must have given him serious cause for consideration. This campaign was waged with unusual vigour. Not a day passed but the Secretary for Scotland, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, or some other hon. Member did not address meetings, as far as I could see, for the purpose of trying to assimilate their divergent views regarding what would be the probable effect of the provisions of this Bill. But they were tolerably unanimous upon one point, which was that Scotland is inhabited solely by a race of landlords and factors. I hope that the Secretary for Scotland has by now realised, and I rather think, from what fell from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that he probably has realised, that there are other sensible people in Scotland besides landlords and factors.
  I will not detain your Lordships by recapitulating the many objections to this Bill. They have been stated both inside and outside this House. For the sake of brevity I have, therefore, divided my Amendment into three heads, upon each of which I propose, with your Lordships' sanction, to say a few words; and in doing so I hope I shall deal in some measure with the arguments of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. Those who think with me are desirous of facilitating the extension of small holdings and of considering such amendments to the Crofters Act as may be required; but we decline to pass a measure which unnecessarily extends the provisions of that Act throughout Scotland. The Crofters Act of 1886 was passed with the object of dealing with a specific system of land tenure within a specific area. The root of that tenure was that the buildings and equipments of crofts

  1253
  were the result of the labour and expenditure of the crofters themselves. Thus the crofter was in a wholly different position from that of the ordinary agricultural tenant. He had no lease and he had the chance of losing, not only his holding, but the improvements which he had created. It was to deal with this state of affairs that the Crofters Act of 1886 was brought in.
  If experience has proved that any amendments are necessary to that Act, we, on this side of the House, are perfectly willing to deal with them. That was stated to your Lordships last August by the noble Marquess who leads us on this side, and it has been exemplified by the Bill brought in by my noble friend Lord Lovat. Sir George Trevelyan, when he asked leave to introduce the Crofters Act of 1886, stated that—
  "The proposal of the Commissioners is based on, and limited to, the special and local circumstances of the district to which this Bill is intended to apply."
  And he went on to say—
  "If the Commission had proposed such a measure as this with regard to the common grazing ground of the Lothians or for the eastern counties of England, it would have been in no some a restitution; it would have been an expropriation pure and simple."
  Now, it is the provisions of this Act that it is proposed to extend to the southern counties of Scotland, where the system of land tenure is practically the same as it is in England, where the improvements are done by the landlord, and where the tenant is safeguarded by the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1906.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland, who has not been always quite happy in the accuracy of his statements during this controversy, has gone up and down the country stating that there is not a vestige of dual ownership in this Bill. It will be in the recollection of your Lordships that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, when he introduced this measure last August, stated that the success of the Crofters Act rested on divided ownership, and that this was a dual ownership Bill—a proposition not to be disputed. My Lords, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce into the Lowlands of Scotland the very worse provisions of the Irish land system—provisions which we are paying at the present moment upwards of £120,000,000
  1254
  to get rid of. Then there are the present small holders in the Lowlands, men who are sitting now under the rents that were paid by their forefathers, where improvements have been made for them, and whose houses have been built for them by the landlord, who are, as I have said, protected in respect of any improvements they may have made under the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1906, and who are perfectly contented with the position they occupy. Why in the world are you to force these men to become crofters under the compulsory clauses of the Crofters Act? Why in the world are you to upset the whole economic conditions between landlord and tenant in the Lowlands of Scotland by this drastic measure? I venture to say that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has shown us no good reason, because there is none. We object to the introduction of a Land Court throughout Scotland It is an insult to the intelligence of my countrymen to force upon them a highly paid body of officials to make bargains which they have always been perfectly willing and able to make for themselves. In reference to this subject, I must refer to statements made by the Secretary for Scotland, which, I think, have done more to damp the ardour even of the supporters of this Bill than any argument I could possibly use. With your Lordships' permission I will quote from the "heckling" that took place at Carmyllic on 9th or 10th December last year. I will read the questions put to Captain Sinclair and the answers he gave—

  Q. I understand the State is prepared to advance money. What rate of interest would they take?

  A. The very lowest rate of interest.

  Q. Are there any arrangements for redeeming the capital expended?

  A. Oh, yes; they will have to pay it off.

  Q. Have you fixed any number of years for that?

  A. That will be a matter of arrangement.

  Q. If ten or twelve people took over some land, is the State to advance the capital and put down dwellings and steadings for all the twelve?

