Sitting of 17 March 1908

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

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Select Committee.

  1. "That, in the case of the London United Tramways, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  2. "That, in the case of the Ards and Bangor Railways, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, on the condition that the powers to construct Railways No. 3 and 3A are struck out of the Bill, and that the fact that a deposit equal to 5 per cent. of the amount of the estimate of expense in respect of the remaining railways proposed to be authorised has been made with the Accountant-General of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland be proved before the Committee on the Bill: That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

  3. "That, in the case of the Sligo and Arigna Railway Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, on the condition that Clauses 53 to 58, inclusive, are struck out of the Bill: That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with.

  4. "That, in the case of the London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill [Lords], Petition for Additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the promoters have leave to insert the additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

  5. "That, in the case of the Alliance and other Assurance and Insurance Companies [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  392

  6. "That, in the case of the West London, Barnes, and Richmond Tramways Bill [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill on the condition that all Tramways are struck out of the Bill in respect of which the consents of the Local and Road Authorities, to the extent to which they are necessary under Standing Order 22, are not proved before the Committee to whom the Bill is referred: That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

  7. "That, in the case of the Leith Burgh Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  8. "That, in the case of the South-West Suburban Water Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of 'Metropolitan Water Board,' against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."

  Resolutions agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for a Superannuation Scheme for officers and servants of the Great Western Railway Company in substitution for the Great Western Railway Superannuation Fund established under the provisions of the Great Western Railway Act, 1864." Great Western Railway (Superannuation Scheme) Bill [Lords].
Great Western Railway (Superannuation Scheme) Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions against: From Edinburgh; Huddersfield; and Newcastle-upon-Tyne; to lie upon the Table.
  HOME WORK REGULATION BILL.
  Petition from Wandsworth, against; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Petition from Lisburn, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSED PREMISES (EXCLUSION OF CHILDREN).
  Petition from Tiverton, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against: From Hodnet; Swindon; and Usher's Wiltshire Brewery, Limited; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour: From Helmshore; and Kirkcudbright; to lie upon the Table.

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Kirkcudbright, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MORAY FIRTH (ILLEGAL TRAWLING).
  Petitions for prevention: From Caithness; and, Golspie; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Worksop, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Petition from Buckhaven, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Copy presented, of List of Public Elementary Schools in single school Parishes as defined in Section 3 (6) of the Elementary Education (England and Wales) Bill [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (LAND REVENUE).
  Copy presented, of Land Revenue Assessments in the Punjab since 1855 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  County Court Rules.—Copy of the County Court Rules, dated 13th March, 1908 [by Act].
  Workmen's Compensation Rules.—Copy of the Workmen's Compensation Rules, dated 14th March, 1908 [by Act].

Oral Answers to Questions
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH TEE VOTES.

    Close Time for Seine Trawl Nets.
    MR. WATT: To ask the Secretary of Scotland whether in view of the facts that four out of the five official fishery districts of the Clyde are desirous of a close time for the seine trawl net from 1st February to 15th May, and that the Clyde herring merchants also support this course, he will take steps to bring about this line of action.
    (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I am informed that the Board have no official information that the fishermen in four out of the five Clyde fishery districts are in favour of a close time for the seine net; but I shall, of course, be glad to receive and consider any further information which may be forthcoming.

    Seed Corn for Scottish Farmers.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware of the fact that, owing to the inclement harvest, seed corn in some places in Shetland is practically unobtainable; and if he will state on what terms the Congested Districts Board can assist.
    MR. J. DEWAR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that, owing to the inclement season experienced in the Highlands of Scotland last year, the grain in those districts was seriously damaged, and there is difficulty in procuring reliable seed; and will he, under these circumstances, confer with the Congested Districts Board as to the possibility of helping to procure sound and satisfactory seed.
    (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I am aware of the regrettable facts stated by my hon. friends. As the Congested Districts Board is not a relief body they have no power to expend their funds in providing seed, and they have, therefore, reluctantly refused applications for that purpose. For their special statutory purpose of the improvement of agriculture

    395
    they have on occasions provided seed corn and seed potatoes, but in such cases payment of the price is required when the request is granted.

    Proof Spirits in Temperance Drinks.
    MR. STAVELEY-HILL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the

    Herb and Botanic Beer and similar Beverages examined in the Government Laboratory.

    Year to 31st March.

    Total number of samples examined.

    Number of samples containing proof spirit in excess of legal limit of 2 per cent.

    Containing proof spirit of

    Highest percentage of proof spirit contained in on sample.

    More than 2 per cent but less than 3 per cent.

    3 per cent., but less than 4 per cent.

    4 per cent., but less than 6 per cent.

    6 per cent., or more.

    1905

    1,011

    361

    233

    78

    42

    8

    8·3 ginger beer.

    1906

    924

    349

    248

    58

    35

    8

    9·5 ginger beer.

    1907

    1,133

    422

    306

    71

    37

    8

    10·5 herb beer.

    12·3 dandelion stout.

    1st April, 1907, to 10th Mar., 1908.

    1,079

    417

    298

    81

    32

    6

    8·5 herb beer.

    Total.

    4,147

    1,549

    1,085

    288

    146

    30

    Suggested Railway from Chaman to Kuskh.
    MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the Secretary of State for India what is the distance between the terminus of the India railway at Chaman and that of the Russian railway at Kuskh; what is the length of the nearest practicable route for linking them together; and whether any proposals have been made for so doing.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The distance between Chaman and Kuskh in a straight line is about 400 miles. I am unable to say what is the length of
    number of samples of herb beer and other beverages sold as temperance drinks analysed at the Government laboratory during the past three years; the number found to contain more than 2 per cent. of proof spirit; and the percentage of proof spirit there disclosed.
    (Answered by Mr. Asquith.)
    the shortest practicable route, and, as regards the railway project, I stated the other day that I had no knowledge of the subject beyond a reference to it I had seen in a newspaper.

    Rioting at Tinnevelly.
    MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House any information regarding a riot at Tinnevelly.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I am informed that a riot occurred at Tinnevelly on Saturday last, in which the municipal, post, and police offices were

    397
    looted and burnt. Being unable to clear the streets the magistrate and superintendent of police ordered the police to fire, and the rioting then ceased. Four casualties were reported.

    Damage to Fishing Nets by Foreign Trawlers.
    MR. R. L. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that on Wednesday, 5th February, the fishing boat "Bonaigen," of Wick, while fishing in the Moray Firth about seven miles off the Caithness coast, had five nets carried away, and eight nets along with fishing ropes destroyed by the trawler "Bangkok," of Gotheburg, the loss as valued amounting to £68 10s.; whether he is aware that several similar losses have been sustained this winter off the coast of Caithness by fishing boats in consequence of their nets being cut through and destroyed by foreign trawlers; and what steps he proposes to take for the protection of fishermen's property, and vindication of their rights against foreigners.
    (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Wick Burghs on 12th instant.

    The Government and the Trawlers' Certificates Suspension Bill.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that last year instructions were given by the Secretary for Scotland to block the Trawlers' Certificates Suspension Bill, will he state whether it is his intention to adopt a similar course this session.
    (Answered by Mr. Sinclair). The attitude of the Government towards the Trawlers' Certificates Suspension Bill must be the same as it was last year. The sympathies of the Government are strongly with any effort to enforce the law against illegal trawling, but the machinery for carrying out this purpose must be judged with due consideration of its effect upon the general interests of the mercantile marine, and with regard to the general principles upon which modern commercial undertakings are managed. The Bill provides for the suspension of the certificate of registration of the trawl vessel upon a breach of statute or bye-law; that is to say, a
    398
    costly and powerful agent of production is put out of use, and the owners, shareholders, mortgagees, and crews of the vessels are all punished for what might be entirely the fault of the skipper, seeing that the control exercised by owners over their skippers must be limited when the trawler has gone to sea. For these reasons it is difficult to assent to this proposal. A further proposal is to cancel or suspend the certificate of the skipper or second officer for illegal trawling. The Board of Trade have always declined to recognise an offence of this kind as one of the class for which they would feel justified in thus dealing with a certificate granted under the Merchant Shipping Act.

    Petition of Workmen in Pembroke Dockyard.
    MR. OWEN PHILIPPS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now give replies to the petitions of workmen at the Pembroke Dockyard, which were presented to the Admiralty in January, 1907.
    (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) It is hoped that the replies will be announced early next month.

    New Heater Torpedo.
    MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the new heater torpedo gives an increased speed of over 33 per cent. for torpedoes fired at a ship 1,500 yards off, 44 per cent. at over 3,000 yards off, and over 50 per cent. at over 4,000 yards off; and whether, under these circumstances, he will endeavour to cancel all orders for torpedoes of old-fashioned type without heaters.
    (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The Admiralty are fully aware of the increased efficiency of modern Whitehead torpedoes, but it is not in the public interest to detail the steps taken by the Department as the result of these improvements.
    MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware of the activity of foreign navies in ordering the new heater torpedoes invented by the Whitehead firm since the Russo-Japanese War; and in view of the

    399
    reduction of the Vote for torpedoes and guncotton from £394,000 in 1906–7 to £307,000 in 1907–8, and £209,000 for the new financial year, whether he can state if any of the now heater torpedoes have been ordered for the British Navy.
    (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The Answer to both Questions is in the affirmative.
    MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether torpedoes are being manufactured at Weymouth and supplied to a foreign Power whose speeds and radius of action are far superior to the Admiralty pattern of torpedo, either cold or hot; and, if so, why the usual proportion of orders for torpedoes was last year altered in favour of the Government establishment at Woolwich.
    (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The reply to the first Question is in the negative, and the second Question therefore does not arise.

    Fusing of Wires on the District Railway.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to one or two outbreaks of fire occurring recently upon the District Railway; and whether he will ask the directors to post up notices in the carriages, &c., telling the passengers what to do in case of fire.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) My attention has been called to several cases of fusing on this railway, which, however, can hardly be described as "outbreaks of fire." A notice of the kind suggested would, in the opinion of my advisers, be more likely to create alarm than to add to the security of passengers.

    Schools Earning Special Gardening Grant.
    SIR P. CHANNING: To ask the President of the Board of Education what number of elementary schools in England and Wales earned the special grant for gardening; and what was the number of pupils in the years 1904–5, 1905–6, 1906–7, and 1907–8, respectively.
    400
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) In 1905–6 there were 579 public elementary schools in England and Wales obtaining the Board's special grant for gardening, with 8,359 scholars; in 1905–6 there were 749 schools, with 11,216 scholars. These figures are contained in the published Blue-books of the Board. For 1906–7 the numbers notified to the Board at the beginning of the special subjects year were 974 schools, with an estimated number of scholars 14,926. For 1907–8 the number of schools notified as taking this subject is 1,138, the number of scholars being not yet obtainable.

    Agricultural Instruction in Schools.
    SIR F. CHANNING: To ask the President of the Board of Education if he will state what is the present number of school gardens provided for elementary, secondary, and evening schools, respectively, in England and Wales; in how many of such schools gardens are arrangements made for fruit cultivation as well as for gardening; and what is the number of detached demonstration or experimental fruit plots to which pupils of schools have access.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The number of public elementary schools in England and Wales notified to the Board for the purpose of the grant for gardening is 1,138, each of which, of course, has ground specially devoted to the purposes of school gardening; but there are in addition a number of schools in which gardening is carried on more as a part of nature study than for the purpose of teaching gardening as such, and the gardens of these schools are not included in that number. Few secondary schools have school-gardens intended to teach practical gardening to the scholars, but several schools in England (and one or two in Wales), the curricula of which are regarded by the Board as having a distinctly agricultural character, have land for outdoor demonstration and experimental work in plant life; and a number of other secondary schools in England possess gardens which are utilised in connection with the biological teaching. The applications for recognition of evening school gardening classes for the current year have not yet all been received, but assuming that the applications still to be received will correspond with last year, the number

    401
    will amount to about 190 in England and Wales. It is impossible to say in how many of the elementary and evening school gardens arrangements are made for fruit cultivation, as few counties have any uniformity of practice in this respect, but it is probably about half. In only two of the secondary schools referred to in the second paragraph above is provision made for the systematic teaching of fruit culture. As far as I am informed, to only one of the detached fruit stations in the country have the pupils of any public elementary, secondary, or evening schools regular access for practical instruction.

    Training of Nurses.
    MR. CULLINAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what proofs of efficient teaching, of efficient examining, and of the possession of adequate matériel and of a capable and industrious staff, do the Local Government Board require before sanctioning any hospital for the training of nurses, whether trained or merely qualified; and whether they would take the medical profession generally into their confidence on those points.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Under the Local Government Board's Nursing Order, 1901, a trained nurse means any person who has resided for not less than two years in a general clinical or other hospital recognised by the Board, and who, after examination, has obtained from such hospital a certificate of proficiency in nursing; and the term qualified nurse means any person, who, after examination, has obtained a certificate of proficiency in nursing from any (1) public general hospital, or (2) workhouse in firmary and fever hospital, or (3) nursing institution, that may be recognised by the Board as an efficient school for medical and surgical nurses. The Board require as evidence of the due training or Qualification of a nurse, the production of the original certificate of proficiency from a recognised hospital. Before recognising for the purpose in question any hospital other than a general clinical hospital the Board make careful inquiries respecting such hospital. The Board have always received and welcomed assistance from the medical profession, both as regards the general question of
    402
    recognition of the training of nurses and as regards the capacity for teaching of any particular hospital. It may be added that a general clinical hospital is one recognised by examining bodies for the instruction of medical students.

    Purchase Price of Sir H. Shaw-Stewart's Land.
    MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what was the price obtained from Sir Hugh Shaw-Stewart for the land, near Cloch Point, which was resold to him in 1907 after having been purchased in 1905 for £13,050.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The price was £10,000.

    Army Reductions.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what reduction in personnel will result from the intended withdrawal in the course of 1908–9 of a cavalry regiment and four infantry battalions from South Africa.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The net reduction in personnel will amount to thirty-three officers and 1,671 other ranks.

    Territorial Army—Instruction of Officers on the Unattached List.
    MR. C. H. CORBETT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether officers of the Territorial Force, placed on the unattached lists of their counties, will be allowed to attend courses of instruction in order to maintain their military efficiency pending absorption.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) A General Officer Commanding-in-Chief will be empowered to authorise the attendance at courses of instruction of such officers should he consider it desirable, and should the funds at his disposal admit of it.

    Changes in the Army Accounts Department.
    SIR J. BETHELL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether important changes in the Army Accounts Department and the Army Pay Department are being contemplated;

    403
    and, if not, whether he can see his way to make a statement which will set at rest the uneasiness prevailing among members of those Departments.
    (Answered, by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Certain changes in the Army Accounts Department are under consideration, and I hope to be able to arrive at a decision at no distant date.

    Pay and Position of Civil Service Assistant Clerks.
    MR. FIELD: To ask the Prime Minister whether he has received a petition asking for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the pay and prospects of assistant clerks in the Civil Service; whether he has considered what action the Government will take in this matter; and whether he is aware that the higher permanent Treasury and other officials have sometimes disregarded the decisions of Parliamentary Committees and likewise sometimes failed to carry out the suggestions made by Ministers regarding various Departments.
    (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which the Prime Minister gave on 23rd April last to a similar Question by my hon. friend the Member for the Tottenham Division of Middlesex. I am not aware of the evidence upon which the hon. Member bases the allegation contained in the last paragraph of his Question.

    Lunatics and the Law of Divorce.
    MR. DUNN: To ask the Prime Minister, whether he is aware that, according to a recently published Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy, of 123,988 persons certified as incurably insane in England and Wales, over 40 per cent. are married, and that consequently upwards of 57,000 persons are thus condemned by law to enforced celibacy; and whether, having regard to the fact that the greater number of such persons are in poor circumstances and to the evils arising from the existing state of the law, he will afford facilities for the consideration of the Bill for the amendment of the present law of divorce.
    (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) My right hon. friend has ask me to answer
    404
    this Question for him. The number of persons certified to be insane and known to be under care is, I understand, as stated. Of the males so certified, the official statistics show that 47·6 were married, and of the females, 45 per cent. These persons, however, are not certified as incurably insane and a proportion of them recover. The Government cannot undertake to afford facilities for the consideration of the Bill for the amendment of the present law of divorce.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Naval Mechanical Training Expenditure.
    MR. C. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty under which Vote will the cost of the mechanical training establishment appear.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): Votes 1, 2, 5, 8, and 10.

    Engine-Room Artificers at Chatham.
    MR. C. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state why the Chatham depot is unable to secure sufficient engine-room artificers for their local requirements.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The number of engine-room artificers allotted to Chatham for the current year has already been obtained, and no difficulty is anticipated in obtaining the number required for next year.

    Stokers and the Short-Service System.
    MR. C. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what percentage of stokers joined last year under the short-service system; and to what percentage of this number it is proposed to allow to continue service to qualify for pensions.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Answer to the first Question is about 60 per cent. No limit has been placed to the number of special service stokers who may be transferred to continuous service and qualify for pensions under the regulations.

    H. M. S. "Indus."
    MR. C. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the

    405
    cost of officers, petty officers, and pensioned instructors.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Assuming that the Question refers to the "Indus," the Answer is, approximately, £16,000, exclusive of liability for retired pay and pensions, calculated at £6,000.

    Battleship Practice.
    VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the reason why the Battle Practice Return has been issued before the whole Fleet have completed the practice.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: This annual return is published as early in the year as possible; but in some cases, where ships have been unable to complete their practice within the year, they must necessarily be omitted.
    VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the names of the vessels omitted?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Not off-hand, but I will get information for the noble Lord.
    VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether in future years the Admiralty will arrange that the Battle Practice Return shall include a column denoting the weather conditions, and also the motion of the ship.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: This, with other suggestions, will be considered in the general revision of the return which takes place every year.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: When will the revision take place?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I cannot say.
    VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: How can you properly test the efficiency under the present system?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked for notice of that Question.

    H. M. S. "Hannibal."
    VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the "Hannibal," which is shown as being second in the battle practice in the Home Fleet list, carried out two battle practices; and, if so, which was the practice the results of which are given in the Return; and what were the particulars of the other practice.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No, Sir; this ship carried out one battle practice only.

    Mufti for Naval Officers.
    MR. MALLET: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will consider the possibility of granting to certain ranks of naval men the privilege of wearing plain clothes when on leave, which is now given to certain ranks in the Army.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The question will be considered.

    The Channel Fleet.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Channel Fleet, having assembled at Portland for one of its annual cruises, left Portland on 11th March with three battleships, two armoured cruisers, one unarmoured cruiser, and ten destroyers short of strength; and whether he can state the reason of the absence of so many vessels without replacement.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The cruisers and one battleship were undergoing their annual refit. Another battleship was delayed for two days on special duty, and the third was left behind as she is about to be relieved. The destroyers were complete, except that three were docking, but have since left to rejoin the Fleet, and one was under repair. The remaining six were nucleus crew vessels which were not intended to proceed with the Fleet.

    Army Interpreters.
    VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Bristol, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether officers in His Majesty's Auxiliary Forces may be entitled to the

    407
    grant, hitherto refused them, for passing the examination as Army interpreters in foreign languages.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): The Royal Warrant for pay only permits the grant of money to officers of the Regular Forces. I am afraid that I cannot undertake to make the concession suggested in the Question. The funds at present at my disposal are hardly sufficient to meet the requirements of the Regular Army in this respect.

    Partition of Bengal.
    SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, having regard to the unsettled condition of Eastern Bengal, manifested by disturbances in Tipperah, Mymensingh, Pubna, Backergunge, and other places, which are all attributable to and connected with the opposition of the people to the separation of their province from Bengal, to the increase in police and gaol expenditure occasioned thereby, and to the necessity of falling back on the old and forgotton tradition of appointing military officers as civil superintendents of police, to the growing and dangerous alienation between local officials and the people, due directly to the same cause, and to the ill-feeling between Mahomedans and Hindus, of which there was no trace in former times, also due to the same cause, he will take into his consideration the advisability of appointing a Commission, representative of all parties interested, to inquire into and submit a scheme for modifying the partition of Bengal, with special reference to the appointment of a Governor and Council for Bengal, in accordance with the intention of the Statute of 1853 (16 and 17 Vic., c. 95), and the delegation to certain local authorities of powers corresponding to those which, under the Indian Act V., of 1868, obtain in Scinde, as was suggested by his predecessor in office.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,): I have nothing to add to what I have already said on this subject, but I must not be understood to admit the existence of a connection as of cause and effect between the various sets of facts alleged by my hon. friend. As for appointing a Commission, I am of opinion that the
    408
    question is one that can only be settled by His Majesty's Government on their own responsibility.
    SIR H. COTTON: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman holds out no hope of reconsidering this question?
    MR. MORLEY: I think I had better adhere to the language I have always used on this subject.
    SIR H. COTTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he recalls the assurance of the Prime Minister that, if new facts were brought to light, the' Government would be in a position to reconsider the matter, and whether the facts stated in my Question are not new within the meaning of that assurance?
    MR. MORLEY: If new facts are brought to my notice I will consider them, but the facts cited by the hon. Member do not seem to me to come under that description.
    SIR H. COTTONgave notice that on an early date he would call attention to the grievous evils which had resulted in India from the partition of Bengal, and move a Resolution.

    Famine in Orissa.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether his attention has been called to the fact that several deaths have occurred in the village of Madhupur, Orissa, from starvation; and whether he will urge upon the Government of India the necessity of making further and sufficient provision to relieve the famine-stricken people.
    MR. MORLEY: The distress caused by heavy floods in part of Orissa, where the Madhupur estate is situated, has been the subject of careful inquiry. The Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, after visiting the locality, satisfied himself that the accounts which had appeared in the newspapers were exaggerated, and that the relief measures taken by the local authorities were adequate. I do not propose to interfere.

    The Thakurs of Bikanir.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether

    409
    he is aware that in 1870 the Thakurs of the State of Bikanir petitioned the Government of India regarding the forcible resumption by the Bikanir Raj of lands held by the Thakurs, and the levying of assessments in excess of those fixed, and that thereupon the Government of India intervened and settled the dispute; that in 1872 Sir Edward Bradford, then political agent at Jeypur, was deputed to inquire into the complaints preferred in that year of non-compliance with the orders and directions given by the Government of India in 1870, and that in 1883, further disputes having arisen between the Bikanir Raj and the Thakurs, a special committee was appointed by the political agent in Bikanir and the agent of the Governor-General in Rajputana to adjudicate upon all such disputes relating to lands confiscated by the Bikanir Raj; whether, having regard to these specific instances of interference by the Government of India in a matter of internal policy with the actions of the Maharaja of Bikanir, he will order an inquiry to be made into the case of Thakur Bhairon Singh and two others, nobles of that State, who have been kept strictly imprisoned within the fort at Bikanir since 2nd January, 1905, and whose estates have been confiscated as the result of various irregular proceedings, and on the alleged charge of seditious conduct in approaching the Government of India for redress of grievances connected with the curtailment of their established rights and privileges as nobles of the State; and whether, in view of the fact that two of these persons are still arbitrarily detained at Bikanir and prevented from taking any action on their own behalf, and that the estates of the third, who has died in confinement, are being withheld from his son and successor, he will ascertain what were the exact orders passed by the Maharaja of Bikanir in each case, what grounds exist for declining to communicate them to the persons affected thereby, and what is the evidence on which they are based.
    MR. MORLEY: I am aware of the history during the period referred to in the first part of the Question. The disturbed state of the country between 1865 and 1883 reached a degree at times which necessitated the interference of the paramount Power in the internal affairs of
    410
    the State to place the relations of the Maharaja and Thakurs on a stable basis. No conditions of misrule exist at present requiring a departure from the principle of non-interference. The Government of India have reported, as my hon. friend is aware, that a petition to them of the Thakurs had formed the subject of careful inquiry; that the case was not one in itself to justify a departure from the established policy of not interfering in the internal affairs of a Native State. I would point out that, as my hon. friend is already aware, one of the two persons described by him as "still arbitrarily detained" was released in August, 1906, and his lauded property restored to him. In these circumstances I see no reason for instituting inquiries.

    Opium Revenue in British India.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the revenue from opium consumed in-British India increased by £235,217, or 35 per cent., during the ten years ending 1905–6, and that there has been a further increase since that year of £120,048; whether he can state what proportion of these increases is attributable to higher duties and success in combating contraband trade; what was the amount of licit opium issued for sale and consumption in India in 1895–6 and 1905–6, respectively; and what is the estimated amount for the current year.
    MR. MORLEY: As regards the effect of higher duties I find that though there was an increase of 35 per cent. in revenue as mentioned by my hon. friend, the amount actually issued for sale and consumption increased by less than 12 per cent. In 1895–6 the quantity was 7,458 chests, and in 1905–6, 8,328 chests. These figures include Malwa opium as well as Bengal opium. I am unable to estimate the consumption of the present year. The proportion of the increased revenue due to suppression of the contraband trade cannot be statistically stated. But it is a material point that in Burma, which contributed four-fifths of the true increase of revenue during the period, and where alone licit consumption has largely increased, the existence of widespread smuggling was most notorious.

    The Looting of the "Minota."
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the looting of the colonial trading schooner "Minota" and the massacre of her captain by natives at Tulagi, in the Solomon Islands; if the Government has any man-of-war in the neighbourhood which can be sent there to restore order; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
    MR. J. A. PEASE (; for Mr. CHURCHILL): The Secretary of State has no official information as to this incident, but will inquire of the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific. As Tulagi is the headquarters of the resident Commissioner for the British Solomon Islands Protectorate, it may be presumed that any steps necessary to restore order have already been taken.

    Transvaal Mineral Rights and Taxation.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the recommendation to tax unworked mineral rights in the Transvaal, made by the Committee on Unemployment in the Transvaal Mines; and whether he will obtain this Report and lay it upon the Table of this House.
    MR. J. A. PEASE (for Mr. CHURCHILL): The Report of the Commission referred to has not been received at the Colonial Office at present, but inquiry shall be made with regard to it.

    Colonial Grants-in-Aid.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will urge the Colonial Office to make inquiry into the present taxation of those Colonies which receive grants-in-aid, with a view to seeing whether the system of taxation in use in solvent Colonies could be so adapted to those insolvent Colonies that grants in-aid might no longer be needed.
    MR. J. A. PEASE (for Mr. CHURCHILL): There is really very little difference in the system of taxation in Colonies whose conditions are generally similar such as the West Indian Islands,
    412
    the fact that one Colony is solvent and another is at present in receipt of a grant-in-aid is not due to the system of taxation, but to other causes. The Estimates of the Colonies in receipt of grants-in-aid are most carefully reviewed every year by the Secretary of State in consultation with the Treasury, and every reasonable opportunity is taken of increasing the local revenue in order to make both ends meet. In spite of active development work considerable reductions have this year been effected upon the Colonial Office Estimates.

    Panama Canal Labour.
    SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Report upon the conditions of indentured labour on the Panama Canal will be presented.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): The hon. Member is probably referring to the Report, furnished last October by His Majesty's Minister at Panama, on the conditions of the British West Indian labourers employed on the Panama Canal. The Report will be laid before the House without delay, but I am unable to give an exact date.

    Temperance Drinks.
    MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the number of samples of herb beer and other beverages sold as temperance drinks analysed at the Government laboratory during the past three years; the number found to contain more than two per cent. of proof spirit; and the percentage of proof spirit there disclosed.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): I have had a statement prepared giving the information asked for in tabular form, which will be circulated with the Votes to-morrow.

    Alien Immigration Boards.
    MR. ARMITAGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what period the members of the alien immigration boards are appointed.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,): The appointments of members of immigration boards under the Aliens Act, 1905, stand for as long as the persons appointed are willing and able to afford their services in that capacity.
    MR. ARMITAGE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken for the formation of advisory committees to assist alien immigration boards, as promised by him on 5th March, 1906.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: My right hon. friend gave no promise in this matter. The question of arranging for the establishment of such advisory committees, for which there is no provision in the Act, was at one time considered, but after further experience of the working of the Act my right hon. friend does not think them necessary.

    Grimsby Aliens Rejection.
    MR. ARMITAGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, on the 28th February, at Grimsby, a Russian named Itzig Woffenburg, with wife, daughter, and son, were rejected by the Grimsby Immigration Board; whether he had in his possession the sum of £43 12s.; whether he was going on a visit to his two daughters and a son-in-law in Edinburgh; and, if so, what the grounds were upon which the rejection took place.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: My right hon. friend is informed by the Grimsby Immigration Board that assuming the question to relate to an alien family named Koffenberg, the facts are as stated in the first two sentences thereof. It may be added that the man was aged sixty, the wife fifty-four, daughter fifteen, and the son five years. The alien stated that he was going on a visit as set out in the Question, but he had no letter to show in corroboration, and the Board who have the authority, and with the alien before them are in the best position, to judge having regard to his demeanour and the manner in which he answered questions put to him did not credit his statement and were of opinion that he intended to remain
    414
    here with his family, and that having regard to his age and the number of his dependents there was no chance of his being able decently to support himself and his family.

    Factory Inspectors.
    MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any of the factory inspectors on probation, who have not yet passed an examination in factory law, have been entrusted with cases in Court involving questions of breaches of the factory law; and, if so, with what result.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The practice of the Department is for prosecutions to be undertaken by the more experienced inspectors in a district. I find that in only two cases have prosecutions been undertaken by inspectors who had not at the time passed the examination in factory law; in one case a conviction was obtained—the other case, which was taken by the junior inspector in an emergency, was dismissed.
    MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Factory Department receives reports from inspectors and assistant inspectors showing the amount of time spent by them in office work, and in work out of offices of factory and workshop inspection; and whether he could state how the time of the inspectors and assistant inspectors for each division was distributed under these two heads for the month of January last.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The chief inspector receives annually from the divisions returns showing the amount of time spent in office work and inspection work respectively. The figures for a single month could only be obtained by calling for a special return which would involve a good deal of the clerical work which I infer from the Question the hon. Member deprecates: moreover the figures for a single month might not give a true average. I will see whether the tabulation of the figures for 1907 which have not been received can be expedited, and will communicate further with the hon. Member.
    MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the possibility in the tabulation of showing month by month how the time is arrived at in this way?
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, if it does not involve an amount of labour out of proportion to the results.

