Sitting of 13 May 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  GAS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL (By Order).
  Read a second time, and committed.
  Ordered, "That, in the case of the Gas Provisional Orders Bill, Standing Order 208A be suspended, and that it be an Instruction to the Committee of Selection to refer so much of the Bill as relates to the Prestatyn Gas Order to the Local Legislation Commitee."—[Mr. Caldwell.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Fuge Estate (County Cork).
  Mr. FLYNNasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what steps, if any, the Estates Commissioners have recently taken towards acquiring the untenanted lands on the Fuge estate, Templemary and Garryduff, near Buttevant, county Cork; and whether, in view of the pressing need for the restoration of the evicted tenants in this district, the claims of deserving labourers, and the enlargement of uneconomic holdings, the Commissioners will endeavour to expedite beneficial proceedings on this estate?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Estates Commissioners are in negotiation with the owner as to the price of these lands.

  Leader Estate (County Cork).
  Mr. FLYNNasked what progress the Estates Commissioners have made towards the acquisition of the whole or portion of the untenanted lands on the Leader estate, Dromagh, county Cork; are the Commissioners aware that several evicted tenants in the locality, certified as deserving, are anxious to acquire equivalent holdings; and that uneconomic holders of land and many deserving labourers are looking for holdings in this district; and whether, in view of the fact that the landlord sold the
  1988
  tenanted portion of the estate five years ago, the Commissioners will endeavour to facilitate the acquisition of these lands for public purposes?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are in negotiation with the owner with a view to the purchase of these lands.
  Mr. J. C. FLYNN: In a case of that kind where the owner is willing to sell, and has sold some of his untenanted land, can nothing be done to expedite the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I suppose they must agree to the terms of the sale. I understand they are doing the best they can.

  Crime Statistics (Ireland).
  Mr. BYLESasked whether the records of the recent spring assizes reveal the fact that in the 32 counties of Ireland the number of indictments only reached a total of 138, or about 35 per million of the population; and whether, in view of this marked immunity from crime in this part of the United Kingdom, the Government will consider the wisdom of repealing the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As stated in my reply to a question on the same subject asked by the hon. Member for South Down on the 11th instant, the number of indictments for the 32 counties in Ireland, not including the cities of Dublin, Belfast, Cork, and Londonderry, was 224, or 60 per million of the population. As regards the concluding portion of the question I have nothing to add to the opinions which I have already expressed in Debate as to the wisdom of retaining the Act referred to permanently on the Statute Book.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to send a copy of that answer to the late Attorney-General for Ireland, who described the condition of Ireland as a saturnalia of crime?
  Mr. W. P. BYLES: Why is he keeping this offensive Act on the Statute Book, when there is no intention of enforcing it?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member can ask that question in another place.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Twice over the House of Commons has passed Bills repealing this Act?
  Mr. BIRRELL: But never became law.
  Mr. MacNEILL: The Lords.

  Floods in Curraghroe District (County Roscommon).
  Mr. JAMES O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention had been called to the fact that Mount Dillon River, in the county Roscommon, Curraghroe district, is unable to carry off the surface water in the autumn and winter, with the result that for several months in the year the low-lying lands of Killavackan, Culleenora, Tullyvarran, Curraghroe, Mount Dillon, Granaghan, Monagh, Drinagh, etc., are under water; whether he is aware that as a consequence the tenants who have bought their holdings complain that, owing to the damage sustained, they will be unable to pay their instalments; and whether, under the circumstances, a competent engineer will be sent to the district to report upon its present condition and to recommend a remedy?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed that the lands referred to are often flooded in wet seasons, but that the water does not usually remain for long. The lands would no doubt be improved by drainage, but there is no reason to suppose that their condition is worse now than it has always been. As I have explained to the hon. Member, in reply to a question asked by him on 26th May last, it does not seem possible to undertake a drainage scheme for the locality at present. No useful purpose, therefore, would be served by sending an engineer to report.

  Royal Irish Constabulary (Rewards and Punishments).
  Mr. HAZLETONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will circulate with the Votes a copy of the circular (Return No. 54) issued to the Royal Irish Constabulary, giving particulars of the rewards and punishments made during the six months ending 31st December last?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The return in question is of a confidential character and is intended solely for the information of the Royal Irish Constabularly. It would not be in the interests of the public service to circulate it as suggested.

  National Education (Ireland).
  Mr. JOHN PHILLIPSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland when there will be a Return made by the Board of National Education (Ireland) to the Motion passed by this House on Tuesday, 1st December, 1908, relative to national education in Ireland?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the Return is being prepared and will be furnished next month. For the purposes of the Return it was necessary to obtain and tabulate detailed statistics for about 8,400 schools and to ascertain the emoluments under different heads from State sources of about 12,700 individual teachers.

  Constabulary Force Fund (Ireland).
  Mr. HAZLETONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what is the Constabulary Force Fund, the amount available for it, and who is responsible for its administration; whether he is aware that the way in which rewards from this fund are bestowed puts a premium on the magnifying of agrarian offences by the police; and whether he will grant an inquiry into the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Constabulary Force Fund was originally established under the Constabulary (Ireland) Act, 1836, and is divided into two parts, styled respectively the Reward and Benefit Branches. The income of the Reward Branch, to which the question appears to refer, is derived from fines imposed on members of the force by the Constabulary authorities, and from portions of the fines and penalties awarded to the police, and of the fees received by them for the verification of weights and measures. The receipts, which are necessarily fluctuating, amounted, in the year ended 31st March, 1908, to £5,439; the disbursements in the same year amounting to £5,405. The funds of the Reward Branch are accounted for by the Inspector - General under Rules approved by the Treasury. All good police service, whether in connection with agrarian crime or not, is considered and dealt with by the Reward Board, which is composed of the superior officers of the force, on precisely the same lines as have been followed for many years past. I see no reason for any inquiry.
  Mr. HAZLETON: May I ask whether in this fund is a special heading for rewards dealing with agrarian offences?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Very likely there will be a special heading under that subject, but it is not the only branch which is rewarded under this fund.
  Mr. BYLES: Has the strength of the force been increased or reduced since the Government came into office?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It has been increased.

  Somaliland.
  Mr. FELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give any information respecting the progress of events in Somaliland, and if the forces of the Mullah are rapidly diminishing in numbers?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): There is no definite change in the situation, but it is reported that there is disaffection among the Mullah's followers, and that a number of them have deserted him.

  Bussorah and Baghdad.
  Mr. HART-DAVIESasked whether the through traffic by river between Bussorah and Baghdad has been restored.
  The UNDER - SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): No official information to this effect has yet been received, but the Tigris and Euphrates Navigation Company have informed me that the Arabs have dispersed, and that a resumption of the service is being arranged.

  Hankau-Sze-chuan Railway.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked whether an arrangement has been made with regard to the construction of the Hankau-Sze-chuan Railway, which involves the surrender of the rights secured to the British under the agreement concluded by Sir Ernest Satow with Prince Ching in October, 1903; and whether this arrangement has the approval of His Majesty's Government?
  Captain MURRAYasked whether he can state the present position in regard to the construction of the proposed railway from Hankau to Sze-chuan?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: In reply to this question, and that asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine, negotiations respecting the construction of this line are proceeding. No definite agreement has yet been concluded, and for the present I am unable to make any statement.

  Egyptian Department of Public Health.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Mr. H. C. Ross had to leave the Egyptian Sanitary Service owing to his zeal for stamping out malaria; and if that is not the reason would he inform the House of it?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Mr. H. C. Ross was never in the permanent employment of the Egyptian Department of
  1992
  Public Health. He resigned his temporary post under that Department when he learned that the Director-General was not prepared to promise him a permanent post in the Inspectorate in Cairo.

  Situation in Persia.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give to the House with regard to the situation in Persia?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Since my reply given on 6th May to the hon. and gallant Member for the St. Andrew's District the political situation in Persia has improved in some respects. The Saad-ed-Dowleh has been reinstated, and has formed a satisfactory Cabinet. A proclamation issued by the Shah restores the Constitution and orders the immediate promulgation of a suitable electoral law, after which the elections will be held at once. The National Assembly will be opened as soon as two-thirds of the deputies are ready. An amnesty has been granted for political offences. Matters appear to be quieting down in Tabriz. It is, however, impossible to say yet what effect these declarations are having upon the country generally.
  Mr. SMEATON: Is the constitution which the Shah has promised the original June Constitution revived or some other?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As far as our information goes, it is.

  British and Portuguese Government.
  Mr. MacNEILLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Portuguese Government has received from the British Government a note advising it to comply, in the interests of both countries, with the terms of a recent stipulation for the construction of a large arsenal in the Port of Lisbon, with docks extensive enough to accommodate the largest ironclads of the British Navy, and for the reorganisation, as soon as the finances of Portugal permitted, of the Portuguese Royal Navy; and whether, having regard to the plans of the new arsenal presented to the Portuguese Government on the 23rd ultimo, whose cost is estimated at £1,250,000 sterling, and the proviso that it will be open to British naval constructors to tender for the construction of these ironclads and several torpedo-boats and destroyers, the note of the British Government to the Portuguese Government in reference to

  1993
  the naval supremacy and armaments of that country will be communicated to Parliament?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No such note has been presented, and no such scheme has ever been contemplated by His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is he aware of the public notice on which I base that question, the public intimation of that, which is uncontradicted?

  Headford (County Galway) Police Force.
  Mr. HAZLETONasked whether a police but was to be placed on the Lynch Staunton estate at Clydagh, Headford, county Galway; whether there were already 18 police stationed at Headford; and whether this force was more than sufficient to meet all likely requirements?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There is no present intention of erecting a police but at this place. The police force at Headford is now one sergeant and twelve constables. The Constabulary Authorities consider that force sufficient.

  Appointment of Magistrates (Ireland).
  Mr. EDWARD BARRYasked whether Mr. T. Griffin, of Timoleague, South-East Cork, had recently obtained the commission of the peace for county Cork; whether Mr. Griffin was a publican in the village of Timoleague; on whose recommendation had he been appointed a magistrate; whether the Lord Chancellor had repeatedly refused to appoint certain gentlemen in South Cork, of the highest personal and commercial standing, on the grounds of their having an interest in licences; and whether the Lord Chancellor would now, in view of Mr. Griffin's appointment, reconsider the claims of the gentlemen in South county Cork who had hitherto been refused admission to the bench because of their connection with the trade?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Mr. T. Griffin, of Timoleague, county Cork, was appointed to the Commission of the Peace for the county Cork upon the recommendation of the lieutenant of the county in the usual way. The Lord Chancellor was not aware that Mr. Griffin, amongst the many businesses which he carries on, included that of a publican.
  Mr. EDWARD BARRY: When recommendations emanate from local popular bodies, why does the Lord Chancellor consider it necessary to make these official
  1994
  inquiries, and not when recommendations are made by the lieutenant of the county?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know how that may be. The Lord Chancellor has great objections to persons connected with the publicans' business being put upon the Commission of the Peace, and possibly where the responsibility rests entirely upon him he makes inquiries of a more searching character than when recommendations are made by the lieutenant of a county. I do not know how that may be, but he accepts responsibility and he will continue to pursue his inquiries on the lines he has hitherto followed.
  Mr. EDWARD BARRY: Had Mr. Griffin any business a couple of months ago except that of a publican?
  Mr. BIRRELL: My information is that he carries on a great many businesses, and in Ireland it often happens in such cases that the publican's business is a very small part of a man's total trade.
  Mr. EDWARD BARRY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why a gentleman in South Cork, who was very highly qualified and belonged to nearly all the representative boards, in the county, has been kept off the bench for years because of his connection with the trade?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Why was an exception made in this case, when applications in other cases of a similar character were refused?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am not responsible for the exercise of the Lord Chancellor's discretion in any shape, manner, or way.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the disqualifications for the office of justice of the peace is that the nominee is not a member of the United Irish League?
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: You know all about it.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what are the other businesses in which Mr. Griffin is engaged besides that of publican?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, I cannot.
  Mr. CREAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in other constituencies in Ireland the lieutenants of the county has

  1995
  recommended publicans and they have been appointed, whereas wholesale manufacturers who happen to have retailers' licences have not been appointed, simply because the Lord Chancellor does not wish to have them?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am not the Lord Chancellor of Ireland.
  Mr. CREAN: Who appointed the Lord Chancellor?
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Is it a fact that the Lord Chancellor invariably appoints any person whom the lieutenant of the county may recommend for the post of magistrate?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No; I do not think he is under any obligation to do so.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say that it was in consequence of this man's being recommended by the lieutenant of the county he received the appointment?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Certainly.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Is it the invariable custom of the Lord Chancellor to appoint gentlemen as magistrates if they are recommended by the lieutenant of the county?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will answer as far as I am responsible for the Lord Chancellor—which is in no respect whatever. The Lord Chancellor usually pays great respect to the recommendations of lieutenants of counties, but he is under no obligation to appoint the men so recommended.

  Pine Estate (County Cork) Ejectment Proceedings).
  Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAMasked whether the attention of the Estates Commissioners had been directed to certain ejectment proceedings at the suit of Mrs. Fanny Pyne, Ballyvolane, Fermoy, Co. Cork, against Mr. Jeremiah Twomey, whom she had reinstated, as a future tenant in his holding at Kilcor, on the 25th of March, 1902; whether the judicial tenants on the estate signed purchase agreements on the 28th of October last, and if the Commissioners fixed a purchase price for Mr. Twomey's holding, which, however, the landlord refused to accept; and whether the Commissioners would take any action to ensure that the holding in question should be included in the sale and purchase of the estate as a whole?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have no power to interfere in any legal proceedings which may be pending against the person mentioned, who was reinstated some time ago by the owner as a future tenant. The owner has been informed of the price which the Commissioners would be prepared to advance to the tenant to enable him to purchase, but no purchase agreement has yet been lodged in his case. Proceedings have recently been instituted by the owner for sale to the tenants direct under the Irish Land Act, 1903, and the matter will be inquired into when the property is being dealt with in its order of priority.

  Police at Drumlease (County Leitrim).
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he would state how many extra police were at present stationed in the parish of Drumlease, Co. Leitrim; whether they were chargeable on the rates; and whether the present peaceable condition of that district necessitated their further continuance?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed by the constabulary authorities that there are no extra police at present in the parish mentioned in the question.

  Rodden Estate, Drumkeerin (Case of Peter Kelly).
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked whether the Estates Commissioners had considered the claim of Peter Kelly, an evicted tenant on the Rodden estate, Drumkeerin, Co. Leitrim, who was reinstated in March last, for a free grant; and whether, having regard to the fact that he was a poor man, with no means to stock or work the farm or rebuild his house, his case would receive early attention?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have considered the case of Peter Kelly. There is a substantial dwelling-house on his farm, and a grant for fencing has been sanctioned. The Commissioners cannot see their way to make any grant for purchase of live stock in this case.
  Mr. F. MEEHAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man was kept out of his holding for two years, and when he was reinstated, after having been at so much expense, is it not really too bad that he should not get a grant for purchase of stock?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I can only say that I am not the Commissioners. The discretion is theirs, and I cannot interfere.

  Labourers Acts (Arbitration Costs).
  Mr. FFRENCHasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he was aware that for many years the Wexford Rural District Council, and their predecessors, the guardians of the Wexford Union, made it a practice to enter into agreements with the parties interested as to the price to be paid for the lands proposed to be acquired compulsorily for the purposes of the Labourers Acts; that the Wexford Council entered into a number of agreements with the parties interested in the lands proposed to be acquired under the compulsory part of the Wexford Rural District Labourers (Unopposed) Order, 1908; that on this last occasion the Local Government Board refused to sanction a practice by which the council had in the past saved money and expedited the work of taking land for labourers' cottages, and, instead, actually forced an arbitrator on the council by sealed orders; whether, although the Court of Appeal had since held that a district council had a statutory right to enter into such agreements as the Wexford District Council had done on this and former occasions, the Local Government Board had claimed the cost of the arbitration in question by sealed order; and whether, as the council deemed the inquiry unnecessary, and as the decision of the Court of Appeal confirmed that opinion, he would request the Local Government Board to withdraw their claim in so far as it applied to the cost of the arbitration of the 8th of July last?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed by the Local Government Board that more than half the plots included in the Wexford Rural District Labourers (Unopposed) Order, 1908, were authorised to be acquired compulsorily. In June last, while arbitration proceedings were pending in council and the persons interested had not council and the persons interested had not agreed, the King's Bench Division unanimously decided, in another case, that where an Order confirming a scheme provides for the taking of land compulsorily by way of absolute purchase, the amount of compensation must be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Board. In accordance with this decision the arbitrator made his award on 20th July last in the cases to which the hon. Member refers, and the Board on 29th September last issued their certificate as to the amount of costs
  1998
  payable by the council in respect of the arbitration. Such certificate is final, under Statute, and the amount certified has now become a debt due from the local authority to the Crown. The matter was thus concluded months before the decision of the Court of Appeal, referred to in the question, was given, and that decision obviously can have no application to a past transaction.

  Schools Transferred to Religious Bodies (Ireland).
  Mr. JOHN MURPHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he could ascertain from the Commissioners of National Education the number of schools in Ireland that had passed from lay teachers to religious bodies during the last ten years?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that forty-four National schools in Ireland have passed from lay teachers to religious bodies during the last ten years.

  Cookery in Irish Schools.
  Mr. JOHN MURPHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether increments had been withheld from several teachers in consequence of cookery being omitted from the subjects of study in their schools; and, having regard to the statement to the contrary effect made to a recent deputation by the resident Commissioner, he could ascertain the exact terms of the decision arrived at by the Board in reference to this matter.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the grant of increments has been deferred in certain cases, pending correspondence with school managers. In all such cases the Commissioners have primâ facie grounds for believing that no adequate reasons exist for the exclusion of cookery instruction from the school curriculum. The Commissioners' regulation on the subject is as follows:—"Cookery and laundry work form part of the ordinary school programme for girls enrolled in the fifth and higher standards, when suitable provision for instruction in these subjects has been secured. In such cases the successful teaching of cookery has an important bearing on the award of increments of salaries and on the promotion of teachers." I am informed that the resident Commissioner made no statement to any deputation inconsistent with this regulation.

  Kenmare Estate (Payment of Interest).
  Mr. JOHN MURPHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he could now state who would have to pay the interest due in the cases of persons proceeded against by the Land Commission on the Kenmare estate, county Kerry, if the Land Commission failed to recover from the persons proceeded against?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Land Commission assume that the interest proceeded for on the Kenmare estate will, as in other cases, be ultimately recovered. Every purchase agreement contains an agreement to pay the interest in question. Pursuant to section 35 of the Act of 1896 the Land Commission pay the interest to the persons entitled thereto when received by them.
  Mr. JOHN MURPHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say upon whom the liability falls if the interest is not recovered?

  Coltsmann Estate (County Kerry) Case of Denis Healy.
  Mr. JOHN MURPHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he could ascertain from the Estates Commissioners on what ground they allowed the sale of the evicted farm of Denis Healy, on the Coltsmann estate, county Kerry, to be sold to the grabber who was in possession of it, although authorised by the landlord himself, even as well as others, to endeavour to secure the reinstatement of Healy?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question of 25th June, 1908, on the same subject.

  Kenmare Estate (Congested Districts).
  Mr. JOHN MURPHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who was the officer of the Congested Districts Board that inquired as to the purchase of the congested districts of the Kenmare estate, county Kerry; whether hundreds of holdings on this estate were uneconomic; and whether he could explain how the Board could undertake the purchase of an adjoining estate while at the very same time they declined to negotiate in this case on the ground of want of funds?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No officer of the Congested Districts Board ever inspected the Kenmare estate or any portion of it. As I have already informed the hon. Member, the terms on which the congested portion
  2000
  of the estate was offered to the Board were not such as they could have accepted even had money been available for the purpose. As regards the concluding portion of the Question, negotiations for the purchase of the Ventry estate, to which the hon. Member presumably refers, had begun before it was decided that, pending an increase in their income, the Board would not undertake any further purchases.

  S. G. W. Adams' Estate, Cockhill (County Cork).
  Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that on the estate of S. G. Wallis Adams, at Cockhill, Millstreet, county Cork, a tenant named Patrick Kelleher, and another, have been kept outside the purchase which was arranged some two years ago with the other tenants; that Kelleher was a non-judicial tenant who never had a fair rent fixed in court, whilst the owner and agent sought to compel him to purchase as a second-term tenant; whether he is aware that he has since been harassed in various ways, and served with a writ for the hanging half-gale in the early months of this year; will the circumstances of this man's case and these methods be inquired into before the purchase-money is advanced to the owner; is he aware that, since the introduction of the Land Bill, the agents, Messrs. Hussey and Townsend, Cork, wrote in reply to a request for a reasonable purchase that the second-term tenants on the estate had purchased at 22 years, and that as Patrick Kelleher did not agree to these terms he will now have to pay 24 years' purchase to make up for the loss of £9 per cent. bonus; and, seeing that on various estates tenants have been excluded from the general purchase on unreasonable or unjust grounds, will he introduce a clause into his Land Bill providing that in all such cases of exclusion the tenants shall have the benefit of a special inspection and valuation by the Estates Commissioners?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that no purchase agreement has been lodged for the sale of this holding, and when the estate is being dealt with in its order of priority due inquiry will be made as to the circumstances under which the tenant has refused to purchase.

  Lyrogue Farm (Queen's Connty).
  Mr. DELANYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the farm of Lyrogue, on the Hopkins estate,

  2001
  Errill, Ballybrophy, Queen's County, was, prior to 29th April, 1905, untenanted, and let by the 11 months to a grazier named Joseph Mole, and that, subsequently to that date, namely, on 1st August, 1905, Mole lodged an agreement to purchase as an occupying yearly tenant of this farm, claiming an advance of £3,275; and whether, seeing that under the Act of 1903 the advance is limited to £500 in case of a tenancy created after the 1st January, 1901, he will say what course the Estates Commissioners propose taking in this case?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have refused to make the advance applied for in this case.

  Malicious Injury Claims and Compensation (Ireland).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will state, for each of the years 1906, 1907, and 1908, the number of claims made for compensation for malicious injury in Ireland, the total amount awarded in compensation, and the number of cases in regard to which claims for compensation were made in which individuals were made amenable under the Criminal Law?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As regards 1906 and 1907, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on my behalf to a question asked by him on 6th April, 1908. The number of claims made, and the amount of compensation awarded in 1908 are given in the Return ordered on his Motion on 18th February. The number of cases in which persons were made amenable in 1908 cannot be ascertained without local inquiries. If the hon. Member wishes to move for a Return I will give it.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the number of pension claimants in Ireland who put in their claims two months ago, and the number who put them in six weeks ago, and whose ages have not yet been received from the Census Office?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY of the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): There are no statistics available which will give the information asked for.

  Donegal District Asylum, Letterkenny.
  Mr. MacNEILLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed by the committee of management of the Donegal District Asylum, Letterkenny, and by com-
  2002
  mittees of management of other district asylums, urging an increase of the capitation grant in aid to the district asylums from 4s. to 6s. 6d. per week, since at the time the estimate of 4s. per head was arrived at it was based on the assumption that it meant half of the maintenance of each patient, whereas owing to the increased price of the necessaries of life the average cost per head is far in excess of what it then was; and whether any, and, if so, what steps have been or will be taken to carry out the objects of the resolution?
  Mr. BIRRELL: My attention has been called to the resolution in question. The capitation grant, when fixed in 1875 at 4s. a week, was, I understand, intended to represent approximately half the cost of maintenance. I am informed that the average cost of maintenance is considerably less now than it was then. The grant of 4s. a week is fixed by Statute, and I am unable to hold out any hope of legislation to increase the amount.

  Constables Fined for Assault (Ballinasloe).
  Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that at the Ballinasloe Petty Sessions on the 1st instant, Constable McDonnell and Constable Collins were prosecuted for assaulting Terence Doland, Michael Doland, and Joseph Egan; that these constables were convicted by a bench consisting amongst others, of two resident magistrates, and fined £2 and 5s. respectively; whether he is aware that these constables are on special duty on the Potts estate, in county Roscommon; and whether, in view of complaints made against these and other constables so engaged, and the finding of the magistrates in the case in question, these policemen will be continued in discharge of such duty in a district in which they are a source of irritation?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary informs me that the facts of the case are correctly stated in the question. The two constables who were fined by the magistrates will be removed from the district as soon as possible?

  Mrs. Besant's University (India).
  Mr. HART-DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed to subsidise or assist in any way the religious and social university which is being established by Mrs. Annie Besant in India?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Secretary of State has no knowledge of the project referred to in the question.

  Transvaal Mines (Employment of Mozambique Natives).
  Mr. STAVELEY-HILLinquired of the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the Convention entered into between Lord Selborne, as Governor of the Transvaal, and the Portuguese Government with reference to the employment of Mozambique natives in the Transvaal mines, and also any correspondence that has passed between the Home, the Transvaal, and the Portuguese Governments with reference to the matter?
  COLONEL SEELY: The Convention shall be laid, but it is not proposed to lay the correspondence, which is mostly confidential.

  Orange River Colony (Natives' Petition).
  Captain CLIVEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the petition, dated 14th September, from the natives of the Orange River Colony has yet been presented to the King; and whether he can now state the cause of the delay in forwarding it to the Colonial Office?
  Colonel SEELY: No, Sir, but our telegram will produce a reply, and I expect to hear from the Governor very shortly.

  Sir Eldon Gorst's Annual Report.
  Dr. RUTHERFORDasked the Prime Minister whether he can say when the Foreign Office Vote will be taken, in order that the House may have an opportunity of discussing the Annual Report of Sir Eldon Gorst, which raises issues of political importance both to Egypt and to Great Britain
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am prepared to put down the Foreign Office Vote when it is asked for by the Opposition on any allotted day devoted to Supply.

  Board of Agriculture Bill.
  Mr. PIKE PEASE (for Mr. Hicks Beach)asked the Prime Minister when the second reading of the Secretary of the Board of Agriculture Bill will be taken?
  The PRIME MINISTER: If this Bill could be regarded as non-controversial, I should be prepared to move the second
  2004
  reading on an early day; but if the Bill is to be debated on the second reading I cannot name any date before Whitsuntide.

  Income Tax Returns.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the officials who collect the income tax are instructed or allowed to add an item to a taxpayer's return without consulting the taxpayer or informing him that they added such an item?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The attention of the taxpayer is duly directed to the particulars in respect of which his return may be incorrect, before an effective assessment is made by the responsible Tax Commissioners?
  Mr. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer me more directly as to whether there are no definite instructions given to the collector, that he must not add any item to the return without letting the taxpayer know?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, that is what I said; that is undoubtedly correct. The attention of the taxpayer is only directed to particulars in respect to which his return may be incorrect. No addition can be made to the return without the taxpayer being made aware of the addition or correction.

  Irish Whisky Duty.
  Mr. THOMAS O'DONNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total number of gallons of spirits manufactured in Ireland in the year ended March, 1908, the number of gallons of spirit exported from Ireland and the duty paid on it, and the number of gallons of spirit consumed in Ireland and the duty paid; and what would be the extra duty paid by Ireland during the coming year on the assumption that the same quantity of spirits was consumed.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Assuming that the word "spirit" as used in this Question is intended by the hon. Member to mean spirit manufactured in Ireland, the number of proof gallons of spirit distilled in Ireland in the year ended 31st March, 1908, was 11,653,513, but as Irish-made spirit is not separately distinguished in the official accounts I regret that I am unable to give the remainder of the information asked for by the hon. Member.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: If the figures are not separated in the Return how can they be worked out by the officials?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not know, but if the hon. Member will put a question down I will try and find out.

  Brewers' Licence Duty (Rebate).
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN (for Captain Baring)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the brewers' licence duty of 12s. per 50 barrels, as proposed in the Budget, will be approximately a tax of 3d. per barrel manufactured; and if he proposes to give a corresponding rebate per barrel upon beer exported from the United Kingdom, as is now done in the case of the beer duty of 7s. 9d. per barrel?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I must refer the hon. Member to what was said on this subject by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the course of the Debate on Tuesday.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Mr. MacNEILLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the case of English and Scotch applicants for old age pensions, a comparison has been instituted by the Treasury between the baptismal certificates of the ages of these pensioners and their ages as recorded in the Census of 1841 and 1851; and, if so, whether serious discrepancies have been revealed between the ages of the applicants as recorded in the Census Returns which, in some cases, differ from each other in the baptismal certificates; and whether, under these circumstances, the Treasury will insist on treating as conclusive evidence of the age of Irish applicants the Census Returns in the absence of baptismal certificates?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: We have no information that the discrepancies suggested in the question do in fact exist.
  Mr. MacNEILL: But do not discrepancies exist in the baptismal certificates, compared with the other evidence such as it is?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No; I should not think there is any suggestion in the figures made with regard to the pensions paid that discrepancies do exist.
  Mr. MacNEILL: So far as the evidence of the census goes it has only been applied to Ireland, and not to England and Scotland?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No; where necessary it is applied in both cases.
  Mr. MacNEILL: But it is very necessary in Ireland!
  Mr. MacNEILLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that little, if any, reliance can be placed on the census records of 1841 and 1851 in reference to the accuracy of the ages of persons therein recorded, and that these records are faulty and incomplete, since the investigation was made under circumstances which made accuracy impossible; whether, at the passing of the Pension Act, from the knowledge that the census returns were not reliable in the matter of ages, regulations were issued by the Treasury enabling pension officers and pension committees to accept, where applicants for the pension could not procure baptismal certificates, certificates from clergymen, magistrates, and others who had known the applicants for a long period as sufficient proof that they were of ages to render good their claims; whether the effect of the new regulations is that the fate of all who have made claims will hang on whatever the census returns of 1841 and 1851 disclose unless baptismal certificates are forthcoming, and since Irish Catholics cannot produce certificates of baptism, because no records of baptisms and marriages were kept by their Church at that time, members of that communion alone will feel the effect of these new regulations; and whether, under these circumstances, certificates from the census of 1841 and from the census of 1851, which frequently differ from each other as to the age of the same individual, should not be pressed on pension committees by pension officers as conclusive evidence of the age of applicants, nor held on appeal to the Local Government Board as conclusive?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Any record of age contained in the Census Returns of 1841 and 1851 must depend upon the accuracy of the person who made the statement, and it is quite possible that these records are not wholly dependable, but, in addition to information obtainable from these sources, any reliable documentary evidence is admitted beside baptismal certificates. It must rest with the pension committee and the Local Government Board respectively to decide what is final and conclusive evidence.
  Mr. MacNEILL: Can the hon. Gentleman say, when the pension officer makes these investigations, he has to take the census of 1841 and 1851, and compare the two censuses as to whether there are discrepancies in the ages of the same individual?
  Mr. MOONEY: Is it not a fact that the 1841 census in Ireland is inaccurate; that there are streets in towns which do not appear, and that, application having been made to the Registrar-General in Dublin for information, has been refused?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No such information has been brought to my notice.
  Mr. MacNEILL: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that these Census Returns are inadmissible as legal evidence in any court? If he has any doubt about it, let him ask the Law officers at his side.
  Mr. MURNAGHAN: Where the evidence consists only of the birth certificate or the Census Return, may I ask the hon. Gentleman if instructions have been given for any other evidence except these two to be received?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: As I pointed out in reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Donegal, any reliable documentary evidence is taken into consideration.
  Mr. FLYNN: In the case of Irish Catholics it is almost impossible for them to furnish such evidence. They do not enter the births up in the family Bible like they do in Great Britain—is that fact taken into account?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is the very reason why other documentary evidence is accepted.
  Mr. MURNAGHAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive any evidence except certificates of birth, which are unobtainable in many parishes in Ireland, from applicants for pensions, and who are unable to produce any documentary evidence?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: They must produce some evidence as to age.