  A. Yes.

  Q. Supposing these individuals failed to pay their rent, what position would the landlord be in?

  A. The landlord is protected under the Bill for the creation of new holdings by compensation for all such losses.

  1255

  Q. Then who compensates the State?

  A. Nobody compensates the State.

  Q. If the State put out so much capital, how are they to get it back?

  A. They cannot get it back. It is money gone.

  Yes, my Lords, it is money gone. Scotsmen are very shrewd people, and they are quite prepared to take anything they can get, provided they have not got to pay for it. I know that a great number of people supposed that under this confiscatory Government the landlords would in some way or another have to make good the money losses that must inevitably take place under this Bill, but here, for the first time, we are authoritatively informed by the Secretary for Scotland that Peter, in the shape of the taxpayer, is to be robbed to pay Paul, for the purpose of creating experimental small landholders. No wonder the advent of highly paid peripatetic officials is not looked forward to in the Lothians with much favour.
  And now, my Lords, I come to the third reading of my Amendment. Disguise it as you will, you cannot hide from the "man in the street" that this measure has not the general support of His Majesty's Ministers, of the Liberal Party, or of the people whom it is intended to benefit. We have not as yet heard the views of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Rightly or wrongly, he is supposed not to favour this measure. We have heard the views at Perth of the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty. Perhaps he will drive another nail into the coffin of this Bill from his place in your Lordships' House. We have not as yet heard the opinion—I am sorry I do not see him in his place— of the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War; but he should be an authority on the cultivation of deer forests. Where is my noble relative who owns half Perthshire and half Argyleshire, the kindest and most genorous landlord in Scotland, and one of the best authorities on small holdings? I do not see him in his place to support this measure. You have the opinion pretty freely expressed of the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs, a strong supporter of His Majesty's Government, and an expert in agriculture; you have the opinion of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, a representative Member of a typical county. I have here the
  1256
  opinion of the East Lothian Farmers' Club, composed, I am told, of gentlemen of all shades of political opinion, who at their annual meeting supported the promotion of small holdings with the general proviso that the good points of the present system of land tenure in the Lowlands should not be interfered with.
  Then you have the opinion of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, which is strongly opposed to the provisions of Mr. Sinclair's Bill. You have also the report of an independent Committee composed of five members appointed by the Secretary for Scotland himself to report on the agricultural conditions of Denmark. This independent Committee reported as follows—
  "If the rents of small holdings were fixed by valuation, and if the landlords were denied all freedom in the choice of tenants and in the selection of improvements to be made, we think it unlikely that landlords in the Lowland districts would be willing to invest capital in the equipment and maintenance of such farms, since they would have no sure ground for expecting an adequate return on their outlay. The application of the Crofters Act to small holdings generally would thus be apt to result in the withdrawal of landlords' capital from the equipment of small holdings. This would undoubtedly have an adverse influence upon the position of the farmers of small holdings. But there are certain districts in which a system prevails closely connected to that which the Crofters Act originally dealt with. In those districts the provision and maintenance of permanent equipment is wholly or largely left to the tenant. To all such cases we believe the Crofters Act might, be extended, but the extension of the Crofters Act to other districts in which the opposite practice prevails, and the equipment is provided by the landlord, would, in our judgment, be attended by very serious disadvantages."
  That is the opinion of an independent Committee, and it is supported, amongst others, by Sir T. Gibson-Carmichael and Mr. C. M. Douglas, the late Liberal Member for the North-Western division of Lanark, both strong supporters of His Majesty's Government on every question except the one at issue.
  If His Majesty's Government can give us on this side any assurance that they will accept Amendments on the lines of the measures introduced by my noble friends Lord Camperdown and Lord Lovat, they will receive the cordial support of all on this side. If, on the contrary, His Majesty's Government

  1257
  desire to press forward this Bill in its present shape, I shall be forced to press my Amendment to a division, because I know that I do not speak for myself alone when I say that we object to the Lowlands of Scotland being made a Tom Tiddler's ground for the experimental legislation of the Secretary for Scotland.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out all the words after the word 'that' in order to insert the following Resolution:—' This House, while desirous of facilitating on sound economic principles the extension of Small Agricultural Holdings in Scotland, and of considering such Amendments of the Crofters Acts as are shown to be required, declines to pass a measure—(1) Which unnecessarily extends the provisions of the Crofters Acts throughout Scotland; (2) Which establishes a Land Court for the whole of Scotland; and (3) Which does not enjoy the general approval of the agricultural interests proposed to be affected.' "—(The Duke of Montrose.)
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, the noble Duke who has just sat down has dealt so exhaustively with the Bill from the point of view of noble Lords who are interested in Scotland, that I feel I need not trouble your Lordships with many remarks upon the Bill from that aspect. I rise to-night, as a mere Englishman, for the purpose of pointing out to your Lordships that there is an English aspect of this question as well as a Scottish aspect, and the remarks which I am about to address to the House are prompted by a petition which I presented, to your Lordships from the Central Chamber of Agriculture in England. That petition stated that it is essential, for the safety of the flocks and herds of Great Britain, that the administrative responsibility under the Diseases of Animals Acts should remain in the hands of a single Department. The Central Chamber of Agriculture view with grave alarm the proposal contained in this Bill to establish an independent Board of Agriculture in Scotland.
  The people of Scotland have always shown a very great desire to administer their own affairs, and you have, in connection with Scottish Private Bill business, a procedure by which Scottish private Bills are dealt with in Scotland instead of in London. But, in this particular instance, we find the agriculturists of Scotland at one with the agri-
  1258
  culturists of England in their desire to see one Department, and one Department, only, responsible for the administration of agricultural affairs. There is on the part of the agriculturists of England also no disposition that the rule of my noble friend Lord Carrington should be exchanged for that of the Secretary for Scotland. I say, without the slightest, hesitation, that the people both of England and of Scotland would infinitely prefer to see my noble friend's Department administering the Diseases of Animals Acts throughout the kingdom rather than that a new Department should be set up in Scotland for the purpose.
  Those Acts are of the most vital importance to the farmers of this country, and I do not think any time could have been more opportune for demonstrating-that than the present. The recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Scotland was dealt with by the noble Earl with promptitude and severity. But suppose there had been two Departments, and my noble friend had had to consult his colleague the Secretary for Scotland. We know that there is always a certain amount of red tape methods with Government Departments, and such a consultation would have led to needless delay. When your Lordships consider that the markets for many animals, especially sheep, raised in Scotland, are in the northern towns of England, I think you will see that it is essential that all regulations with regard to their movement should be under one authority and one authority alone. For this reason I deprecate most strongly the handing over to the Agricultural Commissioners suggested by the Bill the duties which are now discharged by my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture.
  Turning for a moment to the Bill itself, I have not yet heard from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, or from any noble Lord opposite, the reason why the county councils in Scotland are supposed to be incapable of administering the Act which English county councils, are capable of putting into operation. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said there had been no petitions from county councils in Scotland in favour of this Bill. Why? Because, in the graphic language