    Durham Mine Accident.
    MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is his intention to send a representative to the inquest to be held on 23rd March on the fourteen men who lost their lives at the Washington Glebe Colliery, in the county of Durham, on the 21st February.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, Sir. The Home Secretary will be represented at the adjourned inquest by Mr. J. B. Atkinson, His Majesty's Inspector of Mines for the Newcastle district.

    Blofield Maintenance Case.
    MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been directed to the case of Frederick William Brown, who was sentenced to twenty-one days imprisonment at the Blofield petty sessions on the 9th instant for arrears under a maintenance order with respect to his father; and whether as the evidence showed the man only earned 12s. a week, he will consider the advisability of restricting the practice of some boards of guardians of compelling men in poor circumstances to contribute to the relief of their aged parents under the Poor Law and the fixing of a wage-limit below which prosecutions shall not take place.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I am informed that in the case referred to the father is an inmate of the workhouse, and that he has three sons who are young and unmarried men. They are receiving the average agricultural wages payable in the union at the present time, viz., 12s. a week, but there is no reason to believe that they did not receive the extra payments usual for harvest and summer work, which bring up the average wages for the year to 14s. or 15s. a week. The guardians
    416
    considered that they ought to contribute 1s. per week each to the maintenance of their father. The matter is one for the guardians and the justices, and I have no authority to interfere with regard to it. Legislation would be necessary to enable effect to be given to the suggestion of my hon. friend, but, as I have stated on other occasions, the question of contributions by relatives is before the Poor Law Commission, and, pending their Report, I do not propose to introduce legislation on the subject.

    Infantile Ophthalmia.
    LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the large number of cases of blindness caused by ophthalmia of the new-born; whether he is aware that in the great majority of cases timeous treatment of this disease would prevent this result from ensuing; and whether he will take steps, by circular or otherwise, to induce the local authorities, under Section 7 of The Infectious Diseases (Notification) Act, 1889, to order that that Act shall apply to this disease.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I am aware that timely treatment will prevent the blindness following on ophthalmia of the new-born. This is fully recognised in the rules of the Central Midwives Board, which direct a midwife in attendance at a confinement, in any case of inflammation of the eyes of the child, however slight, to explain to the husband or nearest relative or friend present that the case is one in which the attendance of a registered medical practitioner is required, and to give him a form for sending for such help. She must send a copy of this form to the Local Supervising Authority, who are thus made aware of the case. I would point out that the primary object of the Infectious Diseases (Notification) Act is to prevent the spread of infection. This danger scarcely exists in cases of ophthalmia of the new-born. I am afraid that I could not properly take the precise course suggested by the noble Lord in the last part of the Question, but I am giving consideration to the whole subject.

    Royston School Head Teacher.
    MR. RAWLINSON: I beg to ask the President

    417
    of the Board of Education whether Mr. O. B. Milnes, whose appointment as Head Teacher to the Royston School was refused last year by the West Biding Local Education Authority on educational grounds, has now been appointed to the Bowers Allerton School at a higher salary by the same local authority; whether the educational grounds still exist; and what is the reason for this apparent change of opinion.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,): The Board have not received any intimation of Mr. Milnes's appointment to the school referred to, but I am inquiring of the Local Education Authority whether the appointment has in fact, been made.

    Grant to Stranorlar Reinstated Tenant.
    MR. C. MACVEIGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that Patrick Hannigan, who was evicted from his holding on the estate of Alice A. Hayes, near Stranorlar, East Donegal, and after some time reinstated, was promised a grant from the Estates Commissioners to build up his farmhouses, by an inspector who visited his holding in 1906, which grant he has not yet received; and whether he can say when the grant will be paid to him, as he has lost some of his cattle for want of houses to shelter them.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,N.): The Estates Commissioners gave a free grant of £80 in Mr. Hannigan's case, namely, £53 15s. 0d. for buildings and £26 5s. 0d. for live stock. The whole of this amount has been expended, the last payment being made in January, 1907.

    Mulcair Estate, Limerick.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that not long since Croker Barrington, Esquire, of Barrington's Bridge, Limerick, purchased from the late owner, Maunsell Dixon, an estate of 200 or 300 acres commonly called the Mulcair estate, convenient to where he lives; and will he get the Estates Commissioners to approach Mr. Barrington with a view of
    418
    obtaining the estate for the benefit of the landless people of the locality.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners will make inquiries as to the estate referred to, and if it should be found suitable for their purposes they will approach the owner with a view to purchase.

NEW BILLS.
  HOURS OF LABOUR (SURFACEMEN) BILL.
  "To restrict the Hours of Labour of Surfacemen at collieries called upon to work seven days per week to eight hours per day," presented by Mr. Summerbell; supported Mr. Walsh, Mr. John Taylor, Mr. Glover, Mr. Parker, Mr. Jowett, Mr. Tyson Wilson, and Mr. Thomas Frederick Richards; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 156.]
  COSTS IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL.
  "To consolidate and amend the Law as to costs in Criminal Cases," presented by Mr. Solicitor-General; supported by Mr. Secretary Gladstone, and Mr. Attorney-General; to be read a second time on Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 157.]
  POOR LAW (COMPULSORY CONTRIBUTION EXEMPTION) BILL.
  "To exempt in England and Wales certain poor persons from Compulsory Contributions to the Poor Law Guardians on account of the maintenance of relatives," presented by Mr. Lupton; supported by Mr. Luttrell, Mr. Lehmann, Mr. Higham, Mr. Robert Price, Mr. Winfrey, Mr. John Ward, and Sir John Randles; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 158.]

  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To extend and amend the Acts relating to Crofters' Holdings in Scotland, 1886 to 1891, and the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897; and for other purposes," presented by Mr. Cathcart Wason; supported by Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Leicester Harmsworth, Mr. Weir,

  419
  Mr. Morton, Mr. Lamont, and Captain Waring; to be read a second time upon Monday, 4th May, and to be printed. [Bill 159.]

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee:—
(In the Committee.)
1. Resolved, "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, the sum of £375,817 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
2. Resolved, "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909, the sum of £44,355,400 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

SUPPLY [10TH FEBRUARY] REPORT.
Second Resolution—£100,000 (supplementary), Board of Agriculture and Fisheries)—
MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid that in reference to this Vote he felt compelled to press the hon. Gentleman in connection with a matter raised on the previous night, and that was the unsatisfactory manner in which the Board of Agriculture were administering the Order in connection with gooseberry mildew. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think it was sufficient to read out a portion of an Order so as to show that some arrangement had been made for destroying and pruning infected bushes. But only in the latter part of last summer the Board, in their Journal, in dealing with this very matter, declared that spraying as a means of checking the disease was not altogether-satisfactory, as bushes previously affected had again shown the disease in spite of careful pruning. They had therefore come to the conclusion that it was only by the total destruction of the infected bushes that the disease could be extirpated. That was their opinion, and it was embodied in the first Order
420
issued, but, subsequently to that issue, a deputation from different parts of the country waited on the Board, who, in consequence, relaxed the provisions of the Order and went back to a state of things which they themselves had declared was not satisfactory and did not secure immunity from the disease. Under the first Order the bushes could be destroyed, but under the second there was the alternative allowed of pruning and spraying instead of destroying. His interest was in a county in which up to the present there had been no outbreak of the disease, and the growers were extremely anxious to keep free from it. But supposing an outbreak should occur, they wanted to avoid the delay attendant on going to the Board and having a separate Order made, because they knew what serious delays often happened when the Board was asked to forbid things, and they fear that in the event of such delay the disease would go ahead in the county where, probably, there were more gooseberries grown than in any other county in the United Kingdom. He had to appeal to the Board to enable any county, on the application of the county council, to regulate its own actions in this matter, and, if it chose, to order the destruction of the infected bushes at once. They preferred that to trying those half measures which, in the opinion of the Board, were not only unsatisfactory but also most uneconomical, and which, too, in the opinion of most of those who were acquainted with the subject, would not bring about the results all desired to see attained. He wished to ask the hon. Gentleman for an undertaking that any county should have the privilege, at all events, of returning to the first policy of the Board, a policy which they considered satisfactory and one by which alone they believed immunity from the disease could be secured, whereas it could not be secured under the conditions laid down in the second Order issued by the Board. In connection with another point he would ask the hon. Gentleman if he could not see his way, when scheduling comities for disease, to schedule not merely the county, but the particular district and the number of acres infected, so that people might know exactly how far the disease had gone. Such a course would be of great help to those who interested themselves in the matter. Then he desired to refer to the question

421
of milk-blended butter, and on that he hoped the hon. Gentleman, having had time for consideration, would be able to give a more satisfactory answer than he returned on the previous day, with regard to the manner in which the Board of Agriculture was exercising its right to allow certain names to be used for that article. They had mentioned on the previous day one very glaring case in which clearly the intentions of the Act had not been carried out, and he thought it very desirable that the Board should exercise more care in the selection of names. There was a large amount included in the Vote in connection with the subject of small holdings, and he thought they were entitled to ask for a clear statement from the Government with regard to the manner in which that money was to be expended. They had not, so far, been able to ascertain what were the objects for which the money was so immediately required. Indeed, so far as they could gather from the answers to the inquiries they had made, they were led to the conclusion that any expenditure under the Act likely to be incurred in the immediate future would have to be met by the unfortunate occupiers in the shape of an increase in the rent. Therefore they required more information as to the manner in which the money was to be spent. They wanted to know who would bear the cost of the preparations for carrying out the Act and of the valuations which undoubtedly would have to be made, with which cost it would obviously be unfair to hamper the new occupier in the first days of his occupation. They were well aware, of course, of the difficulty in which the hon. Gentleman was placed on the previous afternoon in being called upon to answer these questions in the absence of the real representative of the Board in that House, but, no doubt, now that he had had twenty-four hours reflection he would be able to give them more information.
*THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,): I will deal only with that portion of the hon. Member's speech in which he asks as to the allocation of the £100,000 promised last year and which, in accordance with that promise, is being provided in the Supplementary Estimate. As the hon. Member, no doubt, is aware, that £100,000 is to be paid into the
422
Small Holdings Account of the Board of Agriculture, and, unlike ordinary Votes, no portion of it will be surrendered which may not have been paid out at the end of the financial year. There are three objects, which were fully stated in the debates in this House last year, to which this money is to be devoted. The first is the expense preliminary to the acquisition of the land, and, as I suggested yesterday, the Board will take a generous view of what are preliminary expenses in order to give as much assistance as they can to the county councils in the efforts which many of them are so readily making to put this Act into operation. The second object is the payment of any loss which may accrue to a county council which is voluntarily carrying out the provisions of the Act and which, having taken all reasonable precautions, still makes a loss on the transaction. That is in accordance with the promise which I gave to the Leader of the Opposition last year. Of course, it is a different matter where the Commissioners are compelled, if they are compelled at any time, to act in default of a county council which has failed in its duty. There, of course, the question of the payment of the whole or a part of the loss entailed will be a matter for consideration by the Board and the Treasury in conjunction with the county council, after full consideration of the circumstances which may have arisen.
MR. LAURENCE HARDY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the loss in respect of rent which the county council may incur during the period in which a small holding is being prepared will come out of the Central Fund?
*MR. HARCOURT: That is not a loss in the sense in which I am speaking. I will deal with that later on. The third object for which the £100,000 is intended, and, I think the only other object included in the Bill, is the making of grants to societies for the promotion of co-operation in connection with the cultivation of small holdings. The hon. Member has asked me as to the loss entailed by rent during the period the land is being prepared for the purposes of a small holding, and in regard to that I would point out that where you take a valuation or where a question of

423
tillages arises the amount paid to the outgoing tenant is very often more than recovered by the ultimate harvesting of the crop, and therefore the residual loss to the county council would be a very small one, and, indeed there might be a profit on the proceeding. But, in my opinion, undoubtedly any loss so entailed would be treated as part of the cost of the equipment of the land and would be spread by the county council over a term of years in any financial arrangement by way of loan or otherwise which they may make for spreading the cost of the equipment over a given period.
MR. LAURENCE HARDY: I was not alluding to valuations. I was alluding to the actual rent to be paid during the time the land is unoccupied and while it is being got ready for the new tenant.
*MR. HARCOURT: It is not quite clear that the land which is being got ready for the new tenant should, necessarily, become derelict during that time. The county council could easily make arrangements for the crops that may be in the ground to be gathered during that period. But still, if there is any loss during that period it obviously comes under the head of the cost of equipment. But the hon. Member must not assume that because some building or cottages are to be put up in a small corner of the holding, therefore the remainder of the land, either arable or pasture, cannot be occupied by the new holder. I do not see that there will be any serious difficulty in working the matter out in the way we suggest.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: How much of the £100,000 has been incurred this year? On two out of the three heads mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, I understand no expenditure has been incurred.
*MR. HARCOURT: Probably some expenditure has been incurred, but I cannot say how much. Arrangements have been made in the Act so that this £100,000 goes into the Small Holdings Account of the Board of Agriculture, and if not spent this year it will be retained for future needs.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had sug-
424
gested that no loss would accrue by reason of the small landholder being pre vented from occupying his holding while the buildings or houses were being erected. But that depended on whether or not the small holder was living in close proximity to the holding. In the event of a man living in a cottage in a village and taking a certain amount of land adjoining it, he might be able to occupy the small holding while the buildings he required were in course of erection. But that, too, largely depended on the time of the year and the nature of the holding. He understood the object of the Act was to increase the number of people on the soil and to bring more land into cultivation. But they would not be increasing the number of people on the soil if the small holdings were to be composed solely of grass land. Such a policy would, on the contrary, tend to diminish the number, and he presumed therefore that the holdings would be largely arable. In that event it was absolutely essential, unless it happened to be summer time, that there should be buildings on the land, for the cattle, horses, and pigs would have to be housed. [A laugh.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite might laugh, but he did not think they had over shown themselves serious in this matter, or that they had ever realised the serious difficulties involved in arranging a small holding successfully. If they would only take the trouble to go into the villages and ask information from people acquainted with the land, who had lived and worked upon it, they would find that his statement was right; they would discover that a man could not make a small holding by simply digging up a piece of ground. There was a great deal to be done on the land before it could be made profitable. There was another point which ought to be considered, and that was how was the tenant going to live while the crops were growing. It had to be remembered that they did not come up in one night.
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. The hon. Member is discussing a question which is not now before the House. He must confine himself to the expenditure of this £100,000.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he desired to ask with regard to the expenditure of that money, how the loss in the valuation was

425
going to be made up in the event of the county council allowing the small holder to spread his payments over a period of years. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that this was all provided for by the amount of the Vote. But he was inclined to think that that was an error, because the £100,000 was not to be an annual grant, it was a lump sum intended to provide for the preliminary expenses which might arise in establishing these small holdings. It was to be presumed that in course of time, what with the expenses of arbitration and valuation and other things in connection with a large number of small holdings, the £100,000 would be exhausted. There was no provision, however, in the Act such as there was in the Scottish Bill for an annual grant of money. Yet they must bear in mind that a valuation would take place whenever there was a change of tenancy, and that might occur pretty often, as it was not to be expected a man would remain on the holding for ever. Then there was the question of spreading these payments over a number of years, and he did not know how the right hon. Gentleman could justify such a policy as that unless he first threw over the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for War, who had both expressly stated that they would not sanction this system of ex tended payments, because it was unsound finance. If it were unsound for the Army and Navy, surely it was equally unsound in the case of small holdings. He was glad to see the Secretary for War in his place. He hoped he would settle his difference with the First Commissioner of Works on this point in private, and then announce to the House what position the Government were going to take up on this very important financial question.
*MR. HARCOURT: I can only speak again, of course, by the leave of the House, but I am anxious immediately to relieve the mind of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. He has said he would like us to settle in private the acute differences which he suggests have arisen between my colleagues and myself Well, I prefer to do so in public. I think he misunderstood me yesterday. No doubt, it was my fault, but my remarks were directed entirely to the provisions of the Act by which the
426
county councils are empowered to raise loans for two purposes. They are empowered to raise a loan for eighty years for the purchase of the land, and then they are empowered by the Bill to raise a loan for a term not exceeding fifty years for the equipment of the land. The valuation would come under the head of the necessary equipment of the land and it would be included in the loan raised for that purpose by the county council, and as that loan is only to be repaid by the tenant whoever he may happen to be, it will be spread over a period in the form of a small addition to the rent. I hope the hon. Baronet will not think my finance is so unsound as he suggests.
SIR F. BANBURY: I cannot see any difference between the finance of this Act and the raising of loans for naval and military works.
MR. BRIDGEMANsaid he did not think they had yet got to the bottom of the question how that £100,000 was to be spent. They were told on the previous night that up to the present no expenses had been incurred under the Act, and to-day they were informed that possibly some had been incurred, but that the greater part of the money would be carried over to another year. If that were the case he ventured to assert that some of the supporters of the Government had been rather misleading the public by their speeches on this question. He saw that in the ordinary Estimates for this year there was no provision made for a continuance of the grant, or for a larger sum being used for the purposes of small holdings. But he had a leaflet in his hand dealing with the question of small holdings, and bearing the names of the hon. Members for Ilkeston and Northwich, in which it was said that for the three months ending March 1908, Parliament was to be asked to provide £100,000 for the purposes of the Act. Then he had a second leaflet issued by the Liberal Publication Department and written by the Member for the Rugby Division, in which it was pointed out that the £100,000 would only represent the expenditure for one quarter of the year. At the time these leaflets were being distributed in his constituency

427
speeches were also being made which undoubtedly led people to suppose that £400,000 a year would be spent under the Act. What they were entitled to know was whether this £100,000 was intended to cover such expenses as the county council might return as having been incurred by them before the 31st March, or was it supposed to be a grant to cover such proportion of the expenses as might be incurred in the rest of the year. As no provision had been made in the ordinary Estimates was he right in thinking that none was intended to be made? If so, the people had been grossly deceived as to the amount of money to be spent for the purpose of the Act.
*MR. J. A. PEASEsaid the Government, of course, did not feel that they were responsible for every statement made by their supporters in the country.
MR. BRIDGEMAN: Not for statements by the Liberal Publication Department?
*MR. J. A. PEASEsaid the Government were probably not responsible for those. The fund was not necessarily limited to £100,000; that amount would be augmented by the Treasury from time to time, so that the statutory purposes of the fund might be fulfilled. If more than £100,000 was required in the course of a year it would be supplied when wanted. He would like to add that if there had been any mis-statement by the Member for the Rugby Division he could only say it was quite excusable, for even an eminent K.C., like other hon. Members, could not always follow the complicated system of Treasury finance. The Government were undoubtedly grateful to the hon. Member for Rugby for the efforts he had made in the country to explain this Act. In reply to the hon. Member for Ashford who had expressed dissatisfaction with the replies given on the preceding night on the question of gooseberry mildew, he would like to explain that the growers protested against the drastic steps first taken by the Board, and as it was obvious that the Board must secure the cooperation of the growers if they wished to eliminate the disease from the country the regulations were modified, other-
428
wise the regulations might not be observed, and the very end which they had in view would be defeated. The Board were satisfied that the steps now being taken were sufficient. If they did not prove so, of course, more drastic steps would be taken. As to the request for more details of the scheduled areas and for more publicity, if it could be shown that it would be of any advantage to publish fuller details where outbreaks occurred that would be done. But the Board desired to go step by step and to take whatever course experience proved to be best. If, unfortunately, the disease broke out in the county of Kent, communication would be at once entered into with the local authorities, and in an hour or two possibly the order might be extended to Kent. Under the provisions of the Act the local authorities without the consent of the Department might pay compensation if they desired to do so.
MR. LAURENCE HARDY: And will they be allowed to vary the order and put in special provisions for Kent?
*MR. J. A. PEASE: I think that would require a separate order.
MR. LAURENCE HARDY: Would the Board grant one?
*MR. J. A. PEASEsaid the Board desired to work with the local authorities, but while many of them had been active in the matter, others apparently had not realised the importance of the powers conferred on them by the Act. With regard to milk-blended butter, he was advised that the intentions of Parliament had been strictly adhered to. The article generally termed milk-blended butter must bear a complete description of its contents, quite apart from its name, which, of course, could not include the word butter. The description not only included the percentage of water contained, but also the number of ounces. He was confident that the suspicion was unfounded that in this matter they had gone outside the intentions or words of the Act.
SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELDsaid the hon. Gentleman had expressed the hope that during the

429
time the small holder was not in occupation of the small holding the county council would farm small holdings themselves. He wished to inquire how he proposed they should do that, and how it was proposed to get the money. Would the county council be supposed to appoint a bailiff, and were they to have a farm committee to look after these matters? If the county council had to farm land when the smallholder was not in occupation, he wanted to know how they were going to do it, and out of what money the expenses were to be defrayed. The hon. Gentleman had said that very likely the county council would be able to repay themselves the money out of the proceeds from the harvest which they would reap later in the year. But supposing the harvest was a bad one, and resulted in a loss—and the hon. Gentleman knew as well as he did that farming was not always a profitable occupation—who was to pay for the loss? Would it be the ratepayers, or would the money be provided out of the £100,000 for the working of the Act? A point was raised the previous night as to a farm he proposed to let. There were on it three sets of buildings, including a house and stabling for eight horses. The county council proposed to place two families in the farmhouse already standing—and he might leave it to the hon. Gentleman to imagine how they would get on together—and to arrange for another outbuilding to be converted into a dwelling for a third smallholder, while they were going to create a fourth in a field adjoining. The county council would have to put up fencings, and drain the land which they were dividing. The fields might be laid down either with wheat, turnips, or potatoes, and he wished to know who was to suffer the loss if the crop proved a failure. If the hon. Gentleman could inform him on this point he would be very much obliged, because he believed such information would help the county council a good deal in their management of the question. He did not raise this point simply with the desire to make political capital out of it. They had to find the means whereby they could make the scheme a success, and he asked the question solely with the idea of trying to make the Act a perfect success.
*MR. J. F. MASONsaid he wished to refer to the possible loss during the year of equipment which might fall upon the ratepayers of the county. Before a successor was found he understood the county council would have to farm the place at the cost of the ratepayers. That, in any case, would be a speculative operation. Then there was the case in which the county council had taken the land on a 14 years' lease, and after the first two or three years the small holder abandoned it, and the farm again came into the hands of the council, who presumably, would not desire to lot it run to waste and would have to farm it again. If all those risks would be put upon the ratepayers it seemed to him quite possible that the demand upon the rates might very easily exceed the amount which the Act allowed to be raised from the rates for the whole of its working. If that was so it was evident that the whole operation of the Act would come to an absolute deadlock. He believed that the largest amount which could be raised under the Act in Oxfordshire would be £5,000, and supposing the number of small holdings was anything like the demand anticipated, it seemed to him quite possible that the call upon the rates would exceed the £5,000 limit and under those circumstances the Act was bound to come to an absolute deadlock.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This is not, in one sense, a very convenient time to deal with some of these Estimates, because, being the Report stage, the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote has not the same freedom that he would have on the Committee stage. Nevertheless I am sure the House will be only too glad to give him permission to deal with the questions which are of the most fundamental importance in connection with this Act. I am only going to raise an instance which was brought up last night of which the Department must be fully seized, and of which I have no doubt they have adequate information dealing with the very general points of policy with which I mean to trouble the House on the present occasion. The actual question before us is the £100,000 voted in the course of the present financial year, and the question is to what purpose that is or ought to be devoted,

431
and how it should be expended in furthering the objects of the Act. My hon. friend behind me has already quoted a leaflet which has reached its second edition, written by the hon. Member for the Rugby division, in which the following words occur in respect of this very £100,000 with which the House is at present engaged.—
"The great difficulty in providing small holdings will be the cost of setting out the land, dividing it, fencing it, and supplying it with buildings and the like, and these expenses, unless some money help is given, will stop many a promising proposal."
This help is given in paragraph 2, referring to the £100,000 and the successors of that £100,000 which no doubt the Government will ask the House to vote next year and in subsequent years. That being the promise which has been made, and for which the Party opposite are responsible as a Party, because the leaflet is published by the Liberal Publication Department in connection with the National Liberal Federation—the Party opposite so far are collectively, if not severally and individually, responsible for this impression which is widespread throughout the country. The right. hon. Gentleman opposite now gets up and tells us that not a single penny of this £100,000 is going to be devoted to the purposes mentioned in this pamphlet. That moans to say that not a penny of it is going towards the cost of setting out the land or towards dividing or fencing the land or supplying buildings and the like. It follows that the hon. Member who is responsible for this pamphlet and the society who have issued it have made their statements without a shadow of foundation. These proposals, which they say are going to be supported and sub-vented out of public funds, are not to have a single sixpence out of public funds to provide the initial cost of starting small holdings. In the face of these circumstances, my hon. friend behind me raised this very important question in a concrete instance which has come under his own personal experience. He offered, as the House knows, a farm to the county council at a less rent than the rent actually paid before, and less than he could probably get in the open market from a farmer prepared to farm the whole farm as an agricultural unit. His offer has been refused by the county council, and it has been refused because
432
the county council say, and say with obvious truth, that there will be a heavy expense thrown upon them during that period in which they would not be able to put small holders on the land because the land is not ready to support them, and they obviously cannot have a tenant whilst the land is in the process of conversion from a big farm into smaller farms. They say that that is a costly process and they are not prepared to undergo it. Then my hon. friend, having failed with the county council, went to the Department and said: "Are you prepared to undertake this offer? Here is a farm offered to you below its commercial value, suitable for small holdings and for which small holders are ready." There are many parts of the country in which they are not ready, but in this case by common admission the small holders are ready. It would, therefore, seem to be the most favourable example you can possibly conceive for carrying out the objects aimed at by the Act which was conducted through the House by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and with whose objects everybody sympathises. If this is not an opportunity for turning a large farm into small farms, when are you going to have an opportunity? Both the county council and the Department say there are obstacles in the way; and yet the objection in this case is not that the landlord is asking an exorbitant price for his land, but that the carrying out of the scheme would be too expensive. Here the landlord offers the land at less than its value. Do you expect very much land to be offered you below its value? If you cannot deal with a situation in which the land is offered you below its value, how are you going to deal with it when the land is offered at its proper value? What peculiarity is there in connection with the farm offered by my hon. friend which is not incidental to every offer that is likely to be made, or, indeed, that you can conceive being made in a county or district where the farms are which you desire to make smaller? In every such case there will be this interval between the moment at which the large tenant leaves his holding either by death or resignation and the moment when the small holders can come into possession. There is no ground for thinking that the interval is likely to be longer or more costly to the county council or the

433
Government in this particular case than in all other cases. If, then, the interval is an adequate and reasonable one in the case of the farm offered by my hon. friend, how are we ever, under this Act, to see small holdings created in any part of the country? The right hon. Gentleman will thoroughly understand it. I do not urge this as an objection to the scheme for starting small holdings, but I do venture to point out that there must be some defect either in the machinery started by the Act of last year or in the manner in which that Act is being administered, which has interposed this obstacle between my hon. friend's intentions and the actual creation of small holdings. That obstacle is quite a simple one, and it is the very obstacle which the hon. Member for the Rugby division refers to in the pamphlet issued by the Publication Department of his Party, viz., the difficulty as to the cost of setting out the land, fencing it, supplying buildings and the like. You ought not to throw upon either the county council or the future small holder such costs as these. Why should you throw the cost on the county council? Why should the ratepayer of a particular county have their rates augmented and a new burden put upon them because the Government desire, for broad social reasons, to modify the existing system of occupation of land? Why should they bear the charge? I do not think any human being can find a reason. Why should the future holder bear the charge? The whole principle of the Act was that the county council should not lose any money by the creation of small holdings. If the county council are to lose no money, and if the State is not going to come to their assistance, and if the transforming of big farms is a costly proceeding, the only person who remains on whose shoulders that burden can be thrown is the small holder. If the taxpayer and county council ought not to be asked to do it, the only person that remains is the small holder. The money has to be found somewhere. I am afraid that in view of these facts you are going to start small holdings under conditions predoomed to failure. The difficulties of small holdings are very great, even when they are favourably situated in regard to markets, and the nature of the soil is specially fitted for intensive cultivation. If you are going to throw upon the small holder burdens which have
434
nothing to do with the equipment—because the cost of putting up cottages or the necessary fences and the other things referred to are not equipment but the waste incidental to the period of transition—then you are placing upon him a very heavy burden indeed. For that the small holder is to get nothing at all, and he ought not to be charged for it. I do not see how your system is to go on if that is to be done. It is plain that if you do not charge it to the small holder you must charge it to the ratepayer or the taxpayer, and it is manifestly unjust to charge it to every ratepayer, because it does not benefit the ratepayer as such, for it is only part of a general scheme of social regeneration. The conclusion is irresistible that the person who ought to boar the loss of this period of transition must be the taxpayer; and what I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman is whether the Government or the Department have faced the necessity—whether they are prepared to say that this £100,000, and the other Votes of the same character, will not be used merely to deal with the preliminary expenses—with valuation, and matters of that kind—but in order to throw upon those who really ought to bear it, the charge inevitable to the transition from large culture to small culture. That is a perfectly plain question and it is strictly revelant to this Vote. It touches the very centre, essence, and core of the whole policy of the Government. The justification for what I have said is to be found in the pamphlet issued by the Liberal Party of which I am speaking, and the whole thing is brought to a focus, emphasised, and made plain and lucid to the idlest intelligence by the concrete case brought forward by my hon. friend, in which he shows that even where land suitable for small holdings is offered to the county council, and where small holders are ready to occupy the land, yet in the opinion of the Government Department the county council is justified in refusing the land, and the Department is justified in not carrying a scheme over the heads of the county council by accepting this relatively cheap land for the purposes for which the Act of last year was passed. I have not entered into irrelevant details. I have tried to focus the attention of the House on the crucial point, and I earnestly trust the Government will give a clear answer to what I