  Distilleries (Scotland.)
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that there are 162 distilleries in Scotland, as against nine in England and 30 in Ireland, that the average output during the last three years in Scotland has been very nearly equal to that of England and Ireland combined, that about four and a-half millions of the new tax on whisky, out of a total of a little over nine millions, would fall upon a Scottish industry, and that no Scottish Member has had any opportunity of giving expression to the widespread feeling in Scotland as to the unfair and unjust incidence of this tax,
  2008
  he will reconsider the expediency of imposing a tax which will bear so heavily upon that Kingdom?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend does not see his way to reconsider the proposals in this particular, but he does not admit the accuracy of the figures quoted by the hon. Member.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: Does the hon. Gentleman know that these figures were taken from the Abstract which appeared in the Votes and Proceedings the other day?

  Super-Tax (Earned and Unearned Incomes)
  Viscount DALRYMPLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed that earned income shall be aggregated with unearned in assessing for supertax?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I must ask the Noble Lord to wait for this information until the Finance Bill is in the hands of the House.

  Indian Civil and Military Officers' Income Tax.
  Mr. SMEATONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his intention to continue, as heretofore, the exemptions and abatements on their small Home incomes to Indian civil and military officers resident on duty in India who are in receipt of salaries from the Indian Government?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend does not intend to exempt Indian civil and military officers resident in India and receiving salaries from the Indian Government from the proposed obligations on persons resident abroad to pay full income tax.
  Mr. SMEATON: Seeing that these officers are compulsorily resident abroad in the execution of their duty, is it fair—simply for the convenience of the Treasury, for such it really is—to deprive them of a right to which by law every other subject of His Majesty is entitled?
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Considering the very great disabilities those Indian officers suffer, will the Government not reconsider this matter?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have just given the decision of my right hon. Friend.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: And I have just asked you to reconsider it.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will furnish

  2009
  a list showing the number of old age pensions of 1s., 2s., 3s., 4s., and 5s., respectively, which have been granted per county in Ireland?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend finds that the number of pensions actually being paid in each county can only be ascertained by obtaining returns from pension officers, the preparation of which at the present time would involve considerable labour, and would seriously impede the more pressing work of dealing with outstanding claims.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases, at least, in Ireland all the figures asked for, and a great many more, have already been given to the local newspapers, and is he also aware that all the figures asked for are actually in the office of the pensions officers in Ireland, and that it only requires an addressed envelope and a penny stamp to get the information?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am afraid the hon. Member takes a rather optimistic view.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Does not the Treasury know, by the amount of money it pays away, whether it be for 1s., 2s. or 5s. pensions, the number of each of these classes of pensions?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I can assure the hon. and learned Member there is no unreadiness or unwillingness to communicate this information, but it would entail a very considerable amount of labour, which at the present time would have the effect of postponing the consideration of future claims.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is there not somebody at the Treasury to-day who knows the amount of money being paid from week to week, and who must have vouchers in the Treasury representing these claims?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is quite true the amount of money paid out is accurately known by the accounting officer of the Treasury, but it is not so easy to split that large sum of money into the small amounts necessary to give the detailed accurate information required. The information required for newspapers is not necessarily, though very nearly, accurate, and what would pass in that respect would soon be challenged in this House.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Are the Treasury not in the habit of requiring many details as to the nature of the pensions before they send the money in a lump sum?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Of course they do.
  Captain CLIVE: Arising out of the original answer, is not the stress of work on the pension officers now nearly over?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I wish it was, but I am afraid it is not.
  Mr. FLYNN: Could not the hon. Gentleman suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the desirability of postponing the Budget until these questions are answered?
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Is it not a fact that every county council in Ireland has before it a list of the pensions paid out in the various grades—1s., 2s., 3s.—and that they could let the Chancellor of the Exchequer have the information without any labour?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No; if I had known that was the case I would produce the information.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Will the hon. Member make inquiries as to whether it is a fact or not, and if it is will he produce the figures?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Certainly.

  Ireland's Contribution to Revenue.
  Mr. HAZLETON (for Mr. Kettle)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any record is available of the interchange of beer and foreign duty-paid spirits between Ireland and Great Britain; and, if not, how is the annual contribution of Ireland to the total revenue of the United Kingdom calculated as regards Customs and Excise?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The total quantity of foreign spirits removed from Great Britain to Ireland, and vice versâ, after payment of duty is recorded, and the quantity so removed in the years 1906, 1907 and 1908 is included in the totals given in reply to a question of the hon. Member for North Meath on the 10th instant, of spirits imported into, and exported from, Ireland, The quantity of each kind of foreign spirit so removed is not recorded separately. No record is kept of the quantity of beer interchanged, but the consumption in England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland respectively, is estimated, as explained in the Annual Parliamentary Return of Revenue and Expenditure, England, Scotland and Ireland (House of Commons Paper 216 of 1908), as regards beer made in the United Kingdom on the basis of transit statistics obtained in the year 1903–4, and as regards foreign beer on the basis of the respective populations.

  Taxable Capacity (Ireland).
  Mr. HAZLETON (for Mr. Kettle)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimate of the present taxable capacity of Ireland as compared with that of Great Britain on which his proposals for taxation are founded?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend's proposals are not founded directly upon any estimate of the taxable capacity of Ireland as compared with that of Great Britain, but, as explained in his Financial Statement, upon the taxable capacity of individuals and classes of individuals as compared with that of other individuals and classes of individuals irrespective of the part of the United Kingdom in which they may reside.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Are we to understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has left out of consideration the special exemptions and abatements guaranteed to Ireland as to her taxable capacity by the Act of Union and again in 1817?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, I do not think the hon. Member has any right to assume that.
  Mr. HAZLETON: Why has the Chancellor in bringing in his Budget ignored the findings of the Royal Commission?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My recollection is that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out in the course of one of his speeches that the proportion of taxation for Ireland under the Budget is less than before.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Yes, but he did not say how it was—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order, the hon. Member is arguing.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the low death rate among the old age pensioners in Ireland compared with the death rate among the pensioners in England, Scotland, or Wales; and if the Treasury authorities have any information to the effect that this is owing to some extent to the average age of the pensioners in Ireland being less than the average age in England?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It appears to be the fact that the death rate among Irish pensioners is lower than that in England or
  2012
  Scotland, but it would be unsafe to draw any general inference from this fact, having regard to the short period for which the Old Age Pensions Act has been in force.
  Mr. FELL: With regard to the reply, may I ask did not previous answers given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer show that there was doubt as to the ages of these, and is not that primâ facie evidence they are younger?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not think it is.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Why do they live so long at all?

  Agriculture Holdings Act (Compensation for Disturbance).
  Mr. SEDDONasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to refusals of landlords, based on section 11, sub-section (a), of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, of compensation to tenant farmers for unreasonable disturbance when they have received notice to quit on account of their holdings being required for small holdings and allotments; and whether he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to deal with such cases?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir E. Strachey): No specific case of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers has been brought to our notice. The President has no intention of introducing legislation on the subject.

  Small Holdings Act (Kent).
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the hon. Member for South Somerset whether about 100 acres of land was offered to the Kent County Council at Wrotham and have been declined; and, if so, can he state the reason for the county council not accepting the offer?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The county council are not prepared to make an offer for the farm to which my hon. Friend refers, inasmuch, as I understand, they have not received any applications for small holdings in the parish of Wrotham.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: Are they not in possession of a large number of applications from Wrotham neighbourhood?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I will inquire.

  "Mercedes" (Fatal Accident).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the First Lord; of the Admiralty whether his attention

  2013
  has been called to the death of a man named T. Albert as the result of an accident while removing coal from the "Mercedes" in Portsmouth Harbour; whether any report has been received upon the subject at the Board of Admiralty, and, if so, does it contain statements that the machinery was defective, and had been so for a long time; that such defects had caused many injuries to the men employed; and, if so, whether, under these circumstances, he will prevent the use of this faulty apparatus, and otherwise take all necessary steps to protect the workmen employed in this branch of his Department?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): A report on the subject has been received. The machinery in use at the time of the accident has been examined by representatives of the Admiralty, the engineering manager of the dockyard and the contractors, who report that it was in perfect condition and working order. There is no record of any previous accident having been caused by defect in the machinery. Coaling is necessarily an operation attended with some degree of danger, but all possible precautions are taken to ensure protection to the men employed in connection therewith.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the verdict of the jury was that the accident was caused by defective apparatus?
  Mr. McKENNA: No; I was not aware of that, but I will inquire into the statement of my hon. Friend.

  Armstrong, Whitworth and Company (Fair Wages Clause).
  Mr. HUDSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the action of the firm of Armstrong, Whitworth and Company, Elswick, in not paying a number of fully-qualified engineers the rate of wages which obtain in the district; and whether this firm is supposed to conform to the Fair Wages Clause passed by this House?
  Mr. McKENNA: There is no trace of any case as alleged in the first part of the question. The answer to the second part is in the affirmative.
  Mr. HUDSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to receive a statement from the committee of the engineers?
  Mr. McKENNA: Oh, certainly; if my hon. Friend will write to me generally I will look into the matter, but I have been unable to trace any case.
  Mr. HUDSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can now say whether a decision has been arrived at respecting the complaint of the executive council of the Electrical Trades Union against the firm of Armstrong, Whitworth and Company, Elswick, not paying the fair wages due to certain electrical wiremen according to contract?
  Mr. McKENNA: No decision has yet been arrived at. This matter has been the subject of considerable correspondence with both the firm of Messrs. Armstrong and the secretary of the Electrical Trades Union, with a view to elucidate the correct facts of the case. The last action was a letter dated 17th April last to the Electrical Trades Union, asking for further information, to which no reply has as yet been received.

  Naval Officers (Interpreters in German).
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: I desire to ask the the First Lord of the Admiralty how many officers of the Royal Navy are qualified as interpeters in German; how many of those so qualified are at present unemployed; and how many are employed respectively in the Mediterranean Fleet, Atlantic Fleet, and the First (North Sea) Division of the Home Fleet?
  Mr. McKENNA: Thirty-three officers of the Royal Navy are qualified as interpreters in German. Two of these are at the present moment on half-pay and unemployed. Four are serving in the Mediterranean Fleet, seven in the Atlantic Fleet, and six in the First Division of the Home Fleet. I should add in correction of the hon. Gentleman that the First Division of the Home Fleet is not rightly described as the North Sea Division.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the provision he has made as to the number?
  Mr. McKENNA: I was merely speaking of the name. The hon. Member gives to the First Division the name "North Sea."
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the present distribution of the officers?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir; I am perfectly satisfied.

  Destroyer "Blackwater."
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether there is any possibility of the destroyer "Blackwater," recently sunk in the Channel, being salved and brought forward for further service;

  2015
  and, if not, whether the Admiralty intend to purchase a vessel to replace her, as was done in the cases of the "Tiger" and "Gala" lost last year?
  Mr. McKENNA: The salvage operations on the "Blackwater" are in hand by Portsmouth Dockyard, but it cannot yet be definitely stated whether the vessel will be successfully salved. Under the circumstances, it would be premature to make any statement on this subject at the present moment.

  British Destroyers (1907–8 Programme).
  Lord ROBERT CECILasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that none of the British destroyers of the 1907–8 programme were laid down until the following year, the Government will undertake that the destroyers of this year's programme will be laid down this year?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is proposed to place the orders for the torpedo boat destroyers of the current year's programme before the end of 1909.
  Mr. ASHLEY: When will those destroyers be laid down?
  Mr. McKENNA: As the destroyers will be built by contractors under a contract to deliver them within a certain period, it is a question for the contractors as to the precise date they will be laid down; but the date of delivery will be laid down in the contract.

  Short Service Men (Navy).
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the number of short-service men of all ratings now serving in the Navy; how many it is proposed to enter during the current financial year; what is the proportion in each ship of short-service men to the rest of the ship's company; and if there is any maximum limit fixed to the proportion of short-service men to the rest of the ship's company?
  Mr. McKENNA: According to the periodical returns the numbers borne on the 25th March were:—

  Special service seamen

  1,638

  Special service stokers

  5,511

  The answer to the second part of the question is:—

  Special service seamen

  500

  Special service stokers--There is no numerical limit placed on the number of special service

  2016

  stokers to be entered, but probably less than half the total entries of stokers will be special service this financial year.

  I have no information available to enable me to answer the third part of the question, and returns would have to be searched from 259 separate ships before it could be produced. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.

  Naval Prison System.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the advance in military prison reform, he will consider the advisability of introducing a system for the Navy on the lines of the Report on the Discipline and Management of the Military Prisons and Detention Barracks [Cd. 4606] lately published?
  Mr. McKENNA: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the announcement made on page 5 of my published statement on the Navy Estimates. The Committee alluded to has made its Report, which is not receiving the attention of the Board.

  Fishing Boats and Nets (Special Maps).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether special maps have been prepared and issued to His Majesty's ships showing the places and dates where numerous fishing boats and nets are likely to be met with?
  Mr. McKENNA: The fishery charts for July, August, and September are completed, the first being in the hands of the engravers, and will be issued to the fleet about the middle of June. The remainder will follow consecutively.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to see, or will he furnish me with a copy of one of those maps?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not think there will be any difficulty in doing that, and I will inquire.

  Gun and Torpedo Practice (Fisheries).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the consensus of opinion among fishermen as to the harm done to the herring fishing by big gun and torpedo practice, he will, so far as the exigencies of the service admit, arrange for such practices being carried out with the least possible interference to the fishing industry?
  Mr. McKENNA: So far as I am aware it has not been established that the herring fishery is affected by heavy gun or torpedo practice. Subject to the exigencies of the Service, care is taken to avoid as far as posible interference with the fishing industry, but it is not practicable on all occasions to carry out practices in waters which are remote from the fisheries.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very strong consensus of opinion throughout the fishing communities as to the detrimental effects of big-gun firing and torpedo practice?
  Mr. McKENNA: I know that view has been expressed in some quarters, but in other quarters the British Fleet is constantly invited to come there for manœuvres.

  Dry Docks (Thames and North Sea).
  Mr. RENWICK: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there are any dry decks on the Thames or in the North Sea ports, other than at Chatham, suitable for battleships of the "King Edward,' "Lord Nelson," "London," or "Royal Sovereign" classes, or for first-class cruisers of the "Invincible," "Minotaur," or county classes; and, if so, where are such docks situated and how many of them are there?
  Mr. McKENNA: All classes of vessels enumerated, when at designed load draught, can be docked in Robert Stephenson's Dock, Hebburn. Vessels of the county class can be docked in the Tilbury large graving dock, or in Messrs. Swan, Hunter, and Wigham Richardson's dock at Wallsend-on-Tyne, when somewhat lightened and trimmed.
  Mr. RENWICK: Is it not a fact that the Admiralty have refused to use Messrs. Stephenson's docks?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have given the precise explanation which the hon. Member asked for. As regards refusing to use Messrs. Stephenson's dock, I decline to have repairs carried out at the present time in private dockyards. That is not part of the question which the hon. Member put to me.
  Mr. RENWICK: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to my question about using Richardson's dock at Wallsend-on-Tyne?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have already stated that this particular dock can be used by vessels of the county class when somewhat lightened and trimmed.

  Destroyers "Bonetta" and "Albacore."
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the armament and speed on trial of the destroyers "Bonetta" and "Albacore," which were purchased to replace the "Gala" and the "Tiger"?
  Mr. McKENNA: The armament is three 12pr. 12cwt. guns and two single revolving torpedo tubes. The speed of the "Albacore" on trial was 26.75 knots. The two vessels being alike, this result was accepted for both, after preliminary trials with both destroyers.

  Destroyers (High Free-board Type).
  Mr. ASHLEY: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman how many torpedo-boat destroyers of the high free-board type are now completed for the Navy; how many are in full commission; and how many in reserve?
  Mr. McKENNA: 35 in full commission. 2 in commission with nucleus crews.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Are we to understand that there are none in reserve to meet the wastage of war?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member asked me how many were in commission and how many were in reserve. My answer is that they are all either in commission or in nucleus crews.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any British torpedo-boat destroyers are manned only with a care and maintenance party; if so, how many; and of how many men does the party consist?
  Mr. McKENNA: There are five destroyers in dockyard hands for long refit with a care and maintenance party allowed to them. This party consists of one officer and seven ratings, or, in one case, of two officers and six ratings.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentlemen say whether these destroyers which carry care and maintenance parties on them are any use for effective service?
  Mr. McKENNA: At the moment, of course they are not, but as soon as their refit is finished they will be of use.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Are we to understand that these five vessels will be of any use in time of war?
  Mr. McKENNA: They would not be at the outbreak of war, but they would in a day or two afterwards.

  Staff of Officers (Navy).
  Mr. LONSDALE: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any steps have been taken to establish, in connection with the Navy, a staff of officers corresponding to the general staff of the Army?
  Mr. McKENNA: The evolution of a war staff has been in progress since 1905, when, as the hon. Member is aware, the Naval War College was established at Portsmouth; the development is still proceeding. I would add, however, that I think it desirable to avoid drawing too close an analogy between the functions of Departments of the Army and Navy.

  Dry Dock Accommodation (East Coast).
  Mr. LONSDALE: I desire to ask the first Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any official information showing that the number of docks built, building, or immediately contemplated for German "Dreadnoughts" is 12, comprising eight Government docks and four private floating docks, of which nine will be accessible from the North Sea; and whether he is now in a position to say what provision, other than the works at Rosyth, is to be made this year towards supplying dry-dock accommodation for British "Dreadnoughts" on the East Coast of Great Britain?
  Mr. McKENNA: Presuming that two docks are to be built at Brunsbuttel, and regarding them as coming within the category of "immediately contemplated," though there is no official intimation on either of these points, it may be said that built, building and projected there are 12 docks understood to be capable of taking the German battleships now under construction. This number includes:—

  7 Government docks,

  2 private dry docks,

  3 private floating docks.

  Ten docks will be accessible from the North Sea, the other two are at Kiel; but one of these, a floating dock, might conceivably be transported to the Elbe in case of necessity. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Are the Government taking any steps whatever to supply the acknowledged deficiency of dry-dock accommodation on the East Coast?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to inform the House what steps have been taken?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member is aware that Rosyth is being proceeded with.
  Mr. LONSDALE: How many docks will there be at Rosyth capable of receiving a "Dreadnought"?
  Mr. McKENNA: The question asked me by the right hon. Gentleman was whether the Government were taking any steps to provide docks on the East Coast, and I said, "Yes, at Rosyth."
  Mr. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that whilst Germany will have twelve docks capable of receiving "Dreadnoughts," we shall only have one?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order. The hon. Member asked a question and receives an answer, and then he repeats the same question.

  German Docks.
  Mr. FELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if Germany will have, in the course of the next three years, eight docks capable of containing the largest battleships and one floating dock; and if these docks are concentrated round the mouth of the Elbe, and all available for the use of a fleet requiring rapid repairs to be effected?
  Mr. McKENNA: If the docks at Wilhelmshaven and Bremerhaven can be considered as concentrated round the mouth of the Elbe the present state of affairs is as follows:—
  Docks capable of taking battleships now building in Germany:

  Wilhelmshaven

  …

  3

  Bremerhaven

  …

  1

  Hamburg

  …

  2 (floating).

  In the course of the next three years there may be added:—

  Bremerhaven

  1

  Hamburg

  1 (floating).

  Kiel (might conceivably be transferred to the Elbe)

  1 (floating).

  Total in three years:—

  Dry docks

  …

  …

  5

  Floating

  …

  …

  4

  9

  These docks would doubtless all be available for the fleet in case of necessity.
  Mr. RENWICK: Arising out of that answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if these docks can take these large ships at full draught or at a diminished draught?
  Mr. McKENNA: I believe that the docks in question can take the ships at full draught.

  "Gladiator" (Wreck).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state how much it cost to raise the "Gladiator," which was wrecked off Yarmouth, in the Isle of Wight; and what is the breaking-up price received for the vessel?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is, approximately, £50,500; and to the second part, £15,125.

  Gun-mountings.
  Mr. T. M. HEALYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether Messrs. Krupp and Co., of Essen, have been asked to compete for the gun-mountings for the Navy, of which the supply is in arrear; and whether, in the case of the supply of Norwegian granite for Admiralty purposes, cheapness was made the first consideration under the Free Trade policy of the Government?
  Mr. McKENNA: There is no arrear in the supply of gun-mountings for the Navy. The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

  British and Foreign Trawlers.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), what portion of the prohibited trawling areas off the coasts of Dublin, Meath, Louth, Down, Cork, Waterford, and Wexford are extra-territorial; and whether, in these extra-territorial waters, trawling by British steam trawlers is prohibited, whereas foreign-owned steam trawlers may and do fish there with impunity?
  The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT Of AGRICULTURE (IRELAND) (Mr. T. W. Russell): Off the coast of the county of Dublin no part of the prohibited area is extraterritorial. Off the counties of Wexford and Cork the prohibited area extends in some places about a mile beyond the territorial waters. Off the other counties mentioned some parts of the area affected by the bye-laws may be about four miles outside territorial waters. British
  2022
  trawlers cannot work in any part of the areas affected by the bye-laws, but foreigners may operate in those parts which are outside the three-mile limit. It is only, however, off the counties of Waterford and Wexford that they do so.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recently outside the three-mile limit a British trawler was warned by a foreign trawler that if it persisted in trawling he would fetch a British gunboat and have it moved off?
  Mr. RUSSELLI am not aware of that.

  Illegal Trawling.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) what is the attitude of the Irish Government towards the Trawling in Prohibited Areas (Prevention) Bill in its present form?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: I propose to confer with my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate with a view to securing the application of the Trawling in Prohibited Areas (Prevention) Bill to Ireland.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Is the right hon. Gentleman ware that the Lord Advocate gave an assurance that the Bill would be very greatly altered from its present form, and would be confined to definite areas?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I am not aware of that, but I propose to confer with the Lord Advocate in order, if possible, to have the application of the Bill extended to Ireland.
  Mr. H. A. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to risk the safety of the Bill in order to bring in Ireland?
  Mr. MOONEY: Do I understand that the Government will give facilities to recommit the Bill in order to have this done?
  Mr. RUSSELL: No; my hon. Friend must not understand that I said what I did not say. What I propose to do is to confer with the Lord Advocate to see what it is possible to do.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether we ought to get two millions' worth of legislation in order to balance two extra millions' worth of taxation?
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether the Department has taken any

  2023
  steps to prosecute, under section 4 of 52 and 53 Vic, c. 74, the masters of foreign-owned steam trawlers selling or landing fish caught in contravention of the bye-laws made by the Department or by the late inspectors of Irish fisheries?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: The reply to this question is in the negative. Such fish is not landed in Ireland.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is aware that on 9th January, 1908, His Majesty's Privy Council in Ireland declined to approve a bye-law proposed by the Department on the ground that it prohibited trawling in extra-territorial waters; and whether he will take steps to secure the exclusion of extraterritorial waters from the present prohibited areas?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: The Department are not informed of the reasons why the Lord Lieutenant in Council declines to approve of bye-laws. In the opinion of the Department no necessity at present exists for taking the steps suggested in the latter part of the question.

  Creamery Managers (Ireland).
  Mr. SHEEHANasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he will say what steps his Department took to make itself aware of the views of creamery managers as to the qualifications required for filling the position of instructor in dairying, seeing that he refused to receive a deputation from the Creamery Managers' Association, which sought to put their views on this question before him in authoritative fashion; and is he aware that the present method of making these appointments has caused dissatisfaction amongst creamery managers?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The views of creamery managers in regard to the qualifications required for filling the position of instructor in dairying were communicated to the Department in statements received at various times from individual managers and an association of managers. As already stated, in reply to a similar question from the hon. Member in March last, the Department have received from time to time representations of the nature referred to in the latter portion of the question, but they do not propose to alter their present arrangements.

  Irish Fisheries.
  Mr. MacNEILLasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he has received representations on behalf of fishermen, owners of boats, curers, salesmen, resident in and engaged in the herring fishing industry on the coast of Donegal, the chairman and members of the county and district councils of Donegal, and persons engaged in or connected with the herring industry of the North-West coast of Donegal, that the erection of a whaling station at Rusheen, on the coast of Mayo, would destroy the herring fisheries and probably the other fisheries of the West coast of Ireland, which representations are confirmed by the bye-laws on whaling framed by the Department in 1908 and the Irish Whaling Act of 1908; whether he is aware that at an inquiry held at Mallaranny, on Tuesday, 23rd March, by Messrs. Green and Holt, the inspectors of the Department, into an application of the Arranmore Whaling Company for a licence to land whales in a port of Ireland and engage in the manufacture from whales of oil and other ordinary products, the inspectors refused to hear any evidence against the issue of the licence, which they said that they had already decided to grant and were only sitting to ascertain what bye-laws should be made by the Department and what restrictions, if any, should be imposed on the licensees, although any licence issued pursuant to the Statute 8 Edward 7., c. 31, would in effect be a licence in perpetuity; and whether, having regard to the fact that the publication of the notice of application for a licence was not proved at this inquiry, the only evidence given being the production of a certificate of registration of the Arranmore Whaling Company in Edinburgh and the statement of a Captain Burn that the company's boats last summer pursued and captured whales within an area extending from 10 to 80 miles from Rusheen and a claim by him that the licence should be granted without restriction or limitation, as he could not say in what part of the West coast whaling would be most profitable to the company, while the admission of evidence was refused to prove that whalers from Rusheen, if licensed, could pursue and capture whales in the fishing beds along the West coast, and thereby not only prevent the development but destroy the existence of the fishing industry, he can state what action the Department propose to take for the prevention of whaling on the Irish coast and the establishment of this whaling station,

  2025
  which constitutes a danger to the procuring of the means of subsistence by inhabitants of that seaboard? I put the question, and apologise for its length.
  Mr. RUSSELL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. These representations were duly received and considered. In regard to the scond, the opponents of the licence did not comply with the Statute, which provides that objectors must give 140 days' notice of every objection. They gave no notice, and, although the inspectors offered to waive the point, the applicants refused assent. It is not the case that the application for the licence was not proved at the inquiry. All the necessary notices were served in legal form by the applicants. The Department do not agree that this industry, pursued under proper provision and in proper places, can have any effect upon the fishing industry, and they do not, therefore, propose to take any steps such as the hon. Member suggests. Every application for a licence will be considered on its merits.
  Mr. MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that professional men from Donegal attended with their witnesses to prove the case for Donegal, and that the evidence was entirely shut out? Is he aware that Mr. Green, the Commissioner, stated that it was a foregone conclusion, and that it was merely a formal matter?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: I do not think that ought to be said with reference to Mr. Green. Notice was given of serious objection.
  Mr. MacNEILL: Is it not rather a serious thing, on a merely technical point, to shut out evidence which the inhabitants of Donegal considered vital?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: I think it a serious thing that the solicitor for the opponents did not serve the legal notice.

BILL PRESENTED.
The following Bill was presented and read the first time:—
Mr. HUNT—Foreign and Colonial Meat—Bill to provide that all sellers of meat who sell foreign or Colonial meat only, or in addition to meat from animals reared and fed in the United Kingdom, shall have a notice to that effect plainly written on their shops and on the vehicles which they use for selling their goods. (To be read a second time upon Thursday, 17th June.)

SUPPLY [7th Allotted Day.]
  CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE.
  [Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES,
  1909–10 [Progress.]—CLASS VI.
  [IN THE COMMITTEE.]

  OLD AGE PENSIONS (IRELAND).
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £4,750,000 be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1910, for the payment of old age pensions in the United Kingdom, and for certain administrative expenses in connection therewith."
  Mr. T. M. KETTLE: This is a matter which is as closely related to the Budget as is one side of a sixpence to the other side. A great many old age pensions had to be granted in Ireland, and, therefore, the Treasury came to the conclusion that a heavier burden should be laid upon Ireland by this Budget than was laid any year since the South African War. The guiding idea seems to be to impose new taxation on Ireland, and I think I can show that the Treasury has acted from some motive of vindictiveness. It will be in the recollection of the Committee that when the Old Age Pensions Bill was passing through this House the Treasury estimated that the cost in Ireland would be about £700,000. That estimate was challenged, and it was pointed out that the official figures supplied year by year by the Registrar-General of Ireland were not trustworthy. What has been the result? Instead of costing £700,000 a year in Ireland the old age pensions will cost more than three times that amount. It has been discovered you are, in dealing in Ireland with the relief of poverty, dealing with the remnants—not of a population of 4,000,000, but of one of 8,000,000, which Ireland possessed in 1841. I think I will carry the assent of every Member of this House—at any rate, of every Member who sits for an Irish constituency, whether above or below the Gangway—when I say that the operation of the Old. Age Pensions Act in Ireland has been a sort of ghastly apocalypse of misery, the existence of which even those who knew Ireland best did not suspect.