  1259
  of the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Act which now applies to England was specially designed to "ginger" the county councils; and I have yet to hear of anybody petitioning Parliament that "ginger" might be applied to them to carry out their duties. But I differ from the noble and learned Lord when he said that the Act of 1892 had not been carried out in Scotland. There was a very conspicuous example in the county of Rossshire. That county did put the Act into operation, and allotted a large number of small holdings, some of which, it is true, were only partially successful; but I understand these all have now been transferred to other holders, and that at the present moment the cultivation of thoseholdings is perfectly satisfactory. I do not see why what has been done in Ross-shire should be impossible in other counties in Scotland.
  I had the honour of presiding over a Departmental Committee before whom a good deal of evidence was given on this subject. We sent some of the members of that Committee to Scotland, and we gave public notice that we should be willing to receive evidence upon the whole question of the provision of small holdings. We took evidence, and I ask you to look at that evidence and see whether any one of the witnesses proposed anything approaching the Bill which His Majesty's Government have laid on the Table of your Lordships' House. We had the leader of the crofter movement in Caithness, the secretary of the Congested Districts Board, and the secretary of the Crofters Commission, but none of them proposed this extension of the Crofters Act to the whole of Scotland. We had one gentleman of very great experience in these matters—a Mr. Hodge—who told us that the last thing he desired was to see tae whole farming system of Scotland changed; all that he wanted was an exhaustive experiment, in all suitable counties, with small tenancies, and a similar experiment with small occupying ownerships in suitable counties. That is what is aimed at by the Bills of my noble friends Lord Camperdown and Lord Lovat.
  The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack did not shrink from the proposition of my noble friend behind me that
  1260
  this Bill creates dual ownership. He admitted quite frankly that it did, but he added, "You have already dual ownership under the English Act." I should like to follow that proposition a little way The noble and learned Lord said that he believed no very large sum of money would be required to be provided for the purpose of creating these small holdings, and that he looked to the small holders to help themselves. The only interpretation I can put upon that is that the noble and learned Lord expects that the occupiers of these small holdings will put up their own buildings. Do you for a moment suppose that, if these smallholders put up the buildings at their own expense, you can in the long run prevent them having the right to sell the buildings, and to sell the right to occupy the farms on which the buildings stand? But that is dual ownership in its purest and crudest form. In the English Act you have the county council as tenant, a perfectly solvent body to whom to look to carry out all the covenants of the lease, and the county councils are not in the least likely to ask to be put into a position to sell the right to occupy the small holdings or the buildings which stand upon them. There is, I venture to submit, nothing in the English Act which establishes the dual ownership which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack says is identical with the dual ownership set up by this Bill.
  Then there is another very important difference. Whereas in this Bill it is proposed to establish a Land Court which, I frankly admit, will be a judicial body—the salaries of the Members being on the Consolidated Fund, and the Members being irremovable except under those very peculiar circumstances which, as we know, rarely, if ever, occur—we infinitely prefer to have responsible for the administration of the English Act my noble friend opposite and his representative in the House of Commons, whom we can call upon for an account of their stewardship. The Board of Agriculture is responsible to Parliament; the Land Court, which it is proposed to set up under this Bill, will not be responsible to Parliament, and that is the great difference between this Bill and the Act which applies to England. I understood that there was some hope

  1261
  that His Majesty's Government might be prepared to offer some suggestion by which the Bill might be brought more into harmony with the proposals in the Bills of Lord Camperdown and Lord Lovat, but that hope has been rather dashed to the ground by the concluding words of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. The noble and learned Lord said the Government would give full and fair consideration to any Amendments that were put down. It would be rather an insult to your Lordships' House if the Government proposed to do anything else; but what we wanted to know was, would they be prepared in any way to meet the views of my noble friends behind me? I gather that they are not.
  Now, my Lords, really will they seriously think this matter over? My noble friend behind me pointed out that noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite have as yet, at any rate, not been very enthusiastic in the encomiums they have poured on this measure. It is perfectly well known that a large number of their supporters in another place look with grave distrust on the provisions of this Bill, and I believe that, if the division could have been taken under the secrecy of the ballot, and without the fear of the crack of the Government Whip, the result would have been very different from the four to one majority of which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack seems so proud. It is evident that there is a disposition on this side of the House to extend very materially the provisions of the Crofters Act where they may be properly applied. Looking back the other day I came across a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer before he assumed office. He then said he was authorised to speak for the leaders of the Liberal Party Well, he is now authorised to speak for His Majesty's Government, for, in the regrettable absence, owing to ill-health, of the Prime Minister, he is discharging the duties of Leader of the Government in another place. Speaking in Scotland, Mr. Asquith said—
  "The Liberal Party propose to extend the Crofters Act to districts where similar conditions exist, to amend the Act as regards leaseholders and limit of size, to set up a central authority that would be able to supply that demand for small holdings which we believe to exist."
  If that were the policy, and the only policy of His Majesty's Government, I
  1262
  venture to think it would be received with much greater favour by your Lordships' House than will be the Bill which does those three things which the noble Duke behind me has pointed out, and in addition, exposes the flocks and herds of the agriculturists of this country to a grave danger from which they would fain that your Lordships would protect them.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, I ask the indulgence of your Lordships while I make a few remarks in the capacity, to quote my noble Friend who has just sat down, of a mere Englishman who happens to be Minister for Agriculture for Scotland as well as for England. I am bound to say that during the recess I do not think we had much reason to anticipate any very great difficulty about this Bill. Conservative Members of Parliament were very reticent on the subject, and although Lord Cawdor made a speech in Dundee and the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition spoke on several occasions in Scotland on the subject, yet there was not that active public hostility shown to the Bill which we had reason to expect. We rather hoped, therefore, that the Bill would be reintroduced into this House, that there would be-an important Second Reading debate, that some excellent speeches would be made, and then that the Bill would be read a second time, it being perfectly understood that those opposed to the Bill did not in any way pledge themselves to the whole of its provisions on account of having acquiesced in its Second Reading. Then we thought some arrangement might have been made in Committee and that finally the Bill would become law, and that, as happens in connection with most Liberal legislation, in ten years, everybody would say that it was the proper thing and wonder why there was any objection to it at the time.
  But about three weeks ago there was a change in what I believe is called the "atmosphere," and we were told that the Government were in a very tight place. The unexpected happened. My noble-friend, Lord Camperdown, fell desperately in love with my poor little English Small Holdings Bill. He eloped with the Bill across the border, and, with his customary