435
am vain enough to think is a perfectly clear question.
*MR. EVERETTsaid it was extremely unfortunate that the hon. Member for South-west Norfolk was not in the House at the present time. The hon. Member had probably had more experience in dealing with small holdings than any other Member in the House, being chairman of a small holdings association which had dealt with many cases precisely like that put before the House. Speaking in Committee yesterday he had stated that he had had to do with several cases such as that just described, and in every case had been able to make a profit during the year in which the farm was being prepared for the small holders. He himself imagined that the only reason why the county council did not accept the offer of the particular farm referred to was that their arrangements were not in a sufficiently advanced state for them to know who were suitable men to put on to the holdings, and the methods that ought to be adopted.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am told that that is not the case. I am told that there were small holders ready and that the county council knew they were ready.
MR. EVERETTthought the county council were wanting in pluck when they did not accept the farm offered on a thirty-five years lease at an exceedingly low rate. He regretted the farm was not accepted forthwith and made the best of in the year during which it was being prepared for those who were to become the future permanent tenants.
*MR. HARCOURT: I do not know how much longer the House will tolerate my disorderly intervention in the debate. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is an inconvenient moment to have what is really a complicated Committee discussion on the administration of the elaborate details of a particular Act. I assure the hon. Member for Windsor that in no circumstances can the cost of equipment of small holdings fall upon the ratepayer. That is paid by the county council and is charged to the tenants subsequently in the form of rent, spread over whatever term of years may be agreed upon on the settlement of the question of loans with the Local Government Board. With
436
regard to a vacant small holding, I remind the House that the county council may let surplus land to others than small holders. When dealt with as surplus land it escapes the limitations imposed by the Bill generally.
MR. J. F. MASON: The land may fail to be let altogether and remain in the hands of the county council.
*MR. HARCOURT: Of course there are imaginary cases which could be produced in every discussion; but it is not in accordance with the general experience in England that much land should be left unoccupied. I am not as great an agricultural expert as the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, though, of course I have learned something from him, and I am aware, as he was good enough to inform the House, that crops do not grow up in an hour. The experience of small holdings associations does not confirm the fears of the hon. Baronet that there will be difficulty in getting a crop harvested by a neighbouring farmer or letting land temporarily to the neighbouring farmer himself, who will be very happy to attend to it. With reference to the questions of the Leader of the Opposition, what the hon. Baronet the Member for Brigg has done is to bring before the House special difficulties arising about a particular farm in his own possession. The county council seem to have had a most reasonable offer from the hon. Baronet, but they appear not to have been prepared with their whole scheme or ready at once to let off that farm to smallholders and wished to take it at a later date. I think they would have been well advised to have accepted what seems to have been a generous offer. I would have done so myself in their place without much anticipation of loss in the future. It is not the case that under the Act the Commissioners could come in and take the land. The Commissioners can only come in when the county council is in default or if in a district they wish to set up experimental small holdings to prove their feasibility. In this case there is a demand, the county council are ready to meet the demand, and they cannot be held to be in default, and it is not necessary to prove the feasibility of small holdings, as that is admitted.
SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELDsaid the Commissioners had informed him that if they had accepted the offer he made to them, the same difficulties would have occurred to them as to the county council.
*MR. HARCOURT: Perhaps the difficulty arose because the special class of tenants had to be brought from a distance to occupy that particular farm. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the cost of adaptation might be thrown upon the ratepayers under the Act.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not deal with the case of adaptation, but with the cost incidental to the fact that there must be an interval between the end of the tenure of the large holder and the beginning of the tenure of the small holder. Who is to bear that cost?
*MR. HARCOURT: In another well-known case, that of the Burwell small holdings, there was no interval at all, so that it is not the case that there must necessarily be an interval; but where there is an interval, undoubtedly the cost entailed is cost entailed in the adaptation of the land, and it will be charged to the loan for adaptation and equipment, and will therefore be spread over a series of years. What the right hon. Gentleman described as the waste incident to the period of transition is so extremely small when spread over a long period as to be practically a negligible quantity, and it has been proved to be so in the experience of those who have set up small holdings. There is another point I am bound to refer to. It is a point which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and that was the question as to whether his interpretation of the leaflet issued by the Liberal Publication Department was a correct one. If the right hon. Gentleman's literal interpretation of that leaflet is a correct one, then undoubtedly the leaflet is incorrect, and I will take care that it is corrected to that extent. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and his friends that in any debates that took place last year in Committee upstairs or downstairs on Report, I never suggested for a moment that any part of the grant of £100,000 was to be applied to the equipment of the land or
438
for the erection of buildings. I made it abundantly clear in debate in Committee and on the Report stage that that money was to be applied to various expenses incident to the acquisition of the land, and to losses which might be entailed while the Act was being reasonably carried out by a county council; and also that the grant might be used in giving assistance to co-operative and other associations. I never suggested for one moment that grants from the £100,000 were to be made for anything else.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I did not sit on the Committee upstairs, but my friends who did entirely bear out the recollection as to the statement of the purposes for which the grant of £100,000 was voted. But that fact only makes it less excusable that it should have been stated that it was to be devoted to the purposes indicated in the leaflet published by the Liberal Publication Department and circulated broadcast over the land in connection with the agitation which the Government supporters are carrying on to stimulate the demand for small holdings. The statement has been repudiated by the right hon. Gentleman. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman will have it corrected, and I hope that he will exercise a similar much-to-be-desired censorship on the other publications of the Liberal Publication Department.
MR. HARCOURT: I am very busy.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If the right hon. Gentleman were to correct all the publications of the Liberal Publication Department so that they should square exactly with the truth it would require a great deal of his time. One word as to the real difficulty that has arisen, and which the right hon. Gentleman passes by much too lightly. No doubt there will be difficulties in carrying out the Act, and one of these has been illustrated by the case mentioned by my hon. friend the Member for Brigg. Doubtless there will be cases where the new tenant can at once occupy the land or where arrangements can be made for the cultivation of the land in the interval. But in the great majority of cases in order to turn the big farm into small holdings considerable work

439
will have to be done which must involve a disturbance of occupation, must destroy crops which may be on the ground, or prevent the ground being worked. The right hon. Gentleman refuses—and I do not charge him with any breach of faith—to give any portion of the grant of £100,000 to pay for the loss incurred. If he maintains that refusal, what will be the result? The rent for the land which cannot be used will have to be added to the expense of equipping the land to be acquired by the new tenant when he gets into the holding. What we are asking the new tenant to do is not only to pay for the full use of the land during the time he occupies it, but in addition to exact from him rent for the land before he gets occupation of his holding. I ask the Government: Do they think they will really promote the establishment of small holdings if they refuse to allow a grant out of the £100,000 to meet cases of that kind?
MR. STANLEY WILSONsaid that, as a Member sitting on the back benches, he wished to protest strongly against the fact that not a single member of the Government was prepared to answer the question brought forward by the hon. Member for Brigg. It was a most important question, and if no answer was to be given to it it seemed to him that the Act of last year, on which the Government prided themselves, would prove absolutely unworkable in practice. The question briefly was this: What was to be done with the land while it was being prepared for the new small holder? The right hon. Gentleman had replied by saying that the county council would crop the land. The hon. Baronet had asked a simple question, but the right hon. Gentleman had not given an answer to it. How could the county council find the money to carry on the cultivation of the land? The reason why no member of the Government was prepared to answer the question of the hon. Member for Brigg was absolutely simple. It was that the Government chose last session to place the right hon. Gentleman in charge of an important Bill dealing with agriculture when he had nothing to do with that Department himself. And the right hon. Gentleman was sent
440
down that day and on the previous day to reply to questions as to the administration of the Act now that it had become law. The right hon. Gentleman had got up at the Table on several occasions and declared that he knew nothing of his own Act. Such a state of affairs as now existed was an absurdity. The right hon. Gentleman had had a night's rest, and when he could not answer the questions asked on the previous day he might have taken the trouble to find out whether there was any possible answer to them. The answer which the right hon. Gentleman had given that day to the question put to him by the hon. Member for Brigg had, he thought, been of a most unsatisfactory character. The whole financial methods of dealing with the Act seemed to him to be absurd and impossible. In the Estimates of the present year there was no mention of the £100,000 and no Vote for another £100,000; nor was there the slightest mention to the House that £100,000 had been voted last year. He asked the right hon. Gentleman what was the attitude of the Government in regard to this particular matter? Did they intend to continue the grant of £100,000 during the coming year? And would it be done by way of a Supplementary Estimate, or how would it be done?
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he thought from what had fallen from the hon. Member that it must be obvious that the Government would have been better advised if they had not taken this particular Estimate to-day, but had waited until the representative of the Department of Agriculture could have attended. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman who was now filling his position repudiated the leaflet circulated by the Liberal Publication Department and that instructions would be given that the pamphlet should no longer be circulated in order to delude the people on this important subject. He wished the right hon. Gentleman had answered the question pressed upon him from more than one quarter of the House. They were very anxious to discover some of the details for which this large sum of money was to be voted. It was shrouded in mystery except that the £100,000 was to assist in

441
providing the machinery whereby the Small Holdings Act was to be carried on. It was in no sense to pay for building materials or the like. His recollection of the Act was that some of the £100,000 might be called upon to make good the losses which would arise under the scheme. The question he would press on the right hon. Gentleman was: In the event of the £100,000 being found in practice to be wasted on law charges and inspectors' fees instead of in actually providing small holdings, could he give the House any estimate whatever of the number of small holdings that would be carried on with the money? They knew that £100,000 was to assist in the project of providing small holdings, but they had no chance whatever of estimating what benefit it would be to the small holders in the long run. Was it not possible that a large part of the money might be frittered away in compelling the local authorities to put the Act into operation? The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Brigg had been tricked out in order to emphasise an argument, but he thought it was far better to take a concrete instance than to deal in generalities, and they all knew that the hon. Member for Brigg was in favour of a scheme of small holdings rather than against it. With no desire in the world to prevent small holdings being started where they were economically sound and where they did not undersell those who were engaged in a similar occupation, he thought the Government were making a very meagre effort to carry out their great flag-waving performance at the general election. They seemed to think that they could pass a Bill through the House of Commons and vote £100,000 for an indefinite period. The Junior Lord of the Treasury, in referring to the pamphlet issued by the Liberal Publication Department, said that, although it was wrong, yet if the £100,000 was insufficient to carry out the Act more money would be found. That was going further than the statement in the pamphlet to which so much objection had been taken; and surely the House should have some estimate as to what amount of money was wanted. It appeared to him that to rush this Estimate through the
442
House on the understanding that if it proved insufficient the Government were prepared to ask for an unlimited supply, was not a fair course to pursue. Nothing could be more vague than for a Government to say that if the Estimate of £100,000 they put forward was not enough they would present another for a further £100,000 or £200,000. He would like to know whether this sum of £100,000 was also to include a certain amount of expenses for instructors. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that a man might be brought from one part of England to another in order to be supplied with a farm in a different part of the country from that to which he was naturally adapted. They all knew that farms, whether on a large or on a small scale, differed throughout England, not to mention Ireland and Scotland, and he wished to ascertain whether it was intended that Irish farmers who had been unsuccessful in obtaining allotments in congested districts would be brought across to Essex or Kent and have a farm provided for them under the Act.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is now discussing the general provisions of the Act, but that does not come under the review of the House at the present time, but only the question as to the allocation of this £100,000.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he was just going to ask whether, in such a case as he had put, this £100,000 would be used to instruct any farmer coming to a fresh place, because it appeared to him that if a part of this money was spent in, giving instruction to those who were granted farms under the Small Holdings Act, everyone would agree that it should be given. He did not think that money for a Small Holdings Act could be better spent than in giving those who were to occupy the farms a thorough technical training in that industry on which their livelihood depended. If that was what the £100,000 meant he would like to see part of it devoted to that purpose. He would also urge upon the Government the necessity of keeping a close analysis of how the money was spent after the new holdings had been

443
created, because it would be an inestimable advantage if the right hon. Gentleman could produce evidence of the application of the sum which they were then voting. The right hon. Gentleman should keep a close record not alone of the actual salaries of the multifarious officials employed, but of the effect of having transformed some of the larger farms into smaller ones. He did not think that anyone who took an interest in agriculture, whether in Ireland or in England, could have more valuable data to go upon than that which might be the result of voting this large sum of money for this purpose. Another point to which he would like to refer was one which the right hon. Gentleman pooh-poohed as a merely imaginary idea, viz., that some of the farms taken over by the local authority, might be left derelict. If the right hon. Gentleman would only cast his eyes across the water to Ireland he would know that local authorities did have trouble in letting land which they had acquired under a scheme such as was framed under the Act. The right hon. Gentleman had said they were merely supposing a case, but they knew of concrete cases, and the right hon. Gentleman was really in the air, as he was apt to be in this matter, instead of studying practical details. It was extremely difficult for local authorities after having acquired land and equipped it to find a tenant who was willing to step in. The right hon. Gentleman had still left unanswered the question of who was to bear the loss in such a case, whether it would come from this £100,000 or be paid eventually by the ratepayers of the district. Surely it was not too much to ask for an answer to the question put by the Leader of the Opposition and that it should not be dismissed in the airy fashion in which it had been.
MR. T. L. CORBETTentirely agreed with his hon. and gallant friend that the Government would have been well advised in postponing this Vote until the Minister actually responsible was in the House. With the peculiar charm which the House unanimously admitted the First Commissioner of Works to possess, he had nearly persuaded the House to rush through the
444
Vote of £100,000 without any discussion at all. They were deeply indebted, as they often were, to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London for having dragged out of the Government what the Vote really meant, although even now-there was a somewhat confused impression of what it meant. This was not an annual Vote, but a lump sum of £100,000. The Junior Lord of the Treasury had pointed out that, although it need not all be spent at once, far more might be spent than £100,000. They were not told how much more was likely to be spent. It might be extended into many hundreds of thousands before the Government were satisfied. There was one refreshing incident in the speech of the Junior Lord, and that was the frank and complete repudiation of the abominable pamphlets published by the hon. Gentleman's Party. He thought it gave great satisfaction to every Member that he, standing at the Front Bench, should repudiate entirely leaflets circulated by the Liberal Party throughout the country, which leaflets they knew had been so completely misleading in the past. He could not help thinking, after listening to the discussion, that after the very able and weighty speech made by the Leader of the Opposition, and after the many speeches which had followed, they were entitled to some fuller answer as to what the distribution of the £100,000 would be, and whether the Junior Lord of the Treasury was correct in saying that the £100,000 did not mean the limit, but that it could be almost indefinitely extended. This mode of silently voting money without any discussion should come to an end. The party of economy really seemed to be a party of extravagance, and the pledges of economy made so freely at the election seemed to be departed from when any Vote came before the House. The only Party that appeared to take any interest in these matters was the Unionist Party. He looked at the Nationalist Benches. There was only one Member there. He looked at the Labour Benches. There were only throe Members present. And yet they had been discussing the voting of millions of money.
*CAPTAIN CLIVEthought that the country had looked

445
upon this £100,000 as being practically promised for the purposes of the Small Holdings Act, because those interested in small holdings had certainly been led to expect that that amount and more would be forthcoming from the Treasury to start the Act. If he understood what had happened it appeared to be stated from the Government Benches that day that none of this money was going to be applied in the current year to carrying out the Small Holdings Act. The farmers in the country regarded the Act with some suspicion, because rightly or wrongly they feared that some of the best parts of their farms might be taken away, and from another point of view they felt that there would be an increased charge on the rates. He could not help thinking that they would suspect that the Government, who had opposed the Agricultural Rating Act but dared not repeat it, were trying to throw the burden of the Small Holdings Act, for which they claimed so much credit, on the ratepayers. It seemed to him that at least part of this £100,000 might have been used for such a case as that brought before the House by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Brigg Division, because it appeared that under the Act the Treasury might assist county councils where, through no fault of the county councils, there had been a loss in any particular year He thought the Treasury might have been more generous in assisting the county councils in these matters. It certainly would be extremely hard upon the small holder to have to pay not only the interest on the buildings, but also towards the loss which would occur during the first year. He still hoped that some encouragement would be given to the small holders with regard to these matters.
*MR. GEORGE FABERsaid the Unionist members of the Small Holdings Committee which discussed this matter for many days upstairs, last year, always foretold that the time of disillusionment would come to the small holders. The right hon. Member for Bordesley over and over again impressed on the Committee the fact that when the matter was completely understood it would be found that the
446
beast of burden would be the small holder. He, therefore, was not surprised if disappointment had already arisen in the minds of intending small holders all over the country when they found that this £100,000 was not available for the purpose of providing a great portion of the initial expenditure. They had only just awakened to the fact that they not only would have to pay the rent but also a sum which in eighty years would represent the capital value of the land, and it was a great blow to them to find that at the end of that time the county councils became the owners of the land instead of themselves.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss the policy of the Act as a whole. He is only entitled to discuss the allocation of the £100,000.
*MR. GEORGE FABERapologised for travelling rather wide of the question. He believed, however, that the small holder had got it into his head that this sum of £100,000 was going to provide for the indirect expenses, and that all he would have to pay would be the rent. But during the suspension period, the intermediate period between the time the land was taken from the landlord and the time when it was handed over to the small holder, during which a loss was likely to occur, such loss would directly or indirectly fall upon the small holder. He had not been present during the whole of the debate, but he understood that the right hon. Gentleman had not given any encouraging reply on this point. As he understood, the right hon. Gentleman stated that the £100,000 would not be available to recoup anybody for the loss that might occur during the intermediate period, and that certainly would be a great disappointment to the small holder. Last year the House understood that there would have to be a large sum provided for the cost of equipment, and he did not for one moment imagine that this £100,000 was going to be the beginning and the end of it. Many hundreds of thousands of pounds would have to follow the £100,000 which was now being voted. The House would be entering a fool's paradise if it imagined that this was anything more than the beginning of a great expenditure. This

447
Act, if it was to bring success, was going to cost the country a very large sum. The experiment might not be worth it, though he thought it would be if a large number of small holders could be put upon the land, but there could be no doubt that it must mean a great expenditure of public money.
*MR. CHAPLINsaid that both the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the hon. Member for Suffolk seemed disposed to take the Lindsey county council to task, because they did not at once close with the offer of the hon. Member for the Brigg Division, but he desired to support the county council of the county to which he belonged. He ventured to say that that body was wiser than the right hon. Gentleman in not accepting the offer of his hon. friend. The right hon. Gentleman said that this was a special difficulty, arising in a special case, but the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was quite correct when he pointed out that this was not a special difficulty in a special case at all, but these were difficulties which would necessarily arise in every case, no matter when they arose, and which would always have to be met. The right hon. Gentleman was quite correct in what he had stated as to the course he had always taken with regard to the £100,000. He remembered more, though he had forgotten it when this debate began, that this very question was raised in Grand Committee upon an Amendment which he himself moved. He did not remember exactly what the Amendment was, but he proposed to alter the wording of the clause so as to make the £100,000 available for this particular purpose. The ground upon which he moved the Amendment was that unless that were done, he felt perfectly satisfied that the Bill could never be made a workable Act or a success. The right hon. Gentleman however took the opposite view. His right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition was quite right when he pointed out that all this must be an additional burden on the new tenant, the small holder. How would it work out in the case put before the House in the course of the debate? The hon. Member for the Brigg Division this
448
afternoon had given a concrete case, in which he showed that a sum of £1,200 and probably more would have to be spent on the buildings and equipment and the necessary conversion of this one farm into several small farms. That alone would result with some other expenses that he printed out in an addition of 9s. to 9s. 6d. an acre to the rent. But that was not all that would have to be provided, because the new tenant would be charged rent during the period of conversion which would be a dead loss. In this case the rent was to be 20s. That would come to £200 a year. But that was not all because the tenant right had to be provided for, and that also fell upon the small holder. It would not be a very extravagant estimate to put the value of the tenant right at two years rent which made another £400 a year. So that altogether £650 a year more had to be provided which would work out at 5s. or 6s. an acre more. Here they had at the commencement small holdings on a particular farm paying an additional rent of between 15s. and 16s., and he thought that under these circumstances the county council had acted very wisely. But this would not be a special case; it was what they would have to look forward to in every case. They would always be confronted with these difficulties. That was the reason why in Committee upstairs he had expressed his view as strongly as he could upon this point, showing that if they were determined to make this experiment in the form of compulsory hire, the burden ought to fall on the State. To that opinion he still adhered. And he thought that here they had an object lesson in the case brought forward, which ought to lead them to see that he was not very far wrong in the observations he had made in Committee.
*MR. HARCOURT: I do not rise to further intervene in the debate. I have been asked several questions with regard to the allocation of the sum of £100,000. Those who have taken part in the debate know very well the purposes to which it is to be devoted. I have risen because references have been made to a leaflet containing statements with reference to the allocation of the amount, and I should state at once that a blunder in

449
the leaflet was discovered long ago, and the leaflet was withdrawn long ago. I have in my hand the leaflet which has now been issued by the Liberal Publication Department for some time. It contains no statement with regard to the allocation of that £100,000 which is not absolutely correct, and I now offer the right hon. Gentleman the last revise.
Resolution agreed to.
Third Resolution—(£20 (Supplementary), The Mint, including Coinage)—considered.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the original estimate was £12,000, and now it was £14,307, which was an extremely large increase of about 20 per cent. The explanation of it was that it was to defray the additional expenses for freight in respect of the large quantities of silver required for shipment abroad. He thought they must be indeed unusually large quantities if there was such a great increase in the amount charged for freight. He would like to ask first of all how such a bad estimate had come to be made of the quantity of silver required for shipment abroad. He spoke rather in ignorance, and would like to be corrected; but he presumed that the quantity of silver required for shipment abroad was well known, that it did not vary very much, and that consequently the Mint should have been able to ascertain with a greater degree of precision the amount required for the landing of silver abroad. He would also like to know why such unusually large quantities of silver coin were required for shipment abroad. He assumed that it was not preliminary to bimetallism.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether I am right in supposing, though I think it is very likely, that a good deal of this silver coinage is required for West Africa, where for the most part the silver currency, as far as it existed, consisted of the Maria Theresa dollar, which was the customary medium of exchange. Since the development of the British Empire in West Africa, and possibly in East Africa as well, though of that I know nothing, the English silver coinage has been used, and I think I am right in
450
saying that it has already got considerable circulation. At the time of the death of her late Majesty the matter was seriously considered by the Colonial Office whether they could afford to change the head upon the coinage at the time when the new coins were struck, and whether the head of his present Majesty on the coins for use in Great Britain could be put on the silver coinage for use in West Africa. It was feared that the change might give rise in those regions to the idea that the new money was bad money, which would not meet with acceptance. I am glad to know, however, that those fears were overruled, and I believe that the coinage with the King's head on it is finding ever increasing currency in Africa. That being so, I wanted to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury if he can tell me what arrangement is prevailing as to the profits on the silver coinage. I think I am right in saying that some arrangement for procuring an account of the coinage has been made with certain Colonies, but I am not quite certain to what extent they do account for silver coinage in the great self-governing Colonies at the present time. I believe, however, there were certain arrangements by which they were to share the profits of such silver coinage as was absorbed by them. What I want to ask the hon. Gentleman is whether any similar arrangement is in force with regard to those African Possessions of ours—whether they are allowed to enjoy, as part of their revenue, the profits on the silver coinage sent to them, or whether it is all retained by the Treasury.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): The right hon. Gentleman is probably aware that most of our West African Colonies, and I think the whole of the East African Colonies, are not self-supporting, and the view of the Treasury is that it would be ridiculous to say that we should share the profits with those Colonies to which we are already making grants in aid. It was agreed at the last Colonial Conference that we should allow the whole of the profits on the silver coinage to go to the revenue of the Australian Colonies. Last year we coined something like

451
£23,000,000. We could not possibly make a very near estimate. Indeed, in making up our Estimates we were bound to be guided by the Bank, and the Bank, like everybody else, were completely out in their estimates of the amount of money required last year. Very much more silver and copper coinage was required for circulation last year than we ever needed before. The hon. Gentleman knows that there was a movement all over the world, which no one could foresee. I need not go into further detail, but would merely ask the House to agree to the Resolution.
Resolution agreed to.
Fourth Resolution—Class III., £1,870, Public Trustee—considered.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the details were apparently very small as to what had been spent. Travelling and incidental expenses, £200; salaries, £2,070; and appropriation-in-aid, £400. He presumed the appropriation-in-aid was fees received by the Public Trustee for the services which he had performed for the public. Personally he was very much in favour of the appointment of a Public Trustee, and he was extremely glad the House had passed an Act which permitted of that appointment. He believed his hon. friend opposite did not regard the appointment in the same way as he did, but even great minds sometimes differed, and perhaps this was a case in point. He was obliged to ask how it was that the fees were such a very small sum as £400. He presumed the explanation was that when the Supplementary Estimate was presented to the House the Act had only been working for a short time, and that consequently a fair trial had not yet been given to it. But he would like to know how the work was progressing, and whether they would require Supplementary Estimates of this sort again, or whether the amount of the fees would in future avoid the necessity for a Supplementary Estimate. As to the amount of the fees, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General would agree that it was not desirable that the fees charged should be such as to prevent people availing themselves of the
452
services of the Public Trustee. There was an idea—he hoped it was a misconception—that in addition to the fee charged at the commencement for the Public Trustee to take over the trust, certain other fees were to be charged which might be unreasonable. He was inclined to think himself that that was an error, and that the charges would not be excessive. He did not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman could tell him exactly what the charges were. He would like to know whether the fees were fixed by the Treasury, and whether there was any intention of making a profit, or whether the Treasury desired so to fix the fees as to cover expenses. He thought they should not impose such fees as to make a profit. The conception of the Act was that a service should be rendered to the public, and the service should be one for which the public were justly charged the ordinary expenses arising out of the rendering of the service, but no opportunity should be taken to enable the Department to make a profit. He was quite certain, being anxious for the success of the Department, that if the idea got about that there was a profit to be made out of it it would probably militate against its success.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,: The hon. Baronet has asked why the fees appearing on the Estimate as having been received by the Department are so small. I think he has himself suggested a sufficient reason. The Act only came into operation on 1st January, therefore there has not been time to receive anything but the initial fees. Of course, there are some fees, I apprehend, depending upon the duration of the administration of the estate, but I believe it is the desire of the Treasury, as it certainly was the desire of the promoters and framers of the Bill, not to make this a profit-bearing Department at all. On the contrary, I think the apprehension was that it might result in a loss, having regard to the provision that no estate was to be refused by reason of its smallness, so that naturally, although I believe some distinguished persons on both sides of the House have entrusted the Public Trustee with the management

453
of trust affairs, yet naturally the trust estates first put under the Public Trustee are of a very small character and will bear very small fees. Therefore, the fees have been fixed as low as possible. Of course, there is a margin which will have to be acted upon if it is found that they are too high, but certainly the present intention is to keep them as low as possible. They are fixed by rule, and as little element of discretion as possible is left to those who have the administration. The rule can and will be varied according to experience. At present those who are better able to judge of the Department than I, who have no direct connection with it at all, have been busily engaged, and so far during the short time in which it has been at work it appears to have given satisfaction.
MR. JOHN WARDsaid there was one side of this subject that he wanted to mention. He had supported the appointment of the Public Trustee because he believed it would be a benefit to small testators, and he hoped the Attorney-General would use his influence to get some advertisement of the advantages of the Department exhibited in the Post Offices of the country. He had not seen any advertisement of the Act beyond a statement written by the Public Trustee and inserted in some of the newspapers, but a general standing advertisement in any of the Government offices he had not seen, and he thought the Trustee ought to do something in that direction.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present.
House counted, and forty Members being found present,
MR. JOHN WARD,continuing, said he did not know whether notices of this description could be posted in Post Offices without the sanction of the Postmaster-General, but he should say that if the Trustee really wished to draw the attention of the public to the provisions of the Act, that would be a very good way and he should not think the Postmaster-General would raise any objection to that form of advertisement. He would like to know whether note would be taken of
454
that and the Trustee's attention drawn to it.
*MR. GEORGE FABERsaid be wished to ask the Attorney-General one or two questions regarding the Public Trustee. Could he tell him how many offices, if any, were being established in the provinces under the Act? He quite understood that the Act only came into operation on 1st January, but perhaps some developments in the direction he had indicated had already been made. When the Bill was passing through that House he remembered offering the objection, among others, that there would be a great tendency to centralise the duties of the office and the money as well. Being a country banker he took objection to this, because under the old system where a man died in the country the estate was wound up there, and the country bank and the country-side retained the advantage of the circulation of the money; but under the office of a Public Trustee there would be a great tendency for the money to come to London and the country would correspondingly suffer. There was a provision in the Act that bankers and solicitors who had been employed by a testator in his life-time should still as far as possible be employed by the Public Trustee, instead of the dead man's business being taken out of their hinds and brought to London. He hoped to be told that this was being done and that there was going to be no uprooting of business. If he had a satisfactory assurance on this point, a great deal of the feeling he had against the measure would be removed. He understood that the fees would in no way be prohibitive, because the good that was likely to accrue to small estates must be immensely affected by the proportion the fees would bear to the value of the whole estate. Poor men were not going to get the advantage which it was expected they would receive if the fees were anything like commensurate with the fees that would have been charged by the local solicitor under the old system. He quite agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London that the fees should as far as possible balance the expenses of the office, but no more. The whole object of the measure was that the public

455
should feel secure in employing this public officer and that the fees should be as low as possible. It would be shocking to find that a public Department was making a profit out of the trust. He forgot how it worked out in regard to the Colonies where this system was in operation, but he seemed to remember that in regard to the Cape the fees were found to work out at a high standard, and had a tendency, as all these matters had, to rise. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to reassure them in regard to that also.
MR. FELLsaid it was manifest that it would be more difficult in this case than in most to settle the scale of fees, because in the past the business which had to be paid for under the Act had been done free of charge, so that if business was to be attracted to this Department, and if it was to become really a useful institution in the country, the scale of fees must certainly be very moderate, otherwise other trustees would be persuaded to act as they had in the past, and look after their affairs for nothing. If there was a very low scale of fees there might be large business, and he thought the largeness of the business that would accrue would counterbalance the lowness of the fees, so that although the scale of fees had been fixed, as some I considered rather high, still if the business became a large one, as was hoped, it would be possible to reduce the fees. The Department would thus be popularised and a large number of trust estates would be got under the management of the Public Trustee. It looked as if it would be a matter which might not pay at first, and they would have to supplement it in some small way, because unless low charges were adopted at first they could not secure the business, and it was on a large business being secured that profits would depend. He believed that in several of the Colonies it had been possible to lower the fees, and to make them very moderate indeed, and even then to make a considerable profit; so that if the Treasury would come to the aid of the Department for a short time until it could get the business he really thought it would benefit in the end. If they charged
456
very moderately at the first and so secured a large business—and of course the expenses of the Trust Department spread over this large business would be comparatively small—they would make the Department the useful one which they all hoped it might be.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid that with regard to the establishment of branch offices, they had taken that power by the rules, and that was sufficiently indicative of the intent of the Department with regard to country business. Of course it would depend a good deal upon the prospects, and it would not be desirable to put up important offices at the cost of some hundreds a year, unless it was warranted by the prospects of business. In great provincial centres there ought not to be any difficulty in establishing branch offices. One of the most obvious advantages of the Act would be to localise business as far as it was possible consistently with economy and efficiency. With regard to what had been said by the hon. Member for Yarmouth, they were quite conscious of the importance of making the fees as low as possible, and it would be a great disappointment if the costs approximated to such a high amount as that which had been referred to. It was their intention to administer the trust estates as economically as possible.
Resolution agreed to.
Fifth Resolution—£327, Treasury Chest Band—considered.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that this was a very satisfactory Estimate, because, apparently this year the transmission of money abroad had only cost £327, whereas last year it was £14,600. That might arise from several causes. In the first place it might arise from the fact that the exchanges had gone in our favour. It might also arise from the fact that the official who was in charge of this Department had been extremely clever in his transmission of the money abroad, and had taken advantage of favourable exchanges. If so, he thought it was very creditable to the Treasury. Another cause might be that they had not transmitted anything like the same quantity as the

457
previous year. In view of the fact that there had been such an extraordinary diminution he hoped the hon. Member opposite would be able to give them some further information. It was a rather important matter, because the question of exchanges was very technical, and if the Treasury had by their ability succeeded in effecting this great saving it was much to their credit.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid the amounts sent abroad had been very much the same as in former years. The real cause of the diminution was that every effort had been made to avoid anything in the nature of speculation and the exchanges had been very largely in our favour. That was the explanation of the diminution.
Resolution agreed to.