  2027
  I pass on to certain details of the administration of the Pensions Act in Ireland, to which I desire to draw attention. I have no wish to pitch my indictment in too strident tones. It is only weak cases stand in need of strong language. For my part I shall be content to allow the facts which I present to the Committee to speak for themselves. I would say this at the outset, in undertaking to prove every word I say with regard to the policy of Government Departments in Ireland in respect of the administration of this Act, that whatever the intention behind that policy, it has had its effect in defeating justice in many deserving cases, of delaying it in many others, and of giving the meaner journalism of this country, and the meaner Members of this House, an opportunity for casting aspersions on the character of the nation. Charges have been recklessly cast against Ireland—charges of fraud in connection with the administration of this Act. I say there has been fraud in the administration of the Act, and I hope to prove, before I sit down, that there has been, and is at the present moment, a systematic and well-considered policy to defraud many of the aged poor of Ireland of the benefits of this Act, and all attempts of that character have been made, not in the daylight but in the dark. The reason of that is that the action of the Local Government Board, in deciding appeals under this Act, has been wrapped from beginning to end in a sort of Star Chamber secrecy.
  I make a direct and definite challenge to the Government on this point. When this matter was briefly debated some little time ago, when the first enthusiastic clamour against the honesty of Ireland was raised in the newspapers, we on these benches asked if the Government, in case they were making an inquiry into the matter, would make it a public inquiry. They declined to do that; they would give us no public inquiry. I repeat that invitation to the Government now. Will they give a public inquiry into the administration of this Act in Ireland? I will put an even easier question. Will they lay the reports of the pension officers from Somerset House—gentlemen who are charitably called experts—on the Table of the House? For my part, I propose next week to move for a Return of the decisions given by the Local Government Board in appeals under the Old Age Pensions Act, and for the reasons and principles on
  2028
  which those decisions are founded. I should like to know from the Government whether that Return will be granted.
  There are two questions upon which everything turns naturally in the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act. The first is that of proof of age, and the second is the calculation of the means of claimants. These are the two points upon which I propose to bring certain facts under the notice of the Committee, but before I proceed to do that perhaps I may be allowed to say one other preliminary word. I said that I had an indictment—a severe indictment—to bring forward. I do not direct that against the Chancellor of the Exchequer personally or against the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I do not say that these right hon. Gentlemen are responsible for it. The trouble about Irish government is that you cannot find who is responsible for anything. As for Irish administration, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will appreciate the epigram left upon record by a former Member of this House in dealing with changes of Government and of Irish Chief Secretaries. He said that the only effect of the coming of a new Chief Secretary was to change the face of the clock; the works still remain the same. Well, the works still remain the same with regard to the administration of this Act. But my chief attack must be directed against the Irish Local Government Board. When the Bill was passed rather hastily through this House, Parliament did not follow the analogy of the Workmen's Compensation Act and of similar Acts, and it did not give an opportunity to claimants under the Act to go into the Law Courts in cases in which an appeal is necessary. Instead of that the Government made the Irish Local Government Board the Court of Appeal, and, as I said a few moments ago, it has proved to be a Star Chamber Court. The Irish Local Government Board in this, as in many other matters, has shown itself to be the tame and muzzled watch dog of the Treasury.
  Now the first point with regard to the administration of this Act naturally had reference to proof of age on the part of claimants. In that respect everybody who knew Ireland at all knew that the circumstances of the country were somewhat peculiar. There was no compulsory registration of births in Ireland until the year 1864, and consequently in individual cases there could not be

  2029
  documentary proof of the same character as I believe it is possible to obtain in England. When that fact was brought forward early in these discussions, the Government, in reply to a question regarding it, gave an answer which really had such an accent of almost immortal insolence that I will venture to read it to the Committee. It was suggested that the absence of compulsory registration would create certain difficulties, and the answer was that the system of registration of births in Ireland was much more recent than the corresponding system in Great Britain, but this fact had no relation to the question of estimating the number of persons 70 years of age and upwards at the present time. That is the attitude of the Government Department which has been charged with the administration of this Act. They were confronted when the Act came into force with the absence of documentary evidence, including amongst other things several records which should be produced by the claimants, and the first policy adopted in Ireland was really a humane and a reasonable policy. Failing a compulsory register of births kept by the State, they fall back upon the parish books kept by the various clergy of the parishes. A circular letter was then issued to the pension officers, dated 4th November last, of which I have a copy here, marked "Confidential." The pension officers were instructed that where certificates issued by the clergy of any church can be obtained, certifying a claimant was over 70, those certificates were to be acted upon as satisfactory evidence of age. As to whether the clergy of the various churches discharged their duty in that respect honestly or not, I shall be content to quote the testimony of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Speaking in this House on 1st March last, the right hon. Gentleman then said:—
  "I have made very careful inquiry into this and I have been informed by the heads of department of the Local Government Board that the clergy have maintained a very strong and very truthful attitude, and that it would be a most unjust accusation to make against them that they lent themselves to any misrepresentation in discharging this very difficult duty that was imposed upon them."
  That was the Chief Secretary's testimony, and that was the experience of everybody who had any experience of this Act in Ireland, and the Act itself and the regulations under it were perfectly clear upon this point. If I may for a moment refer to the second schedule of the regulations issued under the Act by the Treasury, it was provided that the following documentary evidence would be good evidence that
  2030
  the parties did come under the Act—a certificate of birth, a certificate of baptism, a certificate of service in any of the forces of the Crown, a certificate of membership of a friendly society, a certificate of marriage or any other evidence which appears sufficient for the purpose. The claims came in the first instance before the pensions committee or sub-committee, formed of the most capable and the most respected people in the neighbourhood from which the claims came. They had naturally a great many sorts of secondary evidence with regard to the claimant's age, and they were able to form a much better estimate of his age, I venture to think, than the Local Government Board.
  We had some very interesting statements with regard to the sort of evidence of age that was accepted in Great Britain, where you had a compulsory registration of births. I remember one afternoon, on which the President of the Local Government Board of England came down and told us a very pathetic story, which was received with the enthusiastic approval of the House, of how he had tramped over the snow, down somewhere near Clapham Common, to visit an old lady, and how he had directed that she should be paid an old age pension, although the chief evidence, and the only evidence, on her behalf, was a year which was worked on a sampler. I am not sure that I know what a sampler is, but my hon. Friend near me tells me it is something which was worked in wool. At any rate in this case the date was worked upon it, which the President of the Local Government Board thought was sufficient evidence on which to grant a pension at Clapham. I suppose it was, but I do not think it would be held sufficient evidence by the Local Government Board in Ireland; so far as I know there is no human being of the type of the President of the Local Government Board connected with that office who would tramp two miles across the snow to award a pension to anybody, except perhaps himself. That was the first policy. Certificates issued by clergymen, upon evidence mostly of parochial books, were to be accepted by pension officers and pension committees. But the operation of the Act began to show results in Ireland that were not anticipated. The Treasury became alarmed at the growing number of pensions, and with that alarm there came a change of policy, and further instructions were issued with regard to the evidence of age.

  2031
  The new policy is contained in another circular, which is also marked "Confidential," of which I shall read the last paragraph to the Committee. It was dated on the 3rd February of this year, and this was the new policy:—
  "When investigating claims, pension officers will in such cases obtain, if possible, the necessary particulars to enable a search to be made in both the 1841 and the 1851 Census Returns. When the claimant cannot, or will not, give the particulars for the search, or where the search office reports that the claimant's name cannot be traced, the pension officers should report that no evidence of age has been produced, and the claim cannot properly be allowed. If the pension committee should allow the claim, notwithstanding the officer's report, the pension officer should, if he is not satisfied that the claimant is of the statutory age, lodge an appeal in every case against the decision of the committee."
  That was the new policy, with regard to the pension officer being satisfied, and he was instructed, unless the name was found in the census, or unless his attention was called by the claimant to a part of the census where it could be found, he was to appeal to the Local Government Board. Moreover, the Local Government Board, the Court of Appeal, standing impartially between the parties, was to decide under precisely the same instructions from the Treasury, upon which the pension officer had acted. Let me say a word about these Census Returns of 1841 and 1851. I do not think any Member of this Committee will contradict me when I say that these Returns in Ireland were notoriously inaccurate. They were made by certain illiterate policemen. As to that, we have had some interesting testimony given in the papers, and I have preserved as fragments of the not yet written social history of Ireland a quotation with regard to the Census Return of 1841, from the proceedings of a pension committee of 3rd April of this year:—
  "One member of the committee said he would be prepared also to call attention to the slipshod way in which the census was taken in those years. The police never visited half the houses in the town, they visited one house in the town land and got the ages of all the people from that one person."
  Other witnesses have said that the house they visited was, of course, the public-house. Another member said:—
  "They sat down on a ditch and had a chat therewith an old man and got all the ages from him."
  And still another member of the Committee remarked, very properly:—
  "It is a case of heads I win and tails you lose."
  That was a very proper commentary indeed upon the character of the evidence, and the remark I make is that the Census Returns of 1841 and 1851, which are now an essential part of the evidence of age, are
  2032
  inaccurate, and not always inaccurate in the same direction. They are not only out of agreement with the facts, but the two Census Returns do not agree with one another. The policy of the Local Government Board, therefore, has been this: that whenever on the census of 1841 the claimant was entitled to a pension, but on the census of 1851 was disentitled, they have disallowed the pension in every case; also in case of discrepancies between the two Census Returns they are always construed to the disadvantage of the claimant. The inaccuracy of these Census Returns is a matter of such fundamental importance that, even at the risk of wearying the Committee, I think I ought to give further evidence on the point. I will, with their permission, therefore read an extract from a letter from a member of a pension committee, a thoroughly intelligent and capable man, who knows his facts and was concerned in the administration of the Act. He writes:—
  "In the replies that I have got there is ample evidence that the census records of 1841 and 1851 are full of inaccuracies. In those days the policemen who took the census were practically illiterate. At that time also the people as a rule spoke Irish only, and some of the inaccuracies in the records at once suggest that those who took the census understood no Irish. The parents' Christian names were taken down wrongly in many instances. I have a number of cases where the mother's name is given as Mary instead of Margaret and vice versa. Also cases where the father's name is given as Denis instead of Daniel and vice versa. If mistakes of this kind occurred in regard to the parents' names, why not also in regard to the children? Now in some cases the pensioner's (the child of 1841) name cannot be found at all, though the other members of the family have been traced. In those cases the official assumption now is, that the child was not born at the time the census was taken, but it is just as likely that the policeman, through his ignorance of Irish, mistook the child's real name. Then again a person ignorant of Irish is much more likely to make a mistake regarding numbers than in regard to names. For instance, there is a pensioner here who remembers the names of the policemen who took the census in 1851. He says he himself was then 14 years of age, that himself and his mother were in the house when the police called, that the police knew no Irish and his mother knew no English, and himself very little English. In the census of that year his age is set down as nine instead of 14. I have no doubt that the man's statement is perfectly true. The matter is at present before the Local Government Board and the poor man will probably lose his pension. There is a poor woman given as being three years in 1851 and it is much more probable that she was 13. Three old men (two of them over 70) born in the same locality, who knew her since childhood, have made an affidavit that she is 71. Nevertheless, if her name cannot be found in the census records of 1841, she will probably lose her pension, and so on. Then there are cases where the same person is found to be 10 years of age in 1851 and four years in 1841 records. Other cases where the same person is given as three years in 1841 and 10 in 1851, and much more frequently they are shown to be two years in 1841 and 10 in 1851."
  That is the character of the documentary evidence which is held to be indispensable, and, when it tells against the applicant, is conclusive in applica-

  2033
  tions for old age pensions in Ireland. These census records are not evidence of age in courts of law. They have never been held, as far as I know they could not be held, to be legal evidence of age, and that is the Treasury view, because in the very few prosecutions which they have instituted in Ireland upon the ground of inadequate age they have never themselves presented their case relying upon these Census Returns. They have always themselves produced secondary evidence—as a rule the oral evidence of persons who had lived in the neighbourhood and knew the claimant.
  But more serious questions have arisen if possible. Not only have the Census Returns been proved to be inaccurate, but it has also been established that the search of these Census Returns made by the search officers in connection with the administration of the Act have also been inaccurate. Pension officers have reported, on the information received in the search offices in Dublin, that names were not to be found in the Census Returns when subsequent inquiry showed that the names were to be found. Let me give a few typical cases selected from a great mass of evidence which is accumulated in the newspapers and elsewhere upon this point. I quote again from the very interesting Report presented by the secretary to the pension committee at Fox-ford, in the county of Mayo, and this is how the search was made in the census:—
  "In the case of Mary —, the Pension Officer's report, based, of course, on the so-called extract which I received from the census is this, 'No trace of family in either 1841 or 851 census,' while as a matter of fact the census of 1811 shows her to be two years old in that year, which means that she is entitled to a pension provisionally, and which means also that she will never get a pension, seeing that in the absence of documentary evidence of age, nothing will now be taken but the census."
  If it had not been that the secretary of that local pension had, as far as I know, at his own expense and on his own initiative made a search in the Census Returns in Dublin, that old women would, upon the certificate of the search officer that her name was not in the census, be still deprived of her pension. I quote another case from the same report, and arising in the same district. This was another old lady. According to the census of 1841 she was 72 years of age, and the report that came back from Dublin was this:—
  "No trace of family in 1841. Family found in 1851, but contained no Sarah,"
  There again, if personal research of census returns had not been undertaken by
  2034
  the secretary of the committee, that old lady would also have been kept out of the pension. There are five other cases of this character arising in that district, and I say upon my responsibility they are not isolated cases. I do not say they are typical, and I do not say the same thing has gone on everywhere, but it has gone on in a very considerable number of cases in very many parts of the country. There is another case of an old lady who was disallowed a pension on the question of age being raised by the pension officer, because, according to the Census of 1841, she was 70, while in the Census of 1851 she was returned as 12 years old. I quote that as illustrating my further point that where there is a discrepancy between two Census returns, the name of the claimant being found in both, that which is least favourable to the claimant is invariably relied upon. Then, after that report of the clerk, the committee proceeded, not, I should think, in a very cheerful mood—to consider further claims which had been made. I quote another part of their proceedings as also typical. The clerk said in the case of Michael Mc— he could not trace him in the Census Return at all:—
  "The Chairman: He positively assures me he is over 70 years of age.
  "Another Member said: He is a truthful man.
  "The Clerk: No scheme will be passed where there is no documentary evidence.
  "Another Member: Then he has no prospect of getting a pension, even if he may be 90 years of age."
  Both in the case of fresh claims and in the case of claims under revision the pension officer is instructed to appeal to the Local Government Board, as I understand, but, of course, owing to the secrecy in which the administration of the Act is enshrouded, I can only speak from information not always resting on the evidence and testimony of trustworthy people concerned in the administration of the Act. But the pension officer is instructed in every case where these Census Returns cannot be produced to appeal to the Local Government Board. But there is another point. Not only must the census of 1841 and 1851 be referred to, but the claimant must do it himself, and he must pay a fee of 1s. or 2s. in order to have a search made in Dublin. I have particular reason to know that. We have formed a committee on that very wicked body the United Irish League in connection with the Old Age Pensions Act. We confined ourselves to what, I hope, was a distinctly legal task. We undertook at our expense, not at the expense of these poor people,

  2035
  to have a search made in the Census returns of 1841, and where the entry was found giving the name of the claimant, had a copy of the entry made and sent back, thereby saving the fee. Instructions are now issued that, except in cases where the claimant has either made a personal search or has had, at his own cost and on his own motion, a search made, an extract from the Census Returns is not to be accepted as even primâ facie evidence. When these appeals go to the Local Government Board how are they decided? We do not know what the reasons are that move the Local Government Board to record their decisions.
  A letter that came back from the Local Government Board is a rather insolent document, of which I will quote one example. The Drogheda Pension Committee, another committee which is a very efficient body, as I know personally, had occasion to deal with that state of affairs, and I will read, because it puts my point better than I could myself, the proceedings of the Drogheda Pensions Committee at a meeting on 28th April. The clerk had been in communication with the Local Government Board in connection with appeals by the pension officer allowing a pension in two cases and disallowing it in four cases. In reference to the disqualified claims the clerk communicated with the Local Government Board requesting to know their reasons for disqualifying them, as their decision was very indefinite, and also to state when they would be qualified, as the committee had brought the parties before them and put them through a very stiff examination, not being able to get any documentary evidence of their age, and no trace of them being found in the Census of 1841 or 1851. The answer he received from the Local Government Board was that the claimants mentioned were disqualified from receiving pensions on account of sufficient evidence not being forthcoming to show that they had reached the statutory age. The committee said: "What age have they reached? If they are not qualified now for pensions, when will they be qualified?" The Local Government Board simply confined themselves to the terms of that curt and somewhat insolent document, whereupon the Drogheda committee passed the following resolution, which was to have been forwarded to the Chief Secretary, and which I hope he has read:—
  "That in our opinion a great hardship is inflicted upon cases in which the committee, not having received
  2036
  definite evidence of age, has allowed applications for pensions because convinced by the recollections of the parties of local circumstances or by other minor local evidence that the applicant is over 70, has passed the application of a pension and is further of opinion that when such cases are rejected by the Local Government Board the latter should state specifically the reasons of their rejection and what age they admit the persons to have reached."
  Is that an unreasonable request? This pension is not a matter of grace; it is not an alms given by the rich to the poor, and if the Local Government Board, whatever traditions of bureaucracy it may have behind it, adopts that attitude towards the humblest person in Ireland, it is defeating the generous intentions—and even violating the letter—of the Old Age Pensions Act. This sort of case comes before one in a somewhat more personal and pathetic form. The multitude of letters of this character which I have received will perhaps explain to the Committee the somewhat vehement manner in which I criticise the Local Government Board upon this point. This is a letter, again not an isolated but a typical letter, which I have received:—
  "Sir,—I respectfully beg to state that having made an application for an old age pension early in January I was unable to get any documentary proof from the parochial register or the census of 1841 or 1851, and the committee passed my claim knowing me to be over the age. Then the pension officer appealed against their decision. I got a very respectable gentleman to send a statement to the Local Government Board on my behalf, in which he said he had known me for 50 years and I was then over 20 years of age. This will give you an idea of how we have been treated. I received word that I was not entitled to a pension. Hoping you will forgive me for approaching you with this humble statement. They gave no reason for my disqualification.
  Then follows the name, and I shall be happy to hand the letter to the Chief Secretary if he wants to see it. Is that fair or humane treatment for these aged and stricken people? They are disqualified on grounds of age by a camarilla who have never seen the applicant, who know nothing of the local circumstances, and have no evidence to go upon except the discredited evidence of the Census Return. I think I may pass from that branch of the subject. I can multiply evidence upon every single one of these points. I have a great mass of letters upon every one of them. I can give concrete cases, with the names of the claimants, if the Government wants them, but I think I may summarise what I have to say upon the first point, the question of age, by saying there are a great many more people in Ireland over 70 who are being deprived of pensions by policy of that kind, and there are people under 70 who have improperly received pensions. I come to the interlude in the> drama.

  2037
  I suppose we might call it the coming of the experts. Six gentlemen from Somerset House were sent over to Ireland to set everything right. Gentlemen have been sent over from England on other occasions before. I am informed that these gentlemen were not experts in any sense. They carried no badge of superiority with them except an English accent. They were ordinary Inland Revenue officials. They knew nothing about the Old Age Pensions Act any more than anybody else. The Act had been in operation only three months when these gentlemen were sent over to Ireland. Some of them knew where Ireland was on the map, but I do not think that some of them knew anything more. They went from one end of the country to the other, they conveyed directions to the pension officers and the supervisors from the Inland Revenue and the Treasury. The Local Government Board did not exactly like to put the directions in print, because, as I think, they would not look well. The object, I take it, at any rate of their despatch to Ireland was delayed. The object was to hold up pension claims and to cast an atmosphere of uncertainty around claims that had been granted. In that they had very tolerable success. There was an answer given in this House the other day, from which we learned that at present in Ireland there are no less than 20,206 claims pending and not yet dealt with. That was the achievement of the experts. But, of course, there are great advantages from the Treasury point of view in delaying the grant of these pensions. It will give the old people a greater opportunity of economising public funds by dying in the meantime. I am not merely making phrases on this subject. I knew two old people who were amply qualified in point of age and means who were kept out of their pensions and who died without receiving them.
  The second point with which I wish to deal has reference to the calculation of the means of claimants for old age pensions. Here again we are confronted with two policies. The first policy was one of humanity and common-sense, which we practised at the beginning of the Act. The second policy was founded on a formula, if possible, more arbitrary and fantastic than that to which I have already drawn attention in the matter of age. At first the pension officers and Committees were left largely to their common - sense in calculating the means of applicants for old age pensions, but the people who exercised their common-
  2038
  sense were not thought to be advancing the interests of the system of government carried on in Ireland at the present time. There was a change of policy. At first the pension officers and committees, who knew the circumstances, calculated the means themselves as practical men. What was the result of their calculations, and what was the purport of the reports of the pension officers for the first two or three months of the operation of the Act? I will let the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell the story. Speaking in this House upon March 1st this year, the right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "Especially in Ireland the pension officers have been appalled at the amount of poverty, and that is why I am really not disposed to criticise too harshly the administration of the Act, even if it has resulted in the addition of a considerable sum to the Estimates of the Government. The facts as to poverty in Ireland are perfectly horrifying. It is a disgrace to any civilised country that human beings should be allowed to live under such conditions."
  I am quoting original evidence, and not relying on my own experience wholly, or upon what I gather from newspapers. I have here a letter from another gentleman who has had experience in the operation of the Act as a member of a pension committee. He had the singular felicity of meeting one of the experts, and he records his impression of his visits to the pensioners here and there throughout the country. He was astonished at the poverty he saw. He says:—
  "I must admit that I was amazed myself. I thought I knew Ireland well. Now I know that I knew only the shell."
  After the period of common-sense there came the period of the secret instructions. They had to deal with the committees and the officers, and naturally in rural Ireland, with a great number of tenants, sometimes owners, sometimes leasehold tenants of small holdings. At the beginning, knowing the local circumstances, the value of crops, and the cost of labour, they made their own calculations, and they made them, as I think, pretty accurately. Then there came the second policy, and now the method of calculating the income and means of the tenant of one of these small holdings is quite different. It has been reduced to a formula. You take three times the rent of the holding, or four times, the purchase annuity.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell)indicated dissent.
  Mr. KETTLE: The Chief Secretary shakes his head. What I have stated was contained in an answer which he gave in this House, and if it is challenged I shall

  2039
  produce the reference. Now I am told that not only were there two policies in this matter, but three periods of the second policy. At first the pension officer was instructed and allowed in arriving at a conclusion as to the beneficial income enjoyed by a claimant to take three times the rent or four times the purchase annuity, and to make certain deductions. He was allowed to deduct, if there were two sons over 21 years of age, in respect of cost of maintenance 5s. a week; in the second period he was allowed to deduct an allowance for maintenance for one son over 21 years of age, and in the third period, after the secret instructions had been given, he was allowed to make no deductions at all.
  Mr. BIRRELLagain indicated dissent.
  Mr. KETTLE: The Chief Secretary shakes his head. I have initiated this discussion this afternoon for the purpose of finding out what is the rule in calculating the value of small holdings. The right hon. Gentleman has all the official information at his command—that is if the experts take him into their confidence. We have had to rely on evidence laboriously accumulated from newspapers and private letters, and we shall all be happy to know what are the principles on which the Local Government Board and the pension officers are acting in calculating income. I have given my information, which is to the effect that whereas at the beginning of the period of the secret instructions a land purchase annuity of £11 10s. would carry a pension of 5s. a week, now you cannot get 5s. a week if your purchase annuity is more than £5 5s. In other words, the profits of Irish land have doubled since last Christmas. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer forgot that fact when he was framing his Budget. I would contrast the method of calculating income on a small holding for the purpose of an old age pension with the method adopted by the Inland Revenue in calculating income on a large holding for the purpose of income tax. In calculating for income tax you take either one-third of the rent or the difference between the rent and the valuation. A friend of mine who has acted on one of the pension committees, and who has a turn for sarcasm, says that the reasonableness of the new method of calculating means is very obvious. If a man is over 70 years of age, the Local Government Board comes at once to the
  2040
  conclusion that unless he was extremely well off he would not, as an intelligent man, go on living so long in such a country. So much for the calculation of means. For my part, I have made a somewhat careful attempt to arrive at a reasonable working formula for what I admit frankly to be a difficult matter. I am not minimising the difficulty of arriving at a definite formula. The principle first employed, of the common-sense of the committee corrected by the common-sense of the pension officers, I must say seemed to be the most satisfactory method of solving these problems.
  Let me give another case of extreme hardship occurring in Ireland. As everybody who has been in Ireland knows, it has been an immemorial social custom for a farmer in his declining years to assign or hand over his farm to his son on getting married, the son contracting to maintain the father in the house, with sometimes a cash annuity, during his lifetime. That case has arisen on a very large scale in Ireland. What is the rule adopted in calculating the value of the maintenance in that case? This is my information. I am told that the standard originally laid down for labourers and small farmers was that in the rural districts maintenance of that kind was to be valued as worth 2s. 6d. per week. Now instructions have been issued that in the case of middle-class farmers, whatever they may be, the value of maintenance is to be calculated at 12s. 6d. per week. In other words, in every case where that social custom has been acted upon and an arrangement has been made at any time for the last couple of hundred years, without any reference whatever to the Old Age Pensions Act, the claim is to be totally disallowed on the ground that the farmer has divested himself of his property with the view of obtaining a pension, or else that maintenance is to be calculated at such an extravagant figure that he cannot in any event obtain a pension. I do not wish to weary the Committee by going too much into detail on this point, but I may say that I have got a great mass of evidence giving a minute account of the claims disallowed. I am only going to give two cases where the information I have received is typical. In the first case, in which a pension has been disallowed, the applicant for the pension is a cripple who is supported in his brother's house, and who has no claim of any kind on his brother's farm, which his brother bought with money earned in America. That applicant is held to be entitled to main-

  2041
  tenance in his brother's house, although the brother is under no legal obligation to support him.
  Let me take another case. Take another case in the same union in the same district of the county Cork. In this case the old man who made the claim lived with his son. This is a case—the note goes on—in which the value put upon the maintenance and clothes to which the father was entitled in case of a dispute, is, in the deed, £7 10s. a year. The deed provides that the father is to have a room in the house to live in. He is to be maintained by his son. If there is a dispute he is to be free to leave the house, and he is to get a cash annuity of £7 10s. a year. These facts go to the Local Government Board. The Local Government Board value of the maintenance of that man as being more than £31 10s. a year, and disallow the pension—a proceding which can be justified only on the ground that one room in a three-roomed cottage in the poorest part of Cork is fairly rented at £24 a year. This is like many other cases. Then we have case after case in which the pension officer first recommended the pension, in which the pension committee granted the pension, and in which the pension officer was then instructed to appeal against his own decision, and his own view, and then the Local Government Board disallowed the pension. In another case the pension officer allowed 3s. and the pension committee allowed 5s. and afterwards it went to the Local Government Board on the motion of the pension officer, who had recommended 3s., and the Local Government Board allowed nothing. In another case, in which the first decision of the pension officer was 2s., the committee gave 5s., the pension officer was instructed to appeal against himself, and the Local Government Board agreed that the claimant was to have nothing.
  I come now to my last point. It is this. I have already drawn attention to the fact that appeals under this Act, unlike appeals under similar humane Acts, such as the Workmen's Compensation Act, are not heard in open court. The case is not argued on both sides before the public. We may not get justice in courts of law in Ireland, but we get some reasons given for the decision; but in this case the decisions are given on principles which have not been disclosed. I take, first of all, the question of appeals in cases in which the Pension Committee think that the man has reached a certain age, and the pension officer thinks it is all right; but he is instructed
  2042
  by the Local Government Board to think that the man has not reached that age. How is that appeal heard? What evidence is it on which the Local Government Board decides the case? It has not the claimant before it. If you regard the thing from the ordinary human point of view you would think that in making up its mind as to whether a man was or was not 70 they would at any rate have a casual look at the claimant; but the Local Government Board does not see the claimant. The Local Government Board has given the claimant no opportunity of personally appearing before it. So far as we know, the only evidence upon which they decide is the report of the pension officer and the statements of fact contained in the original claim. If there has been a single case in which the claimant has had an opportunity of bringing fresh evidence—above all, if there has been a single case in which the claimant has been given an opportunity of making a personal appearance before the court of appeal which is to decide whether he is to get some relief from his poverty or not, I shall be very glad indeed to have particulars of this from the Chief Secretary or the Secretary to the Treasury. The same observations, if possible in a stronger form, apply to the appeals to the Local Government Board with regard to means and the calculation of income. I have seen many ludicrous documents in connection with administration in Ireland as a person who farms in a small way myself. But I do not think I have ever seen anything that reaches such a high level of comedy as the form which, as far as I know, is all the Local Government Board has before it in determining whether the means and income of the claimant are in excess of the statutory limit or not. I have a specimen here before me. It gives geographical particulars of where the holding is, the acreage, the rent, and the valuation, and then it goes on to give an account of the acreage under various crops, the cattle (if there are any), and some information—though on this point I cannot be sure as to whether it is universal or not—as to whether the man hires labour or has his children working on the land or not. Upon that document and upon these particulars some official in the Local Government Board, who probably knows nothing whatever about farming, except that it is a good thing to get away from, decides, and naturally decides, against the claimant.
  I notice one recurring feature in these returns. I do not know the principle upon which the Local Government Board has

  2043
  acted. It may be that the Local Government Board has conducted an elaborate inquiry which would be of extraordinary value to economists into the resources of these claimants. It may possibly be that, as we had one Royal Commission, perhaps there would be another; but the only information that we have on this point are the inquiries of the Congested Districts Board into the resources and budgets of the tenants of these small holdings. But I notice this, that in every case in which the rent of a small holding exceeds £10 a year, whatever the family burdens upon the farm may be, the claim for pension is disallowed. The demand I wish to conclude by making—and I hope I shall carry upon principle the sympathy of some Englishmen, at any rate, who may not be as interested in the facts as we on these benches are—the demand is this: We demand publicity. I shall move next week for a Return of the decisions of the Local Government Board in appeals brought before them, with an account of the reason and principles upon which these decisions were based. There may be a dispute as to facts, there may be a very real dispute as to what the value of the income of the household of an applicant for a pension may be, but at least let us have the principles by which the facts are to be judged clearly established. Let us have some system and some certainty in the matter. I have quoted the moving passage from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the acute and terrible poverty in Ireland; I have dwelt upon the use which has been made of the discovery which overthrew all the official figures with regard to the number of aged and poor people in Ireland. I say now this in conclusion: You have this Old Age Pension Act being administered in secret; you have pension officers who have been fined for disclosing to pension committees even a small part of the instructions upon which they act. The only people who oppose publicity are those who have something to lose by it. We are not making any plea for the lax administration of the Old Age Pensions Act. For my part, I would rather see an old man or an old woman—harsh though the poor law disqualification may be, harsh and full of temptation to poor people though it may be—I would rather see a poor man or a poor woman in Ireland, and I believe that the sense of the country would rather see them, perish of hunger on the wayside than obtain one of your State pensions by a deliberate misre-
  2044
  presentation of facts or a deliberate lie. We have had enough of secrecy and enough of Star Chamber methods. We have had a sufficiently long period during which the national character has been aspersed, and an atmosphere of uncertainty, and a lack of finality has been cast all over the Pensions Act in Ireland. The intentions of Parliament, when it passed this Act, were humane and generous. The policy of the Local Government Board in administering it in Ireland has been mean, niggardly, and secret, and I have to give a definite challenge, with a full sense of responsibility, to the Government, whatever means they adopt in reference to the facts to which attention has been drawn, to make them known. I ask, at any rate, for a full and complete statement upon every point.
  The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member move a reduction?
  Mr. KETTLE: No; my desire is to obtain information. I do not think it can be obtained by moving a reduction.
  Mr. S. L. GWYNN: I do not wish to go at length or in detail into this matter, which has been handled so admirably both in detail and principle by my hon. and learned Friend. I want to discuss the matter more as a question of generalities, and to investigate, as far as I can, the attitude of the Government, who at the present time seem to me to be in a singularly foolish and not very admirable position. They appear to be in the position of men who have done good by accident, and now blush to find how very expensive it is, and are trying to diminish the cost of the good that they have done. I regard it as a short-sightedness of the British Treasury, and I do not know if any hon. Gentlemen opposite think that if the Treasury had foreseen the full consequences of this Act, and if the Treasury had been aware that the passing of the Old Age Pensions Act meant that they were going to grant over two million pounds to relieve poverty in Ireland, the Old Age Pensions Act would have become law. For my own part, I do not believe it, but, whether by accident or design, the thing has been done, and because the result was not foreseen consequences have followed exceedingly disagreeable to our national pride. Lies have been let loose on the world. When we were discussing this matter last time there was a statement sent broadcast through the British Press that fifty thousand pensions had been

  2045
  granted in Ireland to persons who were not entitled to them. That statement has been repeated ever since, and though we may challenge and confute it now, that lie has got too far to be stopped. The fact is, the number of pensions granted will be reduced by some two or three thousands. But by what means has that number been reduced? I know in the case of my own Constituency I have heard of a couple of pensions withdrawn, and in my opinion quite rightly and justifiably withdrawn. In one particular case the pensioners were an old couple. The man had been in the Army, and had served his full time, and late in life had gone, while drawing an Army pension, to live in Canada for a matter of 18 or 20 years. Out of those 18 or 20 years 11 had come within the last 20 years, and he was therefore excluded upon a purely technical point from the benefit of the Act. But I do not think that anyone will say that that is the case of which we could complain. I confess myself I did not know precisely at the time what was the law on that matter, and I am quite sure that of the two or three thousand by which the number has been reduced a great many would come under that category—that is to say, of pensions granted in mistake definitely against the letter of the law. But that is not the real question with which we are dealing. The question is whether the Treasury and the Government in their desire to diminish the amount they are granting to Ireland are proceeding fairly, or are proceeding unfairly. I was asked last night a not unnatural question, namely, what we should have done ourselves in this matter if we had been administering in Ireland the Old Age Pensions Act, and how it would have worked out under our rule. I have not the least hesitation in saying that we should have done more good with less expenditure of money.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: To whom?
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Good to the people and not good to the Castle?
  Mr. GWYNN: We would have done good to the people. It stands to common-sense that if we had framed this scheme of old age pension for Ireland we should have taken account of the Irish position. We should have realised the elementary fact which was brought out in Debate the other day that whereas the average income of persons in this country is £42, the average income in Ireland is £15. I am prepared
  2046
  to say that we should probably not have put the scale of qualification as high as 10s. a week, and I think that very possibly, instead of 5s. a week, we should have granted 3s. 6d., which, in Connemara, or in any part of Ireland, is worth as much as 5s. is in Battersea. But that does not matter. The thing is done now. Under Home Rule we should have to pay the 5s. old age pension. I have no doubt we could do it, and the aged poor in Ireland would be better provided for than the aged poor in England. But it is not we who are administrating this Act, though we are determined that if it comes to us as part of the administration of Ireland, to get whatever good we can out of it. We stand here to fight for the last penny that is legally and honourably due to Ireland under this Act. But I suppose that on this question of qualification the Treasury came to the conclusion that the administration of the Act in Ireland was unduly lax in the matter of inquiry. It is quite clear, however, that there must be some scope for administration in the matter. There must be some use of discretion, because I think the Chief Secretary, who, I must say, in these matters is regarded as actuated by humane feelings, would recognise the fact that in Ireland the age of a person is largely a matter of conjecture. The fact that there is no documentary evidence of age in many cases is not our fault, and inquiries are conducted on certain principles which, I think, cannot be very definitely defined. It is perfectly absurd to refuse an old age pension to a person because he cannot find the entry of his birth in the register, and therefore cannot prove his age in that way. A case came under my own observation. It was that of a servant employed by people of my acquaintance. Her employer certified in a letter that 40 years ago she had come into his employment, giving her age as 40 years. It was fair to assume, under those conditions, that she did not overstate her age on applying for employment. I think I am justified in also saying that she had at that time a daughter who was old enough to be a maidservant about the house. Although her employer gave this testimony—and he was a responsible person, a professor of theology—the pension officers under the new régime absolutely declined to accept that evidence. I say it was evidence, and conclusive evidence, that would have been accepted in any court in the world. Still the pension was refused on that ground. The difficulty in