  1263
  sagacity, secured the invaluable services of my noble friend on the Cross Benches (Lord Rosebery) to act in the well-known character of the blacksmith of Gretna Green. I see that the noble Earl has resumed his usual seat, but I hope that on this occasion he will abstain from the performance of once more sticking the poor attenuated butterflies on the Front Bench with a pin. The Bill has been very lucidly explained by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, and, in my humble opinion, he entirely demolished the arguments of the opponents of the Bill. I will, however, with your Lordships' permission, briefly recapitulate the Second Reading objections to the Bill.
  The first objection, I believe, is to the extension of the Crofters Act to the whole of Scotland. I believe that has been very greatly deprecated, and, as a mere Englishman, I will leave that point to my Caledonian colleague who at the moment is leading your Lordships' House. Then a great many persons seem to be extremely anxious to retain me as Minister for Agriculture in Scotland. That, I am bound to say, fills me with astonishment, and somewhat with sorrow. As a Home Ruler, I regret to see the representatives of a great Kingdom tacitly acknowledging that they are not able to govern themselves. But as that is entirely a personal matter, I hope I may be excused from going into it.
  The next objection is what Lord Rosebery called the affront and disparagement implied in ignoring the county councils of Scotland. Honestly speaking, I fail to see that there has been much ignoring of the county councils. So far as we are able to judge on this side of the Tweed, the Scottish county councils are not very anxious to act, as was clearly put before the House by noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. They are not anxious, for the reason that the guarantees under the Bill are placed upon the taxes instead of the cost falling on the rates, as in England. If I bad been able to have obtained that in my Act of last year I am perfectly certain it would have cleared the ground very much, because the great objection to the Act of last year—and naturally—was that it imposed such a tremendous charge on the rates. The farmers of England, if they have a glandered horse, a scabby sheep, a rotten
  1264
  cow, or a dirty pig, invariably come to me and say, "We must kill these loathsome animals at once, and the State must pay for them." That is what all the farmers of England are clamouring for. Whether they will get it or not is another matter. They want the money to come from the taxes and not out of the rates. As the expense under this Bill falls on the taxes instead of on the rates, I do not think it is to be wondered at that the county councils have no desire to work the Act and prepare the arrangement contained in the Bill which we have the honour to submit to your Lordships.
  Another objection is that the tenants are obliged to hire land instead of purchasing it. Some people seem to have fallen under the spell of my old friend Mr. Jesse Collings, who is always preaching about the magic of property. In fact my noble friend Lord Rosebery last year went so far as to express his firm belief that deep rooted in the Scottish character is the desire for freeholds. But is it? An Act was passed in 1892, just before the Conservative Government went to the country, for the purpose of enabling a man to buy a small piece of land and settle on it, but somehow or other that Act missed fire altogether. As your Lordships were told by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, it has only been applied in one county—Ross-shire—throughout the whole of Scotland. Well, the Act was not very much more successful in England, because only 800 acres or a little more than one square mile, was purchased in sixteen years. I do not think my old friend Mr. Jesse Collings can be very proud of an Act which has had this deplorable result.
  Let us look at the Act in which hiring is the rule. Under the Act of 1907, which came into operation on 1st January this year, 8,474 applications have been made up to this morning for 135,000 acres of land, or 226 square miles. And here I hope I may be permitted to express my grateful thanks to the county councils of England, and not only to them but to the landlords of England, for the businesslike way in which they are, with one or two small exceptions, applying the Act. I believe that in not one in 100 of these applications is any request made for permission to buy a holding. Therefore,

  1265
  when I see my old friend Mr. Jesse Collings waving his magic wand, with all his admirers round him, and trying to conjure up phantom freeholders, I am reminded of another magician, who said, "I can call spirits from the vasty deep," and of the rejoinder, "So can I or any other man, but will they come when thou dost call for them?" As to the objection to dual ownership, no two persons seem to agree on what dual ownership or dual control means.
  Then objection is taken to the so-called application of Irish legislation to Scotland. Last year, as we all remember, my noble friend on the Cross Benches, Lord Rosebery, caused a sensation by his wonderful allegory of the maleficent angel who came sweeping down and injected the poison of Irish legislation into my right hon. and unfortunate friend Mr. Sinclair. I do not know where angels go, but they disappear. That seems to have had a great effect on the minds of other people, and the Duke of Montrose, in his admirable speech, if I may be permitted to say so, though I do not agree with it, said the Bill introduced the worst provisions of the Irish Land Acts and that the Land Court was an insult to the commonsense of his fellow countrymen. I should like, in passing, to say that I believe a Land Court has been adopted in Scotland before, and with very good results. My noble friend Lord Kintore, in his agreements, has an arrangement by which if there is any disagreement between himself and his tenants as regards the rent during the lease or the tenancy, it is referred to an independent arbiter who fixes the rent. I believe that is done in other cases, though the provision is not in the agreements.
  Mr. Walter Long, who is not only the leader of the agricultural party in the Commons House of Parliament but was for a certain time Secretary for Ireland, stated in his place in Parliament—and if it had not been for the very strong rail in front of the Peers' Gallery in the House of Commons I should fallen straight on the floor through astonishment—that the Bill contains none of the virtues of the Irish system, but all its vices. I hear that statement cheered. I would ask the House to consider for a moment what are the conditions of land tenure in Ireland. There are three F's—fixity of
  1266
  tenure, fair rents, and free sale. There is no such thing as free sale in the Bill which we have laid on the Table of your Lordships' House. That, I suppose I shall be told, is one of the virtues of the Irish land system. What are the vicious principles that are left? Fair rents and fixity of tenure—no, not fixity of tenure, but security of tenure dependent on the fulfilment of certain obligations. Therefore what we have left is one F and one S—fair rents and security of tenure; and I ask, how in the name of common sense are you to get these two most necessary things without some independent authority?
  Then we come to the question of the Land Court? I was told last Sunday, at Brooks's, by a Scottish landowner that it was monstrous to apply to Scotland legislation which we have not the courage to apply to England. I would ask, Is that so? Clause 7, Sub-section 10, Paragraph 6 of this Bill declares that the Land Court shall determine what is a fair rent for each new holding. The English Act which your Lordships were good enough to pass last year provides that the amount of rent to be paid by the county council for land compulsorily hired shall, in default of agreement, be settled by a single valuer appointed by the Board—that is myself. Can you imagine anything more drastic than that it should be settled by a single valuer from whose decision there is no appeal? Really the truth is that my noble friend Lord Camperdown has been taken in by his inamorata.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I have been taken in by your Bill.
  EARL CARRINGTON: My noble friend has been taken in by his inamorata, who brought him a bombshell in her trousseau in the shape of the Land Court. What is the result? My noble friend Young Lochinvar has been the whole of the winter straining and gasping and choking over the Scottish gnat, when this year, with his eyes wide open, he swallowed in this House the English camel, head, teeth, hoofs, hump, and tail.
  It is said that Scotland does not want the Bill. The Duke of Montrose was kind enough to inform us that the Bill had not the support of His Majesty's