SUPPLY [11TH FEBRUARY] REPORT.
Resolution reported.
SUPPLY [11TH FEBRUARY] REPORT.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1907–8.

    CLASS III.
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland."
    Resolution read a second time.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG CAPTAIN CRAIG moved to reduce the Vote by £100 in order to strive to elicit from the law officers of the Crown in Ireland, some explanation of how it was that, after the statement made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland in this House on taking up the reins of office that he found Ireland more peaceful than it had been for the past 600 years, he had found it necessary to come to the House of Commons and ask for an additional sum of £2,500 over the original Estimate for criminal prosecutions and other law charges in Ireland. Those who had lived in Ireland during the past year had often wondered why the law officers of the Crown took any action at all when it was done in the manner in which they
    458
    did it. He had frequently had occasion to complain that measures might have been taken which would have largely prevented the Irish Department asking for a supplementary grant, but whilst those measures might have been taken early in the Chief Secretary's regime they were postponed from day to day and month to month, with the result that in the end troubles had arisen which at first were only slight and to which those sitting on the Opposition Benches had called the attention of the Chief Secretary ad nauseam, pointing out from day to day by Questions the dangerous path upon which he and the law officers of the Crown were treading. The law officers allowed turbulence and all classes of troubles which were preventible to go on increasing, with the result that they had been put to this extraordinary expense at the close of the past year. He and his friends looked with alarm on the course which events had taken, and no one in the House who had ever heard any of the hon. Members for Ulster speak on the situation would for a moment hesitate to say that the prognostications which they made earlier in the year had been not only fulfilled, but very greatly exceeded. There was an item on the Paper for £13,000 for prosecutions, etc., which included the expenses of witnesses, and so on, and fees to the law officers for contentious business. He would not be in order in raising the whole question of what the contentious business was, but he thought on the broad lines of the fact that they were asked to-day to put their sign and seal to a still further augmented grant to those who took over Ireland as they admitted in a more peaceful condition than it had been for the last 600 years, and they were entitled to a very lengthy and clear explanation as to what had given rise to this extraordinary charge. He did not desire to throw any aspersions on the law officers of the Crown, nor did he think that was the opportunity to do it. He thought, however, that they had signally failed in their duty through a mistaken idea and the mistaken policy which they had followed. Although during the latter end of their tenure they had begun to throw more and more of the blame for the state of chaos which had been arrived at on the

    459
    Chief Secretary, he thought that even then they might have shown what the law officers of the Crown in Ireland for generations had always been renowned for showing, viz., that they were prepared to accept the responsibility of their high office, irrespective altogether of who happened to be temporarily the Chief Secretary for Ireland. It had been mainly by subordinating themselves to the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the Attorney-General and the law officers of the Crown had found it necessary to ask for further grants. He and his friends had been blamed on more than one occasion for making it necessary for the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General to attend when it would not have been necessary but for the manner in which they had dealt with subjects on the Unionist Benches. They had continually repudiated that charge; they had always said that any action they took in this House was to assist the Chief Secretary and the law officers in maintaining law and order. What profit would it be to them to stir up trouble and turmoil among the poor peasants of the south and west of Ireland? He had always said that while the House was sitting those who lived in distant parts of Ireland were freer from tyranny and outrage than when the House was not sitting. He attributed that to the fact that they had weak-kneed administrators in Dublin Castle who would not prosecute when they ought to prosecute and who prosecuted after a lot of damage was done, and that it was only by Questions in the House they could protect the poor people who were tyrannised in the south and west and who had no other protection. They had had to take the law so far as that was concerned into their own hands, and he conscientiously believed they had done an immense amount of good even since this session began by calling attention to the outrages which had occurred and by showing evil doers that they had eagle eyes upon them in the House of Commons. In that way the police had been urged to a certain amount of activity where the law officers of the Crown had entirely failed. There would be no necessity for much of the hard work that fell to the Ulster representatives in Parliament if those hon. and
    460
    right hon. Gentlemen would only do half their duty. They shirked their duty and did not do even a tenth of what they might do in the interests of the country. The effect of that was to show evil-doers that, so far as the law officers were concerned, they were able to shelter themselves behind the skirts of a timid Government in Dublin Castle. He would ask whether it was not a fact that members of the Government themselves by speeches made in Parliament and elsewhere had contributed very largely to those very cases for which this extra amount appeared on the Paper. The way in which the new terroism which had arisen in Ireland had been dealt with by the Irish Executive was, in his opinion, simply disgraceful. The only occasions on which the Chief Secretary had striven to warn the people of the South and West of Ireland were when he delivered speeches at Southampton and Belfast. These were the two centres where the Chief Secretary in a flippant manner drew attention to serious crime raging through large districts in the South and West of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that after all these particular disturbances and crimes could only be called the higgle of the market for land hunger. In the event of the Government remaining in power for a number of years—though that was not probable—was the country to be asked to pay year after year in this way? If the Government did not stiffen their backs and adopt some more strenuous methods of showing that they intended to maintain law in Ireland the House would be face to face with a growing sum of money on the Estimates each year. He asked for some assurance that the Government would prevent this, and that they would strive to turn over a new leaf to do justice as between man and man in Ireland, and to see that people who wished to live at peace and harmony with their neighbours were not terrorised. Now was the opportunity of the Government for making a pronouncement in the House that as far as lay in their power they would not come down again and ask for an additional £2,500 to pay for weakness and bungling on their part. Another point was that the law officers had chosen the most expensive way of conducting their

    461
    cases. Men who ought to have been tried in Belfast had at considerable expense been taken to Dublin for trial. Why should the country at large be compelled to pay the extra expenses consequent on the Attorney-General changing the venue? Everybody knew that Belfast juries gave just and straightforward judgments in any case brought before them. That had been admitted not only by eminent lawyers, but by people of all classes and creeds in Ireland from time immemorial. The fact remained that in the case he had in his mind those who happened to differ from the Attorney-General were allowed to be tried in Belfast, while others charged in almost the same kind of cases were transferred to Dublin for trial. The right hon. Gentleman had lowered the dignity of his office by his action, and at the same time placed on the Estimates a portion of the £2,500 increase. He would not trouble the House with many cases which he could mention where money might have been saved but for the action of the law officers. The Attorney-General had seen fit to bring a large number of cattle-raiding cases to Dublin, but he would ask whether value was got for the money which had been spent. He did not refer to the sentences which might or might not have been passed, but to the effect on the country. After all, in these cases where poor ignorant people were made the dupes of those who were in the closest possible touch with Dublin Castle and its officials, he held that they were entitled to ask whether the proceedings that took place at great expense to the country as a whole left the impression on them that the majesty of the law had been upheld, and that the law officers had really and sincerely done their best to bring the accused persons to justice? The only impression left on the country after these expensive trials was one of disgust at the futility of the attempts of the right hon. Gentleman. It would take many years to restore the law to the dignity it enjoyed before the present staff took office in Dublin Castle. They approached matters in a light and airy way. They clung tenaciously to the coat-tails of the Nationalist Party in the vain hope that by currying favour with them they
    462
    might be able to govern Ireland by other methods than the proper maintenance of law and order. And the Nationalist Party had failed as they always did when they entered into a bargain with the Government. He had charged the Government, and he repeated the charge now, with having made a bargain with hon. Members below the Gangway to the effect that if hon. Members would only assist them in their impossible task of attempting to govern Ireland in this way, later in the session they would be rewarded with legislation that should not only satisfy the land hunger, but also Irish aspirations in the direction of higher education. He hoped something might be said in the course of this debate by hon. or right hon. Gentlemen opposite which would clear the air of many of the charges made against the Government. But it was significant that only recently at Southampton the Chief Secretary had asked in a more or less despairing manner how he could be expected to do what he intended to do for the amelioration of the condition of the people of Ireland unless hon. Members backed him up in maintaining that law and order which he should have maintained without their assistance. He had placed this reduction on the Paper in the hope of drawing from the responsible Ministers for Ireland some explanation of their attitude during the past few months. He perceived that part of the charge was for the expenses of prosecutors and witnesses. What had been the reason for this increase in the expenses for witnesses? For all the good that had come out of the prosecutions he would have thought the witnesses would not have been worth £100, let alone £1,000. There was no justification for this sum of £1,000 for expenses of prosecutors and witnesses. If the trials had taken place in the places where the crimes had been committed all these expenses would have been saved. It was a farce to suppose that law and order could not be maintained in Ireland with the weapons that lay at the right hand of the Executive, yet because they would not make use of the Crimes Act it became necessary to rake up an ancient statute from the waste-paper basket

    463
    in order that the Government might save their face, and make some attempt to put down lawlessness and disorder. The House would have excused the Chief Secretary for having made these fantastic statements, if he had also said that it was his duty and the duty of his colleagues to govern Ireland, not according to Nationalist ideas, but with a firm hand, as it ought to be governed. The right hon. Gentleman would find that the firmer he was the more respected he would be in Ireland. There was nothing the Irish people disliked so much in a Government as weakness. He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £100.
    MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he had great pleasure in seconding the Amendment. Here was a proposal for a supplementary sum of £2,500, £1,500 of which was to go into the pockets of the two learned Gentlemen opposite, and yet there was not a single protest from the Nationalist or the Labour Party, not a single word from them in support of practical economy. He made no complaint of the salaries of the two law officers which were, he believed, £5,000 and £2,500, but what he wished to know was, was the extra £1,500 for extra work done by them. After the admissions made by the Chief Secretary and the two law officers in reply to questions about the number of prosecutions in Ireland, amounting to many hundreds, in which they had been able to effect only some half-dozen convictions, their efforts did not appear to have been very successful. He entirely and heartily agreed with the mover of the reduction that there had been an absolute breakdown in the administration of the law in Ireland, and that the law officers had signally failed in their duty. He also agreed that their failure was largely due to the spirit infused into the Government of Ireland by the Chief Secretary. No one in the House would forget that night when the Chief Secretary brought his fist down on the table with a bang saying he would do nothing, after cases had been brought home to him which were absolutely unanswerable as to the lawless state of Ireland. He (Mr. Corbett) did not think that the
    464
    policy of doing nothing carried out most effectively by the law officers required extra pay, and it was a scandal that the House should be asked to vote this money to law officers who had failed in their duty.
    Amendment proposed—
    "To leave out '£2,500,' and insert '£2,400.'—(Captain Craig)—instead thereof."
    Question proposed, "That '£2,500' stand part of the said Resolution."
    MR. TOMKINSONsaid the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this reduction had dwelt at great length on the real or imaginary increase of crime in Ireland during the last few months, and had charged the Government with grave dereliction of duty. But if they took the whole of the crime, real or imaginary, in Ireland and in England, and considered it in proportion to the population of the two countries they would find there was considerably less crime in Ireland than in England. And when one read such documents as the depositions of the inspecting officer sent down in the first instance to investigate the Glenahiry outrage he had considerable doubt whether any outrage at all was perpetrated.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: The law officers have taken an entirely different view from the, hon. Gentleman.
    MR. TOMKINSONsaid the officer on that occasion stated that Lord Ashtown himself, whom he saw the next day, seemed to treat the matter as a hugh joke. There had recently been a special kind of lawlessness in Ireland in the form of cattle-driving, but apparently great misapprehension existed in connection with that form of lawlessness. There was no cattle stealing in the country; there was no cattle maiming, no wilful injury done to cattle. This cattle-driving was done as a protest against the action of people guilty in the past of a far worse crime than that of cattle driving, namely, the driving of men and women off the land.
    CAPTAIN CRAIGasked whether he understood from the hon. Member's observations that he was in favour of cattle-driving.
    MR. TOMKINSONsaid that all he said was that the crime had been much exaggerated and made out to be far more serious than it actually was. Much worse than cattle-driving had been done in the past by the people who owned the land, because they had driven the men and women off that land on to the bogs and rocks, and on the good lands only cattle and sheep were allowed. An Act had been passed for England and Wales for the purpose of restoring the people to the laud and, if necessary, compulsorily acquiring the land for that purpose. That was all the Irish people asked for. Hon. Members could not know what was done in the shape of evictions after the great famine of 1848. One noble Lord told a high official that he had evicted 1,800 of these people, and when that noble Lord was asked where those people had gone to, the answer was so bitter and cynical that it would not bear repetition. He believed that a more conciliatory and reasonable treatment would do more to make the Irish people contented than such coercion as was advocated by hon. Members opposite. As an illustration of the conciliation which he suggested, he might refer to a case which had been brought to his knowledge by one of the Land Commissioners—Mr. Bailey. In the case of that particular estate, the owner and the occupiers were at daggers drawn. The owner was informed that his life was not safe and he thought of getting out of the country and going to live in the South of France. Mr. Bailey hearing this went down to see if he could be of any service in the matter. He saw the landlord, who told him that he was willing to sell his land, but that he could not take less than twenty-five years purchase, whilst great pressure was being put upon him to accept twenty-one-and-a-half years purchase. Mr. Bailey said that he sat down with the owner and went into figures, and in a quarter of an hour convinced him that if he got twenty-three years purchase he would be quite satisfied with it. Mr. Bailey then went round and saw the Tenants Committee.
    466
    He got at that Committee through the priest. He found them most reasonable men, and when he put the facts before them they agreed to increase their offer and give twenty-three years purchase, provided that included in the purchase were 2,000 acres of grass land for which they were willing to give whatever was asked. In that conciliatory way the whole difficulty on that estate was settled, and the next that Mr. Bailey heard was that they had elected the landlord to be the chairman of their Local District Board and had all agreed to preserve the game on the land for him. He submitted that such action as that did more good for Ireland than the coercion suggested by hon. Members opposite.
    MR. BARRIEsaid that after the speech of the hon. Member for Crewe the Chief Secretary and the law officers might well exclaim: "Save us from our friends." It was very interesting to learn from the hon. Member that a well-paid official in the Government of Ireland, Mr. Bailey, considered it within the scope of his duty to have a casual conversation with the hon. Member regarding the action of a certain landlord in Ireland. The hon. Member said that Mr. Bailey told him he had persuaded this landlord to come to terms with his tenants and accept twenty-three years purchase for the land. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: "Too much."] There was a telling answer to that, namely, that the Leader of the Nationalist Party got twenty-four and-a-half years purchase for land he sold.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: That is not true.
    MR. STANLEY WILSONasked whether it was in order for an hon. Member to say a statement by another hon. Member was not true.
    *MR. SPEAKER: I presume the hon. Member meant it was incorrect.
    MR. BARRIEsaid he did not object to the interruption, but he could not accept the correction of the hon. Member until the figures were placed before the House. So far as the question

    467
    of the outrage at the house of Lord Ashtown was concerned he was not quite sure——
    *MR. SPEAKERsaid that since the hon. Member had spoken he had ascertained that there was no charge in this Vote for any proceedings in connection with Lord Ashtown's matter, and therefore the hon. Member would not be in order in going into that.
    MR. BARRIEsaid that that being so, he would pass from that item and deal at once with the Vote before the House. This was a Vote of £2,500 for special legal expenses incurred during the last six months. The additional revenue which went into the pockets of the law officers was £1,500, which was at the rate of £3,000 a year. He complained that this was the third Supplementary Vote asked for since the session began and a fourth would be coming before the House for the constabulary. Those four Votes combined meant a total increase of the law charges for Ireland of something like £20,000, due to the existence of a weak Government. The question was: Had any effective service been rendered to the country for this expenditure; had respect for the law been restored, and were peaceful citizens in the south and west of Ireland allowed to pursue their callings without molestation? The fact was that in Ireland last year there were 381 cases of cattle-driving, and proceedings were taken in only eighty-one cases, and out of 572 persons prosecuted in connection with these drives only five were imprisoned. In 1907 372 agrarian outrages were reported, or 138 more than in 1906, being the greatest number since 1903. Proceedings were taken in forty-two cases, and there were only five convictions. In 367 cases no one was made responsible for the outrages. It was clear that since the dropping of the Peace Preservation Act in 1906 the number of shooting outrages had been four times as numerous as in the previous year. In 1886 the then Chief Secretary found over 4,800 boycotted persons in Ireland. In 1892 that number was reduced to fifteen, and it was only since the Government came into power that boycotting had become rampant. As to cattle-driving, if the Chief Secretary had
    468
    directed prosecutions against the cowards who instigated the people to commit the crime it would never have assumed such large proportions. The action of the right hon. Gentleman in Ireland was very different from the action of his colleague the Secretary of State for India in India, where there had been disturbances which they all regretted and where peremptory measures had been instituted in the interests of that country and in the name of duty and common-sense.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The Secretary for India is one of my colleagues, and he is responsible for and approves of my action.
    MR. BARRIEsaid that that was one of the glaring inconsistencies which were not altogether unknown among the members of the present Cabinet. Nothing was to him more painful than to notice the growth of crime and want of respect for the law owing to the injudicious speeches of both the Chief Secretary and the Attorney-General. At the meeting at Belfast the Attorney-General had alluded to the Chief Secretary as "his dictator." Loose speeches in Ireland meant licence, and licence had brought the law into contempt. If the Government would use the weapons ready to their hand, and convince the people in the unsettled parts of Ireland that they had had enough of lawlessness, a very different state of affairs would prevail in a very few months.
    *THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): I desire in the first place entirely to repudiate what has been attributed to me that I at any time endeavoured to place the responsibility for my actions on my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that I attempted in any way to throw blame upon him or to subordinate myself to him in any way that was not consonant to my position. As first law officer in Ireland I am responsible for the enforcement of the criminal law, and never have I attempted to throw the responsibility on the Chief Secretary. Reference has been made to the meeting I attended at Belfast last autumn, which seems

    469
    to have had an irritating effect on hon. Members for Ulster constituencies. It was one of the largest meetings I ever attended, and one of the most enthusiastic. Ever since hon. Members opposite have been seizing on certain expressions I used, and twisting and turning those statements into meanings they were never intended to bear.
    CAPTAIN CRAIGasked the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he was aware that the Chief Secretary himself, on leaving the meeting, turned round to a friend and said—
    "That was an enthusiastic meeting, but there were some people who were opposed——"
    [Cries of "Order."]
    *MR. CHERRY: That is another of what they call yarns in Ireland. There was an interruption during the course of the meeting by someone in the gallery, which led me to say that the assertion that I had been dictated to by my right hon. friend——
    MR. BARRIE: I quoted the exact words of the right hon. Gentleman.
    *MR. CHERRY: I was only explaining how I came to use the words. I did not for a moment say that I had been dictated to by anybody, but I said that I would not be dictated to by anybody save the Prime Minister or the Chief Secretary. I meant that the Chief Secretary, being a member of the Government, responsible for the government of Ireland, and a Member of the Cabinet, and the Prime Minister at the head of the Government, were the only persons to convey to me the decisions of the Government in regard to matters generally. I, not being a member of the Cabinet, had no power to determine any question of policy. But as regards the administration of the criminal law, that is my duty, and I never for one moment intended, nor do I intend, to repudiate responsibility for that. There has never been the slightest difference between my right hon. friend and myself as regards the prosecutions. He is quite familiar with everything that I have done, and he has agreed to everything that I have done and everything I have submitted to him.
    470
    Our object has been, whether right or wrong is for the House to determine, to enforce the ordinary law strictly and fairly, and not to go one inch outside the ordinary law. We have sought to be perfectly impartial, and we thought that if we persisted in that course we would cure what is a great evil in Ireland—distrust of the law. But it will take some time to do that. You cannot expect the sentiments of a nation to be changed in a day, and it needs that we should persist in the course we have adopted. We have persisted in it, and we have up to the present moment, I think, had very gratifying results; because as a matter of fact, as everyone knows who knows anything about affairs in Ireland, the disturbances which prevailed in Ireland during the autumn have died down very greatly, and the country is far and away quieter than it was in the months of October and November last. Cattle-driving has almost entirely disappeared; there are no outrages and very little serious crime, and I think that that is in great measure due to the policy of the Government in fairly administering the ordinary law and in no way seeking to use the much-disliked Crimes Act, or in packing juries, or by indirect means endeavouring to obtain convictions. We relied on a straightforward presentation of the case for the Crown to the jury. Although we have had obstacles, acquittals and disagreements, where we thought there ought to have been convictions, which I regret very much, yet I believe that the benefit to the country will be greater by our administering the law impartially than by any means that might be adopted to secure convictions in the way which I have indicated. The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to Larkin's case, and said that the change of venue in that instance was due to me. He is completely under a misapprehension The application for a change of venue was made on behalf of Larkin himself, and I very carefully inquired into the matter before I assented to it. Affidavits were filed which showed that undoubtedly there was very great prejudice against Larkin in Belfast among the class from whom the jurors would have been drawn. It was asserted, I think, with some truth, that although Larkin was prosecuted for a very trivial assault, the

    471
    real attempt among the people of Belfast was to have him punished for being a leader of the strike. I assented to the change of venue to the County of Dublin, which, as everyone knows, is a county where the jurors are of the very highest character and before whom you can obtain a fair and impartial trial. I do not think that I was doing anything very irregular; I was endeavouring, as I always endeavour, to obtain a fair and impartial trial by a tribunal which would not only be fair but would have no suspicion of unfairness. There were other persons who were charged with assaults in Belfast during the riots which arose, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman asked why there had not been a change of venue in those cases. The venue was not changed because the accused did not ask for it. Now, as to cattle-driving, I have never said at any time anything in favour of it; I should be very sorry to do so. I have heard, however, a great deal of gross exaggeration as regards the seriousness of the evil. Cattle-driving is a crime if partaken in by a large number of people. But as a matter of fact, the cattle trade has never been more prosperous in Ireland than in the course of the last year. I have never suggested for one moment that there was anything excusable in it. I think it is a form of intimidation of a particularly bad kind, and it is a matter that ought to be stopped if it can be put a stop to. We prosecuted in every case in which there was evidence to bring before a jury. We have brought people before the magistrates and had them bound over to keep the peace—a far larger number than that mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. A large number of the persons brought before the magistrates declined to give bail, and, like the suffragettes in London, they went to gaol. I think that several hundreds went to gaol.
    MR. BARRIE: A number of them were released immediately afterwards, and there was that distinction between their case and that of the suffragettes.
    *MR. CHEBRY: The hon. Member is completely mistaken. Not one person, so far as I know, was released, certainly not since last October.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: Are there hundreds of persons still in prison owing to those charges?
    *Mr. CHERRY: No, Sir; I am happy to say that there are none at present. Those offences I refer to were committed in the months of October and November, and the persons served out their sentences and were released. As far as I know there are no persons in prison at present on those charges.
    MR. CAMERON CORBETT: May I ask if they were treated as first-class or second-class misdemeanants?
    *MR. CHERRY: I really cannot give the hon. Member the information for which he asks. The amount of the Vote has been referred to. We regret to come to the House with a Supplementary Vote, but it arises in a great measure from the prosecutions for cattle-driving. I would point out that the amount of the original Vote and the Supplementary Vote together is only £65,000, which is a good deal less than the average during the time the late Government was in office. There were only two years while that Government was in office in which the amount was less than this. In 1901 the Votes for the Departments of Agriculture were added to the law charges, and in 1899 the sum of £8,000 per annum were added to recoup the high sheriff the expenses of receiving at the general assizes. So if you compare the amounts in previous years, in fact from 1881 to the present year, you will find that, although the amount this year is slightly in excess of what it was last year, it is considerably less than what it was ten or fifteen years ago. If you go back only to 1901, the amount was nearly £70,000, and we are £5,000 to the good in 1907. It is quite true that we are £3,000 in excess of last year, but last year the amount was exceedingly small and the lowest it has ever been. I do not think that there are any other matters that the House would like me to explain.
    LORD B. CECILsaid that the right hon. Gentleman was entitled in one respect to the

    473
    sympathy of the House. He had been so unfortunate on more than one occasion recently as to make use of rather picturesque language in Ireland, and the brutal Saxon, taking the words to mean exactly what they said, were anxious to know why the Attorney-General for Ireland had committed himself in that way. Not long ago the right hon. Gentleman was explaining to the House that when he called his countrymen West African savages he desired it to be understood that the words were used in the Pickwickian sense.
    *MR. CHERRY: I never called my fellow-countrymen West African savages. I said that cattle-driving might lead to a state of things worse than that among the West African savages.
    LORD R. CECILsaid he understood that the right hon. Gentleman did not call them directly West African savages, but only conditionally West African savages. That afternoon the right hon. Gentleman had been asked something about the Chief Secretary being his dictator, and he said that that was only because some other people were not his dictators, and, therefore, only in that sense was the Chief Secretary his dictator. But later on he had disclaimed any responsibility in connection with policy in Ireland, and consequently all his acts were approved by the Chief Secretary, after discussion with him. Therefore, it seemed to be the fact, to the mere Saxon mind, that the Chief Secretary in truth did direct his action, and when the Attorney-General referred to the right hon. Gentleman as his dictator he was not very far out. What was it that the Government had said about this matter over and over again? They said that they had endeavoured to enforce the ordinary law. That was their perpetual statement. But they must again ask how it was that the hon. Member for North Westmeath was allowed to go about inciting these cattle-drivers week after week, and month after month, in the most open and unblushing way, and that the right hon. Gentleman was only able to obtain the assistance of the Judge of the Land Court and get the hon. Member shut up for contempt of Court.
    MR. BIRRELL: The hon. Member must not say I obtained the assistance of the Judge. Mr. Justice Ross acted with the most perfect independence. The noble Lord must not say I got him.
    LORD R. CECILsaid he owed the Chief Secretary an apology. He believed the right hon. Gentleman had always said that the Government had nothing to do with shutting up the hon. Member for Westmeath.
    MR. BIRRELL: Hear, hear.
    LORD R. CECILsaid that that made the case all the stronger against the right hon. Gentleman. He apologised for having suggested that the Chief Secretary had even indirectly desired to enforce the law against the hon. Member for North Westmeath. But the broad fact remained that cattle-driving went on until the hon. Member for North Westmeath was shut up, and when he was shut up cattle-driving began to come to an end. The Attorney-General for Ireland had the courage to say that the whole thing must be likened to the proceedings against the suffragettes. The suffragettes, who, whatever might be thought of their methods, had the sympathy of a large section of the House in the objects they had in view, had been treated not as first-class but as second-class misdemeanants. It was characteristic of the procedure of the Government that they treated cattle-driving, or appeared to treat it, as a matter of less importance than the rather foolish riots of the suffragettes in the streets of London, and it was because they had adopted that attitude that they had been compelled over and over again to protest against their action. The Attorney-General for Ireland had used a very striking phrase when he said he had never said a word in favour of cattle-driving. Let the House conceive its being necessary for a law officer of the Crown to say he had never said a word in favour of what he afterwards admitted to be a scandalous and outrageous proceeding! That unconcious observation displayed more of the mind of the Government than a great deal of their deliberate utterances. That had been the whole attitude of the Government—it