  2047
  this case was in finding the certificate of birth or to find a trace of it in the register. However, it so happened that there were people who were willing to take a little trouble in the case of this woman, and they succeeded in establishing the age of her elder sister and also that of her younger sister, which put the age of the applicant conjecturally at about 87 or 89 years of age. I may say that on this evidence she was eventually granted the pension. It appears to me that this conclusively shows there was an unduly severe standard of proof set up, and if this old woman, who was poor and absolutely necessitous, had been without friends she would not have been able to obtain the pension. I simply stand on that simple case.
  Another matter which I wish to discuss is that with reference to the age of men in Ireland who have been tenants of farm land. Here, again, the Chief Secretary, I think, will take a humane view of the matter. The man who lives as a migratory labourer in Ireland, and who has a small holding in the north or in the west of Ireland, comes over and works for five or six months in England, using his home in Ireland merely as a place where he winters and where he brings up his children. I think it will be admitted that such a man would be a fit recipient of the old age pension when he came to be of proper age. I discussed the case of such a man with whom I was staying a couple of years ago. We discussed the relative prosperity of a man of his own class and of a man of the small farmer class in Ireland. He was of opinion that the migratory labourers went to England and came back with a good deal of money in their pockets—£15 or £20, perhaps, which is wealth, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, in Connemara and Donegal, and that even these people were better off than the small farmers. I will take a concrete case very well known to me, and in which, unfortunately, the old age pension never came into actuality. It was precisely a typical case, that of a man farming 28 acres of land, of which eight acres were arable. He worked that land through the whole of his life, and his sons worked it with him. I do not exactly know what his rent was; he was one of the people who bought under the old Church Act, I think. But, supposing it was a freehold, I ask whether this old man, when he comes to be over 70 years of age, would be a fit recipient of the old age pension or not. I
  2048
  maintain that he would be. Everybody in Ireland knows that in farming land a man cannot speculate, and that if you have a farm of this kind it will perhaps pay the wages that a man could earn by living out of it. When that man has got past the age at which he could labour he handed over the management of his farm to his sons, and lived there in his sons' house, still nominally holding the property in his own name, though practically it was that of his sons. Legally, no doubt, he could have sold the farm and turned his sons out of doors. I daresay that was the position in law, but practically such a proceeding is one that could not be contemplated, as far as Ireland goes. Now, there are hundreds of thousands of men in that position in Ireland. Hon. Members may have seen a book—"The Green Republic"—dealing with this question, in which the author specially deplores the tendency of agriculture to concentrate itself into management by very old people. The administration of the Old Age Pensions Act therefore becomes of vital and economic interest. If it is to be considered that the farmer can legally make over his farm to his son while living in the same house, and receive his pension from the State as a man who has done his work and is past work, why then, I think, the tendency will be to increase the transfer from the management of old men to the management of young men, and that is a thing eminently to be desired in the interests of the country. On the other hand, if you decide that this, man who has lived all his life on his farm, leading a frugal existence among his sons, who is not the class of man who can afford to pay for flesh meat from year's end to year's end, whose day's work is from dawn to dusk, and who increases in thousands of cases the national wealth, must remain on his farm, then the results will be very different. I take the case of a farmer whose farm consisted of five fields and now it consists of six fields, because he and his sons brought into cultivation a piece of barren, stony moorland in front of their door. They took the stone away from it with great labour, and eventually succeeded in making it cultivable. They did this work in the winter, when there was nothing else to do about the farm, and in this way they added to the extent of the holding. The question is whether a man who did that is entitled to qualify for old age pensions, or whether he is to be made to sell that farm for so much, and to turn his son out of doors. For my part, I think those farmers are not

  2049
  owners at all, but life tenants. They use the farm as a means of winning wages for themselves, and in the evening of their days, when their work is done, they are as well entitled to have the benefit of the superannuation clause, and the superannuation clause is as necessary for them, as it is that in the British Army you should superannuate your officers when they get past their work. I hold that those men are as well worthy of pensions as either captain or colonel or Cabinet Minister.
  Mr. W. MOORE: I want to say just a few words on this subject. I think we have had a considerable amount of matter brought before us for consideration by hon. Members below the Gangway. Although we represent constituencies which in point of numbers and size, generally speaking, are equal to many of the constituencies in the rest of Ireland, it is a very remarkable thing that practically all of us have received very few complaints from any of our constituents in the North about the working of the Old Age Pensions Act. It is only right I should make that statement. I know a good deal about the condition of the people in the rural parts of county Antrim, and I am bound to say there is a universal impression that there is very little to complain of as far as the people of that county are concerned with the working of the Act. It is not my business to defend the Treasury as at present constituted. I have no desire to do so, but as a matter of fair play it should be noticed that all the discontent appears to come exclusively from one part of the country. It appears to me to be rather anomalous for hon. Members below the Gangway, who never miss an opportunity of expressing their hatred of everything British, of every benefit, as well as of every evil which comes from the Union, but they should never miss an opportunity of getting up to claim the last penny from the British Treasury. That is a matter for their own consistency which they never claim exclusive credit for, and it is entirely a matter for themselves. I would like to say, however, that the whole question of old age pensions, which was a measure which was brought in by both parties in the House, although an effort is now being made to make it be paid for by one, I would like to say it was a measure which was welcomed with profound gratitude by the people, and certainly in the North. I think it has worked exceedingly well in the urban districts and manufacturing districts and amongst the artizans.
  2050
  The artizan has nothing but his labour to depend upon. He may have a few savings, though if he has a family to support his savings cannot be much. To the decayed artizan the old age pension is a boon, and the same thing applies to the labourer in the rural districts.
  There is a great deal of feeling in the North of Ireland over one part of it. I understand the Government have held out promises of amendment to that very deserving class of people who were obliged to go on the poor law for relief. That is, the people who receive outdoor relief, and who, by the operation of the Act at present, are debarred from pensions. There have been very deserving cases. A case was brought to my knowledge by the Dean of Dromore. He sent the details, and as they came from a real dean, I thought I might see into them. It was the case of a poor woman working all her life in one of the factories in Lurgan, a town in my Constituency. Some years ago, in order to eke out a living, she had taken for payment an orphan from an orphan society. At a certain time, when the orphan attained the age of 16 years, under the rules of the society she could no longer be boarded out. She would then have to leave the old woman and take her place in the world. The old woman had become so attached to the orphan that she refused to let her leave her house, and kept her on. After a few years the orphan was threatened with consumption, and the local doctor certified that the only way of preserving the child's life was to get her outdoor relief, so that she might have milk and nourishing food. The old woman was, in a sense, the guardian of the orphan, and although she never asked for a penny for herself, it was her name was put in the rates accounts as the recipient of this outdoor relief. I think it was 2s. per week, and all of it went in medical nourishment for the orphan.
  I am not saying anything about the technicalities of the case, although I do think there are circumstances in which discretion ought to be allowed, and in which one could go behind technicalities of that sort. In the case which I have mentioned the pension was disallowed. I sent the correspondence to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board of England—perhaps an oversight on my part. I had heard him speak of old age pensions in the House, and I thought, hastily, he was the proper Minister to bring it before. The right hon. Gentleman, whom I am glad to see in his place, has always treated us on these

  2051
  benches with the utmost courtesy, and has looked into any matter we have brought before him. He wrote me to say that this was not a case in which he had any direct control, but that he was sending the context and my letter to the Chief Secretary, who was the Gentleman who had control, and with a recommendation from himself. For that courtesy I have to thank the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. That is two months ago, but inasmuch as the complaint related to a Unionist constituent, and from a Unionist Member, I have not had the faintest acknowledgment from the Chief Secretary, and it is quite on a par with his treatment of all Irish Unionist Members with regard to Irish Unionist constituencies. I do not suppose anything further will be done, because if the correspondence in that quarter is not acknowledged it means that the Chief Secretary has no interest in the matter, and will not have any. The case of this old lady is a very hard case, and she will be obliged to forego her pension. I thought it right to bring the matter before the House, and to give the Chief Secretary an opportunity of explaining why a communication sent by a brother Minister was ignored, and is being ignored.
  The question in the rural districts about the class the Member for Galway has referred to, the farming class, that I think is a very different one. I cannot say I share his views. The Member for East Tyrone referred to the case of a farmer, and spoke of it as a hardship that he got no old age pension where his instalment was calculated at £11 per year. What does a farmer with £11 per year instalment mean? It means that if that man were to go into the market and sell his farm anywhere in the North he would get 500 sovereigns in the market for it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] I know perfectly well what I am talking about. I know what the acreage would be, and what the valuation would be, and I say a man situated like that is not half so deserving a case as the broken-down labourer, even if the labourer is only 60 or 65 years. The labourer has to live in a house in a village, he has got to get potato ground from some neighbouring farmer, and he has to bring up his family in decency and comfort. I say that man is a more deserving case than a farmer with land, bought out, who could get £400 or £500 for it in the market. If this Act was to be properly administered and on business lines it is not
  2052
  for men with assets of that sort, the man who has a farm and has money. The money may be locked up in land—we hear a lot about that nowadays. It should be for the labourer who has no money, and who could not raise 50 sovereigns, not to speak of 500, that is the man who is more deserving of an old age pension. I should like to see, in the administration of the Act, that case more widely provided for and the age limit lowered. No reduction has been moved to this Vote. As I say, we are fairly satisfied with the working of the Act, so far as absence of complaint is concerned. I merely venture to bring this before the Committee that they may understand how the Act is regarded in the North of Ireland.
  Mr. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I really cannot understand why the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down has intervened in this Debate. He has no complaint to make. He says everything is being conducted in the most admirable way, and, unless for the illuminating circumstances that when dealing with Irish complaints he wrote to the English Local Government Board instead of to the Irish Local Government Board, I fail to see a cause for his intervention here to-day. He has, no doubt, such a hatred of Ireland, his own country, that he cannot even swallow that English institution established in Ireland, the Irish Local Government Board. He complains in his speech that we have raised this question.
  Mr. MOORE: I made no complaint of hon. Members raising the question.
  Mr. DEVLIN: He stated he made no complaint against the English Treasury. He would make a complaint against the English Treasury if the English Treasury was not sufficiently generous to the landlords of Ireland, but he has no complaint to make of the English Treasury if hundreds, and even thousands, of the wretched poor of Ireland are by mere officialdom and red tape deprived of rights which this great and beneficent measure proposed to confer upon them. In fact, he rather rose to praise the British Treasury for having withheld those pensions justly due to those poor people, but in some future Debates on the Land Bill he will then be endeavouring to extract all he can, and rightly if he can secure it, for his landlord friends whom he represents in this House. He was also somewhat cynical in his denunciation of the small farmer to whom my hon. Friend the Member for East Tyrone referred,

  2053
  the small farmer whom he stated could get £500 for his farm if he sold out. But even if he did sell out his farm and secure the £500 he would still be entitled to the old age pension, because the £500 invested would not give him an amount which would be above that which would debar him from an old age pension. I am afraid he seems to have somewhat questionable views on the land question. He despises the small farmer, and he tells us the generous price that a small farmer would secure for his farm; but I suppose he was calculating the price on the 31 years' purchase which he himself secured for Irish land in a recent sale.
  He also says that he has no complaints from his constituency, and that none of his constituents have complained as to the administration of this Act. I do not think his constituents ever trouble him at all. If there was a party question, if there was a question of the maintenance of the privileged classes, if there was a question of defending landlord interests, if there was a question of raising party passion, if there was a question of creating dissension and division between the people of one section of Ireland and the other, no doubt he would not only have plenty of complaints, but he would come to the House and be an eloquent apostle of those somewhat varied interests which he represents. But old age pensions, the interests of tenant farmers, the welfare of the working classes, and the proper administration of the Old Age Pensions Act—these are too contemptuous and too democratic matters for humble constituents to approach the majesty of the hon. and learned Gentleman upon; and I can very well understand that old age pensioners or potential pensioners, unless they are potential placemen—which is a very different thing—do not interest the hon. and learned Gentleman. Therefore, the fact that he has received no complaints from his constituents does not prove in the least that there are not many grievances existing among them with which we will deal here to-day.
  I desire also to support the complaints which have been made by the hon. Member for East Tyrone. He has stated that in connection with the United Irish League, which has constituted itself a bureau, not for the defence of the rich and privileged, but for the defence of every interest that touches the lives of the working classes and the poor people of Ireland, we have given great attention to the adminis-
  2054
  tration of this measure, and have been responsible without cost to the claimants for nearly 50,000 searches in the census offices in Dublin. Therefore, I feel that we are entitled, with all the knowledge we have at our disposal, and because of the experience we have gained as to the limitations in the administration of the Act, to bring our complaints before the House. In the first place, the later instructions issued by the Department in London has caused grievous wrong to a large seceiton of deserving people. It was actually ordered that, where the claimant could not or would not give the necessary particulars for the search, or if the census office reported that a claimant's name could not be traced, the officer should report that no evidence of age had been produced and that the claim could not be allowed. On the question of age, I have here the report of a speech delivered by the English Attorney-General—and, after all, what we have to deal with are the promises made in the House of Commons, and not the secret instructions issued by a Government Department. On an Amendment proposed by the Noble Lord, the Member for East Marylebone, that each claimant should prove his age, the English Attorney-General made the following statement:—
  "The Noble Lord would surely not wish to make it a statutory enactment that no man, however old he might be, was to be able to receive a pension unless he could produce a certificate of birth…. In truth, when the Bill came into operation, there would be many cases in which no sort of proof would be required, because the pensions committee in the neighbourhood would know that the applicant was very old It was left entirely to them…. It would be undesirable to indicate now what the future regulations would be."
  If it was left entirely to them, I should like to ask why these Instructions have been issued. The very old people in Ireland look much younger than they really are; therefore, I would say that when a claimant is personally known to the pensions committee, and when it is proven in their judgment that he is 70 years of age, that ought to be taken as sufficient evidence. With regard to the Census Returns, I have here a case from Newry, in which), in 1841, a claimant was given as three years of age, and in 1851 his age was given as nine years. Another claimant, in 1841, according to the Census Returns, was one year old, and in 1851 he was 13 years of age. In regard to another claimant, in the 1841 census there was no trace of him at all, but in the 1851 returns his age was given as 15. I have also an extract from the "Irish Times" of April, 1909—a report of the inquiry at Clair Morris by the Somerset House inspectors into the

  2055
  general administration of the Old Age Pensions Act in that district. The report states:—
  "As the district is now the seat of operations, it may he interesting to cite some cases which go to show the unreliability of the Census Returns. Martin Regan, Cultybo, lost his pension on a return made from the census of 1851, which showed him to be only 58 years old, but his book was soon afterwards restored on a certificate from the 1841 census, according to which he was 74 years old. Patrick Flaherty, of Corskeogh, was refused a pension on the ground that, according to the 1851 census, he was only 68 years old, but, later his application was passed on a return from the 1841 census, which showed him to be 71 years old. The same applies to a Mrs. Anne Kerrone, of Newtown, who was 68 according to the 1851 census, but 70 according to the 1841 returns. The inquiry is being conducted privately, but the examination of the Census Returns has not yet concluded."
  There is also another case from Unionist Ulster, were they have no grievances, or, at all events, where they have grievances but never tell their Members of Parliament about them. These are really philanthropic constituencies. I wish we on these Benches were as completely relieved of the troubles, worries, and ordinary complaints as the hon. and learned Member has boasted himself to be. In one division of Antrim I know the case of an old crippled woman, 84 years of age, who was refused a pension because she was unable to bring forward documentary evidence as to her age. Everybody connected with the locality was well aware of her age, and the pensions committee was satisfied. Even the pensions officer was satisfied, and when she complained that she had not received her pension he wrote her a letter saying that she should send 2s. to the Record Office in Dublin and have a search made. I want to ask the representative of the Treasury what precisely is the fee to be paid for these researches? I understood that it was to be 1s., but this poor old crippled woman is forced to send 2s., and is also told in the letter that she need not expect any reply for three weeks. Why should she be forced to pay 2s. for a search? Why should she have to wait three weeks before she gets even a reply? I put a question on the Paper with regard to this case and although it was in February that her claim was admitted, two days before the question was answered I received a telegram saying that the pension had been granted not from the time that she made the application, but from 1st May. This only shows the great advantage of having Members who take an interest in their constituencies. It also shows the advantage of a Nationalist Member taking an interest in the constituency of a loyal Unionist. This happened in the
  2056
  heart and centre of loyal and prosperous Ulster, where, I have no doubt, there are hundreds of other claimants who have equally just and adequate rights in this matter, but they know that hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway are too busy considering what they will do to secure for the class which they represent such financial interests as they have always conserved for them, and so they think it better to write to a common Nationalist Member, who believes that the interest of the poorest and most wretched creature in the community is as vital as the interest of the richest of the privileged classes in England, Scotland, or Ireland.
  The Old Age Pensions Act was one of the greatest proofs of humanitarian statesmanship that has been conceived in the last half century. It was a recognition by the State of its responsibilities not towards the professional or richest classes, who can defend their own interests, especially if they come from the North of Ireland; it was a recognition that the soldiers of labour, the workers and the toilers, have also some right to look to the State to safeguard their interests after they have served the State for 70 years; and I think it is a foolish and a mean thing, after this great and beneficent measure has been passed, to take advantage of technicalities, which I do not believe will be justified in this House, in order to rob a large number of claimants who have advanced just claims, in order to prevent a few claimants whose claims are not just from having pensions conceded to them. This money is not English, but Irish, money. It is the first great act of restitution for which England has been responsible in her fiscal relations with our country. I am glad that the restitution has taken this form. I would rather see an old age pensioner receiving 5s. a week than an Ulster Unionist Member receiving 31½ years purchase for his land. It is not only an act of justice, but it is a great act of social reform. It is because I believe you spoil the effect of this great reform and rob the measure of its grace that I trust that whoever replies for the Government will recognise the moderation and justice of the claim advanced by the hon. Member for East Tyrone, and that every facility will be given in order that rightful persons may secure the object which Parliament had in view when the Old Age Pensions Act was passed.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: I regret very much that the hon. Member who has just spoken has not condescended to give more

  2057
  information, not only with reference to old age pensions, but also with reference to the future of some of us who sit on these benches. In the comparatively numerous speeches which he has delivered in this House during the last five years he has usually spent from one-third to one-half of his time in communicating to the House and the country at large the various emoluments and positions of trust which my colleagues and myself are eventually to hold. To-night, for some reason or other, the hon. Member has got no further than describing my colleagues and myself as potential placemen. That is a disappointment to us. I, at any rate, expected that the hon. Member would inform me that I was to fill the office perhaps of Governor of the Leeward Islands, or Warden of the Cinque Ports, or some other office of that sort; but, as I say, he has got no further than describing us as potential placemen. The hon. Member found fault with us because we were unable to bring before the Committee any cases of hardship under this Act from Ulster. I might point out that the hon. Member himself represents an Ulster constituency, and that his constituency, being a working-class constituency, probably contains as many old age pensioners as any constituency in Ireland, certainly in Ulster. Yet the hon. Member, in his zeal for the aged in Ireland, is unable to fish out even one single case of harsh treatment among the old age pensioners in his own constituency. Not only is that so, but out of the whole of Ulster, comprising from 15 to 25 constituencies, he is only able to bring one concrete case before this Committee. Well, there are some 14 or 15 Ulster Unionist Members. A considerable number of the constituencies are represented by Nationalist Members. I do not know the exact number. But I would submit to the Committee, and say in parenthesis—although it is a curious position for me to be championing the Treasury as to the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act—but facts are facts—and I am not going to stand here and hear my colleagues and myself maligned and found fault with for not bringing hard cases before the Committee in connection with this matter, when as a matter of fact the hon. Member for Glasgow knows perfectly well that these hard cases in our part of the world, whatever may be the case in other parts, are non-existent, or practically non-existent. He may rest perfectly assured that in spite of our supposed championship of the rights of what he
  2058
  calls the superior classes, that if these cases of hardship, which he says exists, really existed, we should have heard about them, and if they had proved to be correct neither he nor the Treasury need have any fear that we should have brought them before the Committee on this occasion. As a matter of fact the Old Age Pensions Act has proved an immense boon, an immense blessing, not only to Ulster but to the rest of Ireland. That there are hard cases I do not for a moment pretend to deny. No doubt in time they will be looked into. But, as a whole, the Old Age Pensions Act has done more to alleviate the position of the poor in Ireland than any Act of legislation which has ever been passed by this country. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that. The hon. Member for Galway, when he delivered his speech, made use of some expressions which I really thought, coming from him, were inexcusable. He said he did not believe that the House of Commons, if they had understood or had foreseen what was going to happen after the passing of this Act, ever would have passed it. I do not believe that. I believe the House of Commons—even the Members on these benches—were determined to pass the Old Age Pensions Act last year. In the remarks I make now I do not mean to say that I consider the Old Age Pensions Act a perfect Act. I should have considered it more perfect if it had contained something of a contributory nature. But the Act was passed, and although as a matter of fact the number of pensioners which have been found to exist under the Act in Ireland is much greater than was anticipated, I am perfectly convinced that even had the House known the number of pensioners in Ireland that would not have made the slightest difference. The Act would have been passed just the same. The hon. Member for Galway also said that they were determined to get—in spite of the very numerous hard cases which he mentioned—to get what little good they could out of the Act.
  Mr. GWYNN: I do not think I used those words.
  Mr. C. CRAIG: I am sorry to say that I took the hon. Member's words down immediately he spoke them. He said: "What little good we can out of this Act." These were the very words made use of. I would ask the Committee to remember that that little good which the hon. Member spoke of amounts to 2½ millions per annum. I think it came very ill from hon. Members

  2059
  below the Gangway, when they are getting so much benefit out of this Act, to raise any superficial objection to the way in which it is worked. Personally, I think the way the Act is working now—I do not know when it came into operation in my part, the North of Ireland, but for several weeks after the first pensions were paid it was most extraordinary to see and hear about these poor people. One poor person who got a pension said (it was reported afterwards), when asked by a friend as to what he thought of the new Old Age Pensions Act, replied: "Indade, sor, it is better for us than the worrst famine ever we had"—meaning by that that the charity of the English, which usually followed on famine or distress in Ireland, never brought so much money to these poor people's pockets as had this Old Age Pensions Act. Well, it was only really the criticism of hon. Members below the Gangway that induced me to make the remarks I have made as to the Act.
  What I principally wanted to bring before the Committee was the action of the Treasury in refusing all information with reference to the number of old age pensions, and the amount of money paid out. I have asked several questions on this subject. The first of them was addressed to the Chief Secretary. That was if he would grant a Return—I will admit the details of the Return were comparatively complicated, for there was the number of cases and the amount in certain poor law unions. The Chief Secretary after, I suppose, consultation with the Treasury, informed me that he could not give me that information. I next put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think it was. It was to the effect: What was approximately the weekly amount distributed in old age pensions in nine counties in Ireland? The Secretary of the Treasury replied that as the available statistics did not show the amount distributed for old age pensions in individual counties, he was unable to give the information asked for. I asked another question the other day of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He gave me practically the same reply. But at the same time, after being pressed, he said he would look further into the matter, and admitted in the first instance the desirability of our having this information. He said: "I will endeavour to let the hon. Member have it." I put a further question, to which I got an answer this morning from the Secretary of the Treasury.
  2060
  In this he stated that the number of pensions actually paid in each county could only be ascertained by obtaining the particulars from the Post Office, and the obtaining of which, at the present moment, would involve considerable labour, and would consequently impede the more pressing work of dealing with outstanding claims.
  I desire to examine these answers very shortly. I am not, I must admit, very closely acquainted with the work of the Old Age Pensions Act, but I suppose that each of the county councils appoints a pensions officer—
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY of the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I will answer that. The county council has nothing to do with the appointment of the pensions officer.
  Mr. C. CRAIG: At any rate, they appoint pensions sub-committees, and I understand that all these cases under the Old Age Pensions Act, the number which is granted as well as the amount, is in the hands of this sub-committee. There must be some officer in connection with that sub-committee who can tell, by reference to books, the number of old age pensions which were paid, for instance, last week. Furthermore, in some cases in a county I understand that there is only one committee for a whole county. In other cases there are a considerable number of subcommittees. At any rate, perhaps 18 subcommittees for a county is possibly a fair average.
  Mr. GWYNN: There are 40 in county Cork.
  Mr. C. CRAIG: Well, and yet we are informed that the Treasury cannot send a printed letter to each of these sub-committees or their pensions officers—the names of whom are perfectly well known at the Treasury and by the authorities in Ireland—and ask them the number of pensions which have been granted in each of these districts. As my hon. and learned Friend beside me reminds me, this information is in the possession of the Post Office. To tell us that the obtaining of this information really involves any serious amount of labour I venture to say is absurd. The thing can be perfectly easily got. I submit from two points of view we ought to have this information. First, there is some 10 millions of money expended in old age pensions which comes out of our pockets. Therefore, I maintain

  2061
  we are entitled to know where that money is going to; how much has been paid to this and that part of the country. I cannot conceive that the excuse of the labour which the hon. Gentleman has given to all these questions of mine in reality exists at all. It is simply a matter of writing letters to the pensions' officers, asking them for the number of claims admitted, and those under consideration. I am perfectly convinced that the information could be perfectly easily obtained.
  Against the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary I have a good many complaints to make. I must admit in this case, had it lain with him, he would never have brought forward the plea that has been put forward for not giving me the information I sought. He has given us information which must have taken ten times the amount of labour than the particular information which I ask for. I can only conclude that the Treasury is keeping this information back for some reason of their own. That brings me to the question of secrecy, to which one hon. Member below the Gangway very properly alluded. What can be the object of preserving secrecy in the case of these pensions? If it is supposed to be on the part of the people themselves, so far as I have been able to observe, there is not one single person desirous of keeping the fact secret that he or she is receiving a pension. On the contrary, they are very glad to let it be known. They are not ashamed of the fact. There is no reason that they should be. There should be the utmost publicity in the granting of these pensions, and in giving to the public and the House of Commons the information they require with regard to them. That on general grounds. I go further, because I say that in the case of Ireland, in view of the fact that when the Land Bill which the right hon. Gentleman has already introduced comes to be discussed in Committee, one of the arguments which will be used against Part 3 of that Bill—namely, the Congested District proposal—one of the arguments which we shall bring forward against that is the amount of money which is flowing into these districts in the way of pensions.
  Mr. JOHN DILLON: Is that what you are coming to?
  Mr. C. CRAIG: Yes, we make no secret about it. The amount of money which is flowing into these districts, into the portions of Ireland which are known as the congested counties, and which the right
  2062
  hon. Gentleman proposes to group together as congested districts, is so great that it has entirely revolutionised this whole question of congestion. We maintain—we will maintain in due course—that the poverty which undoubtedly existed, and undoubtedly does exist in some places even now in the congested districts in the West of Ireland, has largely disappeared owing to the beneficent action of the Old Age Pensions Act. That being so, if the income taxpayer is to be asked under the right hon. Gentleman's Land Bill to find large sums of money for the relief of congestion in the West, we are entitled to know how much money has been paid in these districts in old age pensions. Now, Sir, the hon. Member the Secretary of the Treasury told us this afternoon that it was impossible to get these figures without a great deal of labour. I asked him, by way of a supplementary question, whether he was aware that in the county of Mayo—
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Member asked me why it was that the figures of the county councils — not one county council.
  Mr. C. CRAIG: I do not remember that I put the matter that way. My recollection of the form of my question was whether the figures had already been published with reference to at least one county. However, I will do that now, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that with reference to the county of Mayo the figures as to old age pensions have been published in the public Press as long ago as last January, and if it is possible for that to be done in the case of the county of Mayo three months ago how can he possibly sustain his contention of this morning that to get the figures for the other counties would involve so much labour as seriously to interfere with the administration of the Act in regard to outstanding claims? I said these figures must be easily got, and we are entitled to the fullest information about these things. We are entitled to know how much one county has got as compared with another county; we are entitled to have that information, especially in view of the forthcoming Land Bill; it is of the utmost importance that we should have these figures. I may remind the hon. Member that the Post Office must have the information I am asking for, and it would be perfectly easy, if the pensions committee's officers are so busy with other matters, for the hon. Gentleman to obtain this information from the Post Office. I

  2063
  shall certainly, if the answer which the hon. Member gives this afternoon is not satisfactory, continue to press for this information. It is a perfectly legitimate request, and we have a perfect right to ask for the details of the distribution of this money.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Before dealing with the more general questions raised by hon. Members opposite below the Gangway I shall ask the attention of the Committee for a few moments to the particular issues raised by the hon. Member for South Antrim. The hon. Member is, I think, not fully acquainted with the system under which the Old Age Pensions Act is worked.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: No, I am not.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: And if he had been more fully acquainted with it he would not make the accusations which he has made perfectly plainly this afternoon, that the Treasury for some mysterious reason which he has been unable to explain are desirous of withholding from the country and the Committee the amount granted in old age pensions in the different counties in Ireland. The system under which the Old Age Pensions Act is worked is this: In every county a pension committee is set up—I am not going into the details. In the vast majority of counties, both in England and Ireland, the Old Age Pensions Committee is broken up into a number of small committees scattered all over the counties. In one or two counties in England, I do not really think in more than one or two, and I think the same thing applies to Ireland, the county council is itself the pension committee. The only county I know of in England in which that is the case is my own county of Wiltshire, and the hon. Member for South Antrim has mentioned the county of Mayo in Ireland. In those two counties, and perhaps one or two others, the county council is the pension committee, and in these counties as the pension committee, not as county council, they have the figures available, and no doubt they can be given, and given easily; but in the other counties where the system of breaking up the work of old age pensions is adopted, and where it is distributed among a large number of sub-committees, no county council has the figures which are available in the case which the hon. Member has quoted. The pensions officer is not the officer of any one sub-committee; his area extends sometimes over one, sometimes over two, some-
  2064
  times over more, pension committees, and, therefore, no pension committee necessarily has a knowledge of the work, and the labour of collecting statistics from a large number of pension officers, whose area overlaps the area controlled by the pension committee, is far greater and far more difficult than the hon. Member is willing to admit. I hope the explanation I have given shows that there is no real unwillingness on the part of the Treasury to communicate this information if we could get it, but there is the difficulty, and the difficulty especially of postponing of new claims. I assure the hon. Member that whatever other fears he may entertain as to the action of the Treasury with regard to this particular question he need not be under any misapprehension or misunderstanding as to their perfect willingness to give the figures where they are available.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Do I understand the hon. Member to say that the pension committee is not in possession of the number of old age pensions granted in the area over which they are appointed, and, if so, would it not be perfectly easy to get from the old age pensions committee the number of pensions paid in their district?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Perhaps it would from the old age pensions committee. I am not sure that they could give the figures; they could give the charges involved in connection with the granting of the pensions, but I do not think they could give the figures; these should be obtained from the pensions officer. I do not know on what suspicions the hon. Member has founded this charge. We would give the figures if we could get them.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: I maintain they could be got quite easily.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have given the information, which I hope will be satisfactory to the Committee, as to our action in regard to this matter. I now come to the real subject under discussion this afternoon, which is the administration, so far as the Treasury is concerned, of the Old Age Pensions Act in Ireland. It is well known to hon. Members opposite that the administration is divided partly between the Treasury, as controlling the old age pensions officers, and the Irish Local Government Board, as controlled by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and it is only with the former part of the administration of the Act that I, personally, as repre-