  1267
  Ministers. Now I wonder how he knew that. Then it was stated that if the division in the House of Commons had been taken by ballot the numbers would hare been quite different. Now, how on earth did the noble Lord know that? These are the statements that are recklessly made in this House, and then they are accepted by the Unionist Press tomorrow and taken as gospel. I respectfully submit that fifty-seven Scottish Members are in favour of the Bill and only five against it. We have been told that these Members do not represent their constituents. If Members of Parliament do not represent their constituents, in the name of fortune whom do they represent? As regards Scotland, who represents that country? Would it be contended that the Scottish Archers represent Scotland? Some people might go so far as to say that the Scotsman newspaper represented Scotland, but that would be so far-fetched that I need not dwell upon it. Other people might say that the members of your Lordship's House elected by the Scottish Peers were the representatives of Scotland. I yield to no man in my respect and veneration for this great and hereditary House, to which for forty years I have had the pride and privilege to belong, and no person either in public or in private shall, if I can help it, ever say one word derogatory of the honour and credit of your Lordships' House. But I do say that it is going a little too far to say that the Scottish Peers represent Scotland, or that the House of Lords as it is at present constituted—I do not know what its constitution may be after the Committee which has been sitting has reported—represents the people of this country.
  I do not think that the man in the street, who is supposed to make and unmake Ministries and to hold elections in the hollow of his hand, will be satisfied by the arguments of noble Lords opposite or convinced by their logic. I think the man in the street will instinctively feel that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack put the matter plainand straight, and that Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman stated the case in a, nutshell when he said that the main reason for this Bill is that it represents what the Scottish people are desirous of having. While the Bill may be improved, and while—to quote the words of my noble and learned friend
  1268
  the Lord Chancellor—Amendments will be heartily welcomed, would it not be unwise for the predominant partner to interfere with what I honestly believe to be the decision of Scotland, and to mutilate and destroy a great measure of land reform on which the people of that country have set their hearts, and which we are determined to do our utmost to pass into law during the present session?
  LORD ROBERTSON: My Lords, I am quite sure the whole House is under a debt of obligation to the noble Earl who has just sat down. He has amused us, consciously and unconsciously, and has indulged in a wealth of illustration which has delighted us. But my purpose in rising is rather to thank him for more solid contributions to this discussion. One of the main questions is as to the merits of the English Act, and the noble Earl, who is the highest authority on the subject, has given the most abundant and conclusive testimony to the success of that measure. He has assured us that applications crowd in and has described the progress of that Act as a triumph, and it occurred to some of us sitting here whether, following the example of the Secretary of State for War, the noble Earl might not suggest that already there was proper occasion for a national thanksgiving.
  The noble Earl carefully removed one by one some of the props upon which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack based his speech. On one point, at any rate, the noble Earl has strayed from historical fact, and I wish for a moment to put that right. He suggested, but perhaps it was merely in order that he might start his story against Lord Camperdown, that until a few weeks ago there was no rumour of opposition to the Bill on the grounds now taken. I spent some portion of last Sunday reading the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill last year. I did not take part in that debate, and, therefore, I am the more free to say that a more admirable exposition of the arguments which we are now advancing I have never heard. Everything which I could aspire to suggest to the House to-night was represented by the speakers on that occasion, and therefore it is a great mistake in fact to suppose that the Opposition are taking up any new position in this debate.

  1269
  One observation of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was, I thought, not merely wise, but opportune, when he pointed out that the controversy in this House had been greatly narrowed by the fact of Lord Camperdown's and Lord Lovat's Bills being on the Table. The expediency of extending small holdings is not merely admitted but asserted by those who sit on this side of the House; the expediency of modifying the Crofters Act, again, is not merely admitted but is asserted by this side.
  Therefore the controversy is narrowed to this question—Is the House in favour of or against the crofterisation of the Lowlands? That is the whole question which is in dispute between the two sides of the House. I may, perhaps, go too far in the direction of generosity when I gay there is common ground, because the provisions of this Bill shatter at a blow all the visions of what Lord Carrington called the magic of property. That is a topic which was dwelt upon with great unction in the House of Commons, not merely by Mr. Jesse Collings, but by numerous hon. Gentlemen, supporters of the present Government, and it is to be observed, as suggesting caution, that one at all events of the objects that have greatly advanced the popularity of small holdings has thus disappeared. I mention that merely for this practical reason. The whole subject of small holdings is more or less conjectural, provisional, tentative. I wish it well, but it is idle to speak as if it were certain that there would be, under the auspices of any Bills of this kind, that return to the land which so many desire. These proposals are, to a certain extent, untried, and of doubtful result. Is it wise, is it not madness to shatter an existing prosperous industry in the interests of a perverse addition to these schemes?
  The crofterisation of the Lowlands is the sole issue in dispute. I hope the House will remember that the Crofters Act was careful not to distinguish between Highlands and Lowlands, but to distinguish districts within the Highland counties which had crofting parishes; and accordingly, what the Commissioners were bade to seek for were parishes where a state of society existed which, in the language of Sir George Trevelyan, which has been quoted to-night, was
  1270
  utterly alien to the general system of Scottish society. The position of matters in those crofting districts was this. They were by history and tradition inhabited by people who had never moved from their places for centuries They had, moreover—and this is of the gist and essence of the matter—put up their own houses and all the buildings on their crofts, and accordingly Parliament could not go far wrong when they accepted traditionary tenure.
  I cannot help thinking that the authors of the Crofters Act, some of whom unfortunately are gone, could they be brought together, would view the present movement with the greatest surprise. It has never been suggested, until this Bill was produced, that the crofting system was appropriate to a progressive and enterprising community. The crofters had many high virtues, personal and political, but they had not the gift of enterprise and energy. Let us speak the truth about these things; and this goes deep into the present question. In those days the theory was accepted of traditionary tenure, and, as proof thereof, the fact that they had put up their buildings. The Crofters Act accepted that; it was not an idea constructed by the Commissioners or by Parliament; it was, on the contrary, a recognition, and, as we know, a reluctant recognition, of the existence of a somewhat backward state of society in those districts, and the measures proposed were intended to palliate the incident evils of that system. That has been, we are triumphantly told, a success. I believe the condition of the crofting people has improved, but it would not be accurate to leave out of account the fact that Government after Government have poured money into the crofting districts and have opened up the country by railways, by steamers, by improved fishing—indeed, have done all the things which tend to open up the country to modern civilisation; and my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh was most active and diligent in following out that beneficent policy. So do not let us suppose that, when the system has succeeded under those conditions, you are an inch nearer applying it to a progressive and enterprising community.
  I turn to the application of this measure to the Lowlands. I take, for honour, the