    475
    was unnecessary to quote again the statements that had been made by the various members of the Government—and the result had been failure of the law and a failure to obtain convictions. He had listened with the greatest possible regret to the speech of the hon. Member for Crewe who, though very widely respected in that House and whose utterances naturally carried great weight with the House, had committed himself to an elaborate minimising of the actual outrages that had occurred and a defence of such things as cattle-driving. Surely that was very unfortunate.
    MR. TOMKINSONsaid he had defended cattle-driving from the grossly unfair charges made against it in regard to cattle stealing and cattle maiming, such as Sheridan had perpetrated under the late Government and never been prosecuted for, and he had said that there was one thing worse than cattle-driving—the driving of men and women from the soil.
    LORD R. CECILsaid the hon. Member had forgotten what appeared to him the most indefensible statement he had made, referring to an outrage which they were not allowed to discuss on that occasion, that the evidence in that case had made him doubt whether any outrages had taken place in Ireland at all. That was really a most unfortunate observation for any English Member to make. Outrages had taken place and very serious outrages. Men had been shot, many houses had been fired into, and even this cattle-driving for which they heard these apologies in the House had ended in outrage of a most serious character. It began as so many things seemed to begin in Ireland, in a comparatively mild and unimportant way, and it gradually grew, partly through the indifference of the Irish Government and partly, he must say, through the culpable language often used by English politicians in connection with outrages, until it became a very serious and terrible evil. What really was cattle-driving? The hon. Member said it was not cattle stealing. Nobody had ever said it was cattle stealing. Nor was it cattle maiming. That was sufficiently evident. If cattle were maimed they could not
    476
    be driven. But cattle-driving was none the less a very serious offence and operated very seriously to the injury of the cattle. The hon. Member represented a very wealthy constituency largely given up to dairy farming. What would his constituents think if their cattle were driven off their farm, sometimes all night long, and left to find their way back? It was a very serious offence, and it was no answer to say it was better than driving men. What the hon. Member meant exactly by driving men he did not know, but the only instance he had given was from the year 1848, and he really said to the House—and this was exceedingly characteristic of these Irish debates—that because an Irish landlord rightly or wrongly was alleged to have behaved in a brutal and unfeeling way in 1848, that was in some way which absolutely passed his comprehension a palliation for those who drove cattle in 1907. It really was a perfect scandal that arguments of that kind should be used. The truth was that if history could only be wiped off the face of the earth, if they could only forget everything that had happened in Ireland in the past, if they could start with a perfectly clean slate and deal with the thing as it now was, they would be very far along the road indeed towards the pacification of Ireland which they all desired. But these references to 1848, and sometimes further back still, did nothing but harm, and were perfectly irrelevant to the real issue. The real question that the House had to consider on this Vote was whether it was or was not right that the law should be enforced in Ireland. That was the only issue. It was not whether the law was or was not perfect. He did not believe there was any such thing as a perfect law. The question was whether they were going to submit to outrages against the law, to lawless attempts to put pressure on the Government in order to produce a change in the law, and to put pressure upon individuals in order to prevent them from exercising their legal rights. That was the only question before them, and that was the only reason why he desired to criticise the Government, because he did not think they had discharged what was after all the first

    477
    and by far the most important duty of a Government, namely, to preserve the law in all parts of His Majesty's dominions.
    MR. STANLEY WILSONsaid he should like to say one or two words in regard to the reduction his hon. and gallant friend had moved. He was glad that the Attorney-General had repudiated the views of the hon. Member for Crewe with regard to criminal offences in Ireland. After the brilliant speech of the noble Lord, and the severe castigation that he had administered to the hon. Member, it was unnecessary for anybody else to deal with him. He could not help expressing surprise at the absence of hon. Members below the Gangway on such an occasion when an important debate was going on with regard to the country from which they came. And where were the Labour Members who were always ready to protest against unnecessary expenditure, and where were those stringent economists many of whom had gained seats at the last general election by pledging themselves to economy? They were asked to pass a Vote of £2,500 for the bad administration of the present Government in Ireland in dealing with these prosecutions, money which had been absolutely wasted, and might just as well have been thrown into the sea. As everybody realised, never probably in the history of Ireland had the country been in a worse condition than during the last two or three months. He heard voices protesting against that statement, but he stuck to it, and he said moreover that that condition was due to the methods of His Majesty's Government. They were asked to pay this large increase, and he was there to make a strong protest against it. £1,500 of this money went into the pockets of the titular head of the legal profession in Ireland and his understudy. These hon. Gentlemen had absolutely failed to do their duty in Ireland. They had absolutely failed to gain convictions in any prosecutions they had brought about, even in cases where the guilt was obvious to anybody who heard the case as it was being tried. That was solely due to the administration of the Govern-
    478
    ment. Had they chosen to employ the Crimes Act they could have seen that law and order were enforced, but the Chief Secretary had refused because once he was opposed to the Act. The Government stood convicted of the grossest mismanagement of Irish affairs. It was only last year that the fullest warning was given from those benches by Members from Ireland of what was bound to occur if they continued in the way in which they were going at that time. The Chief Secretary called those hon. Members carrion crows, and up to the present date the right hon. Gentleman had never offered an apology.
    MR. BIRRELL: I remember distinctly in this House saying I regretted having made that statement.
    MR. STANLEY WILSONsaid he was speaking from his own knowledge. He had not made that assertion intentionally and certainly if the right hon. Gentleman had withdrawn that expression he withdrew his own remark. He had risen only to make a strong protest against this unjustifiable expenditure upon the law officers in Ireland.
    MR. BIRRELL: I cannot, of course, altogether explain the absence of hon. Members below the Gangway, whether they come from Ireland or whether they are Labour Members, but one reason occurs to me why they or any other sensible men should be absent. All this has been said before. I can honestly say that with the exception of a remark or two from the noble Lord, everything has been said before that could possibly be thought of. Possibly to some hon. Members once is enough. As for the general discussion, everybody knows perfectly well that it has been made perfectly plain both by myself and others that there is a strong difference of opinion between us and them as to what was a proper and wise course for the Irish Administration to pursue under the circumstances of last autumn. They say we ought to have taken more active measures, that we ought by enforcing the Crimes Act to have filled the gaols of Galway and Roscommon. We thought otherwise.

    479
    The allegation that that marvellous fetish, the Crimes Act, has only to be proclaimed in Ireland for peace and order to reign from one end of the country to the other is a ridiculous statement and one that it is impossible to support by any reference to history. I am not going into the question at length. I have stated publicly and privately what my views are on the question. An hon. Gentleman who is not in his place told us that he would never forget as long as he lived the day when I banged the box, and said I would do nothing. But, oddly enough, although the hon. Member declared that that incident had burnt itself into his memory as the most awful within his experience, he nevertheless grossly misquoted the Chief Secretary by ascribing to him the statement that he would do nothing. What I really said was "I won't," meaning thereby that I would not put into force the provisions of the Crimes Act. To say that I meant to do nothing and that my right hon. friend intended to do nothing is disproved by the existence of the Supplementary Vote which the House is discussing. The Irish Office took all the steps which the ordinary law provided. What do hon. Members want? Do they say that we are not to prosecute these persons or put the ordinary law in motion? And do they say that we ought not to have changed the venue to Dublin in order to obtain a trial of persons not on the spot where the crimes took place? Do they say that we were not to employ the law officers of the Crown, when it was put to us by hon. Members opposite that we should employ these most expensive functionaries? In order to give importance to these trials we did employ them, at all events, hence this £2,500 and we have to pay them. I do not wish to go into the question of whether the law officers are paid too much or not. It would be most disagreeable for me, situated as I am, to do so, but no doubt the question will some day be raised and it will be most dis-
    480
    agreeable to my right hon. friends. But at any rate we were bound to put the only law into operation, and we did it. It cost more money than we estimated and we have to come for a further Vote. Then hon. Members say: What did you get for your money?" That is another important peculiarity of theirs. They evidently want a butcher's bill to show that something happened and that certain convictions followed. Certain convictions did follow as a matter of fact. I cannot see how hon. Members can object to the Vote unless they argue that we should have disregarded the law from the first, and say that the state of things in Ireland in connection with cattle-driving was so alarming and appalling that the ordinary law should be put on one side. This Vote is caused by our putting the law into force. Nobody can deny that we have put it into force in many cases. Every step known to the ordinary law was taken in our anxious endeavour to obtain the ends of justice through and by the ordinary law. This is a proposition which I shall never be ashamed of. I am surprised that the noble Lord, who is a stickler, I hope, for the English Constitution in all its forms, should seem to think that it was our duty at once to seek to disregard the ordinary law and rush into extraordinary, unpopular, and demoralising methods. The noble Lord dislikes historical palliations of cattle-driving, and I quite agree, if we could only wipe out history, if we could say with the old woman that she never read history on the ground that bygones should be bygones. What happened when I made that very remark at luncheon at Londonderry, and said—
    "What a glorious thing it would be if only you could forget your glorious history, your famous siege, your walls, your statues, and other memorials of that old world terrible and violent dispute"?
    A Tory newspaper next morning had a most furious article referring to that speech, and accused me of having the

    481
    impudence to come down to Londonderry and say I did not want to see their walls, or their statues, or their monuments, simply because I said I hoped to live to see these old, unhappy, far off things forgotten. You cannot do that even in England. I remember last year being in charge of an Education Bill. Had not history something to do with that? Had not the noble Lord's history something to do with that? I agree with the noble Lord, if only we could induce Ireland and England to forget these things and look on the situation both as regards education in England, and law and order in Ireland, from the point of view of how things exist at the present moment rather than go back to those old world stories, it would be a desirable thing. If the noble Lord is ever Chief Secretary for Ireland, as I understand he may be next year—if we are all to be swept away and we are to have firm law and order established in the next nine months, surely it is really not worth while for the House to trouble itself much longer over this £2,500.
    *MR. STUART WORTLEY: I will make one more effort to convince the Chief Secretary that the action of my hon. friends behind me from Ireland are not quite so child-like as the right hon. Gentleman would have it appear. Their objection is that these jury trials and expensive changes of venue were taken at a stage long after it had become apparent that they were totally futile. Nobody has ever said that the Crimes Act is a talisman or a fetish containing any magic for doing away with crime, but it enables a great many of these cases to be dealt with by summary jurisdiction, and this in itself would have produced the necessary effect upon the minds of evildoers. I will tell the Chief Secretary what some of us think of his conduct in not making use of the Crimes Act. We think it is pedantic and pharasaical, if not some-
    482
    thing worse, for it is accompanied by a cynical indifference to the sufferings of individuals, which ought not to have been indulged in by a British Minister.
    MR. BYLESsaid he had risen only for a minute to say that there were many hon. Members on that side of the House who absolutely disagreed with the statements which had just been made, and who were desirous of supporting the Chief Secretary in the course which he had taken. Hon. Members on the opposite side of the House wanted the right hon. Gentleman to put the Crimes Act in, force; but they must know, and everybody who had looked at recent Irish history must know that to have adopted the Crimes Act during this recent agitation would have made things ten times worse. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, by gentle means and patience quelled the agitation which was troublesome, and had succeeded in bringing Ireland out of it even though it had a strong grievance behind it, because of these untenanted grazing farms being let under a system which was an evasion of all the advantages which recent land legislation had granted to Ireland, namely, the eleven months system under which no tenancy could grow up. Everyone knew that in Ireland the moment a man, went on the land the tenant right began to inure, but in these cases the men did not become tenants at all, they only acquired the right for their cattle to go on the ground and eat the grass. It seemed to him to be a strange thing that hon. Members opposite should resist so long for a second time this Vote for criminal prosecutions when the whole of their speeches had been devoted to saying that there had not been criminal prosecutions enough. It seemed to him a most inconsistent position for men who were complaining that the Government had not used the administration of the law in overtaking criminals to set to work to complain of what they had

    483
    done. He could only say once more that he and his fellow Members on that side of the House had the greatest admiration for the patience and the reticence which had been shown by the Chief Secretary in this matter, and were delighted at the success which he had achieved. The reason they had not had more convictions was obvious. When hon. Members opposite set about prosecutions they meant to have convictions even if it was necessary that the judge or magistrate should take a conviction in his pocket. [Cries of "Withdraw."] The reason why they could not get convictions from Irish juries was because the neighbours of the accused were in sympathy with him. [Ironical cries of "Hear, hear."] Well, what was the jury system at all except, as he understood it, the right of trial, which had been acquired and enjoyed for so many centuries, by twelve of one's peers. If their peers did not disapprove of what they had done then they went free.
    LORD R. CECILsaid he would remind the hon. Gentleman that every juryman was sworn to find a verdict according to the evidence whether he approved or disapproved.
    MR. BYLESsaid in that case it appeared that the juries did not think the evidence sufficient, and hon. Members opposite must remember that it was impossible to coerce a nation. What the Government had been doing was to try to persuade the people to respect the law which governed them. Why did the people despise the law? Because we had not given them laws of which they approved, and unless a Government could govern a nation in accordance with the will of a nation they had failed. The object of the present Government was to make people in Ireland respect the law as the people in England and Scotland respected it,
    484
    and in that endeavour the Government had the support of their followers.
    SIR P. BANBURYsaid he would ask the hon. Member to remember that a nation could not be coerced when the Licensing Bill came on for Second Reading. He had only risen to address a Question to the Chief Secretary, who had waxed extremely indignant because, he said, hon. Members on that side of the House desired him to do something, and when he had done something, and there had been an increase in the law charges, they objected to pay for putting the ordinary law into motion. The right hon. Gentleman said: "Enough of this objection to this £2,500. Let us have our £2,500 and go home to dinner." He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was in the House when the Attorney-General for Ireland said that the Government would not pack juries in order to obtain convictions. Of course the word "packed" might be taken in two senses, and what the Irish Nationalists called "packing" was challenging juries who were likely to disregard their oath, and not return a verdict according to the evidence. What they on that side of the House meant was putting on the jury a man who would obey his oath, and who when a breach of the law had been proved, would give a verdict which would secure a conviction. It seemed to him that the Chief Secretary made a little slip when he said that they had taken all the steps they could to put the ordinary law in force. In England and Scotland, and he thought it was the same in Ireland, a juror could be challenged if it was thought that he was interested on either side or that he was not likely to do his duty according to his oath. He presumed that that was correct as he had not been interrupted. That being so, the argument brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman was fallacious.
    MR. BIRRELL: Why?
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid the right hot. Gentleman had not taken all the steps he could to enforce the ordinary law.
    MR. BIRRELL: We did challenge.
    SIR F. BANBURYasked, if that was so, how the Attorney-General reconciled that statement with the statement that he would not pack juries to obtain convictions. The challenging of jurors was done to remove men who, it was thought, would not give a verdict in accordance with the evidence, and to put on others who would. The Nationalist Members called that packing. That was a misnomer, and the word should never have been applied. He felt a certain amount of sorrow for the Attorney-General in having to get up and answer the charge brought against him. It seemed to him that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in what in slang language was called a tight place. The last argument advanced was the very worst, namely, that the present Government were doing no worse than the Unionist Government did ten or fifteen years ago, because they were spending no more money. By those words the right hon. and learned Gentleman condemned himself. Ten or fifteen years ago the Unionist
    Government spent a certain amount of money in enforcing law and order, and the result was that when the Chief Secretary took office he said that Ireland was in a more peaceful state than it had been for 600 years. Was it not worth while to spend a little money to obtain that result? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had followed in the footsteps of the Unionist Government the House would not have been asked to vote this additional sum. He had no objection to vote not only what was asked, but £5,000 if the right hon. Gentleman did something for it, but he did object to pay him fees to conduct cases in Court when he knew perfectly well what was going to happen. If he did not know, he was not fit for the great position which he occupied. Over and over again Judges had summed up for convictions and over and over again juries had disagreed or acquitted the persons accused. They could not get him to believe that a lawyer of the right hon. Gentleman's position and learning did not know when he went into Court that he was going to get a good fee and nothing else.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 216; Noes, 49. (Division List No. 45.)

    AYES.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Boulton, A. C. F.

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

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

    Bramsdon, T. A.

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

    Astbury, John Meir

    Branch, James

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Brigg, John

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Bright, J. A.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Crean, Eugene

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Cremer, Sir William Randal

    Barker, John

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Crooks, William

    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

    Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Cameron, Robert

    Davies, W Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Beale, W. P.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

    Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

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

    Bell, Richard

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

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

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

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

    Cleland, J. W.

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Clough, William

    Elibank, Master of

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

    Clynes, J. R.

    Essex, R. W.

    Bethell, T. R, (Essex, Maldon)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Faber, G. H. (Boston)

    Lupton, Arnold

    Shackleton, David James

    Fenwick, Charles

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Ferens, T. R.

    Lynch, H. B.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Fiennes, Hon Eustace

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Findlay, Alexander

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

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Fullerton, Hugh

    M'Callum, John M.

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Gill, A. H.

    M'Crae, George

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

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

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

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

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Glover, Thomas

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Maddison, Frederick

    Stuart, James (Sunderland)

    Gooch, George Peabody

    Manfield, Harry (Northants)

    Summerbell, T.

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Gulland, John W.

    Massie, J.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

    Menzies, Walter

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

    Hall, Frederick

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Montagu, E. S.

    Thomasson, Franklin

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

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

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

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Morley, Rt. Hon. John

    Tomkinson, James

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Morse, L. L.

    Torrance, Sir A. M.

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Toulmin, George

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Murray, James

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Myer, Horatio

    Verney, F. W.

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

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Walsh, Stephen

    Henry, Charles S.

    Nicholls, George

    Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

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

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

    Higham, John Sharp

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Waring, Walter

    Hodge, John

    Nuttall, Harry

    Wason, Rt. Hn E. (Clackmannan.

    Holden, E. Hopkinson

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Piekersgill, Edward Hare

    Weir, James Galloway

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

    Whitbread, Howard

    Hudson, Walter

    Radford, G. H.

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

    Hyde, Clarendon

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Rees, J. D.

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Wiles, Thomas

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

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

    Williamson, A.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Jowett, F. W.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

    Lambert, George

    Rose, Charles Day

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Lamont, Norman

    Rowlands, J.

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Runciman, Walter

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

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

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Sears, J. E.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Seddon, J.

    Lough, Thomas

    Seely, Colonel

    NOES.

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

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Balcarres, Lord

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

    Fell, Arthur

    Percy, Earl

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

    Forster, Henry William

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Gretton, John

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Guinness, Walter Edward

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Starkey, John R

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Wore

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Clive Perey Archer

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

    Hunt, Rowland

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    488

    489

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Craig and Mr. T. L. Corbett.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York. E. R

    Younger, George

    Question, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Joseph Pease)—put, and agreed to.

LONDON ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL [LORDS].
THE PRESIDENT of THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): I have very reluctantly to move "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Resolution." At the present moment I express no opinion at all about the merits of the Bill itself. I do not think it would be fair to do so, because it would prejudice the consideration of the proposals contained in the Bill. I do not think, however, that the course suggested in the Resolution is the best method of investigating the merits of this Bill, and more especially of investigating the details of these various propositions. As all those who have been engaged upon the investigation of this question know, it is a very difficult one indeed. There have been several proposals brought before the House for the supply of electric power to London during the last four or five years, all of them more or less of a different character, and up to the present we have not suc-
490
ceeded in securing any proposal which has obtained the confidence of the House or of the Committee after inquiry into the details of the Bills sent upstairs. My own personal opinion is that no settlement of this very thorny and complicated problem is possible unless some measure of agreement is come to between all the parties engaged. There is a very general feeling that something ought to be done, and done quickly, for the purpose of supplying London with cheap electricity for power purposes. I think it is a great scandal that something has not been done before, because, after all, it is almost entirely a business matter, and it is a great pity that it should have become a question which has engaged parties as if it were purely a political problem, which it is not. I cannot help feeling, however, that we are approximating towards a reasonable settlement and a compromise. If these Bills go to a Committee of the Lords and are examined there carefully, I think that by the time they come down here the parties will be in a better position—I will not say frame of mind—to consider the best way of putting something through that will ensure general consent. That is one reason why I think it will not be facilitating inquiry into this subject to have a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. If a Committee of the kind suggested in the Resolution were set up, what would happen? The Bills would go to that Committee who would arrive at some conclusion with regard to them in the course of the next few weeks, probably before opinion has matured for the full consideration of this problem from the broader point of

491
view. I think that, even before a Committee considers it in this House there ought to be a conference between all the parties concerned to see whether there are not some general principles upon which agreement can be secured. I must, therefore, oppose, and I do so reluctantly, this proposal that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament should have this question referred to it. I do not wish it to be inferred that there is any opposition on the part of the Government to any one of these proposals or any of these Bills. I shall confine myself at present to resisting this proposal because I do not think it will accomplish the object which those who wish for a cheap electrical supply for London have in mind. For that reason alone I oppose the proposition on the Paper, and I trust the House will see that it is not in the public interest to pass it. I therefore move "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Resolution."
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

ADJOURNMENT.
MR. J. A. PEASE,in moving the adjournment of the House, gave notice of a Motion for to-morrow to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule.
*MR. MORTONsaid that as they had got through the business early he hoped that they might be allowed
492
to proceed with some of the Bills on the Paper. He trusted that the Government would not persist in preventing them doing business when they had got two or three hours which they might conveniently spend in discussing the Bills of private Members, some of which had bean before the House and the country for years. He could not understand why the Government should intervene and stop business being done. The Government had offered no explanation, and if the Whips were consulted they would reply that they had got orders to proceed in this way. He objected to the business of the country being stopped in that way. He would like to see some of those Bills sent to Committee. They had set up a lot of Committees for the purpose of doing business, and there was but little for them to do just now. There was one measure, the Police Superannuation (Scotland) Bill, which might conveniently be dealt with in this war. That was a measure which had been before the House for a good many years. He would not go into the merits of the Bill, but he thought they might be allowed to discuss it now, especially as that might be their only opportunity. He hoped the Government would recognise that the unpaid Members of the House were willing to stop and do the business of the country, and he hoped the Government would consent to allow the House to proceed with the Orders of the Day.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes after Eight o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Commercial Union Assurance Company Bill [H.L.].—Reported, with Amendments.
Leith Burgh Bill [H.L.].—Read 2a, and committed; The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Clyde Navigation (Superannuation) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.].—Commons Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Public elementary schools in "single school parishes" as defined in Section 3 (6) of the Elementary Education (England and Wales) Bill, 1908.

  INDIA (LAND REVENUE).
  Land revenue assessments in the Punjab since 1855.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  COUNTY COURTS.
  Rules, 1908; Memorandum respecting.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  Rules, 1908 with Memorandum.

  LOCAL LOANS FUND (ACCOUNTS, 1906–1907).
  Accounts of receipts and payments by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt in respect of the capital and income of the Local Loans Fund, for the year ended 31st March, 1907; together with a Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General there-on.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ISLAND OF VATERSAY.
  Return of correspondence respecting
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Order of 6th February last), and to be printed. [No. 30.]

  SUNDAY CLOSING (SHOPS) BILL. [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, as this subject has been several times before your Lordships it will not be necessary for me to trouble the House at any length. The Bill was originally brought in at the urgent request of the shopkeepers themselves. It was referred to a Committee, which reported strongly in its favour. The Report said—
  "The Committee are convinced by the evidence that Sunday trading is on the increase; that the Bill is urgently needed; that it is desired by the shopkeepeng interests, and would inflict no serious hardship on the poorer classes; that it would be a great benefit to the country generally, and that it commends itself both to the reason and the conscience of the community."
  The following year I brought in a Resolution stating—
  "That in the opinion of this House the question of the Sunday opening of shops demands the serious and early attention of His Majesty's Government."
  This was unanimously adopted, and a Joint Committee of both Houses was appointed. This Committee also was strongly in favour of legislation. They pointed out that the present state of the law was unsatisfactory and unjust and they said—
  "The Committee recommend strongly that legislation, subject to such modifications in the existing law as may be necessary, should be initiated in general accordance with the increasing feeling against Sunday trading."
  Under these circumstances, we were disappointed last year that Sunday trading was omitted from the list of subjects on which the Government proposed legislation. We then proposed another and stronger Resolution—
  "That this House reiterates its opinion that the subject of Sunday trading requires the serious and earnest attention of His Majesty's Government, and urges them to legislate in accordance with the unanimous reports of the Committees of 1905 and 1906."

  327
  This, also, your Lordships agreed to unanimously, but my noble friend the Lord President of the Council spoke very unsympathetically, and frankly admitted that the Government were not disposed to move in the matter. However, we hoped against hope, but as it is evident that the Government will do nothing, we have re-introduced our Bill. It is in the form adopted by the Committee of 1905, with one or two small Amendments suggested by the Committee of 1906. Every provision in it has been approved by that Committee also, though the Bill does not in some respects go so far as they recommended.
  Now, my Lords, what are the provisions of the Bill? It does not in one sense propose to alter the law of the land as regards Sunday trading, except in detail. Sunday trading is already illegal, but the law is inoperative because the fine is too small. We propose to raise it to the amount approved by Parliament in the case of the Early Closing Bill. The shopkeepers, however, feel, and both Parliamentary Committees agreed, that if the law is to be made operative, certain exemptions are necessary. The main exemptions are refreshments, medicines, milk and cream, newspapers, tobacco in the hours during which public-houses are open, and for the morning hours bread, fish, vegetables, fruit, and cooked meat. In considering a Bill of this character we must have regard to the wishes and feelings of shopkeepers and of customers, especially the poorer customers. Now, as regards shopkeepers, the Bill is supported by all the important trades. The Report of the Committee comprises a list of 350 associations which support the Bill, and the number is now larger. Not a single association of shopkeepers desired to give evidence against the Bill, and I do not know of any by whom it is opposed. This is surely a most remarkable concensus of opinion, and having now been for over thirty years in close touch with the shopkeeping community I may assure your Lordships that there is nothing about which they are more unanimous or more determined. I see that Mr. Stacey, the energetic secretary of the Early Closing Association, in a letter in yesterday's Press, even goes so far as to say that the shopkeepers, including the
  328
  small shopkeepers, are practically unanimous in its favour. I must not omit to mention the shop assistants. They naturally feel very strongly on the subject, and surely they are entitled to their Sunday's rest.
  Now I come to the customers, and here I think we may fairly take the trade councils and trade unions as representing the views of working men. The Committee give a striking list of about 200 trade councils and trade unions who support the shops in this demand. As representing public opinion, I may also refer to the views of municipalities. Resolutions in favour of the Sunday closing of shops have been passed by the corporations of Liverpool, Manchester, Hull, Swansea, Belfast, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Inverness, Dundee, Aberdeen, and over fifty other cities and boroughs, and by the executive council of the Urban District Councils Association, representing no less than 490 urban districts. Finally, a few days ago (5th March), at a meeting of the London borough councils, convened expressly to consider the question of shop hours, a resolution was passed, one clause of which was that shops should be shut all day on Sunday. I must frankly admit that the case of the Jews presents some difficulties, and I will at this stage only say that, while ready to meet them as far as possible, the view of shopkeepers is that if Jews come to live in a Christian country they should conform to the law of the land. We are most anxious, however, to meet the views of the Jews as far as possible. The Committee recommended that certain areas where the Jews have special markets might be scheduled, and we are quite prepared to accept such a clause. This, however, is a matter for Committee. I ought also, perhaps, to mention that some of the costermongers in the East of London, though not, I believe, in any other city, are opposed to any curtailment of Sunday trading. I believe, however, that the Bill has been misrepresented to them. The Joint Committee, in their Report, said that they were—
  "Of opinion that the greater part of the opposition is based on a misapprehension. Under the exemptions provided in the Sunday

  329
  Closing (Shops) Bill of 1905, which the Committee have in the main adopted, they consider that no serious inconvenience could be caused."
  In conclusion, I cannot more strongly commend this Bill to your Lordships than by reading a few short paragraphs from the Report of the Joint Committee of 1906. They said—
  "They are satisfied of the great importance of maintaining the Sunday as a day or rest not only on religious and moral grounds, but also as necessary to the preservation of the health and strength of the community … Though the Committee had no doubt as to the importance of the Sunday rest from the point of view of health, they thought it well to consult the President of the Royal College of Physicians, Sir Richard Douglas Powell, who was good enough to come and express his opinion, which he said was that of the whole medical profession, that there cannot be the least doubt of the importance of one clear day's rest in seven.' The Committee do not consider that the words of any particular Bill come within their terms of reference, but they recommend strongly that legislation, subject to such modifications in the existing law as may be necessary, should be initiated in general accordance with the increasing feeling against Sunday trading in this country."
  The religious aspect of the question has several times been urged, with his usual force and lucidity, by his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. If I do not refer to it, it is not because I undervalue this aspect of the case, but because I can leave it in abler hands. My Lords, in conclusion, on behalf of the shop-keeping community I most earnestly commend this Bill to your favourable consideration and trust you will give it a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Avebury.)
  *LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, I ask for your indulgence while I say a few words respecting this Bill. I feel sure that the noble Lord who introduced it is actuated solely with a desire to benefit the people of this country by assuring that every one should have a weekly day of rest. But, unfortunately, if this Bill should pass into law in its present shape it would inflict immense hardship upon many thousands of the poorer working classes in my community. I feel justified in speaking on behalf of those living in East London, because I have worked among them for over fifty
  330
  years. I have represented a constituency in East London for fifteen years, and am now for the twentieth year acting president of a federation of forty-three congregations comprising 30,000 souls. They are about half the number of Jews in East London; I estimate the total number at about 70,000. Of these, the majority would be seriously affected by this Bill. They observe the seventh day Sabbath of the Decalogue, as did their fathers and ancestors for thousands of years. They, therefore, cease working on fifty-two Saturdays in the year, besides thirteen festivals; and if by this Bill they are compelled to close their shops and stalls on fifty-two Sundays, that will make 117 days in the year on which they will not be able to trade. Such a restrictive measure would ruin thousands, and throw them upon the rates, and if they were tempted to sacrifice their Sabbath they would deteriorate morally and swell the number, probably, of atheists, and even of anarchists. The Committee which considered this question in 1906, unanimously resolved to add the following paragraph to their Report—
  "Lastly the Committee must draw attention to the case of the Jews, with whom they have much sympathy. They would be glad if a compromise could be found that would satisfy the Jewish community. The Committee have been informed that any measure will be opposed which does not expressly permit those Jews who close on Saturday to open on Sunday. Such an arrangement, on the other hand, would probably be opposed by the shop-keeping community as a whole, and the Committee cannot recommend it. The Committee, however, realise that in the large cities there are to be found areas which are inhabited mainly by Jews. In those areas certain markets have grown up in which a large business is transacted on Sunday. The Committee are of opinion that these areas might be scheduled in any Act permitting any Jew who closes his shop and does not trade on Saturday to trade in these areas until midday on Sunday. The Committee recommend that, if the Jewish community desire it, permission should be given for the sale of kosher meat and Jewish bread up to midday on Sunday."
  The only argument of importance which I have heard in opposition to that recommendation of the Committee is that the Jews should not have any special legislation. It is said that since they come here they must abide by the laws of the majority. I would point out, in reply, that there already exists special