  2065
  senting the Treasury, am concerned. The hon. Member for East Tyrone, who initiated this discussion, spoke in one part of his speech of what he was pleased to call the vindictiveness of the Treasury. I can assure him I think it is very undesirable from every point of view that there should be any substantial or irremovable belief in the minds of Members of this House representing Irish constituencies, or in the minds of the public of this country, that there is any intention to make a substantial distinction, or, indeed, any sort of distinction, between the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act in Ireland and in Great Britain. It would be a very unfortunate thing from the point of view of the Department which was responsible for making that distinction, and it would be still more unfortunate from the point of view of hon. Members opposite. I confess I should be the first person if I were aware of any such distinction to endeavour to get that distinction removed. The hon. Member for Galway very properly referred to a report which, I think, at the end of last year or the beginning of this year, got afloat, and which suggested that there were a great number, an overwhelming number, of old age pensions granted in Ireland which were undeservedly obtained. Well, we were not responsible in any way for that rumour. The Government, of which I am the spokesman, were in no way responsible for the circulation of that rumour. My recollection is—I have not looked the matter up—but my recollection is that that matter was repudiated from this Bench at the earliest possible opportunity. But unquestionably the lie—and I think I may so describe it—got a start, and it is exceedingly difficult to catch up with any rumour or any statement of that sort.
  Mr. KETTLE: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether it is not a fact that all these reports circulated in the newspapers were founded on the despatch of this secret committee to Ireland?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I quite understand the anxiety of the hon. Member, and I am going to deal, I hope, fairly fully with all the questions raised by him in the course of his speech. There were, no doubt, circumstances connected with the granting of old age pensions to people in Ireland which had excited public opinion both in England and in Ireland to anticipate, or, at all events, to imagine that a state of things had arisen and was in existence in Ireland which was very different from the state of
  2066
  things that obtained in this country. The hon. Member for East Tyrone and the hon. Member for the City of Galway in one form or another suggested that the British Government had been niggardly and mean in their administration, and other hon. Members suggested that had it been known how great would have been the cost involved in the administration of pensions given in Ireland the undertaking of the Old Age Pensions Act would never have been faced. As the Member in the House responsible for the Treasury, I venture to repudiate that suggestion with all the force which I can possibly command. Undoubtedly miscalculation was made as to the cost of the Old Age Pensions Act, and it was made not only with respect to Ireland but with respect to Great Britain also.
  The number of persons dependent upon the old age pensions grant is no doubt, in proportion to the population in Ireland, greater than in this country, but the underestimate of course has been far greater in Great Britain than it has been in Ireland, but whatever that cost may in the future the policy which is embarked upon of the Old Age Pensions Act has never been regretted for one moment, either by the Government who proposed it or by the people of this country who have to pay for it. I said there was certain circumstances connected with Ireland which had aroused public curiosity in both countries. What were these circumstances? Up to 31st December, 1908, applications for pensions in Great Britain were in round figures 510,000, what were called the septuagenarians in the census of 1901 in Great Britain were 1,020,000, and the estimated number of septuagenarians up to the end of 1908 was 1,080,000, so that the number of applicants in Great Britain was almost half of the number of people who were 70 or over 70 years of age. In Ireland the position was exactly the reverse. The number of applicants for pensions up to December 31st, 1908, was 231,000, the septuagenarian census of 1901 was 185,000, and those who might expect to be septuagenarians in 1908 was 200,000. So that whereas the proportion of persons over 70 to the persons who actually applied for pensions was two to one in Ireland, it was about three to two in this country, and I think that was a striking difference. It may have been caused by the great poverty in the West of Ireland to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer alluded in very moving and feeling terms. It is a poverty to which no hon. Member of this House

  2067
  can allude in speech or in thought without appreciating and understanding how great are the difficulties of the Irish people. But whatever the cause of this discrepancy was, I think it justifies both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in causing an inquiry into the circumstances which led to the discrepancy, not for the purpose of finding fault or reducing the number of pensions, but for obtaining an explanation of circumstances which were undoubtedly abnormal. The Prime Minister referred to this question in a speech made on 13th February in this House, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer also referred to it in a speech which has been quoted already by the hon. Member for East Tyrone.
  I should just like to mention, in passing, the fact that before either of those right hon. Gentlemen had expressed any opinion on the matter, the Inland Revenue themselves had been struck with the figures which I have quoted, and they had on their own account made some inquiries as to the causes which were operating to bring about the results which I have just put before the House. In consequence of the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the House was informed in answer to the question put by an hon. Member below the Gangway, six inspectors were sent to Ireland to inquire into this Question. I think some exaggerated, and I might say almost extravagant, language has been used by the hon. Member for East Tyrone in reference to the inquiry made by these inspectors. The hon. Member alluded to this inquiry as being a secret tribunal, as if it was some dark and deadly inquisition. But it was nothing of the sort. It was not held, as I have already said, in any way to prevent the granting of pensions or to cast any reflection upon the honesty of the Irish people. The hon. Member for Galway City said that the people of Ireland—and I absolutely agree with him—had a legal right to get the last penny out of the Old Age Pensions Act to which they were entitled; but they were not entitled any more than the people of this country to get anything more than a legal pension. They are not entitled to get an illegal grant of any pension, whether it happens to be granted in Great Britain or in Ireland.
  What would have been the cost of any such inquiry as that started under the
  2068
  auspices of my right hon. Friend? These inspectors went to Ireland, and they were not, as has been asserted by the hon. Member for East Tyrone, all of them entirely ignorant of Irish affairs. They inquired from the respective pension officers as to the proportion of what I may call doubtful cases within the area of each pension officer. There was undoubtedly a certain proportion of doubtful grants of pensions just as there is in this country, and these cases were referred by the direction of the inspectors to Dublin for search in the census returns of 1841 and 1851. As I stated in reply to a question this afternoon, anybody who knows the circumstances under which any census is collected must be aware of the fact that a great many statements made in answer to questions put by the collectors of information are of doubtful accuracy, and cannot be depended upon. What happened? When the name in any doubtful case was found in the census as being within the limits of the proper age the case was at once agreed to as requiring no further evidence at all, and I think that was not an unreasonable course to take. On the other hand, however, when the name of the person whose pension was brought under notice was not discoverable in the census a not unreasonable doubt was raised as to the accuracy of the statement made by the claimant in question. In that case the hon. Member for East Tyrone suggested in his speech that every effort had been made to get hold of evidence which threw doubt upon the claimant's statement, and that evidence of that character was treated as preferential evidence for the purposes of the inquiry. I cannot speak from personal knowledge, but I have made inquiry upon this particular point, and I am assured by the Department which I am now representing that that statement is not one which, if made in perfectly good faith, can really be substantiated, nor was it in any way acted upon by the officials of the inquiry.
  Mr. KETTLE: I quoted to the Committee three concrete cases on the point, and I gave particulars. I say that in those cases the report of the 1841 census was in favour of the claimant and the 1851 was against the claimant, and the latter was relied upon.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It must not be assumed that you are always to take the evidence which is favourable to the claimant.
  Mr. J. WARD: No, but the claimant certainly ought to have the benefit of the doubt.
  Mr. GWYNN: A discretion was left to the pension committee, and if the census coincides with the opinion of the pension committee, surely that ought to be final.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: This is a most important point. The suggestion is that the pension officer has been able to overawe in some inexplicable or subtle way the opinions of the pension committee. The decision does not rest with the pension officer. The function of his office is to bring to the notice of the pension committee the evidence connected with the case which is under examination, and it is for the pension committee to accept or to reject the evidence laid before them, and their decision, so far as that examination goes, is final and conclusive. [Cries of "No."] It is final so far as that examination is concerned. What happens? If the pension officer is dissatisfied with the result of examination before the pension committee, he can lodge an appeal within the statutory period to the Local Government Board. The pension officer has not only the right, but it is his duty when he is dissatisfied with the decision given by the pension committee, to carry the question to a higher tribunal. It has been suggested constantly by nearly every speaker from the benches opposite that the pension officer has been acting under orders in every case where he possibly could to carry the decision from the committee to the Local Government Board in Ireland. I can assure this Committee that no such orders have been issued. I have made a personal inquiry upon this point, and I am assured most distinctly and categorically that no instructions of that kind have been issued to the pension officers, who have been left a perfectly free hand.
  Mr. KETTLE: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to publish all the documents, circulars, letters, and other instructions which have been issued to pension officers?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No.
  Mr. KETTLE: Does the hon. Gentleman dispute the accuracy of the information contained in the circular issued 3rd February, 1909, which I have read to the Committee?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have not the circular at hand to which the hon. Member refers, and I cannot carry the words in my mind. But I assure this Committee that I have made personal and strict inquiry, and I insisted upon no elusive answer being given, and I am assured that no instruc-
  2070
  tions of that sort, either written or oral, were given by the Board. After all, the decision rests with the pension committee, and if they are dissatisfied with the evidence it is for them to accept or reject the application or require the production of other evidence. So far as what is called documentary evidence is concerned, the decision of the committee can be given, and properly given, not merely upon documentary evidence but upon other sound and credible evidence. The hon. Member for Galway City brought to our notice this afternoon what I thought was a particularly hard case. He instanced an aged servant, who produced documentary as well as oral evidence, whose claim was rejected by the local pension committee.
  Mr. GWYNN: It was officially rejected.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Who can it be officially rejected by?
  Mr. GWYNN: The Local Government Board and the pensions officer.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The pensions officer can object, but he cannot reject it. If the circumstances were as put by the hon. Member I should unquestionably think that the pensions officer went beyond the attitude which I think he might reasonably have taken up. There is another point which I should like to bring before the notice of the Committee. On the one hand it is believed by a large number of people in Great Britain that there has been an enormous number of pensions wrongfully obtained in Ireland, and, on the other hand, it is believed by hon. Gentlemen opposite that an enormous number of persons in Ireland have been deprived of their pension in consequence of this inquiry. I am informed the total number of pensions which since the 1st January had been taken away in Great Britain and Ireland from persons who were successful claimants is 2,500—that is, 1,300 in Great Britain and 1,200 in Ireland. So that while on the one hand the Irish people are exculpated from the charge that has been suggested against them, on the other hand they have exaggerated the number of persons from whom pensions have been taken away; but undoubtedly a sense of injustice has been created. I do not think any large question has been raised by hon. Gentlemen except the one raised by the hon. Member for West Belfast. He made a statement with reference to the case of an old woman, I think, in county Antrim. I understood that she produced evidence which was satisfactory to the census

  2071
  officers and to the pension committee, but it has been stated that the pension was either taken away or was in danger of being taken away. I forget exactly which. It is said that she was asked to pay 2s. to enable the census to be searched in order to establish her evidence. If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to show me the letter or document in his possession I shall be very glad.
  Mr. DEVLINcrossed the floor and handed a letter to the hon. Member.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Member has been good enough to give me a letter.
  Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he will kindly read it?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes. [The hon. Gentleman then perused the letter.] I will take care that the request which is conveyed in this letter to this lady to pay 2s. shall be dealt with. It is perfectly clear that there is no obligation on anybody to pay a sum of 2s. for the searching of the census. This is an operation which is performed free of charge to the claimant by the Customs and Excise Department. This demand strikes me as an improper one, and therefore one which ought not to have been made. From letters which reach me outside this House and from questions which are put to me inside this House it appears that the power of searching the records depends upon the number of persons who are searching them. The time involved in that search is, of course, dependent on the number of persons engaged in the operation, and no doubt a considerable time must elapse before the necessary evidence is discovered. I should like to mention the point which is raised by the Member for East Tyrone, who referred to cases in which names had not been discovered by the officials, but had afterwards been discovered by independent searches. In every case, I am informed, in which the name has been discovered the pension has been without delay granted to the claimant, and while it is exceedingly unfortunate that there has been an interval of time between striking the claimant off the list and the re-establishment of the person upon the list, yet the time has been very short. While that interval of time is to be regretted, it must be admitted that when the discovery has been made the claimant has been restored to the pension list. I am afraid that I have dwelt at too great a length on this matter,
  2072
  but the points are of great importance, not only to Members below the Gangway on the other side, but to the entire House. I think that I have shown the bona fides of the Treasury in this matter, and I undoubtedly admit that any suggestion of fraud on the part of the people is without foundation.
  Mr. J. DILLON: There is one aspect of the case which has been presented on behalf of the Treasury which is exceedingly satisfactory. It was undoubtedly believed in Great Britain that an enormous number of pensions had been fraudulently obtained in Ireland, and we now hear from the Treasury that there is not a shade of a shadow of foundation for that charge. It is not the first time that charges have been made against the Irish people and eagerly swallowed by the people of this country without any proof whatever. That is the only point in his speech which is entirely satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman showed that something like 2,500 persons in Great Britain have had their pensions taken away and 1,200 in Ireland.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No; the number is 2,500 in all—that is, 1,300 in Great Britain and 1,200 in Ireland.
  Mr. DILLON: Yes 1,300 in Great Britain and 1,200 in Ireland. What has been the result of the inquiry? The hon. Gentleman did not inform us what the result of the inquiry into the administration of the Act in Ireland has been? Are we justified in assuming that the result of that inquiry is the cancelling of 1,200 pensions, and that such cancelling ends the charge of fraud?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am very sorry, but I did not intend intentionally to omit a reference to the point. The inquiry has not been finished. As to the number of cases given, whether in Ireland or in Great Britain, the rejection of pensions is not complete in either country. I simply gave the result up to date in both countries.
  Mr. DILLON: I should like to ask the hon. Member another question. Are the methods of the inquiry exactly similar? Are the instructions similar for Ireland as they are for Great Britain? We have been led to believe that the inquiry launched against Ireland was launched with a preconceived idea, and that it partook somewhat of the nature of a penal inquiry. One striking point is that there was no ground to justify any difference in the method of procedure in Ireland from the method of procedure in Great Britain.

  2073
  There seems to have been a preconceived idea that the Act had been fraudulntly administered in Ireland and properly administered in Great Britain. I think, therefore, that I am entitled to ask whether the inquiry in the two countries has been conducted on the same lines, and whether the instructions given to the officials were exactly similar. The hon. Gentleman, in answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Tyrone, flatly contradicted one of his statements. He said there was no instructions issued to the pension officers not to act on their own discretion in dealing with the cases. He said that they were left with a perfectly clear discretion to deal with the evidence that was brought before them, but the instructions given to the officials was to get particulars to enable them to search the Census Return, and that when the claimants would not give particulars the pension officers were to report that no evidence of age had been produced, and that the claim could not properly be allowed. Those are the actual words of the printed instructions. How, therefore, can the hon. Gentleman state that no impediment has been placed on the free discretion of the pension officers. The pension officer is directed to report that there is no evidence if the name of the claimant cannot be found in the census? The case mentioned by the hon. Member for East Tyrone has attracted a great deal of attention in Ireland. What happened in the case of the Foxford committee? The secretary had a number of cases struck off because the names of the claimants were not discoverable in the census. He went to Dublin himself and then found the names. The hon. Member said: "That as the names were found, the pensioners were restored to their pensions." But how many hundreds of persons who have been struck off may not have been struck off because search has not been made? Yet the hon. Gentleman says that the discretion of the pension officers is in no way unfettered. Cases have been given which show inaccuracy in the census. Anybody who knows anything about the condition of the country or who has spoken with those old people in Ireland, who remember how the census was taken in 1841 or 1851, will tell you that according to a common description the police who took the census sat by the side of the ditch and sent someone into the village to get the names from 15 to 20 houses. [A laugh.] It was no laughing matter for those who were unfortunate enough to be missed or to be inac-
  2074
  curately returned, seeing that they are now to suffer by being deprived of their pensions. I say that the hon. Gentleman cannot maintain the position he has just stated to the House that there is no fetter on the discretion of the pension officers. This circular provides clearly that the system first adopted in Ireland was thrust aside, and that a fetter is placed on the action of the pension officers. The whole system has been altered, and pension officers are directed to have recourse to a test which is absolutely unreliable and under which, as has been proved, men have been struck off who are properly entitled, and have been subsequently placed on the list.
  Another point I want to ask about is this: What is the method of procedure? I have already asked that question, but the hon. Gentleman has not thrown any light at all upon it. We want to know what is the method of procedure in this great inquiry. When will it be ended, and will the Report of these six inspectors who have gone over to Ireland be laid on the Table of the House? Also will any public statement be made of the instructions they have received and of the methods they have adopted? What I really want to get at is the procedure of investigating cases which are supposed to be fraudulent. As I take it, when a person gets a pension you cannot deprive him of it without the process of law. It does not lie in the power of any inspector sent over by Somerset House of his own motion to cancel the pension. But the poor people in Ireland have been extremely alarmed, and are under the impression that these inspectors are going to cancel their pensions. I told them then it was impossible. But what occurs? The inspector attends a post office in Ireland and pursues a system of intimidation, threatening people, under pains and penalties, to give information for the purpose of tracing their claim, and thousands of people are under the impression that if they do not give the information they will have their pensions cancelled. There is a widespread feeling of alarm and indignation at this scandalous injustice by means of which unfortunate people get their pensions taken away most unfairly. Moreover, there is great reluctance to give the information asked for. The country is disturbed and annoyed, the impression is that the inspectors have come over from England with instructions to knock thousands off the list; they have come with the preconceived idea that the whole Act has been

  2075
  fraudulently administered in Ireland. I know, of course, that the inspectors have no power to cancel the pensions, but unfortunately the impression has got abroad that they have, and that has created a very bitter feeling. What I understand of the procedure is this: if you have ground for suspicion that there is fraud the proper and only course is to appeal to the Local Government Board. I believe that the Local Government Board is the only power in Ireland that can strike a man off the pension list when he is once on.
  The last time I was in Dublin a number of poor people came to me and showed me notices they had received from the pension officer announcing that he had appealed to the Local Government Board to take away their pensions. I am bound to say a more cruel and unjust system I never heard of. A poor old ignorant country woman came in last Friday and said, "What am I to do?" She had been drawing a pension for two months, and she handed me a document bearing these words, "Take notice that I have appealed to the Local Government Board to withdraw your pension." There is not a single sentence to show when the case is to be tried, nothing to show where it is to be tried, and no hint at all why the pension is objected to. I suppose the next step will be that this poor old woman will get a notice to the effect that her pension is withdrawn. She has no opportunity of defending herself. She has no opportunity of producing evidence to justify her case. She does not even know what the ground of objection is. Is that justice? Is it fair play? I say that in these cases of appeal there should be some means secured to the people of defending their claims, and it would be perfectly easy to send a proper notice to them stating the grounds for the objection. Then these poor persons would have an opportunity of adducing evidence in support to their claims before a decision was come to by the Local Government Board. I say there could be nothing more monstrous or more indefensible than the action which I have described. I have heard, I do not know if it be true, that the pension officers are now under orders to object to every case in which they cannot trace the name in the census. They require information to enable them to trace the name in the census of 1841 or 1851. They are not giving the people the benefit of the doubt. They are giving that to the Treasury, and they are appealing to the Local Govern-
  2076
  ment Board without giving the unfortunate pensioners any information of the ground of appeal, and then striking them off. I repeat it appears to me that this is a most indefensible and monstrous method of procedure, and I trust that the Government will put a stop to it at once.
  I also hope that the Debate to-night will see the end of the charges of fraud which have been made against Ireland in this matter. I further press the Chief Secretary for a full statement on the question of procedure, and for some assurance that in every case in which a pension is going to be challenged the pensioner shall have a fair trial and full notice of the objections against him. I assure hon. Members that we have not the smallest desire to defend any fraudulent case in Ireland. On the contrary, we are prepared to give the amplest opportunity for the detection of any case of fraud. It was realised when the Act was passed that there might be frauds not only in Ireland, but in Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. We are ready, at any rate, to give every possible facility for detecting and punishing fraud, but I do appeal to the Government to take care that in their attempts to detect and punish fraud they do not commit gross injustice upon people who, by their nature and their circumstances, are unable to defend themselves.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I speak to-night on this Question in my character as President of the Irish Local Government Board, which is the Court of Appeal in all these exceedingly difficult cases. I am very glad indeed that this discussion has taken place, if for no other reason than that just referred to by the hon. Member for East Mayo, that it has, I hope, nailed a lie to the mast for ever. I trust we shall no longer be told that old age pensions in Ireland have been taken advantage of for purposes of fraud. The whole history of old age pensions in Ireland is a very curious one. It was essentially a British question from the very beginning, and it has not been altogether a very honourable history, so far as the English politician is concerned, for Members on both Bides of this House made wholesale promises of old age pensions in Great Britain, and those promises appeared upon their election cards for a great number of years. Perhaps I may incidentally remark hon. Gentlemen from Ireland may be inclined to believe that this is the first good thing that has come out of their connection with the Union. I say again I am here in my character as

  2077
  President of the Local Government Board for the purpose of describing what we have done, and what course has been adopted by us in this matter. Up to the end of last week the Local Government Board decided 12,766 appeals. In 10,891 the claims for pensions were rejected, and in 1,885 they were allowed. I will give in a moment, under different headings, the various reasons for which the rejections were made. It is only natural, and everybody will recognise the force of this, that the large number of pensions granted in Ireland excited a certain amount of surprise, although I do not say that there was any particular occasion for it. I do not think there is any evidence whatever to show that the pension committees have done otherwise than endeavour to discharge their duty honourably and straightforwardly under difficult circumstances. They certainly have not been animated by any desire to keep people off the pension list unreasonably. On the contrary, so many people have been placed, happily for themselves, on the pension list that it shows the pension committees set about their task in no mean spirit and with no desire to keep people off who had a right to be put on. Therefore, the cases which came before the Local Government Board were obviously cases of difficulty—cases in which it had been hard for the pension committees to make up their minds, or for the pension officers to agree with their decision. Of course, the two grounds upon which most of these appeal cases have been decided against the claim have been age and means. Out of 10,891 cases in which the claims were rejected, 4,418 were in respect of age.
  Of course everybody knew we did in Ireland, the Local Government Board knew perfectly well the moment this idea of old age pensions was initiated that in Ireland there would be a very great difficulty for the reason given by the hon. Member in the speech in which he introduced this question, viz., that there is not in Ireland a register of births in existence until the year 1864, which is no good at present, at any rate, for the purpose of ascertaining whether anybody is 70 years of age. There was nothing else to go upon, and there was no Somerset House as in England. In England, if anybody wants a certificate of birth, he pays a shilling, and he gets it from Somerset House in 24 hours, without any difficulty. That has been the case for a great many years past. But that state of things does not exist in Ireland, nor
  2078
  could we fall back in Ireland, with any confidence, upon the baptisms, which in England are easily obtained, although of course in particular cases here and there the records have been destroyed by fire, or carelessness, or otherwise. But in Ireland it appears that the mode of proof was a rather harder question, because in Ireland these records do not appear to be kept, and in many cases, where they were kept, they have been irregularly or carelessly preserved, so that they are of no or little use in determining the age of a person.
  That being so, it was obvious to everybody that without any fraud at all in the case of poor people, at all events, and even of rich people also, it is difficult for them to-day to prove their age, if they cannot refer either to the State, or to the Parish Register. Therefore, I have not the least doubt that a certain number of persons under 70 years of age have succeeded in obtaining a pension, without any fraud on their part of any kind, or without any disguise whatever. At the same time, the obligation is imposed upon the State to see to it that persons are not put upon the pension list who are not 70 years of age, so far as they can prove it. All proof is naturally a difficulty if you do not agree upon a register or something of that sort. If it is not forthcoming, it is a very difficult thing to prove age. Some people are very clearly over 70 years of age. You do not require a register, parochial, or belonging to the State, to satisfy you that those persons are pensionable. I do not think in many cases it will be found, although, I dare say, such is the infirmity of human justice that some cases will be found of persons over 70 years having been put back for a considerable time, and difficulties may have been thrown in their way. In excuse for that I can only plead the infirmity of human justice, and when you are dealing with hundreds of thousands of cases people will act irrationally sometimes, and it is difficult to obtain proof in regard to persons between 65 and 70 years of age—it is very difficult indeed. We rely upon the census of 1841. The census of 1841, I am told, is a better prepared one, and is more likely to be authoritative than the subsequent one of 1851, but no one will contend for a moment that a census prepared by policemen going about from house to house is of itself a trustworthy document for all purposes. No one who, as the master of a house or the head of a household, has been responsible for drawing up

  2079
  a census return can say he has not been wrong sometimes, and I should be very sorry to be held responsible for the ages of all the people that I have returned in my exceedingly humble and limited household. But one thing in which the census is likely to be more valuable than another is the age of young children, and you are very likely to get them correctly. If you go into the house they are there toddling about the house at two or three years of age, and you are much more likely to get the children's ages correct than that of grown-up persons, or female servants, or anybody of that sort. I am disposed to believe that the census of 1841 is a very sound one. It is 68 years of age, and therefore anybody upon it is approaching pensionable age, and I think it has proved to be a very great boon to us. Of course, we have had to bear this in mind—that when a person is very old indeed, so clearly pensionable, that there is no possibility of a dispute; that old person can usually tell you where he was born, and put you upon the path of finding whether he is or is not pensionable. But it is the people who are uncertain in their own mind whether they are 70, and who do not give us, or who cannot give us, the place where they were born, which would make it easier to ascertain their precise age—it is those cases which give us a very difficult task. Do what you may, you will sometimes accomplish injustice; you will sometimes be satisfied that a person is of a pensionable age when he is not, and you will sometimes postpone an old person for a year or two and keep them off for a while, although, of course, we hope they will ultimately get the pension. I can only say this, that the Local Government Board, in determining these 4,418 cases in which they declined to sanction the pension on the ground of age, have not in any way confined themselves to hard and fast rules based upon the census of 1841. We have made inquiries, although it is quite true we have not carried on and we have not had a public inquiry, but you really cannot have a court and counsel and solicitors to determine such a question as this. You have to allow, and I think you are safe in allowing, if you have any confidence at all in the good judgment and good sense of your agents, in matters of this sort—you had much better leave it to them to carry out an inquiry of this nature, feeling sure that they have no interest in the matter. That is notably the case in Ireland, because I never yet met an Irishman who wanted to
  2080
  keep anybody out of anything, and in these appeals to the Local Government Board, from the President and Vice-President down to any of its members, we have no desire to keep the people from receiving the pensions. We are not concerned with the Treasury instructions. We have no truck with the pensions officer, and it is not we who appeal to the pension officer to bring his appeal. I really do appeal to the Committee to dismiss that idea from their mind. We nave no underhand connection with them or with their appeals whatever. We leave them to pick out what cases they choose, and we have no truck or business with them at all. It is not until the pensions officer has appealed that we move in the matter at all. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who issued the Instructions?"] The Treasury issued the Instructions, although we have an Instruction of our own, and I will come to that in a moment, when I deal with the question of means, but so far as the question of age is concerned we always leave it either to our own inspector or to the pensions officer to produce any evidence, and we have taken evidence from him himself, when he has seen a man, as to what the man looked like on a view, and if we were satisfied from him that he had no doubt that the man was over 70 we have accepted that as sufficient evidence to enable us to reject the appeal. That is to say, that we have left our minds open to consider any evidence whatsoever that is forthcoming as to age.
  Some hon. Members have spoken of local circumstances as affording information, but they do not tell us whether a man is 70 or not. It may be a most satisfactory way of showing that he is about 65 or 66 or 67, or anything of that sort, but it does not do to talk about local circumstances in an airy way, as if you had only to mention that he was born in a particular house, or was at school with so-and-so, or was there when so-and-so was head, or when so-and-so was parish priest, but that does not assist you. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about sworn affidavits?"] I have sworn affidavits myself, and I have read affidavits in these cases, which have satisfied me that the deponents did not mean anything more than that the man had reason to believe that the applicant was more than 70. You cannot act upon good-natured descriptions of that sort. The total number of appeals was 12,776, and 10,891 of them were rejected and in 1,885 cases the claims were allowed. The number

  2081
  of rejections on the ground of the receipt of poor law relief is 536 indoor and 1,264 outdoor, making a total of 1,800.
  There is another question I should like to refer to, which shows that you must not look a gift horse in the mouth. You have got these pensions because England was getting them, and you have got them on the same terms that England is getting them; but I think anybody acquainted with Ireland would consider it a peculiarly hard thing not to distinguish very nicely between these cases of outdoor relief, because I am sorry to say that my conviction is that the operation of outdoor relief has excluded a very considerable number of the very class of people whom this House meant to benefit when they took upon themselves the enormous burden of finding the funds for these pensions, because there do not exist in Ireland the charitable societies, the friendly societies, the trade unions, and the like, which stand very often between the labourer or the artisan and outdoor relief. There are, I am afraid, a great number of persons who have unhappily been excluded on this ground, but whom, I hope, as time goes on it will be found possible to enable to get this benefit, which as a class more than any other they deserve. As I say, 1,800 people were rejected on the ground of poor law relief, indoor or outdoor, and on the ground of means 4,320 were rejected, while 4,418 were rejected because they could not satisfy us that they were over 70. In the 4,320 cases the applicants could not satisfy us that they had not the statutory amount per week, or £31 10s. a year. Here, again, let the Committee conceive the difficulty that was in the way of the Local Government Board, when you are dealing with the class of peasant proprietors, cotters, small people, farmers you may call them so, for they are farmers and labourers together, as they do a great deal of labour on their own farms. Sometimes they do all. In many cases they have an acreage which, in English eyes, is very considerable—100 acres and sometimes 200 acres. They also have horses, cows, implements of husbandry, and the task of going into their budgets is very difficult. I have examined myself personally scores of budgets of these small farmers which have been presented for the consideration of the Local Government Board in deciding this difficult question.
  Mr. GWYNN: Are there really many applicants for old age pensions who hold 200 acres?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Here is one with a farm of 252 acres. The difficulty is in estimating, simply on the figures, the real cash value of these people's incomes, and to English eyes, to a person accustomed to English figures, it seems almost ridiculous that people possessed of all these ordinary signs of wealth should really be so poor as to be within the reach, as some of them clearly are, of an old age pension scheme of this sort. They have prepared in scores of these cases their balance sheets, and most difficult and complicated they are. They are by no means the short and simple annals of the poor. On the contrary, they are most complicated documents, and have to be investigated with great care, and if the poor people do not always realise what should be on one side of the balance sheet and what should be on the other, that is an ignorance which they share with many of the highest functionaries in the City of London, some of whom have occasionally found their liberty interfered with by reason of their notions on the subject.
  Here is a farm of 29 acres with a rent of £34 16s. The pension officer recommended nothing, but the sub-committee allowed a full pension of 5s. a week, whereupon the pension officer appealed. The pension officer estimated the income at £104 8s. per year. The appellant, who had friendly but not professional assistance, presented his balance sheet. He showed his receipts from sales on one side and the necessary outgoings on the other. Sale of yearling, £6 10s.; two pigs, £l; butter, £4 3s. 6d.; buttermilk, 10s.; chickens, £l 3s. 6d.; eggs, £l 16s.; 22 barrels of barley at 14s. 6d., 10 barrels of oats at 7s. 6d. a barrel, £19 14s.; setting of grass, £23; sale of potatoes (crop partial failure), 7s. 6d.; the value of farm produce consumed by claimant and his family, £6 3s. 8d. He then puts down the value of the labour, father, mother, and two daughters, on the farm. He estimates that he is entitled to charge for labour he would otherwise have to purchase in the market if his family had not been strong enough to do it, and he puts it at £30; that was an income of £99 8s. Then he puts down his necessary outgoings—rent £34 16s., rates £4 3s., seed potatoes, seed oats, hay seed, and various things—and he brings them to £72 7s. 10½d., and this is where he shows a rather curious notion of a balance sheet. He adds to this the cost of maintenance of himself and his whole family. The whole thing is exceedingly small when it is done, but that is how it is done, and he charges