  1271
  Lothians as the scene of the experiment. You go there and you find somebody who falls under this Bill—an existing tenant, a tenant at will, that is to say, from year to year. He is asked by one of the Commissioners, either in Gaelic or in English I do not know, "Have you traditionary tenure? Have your forefathers been here for generations?" Fortunately in some cases they have, but not by traditionary tenure. He would ask "Have you put up the house?" The man would laugh in his face. In the case of many of these people they came there the day before yesterday. And what do you do with them? You confer upon these men fixity of tenure, and they are to stay for all time. You confer fixity of tenure upon them, but you tell them at the same time they can go any day they like, on a year's notice. You tell them, also, that from this time onwards the landlord shall have no say as to what is done by way of buildings or repairs on the farm, and that that is to be at the discretion of the existing holder.
  If I had to focus my opposition to the Bill it would be on the setting up of crofterdom for existing tenants in the Lowlands. I say it is a preposterous and monstrous proposal, and I cannot help thinking that the draftsman of this Bill, at all events has shared my apprehension, because you will find that this momentous change is introduced entirely by way of reference. By a stroke of the pen the Crofters Act is applied to the Lowlands. The root of the Crofters Act was that the tenure was perpetual; in this case each of these men comes there upon a contract; and I ask in all seriousness what is the reason that the privilege is confined to tenants at will, and not given to leaseholders? Why is it to be given to holders of £50 and not to the man paying £51, or, for the matter of that, why is it not to be given to the man paying £500? Each of these various classes, the one as much as the other, is there under contract, A part of his contract is that he shall go at the end of his tenure—there is not a vestige of traditional tenure about it; but the landlord is to be deprived of his proprietory right to resume his farm, and with no compensation.
  Just let us look at the effect of this. The effect will be to isolate landlords from all power of improving their land;
  1272
  they can do nothing whatever in that direction. It has been said over and over again—I am not a landlord myself, and therefore I speak the more freely—that the landlords of Scotland have taken a pride and interest in the management, of their landed estates, as no doubt have English landlords, and if you take from landlords the right to control the development of their land you strike off a very large part of its value. One curious part of this measure is this, and it seems to have wholly escaped His Majesty's Government. I accuse them of filching; part of the value from one person and giving it to another, but they do not give to the other the whole of what they filch. It is lost, and one of my great complaints against this Bill is that it diminishes the aggregate value of land. It is not merely the case of taking from one and giving to another, but it shuts-out the access of capital to the improvement of the land. I am perfectly certain of this, that if the Bill passes, the value of land will be such that any man thinking of putting his money into it would refuse to do so, so long as there were brewery shares in the market.
  Then, my Lords, I should like to know who are the people to whom will be entrusted the destiny of this part of the agricultural world? The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was rather surprised at this being regarded as an. attack on the county councils. He seemed to think that it would be natural for the county councils to come and beg for these powers, and to deprecate their not being given to them. I daresay there are many county councillors present in your Lordships' House this evening, and they will agree with me that anything of that kind is the last-thing that would occur to county councils. My attack with regard to the ignoring of the county councils is partly due to this, that I object entirely to the bureaucracy which is set up in another place. Who are these men? We are assured by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that the Land Court will be composed of certain highly respectable persons. I am willing to take that for granted. But coming to closer quarters, what do we know about them? One of them is to be our old friend "the barrister of ten years" standing," who, according to Sydney Smith, may be taken as the primum