  331
  legislation in favour of the Jews in the Factory and Workshop Act of 1878, reenacted in 1901. I quite agree that everybody in this country must abide by the laws, but when new laws are proposed which are injurious to them and restrict the freedom which they generally enjoy it is the duty of their defenders to oppose them. The bulk of these Jews are Russian refugees, and it is hardly sympathetic to say that they come here. They are driven here by the murderous cruelties of the Russian Black Hundred, who murder, and incite to murder, men, women, and even little children, and are not themselves punished for their acts. The majority of these Jews have been obliged to flee to civilised countries like this, where they hope to have their life and property safe. They wish to work in peace; and if the provisions of the Factory and Workshops Act of 1878 were extended to shops and stalls, I myself should be perfectly satisfied.
  I will only refer to one item in the Schedule of this Bill. While bread, fish, and cooked meat may be sold for a short time on Sundays, raw meat is not included. I should like to ask the noble Lord why it is that, in spite of the recommendation of the Committee, that concession has not been granted? This restriction would fall heavily on Jewish butchers in hot weather and when a festival occurs on a Friday or a Monday. They could not keep meat so long, and the poor people would be prevented from buying the scraps and offal which they consume, being unable to afford the expensive joints. Moreover, other than Jews protest against the Bill in its present shape. There are about 4,000 Mahomedans living in this country and 5,000 Mahomedan visitors come here annually, and I know from official sources that this Bill is strongly condemned by them. It is stated that such an interference with Mahomedans as this Bill involves, would be resented by Mahomedan British subjects, whose numbers exceed those of Christian British subjects. If these shops were closed they would not be able to buy kosher meat, the only meat that strict Mahomedans will eat in this country. I trust your Lordships will let this Bill meet with the same fate as the Bill of three years ago. My people
  332
  want to be let alone. Their Sunday trading is largely in food, and is carried on mainly with their own people. It has been well said that you cannot make people religious by Act of Parliament, but you can make them irreligious by Act of Parliament if you create fresh obstacles in the way of religious people keeping their Sabbath and other religious observances. I leave the matter to the humanity of your Lordships' House, and I hope the Bill will not pass in its present shape.
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I feel I almost owe an apology to the House for intruding again on this subject. Every year for a good many years past I have been privileged to say a few words respecting it, and while I feel that your Lordships listen sympathetically to the noble Lord who is so honourably identified with this work as year by year he renews his endeavour to get this Bill passed into law, you may not feel the same with regard to those who year after year speak in support of it. For, indeed, there is practically nothing new to be said on the subject. We have all the facts before us, and what we venture to complain of is that those who desire to postpone legislation, adduce, not arguments in opposition, but pleas simply for delay.
  One Committee after another has during the last few years considered the subject, and the Joint-Committee which sat two years ago presented an exceedingly weighty report to your Lordships. I venture to think very scant justice has been done to the immense labour which that Joint-Committee bestowed upon it. I was not a member of that Committee and therefore can speak with freedom as to the merit which attaches to the work the Committee did. Last year no Bill was introduced, but my noble friend brought forward a Resolution in favour of such legislation as that which this year we are invited once more to undertake. Your Lordships will remember that those of us who are in favour of it, and I think the House generally, felt some little disappointment on the former occasion at what was said by my noble friend Lord Beauchamp,

  333
  who spoke on behalf of the Government then as I gather he will speak to-night, and whose words in this House on behalf of the Government contrasted somewhat markedly with the Amendment he had himself proposed in the Committee.
  Not only have this Bill and Resolutions respecting it been again and again before the country, but during the last two or three years there has been a remarkable awakening on the whole subject of Sunday observance. The movement has been supported, not only from the religious standpoint, though from there it took its start, but by medical authorities, commercial authorities, and by those who represent the Labour section of the community in almost every large town in England and Wales, there being a widespread apprehension on the part of the working classes and others that they are in danger of losing their day, of rest and, where this is desired, of worship. Lord Avebury has again pointed out how all those to whom we have a right to look for evidence on this subject have been practically unamious in support of some such measure as that which is now again before your Lordships. The Shopkeepers' Associations all over the land support it; the municipal authorities, who, as my noble friend says, are most unwilling generally to take action in a matter of this kind which is more or less controversial, have found public opinion to be so strong in their boroughs that they have thrown themselves into the ranks of those who are supporting this legislation; and now the municipal councils of London, following what has been done in the country, support the proposal.
  On the other side we have, it is true, some objection on the part of the costermongers and of a few associations such as the Society of Operative Printers, who have circulated to your Lordships a document which is a remarkable example of how a man honestly desiring to put a case before the public may misunderstand the matter in such a way as to render his manifesto practically worthless. This document rests on a basis of supposed fact, which is directly contradicted by the Bill itself, by the Reports of Committees on which the Bill is founded, and by the evidence
  334
  which has been adduced year by year in the speeches of Lord Avebury and others. There are, and always have been, three classes for whose interests the opponents of legislation of this kind ask consideration—the small consumer, the small trader, and the Jewish community. Every one of these cases has been most carefully considered in the Report which has been long in your Lordships' hands, and the objections are met in the Bill now before us.
  As regards the consumers, it is almost impossible, as we have again and again said, to get conclusive evidence from any representative spokesmen or spokeswomen, because nobody is formally authorised, so to speak, but anyone who will look at the endeavours which have been made by successive Committees to obtain evidence from the kind of people who are supposed to be treated harshly by legislation of this kind will see that the matter has been gone into to the very bottom, and that it is really a baseless proposition that there is a widespread feeling of objection to this legislation among those who represent small consumers. Witnesses have spoken on behalf of those trade unionists or their families who are the consumers affected, and such witnesses are practically unanimous in saying that the objections are fanciful and unreal. As to the small traders, the noble Lord has often pointed out that the associations which have spoken with practical unanimity up and down the country consist very largely of small traders, and that no delusion can be greater than that which represents this proposal as being made on behalf of large tradesmen as against small tradesmen.
  Then with regard to that portion of the community for whom Lord Swaythling has just spoken, the Committee which has tried to deal with this matter has expressed a desire that such objections to legislation as are fourd to be real on the part of that community should be dealt with respectfully, carefully, and generously. But I think we have a right to say that we must not, in legislation of this kind concerning the people as a whole, be too much regulated and influenced by

  335
  consideration of the wishes and scruples of those who must, after all, be a very small minority of the people of the land taken generally. Mahomedans have been mentioned by the noble Lord. But we are not making new legislation in a new spirit; we are making old legislation practical; and the question of how a general law will affect the position of an infinitesimal minority of the population is hardly the kind of argument that can be regarded as conclusive when we are dealing with the general well-being of a Christian nation. The community at large has spoken with no uncertain voice on this subject, and while we will take the greatest care to consider any Amendment or suggestions for improving the provisions relating to the Jewish community, I hope we shall consider the interests of the people at large as over-riding even some objection felt by so important a section of the population.
  The exemptions allowed in the Schedule—exemptions which are capable of being enlarged, but are in my opinion ample as they stand—at all events show what care has been taken to find out where the shoe pinched and to prevent it pinching if that were possible. If one sees what takes place in some of the Sunday markets in our great cities, it is impossible to say that the majority of the things sold are things which it is necessary to sell on Sunday. A large proportion of the merchandise is crockery, second-hand clothing, singing birds, and growing plants. There is no attempt to show, at any rate on any large scale, that the purchaser of these things is unable to go for them on any other day. Where this could be shown we have tried to meet the difficulty by special provisions in the Bills which have been successively brought forward. I think the reality of the need for the Bill amply proved. The evil with which it deals is increasing, and I hope the House will not again be told that it is impossible to proceed in the matter, and that further consideration is required. The subject has now received the fullest consideration, and nothing is to be gained by delay.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, like the most rev. Primate,
  336
  I feel that I owe your Lordships an apology for speaking again upon this subject, for I am afraid that during the course of the last two or three years I have spoken not a few times with regard to it. To-night I shall add very little. Although I have sometimes differed from my noble friend Lord Avebury, with regard to the details of his proposal, I have always thought that in principle he had a very strong case. I think so now, and if he goes to a division I shall certainly follow him into the lobby.
  What I may call the Second Reading position is really a very simple one. The practice of Sunday trading is already illegal under the laws of this country; but, as we all know, owing to certain inadequacies in those laws they are constantly defied. Then there is no doubt that the practice of Sunday trading tends to increase. The evidence upon that point is, I think, overwhelming. Another matter which I think should weigh with your Lordships is this, that this is not a case in which you can look to public opinion to redress the evil. As we all know, if a single man persists in the practice of Sunday trading, he virtually forces the hand of all other traders in the neighbourhood. There seems to me, therefore, to be a very strong case for the intervention of the Legislature.
  As to the history of the matter, we have the fact that in 1905 a Select Committee of this House reported in favour of my noble friend's Bill. In 1906, your Lordships, on my noble friend's Motion, referred the subject to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, and that Committee reported in favour of the Bill presented in the previous year. Last year we carried a Resolution proposed by my noble friend in the same direction. Therefore, so far as this House is concerned, we are very strongly committed to the principle of this proposal. My noble friend has brought evidence to show that it has the support of an immense body of the shopkeepers of this country. He is supported by the trade unions and trade councils, which we may surely take as authoritative exponents of the views of the working classes. He has the support of a number of very important local

  337
  bodies and corporations, and, as I said a moment ago, he has the support of this House so far as its recorded votes are concerned during the last three years. It seems to me that if ever what I may call a Second Reading case was established, my noble friend has established it this evening.
  It is quite true that any legislation of this kind is almost sure to occasion hardship in some directions, but it does seem to me that we have to consider the balance of advantage and disadvantage, and that we ought not to be deterred from carrying out an improvement in the law which will give infinite relief to many thousands of the people of this country, merely because certain smaller classes of the community may be to some extent inconvenienced. In Committee we shall be able to consider whether there are any cases of hardship not provided for in the exemptions already specified. We have it from my noble friend Lord Avebury, and from the most rev. Primate that if any such hardships are found to remain, they will gladly entertain Amendments for meeting them. For these reasons I hope your Lordships will give a Second Reading to the Bill, reserving to yourselves, of course, the right to modify it, should it be shown to require modification, in Committee.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord who introduced this Bill will have had any illusion as to the answer he is likely to receive from His Majesty's Government. The Home Secretary, both by letter and in answer to a Question in another place, has stated that it is quite impossible for His Majesty's Government to deal with the question during the present session, and that they are even unable to take up a private Member's Bill on the subject. Therefore this afternoon, although His Majesty's Government do not propose to offer opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill, I must warn the noble Lord that in the circumstances they do not view that proceeding with any enthusiasm.
  I think it is only fair to your Lordships to point out that the matter is not quite so simple as it seems at first sight. There is an increasing number of people who
  338
  wish to see a Bill passed to secure, not the Sunday rest, but the principle of one day's rest in seven, leaving it to the individual to choose the day most suitable. That has some merits, such as solving the difficulty of railway travelling and matters of that kind. There are a large number of Sabbatarians who regard this Bill as not going far enough and allowing a great deal more trading on the Sunday than in their opinion is really necessary. But there is, as I have said, an increasing body of opinion among the working classes in favour of following the example of French legislation, and of enacting one day's rest in seven rather than of insisting on the particular day of rest being Sunday.
  Then there is the method of carrying out the principle of the Bill, as to which everybody is not yet agreed. The method of the Bill is to exempt a number of trades from its operation; but I would remind your Lordships that the present Act of Charles II. will remain in force, and I am not sure that if we put this Bill on the top of it we shall not to some extent make the confusion of the law worse than it is at present. On the last occasion when we discussed this question we had a Motion before us, which is a very different thing from a concrete Bill. The noble Marquess who has just sat down spoke, as he reminded your Lordships, in 1905 on this measure, and as a sincere admirer of the noble Marquess I hope I may be allowed to quote part of what he said to your Lordships on that occasion. This Bill is substantially the same Bill as that which was before your Lordships in 1905. That Bill received some condemnation from the noble and learned Earl who was then on the Woolsack, but the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition said—
  "I cannot help thinking that that section (Clause 6) will place the Home Secretary in a very invidious position, and one in which no Minister should be placed."
  He spoke of the Bill as a piece of not very successful patchwork, and he also said that the result of its passing would be to produce not a few ambiguities and inconsistencies. He said he regarded the Bill as still open to very serious objections, and would regret to see it

  339
  become law. That is the Bill which your Lordships are asked this afternoon to read a second time.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: There have been two Committees since then.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: That is true, but those Committees have not incorporated any substantial alterations. It is practically the Bill of 1905 which the noble Lord now asks your Lordships to read a second time. The most rev. Primate made a reference to myself, the same reference as he made last year. He was tempted, I think, by the success which it met with on that occasion, to repeat it. He spoke then as he spoke to-night of a difference between the language I held in this House and the language I held as a member of the Committee. If the most rev. Primate had pursued his study of the Report a little further he would have seen that the clause which was inserted on my Motion was a very different one from the original moved by Lord Avebury. That clause read—
  "The Committee desire to express their entire concurrence with the opinion expressed by the Committee of last year that Sunday trading is on the increase, and that the Bill is urgently needed."
  The words which were substituted expressly excluded the use of the word "urgently," and were very much milder in form than the original draft. I am glad to have had this opportunity of explaining to your Lordships that there is not that seeming inconsistency in my views which the most rev. Primate would have you believe. May I also say this to the most rev. Primate, that I think he is very optimistic in taking the view that the Jewish objections have been met by the provisions in this Bill. We have heard from Lord Swaythling that he would be very glad if your Lordships would decline to read the Bill a second time.
  LORD SWAYTHLING: I said I hoped your Lordships would not pass it in its present shape.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: There is no doubt of this, that the various objections
  340
  which were laid before us by members of the Jewish faith have not been met, or, at any rate, have not been satisfactorily met, by the provisions of this Bill. Then this legitimate criticism, at any rate, may be passed on the Bill, that it leaves the Act of Charles II. in force, and it is possible that, although certain trades are excluded from the Bill, penalties will still be applied for under the old Act. That seems to me a grave and serious objection. I can assure your Lordships that, I think in common with most Members of your Lordships' House, I should be very willing indeed if, by common agreement of all parties and of all religions, some method could be found of dealing with this question, which would be entirely satisfactory to all by securing, if not Sunday, at any rate one day's rest in seven.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Yes, I suppose we should all be very glad if all parties and all religions could agree about anything. I do not think the noble Earl's assurance at the conclusion of his speech is very satisfactory. I did not intend to speak on this Bill, for the very good reason that I have spoken so often upon it, but I cannot refrain from saying that, having myself served on both Committees, I share entirely the surprise of the most rev. Primate at the entire change of attitude which the noble Earl has assumed in this House from that which he adopted on the Committee. It is perfectly true that the noble Earl suggested several amendments, but I thought this was done so that we might arrive at some common ground in favour of the Bill. I did not imagine that it was done by a member of the Committee who in this House was coming forward as an entire opponent of the Bill in all forms and shapes, unless every single soul and every religious body in the country came to an agreement upon it.
  I am still more surprised at the statement which the noble Earl has thought it his duty to make without the slightest corroboration or support of any kind. He tells us that there is a growing feeling in this country in favour of the enactment of one day's rest in seven instead of maintaining the Sunday. What is his

  341
  ground for making that statement? No such statement has ever been made before a Committee. I remember a member of the Committee suggesting to a witness whether he did not think that would be a solution of the difficulty, and, as is generally the case when a question of that kind is put, the witness scratched his head and said it might be. But I have never heard the smallest evidence of a general wish in that direction, though I have received a great many communications and suggestions from various people on this subject. With all due respect to the noble Earl, until he can bring forward some proof of his statement I must believe that he is labouring under some misapprehension.
  With regard to the case of the Jews, we all admit that that is a great difficulty. I think I may claim for myself that I did what I could on the Committee to obtain for the Jews a perfectly fair hearing, and every consideration. I do not deny the difficulty, and should the Bill go into Committee I would be ready to do all I could to meet them. But I do not think that a great and growing evil should be allowed to continue throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, merely because it may be difficult to meet the position of one small section in the country. I therefore hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  *LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, it is quite true, as the noble Earl opposite has said, that he moved in the Committee to omit some words which, as Chairman, I had suggested, and to insert other words. But what were the words which he proposed and which I accepted? They ran—
  "The Committee do not consider that the wording of any particular Bill comes within the terms of reference, but they strongly recommend that legislation, subject to such modifications in the existing law as may be necessary, should be initiated in general accordance with the increased feeling against Sunday trading in this country."
  I did not think it advisable to stand by particular words. It is a great thing to have a Committee unanimous, and the noble Lord's words gave us substantially what we wanted. I think your Lordships will agree that it was wise to accept the words proposed by my noble
  342
  friend opposite. I entirely concur with what has just been said by the noble Duke. We did not find that there was any feeling in the country in favour of one day's rest in seven apart from Sunday. The noble Lord said that the provisions of the Bill would press severely on the trades included. But the trades included are most anxious for the Bill. With regard to the Jews, it must not be forgotten that they are allowed to open their shops on Saturdays after sunset, when the best trade is done. I am asked why we precluded the sale of raw meat. That was done at the earnest desire of the butchers' associations themselves; but that, of course, would be a matter for consideration in Committee. I particularly stated, in moving the Second Reading, that there was every desire on our part to meet the wishes of the Jewish community, and that Amendments in Committee, in so far as they do not affect the principle of the Bill, will have full consideration. We have every desire to meet their views without sacrificing the Sunday rest of shopkeepers generally.
  On Question, agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday, the 26th instant.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, this is simply a Consolidation Bill, and I believe I can confidently and with perfect truth assure the House that it contains no new matter whatever. I therefore trust your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Earl Carrington.)
*THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I hope the House will give this Bill a Second Reading. We are greatly indebted to my noble friend for having brought it in, for a Consolidation Bill has been wanted for a long time past.

343
I believe the noble Earl hopes that in that distant day, as we all trust it will be, when his tombstone comes to be engraved, it will have upon it something about farmers' charters and the regeneration of the land; but I am not at all sure that the greatest memorial to his tenure of office will not be the consolidation of the various Acts of Parliament dealing with agricultural holdings. I hope the noble Earl will not ask us to take the next stage of the Bill without a sufficient interval. That remark also applies to the next Bill on the Paper—the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill. It is most desirable that those parts of these Acts with which county councils and valuers have most to do should be grouped together in such a manner that they can be easily dealt with. I shall, at the proper time, be able to show to the noble Earl that there might be a convenient regrouping of some of the clauses of the Bill which would make them more easily administered. Certain doubts have arisen in reference to this subject which may possibly be set at rest by a slight alteration in the order of clauses, and I think there are some cases in which parts of Acts other than those which these Bills propose to consolidate have been introduced. It may be desirable for the sake of clearness that these should be incorporated in the Bill. But I hope that neither the noble Earl nor any other Member of your Lordships' House, will strive to insert in these Bills, which are purely Consolidation Bills, any new matter or any alteration of the law, however desirable, in our opinion, that alteration might be. I am quite certain that to do so would lead to great difficulty in getting the Bill through Parliament. I hope the noble Earl will resist any attempt at amendments in that direction, and I can assure him that he will have my support.
On Question, agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING].
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL CARRINGTON: This is simply a Consolidation Bill on the same lines as the Bill to which your Lordships have just given a Second Reading; and I take this opportunity of thanking my noble friend for the support he has promised to give His Majesty's Government in the passing of these two Bills. Of course, I am entirely in the hands of the House. I would most earnestly endorse the hope of my noble friend that no new matter will be introduced into these Bills, as that would be absolutely fatal to their passing. I trust my noble friend will expedite any improvements he may think fit to suggest, as these Bills are really necessary, and it is of the greatest importance that they should be passed into law at the earliest possible moment.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2"."—(Earl Carrington.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to communicate with him as to the date on which the next stage should be taken.
EARL CARRINGTONnodded assent.
LORD BELPER: My Lords, before the Second Reading is agreed to I should like to take the opportunity of thanking the noble Earl for introducing a Bill consolidating the enactments with respect to small holdings and allotments. This is a matter which was pressed on the Government by the County Councils Association, and it will be of great advantage to those who have to administer the Acts to have them consolidated in one measure. There is one point to which I should like to call attention, and, although it is a drafting Amendment, I think it is one of some importance. The House may remember that when the Small Holdings Bill was in Committee I called attention to the fact that, although the county council was the initiatory authority for bringing the Act into force, its name did not appear at all until you got a considerable way down the Bill—namely, to Clause 3; and it was only then introduced by an Amendment giving county councils power to make a scheme. I criticised that because it seemed to me that when

345
you were passing a Bill which was given in charge of the county councils, it was an extraordinary way to draft the Bill to start off with the Commissioners who were to force the county councils, in case they did not do their duty, while the county councils themselves were not mentioned at all except in a subsection half-way down the Bill. It was only in that way that we found out that they were the authority who had to deal with the Act. I only refer to it now because I have to thank the noble Earl for making an alteration which puts the county council in its proper position in regard to the Act. The first clause now provides that the county councils may, if they are of opinion that there is a demand for small holdings, put the Act in operation. Although only a drafting Amendment, I think in the circumstances it is one which I have been justified in detaining the House in alluding to, especially as it was a point to which attention was called at the time. By this Consolidation Bill the matter is now made perfectly clear.
On Question, agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MOTOR CAR LEGISLATION.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU,in asking whether His Majesty's Government would, in considering any further legislation or taxation relating to motor cars, bear in mind the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Motor Cars and the Royal Commission on London Traffic, and take such steps as may be necessary to create a national road authority, by whom the main roads of this country should be managed, said, My Lords, I am asking His Majesty's Government this afternoon the Question which is in my name on the Paper, in consequence of certain rumours which we must all have heard, that fresh arrangements are to be made on the question of the taxation of motor cars, and I think it might be convenient if His Majesty's Government could give us at any rate some information of the lines on which the proposed legislation will proceed. I am, of course, aware that
346
this House cannot deal intimately with questions of taxation, but as the projects which seem to be foreshadowed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer include matters of rating which will affect a great many of your Lordships very considerably, I think it is within the competence of this House that we should have a short discussion on the question. First of all, I would ask the noble Lord who, I believe, is going to reply for the Local Government Board on this Question to refer to the matter from two points of view. I am not now going to press the motorists' point of view, because the time will arrive when that can be done both in the other House and in this. But from the local authorities point of view the question of taxation and legislation with regard to motor cars is very important. To begin with, if we are to believe what has been said in another place, and if we are to take the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to certain deputations which have waited upon him, he has no intention at the present moment of giving anything to local authorities either in regard to providing them with funds for the extension of road management and improvement by them or in regard to setting up some central Board for the working of our roads. The former, I confess, is the more important of the two. At present no less than three Royal Commissions and one Departmental Committee have reported that the present system of road construction, maintenance, and administration is very bad. The Royal Commission on Local Taxation, the Royal Commission on Loudon Traffic, and the Royal Commission on Motor Cars, have all made certain recommendations which, I fear, are at any rate for the present moment to a certain extent rendered nugatory by the fatal want which impedes so many good resolutions, namely, the want of money. But if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to tax motor cars more highly (and I am not personally one of those who say that certain classes of motor cars ought not to pay more than they do), I think that at the same time local authorities and motorists have some right to ask that if money is to be raised from them, it should be raised on the lines of the recommendations of these Commissions and this

347
Departmental Committee, namely, on the lines of road improvement and of alleviating the great nuisance arising from dusty roads, which is the greatest nuisance motorists have to face in the country, and the removal of which nuisance would not only add to the comfort of motorists, but also alleviate the sufferings of those who live alongside the roads.
At the present the Treasury receives all the money which is derived from carriage taxes, establishment taxes, and all kinds of other small licences and taxations. The money so received is paid into the Local Taxation Account and returns to the counties in the form of a grant in aid of local taxation. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to take from them, besides a proportion of that, a certain amount of the licence fees for renewals of driving licences and for motor cars registrations—a sum amounting to something like £80,000 a year—as well, all I can say is that the county councils, which now have a very hard time of it, will have a still harder time in the future. It must not be forgotten that they have to put all that is necessary under the Local Government Act in the shape of triangles, signs for designating dangerous crossings, and so on, and they can only do that out of the sum they receive on licences and registration of motor cars. If the Lord Chancellor were here he would corroborate me, I think, when I say that last year they received over £2,500 in motor car licences and driving fees to assist them towards putting up these notices, and I trust that His Majesty's Government, if they consider any question of increased taxation, will see that this is not only a question of motor cars, but a question of carriages as well, and will give some contribution to enable the county councils to assist towards the improvement of the roads and the removal of their dusty condition. I do not intend at this late hour to trespass on your Lordships' time at any great length, but I should like to say that it seems to me that if motors are to be taxed from the point of view of luxury, there are other things which should be taxed equally, and perhaps to a larger extent. For instance,
348
there are yachts, racehorses, jewels, pictures, and even such things as the possession of an orchid house or anything else of that kind. But if the motor-car is to be taxed on that basis, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is rather under a fallacy concerning it, because the number of motor cars owned by rich people as compared with those owned by men of moderate means is comparatively small, and everyone studying the statistics knows that at the present time the largest single owners of motor cars are professional men, such as doctors and so forth, who use them for the purposes of their business. I think that is a class which ought to be dealt with very lightly in regard to increased taxation. If, on the other hand, motor cars are to be taxed as destroyers of the roads—which is another argument that I can quite understand being put forward—there are other vehicles which destroy the roads far more than motor cars, and if taxation is to be put forward upon that basis, then I suggest that there is all the more justice in declaring that the money should be paid to the Local Taxation Account in order to assist the counties.
This is a serious question, my Lords, and it is becoming more serious every day. Thirteen million pounds a year is spent on the roads of this country, of which £11,000,000 is raised by rates. The administration of these roads is at present in a chaotic condition. Authorities mend the roads just as they choose; there is no unified system. To take an instance, between London and Carlisle there are over 170 authorities who manage that stretch of road. What we ought really to do in this country—and no doubt His Majesty's Government will follow up the Report of the Royal Commission on this subject—is to have a national road authority to administer the main roads of the country. Everybody who has toured abroad knows the excellent condition of the roads in France, and this condition is solely due to the fact that they are managed by the Government as a national asset and as a national duty. I trust His Majesty's Government, if they have in view any further taxation of that sort, may come to the conclusion that a portion, if not the whole, of the money derived from

349
the vehicles that use the roads, and especially motor cars, may be devoted to local purposes—to the purposes of the improvement and maintenance of the roads; and I trust that the noble Lord who is going to reply will be able to give us some assurance on that point.
*LORD ALLENDALE: The noble Lord has raised a very interesting and a very important question, and he has incidentally raised the whole question of motor car traffic and the upkeep of roads. This question is very much involved, and I can only regret that in the few words that I have to say in reply to the noble Lord's question, I am afraid I shall not be able to give him what he will think a very satisfactory answer, because this question is so much mixed up with financial considerations which, as nobody knows better than the noble Lord, hardly come within the province of this House. I am able to say, however, that the Government have no present contemplation of any general legislation on the subject of motor cars, although they quite recognise that an Amendment in the law relating to motor cars is desirable in some directions. The noble Lord has given us some very interesting facts and figures on the question of motor cars and the upkeep of roads, the cost of which has no doubt increased to a very considerable extent since the advent of motors. But the main part of his question is really one, as I have already said, for the Treasury to deal with, referring as it does to matters of finance.
Now, what the noble Lord asks is practically if, when fresh legislation or fresh taxation is being considered, the recommendations of the Royal Commissions on Motor Cars and on London Traffic may be borne in mind, and he also asks that steps may be taken for establishing a national road authority for the management of the main roads of the country. I notice that in his remarks just now he used the expression "national road authority," but the suggestion of the Royal Commission to which he has referred—the Royal Commission of 1906—was not quite that there should be what he has termed a national road authority. Their sug-
350
gestion was that the money derived from the taxation of motor cars should be handed to some central department, and should be by them appropriated in part payment of the cost incurred by the local authorities in works having for their object the creation of more durable roads and the removal of dangers to traffic on the more important arteries of through communication. I think it will be seen, therefore, that it was not a national road authority such as the noble Lord has referred to, but a central department by whom the proceeds of licences should be distributed that was recommended. Such a department would, of course, come to exercise the same control over the main tenance of the roads as is now exercised by the various local authorities, while the actual management of the roads under the scheme proposed by the Royal Commission would remain with the existing authorities.
Then the noble Lord has also referred to other Royal Commissions and to a Departmental Committee which have already sat. The Royal Commission on London Traffic to which he referred, which sat in 1905, was by its terms of reference confined to the consideration of the traffic problems of London solely. It was, however, instructed to advise as to the desirability of establishing some tribunal to which schemes of railway and tramway construction should be referred, and it recommended the creation of a Traffic Board to deal with or advise upon all matters affecting traffic within the area of Greater London. The Report of that Commission does not, I think, bear very much upon the noble Lord's Question of to-day, but the Royal Commission on Local Taxation to which the noble Lord has also referred, did recommend, as the noble Lord has said, that a grant from the Exchequer should be made towards the maintenance of such roads as might be found on investigation by a "duly authorised tribunal" to be of national as well as of local importance. Then there was the Departmental Committee on Highway Authorities, 1903, which I think must be the one to which the noble Lord alluded, appointed by the Local Government Board. This Committee proposed a central Department to supervise the