  2083
  £30 for that maintenance, and that brings the figure on the one side of outgoings to £102 7s. 10d., and income £99 8s. 2d., making a loss on the whole of £2 19s. 8d. The difficulty of going into hundreds of thousands of budgets of that kind is—
  Mr. KETTLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee that that is a typical case? Does he remember that there are 200,000 uneconomic holdings in Ireland? Is that a type of the uneconomic holding?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am simply dealing with the 4,320 cases which the Local Government Board dealt with by way of appeal, and that was one of the cases. I do not say it is difficult at all. I do not know if any of these 4,320 cases could be classified as typical. They vary so much. I only mentioned it because we had a budget presented in a perfectly straightforward way. That is the very kind of case we have had to deal with. I have at least a score, perhaps more, of these cases before me. Here is another. This is typical, if you like. A farm of 15 Irish acres: annuity, £7 11s.; stock, two cows, three calves, one mare, one filly, 30 sheep, two pigs, 12 fowls; crops, 1½ acres of potatoes, two acres under oats, three-quarters of an acre under wheat, half-acre under hay, quarter-acre under turnips, ten acres in parsley. In that case both the pension officer and the sub-committee gave 1s. a week, but the pensioner subsequently raised the question, and the sub-committee increased the pension to 2s. a week. On that there was an appeal to the Local Government Board. I only mention this to show the extreme difficulty, quite unlike the difficulties which present themselves in the great majority of cases in England, which arise when you are considering under this British Statute whether you can make out that the owners of these small farms, carrying on business in this way, earn at the end of a year a clear balance of income of £31 10s. If they have they are not entitled to a pension. If they have not they are entitled to a pension varying from 1s. to 5s. a week. These are the difficulties we are confronted with, and all I can say is that I think the Local Government Board has done its very best to determine this question on broad principles, and without any red tape whatsoever.
  It has been suggested that it would be a convenient thing to take the income as three times the rent, and simply by rule of thumb of that kind, and without any
  2084
  personal inquiry into the particulars of each case, rule the applicant in or rule him out of the pension. That is not the course that the Local Government Board has adopted. We have made interesting researches as to the proper mode of ascertaining as best we could whether these small farmers were or were not entitled to the pension. A great number, as every hon. Member opposite knows, have the pension, and I believe all who have pensions thoroughly well deserve them; but surely we were bound to see that Irish money was not unnecessarily squandered or given to persons who, although they led a most struggling life, a most hard life, and who are perhaps at this moment playing the very noblest part for the future of Ireland, and doing the best they can for the cultivation of the soil, do not suffer those hardships and the actual terrible hunger which, I am afraid, still are suffered by many in Ireland and also in other parts of the United Kingdom. We were, therefore, bound, whilst not adopting any rule which would rule these people out, to make particular inquiries in each case and satisfy ourselves as to whether or not a man had an income of £31 10s.
  Mr. KETTLE: I hope the Committee will appreciate the information on these points which has been furnished to us in answer to questions or by Returns. It was stated not many days ago that that rule of taking three times the rent or three times the purchasing annuity was followed.
  Mr. BIRRELL: So far as I answered any questions of that sort, I remember perfectly well saying, although there was in many people's mind a rule of thumb of that sort, I did not approve of it, and it was not acted upon, but I am far from deprecating this discussion. I think it is most valuable, and I am only here to defend the administration of this Bill by the Board. I quite agree that notice ought to be given to a person who, being in possession of a pension, finds it changed; but I am not in favour of giving any Return stating the reasons, because in matters of this sort you have to trust to the good sense and honesty of your administrators, and you cannot in dealing with all the details of applications of this sort profitably lay down any general rule, but you can always state to any person whom you are subjecting to the risk of being struck off the pension what is the particular ground of objection. If it is age let it be age; if it is means let it be means. If it is failure of residence for 20 years in the

  2085
  United Kingdom, imprisonment, or failure to work, we have cases under all these heads, and it is only reasonable in common fairness that you should give a person a statement of the particular head under which the objection has been raised.
  Mr. HUGH LAW: At the same time that notice of that information was furnished to the pensioner would he also see that when the decision is come to the grounds of the decision are furnished to the committee?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There might be more difficulties about that than about the other question, but I will look into it. So far as the Local Government Board is concerned I gave the undertaking asked for in that matter, and I can assure hon. Members that the Local Government Board, not only myself, but the Vice-President and all the others, are very glad to have this Debate, and we are quite willing to take guidance from persons intimately acquainted with the subject matter. We are not people who decline to listen to those who are interested in the administration of a great national enterprise like this.
  There is only one other point I should like to say a word about, and that is with regard to those old gentlemen in Ireland, according to ancient custom, who transfer their farms to their sons, sometimes legally obtaining a deed or bond securing sustenance, and also securing, in the event of a dispute or having the home broken up, something, although they live apart; but it is often a very informal document indeed. And maintenance is given to this King Lear who has parted with his property amongst his children, which he is able to do usually, I suppose, without suffering anything in consequence. If there is no legal assumption of responsibility to maintain the father, and if the father's name is removed from the rent-book or the purchase-annuity, that is all right enough. If the son has made no covenant, and entered into no legal obligation, to maintain him, of course the father can state that, and he is certainly entitled to his pension if his son thinks fit to allow him to ask for it. I confess I do not altogether approve of the morals of that kind of transaction, for I think if the father has handed over all the property to his son on the understanding that he was to be maintained in his old age, I do not know that he ought to rely on the fact that there is no legal obligation upon him, and
  2086
  that he should allow his father to come upon the fund for the relief of the poor in that way. At the same time, he can do it if he likes. But in most of the cases which have come before us there has not been that transfer of property at all. The name of the old man very often remains on the rent-book, or he pays the purchase-annuity in his own name, and in these cases, of course, it is impossible to grant an old age pension to the father while in law he still remains the owner of the property. That is one of the difficulties, but even in such cases we deal in the most rational and friendly spirit towards the people concerned. We do not want in anyway to erase them from the list of pensioners, but difficulties of that kind must occasionally arise in the administration of this matter. I can only say that we shall continue the course which we have hither-to pursued, subject to the light which we have received from this Debate. I believe that no very great fault can be found with the administration of the Act.
  Mr. DUFFY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when the appeals which have been notified will be decided?
  Mr. BIRRELL: We have had some 500 or 600 cases a week since January. At this moment we have about 500 a week. We hope to get them down to 250 a week, but we have very great difficulty in carrying out the work which is Involved in this matter.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I came down to the House this afternoon with my mind quite free from information with regard to the administration of the Pensions Act in Ireland, and, therefore, I am in a position to express an opinion which is quite impartial after hearing the Debate. None of us could make the least complaint either of the statements or the tone of the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. We know very well that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to deal with this in a friendly, fair, and humane spirit. Nor indeed do I find any fault with the speech of the Secretary to the Treasury. The fault I would find with the Secretary to the Treasury, if I were to find fault at all, is that he had to make full confession of the errors which have been committed in connection with the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act in Ireland. I am not surprised that the Government were a little surprised by the magnitude of the claims for Old Age Pensions in Ireland, because after all it is only Irishmen having an intimate acquaintance with the country

  2087
  who know the profound depths of poverty which are to be found in some parts. What did the Secretary to the Treasury say? He made a strong defence for the agents of the Treasury who were sent over to Ireland. I must say that when we heard that these agents of the Treasury were to be sent over to Ireland we had a certain amount of apprehension. We have had many dealings with the Treasury in respect of Ireland, and it was quite unnecessary for the Chief Secretary to say that he had no responsibility for the action of the Treasury. He did not require to repudiate that. We know that the right hon. Gentleman has plenty of contentions with the Treasury with regard to the treatment of Irish questions. What did the Secretary to the Treasury have to confess? Here is our indictment of the administration of pensions in Ireland. The indictment was summed up in the pregnant interruption of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke. The Secretary to the Treasury was describing how cases of uncertainty and doubt arose, and the Member for Stoke made, I think, a very telling and a very unanswerable interruption. The hon. Member asked: Is it not your duty to give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant? That is a view of the Old Age Pensions Act that is confirmed by the debates which took place when the measure was going through the House of Commons. An hon. Friend has called my attention to the fact that a Noble Lord, one of the few sincere and consistently uncompromising opponents of the Old Age Pensions Bill, proposed an Amendment, which, if it had been accepted, would have thrown the onus of proving age on the person applying for a pension. That Amendment was rejected at the instance of the Attorney-General for England. I need not quote the words in which the Attorney-General justified the rejection of the Amendment. Suffice it to say, that the Attorney-General rejected all proposals to throw the onus of proof on the person applying for a pension. Let us apply that to what took place in Ireland. Some of the cases which have been cited to-day were most astonishing. It was admitted in some of the cases by the Secretary to the Treasury that the name was found in the census of 1841 and omitted in the census of 1851. Well, I ask any man in his senses if he had to choose between these two censuses with regard to a question of age in connection with an application for an old age pension, he would not consider that the whole
  2088
  tendency would be to place reliance on the census of 1841 rather than on that of 1851. You can understand a man's name appearing in the census of 1851 and not in that of 1841, but how in the name of common sense can you imagine that it is proof against a man having reached a pensionable age when he is in the census of 1841 but omitted from that of 1851? It is a thing which appears to be an entire reversal of all the laws of probability that I have ever heard of. The Chief Secretary said that the census of 1851 was a better census than that of 1841.
  Mr. BIRRELL: It was the other way round.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Well, the other way round. I do not care which way you put it. I say that if a name appears in the census of 1841, and does not appear in the census of 1851, the natural and only conclusion is that there has been neglect to enter it in the census of 1851. If the name was in the census of 1841 that showed that the man was entitled to a pension, but if it was not in the census of 1851 you put the onus of proof on the applicant for a pension. That is the first charge to which the hon. Gentleman has pleaded guilty. The second charge to which he has pleaded guilty is this. In some cases the pension claimed was rejected, because a man's name was not in the census according to the statement of the pension officer. Inquiries were made by the applicant, either by himself, or through a friend, and the result went to prove that the pension officer was wrong and that the applicant for a pension was right. I was astounded to think that in a question so vital to the unfortunate people who were applying for pensions, the officials sent over to investigate all these cases should have been proved guilty of gross mis-statement and gross injustice, and of having examined these census records so carelessly as not to see the names set out in black and white of the men applying for pensions. I have great sympathy for any Minister who is trying to defend an indefensible case. He is not bound, as he would be in a class for logic, to carefully scrutinise the logic or good sense of the defence he makes, but in all my experience of extraordinary defences I do not know that I ever heard anything more extraordinary than that of the Secretary to the Treasury. He said: "Mark how magnanimous we were when our officer was not able to find

  2089
  the name set forth in black and white in the census paper, and when his carelessness and error were proved; we, in the bounteousness of our generosity, gave the pension to the applicant." [An HON. MEMBER: "Restored."] He restored the pension to the applicant; but in the name of Heaven what else could he do when his agents were proved to be guilty of what I call not only gross but very cruel error in regard to these pensions? What is the moral of the whole discussion? The first moral, of course, I am glad to say, is that the charges which were made against the Irish people have been found to be unjustified. It has been said that when a lie against Ireland is set agoing not all the foxhounds in the country would be able to catch it up. I am firmly convinced that a large number of the people of this country will believe that the Irish people were proved to have been guilty of a gigantic attempt at fraud in connection with the Old Age Pension Act. I think I am justified in anticipating that there will be no great means taken to disabuse the minds of the English people in regard to this gross and, I may say, gigantic error at the expense of the character and reputation of the Irish people.
  That is the first moral of this Debate, but there is a second. When a man gets up in this House and declares that his subordinates the officials are animated by nothing but the highest and most generous motives I am always reminded of one of Victor Hugo's novels, "Les Misérables," where he is describing the classical and well-established and standard form of the prosecuting counsel, especially under the Imperial Government such as existed when this book was written. The prosecuting counsel always speak of a general as "this illustrious general," of a politician as "this most eminent statesman," and of the poor man in the dock as "this miserable wretch glorying in his crime," and so on. The same kind of language is used with regard to the general whether he be a victor in the field or one of those gentlemen who have brought disaster on their country; while the politician, no matter what he has done, is always the eminent statesman; and so the official is always the generous high-minded official in the mouth of the Minister speaking on his behalf whether he be on the Liberal or Conservative side of the House. I am not inconsiderate enough not to sympathise with that attitude of the Minister. He considers it his duty to take up that attitude; but that
  2090
  is not the conviction I hold with regard to the attitude of those Treasury emissaries that have been dealing with this matter in Ireland. I maintain that from the lips of the Secretary to the Treasury himself the charge has been proved, that instead of giving the benefit of the doubt to the applicant for the pension they almost strain the evidence against the applicant. I have not wilfully used exaggerated language with regard to that, but I take these different cases put forward by my hon. Friend and admitted by the hon. Gentleman himself as proving the charge which we make.
  I see my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board for England present. I take advantage of his presence to point a contrast not certainly in his disfavour. A touching statement of his was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for East Tyrone how in one of these daily marchings up and down this great capital of wealth, but also of great misery, he found himself on Clapham Common. There he encountered an old lady who was not able to prove her age except by a sampler. I notice that my young Friend with all his erudition did not know what a sampler was, but a sampler to me is like some dim familiar affectionate echo from that past which, in my case, spreads over a much longer period of life than that of my young Friend. A sampler was a familiar article of furniture, if I may so describe it, in every household in Ireland when I was a boy, the same age as my hon. and learned Friend. The right hon. Gentleman said that this lady could not bring testimony with regard to her age. Did he recommend any of these officials to declare, as they were asked in the circular of instructions quoted by my learned Friends, that the onus of proof must be laid upon her because she was not able to prove her age from the census? Did he say if her name appears in the census of 1841, but does not appear in the census of 1851, that you must decide there was a primâ facie case against it? Not at all. He said, "Produce your sampler, and if your sampler shows that you have even a primâ facie case in favour of old age pension I will take very good care that you get an old age pension." That was the true spirit in which this Act was meant to be administered by the Parliament which passed it into law.
  In Ireland, whenever we see a Treasury official on the horizon, we know that there is danger ahead. I should have thought

  2091
  that we might have been agreeably disappointed on this occasion; I should have thought that even a Treasury official, hide-bound as he necessarily is—and I do not blame him for it—hide-bound as he is in the traditions of his office, whose chief duty is to be niggardly to everybody who makes applications for money, I should have thought that even when coming to Ireland, familiar as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, and therefore as he must have been as one of his officials, with the terrible stories of Irish poverty, familiar as he must have been with the generous intentions of this assembly in passing this great Act for the benefit of the forlorn and broken soldiers of life and poverty, I should have thought that the Treasury official, for once in the course of his life, would act on the principle of giving the benefit of the doubt instead of throwing the onus of proof on the applicant. He did nothing of the kind, and in saying this I do so largely from the admission of the Secretary of the Treasury. So long as that body has any control in Ireland or sends an emissary into Ireland it will maintain its traditional attitude of hostility to the people.
  Mr. HUGH BARRIE: I listened with interest to the Debate this afternoon and to what was said in reference to the unexpectedly large number of old age pensioners in Ireland and the contention that Ireland has got more than her share. I am bound to say from my own experience of the part of the country which I represent we have found that the number of pensioners has greatly exceeded what it was thought it would be. We understood when this law came into force that we should have something like 2,200 pensioners in our county. We have found now that the total is something over 5,000. I am bound to say in that connection I believe that our pensions committee exercised the closest scrutiny of all claims put before them, and that there was no difference between them and the pensions officers. At the same time there has been, despite the closest scrutiny, quite a number—of course, a small number relatively—in which pensioners have been put upon the roll who were not entitled to be put there, and, on the other hand, I frankly at once admit there are a number who we believe were entitled to pensions who have not succeeded in getting put on in that way. I think I agree with the Member for East Tyrone that, on the whole, it is probable
  2092
  that as many have been debarred from, getting their pension as have succeeded in getting them improperly. A great deal has been said this evening, and the Chief Secretary dwelt at some little length upon it, as to the relative value of the census of 1841 and that of 1851, and I think if we are to have the natural result of what the Chief Secretary has said and what was said on the benches below, that the census of 1841 is generally more accurate or believed to be more accurate than the census of 1851, then I think the case is thoroughly made out that those pensioners who have been struck off because they appear in the one case as two years of age in 1841 and in the other as nine years of age in 1851 should not have been struck off. I think in these cases the wrong that has been done should be put right as quickly as possible.
  I am not going to enter into the large economic question as to how it was that Ireland has received so much larger a share of the pension money than was anticipated; but this I may say, that now that the immediate stress of the beginning is over we believe that every fresh claim for a pension is being very closely scrutinised both by the pensions committee and by the officers themselves, and I have ventured to interpose in this Debate because I want to say a word as regards the work of the pension officers charged with the carrying out of this very onerous duty. I recall that, I believe with perfect innocence, a few of these pension officers were interviewed by enterprising journalists at the time the scheme first came into operation, and gave in perfect good faith, not understanding that they were breaking any Regulations, some information as regards the number of pensions which had been claimed, and the prompt action of the Treasury was to fine these gentlemen a sharp penalty of £10, as to which I am not aware whether it has since been remitted or not. I only mention it now in order that we may have a statement from the Secretary to the Treasury on the point, because I believe that in quite a number of cases in Ireland that penalty was exacted. Where it was imposed there was some undertaking given that where the officer was of unblemished record the matter would be reconsidered once the pressure of his pensions work was over, and I invite the Financial Secretary to state whether that has been done or not.
  I do not believe it is generally understood how severe the duties put upon these

  2093
  officers proved to be. In my own district we have had a painful reminder of it. The supervisor of the district, of which Coleraine is the centre, had charge of something like 100 square miles, looking over the sub-officers over the district. He brought a gang of men into it, a set of 50, with his splendid record in the service, and it is a matter of common local knowledge that for some months his hours of work imposed upon him by this duty were 18 hours a day, Sunday included, and as a result of the duties, which were most satisfactorily performed, his health was undermined, and after a short attack of pneumonia he died some six weeks ago. I only mention that now in order that when overtures are made to the Treasury there may be a recognition of his services by the granting of some small allowance, what I believe they term a compassionate allowance, for his widow and the family left behind. I gladly join in the testimony as to the general excellence with which the work of these officers was performed. I hope that the result of this Debate this afternoon will be to satisfy the British people that while, of course, it does look extraordinary that under this scheme Ireland should have captured some £2,300,000, an amount greatly in excess of the sum secured by Scotland, which has practically the same population, I hope the result of this Debate will be to recognise that whatever may be the explanation—and I carefully refrain from entering into the question—that all these pensions, so far as 95 per cent. of them are concerned, have gone to the people for whom they were intended, and for whom they have proved to be a very great boon indeed.
  Mr. GEORGE MURNAGHAN (who was indistinctly heard): We have had a very interesting Debate this afternoon on a very important subject. I wish to add a word or two to the statement made by my hon. Friend. I submit this Pension Act could be administered by the pension officers in the spirit described by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, but, in the circular which he sent to them in February, he fettered their discretion by directing that they must have documentary evidence of a claimant's age. That circular has affected the action of the pension officers very much, and if the Act is to be worked according to the spirit he has described, it will be well for him to withdraw that circular. All these pension officers believe that they must have documentory evidence on every
  2094
  claim that is laid before them, otherwise they object to the granting of a pension. I myself have had some experience of the working of the pensions committee. I am a member of one, and up to a certain period—I think about the second week in February—all the claims were considered fairly and on their merits, and there was no desire on the part of the committee other than to give the pension to any person thought to be properly entitled to receive it. The committee of which I am a member consists of nine, and not one of those nine members has any desire to see any person get a pension who has not the necessary qualification. The rule is that the applicant should be of full age, and that his income should not be in excess of that allowed by the law. Owing to the circular to which I have referred having been sent out the pension officers feel it to be their duty to insist upon having documentary evidence in every case. I have in mind the instance of an old woman of over 70. I know her brother—a man of 85 years of age—and the evidence he gave went to show that she was over 70 years of age, yet the pension officer would not grant the pension. The Treasury tells the pension officers that it is the desire of the Department and of the Government to give a kindly interpretation to the working of this Act; but I must say that these officers after the receipt of that circular will not feel that they are permitted to do so. I urge the Secretary to the Treasury to withdraw the circular, and so give the pension officers freedom of judgment to satisfy themselves as to age and the means of income. Will the hon. Gentleman allow them that freedom of judgment? I would like to have an answer to that question, because it is a very important one. I was glad to hear him say that he desired the pension committee to have a certain amount of freedom of judgment; but I know instances where the committee have recommended pensions on certificates, affidavits, and other evidence given by competent and responsible persons, but which have been refused by the pension officers. I myself gave evidence in favour of a claimant, and the committee decided in his favour, but it was objected to by the pension officer, and the case eventually came to the Local Government Board. In 72 cases there have been appeals, and in only two of those cases was a pension granted.
  I do not know what the arrangements of the Local Government Board are for judging these appeals. I do not think it has any opportunity of doing so. My opinion

  2095
  is that the appeal goes before some under officials in the Custom House, that it is simply looked at, and on its being seen that the pension officer has decided against the applicant, it is thrown on one side. It simply comes to this, that these appeals are not looked at at all, and the applicants are refused pensions. No information is given as to whether any inquiry has been made; nor do I see how they are to make inquiry. They do not seem to go about it in any way. Sometimes affidavits are sent up, and sometimes the testimony of witnesses is copied and sent up, and I would like to know whether that sort of documentary evidence is dealt with merely superficially, and whether it is taken for granted the objection of the pension officer is right, and that the pension committee is wrong. My point is that 70 of these appeals were decided in favour of the pension officers, and only two in favour of the pension committee. The power of officials to go round making inquisitorial investigations seems to frighten many of the people. Then what about the hundreds of cases in which the claimants have no documentary evidence to prove their case? Are they to remain for ever without pensions? They have no information from the Local Government Board as to the grounds on which these pensions have been refused. Unless a claimant can tell the townland on which he was residing in the year 1841 or the year 1851, all trace of his family is lost. He must be able to tell the townland where he was born if he is to succeed, but some of these people cannot remember that, and do not remember it, and, therefore, they are deprived of the pension. I think that is really a serious matter. It seems to me that if they can get satisfactory evidence, such as certificates from the clergyman, from the magistrate, or from some other responsible persons who know the circumstances, it should be accepted as proof of age. Will the Secretary to the Treasury withdraw the circular of February calling on pension officers to insist on documentary evidence? Will he give the pension officers the right to use their own judgment in the matter, and will he allow the certificate of clergymen, magistrates, and respectable people to be received as evidence of age in the different localities? I think the hon. Gentleman, by taking such action as I suggest, would give the pension officers freedom of judgment and the pension committee the means of satisfying themselves by the evidence as to
  2096
  the applicants who are entitled to receive the pension.
  And it being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL [By Order].
  As amended, considered.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: It is not my intention to delay the House more than a few moments. The Bill that is under consideration has very far-reaching effects, because it affects thousands of gas consumers in London and in the borough of West Ham. The reason that I put down the Resolution that stands in my name is because there is some difference between the West Ham Corporation and the Gas Company. I am under the impression that between now and the final stage of the third reading there is the possibility of an agreement between the Gas Company and the West Ham Corporation. That being so, I do not intend to move my Resolution.
  Bill to be read the third time.

  WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL (SUPERANNUATION, ETC.) BILL
  [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Motion made and Question proposed: an Amendment to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months." The point I desire to raise may by some Members be considered to be rather a Committee point. There has grown up a habit, which is becoming more general, of public authority in these Bills making payments to superannuation funds compulsory upon their officers. This Bill is one of those, and in clause 8 of the Bill there are two provisons made. The first is, that if an officer who has paid into this council superannuation fund resigns for any reason whatever, good, bad or indifferent, he forfeits the payment that he has made to the

  2097
  fund. I know perfectly well that some public authorities have got Bills with this provision through the House. I think the time has come for the House to say whether it proposes to allow that sort of thing to go on or not. An officer is compelled; he has no choice but, as a condition of his employment, to subscribe to the fund. I hold the subscriptions are his private property, and that, being his private property, they ought not to be alienated if he, to benefit himself or for any other reason, wishes to leave his position. There is another provision in this clause 8 that if an officer has been guilty of some misdemeanour then he may forfeit the payments he has made to the fund. Now this looks a more reasonable provision, but again I object. I think it is an exceedingly bad principle. If an officer is guilty of misdemeanour a court of law, and not the committee of a public authority, ought to have the power to forfeit his private property.
  Those of us who have experience of municipal government know that there are committees and committees, that there are public authorities and public authorities, and if you put in the hands of the committee of a public authority the power of saying that under these circumstances this or that money paid by an officer should be forfeited, then you never know where you get. You have no guarantee you get justice. Prejudice may come in, anything may come in, and the officer has no redress. I do not believe that this House for a single moment will sanction this. I do not know if those who are going to defend the Bill are going to quote precedent. I admit straight away they have precedents against us. The question has never been raised, I think, before this, and I think it is a question which ought to be raised on second reading, and not merely discussed in Committee. Then there is a third point, and it is the last objection I make to the Bill. In clause 16 of the Bill the payments made to the City Superannuation Fund are provided. Now, I hold that if superannuation fund payments are to be made compulsory on public servants they must be made compulsory on one condition, and that is that the servants paying into those funds are to find their payments supplemented by contributions from the rates, and if you were going to have compulsory insurance for public servants, the public authorities compelling the servants to insure ought to take from the servants a contribution sufficiently high to make the fund actuarially sound, or in
  2098
  other words, the superannuation fund made up by contributions from the servants ought not to be actuarially sound, but ought to require some contribution from the rates.
  I have been informed by a pretty eminent actuary that the Bill as drawn up, the Westminster Bill, will mean that the officers subscriptions will of themselves establish the fund upon an actuarially sound foundation. Not only is that the case, but I have an extract here taken from the Minutes of 15th November, 1908, from the Report of the Legal and Parliamentary Committee of the Westminster City Council. That committee reported:
  "Any deficiency in the fund would be met out of the general rates, but it is anticipated that for some years, and henceforth from time to time the contributions to the fund would be more than sufficient to meet the calls upon it, and that the net surplus thus arising could be invested to advantage so that in the course of time the interest arising from the invested fund and the contributions of the officers will be sufficient to meet all the calls upon the fund without any assistance from the rates."
  Now, that is my case. The three points that I bring forward in no hostile spirit to the Westminster City Corporation are first of all, if you are going to have compulsory payment, and I do not object to them at all, those payments must be regarded as the private property of the officers who pay them. Secondly, they must not be forfeited, certainly not forfeited if the officer resigns without any stain on his character, or without any reason save to benefit himself or change his employment. I do not think that a good and sound and just cause could be made out for the forfeiture of those payments, even, if the officer has misconducted himself, because that is the function of a court of law, and not of a committee. Thirdly, if these funds were going to be created they ought not to be actuarially sound, except that the payment to the officers are augmented by the payments from the rates. I move accordingly.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I rise to second this Motion for the purpose especially of getting an explanation, if possible, upon one or two points in the Bill. In clause 8 the term "misconduct" is used as a justification for calling upon an officer to resign. That may be merely a question of want of discipline. It is a very loose term to use in this connection, and I should like some interpretation of it. For instance, would it be misconduct if a man in his spare time was an officer of a trade union, organising the other workmen in the employ of the city council? If the city

  2099
  council decided that he was not to occupy that position in his spare time, and he still insisted on remaining a member of his trade union, would that be considered misconduct within the terms of this clause? I am strongly of opinion, unless there is some other interpretation of the term, that disobedience by the officer concerned to any order given by the council, or by its chief officers, would be considered as sufficient misconduct for the purpose of this clause. In that case, the mere failure to carry out the orders of a superior officer would involve resignation, voluntary or otherwise, and might also involve the loss of the money deducted compulsorily from the wages of the men concerned. I notice, further, that in the clauses dealing with deductions from wages the term "servants" is used, while throughout the remaining part of the Bill the term used is "officer." I should like, therefore, to be sure that this is not a superannuation scheme for the superior officers of the council to the exclusion of the ordinary workmen. I do not say it is, but I should like the hon. Member for Westminster's statement that that is not the case. We cannot be too careful, seeing that we are giving very great powers under this Bill to the city council. We are allowing them, for instance, practically to repeal, so far as their workpeople are concerned, the Shop Clubs Act, which absolutely prohibits a firm from forcing any employé to belong to a fund or shop club of this description. We also have special law dealing with industrial concerns in the matter of these institutions, such as provident funds, and so on, started by private contractors and others; and where a council is asking for very big powers of this description we want to be certain that, if those powers are granted, the benefits, if any, will be distributed among the poorer workers as well as the well-salaried officers of the council.
  Question proposed: "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: It is, I think, very unfortunate that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway should take advantage of the present Bill to raise this question, not only because, as I think the hon. Member for Leicester admitted, there are many precedents for this measure, but because the Bill is, I believe, more generous to the workman than any Act of the same
  2100
  kind hitherto passed by Parliament. In this case, and, I believe, in this case alone, a workman is entitled to a pension at 60 years of age, not 65, without regard to length of service. In every other Act of the kind, I believe, the pension age is 65, and a provision is included that the workman must have been either 30 or 40 years, in the service. A second point in which this Bill is more favourable to the workmen than other Acts is in regard to the contributions demanded from the workmen. I feel so strongly that all the points which have been raised are really Committee points, that I hesitate to detain the House by going into details. I would, however, point out that, while in other Bills the scale of contribution varies from 2 per cent. of the wages and emoluments—that is 4 4–5d. in the £—up to 3 per cent., or 7 l–5d. in the £, according to the length of service, in the Westminster Bill the workmen whose wages do not exceed 25s. a week will pay only 4d.; the workmen receiving from 25s. to 30s. per week will pay 5d.; and those receiving from 30s. to 35s. per week will pay 6d. These contributions are more favourable to the workmen than those in any other similar Act.
  I will deal very briefly with the three points raised by the hon. Member for Leicester. The hon. Member for Stoke added one other question with regard to the application of the superannuation provisions to workmen as well as officers. I can assure the hon. Member that the word "officer," wherever it is used, is intended to include all workmen, but if there should be any doubt upon the point it can be put right in Committee. The hon. Member for Leicester objects to the provisions of clause 16. I do not exactly understand how he will arrange a fund, which must of necessity be an insurance fund, without making provision for the accumulations being dealt with in the future. The House will understand that it is absolutely essential. You cannot arrange an insurance fund without there being accumulations. For instance, the contributions from the rates are made pari passu with the contributions from the workman. Those contributions from the rates would have been paid to the fund in such cases as we are dealing with, where the workman ceased connection with the fund before he was entitled to a pension. He would, of course, get his own contributions back, but he would not get the contributions from the rates. Therefore, there must be sums of money