  1273
  mobile of human existence. We have him to begin with. There is nothing said of the others—except two things— first, that one of them must speak Gaelic; and, secondly, that their decision is to be final. They would deal with weighty matters. Every few years they would have the right to revise the rents, not of new people only, but of old existing tenants; and no matter by what process of reasoning they arrived at their decision there would be no appeal. Therefore the whole direct management of the agriculture of Scotland is to be put into the final hands of this nondescript body.
  My Lords, do not let it be forgotten, in considering this question, that this refers to a large portion of the land of Scotland. I was surprised to see from a recent return the extent to which the land in Scotland is in the hands of small holders who would be brought under the land Court by this Bill. I listened with close attention to what was said by the Lord Chancellor and by Lord Carrington on the point, but I heard no valid argument in favour of the exclusion of the county council. But we who know Scotland cannot forget that there are arguments which are not advanced in this House but which perhaps operate out of it. Look at your Press. What do the newspapers say about the Scottish county councils? They say that they are landlord preserves—Tory preserves. I should like to know what these people would be after. These county councils are elected by the widest possible household suffrage, with all the latest novelties, including woman suffrage. Accordingly I am afraid that, unless you are going positively to proscribe the landlord, and declare him ineligible, it will be impossible to get any constituency to do different from its predecessors. It is the case here, to quote a phrase of Mr. John Morley's, that there is no new formula of exorcism nor any untried enchantment. The reason these men are elected is that their neighbours know them and trust them, and send them to do the county business. One of the losses of this Bill will be that, instead of having local opinion and local sentiment represented on the delicate subject of the assignment of small holdings, you will have a bureaucracy which, starting from a Gaelic-speaking country as its basis, has, by
  1274
  tradition and reputation in Scotland, methods and proceedings which are entirely alien to the active modern stirring world which exists in agriculture in the Lowlands.
  I have detained your Lordships perhaps too long, but I should like to say a word in conclusion upon the general merits of this scheme. The Lord Chancellor has indicated that he who would judge of the magnitude and beneficence of this scheme by the figure of £65,000 takes a very contracted view. I hope his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer has authorised that statement, and I hope that if the worst comes to the worst there will be a fulfilment of that faint and vague promise. But £65,000 and the best intentions of the Lord Chancellor will not sound in value very big if you put against it the driving of capital out of the country and the destroying of the credit of land. That is really the alternative which this House has before it. There is no room for creating prejudice by representing this as a landlords' question. It is a question affecting the whole of the agricultural community, and, through it, the whole of the people of Scotland. You will by this Bill, should it ever pass, strike wantonly and unnecessarily a fatal blow at this interest. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has admitted that there are other ways of dealing with the holdings question. The subject to which I have mainly addressed myself is the interference with the existing tenants in the Lowlands. That was very lightly touched by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, but there is the kernel of the matter, and I would entreat this House to act firmly on that subject, feeling sure that justice will be done by the wide honest public which sees through the veils of party, and will pronounce the opinion that, if we were to sanction this, there is no folly that we would challenge.
  LORD CLINTON: There is no question but that every noble Lord on this side of the House is keenly anxious to provide a system of small holdings for Scotland on terms at least as favourable as have been granted to England. That has been shown by the Amendments moved last year and this year, and also by the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Camperdown. We are keenly

  1275
  desirous that a good and proper scheme of small holdings should be brought in for Scotland, and I say it is not this House which stands in the way of a scheme being adopted. It is His Majesty's Government themselves. They have tied themselves up in a scheme which has not the support of the people of Scotland, which has been condemned by agriculturists both individually and collectively, and which has been severely criticised by their own supporters. I say that the Government's blind adherence to that particular scheme forms at the present moment the only bar to the extension of small holdings in Scotland.
  We have been told that the Government scheme is the only possible one, and the only one which suits the situation. We have been asked to believe that, in order to extend a system of small holdings, it is essential to introduce all those items included in the term "crofterisation," every one of which has been condemned by noble Lords in this House. The institution of dual ownership, the setting up of an autocratic body or a new Board of Agriculture, are not of the slightest importance in regard to a small holding scheme. They are absolutely excrescences. They do not touch the principle, and they amount to so much deadweight of controversial matter which of themselves will, I am afraid, make it absolutely impossible for a scheme of small holdings to be passed for Scotland this session.
  It has been shown that the method proposed by the Government is not the only way in which small holdings can be provided for Scotland. There is an alternative in the Bill introduced in your Lordships' House this session by my noble friend Lord Camperdown; it is on the lines of the measure adopted last year for England, and which the President of the Board of Agriculture speaks of as having been a very great success. It was frequently said during the autumn campaign that it was impossible to adapt that scheme to Scotland. Those of your Lordships who are acquainted with agriculture in both countries know perfectly well that not only could that scheme be adapted, but that the conditions are so similar that very few alterations would be necessary to make the Act of last year apply. It is no new principle to legislate
  1276
  for Scotland and England agriculturally on the same lines. I would cite, as precedents, the Act of 1892 and the Acts of 1900 and 1906. Moreover, the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883 forms an exact precedent for the course your Lordships are now asked to adopt by noble Lords on this side of the House.
  The problem with which we have to deal is the same in Scotland as in England. I am quite certain that the words used by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack with regard to the congestion in our cities were in no sense too highly coloured. Side by side with that congestion, and, in some degree, the cause of it, is the depopulation of our rural districts—a matter which must cause, and does cause, the greatest concern. Whether it is possible to deal successfully with this problem remains in doubt; but, although we hope and believe that a scheme for increasing small holdings may have some effects in ameliorating the congestion and in stemming depopulation, we have no reason to think that an extension of the Crofters Act would have any effect upon either question. It has been shown by the evidence given before the Crofters Commission that the Crofters Act has not had any effect upon the depopulation of the crofting area, and I do not think we have any reason to suppose that an extension of that system would have other than prejudicial results. I hope, as I say, that the extension of small holdings may prevent depopulation; but whether it is possible to create small holdings on a sufficiently large scale to touch the congestion in our large cities is a matter that remains to be proved. I say that the problem we have to deal with is the same in Scotland as in England; and, if that is so, and if the conditions are alike and the agricultural system practically identical, it seems to me perfectly obvious that the solution might be the same in both instances.
  In discussing this measure last year we called attention to the serious hardship which would be entailed upon many tenant farmers by the vesting of compulsory powers in a central autocratic body for taking land during the progress of a tenancy. The short experience of the English Act has shown us that this is a real objection. You cannot go about among the farmers in England at the