351
maintenance of there national highways. But I cannot find that any of these Commissions, or this Committee, to which the noble Lord has referred, recommended quite what he has suggested, viz., a national road authority to manage the main roads of the country, and the Government cannot give any promise for the establishment of any such authority. It would be, in effect, to create in this country roads maintained by the State similar to what are known as "Routes Nationales" in France; and this would tend to throw a very serious burden upon the Imperial funds, and would be, I venture to think, inconsistent with the policy of local government and decentralisation which has been adopted in this country, although of course, it must be admitted—and I frankly admit—that motor traffic is not merely local, but if I may use the expression, through traffic, and that considerable changes in locomotion throughout the country have taken place no doubt largely owing to the advent of motors. I may perhaps point out also—and this trenches on the question of finance—that the practice of earmarking specific heads of Imperial revenue for the purpose of grants in aid of local taxation, is opposed to the present policy of the Treasury. Chancellors of the Exchequer are all very grasping, I know, but in view of the increasing demands that are made upon the Exchequer, I do not know that Mr. Asquith is any more grasping than any of his predecessors, or than the noble Lord who generally sits on the front bench opposite (Viscount St. Aldwyn); but I strongly suspect, my Lords, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has any contemplation at all of getting increased revenue from the taxation of motorcars—of which I have not the faintest notion—he will wish to have the disposal himself of any increased revenue which he may get, and not let it be intercepted for the purpose of grants-in-aid.
The noble Lord asks in his Question whether the Government will give any part of its increased taxation to local authorities for the upkeep of the roads. He must recognise, however—especially as he has sat in another place—that the whole question of subventions and
352
of the taxation of motor cars are matters which do not directly affect your Lordships, although as taxpayers I know perfectly well that all your Lordships must be individually interested in knowing what extra taxation may be imposed upon you in another place, and those of you who own motor cars will, I am sure, be very anxious to know whether you will have to pay a higher tax in respect of them during the coming year. But, as I have said, I cannot pretend to any knowledge of what the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are in this relation, and I am afraid we shall all have to wait patiently until he unfolds his Budget in a few weeks time.
Then, my Lords, there is the long-deferred and very urgent question of re-adjusting the burden of local taxation, which will have to be considered. The Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation has already been referred to by the noble Lord, and I suppose it may be taken for granted that when that very large question is dealt with, the suggestion of assisting from national sources the maintenance of arterial roads will be taken into very serious consideration, not only in connection with the motor-car traffic, but as part of a general and much wider scheme. The Royal Commission on Local Taxation did certainly make certain recommendations as regards giving assistance towards the maintenance of roads, but that was not particularly in respect to motor cars; in fact, I think it was—I will not say before the advent of motor cars, but before they had increased to the present enormous extent. But any recommendations made were made in respect of the relief of local rates.
My Lords, I am very sorry that I cannot make any more definite statement in reply to the noble Lord, because the whole question is so intimately bound up with the financial administration which, as I have already said, this House is not concerned with, and we also have the Budget still in front of us. I will, however, take care that the views which the noble Lord has expressed, and which I know are shared to a very large extent by noble Lords in this House and by others outside, shall be represented to the proper quarter.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, owing to an engagement in the country, I hardly expected that I should be able to be present on this occasion, and consequently I rise to address your Lordships in a somewhat unprepared state on this question. First of all, I would say that in the few remarks which I propose to make, I am speaking entirely for myself. On a previous occasion I criticised to a certain extent the action of His Majesty's Government, and I also criticised the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu with regard to this question of the maintenance of roads for motor car traffic. The views I expressed then I hold now. At the same time I sympathise entirely as to the importance of the question raised by my noble friend. He is of course an authority on all matters connected with motor cars and the motorcar traffic on our roads. I am not, but I sympathise with him, because I think that no one can deny that at present, and more and more as the years go by, we are seeing the motorcar traffic gradually, but surely increasing on the roads, and we are seeing steadily, gradually, and surely the increase of the employment given to a vast number of men, not only in the conduct of these motors, but also in the construction of all sorts and kinds of motor cars. Therefore it is a question which I think my noble friend is perfectly justified in bringing forward, and which I am glad to hear from the noble Lord opposite, that His Majesty's Government will carefully consider. But having said so much, I am bound to agree with what has fallen from the noble Lord opposite. I quite recognise that it is impossible for him to give any pledge as to what His Majesty's Government will do with regard to this, to my mind, very important question, because we must consider—and my noble friend opposite knows this full well, because he occupies a very prominent position in the County Council of Northumberland—that the whole question of road traffic is one of great importance to those living on the spot, and to the local authorities, and therefore they will look with a very considerable amount of anxiety at the course taken by His Majesty's Government when the whole question of local taxation, as
354
my noble friend has told us it will be, is gone into, and at the extent to which the rates are to be relieved or assisted.
My Lords, I myself have no hesitation in saying now, as I have said before—although I fear I shall be censured for doing so by my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu—that I think motor cars do not pay half enough taxation for the amount of benefit they receive in being permitted to run along the roads. I consider that the amount which a motor car pays for the privilege of being able to-run from John o' Groats to Land's End, and for having the roads kept in condition, is not adequate. I myself, as an owner of motor cars, would be only too glad to pay more, whether the tax is to be levied per horse-power or however the Government may decide, in order that I might feel that the roads were kept in order for me, and that I had a right to use those roads. I say again that at the present moment, to my mind, motor cars are certainly undertaxed; but as to how the question of taxation of motor cars is to be dealt with, I do not pretend to say. I remember that I said a year ago that I thought they ought to pay according to horse-power. I thought then that the very large fund which would result should be at the disposal of the Government. I still maintain that it should be at the disposal of the Government and not of the local authorities, for the purpose of maintaining the roads and of compensating those who are damaged by these motors rushing past them.
My noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, said that he did not see why motor cars, any more than objets d'art and other luxuries, should be taxed. I differ with him upon that, because motor cars are a cause of inconvenience to others, while objets d'art are not, and I consider that those who cause inconvenience to the public ought to pay for doing so. Therefore, I think that this is certainly a question which the Government ought to consider. In times past, when motor cars first originated, I think I may say that the drivers showed no consideration whatever for anyone. They rushed through the towns and villages regardless of any damage they did; they scared

355
men, women, and children, as well as horses and cattle on the roads, and in the fields, and I think the unpopularity of motor cars in the first instance was due entirely to that class of driver. But I am glad to think that the class of driver who is now employed is very different. He is forbidden by his employer to do anything, so far as he can avoid it, to cause inconvenience to the districts through which he passes, and I think that the British public consequently view the question of motor cars in quite a different spirit from what they did a few years ago.
I am bound to say I look with a certain amount of contempt upon police traps. I have always noticed that police traps are usually set in the safest part of the road, in those districts in which no harm could be done by going at a great speed—and yet it is at those very spots where no harm can be done, that there are policemen waiting to capture those drivers who are exceeding the legal speed. But where ought they to be? Not wasting their time in setting traps in those safe districts, but in the villages and towns where children are running about and risking their lives and limbs.
My Lords, I think this is a very big question to enter into, and I am very glad indeed that my noble friend has raised it. I certainly hope that when the time comes for raising this question of local taxation the views which I have put shortly and crudely before your Lordships may be taken into consideration, and that the whole system of motor car traffic along the roads, which is at the present time a very important question, and will become more and more important as the years go by, may be taken into consideration, and the matter fully discussed and considered before any definite conclusion is arrived at.
*THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE): My Lords, the question which my noble friend has raised is one (and nobody, I think, appreciates that more than he does) of immense and almost endless ramifications. I was rather sorry that in the course of his observations he dwelt so entirely upon the damage done to
356
the roads by motor cars, and that he did not say a word about—at least so far as I followed his argument, he did not refer specifically to—the much greater damage done to roads by road engines as distinct from motor cars. I suppose that nobody who lives in the neighbourhood of a town can possibly fail to be aware that one road engine, in the course of a few hours, will do a far greater amount of damage than a very great number of motor cars, and also that there is a tendency now, on the part of railway companies, to take such traffic as they have heretofore still continued to place upon our fast disappearing canals off those canals and to put it upon road engines and send it along the roads. For example, in the neighbourhood of Bath and Bristol, the Midland Railway Company has taken its traffic off the Kennet and Avon Canal, and has put it upon the main roads in the counties of Somerset and Wilts and in the City of Bath (which is an independent road authority) which runs parallel to that canal, and those roads, which used to be some of the finest roads in the country, and were very popular, especially with the bicycling community, have now been almost entirely destroyed, and the cost of these roads to the county authorities has been enormously increased. That, of course, raises a question which is very germane to what has fallen from my noble friend, and which will undoubtedly have to be considered whenever this very large and complicated question is dealt with—I mean the law relating to extraordinary traffic. My noble friend knows—for he has given an almost life-long study to this question—that the law relating to extraordinary traffic is in a state of most extraordinary confusion. At a very early period of the appearance of this greatly increased traffic upon our roads, decisions were given—and I have no doubt they were perfectly sound as having been given by eminent Judges—that "extraordinary traffic" only meant traffic which was not ordinary traffic—that it was not "extraordinary" in the sense of being unusually great in the point, let us say, of the weight, or quantity, or quality, of the traffic itself. They decided that you had simply to ascertain the question whether it was part of the ordinary traffic of the district

357
or not. Then subsequently there were other decisions which rather qualified that doctrine, and quite recently, in regard to this very Midland Railway Company, in the neighbourhood of the city of Bath, there has been a decision given which no doubt is a very great encouragement to the road authorities. Now it stands to reason that if the road authorities are able to enforce claims for extraordinary traffic against companies which do this damage, and if they are able to recover a considerable amount of the increased cost—not, perhaps, that I am very hopeful about that—it would in some ways rather modify the present position, because it would remove a portion of the grievance which the local authorities have, as I think, far more against the owners of heavy traffic like the road engines than against the owners of motor cars, though no doubt the motor cars are far more numerous in themselves than the road engines.
Then, whenever this question comes up, I have no doubt the Government will also have to consider certain questions on which my noble friend touched, though not very fully. For example, my noble friend said, and said very truly, that one of the greatest evils of our present road system was the enormous number of authorities. I always regretted that the late Government, when they were passing that great measure, the Local Government Act of 1888, accepted an Amendment by which the county councils were able to divest themselves of a considerable portion of their authority and their duty, by contracting with minor authorities. Undoubtedly the enormous number of local road authorities is a very great evil. It will be great in any case, because you have all the county authorities—not only the geographical counties, but the administrative counties, which include all the great county boroughs—boroughs above 50,000 population. But if, in addition to that, a county council contracts with all the minor authorities in a county, or with some of them, you immediately intensify that evil twenty or thirty-fold, according to the circumstances of your county.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUnodded assent.
*LORD FITZMAURICE: I am glad to see that my noble friend agrees with me. And the contracting clause to which I refer, is all the more dangerous because there is generally a certain amount of local popularity to be got by telling the minor authorities that you are going to contract with them. The unfortunate result has been that the less progressive counties in England have taken advantage of that clause, and have very largely divested themselves of the duty which Parliament placed upon them, and in that way have enormously increased the existing confusion and expense.
Although my noble friend spoke of two Commissions, I think as a matter of fact the second body was not a Commission but a Departmental Committee, and that Departmental Committee issued a very valuable Report. In that Report there were some specific recommendations upon this point—that the powers of the county councils to divest themselves of their duty in regard to road maintenance should be very seriously considered by the Government.
Then there is yet another matter, which I do not think my noble friend mentioned at all, which bears upon this question, namely, the extraordinarily weak position in which the county councils of England stand as compared with the county councils of Ireland, with regard to the expense of road improvements. I believe this is not very generally known: that the greatest local bodies that we have in England—the county councils—have no compulsory power for taking land for the improvement of roads. When the late Government were passing the Local Government (Ireland) Act through Parliament, they accepted a very useful Amendment. I am glad to say that, because just now I was criticising them in reference to an unfortunnate Amendment which they accepted in the English Act, but by general consent in the "House of Commons (and English Members took some part in the discussion—I myself ventured to do that somewhat dangerous thing, and it is a

359
thing which I have very seldom ventured upon doing, to discuss an Irish Bill in the House of Commons) a clause was accepted under which the Irish county councils were given that which the English county councils have not got, namely, a cheap and easy method of taking land by compulsion, when they cannot get it by agreement, for purposes of road improvement. Of course that is a right which has to be very carefully guarded, in order to prevent landowners being subject to any injustice. The machinery provided was partly administrative, partly judicial, but as I say this clause was accepted quite unanimously by the House of Commons and by your Lordships' House. If a similar provision were made with regard to England, I believe the county councils would be enabled, in regard to this matter of road maintenance and road improvement, to move with greater freedom, especially in the case of land near large towns, where in many cases roads seem to end in the neck of a bottle, and where there is a great tendency to ask the very highest price which can be got for the land. An alteration of the law in this respect would, I know from experience, be a very great advantage to the county councils.
I have ventured to mention all these subjects in order that I might fully justify the position which the Government take—that as these points all exist, and as there are those larger questions of local convenience on which my noble friend dwelt so very clearly in his speech, I do not think anybody can complain, if, bearing in mind the rather lengthy programme which the Government have before them, they do not, in this session at least, attempt to deal with this very difficult question.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: The noble Lord who answered me on this question hardly, I think, grasped that what I asked him for was not so much information as to whether a higher tax on motor cars was to be put on in the ensuing Budget; what I rather invited the Government's attention to was the fact that whatever process they adopt for taxation the money should be handed over, as the noble Lord (Lord Fitzmaurice) has made out
360
so good a case for, to the local authorities for the purposes of the roads. The Departmental Committee to which I referred particularly advocated that there should be a central authority, which might be the Local Government Board or some other Department, to take over the work of the maintenance of the main roads. I did not go fully into the Royal Commission Report, because it would have taken too long. After what has fallen from noble Lords opposite, I am afraid that the subject will not receive the attention of the Government this session, but I hope that His Majesty's Government will bear it in mind should an opportunity arise at any time of doing anything to help forward this matter.
LORD ALLENDALE: I apologise to the noble Lord if I omitted to refer to the particular point to which he has just called attention, but I was rather regarding the whole question as one which is very much mixed up with these three Royal Commissions and the Departmental Committee. I am quite sure that all the recommendations of these various bodies will receive the careful consideration of whatever Government is in power at the time when this question comes to be dealt with.

INDIAN GOVERNORS AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE.
*LORD LAMINGTON,in asking whether His Majesty's Government would consider the advisability of amending the statute by which the Viceroy, the Governors of Madras and Bombay, and the Commander-in-Chief in India are unable to obtain leave to return home without resignation of their appointment, said: My Lords, the prohibition that forms the subject of my Question dates from an Act of 33 George III. I have read somewhere, but cannot now trace the reference, the origin of this prohibition. If I remember rightly, it was owing to the absence from India of some highly placed official for a period of two or more years without leave. However, the prohibition was finally embodied in an Act of 3 & 4 William IV., and it now reads as follows—
"That the return to Europe or the departure from India with intent to return to Europe of

361
any governor-general of India, governor, member of council, or commander-in-chief, shall be deemed in law a resignation and voidance of his office or employment."
That prohibition has been so far amended and qualified by an Act of 1861 as to allow members of the Council to obtain leave on medical certificate.
My Lords, I need hardly point out the great difference between the circumstances which obtain now and those which obtained in the year 1793, when a voyage to India occupied anything from a year to eighteen months, and even in the time of William IV., it might often have a duration of from six to nine months. In addition, there is now a weekly mail, and there is the telegraph incessantly going between the Government of India and the authorities at home. Therefore, there is really no comparison between the methods of communication which now exist and those which existed at the time these Acts were framed; and if this is such a very wise and important provision, it may well be asked why it is not found in any other Department or in any other service. It certainly does not exist in the case of any other offices held under the Crown, and it may safely be assumed that in no other country in the world does this disability extend to any official, and I do not imagine for a moment that anybody would say that if you were in these days framing a system of administration for the Indian Empire you would insert such a provision as this. I am myself far too profound a believer in the value of the opinion, the judgment, and the knowledge of the man on the spot to propose anything that would encourage him to take leave for his own recreation or amusement, and thereby possibly injure his authority and prestige. Nor, indeed, can I imagine that any occupant of these offices that are subject to this prohibition would be willing idly to absent himself from his post. The work is so interesting, the problems to be solved are so varied, so complex and so absorbing, and the distribution of officers and general system of patronage demands such constant and urgent attention, that I cannot conceive of any of these officials being anything but loth to sever himself, even temporarily, from the affairs of his
362
office. But, my Lords, there are inseparable accidents of our existence. Death and illness are always possibilities, and these upset your best-framed regulations; and in my opinion the failure to recognise them may only accentuate their possibilities for evil, and by not making allowance for these contingencies the continuity which it was the obvious intention of these Acts to preserve may be only the more impaired.
If I may do so, I would show this by my own experience, but I do so with extreme reluctance, and I would ask your Lordships to acquit me of any desire or intention of bringing forward my own misfortune as the basis of my argument. I only use it by way of illustration, and nothing more. Still less am I seeking to ventilate a grievance, because for the sympathy and goodwill that I received from the Secretary of State I can entertain nothing but the most profound gratitude—a gratitude equalled only by my admiration for the manner in which he discharged the affairs of his office. Therefore there is nothing personal about what I am going to say; it is merely used by me in illustration of my argument. Last year I was holding the post of Governor of Bombay, and owing to certain untoward circumstances in connection with ill-health, my return home was necessitated. Before returning, I asked the Secretary of State if it was not possible to allow of my resignation with a view to subsequent reappointment. I only asked for a short leave of absence—say eight or ten weeks, but the Secretary of State, after giving full consideration to my application, said he could not grant it, as he considered it would be contrary to the spirit of the Act. Well, my Lords, what happened? I left towards the end of July, and my successor did not arrive in India until nearly the middle of November; so that the interruption—the interval between the holding of the Governorship by myself and my successor—was an interval of fourteen or fifteen weeks, as compared with the eight or ten weeks for which I had asked. Furthermore, the occupant of the post was fresh to his duties as compared with myself. I do not think it can be gainsaid, therefore, that continuity of administration was not secured in that instance, and

363
that the spirit of the law would have been honoured rather in its breach than in its observance. I should not care how stringent were the conditions imposed upon any official who had to take leave—I should say that he must sacrifice his pay, that he should receive no allowance of passage money, and that there should be the strictest possible limitations of time imposed; but what I do contend is that the Government, or the Secretary of State, should not be debarred absolutely, helplessly, and hopelessly, from doing what might be considered advisable under such circumstances—that some discretion should be allowed in the matter of giving leave. Remember, this disability may operate very injuriously in preventing the Government obtaining the services of the men who may be best fitted to fill these posts. The point was mentioned by the late Lord Salisbury on an occasion which I will allude to later on. He said that "owing to the inability to obtain temporary leave or medical leave it was difficult to fill some of the offices specified in the schedule of a Bill which was then being brought forward;" and he added that "nobody who had had anything to do with the filling of those offices would doubt the accuracy of what he said." And I have had it on very good authority that one of the most distinguished Members of your Lordships' House has said that nothing would induce him to accept an office during the tenure of which he would be debarred from any possibility of returning home.
My Lords, that is one aspect of the case. Then there is another. The one I have mentioned deals rather with the removal of what to my mind constitutes a defect of the law, but there are those who hold strongly that it would be a decided gain were any one of these officials able to be summoned home for purposes of consultation and discussion by the Home Government. I need not dwell upon the advantages of personal discussion as compared with any amount of despatch or letter writing, but I may briefly state what has taken place in this connection. In 1887 it was thought desirable that His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught should leave his post of Commander-in-Chief in Bombay—a post which has been
364
since abolished—so as to be enabled to attend the Jubilee of her late Majesty Queen Victoria; and Sir John Gorst, who was then Under-Secretary of State for India in the House of Commons, in moving the Second Reading of a Bill to enable His Royal Highness to come home, stated that it had been then contemplated by the Government that it might have been possible to have allowed His Royal Highness to resign with the intention of his being subsequently reappointed, but that it had been felt by the Government, then as now, that some would consider that such a course would constitute an evasion of the Act. Mr. Childers, in the course of the debate, said that he would be willing to support the Bill on the understanding that the Government as soon as possible introduced a Bill repealing this particular provision. Mr. W. H. Smith, the then Leader of the House of Commons, at once assented, and during his speech adverted strongly upon the advantages that would be obtained by the possibility of giving permission to any one of these officials to return home from time to time; and in 1891–1892 the noble Lord, Viscount Cross, introduced a Bill into your Lordships' House with these objects in view. That Bill both gave permission for any one of these officials to obtain leave on medical certificate, and also provided that on public grounds he might be summoned home at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Speaking for myself, I think that the conditions surrounding this concession were really almost too liberal, but that is a point into which I need not enter now. During the course of the debate, the late Lord Salisbury mentioned that he considered the present system was anomalous and unwise. That Bill passed through your Lordships' House. It then went to the House of Commons, where it was taken charge of by my noble friend Lord Curzon, but it never arrived at any further stage, owing to the general election supervening.
Now I come to another stage of this question. In 1902 I understand that during the Viceroyalty of Lord Curzon a despatch was sent by the Government of India dealing with this question, and

365
I would ask the noble Lord who is going to reply to this question whether he would not allow that despatch to be laid upon the Table of this House, and also the reply made to it by the then Secretary of State. In speaking of the Bill of 1892 I ought to have mentioned that the Viceroy was not included amongst the officers that were put into the schedule.
My Lords, I think I have said enough to show that I am not myself recklessly proposing an innovation. It is a subject that has been approved of by most eminent statesmen, and it is also a subject that has met with the full approval of your Lordships' House. What I, however, most strenuously contend for is that this regulation, as it at present stands, is inadequate, and that it operates injuriously to the public interest, and therefore I press for some modification of it which will unfetter, in some degree, the Secretary of State so as to allow him to use his discretion. If it is thought that the discretion, if granted, might lead to laxity, then by all means hedge it round with every conceivable limitation, so as to safeguard it against abuse; but I do think, my Lords, that this is a subject which merits attention, and that the modification which I propose would certainly tend to the improvement of the public administration of the affairs of India.
VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, the noble Lord has referred to my action when I was Secretary of State for India. It is quite true that my attention was first called to this subject at the time of the Jubilee, and what the noble Lord has said is equally true, that it was desired, on public grounds, that the Duke of Connaught, who was then Commander-in-Chief of Bombay, should come home to attend the Jubilee. It was suggested to me at that time that I should allow him to resign his office, come home, and then be re-appointed. That I entirely declined to have anything at all to do with. I thought it would be a gross breach of the Act of Parliament and that it would be making a use of it which was never intended, and ought never to be allowed for a moment. So there was an end of that. Then there was no means of bringing him home except by a special
366
Act of Parliament, and what my noble friend has said on this point is equally true; a Bill was introduced into the House of Commons, it passed and became law, and the Duke of Connaught came home. But during the course of the discussion in the House of Commons, Mr. Childers, who at that time appeared on behalf of the Opposition, so to speak, made almost a stipulation that if that Bill was allowed to pass it ought to be as a general Act—not for this particular Commander-in-Chief, but that it ought to be a general Act, and so discussed. That pledge was given, and the result was that in 1891 we brought forward a Bill in your Lordships' House to allow the Viceroy and the other Government officers in India—the Commander-in-Chief and the Governors of Bombay and Madras—to come home on public grounds. But great care was taken that that should not be abused, because in the Bill which I brought forward no action was to be taken except with the consent of the Secretary of State for India in Council; and there was the further safeguard that it had also to pass through the Viceroy and his Council in India before it could be acted upon. So that probably every safeguard that could be adopted was introduced into that Bill.
I agree with my noble friend that when the Act to which he has referred was passed, communication between India and England was a totally different thing from what it is now. At that time you had to go round by the Cape, and months and months would elapse. Now all that is changed. That Bill of 1891 did not go through, because it was crowded out. That is a thing which very often happens in sessions of Parliament in regard to Bills, some of which are good and some bad, and I daresay it is possible that in the present session a certain number of Bills may be crowded out. In 1892 it was brought in again. Lord Northbrook, who had a great experience, of course, in Indian affairs, objected to the Viceroy being included, and he gave very substantial reasons why he should not be included. He said that the Viceroy himself stood quite apart from anybody else—he was on a pinnacle—he was the great man—and the result was that I consented to strike the

367
Viceroy out of the schedule, and the Bill passed your Lordships' House with that omission. I am not quite certain whether anybody could imagine India without the presence of a Viceroy, and I think Lord Northbrook was right. The effect of bringing a Viceroy home for consultation, even on matters of great importance, would very likely have had a bad effect in India itself, and would to a certain extent have pulled down the Viceroy from the pinnacle upon which he stood, because the Viceroy is the Viceroy, and known as such all over the Indian continent. Well, that second Bill passed your Lordships' House with the exclusion of the Viceroy. If I remember rightly, Lord Northbrook also wanted to strike out the Commander-in-Chief, but your Lordships declined to do that, and the Bill retained the provision with regard to the Commander-in-Chief. My noble friend said perfectly truly that the Bill passed your Lordships' House, and was brought into the other House of Parliament, and it would no doubt have become law if it had not been for the dissolution of Parliament itself, and the consequent dissolution of the Government which brought it in.
There my connection with this subject stops. I quite agree that these great officers should not be called home except for very important reasons, and I think that the safeguards which were put into that Bill, requiring the sanction—in fact the initiation—of the Secretary of State in Council, and also the assent of the Viceroy and his Council in India, were safeguards which everybody must admit were very great, and such as to render any abuse impossible. There is no doubt that Lord Salisbury, who had been Secretary of State for India himself, and who was at that time Prime Minister, and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, most warmly backed up the Bill which I had the honour of introducing to your Lordships' House. He, at all events, knew as much about India as most people. I am still of the same opinion as I was then, and I think with what my noble friend brought forward as Lord Salisbury's view, and also his statement that the absolute inability, as the Act stood, of the holder of one of these great
368
offices to come home, however important the subject might be for which he was to be brought home, did at all events make an extra difficulty in finding men ready to take up these posts.
I have said now all that I mean to say; I leave the matter in your Lordships' hands. Whether my noble friend will be content with what he may hear from His Majesty's Government I do not know, nor do I know whether His Majesty's Government have any intention of bringing in any such Bill or not; but at all events I think we ought to be grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this matter before your Lordships' House. As I say, I am still of the same opinion as I was as that time—that it would be wise with sufficient safeguards, for public purposes alone, and leaving out the Viceroy, to allow the other Indian officers to come home on leave.
*LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, perhaps as my name has been mentioned, and as I have necessarily had some experience of this subject, I may be allowed to say a word or two before the representative of the Government replies. The noble Lord who has just spoken has given us a sufficient history of what has passed in respect of the Bill of 1892, but the noble Lord, Lord Lamington, who made such a clear and, as it seemed to me, convincing statement of the case, alluded to events that passed while I was Viceroy. It is true, as the noble Lord said, that we did consider this question, and that a communication was addressed to the Secretary of State for India by my Council on the subject, by which I mean that the Government of India was unanimously in favour of the alteration of the law, and of the concession for which the noble Lord is now asking being made in respect of the offices to which he has alluded. For my own part, I have not the slightest objection, if the noble Lord who represents the Government thinks fit to lay that despatch on the table of the House. The subject is of such importance that I think the matter ought to be placed fully before your Lordships. May I say that with the main proposition—in fact the entire proposition—of the noble Lord, Lord

369
Lamington, I am in complete agreement. I have never been able to discover any valid reason why, alone in the official hierarchy of the Empire, these officers to whom he refers—the Viceroy of India, the Commander-in-Chief, and the Governors of Madras and Bombay—should be debarred, under any circumstances whatever, from going home on leave, however short. Let us remember that they are serving their country in a climate that is extremely trying, that their work is exceedingly laborious, and that the strain upon them might almost be described as overwhelming. And yet under no conditions whatever, either of public interest, or of ill-health, or of personal convenience, are they ever permitted to return even for a day to this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Lamington, has clearly pointed out to your Lordships that this practice is really a survival of an obsolete era—that it provided for a state of things which no longer exists, and that the extreme and increasing rapidity of steam communication, which renders it possible for an officer to leave India, return to England, and get back to India in the space of three months, really cuts away the ground from the Act in the form in which it was originally passed. The noble Lord alluded, if I may say so, with great good taste and reserve to his own position, and being very familiar with the circumstances of his case, I must say that it seemed to me exceedingly hard that because of the conditions to which he referred his tenure of office at Bombay, fraught as it was with great advantages to the people of that Presidency, should have been cut short. But I am familiar with other cases, and I may, perhaps, mention to your Lordships the case of a very high official of the Government of India in my day. I allude to the late Sir William Lockhart, with whom I had the honour of serving when he was Commander-in-Chief. Sir William Lockhart died at his post in India, and yet I have no doubt that his life might have been lengthened—it might conceivably even have been spared—had he been permitted to return to this country and to take medical advice here. The matter was one which he more than
370
once discussed with me, but he could not afford, in the position in which he was placed, to throw away the great office which he held. He was obliged, therefore, to remain in India, and he died, in the circumstances I have described, at his post.
My Lords, there is one other point to which I would ask leave to draw your attention, and that is the essential absurdity of the position in which we are placed by the terms of this obsolete Act. The noble Lord read out the conditions of the Act, which are that the occupants of the high offices in question must not leave India in order to return to Europe. That is the operative condition. Now your Lordships will see that there is nothing in this Act to prevent the Commander-in-Chief, for instance, in India from taking command in a campaign in South Africa. He might have headed the expedition which we sent for the relief of the Legations in Pekin. Similarly as regards the Viceroy: there is nothing in the Act to prevent the Viceroy from going, for purposes of health or otherwise, to Ceylon, Mauritius, or even Cairo. I was myself permitted, while in India, to pay an official visit to the Persian Gulf, which, as your Lordships know, lies a good way outside the borders of India. But the moment any one of these high officers leaves with the view of returning to England, the one place where it is conceivable that he may be wanted either in the public interest or in his own—then this disability falls upon him like an axe.
Both the noble Lords who have spoken, have alluded to the case of the Duke of Connaught in the year 1887, when, in order to escape the rigidity of the statute, a special Bill had to be passed through both Houses of Parliament to enable His Royal Highness to come home to attend the Jubilee of the Queen. But there is another case which has not been mentioned, which happened at an early stage in history and is perhaps forgotten, and that is the case of Lord Napier of Magdala. He was Commander-in-Chief of the Bombay Army, which at that time had a separate military existence. While holding that post he was appointed to the command of the Abyssinian Expedition. He went to Abyssinia; he