  2101
  constantly accumulating, and such a clause (which the hon. Member admitted is actuarially sound) is necessary to provide for such a state of things. Well, I think the hon. Member, in reference to the term actuarially sound, said it must be actuarially unsound to satisfy his desires.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: The point is this: that if you are compelling your officers to insure you ought to do so under the condition that their insurance premiums shall be supplemented from public sources. That is the point. Therefore your fund ought not to be actuarially sound owing to the contributions from the officers themselves. This actuarial soundness ought only to be obtained after the officers' contributions have been supplemented by the contributions from the council.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: I will not discuss the very large question as to whether it is a wise thing to establish an insurance fund or not, or whether that fund should be compulsory. All I wished to point out was that it would pass the ingenuity or ability of the hon. Member, and it would pass the wit of man to arrange a scheme which would really carry out his intention. I can quite understand that if the contribution from the rates was made when the pension was due that some such arrangement as he desires might be made. But if the contribution from the rates is made pari passu with the contribution from the workmen that contribution from the rates must accumulate, and there must be provision for that in this Bill. I now come to the second point. That point was also referred to by the hon. Member for Stoke. It was whether a workman should be entitled to the return of his contribution if he is dismissed on account of fraud or grave misconduct. May I ask the attention of the hon. Member for Stoke for one moment in order to answer while I am upon this point the question which he put? He desired a definition of the word "misconduct," and he put some hypothetical case, some very light offence, which might be construed into misconduct, and might render the workman liable to the loss of his contributions. That was a point that I must say that I was somewhat curious upon; but I find in some other Acts that grave misconduct is defined as "anything involving pecuniary loss and injury to the authority." It is not any light misconduct, or anything about which there can be any doubt. It is a crime in one
  2102
  or two of the Acts which I have got here by me. But it has a general definition, and that is the idea of the promoters of the Bill in their use of the word. I am sure the city council would be prepared to insert words if my hon. Friend is not satisfied with simply the word "misconduct," words which would protect the workmen against any arbitrary action or injustice. May I say upon this question of fraud that there is no desire to bear hardly upon the workmen. It has been thought that as this insurance fund is created and not contributed to by workmen that it would be well that there should be a deterrent arranged for on the part of the workmen against what I have just explained as grave misconduct. I do not think that the general body of workmen, either those employed under this body or anywhere else, are particularly anxious to see the deterrent removed. In my communications with people so employed they have been rather anxious—they have considered it as a point of honour—that the fraudulent employé should be separated from the rest by some sort of provision like this.
  I come to the point raised by the hon. Member as to whether a workman who voluntarily resigns before he is entitled to his pension should be deprived of his contributions to the pension fund. Upon that point I am thoroughly and entirely in agreement with my hon. Friend. I do not know why the Bill was drawn up as it has been with this provision in it, because I cannot find anybody to whom I have talked and who are responsible for this Bill who would sanction such a thing. Therefore I can undertake in good faith to make certain that the Bill will be altered in that respect, so that should the workman desire to better himself, to change his employment, or leave the service of the Westminster City Council, he will have his contributions to the superannuation fund returned in full. I have endeavoured to answer all the points so far as I could put before the House, and I would like to urge upon this House to give this Bill a second reading. I venture to think that the explanation I have offered on these main principles which have been discussed by the hon. Member for Leicester have satisfied the hon. Member, and I venture to hope that hon. Members will let the Bill go through, because they will have another opportunity of discussing it.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: In view of the comments of my hon. Friend that he

  2103
  will meet me on the first point, although I have my feelings on the second and third, and as this is only the second reading of the Bill, and as I will have another opportunity of raising the question, I propose to ask the House to allow me to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

SUPPLY.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1909–10.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS (IRELAND).
    Postponed proceeding on Question, "That a sum not exceeding £4,750,000 be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st day of March, 1910, for Old Age Pensions and Administrative Charges in connection therewith resumed."
    Mr. J. C. R. LARDNER: I heard the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in his endeavour to show that the Old Age Pensions Act was being generously administered in Ireland, pointing to the case of a farmer with 100 or 200 acres who was in possession of an old age pension. The area of the farm is not at all germane to the question. It may be a poor mountainy farm of the very worst character, held at a nominal rate of £2 or £.3 a year, so that I was a little surprised to hear the Chief Secretary, who is usually so sympathetic to Ireland, giving us this case as an instance of the generous administration of the Act. When you come to the question of appraising the incomes for old age pensions of the occupants of farms I must say that, from my own personal experience and observation of the working of the Act, I wholly disagree with him, and I think this 100-acre farm is a very farfetched case indeed, and one of the very worst which the right hon. Gentleman could have selected. There is no doubt that the general principle which has been adopted by the pension officers in Ireland in assessing the incomes of claimants has been to take 2½ or 3 times the annual rent of the holding, when it is a farm held at an ordinary judicial rent, and in the
    2104
    case of a tenant-purchaser the figure is put at four times the annuity. That rule, although it has worked arbitrarily and has nothing to support it, and is a mere theoretic standard, has not created any great hardships in Ireland, except perhaps in one class of cases, and these cases in which the entire sympathy of the pensions committee and of the legislative body should be directed to endeavour to see that, above all, people of the particular class to whom I allude should have the benefit of the Act. I refer to those broken-down, worn-out, old occupiers of small farms. In these cases one usually finds perhaps a widow, whose children have all gone to America, or perhaps a widow who has had no family at all, and the same occurs in the case of some poor, old, broken-down man living alone. Here we have this poor man or woman, worn out after a life of toil, broken down, living upon a farm which does not yield sufficient to enable them to pay rent; they are unable to employ any labour, and are driven to their last resource, namely, setting up the farm to auction for grazing purposes or for conacre. I have one case in my mind of a little farm which, when put up realised £16 12s. 6d., and another £17. There was another case where the valuation was £10 and the rent was £5, and these were set up for auction for conacre and grazing. The entire means of livelihood to those tenants for the year was the produce of that sale. Yet the construction put on the regulations by the pension is this, that this is a case that comes within subsection (c), section 40, of the Act, and which enabled the pensions officer to investigate whether the farm was being profitably used. What right has he to lecture those unfortunate people about the profitable use of land? These are old people broken down in health and strength, and the only one means of living they have is of selling the farm or getting evicted, and having to go to the workhouse. What is the practice of the pensions officer in this matter in Ireland? If the pensions committee approves of these cases the officer appeals to the Local Government Board, and they hold that this is a farm which is not profitably used, and they assess the income of the claimant in that very case at three or four times the rent. The result is that you have people who may be confined to bed, or at any rate who are completely broken down in general health, living upon a farm which they cannot till, refused an old age pension because this construction has been put upon the regulations by the pensions

    2105
    officer. While I am on that point I should like to refer to something the Chief Secretary said upon the transfer of land by fathers to sons, the father preserving an annuity, or maintenance, and in some cases in lieu of maintenance, and in some cases also no support or maintenance whatever. In the ordinary everyday avocation which I follow in Ireland it has been my lot to have numbers of these pensions claimants come before me, and in many cases it is not a matter of a transfer effected immediately before the Act came into force with a view of qualifying for the pension. I am referring to cases of transfer effected years ago, where the farmer assigned the farm to the son to enable the son to get married, reserving to himself the right of support and maintenance and keep in the house given over to his son, and which was formerly his own house. The pensions officer comes along and says that was a good and bonâ fide transaction, but your support, maintenance and keep disqualifies you from an old age pension. I know that a valuation has been put upon support, maintenance, and keep the farmer, because under all these agreements the old man, knowing that he is coming near to the end of his life, and that he is practically in sight of the grave, seeing a young wife coming in, says: "I may yet have to make a home for myself and go elsewhere," and therefore a clause is put into the agreement that in the event of a disagreement turning up the old man shall cease to live with the married pair, and shall receive £10 a year if he goes out. In that case the pensions officer comes along, and says your support and maintenance and keep is worth more than £30 a year. He seizes on it as if it were an absolute transfer, whereas it is an unconscionable document and one that no court in Ireland would ever stand over. I see the Attorney-General for Ireland in his place, and I am sure he will tell the House that where a man divests himself of his entire property without intending to make proper provision for himself, and having regard to his circumstances, the court would revoke that document, and the Chief Secretary, I am afraid, afforded us an example of endeavouring to strain the argument when he brought forward as an illustration this class of farmer, who, he said, put their sons into their farms and tried to secure for themselves support worth £10 a year. It is straining the argument for the purpose of trying to show that the pension officer has to put a valuation of £30 a year upon
    2106
    the man's support, maintenance, and keep. Let me take another case. It is the case of a small tenant farmer who had £500 in the bank and who occupied a farm of the anuual valuation of £5, and had an annuity of £4 4s. The £500 was on deposit at 1 per cent., and brought in £5 a year, the annuity was £4 4s., and, accepting the maximum, his income was £16 16s. Added to that £5 you get £21 16s., which left the claimant qualified for a very substantial pension. Notwithstanding regulation 45 of the Instruction to Pensions Officers, what happened when this case came before the pensions officer? The Committee granted the man a pension of 4s. a week on the basis of an income of £21 16s. The pension officer appealed, and it went before the Local Government Board, and the Local Government Board disallowed the pension on the ground that the income of the claimant was outside the statutory allowance. How does that work out? Rule 45 says that the yearly value of money invested must be taken as the amount of income derived from investment. The only conclusion we can come to in this case is that the pension officer values the farm at seven times the annual rent, and that view was backed up by the Local Government Board. I think that is a very harsh and unconscionable view to take, and one that should not find the support of anyone interested in the proper working of the Old Age Pensions Act in Ireland.
    I come now to the question of age. There is the case which has already been mentioned of a claimant whose name appears in the census of 1841, and also in the census of 1851, the former being favourable and the latter unfavourable to the claimant. In this case the pension was granted at first, but the pension officer comes down with a certificate from the 1841 census and disqualifies the claimant. A clergyman, who was a member of the pension committee, and who knew this was a case about which there could be no doubt, went to Dublin himself, made an inspection, and found that the claimant was qualified under the 1851 census, and produced a certificate to that effect. Had that clergyman not hunted up that certificate, no doubt, on the strength of the pension officer's report on the 1841 census, this claimant would have been disqualified. I would like to know whether, when these appeals on the ground of age come before the Local Government Board, they make any search themselves in the Census Office. Do they send a member of the staff to the Record Office? Have they ever considered?

    2107
    the many reasons and causes that govern the absence of names from the Census Returns?
    I have made inquiries amongst some of the oldest inhabitants in my district in reference to the absence of the names of well-known families from the census. In one case in county Tyrone the officer said he had been to inquire in all the houses on the roadside, but he had not inquired on the mountainside where the old people had lived, and they were disqualified on the ground, that they could not produce any documentary evidence. Another reason why these census difficulties have arisen is that the Irish people are intensely patriotic and intensely national, and they cling to their old Irish names, notwithstanding the statutory obligation which requires them to take some English name. The result is that some members of the family get known by the alternative name. In another case the absence of a name from the register was found to be due to the fact that the mother hid her sons under the bed because she thought the census officers were soldiers looking for her sons in order to take their names for conscription.
    These are all reasons explaining absence of names from the census, but all these difficulties could be got over by local evidence. These difficulties would not have arisen if the Inland Revenue office had stuck to the circular issued on 4th November, which stated that after carefully considering the matter the Board had decided that in cases where no documentary evidence could be produced, and where the pension officer had no doubt that the claimant was over 70 years of age, and the clergymen of the district where the claimant lived was prepared to state in writing that the applicant was over 70 years of age, further evidence might be dispensed with. On the 3rd February another circular was issued setting forth that documentary evidence must be produced. The hon. Member for East Mayo has described the circular of the 3rd February as fetter on the pension officer, but the Secretary to the Treasury has denied that contention. I can prove beyond doubt that that circular is a fetter which operated very effectively from a Treasury standpoint. In one pension committee's department, from 1st October to 31st December, 1908, 500 claims were sent to the old age pension committees, and only 6 per cent. were dis-
    2108
    allowed by the pension officer. From 1st January to 1st May this year 420 claims were received, and no less than 210, or 50 per cent., were disallowed, whereas in the previous period only 6 per cent. had been disallowed, as the result of issuing the circular to which I have referred no less than 50 per cent. were disallowed. I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will consider the position at the present moment. I know of cases of applicants for old age pensions in regard to whom census returns are not available, and although it can easily be proved they are a great deal older than 70 years, they have not been accepted as pensioners. I think all these instances show that the Act has not been properly administered. Surely we are entitled to know upon what principle the appeals are dealt with by the Local Government Board. I was delighted to hear the Chief Secretary undertake to furnish us with the grounds upon which many of these appeals have been dismissed. Without giving any names, I want the Chief Secretary to give us a Return showing the number of appeals which have been sent in. We want to know whether they have been disallowed on the ground of age, means, absence in America, or for having received poor relief. If he gives me this information he will go a long way to bear out what we are contending for, namely, that this appeal system is far from satisfactory. When these appeals are sent up do they go to the head of the Department or are they considered by a first or second division clerk? Are they rushed through in a hurry, and is the decision of one supervised by his superior? What I want to know is, who is responsible for these decisions of the Local Government Board? A more extraordinary tribunal never before existed than exists in these cases. I do not think you can conceive anything like it in the length and breadth of the British Empire. A man goes before the Local Government Board, and some clerk, I suppose, questions him as to his means, and the only evidence which can be adduced is the evidence of the accused man himself. I want to bring a serious anomaly under the notice of the Government. Under Regulation 14 subsection 5 when a claim for an old age pension is disallowed by the committee, the committee are bound to send notice to the claimant of their decision and the ground on which they have disallowed it. But they never send information to the Local Government Board if a claim has been refused. That practice leaves room for serious abuse. I think I can give an

    2109
    example which will convince the Chief Secretary that some alteration ought to be made in the existing laws. A case came before the attention of the committee. The pension officer agreed that he was entitled to a pension of 4s., but the pension committee held that he was entitled to a pension of 5s., and it was granted to him. An appeal was made to the Local Government Board, and they decided that he was to have no pension at all. I should like to suggest that the Local Government Board should intimate to a claimant their decision and the grounds thereof. It would obviate to a large extent the objections which I have made with regard to the decision of the Local Government Board. The greater part of the irritation and annoyance which exist in Ireland is due to the way in which people who are looking for pensions are treated by the pension officers and the Local Government Board. I remember in the early stage of the working of the Act claimants made out their cases, but the pension officers found reasons why pensions should not be given. We are told that no special instructions have been given with reference to Ireland. I maintain that there have been special instructions given in regard to Ireland. That is one reason of the annoyance which has been created by the administration of the Act in Ireland. A second reason is that slander has been levelled against Ireland. It has been stated in this country that there has been wholesale fraud. If so, clergymen of all denominations, business men, and others must have been concerned in it, for otherwise the wholesale fraud could not have taken place. It has been stated in England that tens of thousands of people in Ireland have carried out this fraud. You sent over your Commissioners. What was the result? It was proved that there were less than two thousand persons had to be struck off. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated in this House that the investigations of the Commissioners showed that there was appalling evidence of poverty in Ireland. You must amend the system of administrating the Act in Ireland. You must be more candid with the people. You should make it clear that anyone who is entitled to a pension will get it. We ask for no special consideration whatever. If you give the pension to all those who are entitled to it in Ireland, it will do something to take away that bitterness of feeling which exists at the present moment, and will establish in the affections
    2110
    of the Irish people the founder of old age pensions.
    Mr. P. O'DOHERTY: I can corroborate all that the last speaker has said on this subject, but I wish to confine myself to the question of the inaccuracy of the census. Every man knows from experience that the census is inaccurate. The Census Returns could not be otherwise than inaccurate, because every person knows how the Census Returns were obtained. I myself remember very well policemen going about the country and leaving documents in the houses of small farmers. As a rule, however, the Census Returns were taken by some small boy, and, therefore, the information which was obtained was such on which there could be no reliance. It is on a census such as that which the administrative body relies in order to refuse the aged peasantry of Ireland old age pensions.
    It was in 1881, I believe, that I filled in the documents of which I have spoken, and if they were then inaccurate how much more liable are the Census Returns of 1851 and 1841 to be incorrect, and yet it is upon these later returns so much reliance is being placed by the authorities. It is a well known fact, I believe, that there is one case in which two brothers who are twins appear on the census, one as two years older than the other. That is one illustration of the inaccuracy of these papers. There is another case I have heard of, and I have every reason to believe the truth of the statement, that a person who appears on the census of 1851, and received a pension, belongs to a family another member of which is well known to be his senior, and yet that one by some unhappy accident or mischance has not his name on the census paper, and is deprived of his pension. Surely that is not a fair way to administer the Act! It is not the spirit in which it was intended to be administered, but that is one of the complaints which is causing so much bitterness in Ireland, because of the hardships which are known to result. I must say, from my own experience of the pension committees, that they are very careful indeed to see that no person who is not entitled to it gets a pension. They hear all the evidence and award a pension to the party who they think is entitled to it. The pension officer attends at the meeting, sits there with all the dignity and importance of a Treasury official, does not open his mouth to say a word, and leaves after the pension committee have made their award.

    2111
    But, having returned home, he writes to the Local Government Board intimating his intention to appeal against the decision of the committee. He gives no reason for his action, he does not state the grounds of his objection, and thus he prevents the pension committee from saving the poor claimant from the disaster that threatens him. This practice is being carried on to such an extent that in some districts the pension committees are threatening to resign, because they look upon it as a humiliation and an insult that the pension officer should treat their decisions in such a high-handed manner. The only reason why they do not resign is that they think they would be playing into the hands of the Treasury, and would thereby deprive these poor people, who look to them for advice, counsel, and assistance, of the benefits which the Act was intended to confer upon them. They continue to act, in fact, purely out of sympathy for these poor people, and under these circumstances I hope the Chief Secretary will give an undertaking that this practice shall not go on, and that the pension officer, if he determines to appeal, shall announce the ground of his appeal, and put the committee in a position to meet the objections he intends to raise. I am sure that the committees are as anxious as the officer himself to see that no person who is undeserving shall get a pension. I am a member of a pension committee myself, and I know that all my colleagues are most anxious to prevent pensions being granted to those who are not entitled to them. They do not wish that any person who is not entitled should receive even one farthing under the Old Age Pensions Act, and it should also be borne in mind that the great majority of the people are not either anxious or willing to get these pensions, but would prefer to be in a position to do without them. I only wish to say, in conclusion, that I appeal to the responsible authority to see that the two complaints which I have put forward are attended to. I want to ensure that no person as to whose age there is reliable evidence, even in the absence of certificates, shall be deprived of the pension because his name does not appear in the census; and, secondly, I ask that when appeals are made by pension officers behind the backs of the pension committee the officer shall state the ground upon which he bases his objection, and that the deserving applicants shall therefore not
    2112
    improperly be deprived of the benefits of an Act which has been passed for their advantage.
    Mr. JOHN MURPHY: Being a member of a pension committee I also am anxious to make a few remarks with regard to the general administration of this Act. But in the first place I must say that every Irish Member who speaks in a Debate in this House has reason to complain that he is called upon to address empty benches. It is deplorable that some of the Members who have spoken to-night have dissociated themselves with the claim which we are making for a fair administration of this Act. We are told that the administration is the same in Ireland as in England, but I doubt if it be possible to make out a good case in that respect, because if the Act was administered in the same way in the two countries, why should the Government have thought it necessary to send a commission of experts to Ireland, to find fault with recipients of the pensions, and to substantiate the charge which has been levelled against them of having secured a pension to which they are not entitled? I quite agree that the Secretary to the Treasury made a courteous speech, but he does not appear to me to have any information about the administration of Ireland at all. He was asked as to the number of pensioners in the different counties in Ireland, and he spoke of the difficulty of ascertaining, but every county in Ireland has a council, which has, under the Act, a pension committee, which is paid by the Treasury according to the number of pensioners in that particular county, and instead of having any difficulty about getting the information, I think any clerk of ordinary competence could in one day give the information. If that is the amount of information that the Treasury has about Ireland, it must be with some hopelessness that we approach any question with which they are connected, and over which they have any control. In my own part of the country I had to fill up over 500 pension papers. I was very well acquainted with all the applicants for pensions, and I am bound to say, in regard to the early applications, the pension officers did their duty sympathetically and well, and in all cases which came before our committee pensions were granted, until it was found that Ireland was going to get a larger share than was anticipated—a share which the Secretary to the Treasury has to admit was justifiable and de-

    2113
    served, and in which there was no fraud whatever. It was only when the Treasury interfered that the pension officers felt, as all public officials would feel, that it was their duty to find objections to the granting of pensions, instead of acting within the spirit of the Act of Parliament, in order to give a pension to every man and woman who was in need of it, and had reached the age of 70. Not only have we to complain of the Treasury, however, we have to complain of our own Local Government Board, because, as has been pointed out by hon. Members, even in the cases where the pension committees themselves allowed pensions of 2s., 3s., and 4s., where the appeal went to the Irish Local Government Board they actually, without any reason, as far as we can see, interfered with the pension officers and the committee's decision as to the amount and set it aside
    How did the English Local Government Board act when there was any question as to age, or any other matter? The matter was dealt with in the most sympathetic way, but in Ireland when there was any dispute about the age, it was documentary evidence that was found to be necessary, and if there was the least suspicion or excuse for doing away with the pension, the Local Government Board stepped in and did away with it. I am not personally disposed to make any particular claim for men with farms or with substantial sums of money to their credit, because in my experience on the pension committee one fact that struck me most forcibly in Ireland was that the people who are the most needy and the most deserving people, were those who failed to receive pensions. Of course, we all know that the relief disqualification did serious harm in Ireland, and I cannot for the life of me see why out-door relief should disqualify a person anywhere from receiving a pension. In Ireland many of the people who have received relief belong to the most hard-working and deserving portion of the population. In addition to that, there is another class of people who deserve the greatest sympathy, and who are also sufferers by reason of the new regulations and harsh conditions that the Governmental authorities have decided upon in reference to pensions—poor people whose relatives have died while they were away and were working as servants in different parts of the country for the last 50 or 60 years, and who are to a large extent illiterate, though not unintelligent. These people have lost sight of their family, and very often,
    2114
    though they can tell you their fathers' and mothers' names, they cannot tell you the districts in which they were born, probably with the result that no documentary proof, either from the census or otherwise, is able to be procured. In these cases—there are not many of them—the pension officers at the present time, owing to the new regulations of the Treasury, are leaving them to hang on, with hope disappearing day after day, some of them dying whilst they are waiting for a pension that has not come for months past. We hear difficulties put in the way as to the amount of business that has to be transacted in different parts of the country, but I do think that no Government Department in Ireland ought to allow a week to elapse without giving every person who is entitled to it a pension, that would make them happy and comfortable for the few years that they have to remain in this world. I think there is nothing more touching or more painful than to have men or women coming miles on some occasions, and always with some trouble, to attend a meeting of the pensions committee, and to be put back meeting after meeting, because the pensions officer cannot inquire into their cases. I know a good deal about my own country and my own locality, but I never knew as much about it as I learned in the course of filling up the forms and investigating the cases of old age pensions. I have filled up the papers of people ranging from 71 to 94 years of age, and when I hear people talking about the ease with which you can measure a person's age, as to whether he is 71 or 80, I cannot but treat their observations with contempt by reason of my own personal experience, because when a person goes beyond 65 years of age, it seems to me, that no man is capable of forming an accurate estimate within a year or two. Very often a man of 77 has more youth and vigour than a person of 73, and I filled up the form of a woman 94 years of age who had as much intellectual clearness and bodily strength, except for paralysis of the feet, as many of the younger claimants. Instead of quibbling and trying to find difficulties about the ages of these poor people, there ought to be the steady and ready desire that there was in the beginning to satisfy their hope and give them these pensions to which the good intentions of Parliament entitles them, and of which in Ireland they are in need at the present time. When one remembers and knows what the position of some of these poor people was before they received the pension, and

    2115
    when you observe the comfort and the happiness that comes to them after it is given it would make you do anything in your power to rescue them from the sorrow and the privation they suffer from, and to place them in the position they ought to be placed in. The regulations of the Treasury as far as the pension officers are concerned, and the actions of the Irish Local Government Board are hampering unnecessarily and cruelly some of the claims of these poor people in Ireland, and I would ask the Attorney-General that instead of bothering his head about Crown prosecutions he should assist the Chief Secretary and make an effort to bring the Local Government Board into true touch with the pension committees. This is a matter about which there ought to be and need be no quarrel, but we who sit upon pension committees in Ireland are practically only capable of performing the former duty as neither the pension officers nor the Local Government Boards in later days pay any heed to our opinions in reference to pensions. Of course we recognise the pension scheme has been a great and beneficial one, but at the same time we assert that as far as Ireland is concerned we do not look upon it as a charity, but as a right, and that we are entitled to it, and you will take very good care that we pay our share of it when it comes to payment as far as the British Treasury is concerned. Therefore, I would appeal to the Irish officers of the Government to be particularly active in this matter, and to remove the causes of complaint which undoubtedly exist in some cases, and whilst many are benefiting, whilst a great number of people are lifted up into a better condition in Ireland by reason of its operation up to the present, to remove all causes of complaint, and to give every single old man or woman who is in poverty a pension at the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. P. J. POWER: I have followed the Debate fairly closely, and one thing is apparent, and that is that instructions have been issued to the officers and to the experts sent over by the Treasury in Ireland which were not issued in this country either to the experts or to the ordinary pension officers. I regret the distinction particularly as to some extent it confirms or tends to confirm the allegations which have been made in the British Press that the Irish people fraudulently made claims, and that in many cases the pension committees supported those
    2116
    claims, but making every allowance for the shortcomings of the Act no one can deny that it has conferred enormous benefits on the poor in Ireland. I remember when it first came into operation its opponents represented that we should have bear garden scenes at the different Post Offices, and that the people who got the pensions would spend the major part of it in drink. Mr. Gladstone once said there are some people who believe Irish men and women have been born with a double dose of original sin, and to those there is no use in speaking, but the admirable way in which the Post Office conducted its business reflected credit on the officials of that office and the manner in which the people conducted themselves reflected credit on them.
    There is a pathetic side to this Question, though no doubt it confers enormous advantages on the poor. I in my own immediate neighbourhood am aware that in some instances the excitement of the people caused their premature death. I remember being asked to go to witness the signature of a poor woman. She would be satisfied with no one else witnessing her mark but myself, and though anyone could have witnessed it, of course I gave way to her wishes and witnessed it. It was painful to watch the intense anxiety of this good creature. One can imagine what a difference 5s. a week would have made to her. Here she was, a helpless old woman about 82 or 83 years of age, supported by her own son. They were extremely poor. She was hardly able to speak for anxiety. Her claim was recognised, but I am sorry to say she never received her 5s. She was taken away before she became entitled to it. There were two other cases in my immediate neighbourhood, one in which an old man whom I knew all my life only got it twice, and the other case only got it three times. I know miscalculations have been made, and the Treasury officials were somewhat annoyed that their estimate of the working of the Act in Ireland proved to be erroneous, but anyone who knows the conditions of the people of Ireland is not surprised at that. For my own part, I know the condition of the people in my own neighbourhood as well as most men. I was deputed many years ago, before I joined public life, to distribute relief amongst the poor by the Protestant clergyman of my own district, and I got into intimate touch with the condition of the people, and I say this honestly, that

    2117
    from my knowledge of the people it is to me a marvel how some of them have existed at all, and one thing has always struck me with regard to these poor people namely, their wonderful charity towards one another. I could not have believed it. When I was asked to distribute relief in my own neighbourhood, I knew the conditions of the people pretty well, and I suggested that we should give relief to a certain family whom I knew to be in dire distress, and, when we went to relieve them, the poor people said to us: "We know your means are limited, and there are persons further up the road who want help more than we do." That is a chivalrous state of things which reflects credit on the people. In another case we had a certain amount to dispose of, and some people, though greatly in need of assistance, assured us that they themselves had never received anything in the way of charity, or their fathers before them, and they were determined to go to their graves without receiving aid in a charitable way from this or any other organisation.
    My knowledge of the poverty of the people is, as a rule, accurate for this reason. I happen to belong to a religious institution which is known as the Society of St. Vincent and St. Paul, a society whose ramifications have spread all over the world wherever the Catholic creed has spread, and it is the duty of the active members of that association to call upon people and personally make reports on their condition, and no one is relieved who is not worthy of relief. The most accurate information is received in all these cases, and, as I say, it is to me a marvel how some of the poor have existed and do exist. Whatever test you apply as to the poverty of the people you will find the poverty of Ireland is appalling, and consequently I am not surprised that the applications have been numerous—in fact, I am surprised they have not been more numerous. In this Parliament on three occasions the Government have been obliged to institute public works to keep the people from starvation in the West and some parts of the Southern coasts of Ireland, and the highest wages that any man got for working 10 or 11 hours a day was 6s. a week, without any food whatsoever, and for these starvation wages thousands of men were prepared to walk long distances to and from their work. The average wage, I believe, was 4s. 6d. a week for men, and if these starvation wages do not prove the
    2118
    poverty of the people, I do not know what greater test you could have. The whole seaboard of the West may be on the brink of starvation this summer. The district in which I live is by no means a poor district of Ireland. We are all poor, but it is not poor as compared with various other districts. You near a good deal about people misusing this Act and making applications when they should not make them. I know the people have their faults as well as any other people, and I know the temptation to get what is to a really poor man opulence may have in some cases induced him to make representations which were not clearly right; but at the same time, while I know that the Act has been abused in very few cases, I am also aware that in many cases, where the people who were upwards of 70 and in dire poverty owing to the trouble of proving their age and owing to the fact that the registration law which prevails in this country did not prevail in Ireland 70 years ago, these people have been left without their pensions. Last Christmas I saw a certain man working in a field whom I have known for 40 years, and whom I believed to be 70 years of age, and I suggested to him that he should make application for an old age pension. He said little or nothing to me, but the application was not made. I met his employer a fortnight afterwards, and said: "How is it So-and-So has not made this application?" He told me the poor old creature, who was decrepit and infirm, and who looked nearer 80 than 70, had told him he was only 67 years of age, and that he declined to make an application when he would have to state that his age was 70. Of course, you will not always find gratitude, but taking them all in all, the charity of the people towards one another in conspicuous to anyone who knows them, and this fact has been established. The administration of the Pensions Act has brought forward this fact to the credit of our people. With all their poverty, it has revealed that they acted towards their old friends and their old kinsmen with a consideration and a kindness which would do credit to people with forty times the means of these poor peasants.
    The hon. Member for East Tyrone has made a speech pointing out the various shortcomings of the Act. We do not, as some people say, attribute to the Chancellor of the Exchequer any wish to retaliate on the people of Ireland because the working of the Act has proved to be more