  1277
  present moment without seeing that every man is nervous about it. They do not know when their turn is to come, but they do know that, if the compulsory powers of the Act are exercised to the degree of interfering to any large extent with the size of their holdings, it may mean to them the actual difference between a profit and a loss; and this is particularly the case when you consider the nature of the land which will always be taken. It must be good land, because no one would condemn the small holder to eke out a miserable and precarious existence on a poor few acres of land. Speaking during the Second Reading discussion a few nights ago the Lord Advocate pointed to the fact that there were 3,000,000 acres of land in Scotland devoted to purposes of sport, sufficient, he said, to apply four and a half acres to every man, woman, and child in Scotland. I do not think it is necessary for me to waste one, moment in dealing with the almost absurd fallacies and the great practical impossibilities which underlie that; but I think it shows up this Bill in rather a remarkable way when it becomes necessary to use such a feeble argument as that in its support.
  By this Bill farms under 150 acres in extent are to be exempt from interference. It seems to me that that average, as stated, has really very little meaning. One hundred and fifty acres of hill land at 1s. an acre and 150 acres of good arable land are placed in the same category, and both owners are liable to interference. I submit that it is a real hardship to deprive any man, by legislation, of the possibility of making a profit out of his holding, and to interfere with the size of a holding no matter how well it may at the moment be cultivated, and also during the currency of the lease. It was stated the other night that no interference could take place during the currency of the lease, but only leases in force in the year 1906 are exempt. All those entered into last year, this year, and in the future will be liable to exactly the same interference. It is of enormous advantage to agriculturists generally that there should be, as far as possible, absolute security in regard to holdings. We have enjoyed this security to a great extent in Scotland under our nineteen-
  1278
  year leases, and under the custom of the country which has prevented landlords turning out the tenants as long as they behaved fairly under their leases. That custom has been translated into legal terms by the Act of 1906, but every one of the securities are to be swept away by this Bill. A sense of insecurity will, therefore, spread over the country, for no individual farming more than 150 acres will know when he may be turned out, and he may be turned out at the bidding of any one man, probably not one whit more deserving than himself.
  The Secretary for Scotland, in explaining his reasons for ignoring the county councils, said that these bodies were not so thoroughly representative as those in England. He said that every county contained remote and inaccessible districts without rapid means of communication, and that members of the county councils found it difficult to attend the meetings I think that is a most undeserved slut upon our county councils in Scotland. I hold that they have done their duty admirably, and that they are as fully representative of their constituencies as any bodies of the kind. The argument is that the members do not attend because they live in remote and inaccessible parts of the country. I hardly think those words can be applied to the great bulk of the county councillors in Scotland. I have been myself a member of a Scottish county council for many years, and I have also had a seat upon an English county council, and I think I may say, without drawing an unfair comparison, that the members of the county councils in Scotland attend, and that the business is carried on, equally as well as is the case in England.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I do not propose to detain your Lordships for more than a few moments, but as the-noble Earl the Minister for Agriculture quarrelled with a statement that was made that His Majesty's Ministers were not on one accord in regard to this Bill, I should like to draw attention to the controversy that raged round the Bill during the Parliamentary recess. We remember the protest which the First Lord of the Admiralty made against what was done in your Lordships' House

  1279
  on the Second Reading of the Bill. We know also that he went down to Perth, and there made a statement which was practically the very opposite of what he stated in this House. The noble Lord shakes his head, but he most certainly said he preferred the English Bill to the Scottish Bill.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD TWEEDMOUTH): I beg the noble Lord's pardon. What I said was that I liked the idea of the county councils being brought into the Bill. Otherwise I was perfectly contented with the Bill as it was drafted.
  LORD SALTOUN: Of course, I accept the noble Lord's explanation, but on that point, at all events, he admits that he would prefer the county councils brought in. During the recess I think nearly every Minister spoke in Scotland, and I confess I do not think that they advanced one good argument for the Bill. The Secretary for Scotland claims that this Bill is based upon the excellent work of the Crofters Act. But the Commission sent out by various followers of the Government to inquire into the working of the Act condemned it in every way. That Commission was composed of gentlemen who were also members of the Commission which the Secretary for Scotland sent to Denmark. Not only was their Report a tremendous condemnation of the whole of the Crofters Acts, but they stated that these Acts had in no way arrested the migration from the rural districts into the towns. The Prime Minister at Edinburgh, in the early days of October, referred to the success of small holdings in Wales, and added that he saw no reason why they should not be equally successful in Scotland. That statement was followed by a letter in The Times, of 10th October, from Mr. D. A. Thomas, M.P., an ardent admirer and faithful follower of the Prime Minister. Mr. Thomas pointed out that the statement of the Prime Minister was mot in accordance with the facts. Indeed, at was only an example of the inaccuracies which have been uttered by Ministers all over the country. Mr. Thomas also wrote to The Times stating that he did not share the faith of those who believed in the power of Parliament to counteract or control the economic forces which
  1280
  had drawn the population from the country to the towns. He added—
  "Any such error as 100 per cent, made, in calculating the strength of the foundation on which the argument is based must seriously impair the stability of the superstructure."—
  and in a later letter he said—
  "When I picture to myself the Prime Minister, surrounded by his colleagues, endeavouring to stem the tide of migration, I cannot help thinking of the story of Canute."
  I do not propose, at this late hour, to go into the objections which we Scotsmen have to this Bill; but we entirely refuse the Land Court. We have seen its results in Ireland. In Ireland you have the Land Court, together with every kind of crime, iniquity, and wickedness. We in Scotland do not want that, but we are very much afraid, if you give us similar laws, that the same kind of thing may take place in Scotland. We totally object to the crofterisation of the whole of Scotland. The condition of agriculture in the Lowlands of Scotland are the same as in England, and we ask to be treated in exactly the same manner as England was treated last year. We also think that a nineteen-years tenure is as much as is good for any man. It means practically half the lifetime of the tenant. We do all the improvements for him, he has simply to put his capital into the land which he works. We also strongly object to the severance of Scotland from the Board of Agriculture in England. Why should we be divided? We are perfectly satisfied to be under the Board of Agriculture of the United Kingdom, and we feel that to set up another body in its place for Scotland would foe a fatal mistake. In conclusion I say that, if there is to be any conciliation or arrangement in regard to this Bill, we Scotsmen must insist upon the Land Court, the crofterisation of Scotland, and the separation from the Board of Agriculture being entirely given up.
  Moved, That the debate be adjourned till To-morrow.—(Lord Herschell.)
  On Question, Motion for adjournment agreed to.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.