371
conducted the campaign, as we know, with success, and His Majesty's Government at that time desiring to consult him, he was actually brought to England on the absurd plea that he would be conducting his duties as Commander-in Chief of the Bombay Army here. That, of course, was a ludicrous evasion of the statute. Then I am not certain, in view of what has fallen from Lord Cross, that the statute was not evaded in my own case too, because when I came home in 1904, I could only obtain leave by resigning my office and being re-appointed when I went back—a very clumsy method, as it seems to me, of continuing a man in office for a longer period of years and giving him leave which he may not only desire, but require.
My Lords, the noble Lord has, I think, made clear to us the advantages of the change which he proposes. There is first the interest of the man himself—his health, which is liable to suffer—his private affairs, which may call for a brief visit to England. But I would prefer to rest it on the ground of the public interest. I remember the late Lord Salisbury speaking about the matter, and he laid the greatest stress upon the advantage which might accrue, in cases which are no doubt rare, but which still are likely to happen from time to time, in which the Government at home may require to consult here in England the Commander-in-Chief about some great military expedition, or to consult the Governor of Madras or the Governor of Bombay, or even the Viceroy himself. And if I may quote my own experience, I think that at a certain stage it would have been exceedingly advantageous to me if, for the space of a few weeks, I could have had the advantage of a private conversation with His Majesty's advisers at home.
As regards the drawbacks to the proposal, I must ask leave to differ from my noble friend Lord Cross, whom I served as Under-Secretary The noble Lord cut out the Viceroy from the Bill of 1892, accepting, as he told us just now, the reasoning of Lord Northbrook—the argument of Lord Northbrook being that the Viceroy was placed on such a pinnacle that it would be almost impossible to contemplate his being taken
372
away, and that some nameless, but serious, results would accrue to India if he were not there. But, my Lords, if the pinnacle has ceased to be occupied by the Viceroy, somebody else climbs up and stands there in his place. During my absence for six months, in 1904, the pinnacle was occupied, and, if I may be allowed to say so, occupied with great advantage and distinction, by Lord Ampthill, and whatever the circumstances under which the Viceroy might be called home the Viceroyalty would not be vacant through his absence. The most senior member of his Council, for instance, might for a few weeks or for a month or two, take his place. I venture to say from my own experience that the argument we have heard before, that the prestige of the Viceroy would be impaired, or that the efficiency or continuity of the Government would in any degree be affected, is quite illusory. I agree with my noble friend Lord Cross that if the privilege be conceded it ought to be fenced round with every manner of restriction. I would myself surround it with restrictions greater than those he proposed in the Bill of 1892. At that time he proposed leave of absence being granted for as long a period as six months. I think that in the despatch written by the Government of India in my day we proposed a maximum of only three months. We proposed that that leave should only be given once at the most in any term of office, that it should only be given upon the advice and with the consent both of the Governor-General in Council in India and of the Secretary of State in Council in England, and that it should only be given for one of three objects—public interest, ill-health, or important private concerns. So restricted, my Lords, I believe that the concession, if made, would be desidelly advantageous both to the individual and to the public in occasional cases, and that it would do no harm whatever either in India or in England; and if my noble friend, or any other noble Lord in this House, at any time puts the proposal forward in the shape of a Bill, I, for my part, will do my best to advocate it.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will especially regret to-night the absence of the noble

373
Member the Leader of the House, who would have brought the weight of his authority to deal with this question. I can only say, on behalf of the Government and the India Office, that they are quite unable to agree to the suggestion of the noble Lord, and that they would not consent to introduce, or even to approve of, any legislation in this direction.
With regard to the Paper which the noble Lord mentioned, I will certainly mention the matter to the Secretary of State. The noble Lord will of course quite understand that I am unable to promise anything concerning it myself, but I will consult Mr. Morley on the subject. With regard to the Bill of the noble Viscount (Viscount Cross), I think it has not been sufficiently pointed out that he also put restrictions in another direction upon the home-coming of these various officers, because he made it quite plain that they could only come home for matters of public convenience, and that matters connected with their private affairs should not be considered a sufficient reason for their coming home.
The noble Lord who asked the Question laid stress, quite rightly, upon the increased advantages in the way of public travelling since the days when this prohibition was made law. He forgot also to remind your Lordships how much easier it is to consult officials in India by means of the telegraph in these days, and I think if he refers to the one, it is only fair that your Lordships should be reminded of the other. The fact of the matter is, my Lords, that in the opinion of the India Office, the Government of India is a system which is very nicely balanced and adjusted, and these will be considerable danger of those delicate arrangements being interfered with if it is altered in the direction which the noble Lord suggests. May I make a practical suggestion to the noble Lord (Lord Curzon of Kedleston), who represents India as well as Ireland in this House. Imagine that there was controversy on a matter of importance between the Commander-in-Chief and the Viceroy. Let us imagine that the Commander-in-Chief was sent over to consult the Council of India at home. Would the noble Lord wish to
374
see the Viceroy hurrying after the Commander-in-Chief by the next mail boat? Does he think it would be very dignified if these officials, either singly or together, were to come back to England and were to consult the Secretary of State upon a matter upon which they might possibly be divided in opinion?
*LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: That case, although an ingenious one, and not without a personal application, is a case which could not possibly arise under the proposal which I suggested. One of the conditions which we laid down in India was that either the Viceroy or the Commander-in-Chief should only come home, not merely with the consent of the Secretary of State in Council in London, but with the consent of the Governor-General in Council in India, and in the circumstances to which the noble Lord alludes, I can hardly imagine that that consent would be given.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: That is of course a matter of difference of opinion. At any rate, it would not be impossible, and I think the theory I have put forward is not entirely an impracticable one, although I am rather willing to agree with the noble Lord that it is quite likely that permission under those circumstances might have been refused to one of the parties to the case. But I think it is only right to point out to your Lordships that after all no very serious inconvenience has been felt in the past. Five years is not a very long period, and a continuous service for that time is not altogether unreasonable. It is scarcely fair to speak of India as if it could be compared with other posts or with other countries within the British Empire. India is an exceptional case. It is liable to sudden emergencies which are specially dangerous in a country without representative Government. The work there is specially responsible, and the offices to which reference has been made have really, I think, no parallel anywhere in any other part of the Empire. The responsibility is much more concentrated in the individual in those offices than in any others, and I am not sure, my Lords, that it would not be unfair to the Government of India to

375
consult either the Governor-General or the Commander-in-Chief alone. There might be a tendency, if such a practice became common, to transfer the government of India in times of crisis from the Governor-General in Council to the Government and the Cabinet at home. The cases of emergency to which a reference has been made by the noble Lord are surely just those very cases when it is important that these officers should themselves be present in India. Then, my Lords, I think if leave is to be recognised on public grounds there would be considerable difficulty in drawing a line, because it would be possible that undesirable discussion might arise in connection with them, in the same way that if leave was asked for on medical grounds the Medical Board could scarcely refuse a certificate. And, my Lords, if the cause of the desire to return home were ill-health, resignation would probably be desirable. Extreme cases have been met, as was happily done in the case of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Curzon) by reappointments, and there are, I think, perhaps special objections in the case of the Viceroy, though a great deal of what I have said applies, in my opinion, with equal force to the other positions which have been mentioned. The position of the Acting Governor-General, with his hands tied, might be somewhat difficult, and even dangerous, especially in view of his special concern with the foreign relations of India. The opinion of the India Office is that the Governor-General, or the Viceroy, should have no temptation to separate his life interest from India during his tenure of the office, and that his authority should not be impaired by the sense that he might be able to come home at any time and to share, perhaps, part of his authority with the Secretary of State in England. Under those circumstances, my Lord, I can only repeat what I began by saying—namely, that the Secretary of State cannot under any circumstances give his approval to legislation on these lines.
*THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I did not come to the House with any intention of speaking on this subject, but I would like to state very briefly that I entirely
376
agree with the proposal made by my noble friend Lord Lamington. I confess I heard with considerable disappointment the statement of the noble Lord opposite, that the Government were not prepared to consider this proposal. I do not base my support of the noble Lord's suggestion in any way upon the private interests of the individual; I base it entirely and wholly on public grounds and I think the public grounds for making a change in the Statute are extremely strong. The difficulties of governing India are notoriously increasing year by year, and it is therefore becoming more and more important to render these high appointments attractive, and to attract the best brains to fill them. Successive Governments have certainly been extremely fortunate in their nominations for the offices of Viceroy and Governors, but I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that the stipulation that when a man is once appointed, he cannot return until the end of five years, does somewhat narrow the field of selection, and might quite conceivably act as a deterrent to those who might otherwise make most desirable occupants of these positions. It must be borne in mind that those who are competent to fill the positions in question are, if not in middle life, at all events not in their first youth, and there are generally private or family affairs which render it very difficult for such men to absent themselves for five years from this country. Moreover, although these appointments are highly honourable, they are very far from being lucrative. On the contrary, they involve heavy expenditure on the part of those who fill them, and therefore I say that anything that can be done to make these appointments attractive is very much to be desired.
Another point to which I should like to draw attention is that so far from there being any objection to these high officials leaving India, it appears to me that if they occasionally left India for a short visit to England it would be of the greatest possible advantage to the public service, because they would thus be enabled to consult with the Secretary of State and others here, and to keep in touch with English public life, which is liable to great

377
change in the course of the five years of their absence. This is all the more Important if the practice of peripatetic politicians going out to India to air their own views is to become general. I can only say that during the many years that I was in Egypt I found that it was of great advantage to myself—and I hope it was of some advantage to the country—to be able to come home for two or three months every year, and not only to see the officials, but also to get out of the local groove, and to be able to understand thoroughly the views held in this country about the affairs in which I was specially interested. May I add also, with all due deference to the noble Lord (Lord Cross) and my late distinguished relative, Lord Northbrook, that I do not accept the statement that the Viceroy ought to be excluded from the proposed amendment of the law any more than any of the other officials who have been mentioned. A third point is that I think if this suggestion were carried out it would tend towards continuity of policy in India. I should be very glad to see the Viceroys and Governors encouraged to stay more than five years. Remember what happens now. I am sure noble Lords who have themselves occupied these high positions in India will agree with me that it takes six months or more for them to get into their saddle, so to speak, and that during the last six months that they hold office they cannot do much. Therefore they have practically only four years' in which to work, and four years is a very short time in which to carry out an important measure in India, because such measures have to be carried out steadily and without hurry. Therefore, for my own part, I should very much like to see the Viceroy and the Governors of Madras and Bombay encouraged to accept a second term of office, because I feel sure that this would prove to be a very great advantage to the public service; but I am quite sure that they will never do so unless they are permitted to come home at times. For these reasons, my Lords, I regret that His Majesty's Government are not prepared to accept the proposal of the noble Lord.
*LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I am extremely reluctant to express any
378
disagreement with my two noble friends wish whom I served contemporaneously in India, for we worked together on all matters in India with very pleasant harmony. But since I hold, and have always held, that the views expressed by those noble Lords upon the matter now under discussion are wrong, I should not think it fair to the solitary spokesman of the Government, who is at present faring odds of four to one, if I failed to state my opinion.
The grounds upon which this suggested change is urged are two-fold—firstly, the public interest, and secondly, the private interests of the individuals concerned. I do not think any case at all has been made out for the relaxation of the Statute on public grounds, and it will not have been unnoticed, I think, by your Lordships that the noble Viscount (Viscount Cross), who spoke with such a weight of experience and authority on this matter, expressly said that he would only give the leave on public grounds. If any case has been made at all, in my humble opinion it has been made on the grounds of the personal interests of the individuals concerned. But with regard to the remarks which were made by the noble Earl (The Earl of Cromer), I would ask your Lordships whether the mere off-chance of coming home on some possible or potential matter of public importance in the course of five years could possibly affect the decision of a man who was asked to accept the position of Viceroy, and who was deterred from doing so by the thought of the long exile. There would only be the off-chance of coming home, even according to the stipulations of my noble friend, Lord Lamington, if some urgent public affairs, or some great domestic calamity, called for his presence. Personally—speaking with some experience of the offices both of Viceroy and of Governor—I cannot conceive any ordinary circumstances in which personal consultation, at the cost of the large delay of the journey home, would have any advantage over the present rapid and complete means of communication by post and telegraph; and again, if the Viceroy or the Governor did come

379
home, he could, as has been already pointed out, only give his personal opinion, and in any protracted negotiations with His Majesty's Ministers at home, he would be divorced from the opinion of his Council, and that, in my view, would be a dangerous constitutional innovation. Still more dangerous, I venture to think, would it be for the Commander-in-Chief to come home and give his opinions on those immensely important military questions which cannot possibly be separated from political questions, independently of those of the Viceroy, and of the Governor-General, in Council. It would be, in effect, an abrogation of those large constitutional principles which underlie the phrases so familiar to everyone who has had to do with India, "Governor-General in Council" and "Governor in Council." I can imagine circumstances in which it might be advisable, expedient, and useful if members or representatives of His Majesty's Government at home were to go out to India for the purposes of such consultation, and to see things with their own eyes on the spot, but I cannot conceive any circumstances in which it would really be useful for Viceroys or Governors to come home. If such-circumstances were to arise, they could, as has been pointed out, and as has been done on previous occasions, be met by special legislation.
As regards the personal grounds for the suggested alteration, I hold that if circumstances of domestic calamity, or business necessity, should arise such as to prevent a Viceroy or a Governor from giving the whole of his time, thought, and attention to his arduous and responsible charge, it is clearly right and desirable that he should resign his appointment. Viceroys in India, and Governors in a lesser degree, are in a position which seems to me analogous to that of commanders of armies in the field, and their position is at any rate analogous to that of a Minister of the Crown in this country. They are, so to speak, on active service; they are on duty, and on a duty which demands incessant attention from day to day and from hour to hour. It is no more possible for them, in my opinion, to leave their posts,
380
and to lose touch with the affairs which they are directing, than it is possible for a general to leave his Army in the face of the enemy, or for the Prime Minister of the country (and this is really the closest analogy) to go 7,000 miles away, out of the reach of King's Messengers and rapid communications. Your Lordships will agree with me that the latter is a contingency which would not be tolerated for one moment in this country. Comparisons with the Governments of the Colonies are, for obvious reasons with which I need not delay your Lordships, beside the point, but a specious comparison has been suggested by two noble Lords between the positions of the Viceroy, Governors, and Commander-in-Chief, and those of other members of the public service in India. But I venture to think, with all deference, that that comparison must break down on the slightest examination. It is obvious, in the first instance, that men who are appointed on political grounds, and for a certain definite term of five years, are in a different position from those whose services are non-political and are their life-long profession. It is precisely the same distinction which holds good in this country. Any member of the Civil Service, as all your Lordships know, can take his two months leave at any time, and completely sever himself from the cares and duties of the office to which he belongs, provided there is no unusual official inconvenience. But this is not the case with the Minister in charge of the Department. Even if the Minister goes away on a holiday, though it be abroad, he has to remain in constant touch with his office, and he cannot throw aside all care and responsibility. This state of things would not be possible in regard to Viceroys and Governors if 7,000 miles of sea were to separate them from their subordinate officials and from their duties. It is true that Secretaries of State have on occasion made long tours, and thus absented themselves from their offices, but those were cases in which the inconvenience was justified by the exigencies of Imperial affairs. But in that connection it must be remembered that under the theory of the Constitution there is only one Secretary of State, although the duties of that office

381
are divided among several Ministers of the Crown. If, therefore, a Secretary of State is absent from the country, there are always several of his colleagues in a similar position and vested with precisely similar and equal authority, to discharge his functions, and that without any rearrangement of offices or any extra cost to the State. But the thing which influences me most, in spite of the views of my noble friend (Lord Curzon), which on all subjects I regard with the greatest deference, is the bad effect that the temporary absence of the Viceroy or the Governor would undoubtedly have on public opinion in India. The difference between the position of the Viceroy and the Governors, and that of the officials of the Indian bureaucracy is one which is very keenly and very fully appreciated by the people of India, and to place those high dignitaries under similar regulations with regard to leave as the officials of the bureaucracy would tend to reduce them to the level of the permanent official, with a consequent loss, pro tanto, of their peculiar prestige and influence. As regards the feeling of the European officials themselves, there would be a similar and a no less marked effect. The Viceroy, and the Governors of the Presidencies, are there to set an example of devotion to duty which rises superior to any personal consideration. The members of the Civil Service themselves are not able to obtain leave on urgent private affairs unless they have earned that privilege by a definite term of service, and it is, therefore, often the case—it certainly was in my experience—that these men are obliged to stick to their posts in the face of very serious personal inconvenience, and even in circumstances of tragic domestic trouble. The Governor would not be in a position to exhort them to persist in this duty if he himself were able, with much less difficulty, to go home on private affairs when it happened to suit him.
These considerations, my Lords, seem to me to far outweigh any that have been advanced on the other side, and I rejoice sincerely that the Secretary of State does not intend to depart from the established policy of the India Office.
LORD WENLOCK: My Lords, at this late hour I do not intend to inflict a long speech upon your Lordships, but with regard to this particular matter—which is one on which I have a certain amount of knowledge—I may be permitted to inform your Lordships that I quite agree with the views expressed by my noble friend (Lord Ampthill). Lord Cromer, who spoke from his knowledge of official life, made a great point of the fact that he considers that all these high officials should spend a longer period of their lives in their various official kingdoms. He thought that if the Governors of Bombay and Madras, the Viceroy, and the Commander-in-Chief could be allowed to extend their services for a longer period than five years it would be a very great advantage to the country, in that they would be able to bring to bear upon their various duties the experience and knowledge which take them now so long to accumulate, and which they have so short a time to exercise. There I think he is perfectly right, and if the term of office could be lengthened in the manner he proposes, I see no objection whatever to their coming back to England at stated intervals or for stated periods. The noble Earl himself was in Egypt for twenty-four years, and it is naturally impossible to suppose that anyone could remain absent for twenty-four years without ever returning to England. But as things are at present, those of us who are sent to India are only sent there for five years, and I think it is most important that during that time they should never relax their duties in any way, because the time at their disposal is so very short that even a visit of three months to England would cut very largely into it. Although somebody might be acting for them during that time the policy and the responsibility would cease to be their own, and would be somebody else's. It is perfectly true that during late years, since the Acts alluded to by Lord Lamington were passed, conditions have very much altered, but I think it should be remembered that the people of India themselves have not altered; the people themselves are very much what they were a hundred

383
or a thousand years ago, and the problems which the Government of the country have to face are very much the problems that were in existence a very long time ago. True, railways, the telegraphs, and various means of communication have been facilitated in a great many ways, but the feelings of the people are very much what they were, and the conditions which the Governors and those in authority have to face are very much now what they were a hundred years ago, and more. I need only just refer to the fact that I see the papers have announced, in the last few days, serious trouble as arising in a part of the country which Lord Ampthill and I know very well, in the South of India, and I think it would be a matter of extreme anxiety to the Governor of that Presidency if he were at this moment on a three months or six months leave to England. I think this sort of things point to the fact that it is most important that if you are only to go out for five years to India, you should spend the whole of your five years upon the spot as long as you have health and strength to carry out your work. I say this feelingly, because towards the end of the time I was in India circumstances arose at home which would have made it exceedingly convenient for me if I could possibly have come away; I found myself mixed up with litigation on a very serious matter in which my financial affairs were very closely involved, and from that point of view it was most Important for me to have come home if I possibly could have done so, and attended to my own private affairs. But on the whole I consider it very much better that a Governor, during the short time he is sent out to administer the affairs of a Presidency, should never be allowed for a single moment to turn away from the work of government with which he has been entrusted, or to relax the vigilance which he exercises over his Presidency. For these reasons, my Lords, I agree with the view expressed by the noble Lord who has spoken on behalf of the Government.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I feel some embarrassment in rising after four noble Lords who have held the
384
office of Viceroy, but perhaps I may be allowed to intervene for one moment, because this matter was brought up before the late Government. Your Lordships must realise that there must be, in the minds of any Government considerable doubt, and it is quite impossible for us to speak with such certainty as Lord Ampthill on a subject of this character. It is impossible not to recognise that there are, or may be, great advantages to a Government in having occasional personal conferences with officials with whom they are in almost hourly correspondence in India. That must be so in military matters in the case of the Commander-in-Chief, and I am not sure that, even if no other change is proposed, it would not be desirable for the Commander-in-Chief, considering the great advances which have been made in military science, to come home occasionally to confer with the authorities here. Perhaps that may be considered a fitting question to be considered by the authorities by itself.
Then there is a second question, on which great stress was laid by Lord Cromer, who pointed out the enormous extent to which work has developed and increased in India during the last few years; and I do not doubt that to any man who takes up the appointment of Governor of Bombay or of Madras there is an immense strain in having to do that work for five years without a change. But, my Lords, I should not be acting fairly if I did not say that my conviction is that whatever restrictions you may place on the holiday which it is possible to obtain, whether you put it on the ground of convenience to the public, or of ill-health, or of urgent private affairs, in practice every Viceroy and every Governor of Bombay and Madras who goes out will have a holiday during the period of five years. Therefore I should treat the matter from the point of view that it is an appointment which admits of that vacation, and I should look at it as to whether that is or is not desirable.
My Lords, I will not trouble the House (it is really a question for the Government) with regard to the other appointments, but I have one special claim to

385
address your Lordships upon this subject—namely, that I am the only man alive who has had, as Secretary of State, to deal with two Viceroys at once—a Viceroy in India and a Viceroy in England—virtually though not actually a Viceroy—with whom His Majesty's Ministers were most anxious to consult upon all important topics. I think the position is not without difficulty. The greater the Viceroy, the more admirable his devotion to his duties while he is in India, the more certain it is that while he is away on a holiday, in whatever form it is taken, his opinion while away must be the governing factor in the policy to be pursued. You may send the Governor of Bombay or of Madras to Calcutta, thereby to some extent necessarily interfering with the progress of business in Bombay or Madras, but whatever happens during the period of his absence, even in a case such as that of the noble Lord, Lord Curzon—whose absence, owing to the special circumstances of the case, was far more prolonged than that which was contemplated under the present proposal—even tinder those circumstances it would be impossible, nothwithstanding the complete confidence that His Majesty's Government had in Lord Ampthill, that there should not be an immense amount of reduplication work, and that is the difficulty. The work is so severe that it would be a real advantage if a holiday could be taken; on the other hand it is so incessant that there is a difficulty in transferring it for a short period to somebody else. If I had to make a comparison, I should venture to suggest that the work of the Viceroy (and I think I could quote words of Lord Curzon which would bear me out) is in many respects more detached from that of other officials, more personal, and more incessant, than even that of Prime Minister of this country; and the more that is true, the more that work is concentrated, as it must be, in the Viceroy in India, the more difficult do we find it to conceive how it would be possible, say, for the Prime Minister of this country to go to India for three months during the term of his office. Those are the considerations which prevented the late Government from coming to a conclusion in favour of the suggested
386
change, although, as I stated at the outset, many considerations appeared to us to warrant some reconsideration of the present position.
LORD LAMINGTON: Everybody has assumed that the Viceroy and Governor are appointed for a term of five years; but as a matter of fact there is no limitation at all—they are appointed without any reference to the duration of their office, and therefore the prolongation of their office is a matter which presents no difficulty; it could be held for twenty years. With what the noble Viscount (Viscount Midleton) has just said about the complexity and the multitudinousness of the duties of the Viceroy I quite agree, and I am perfectly confident that no man, except under great stress of circumstances, would willingly leave his post.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: This is quite irregular.
LORD LAMINGTON: I beg the noble Earl's pardon.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ELGIN): It is a little irregular for the noble Lord to reply before the debate has been replied to for the Government, but I did not wish to interrupt the noble Lord.
With regard to the question of the term of the office, no doubt what the noble Lord has just said is true, as I know from the warrant I received; no term appears in that document; but five years is the accepted period for a Viceroy's appointment and for the other appointments with which we are dealing, and therefore I think we may take it that for practical purposes there are five years appointments.
My Lords, I feel that it is difficult to approach this matter altogether impersonally. Those of us who have had experience in India must naturally draw upon our experience; those who have not had experience in India cannot fail to speak without the experience which we think we possess. With regard to the officers named in the Question of the noble Lord, I should like to point out in the first place that they do not all stand on

387
exactly the same footing, except for one reason, and that I admit is an important one. I think that for the Governors of Madras and Bombay a solution might be found, but the reason I refer to is an important one, because it is an historical one, and that is the division of India into the three Presidencies of Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta. Had it not been for that, and if it was not necessary to retain that, I have sometimes thought that there was no reason why the provinces of Bombay and Madras should not be under the direction of Lieutenant-Governors, and in that case the difficulty of the noble Lord might have been obviated.
But, my Lords, the Viceroy and the Commander-in-Chief in my opinion stand alone—I think the expression has been used—and naturally for my part, I must speak specially with reference to the Viceroy, although I hold that the argument applies to the Commander-in-Chief mutatis mutandis. I wish to say at once that of course I can imagine certain circumstances which would create in any officer holding those positions an intense desire—an overwhelming desire—to return to Europe. It may proceed from health, or it may proceed from private reasons. But I cannot myself believe with the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, that the consideration of this point can have deterred many men who were willing to undertake the duties of these offices, and personally I am quite unable to concur in the demand for the relaxation of the rule which the noble Lord has advocated. I cannot help thinking that the arguments which are based upon the leave privileges of other members of the Service in India ignore the true cause of differentiation. It is quite true, of course, that the three months which now prevail suffice for a very short and rapid return to this country, and it is true also that men even in the highest ranks of the Indian Civil Service are able to avail themselves of these privileges. But even with regard to the Indian Civil Service I have my doubts—I had my doubts when I was in India—whether that system was altogether an advantage to the public service, whatever it might be to the individual. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord
388
Curzon, must have had some such experiences as I had. Time after time, when going through the country, I came upon men who were holding acting appointments, and who were not the men who were properly appointed to those particular posts; and I remember I said publicly before I left India that I thought there were grave dangers and grave inconveniences to the public service, which might have to be considered with reference to that particular state of affairs.
Now, my Lords, returning to the comparison of the Indian civil servant and the Viceroy, I would point out that the Indian civil servant is a man who has had long experience in India—as a man in the higher ranks of the service, at any rate—who has served in all parts of the country; and, though the senior members of them may, for that reason, be argued to be inured to the dangers of the climate, my belief is that very often the danger then comes upon them at a moment which they cannot foresee. On the other hand you have the Viceroy. He is fresh to India, and he has to serve there for a definite period of five years—with all respect to the noble Lord (Earl Cromer)—and he knows perfectly well what he is undertaking. I would point out also that he is not, like the ordinary civil servant, exposed to hot weather in the plains, but is, from the accustomed arrangements, able to transact his business during that period of danger in localities, which, in my opinion, are second to none in giving opportunities for hard work. My Lords, I venture to think that in those circumstances the application of the argument that because these privileges are given to the Indian civil servants, therefore they ought to be extended to the Viceroy, is not a complete one.
Then, my Lords, I should like to say a word with regard to what would happen supposing this change were carried out. We are to contemplate the Viceroy going on leave for three months, and we have been told by the noble Lord (Lord Curzon) this afternoon, that he would suggest, to fill the place of the Viceroy during that period, not a high official like the Governor of Madras, because—and naturally because—it is difficult to

389
suppose that one could summon the Governor of Madras for so short a period, but that he would rely upon the senior ordinary member of the Viceroy's Council. My Lords, I wish to speak with all respect—with affection, if I may—of the members of the Viceroy's Council, but they are not chosen for a succession like that, and I venture to think that it might perhaps not increase confidence in the Government, either here or in India, if the succession to the Viceroyalty, at the time that the Viceroy took leave, was to be left to the mere chance of who was the senior among the officers who were appointed for entirely different reasons.
LORD LAMINGTON: It used to be done—it used to be the rule.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: My Lords, I should like to put, as shortly as I can, why I think it would also be inconvenient for the Viceroy to be summoned home for consultation with the home Government. It has been said that the position of the Viceroy is unique, and I think it is so. The Viceroy is probably almost invariably strange to India when he gets there, and yet he is the head of a Government which is composed of men who have had long service in India, and who know it from top to bottom. On the other hand, he must at the same time be the representative there of the home Government. Now, my Lords, how is that provided for? It is provided for by the arrangement, I think, that the Viceroy, and the Viceroy alone of his Government, has the right of private correspondence with the Secretary of State. That is a well understood and perfectly recognised arrangement to which no objection is ever taken, but the Viceroy at that time is in close communication with his colleagues, and sees them every day, and of course enters freely with them into discussion of policies. My Lords, it appears to me that the transfer of the Viceroy to London would alter the whole conditions. The personal element in that case would overshadow everything, and I believe myself that it would be false in principle, and detrimental to the constitutional relations between the Viceroy and the Government of India.
390
My Lords, I do not think that I need say more to justify my adherence to the answer which the noble Lord (Earl Beauchamp) has given on behalf of the Secretary of State for India. After all, it appears to me that there is a very strong preponderance of opinion in support of continuing matters as they now stand. We have had many names quoted this afternoon, amongst them those of Lord Northbrook and of a former Leader of the House of Commons, Mr. W. H. Smith. We have had the noble Lord opposite, and the noble Lord who spoke below the gangway, and on the other side we have the two noble Lords now on the cross benches, and we have had mentioned the case of Lord Cromer, which, at any rate partly supported them.
*LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: And also Lord Salisbury.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: I was going to mention that, with all deference to the noble Lord. With regard to that, we have had a statement from the noble Lord (Lord Cross) who said, in explaining his Bill of 1892, that it especially excluded the Viceroy, and at any rate only gave permission for a return from India for public reasons
*LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: No, the Bill did not exclude the Viceroy: it applied to all the officers, but in consequence of Lord Northbrook's contention in this House, Lord Cross, in order to meet him, withdrew the name of the Viceroy from the schedule; but the Bill as originally introduced and supported by Lord Salisbury included the Viceroy as well as the other officials.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: I did not quite follow the exact sequence, but as a matter of fact the Bill as it passed this House did not include the name of the Viceroy.
House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.