    2119
    expensive than he anticipated. I do not think it would be right to assign these unworthy motives to anyone, but, at the same time, I submit to him that whatever test he applies to Ireland as to her poverty, whether he takes the appearance of the people, the condition of the people or their holdings, the appalling poverty of the country must press itself on his mind, or on anyone's mind. I very much regret to say that he has promised to impose further imposts on the people which we are not able to bear. He may say they may not hit these people for whom we plead tonight, but anything which interferes with the prosperity of the country at large must to some extent interfere wih the poor and with the aged. I only regret that the Treasury, so far from supporting and making it easy for these people to receive what Parliament wished them to receive, has thrown considerable obstacles in their way, and I very much hope that the result of these Debates will be that the permanent officials in Ireland will approach the discharge of their duties in a more sympathetic way than they have yet shown. They were sympathetic and useful at first, but since then further instructions have been issued. I hope the result of the Debate will be that the Gentlemen responsible for the working of the Act will approach the consideration of their onerous duties with more humanity.
    Attention called to the fact that 40 Members were not present. House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    Mr. W. J. DUFFY: I do not intend to discuss this matter at any length. My object is to direct the attention of those representing the Treasury to a few cases which happened in my district which call for some explanation. I desire at the same time to emphasise some of the points made by many of my hon. Friends here this evening. When the Old Age Pensions Act was passing through the House we were all of opinion that no trouble or difficulty would be thrown in the way of the old people in Ireland in their endeavour to benefit by the scheme. For some reason or another, whether on account of instructions issued to the pension officers throughout the country by the Treasury or not, undoubtedly a large number of poor and indigent people in the West of Ireland have unfortunately been deprived of the pensions to which they were en-
    2120
    titled. One or two cases occurred in my district which will illustrate fairly well the latter policy of the pension officers and the Local Government Board in their peculiar dealings with the poor people who apply for pensions under the Act. I would draw attention to the case of a man named Armstrong. This man spent the greater part of his life in the employment of the Protestant rector of the town of Loughrea. He is now very old and disabled, and unable to work. In the ordinary way he sent in his notice in respect of an old age pension in December last. It was considered by the pension officer early in January. The pension officer declined to give this man any pension. The matter was referred to the sub-committee in the district; the sub-committee, composed, as all sub-committees are, of men living in the neighbourhood who fully understood the position of this man, recommended a pension of 5s. The pension officer took on himself to appeal to the Local Government Board.
    I presume the Local Government Board made some investigation into the matter, and took some trouble to ascertain the facts, but so far as Armstrong is concerned he never heard a word about the matter until some time afterwards he was informed that the Local Government Board had decided against him. What I want to know is what trouble did the Local Government Board take to ascertain the facts of the case? They did not apply for information to the Protestant rector of the town who employed the man for a number of years up to 1st January last. He was in receipt of 14s. a week, but on account of his disabled condition and his weak state of health the rector was obliged, or, rather, in an act of kind philanthropy, he gave him a pension of 4s. a week and a house, thereby enabling the old man, as he thought, to qualify for the pension which he would be entitled to. There is no dispute regarding the age of this man. I hold the certificate in my hand, and the pension officer admitted the age. I have also a certificate from the doctor stating that owing to his age and his crippled condition he was totally disabled and unable to do any work, and I also hold an explanatory letter from the Protestant clergyman of the district to the chairman of the sub-committee explaining all the circumstances in reference to the matter. In that letter he says he was never asked for any explanation by the Local Government Board in respect of the claims of

    2121
    Armstrong, and the Local Government Board took upon themselves to refuse the pension to this old man. I think this case calls for explanation.
    Another case in the neighbourhood of Loughrea calling for explanation is that of an old man named Pat Hoban. He is admitted to be from 80 to 85 years of age. He is living in the district of Kilmihil. The committee awarded him a pension of 5s. a week on 7th January last. He is living in a wretched state, yet up to the present day he is awaiting the decision of the Local Government Board. The Local Government Board have never sent word to this man intimating what they are going to do. If the Local Government Board say in the course of a week or a month or two months, determine that this old man Hoban is entitled to a pension, will the pension date from 1st January? That is a very important matter to know, because the matter has been in the hands of the Local Government Board since the beginning of the present year. Surely it should not take them a whole month to find out from the Census Returns in Henrietta Street, Dublin, whether this old man is over 80 years of age as he represents himself to be. Another old man named Mitchell for 50 years served as a baker in Loughrea. He can bring forward overwhelming proof that he is 78 years of age. He sent in an application last December, and he was granted a pension in January of the present year by the committee. I had a letter from him a few days ago complaining that up to the present time he has heard nothing in regard to the action to be taken by the Local Government Board. There is another man named Tighe, an old man living in a mountain district. He also is very feeble, because he has gone beyond 82 years of age. His wife is 74 years of age. He holds a farm of land rated at £5 a year. To my knowledge the man is in desperate circumstances, absolutely unable to make both ends meet. I believe he has very little stock, if any on the farm. The Local Government Board, upon investigation, decided that this man was not entitled to a pension. On what grounds? Not on the ground of age, because that is admitted, but on the ground that he had too much means—a man with a rated qualification of £5 a year, living in a mountain district. The fact is, if the means of that man were ascertained, it would be established that his gross income does not exceed 3s. or 3s. 6d. a week; yet the Local Government
    2122
    Board has excluded him from the benefit accruing from the operation of this Act, of which we have heard so much.
    I have also been written by an old lady of the name of Moran, who lives outside Loughrea. She applied in the ordinary way for the pension last December. She furnished evidence in regard to her age, and she satisfied the sub-committee in the district that she was 82 years of age. These are cases where there was no dispute in regard to age. All people of the locality know the different people who reside in it, and they were perfectly satisfied with regard to this case. This lady also satisfied the subcommittee and the pension officer that she was over 80 years of age. The parish priest had no difficulty whatever in certifying in regard to her age, because this lady brought collateral proof before him that she was over 80 years of age, but as her age did not appear from the Census an official was sent down and she was actually deprived of her pension. This is one of the most extraordinary things that ever we heard of in the management of our affairs. The Chief Secretary this evening stated to the House the case of a large farmer who applied for a pension. I have here the truthful budget of a poor man who applied for a pension, and he is prepared to swear to every detail of it. From it I see that he has a gross income of £15 13s. 6d., on which he has to maintain his house and family. On the one side of the statement which he forwarded to me he states that his annual rent is £9 odd, and then he sets out the payment for rates, horse hire during the season, planting the crops, and other items, bringing the total to over £19. The receipts from oats, turnips and other produce amounted to £35, leaving a balance, as gross income, of the amount of £15 odd. Yet the Local Government Board, for some extraordinary reason, excluded this man from the benefit of a pension. The ground they gave was that his rent disqualified him, and they also objected on the ground of his means, simply because his annuity was close upon £10 a year. Does it not seem an extraordinary thing that while this man is prepared to furnish sworn evidence to the correctness of his statement, the Local Government Board should never take the trouble or pains to satisfy themselves as to the actual means of the applicant. These are some of the cases which I wish to bring under the notice of the House. I do not desire to follow the arguments of my hon. Friend in regard to a number of other

    2123
    matters on which my own information confirms all he has stated.
    In the part of the country from which I come—Galway—there are many complaints in regard to the working of the Act in respect of holders of land, who are old enough to claim the pension, who are beyond the patriarchal age, but who, by reason of the fact that they live with their families, and that the old man simply reserves for himself the right of keeping a corner in the house during his lifetime, is told by the pension officer and the Local Government Board: "Well, because you retain in your old age the right to this small plot of land, you are deprived of the pension?" It is an extraordinary anomaly, and gives cause for grave consideration on the part of those who have to administer this Act, which otherwise undoubtedly would bring great advantages to the people of Ireland. On some other occasion I am sure I shall be able to produce to the House a large number of cases which will go to disprove the statements made here to-day, and made outside in the Press, that the Irish people have entered into a conspiracy for the purpose of defrauding those in charge of the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act. Instead of the Irish people having entered into a conspiracy, there can be no manner of doubt that steps have been taken by the Treasury and by the Local Government Board in Ireland, I do not like to use the word cheat, but undoubtedly to deprive a number of the people in the West of Ireland of the pension, though on every ground they are entitled to it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will take notice of the cases to which I have alluded, and see whether anything can be done to rectify the harm and injustice which is being experienced.
    Mr. J. J. O'SHEE: I regret that the Chief Secretary was not in his place when the hon. Member for South Monaghan addressed the Committee. The complaints of the hon. Member about the Local Government Board indicated that it is a body which is not so immaculate as the Chief Secretary sought to make out in relation to this question of old age pensions. The Local Government Board have not a very good reputation in Ireland. I am not referring to the present President of the Local Government Board. That Department is a body of evil repute in Ireland, and the Irish people have very little confidence in any decision at which it may
    2124
    arrive on any subject whatever. Though the Chief Secretary sought to cast the mantle of his own good reputation over the members of that body, I am afraid that we cannot consent to his depriving us by that means of our immemorial privilege of attacking the Local Government Board. In this matter of old age pensions, I think that body has exceeded itself in many respects, evil as its reputation has been in the past. In my part of the country there have been a great many complaints about the decisions of the Local Government Board in a large number of cases. We are blessed in my locality with an exceedingly acute pension officer, who is very hard to get over in respect of any applications, but even this pension officer, in some cases, consented that a particular applicant whose case was being considered was entitled to a pension, we will say, of 3s. a week. This applicant appealed against the decision of the pension officer, and the Local Government Board not merely concurred in the decision of the pension officer, but cut off the pension which he had been willing to allow. The old age pension committee dealt with the case of an inmate of a charitable asylum, which contains 20 or 25 respectable old people selected by the local committee. They have got beyond the age at which they are able to work, and they get some 5s. a week, with the use of a common room, coal, and lighting. In this case the pension committee decided that they were entitled to the value of the house accommodation, and to the coal and lighting, not exceeding, for any of them, more than 3s. per week, and with the 5s. their allowance would enable them to make 8s. per week altogether, and would still entitle them to receive a pension of 5s. per week. The local committee decided they were entitled to receive 5s. per week. The pensions officer, who is the exacting gentleman to whom I have referred, thought that 4s. was the utmost limit. The committee, notwithstanding his objection, decided to give 5s. per week, with the result that he appealed to the Local Government Board. The Local Government Board not merely did not allow the 4s. per week which the pensions officer thought sufficient and proper, but they cut down the 4s. to 2s., putting a very high estimate indeed of the value and privilege of shelter and fire and light which those poor old people had got by the charity of the

    2125
    inhabitant who provided this house in which they lived.
    In other cases the Local Government Board have acted similarly, and even where the pensions officer has allowed two or three shillings per week, in cases in which means came in, and where the applicant or pensions committee has appealed against the decision of the pensions officer, the Local Government Board have not supported the decision of the pensions officer, but have reduced what he was willing to allow. The Chief Secretary, in giving the figures of appeals before the Local Government Board, did not give us any indication of the number of those cases. I think he said there were something about 12,000 appeals, which, I presume, were nearly all by the pension officers. I should think there was a certain proportion put forward by the applicants, because I am aware of a certain number put forward by applicants, especially of applicants living with relatives, on the question of the value of the accommodation given to them by their relatives and on which the pensions officers, in many cases, put a high appreciation.
    Out of the 12,000 appeals, in something over 10,000 cases the pension was refused by the Local Government Board, so that it must have been in a very small proportion of cases that the Local Government Board sanctioned a pension which the pensions officer throughout thought ought not to be allowed. In many of those cases the Local Government Board went much farther than the pensions officer. Where the pensions officer was willing that the applicant for the pension should get some pension, the Local Government Board in many cases cut it off altogether.
    Mr. BIRRELL: There were increases in some cases and decreases in others.
    Mr. O'SHEE: The cases in which increases were made would be cases in which the committee or the applicant appealed. I am referring to cases in which the committee or the applicant appealed against the decision of the pensions officer in allowing only a limited sum, and in which the Local Government Board not merely concurred with the pensions officer but went further, and said they must cut down what the pensions officer allowed.
    Mr. BIRRELL: They did that in 420 cases.
    Mr. O'SHEE: There is one kind of case I desire to refer to, and which has not been
    2126
    referred to. That is the case where an old person is living with relatives, where an uncle of a small farmer is living with him, or where even a grand uncle or a grand aunt is living with him. There are many of these cases all over the country. Because these relatives are generous enough to support these people in their old age, for that very reason the old people are decided not to be entitled to pensions. If the relatives were so harsh or uncharitable as to turn them out, or to treat them less well, the old people would be entitled to pensions. There are a large number of these cases. Pension officers have had special instructions from the Treasury, or, as I gather to-night, from the right hon. Gentleman, in some cases from the Local Government Board—
    Mr. BIRRELL: That is only on appeal.
    Mr. O'SHEE: As regards estimates of means, pension officers received instructions that where an old person was living with a relative they were to take what they thought to be the market value of the accommodation provided. I discussed this matter with some of the pension officers. One of them told me of the case of an old woman who some years ago, long before old age pensions were thought of as a practical matter, made over to her son a farm of 30 or 35 acres. The deed provided that she should be entitled to reside in the house and be maintained, and that if, in the event of any disagreement with her son, she decided to leave the place, she was to get, in lieu of her right to maintenance, £15 a year. In the case the pension officer called, saw a fairly comfortable farmer's house, and estimated the value of the old woman's right at 12s. a week, a sum far in excess of the amount agreed upon by the parties when the deed was entered into, and the old woman was decided not to be entitled to a pension. I asked the pension officer how he worked it out. He said, "The son has a comfortable house, and if his mother fell ill he would fetch in a doctor." The fact that the son was charitable enough to call in a doctor if his mother fell ill was an element in the officer's consideration of the case. "And he would give her a bottle of stout if she were ill, and she would be well looked after," he continued. "Do you mean to say," said I, "that you must take into account the possibility or probability of her obtaining these little things?" "Yes," he said. I put this to him: "If it was the case of an old man over 70 years of age, who came into the

    2127
    town on fair or market day, and some of his friends, not having seen him for five or six months, thought they ought to offer him some refreshment, would you take that into account in considering whether he was entitled to a pension?" "I would," he said. That shows the spirit in which the work is being carried out. This pension officer is an Irishman, who knows all about the habits of the country people, and he said he would take all these things into consideration. I say it is a great hardship indeed that because the relatives of these old people are charitable and good, and allow these old people to live with them, that for these reasons they should be deprived of their old age pensions. It is admitted that these old persons have no means. It is unfair to impose upon the charity and generosity of the relatives in the way I have shown. These old people, who have no means whatever, and who are over the prescribed age, ought to be given old age pensions. In Ireland tens of thousands have been deprived of their pensions.
    Dealing with the Local Government Board in this matter, I believe that in every case of appeal that has come under my notice that the Board—and a great many have apparently been inquired into—have practically decided without considering the merits of the case at all. I do not think they have gone to the trouble to bring the matter before the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. We have taken a certain number of cases for show purposes for the purposes of this Debate. But I say, taking all these 12,000 appeals, that I am convinced, from my knowledge of what has occurred in some cases, that they could not have been given proper consideration by the Local Government Board.
    I am certain that there was no proper consideration. These gentlemen, when they got a batch of these appeals before them in the morning, were thinking of the time that they should go to lunch. I rather think, too, that these gentlemen of the Local Government Board took their view of old age pensions from certain organs of the Press in Ireland, which criticised very much the passage of this Act last year. Some of these views were got from England. These gentlemen were told by these organs of the Press that the respectable middle classes and the salaried officials of the Local Government Board would have to pay an increased income tax; and in
    2128
    the appeals these officials were thinking more of the 2d. or 3d. more on the income tax than on the rights of these poor old people under the Old Age Pensions Act. This Debate has shown that instead of the Treasury having a grievance against Ireland, because the people made too many claims, that we in Ireland have a great grievance, because many claims properly made were refused, and did not get proper consideration. From my view and experience of the working of the Act in the district in which I live, I am certain that many people who are justly and properly entitled to pensions have not got them. I hope steps will be taken by these old people to renew their applications, and appeal to the Local Government Board to consider them properly.
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: I desire to express my regret that, unlike my hon. Friends who have spoken, I cannot bring before the Committee many, or indeed any, individual cases of hardship. I happen to represent, I regret to say, a county or a portion of a county which has a very small population. I should very much prefer to represent people, even though poor, than the bullocks that roam over the wide uncultivated areas of the county Kildare. Why is the county Kildare so sparsely populated? It is because it is a county of clearances. We have heard much in the past by speakers in this House of the 170,000 claims made in Ireland, large in proportion to the claims that have come from Great Britain; but if the people who inhabited the county Kildare and other counties were allowed to live their natural lives in their own country instead of being cleared off the land in order to square and to enlarge farms, or instead of being driven into early graves by Government-made famines, it is not 170,000 claimants you would have had but 300,000 claimants. 170,000 claims were made by the residue of the population of eight or nine millions of people. For some of the Irish people who could rightly have claimed old age pensions you would have to search the back streets and slums of America; you would have to go to the prairies of Australia for those who were driven from their homes, and who, if they had been allowed to live in Ireland, would to-day be justly entitled to present their claims for old age pensions. With regard to this proportion of claimants, I regret indeed that the empty benches of this House this evening have not been

    2129
    filled with hon. Members who have read and who have heard charges made against the Irish people; who have read the lie which, according to the Secretary to the Treasury, has got the start, and which never can be overtaken. I wish they were here to hear the graceful speech of the hon. Gentleman who represents the Treasury—a speech which filled hon. Members on this side of the House with gratitude to him and with admiration for the candour that inspired him. I regret also that the hon. Member for Fulham was not in his place during this Debate. That Gentleman owes his seat in this House to the votes of Irishmen, and he started the lie by a question in this House. If he was in his place I would ask him why he did not, instead of making a comparison between poor Ireland and rich England or rich Wales, his own nationality, exercise his ingenuity in instituting a comparison between the claims that came from Battersea or Mile End and the claims that came from Kensington or Westminster. He would have found a subject most interesting for inquiry. But, no; his ingenuity did not inspire him in that direction, his vision did not turn to Mile End and Westminster; he only turned his attention to the extraordinary figures that appeared in the newspapers representing the claims from Ireland as they were compared with the figures that were returned from England. He should have been here in his place this evening to have found his answer, not from these benches, but from the Government Bench, from the officials of the representatives of the Department who have investigated this matter, and who have exculpated the Irish people.
    I should like to refer to another matter in connection with old age pensions. I think the Government under-estimated the work that had to be done not only in England, but in Ireland. The Government Department put pressure upon its officials, and these officials were instructed, both in England and in Ireland, to accept any evidence at all in respect of claims for old age pensions made by the persons who might be taken, either by their appearance or for some other reason, as being persons who were entitled to such pensions. For example, I think I am right in saying that a poor man or a poor woman who seemed to be somewhere within or near the age of 80 might be accepted in substantiation of that claim. In both countries the instructions were that inquiry should only take place in a more severe manner where the age appeared to be somewhere about 70
    2130
    years. I am, however, in a position to say that the spirit of the inquiry in England has been entirely different to the spirit of the inquiry in Ireland, and even the figures given to-day will substantiate that statement. Leniency has been the governing principle of the investigations in this country of England, and we do not hear that there has been any appeals in the same manner in this country as appeals have occurred in Ireland. We do not hear in this country that 20,000 appeals have been made, and that the claims of 10,000 persons have been rejected. There has been no reference to comparative figures as between the investigations in England and in Ireland. We have heard a good deal about those who have been sent to Ireland to make this investigation, and I have it on the best authority that the experts who have been sent to inquire into these claims are not experts at all. I am told that they are men who have had no experience whatever on the subject of old age pensions. They are men who have gone to Ireland full of the statements that have appeared in the newspapers, and full of the spirit that has inspired those statements; that is to say, they went with an attitude of mind determined to find amongst all those appeals and those claims that fraud existed and that the claims were not justifiable.
    We were challenged to-night with regard to the manner in which this Act was administered in Ireland as compared with the manner in which it is administered in England. There is one way in which a distinction may be shown, and that is the way in which the magistrates of this country investigate cases brought before them, and the manner in which similar cases are investigated in Ireland. I know that a great number of cases have been brought before the magistrates of this country which could not be justified either on the ground of age or want of means; and in all the cases which I have read the magistrates have invariably inflicted fines. The poor people were not punished in such a manner as disqualified them from making claims again. In England the Act has been administered in a spirit of leniency. That spirit has animated the magistrates, and also the officials of Somerset House. That has not been so in Ireland. I read not long ago of the case of a woman who made a statement with regard to her age. Under terror she admitted that she ought not to have made the claim, but she was ordered to be kept as a prisoner until the

    2131
    rising of the court. She was punished without the option of a fine, and though her age was 69 she was disqualified for the next ten years. That is only one of many cases which will show the distinction in the administration of the Act which we have been challenged to show from the Government Bench this evening. I submit that, though I am not dwelling in Ireland, I have had particular opportunities of observing how the Act is administered in Ireland. It is administered there in a manner in which it is not administered in this country. Leniency is the way in which it is administered in this country, and harshness is the way in which it is administered in Ireland. I trust that one of the results of this Debate will be to clear the air with regard to Ireland, and that the Act will be administered in Ireland as it is in England—in a spirit of leniency.
    Mr. J. C. FLYNN: We may congratulate ourselves on the whole with regard to this Debate. My hon. Friend says he hopes it will clear the air. It has certainly put an end to false and reckless statements. I remember when the question was in an embryotic stage in this House a great many people seemed alarmed, both in this House and out of it, as to the basis on which the Act was to be administered. That has been removed. We have the highest authority for saying that there has been no fraud in Ireland — that there has been nothing wrong in the claims of the aged Irish people. This working of the Old Age Pensions Act is but another illustration of the long-drawn-out story of Irish misgovernment, with its consequences of depopulation and emigration, and the scattering of our people. Under normal circumstances who can doubt that the people of a country like Ireland, which 60 years ago totalled 8,000,000, would, in the natural order of things, have risen by now to 10,000,000? I would suggest it is rather mean—it is, to use an American phrase, playing it rather low down—to turn round upon a country which has been misgoverned for many centuries and to say, "What an extraordinary thing it is there are so many people 70 years of age and upwards," when everybody knows that people have been driven to leave Ireland because of the conditions which prevent them getting an existence at home. May I illustrate this portion of the subject by one or two figures taken from the census of population in 1841? At
    2132
    the last census the population of people over 70 in Great Britain was 2.9, and in Ireland 4.1. In 1841 the percentage in Ireland was only 1.5. In other words, in that period the percentage of people of 70 years of age and upwards to the general population has increased nearly threefold, which leaves Ireland with a population largely disproportionate composed of old people and children. Under these circumstances it is a hardship, it is a calumny on our people to reflect on their character when it is the result of cruel and long misgovernment. I think that under Providence and with the settlement of the land question, and with better social and economical conditions, these things may remedy themselves, and in a reasonable space of time the normal condition of things will be regained, and you will not have the spectacle of this large and alarming percentage of people over 70 years of age as compared with other countries. I think the admissions of the Secretary to the Treasury, and the facts stated by my hon. Friend in moving his Motion, have shown conclusively that so far from this Act having been dishonestly administered in Ireland, as far as the people are concerned, if it has erred at all, it has erred in recent months on the side of stringency. I would refer to the sinister fact that up to 31st December, and when the claims were coming in the Act was administered by the pension committees and officers, I will not say with leniency, but with toleration and fairness, but when the cry was got up here, when false and erroneous statements were made in the Press and in this House, what happened? The Treasury was moved, the Treasury, I have no doubt, saw at once the possibility of a large retrenchment, and as effect follows cause, the screw was put by the Treasury upon the pension officers in Ireland, and instead of having the Act administered as before in the broad spirit in which it passed through Parliament, it was administered in a narrow and niggardly spirit, and also in connection with it you had the corollary that many of the claims which had been admitted were scrutinised with a keen and jealous eye. We can see the effect of these articles in the Press, and these speeches in the House and elsewhere. These sneers at the cunning and the craft of the deserving poor in Ireland—we can see all that reflected after 1st January, and we observe with pain and regret the different spirit in which the Act is now administered. There has been no charge

    2133
    whatever made this evening of unfairness or partiality on the part of the numerous committees that have been established all over Ireland, or on the part of the subcommittees and delegates from the county councils and district councils of the country. Whether you go north or west, south or east, it has been found that on these committees the local clergy, both Protestant and Catholic, are sitting with the local representatives of the districts, and there has been no single proof brought forward that these committees have administered the Act in a spirit of anything but absolute fairness and absolute impartiality, and with any desire to extend the Act beyond what is just and legitimate. The large proportion of pensioners in Ireland has been due to the causes I have enumerated. I trust the healing finger of time will remove them, and then when the Act is extended to 65 and the poor law disqualification removed I think you will find that this great Act will not be forgotten by the people who administer it or the people who benefit by it.
    Mr. JOSEPH NOLAN: I should like first of all to express my gratification at the passing of the Old Age Pensions Act, which has brought aid to many poor persons in Ireland who were greatly in need of assistance. There was a time when the Government in Ireland sternly refused assistance of any kind. A step forward has been made, but there is still much to be done in connection with Irish administration. I hold in my hand a resolution which was passed by a rural pensions committee. It makes a strong protest against the action of the Local Government Board and the way in which pension claims are dealt with in the case of small holders, and it states that it is highly unfair that the net incomes should be reckoned as equal to three times the rent or four times the purchase annuity. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman say this evening that he doubts whether this rule was in operation in Ireland. I hope he will take the resolution passed by this pension committee as evidence that such a state of things does exist, and that he will order an inquiry into the matter. The resolution goes on to say, "We call upon the Irish Members of Parliament to bring this matter under the immediate notice of Parliament, and to press for the discontinuance of a practice which is withholding from many small farmers the pensions to which we consider they are legally entitled." These practical farmers
    2134
    go on to say that in their district the profits of farms of the best land may be estimated at £2 an acre; of good land, at 30s. an acre; and of indifferent land at 20s. an acre. This might be accepted as coming from practical men on the spot. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to grant an inquiry.
    Question again proposed: Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    And, it being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

    SALE OF MARGARINE BILL.
    Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

    MILITARY MANŒUVRES ACT, 1897. (ORDER IN COUNCIL.)
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY of the WAR OFFICE (Mr. F. D. Acland) moved: "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying His Majesty to make an Order in Council under The Military Manœuvres Act, 1897, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 16th day of February last."
    Mr. CARLILE: There are some questions I should like to ask with reference to this Order in Council. It appears to provide for manœuvres taking place subsequent to 15th July. I merely want to know whether the question of the protection of the crops and pastures will be duly considered and provided for. There are various other matters which it is meet to consider. The area referred to is a very large one, and although personally I am entirely in favour of military manœuvres and of access to various parts of the country for the purpose of carrying them out, at the same time we have to bear in mind such questions as the speed of motor cars used in connection with the manœuvres, which may, if not conducted under the usual restrictions, interfere considerably with the general traffic in the district. I do not know whether that has been thought of before. If a restriction is not placed on the movements of these messengers, there will be a tendency to excessive speed. The tendency will be for motorists to conduct themselves very much in the same way as mounted messengers used to do. Over a

    2135
    great area like that which is scheduled, there should be sufficient provision for the movement of the ordinary traffic, and also provision for the protection of the lives of those who may be moving about in this area. Then, what arrangements have been made for compensation for damages to crops, young growing trees, and hedges, and for compensation in the event of the accidental firing of stacks? I should also like to ask whether it is proposed to have all the troops under canvas and the horses picketed, or whether it is proposed to carry out the provisions embodied this year in the new provisions of the Army (Annual) Bill for billeting—whether it is proposed to billet any of the troops in private houses, or whether it is intended to confine any billeting, both of horses and of troops, to licensed premises and hotels within the district? I think it rather undesirable that this Motion should be taken after 11 o'clock, and on the fourth day of the week, in which most of us have been kept out of our beds for a very considerable part of every night. But at the same time I suppose that the intention was that the Motion should slip through without any Debate or any question being asked upon it. That was an extremely likely thing to arise. But I think it only fair to those who are likely to be using the roads and occupying the area scheduled that these questions should be asked and some explanations given, and with that view I mention the matters, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will give me the assurances that I desire.
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present. House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    The House was adjourned at Eleven minutes after Eleven o'clock till to-morrow (14th May).

  Land Value Duties.
  Land Value Duties.
  Option and Future Contracts.
  Option and Future Contracts.
  Service Pensions.
  Service Pensions.
  Petrol Tax (Civil Servants).
  Petrol Tax (Civil Servants).
  Knox Estate, Ballyhaunis, County Mayo.
  Knox Estate, Ballyhaunis, County Mayo.
  Jacob Estate, County Wexford.
  Jacob Estate, County Wexford.
  Small Farmers' Incomes (Ireland).
  Small Farmers' Incomes (Ireland).
  Police Forces (Ireland).
  Police Forces (Ireland).
  Mr. J. C. McDonnell's Estate, Athenry.
  Mr. J. C. McDonnell's Estate, Athenry.
  Mr. F. M'Donnell's Estate, Athenry.
  Mr. F. M'Donnell's Estate, Athenry.
  Larne Urban District Council.
  Larne Urban District Council.
  Listowel Estate, Ballyhooly, County Cork.
  Listowel Estate, Ballyhooly, County Cork.
  Evicted Tenants (Murphy and M'Gann).
  Evicted Tenants (Murphy and M'Gann).
  Beirne's Farm, Gortletteragh, County Leitrim.
  Beirne's Farm, Gortletteragh, County Leitrim.
  Irish Constabulary Allowances.
  Irish Constabulary Allowances.
  Capitation Grants (Irish Asylums).
  Capitation Grants (Irish Asylums).
  San Fernando Siparia Railway, Trinidad.
  San Fernando Siparia Railway, Trinidad.
  Crown Agents for the Colonies.
  Crown Agents for the Colonies.
  Orange River Colony (Petition to His Majesty).
  Orange River Colony (Petition to His Majesty).
  Borough Accounts.
  Borough Accounts.
  Foreign Imported Meat Seized.
  Foreign Imported Meat Seized.
  Poor Law Relief (England and Wales).
  Poor Law Relief (England and Wales).
  Golfing on Wimbledon Common.
  Golfing on Wimbledon Common.
  Statistics of Teachers.
  Statistics of Teachers.
  Scarborough Barracks.
  Scarborough Barracks.
  Enlisting Under Legal Age.
  Enlisting Under Legal Age.
  Territorial Force (Strategic Cavalry).
  Territorial Force (Strategic Cavalry).
  Limited Partnerships.
  Limited Partnerships.
  Carpet Exports and Imports.
  Carpet Exports and Imports.
  Workhours in Public-Houses.
  Workhours in Public-Houses.
  Board of Trade Inspectors.
  Board of Trade Inspectors.
  Option and Future Contracts.
  Option and Future Contracts.
  Public Health Act (Ireland).
  Public Health Act (Ireland).
  Civil Service (Second Division Clerks).
  Civil Service (Second Division Clerks).
  Post Office Clerks.
  Post Office Clerks.
  High Court Sittings (King's Bench Division).
  High Court Sittings (King's Bench Division).
  Valuation in Ireland (Local Contributions).
  Valuation in Ireland (Local Contributions).
  Valuation Assessment Committees (Ireland).
  Valuation Assessment Committees (Ireland).
  Small Holdings and Allotments Act.
  Small Holdings and Allotments Act.
  Post Office Savings Bank (Frauds).
  Post Office Savings Bank (Frauds).
  Postal Delivery, Beagh, County Leitrim.
  Postal Delivery, Beagh, County Leitrim.
  Canvas Supplied to Prisons.
  Canvas Supplied to Prisons.
  Inebriates Bill.
  Inebriates Bill.
  Factory Inspection (Complaints of Workpeople).
  Factory Inspection (Complaints of Workpeople).
  Canvas Supplied to the Navy.
  Canvas Supplied to the Navy.
  Small Holdings Act (Repayment of Loans).
  Small Holdings Act (Repayment of Loans).
SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
METHWOLD AND FELTWELL DRAINAGE BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
PONTYPOOL GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CONWAY GAS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON No. 1.) BILL. [H.L.]
  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON No. 2.) BILL. [H.L.]
    EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BUCKS, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
    Read 2a (according to order).

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (QUALIFICATION OF CLERGYMEN) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.(Lord Monkswell.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREmoved to amend Clause 1, which provided that—
"Subsection 1 (b) of section 12 of the Municipal Corporations Act 1882 is hereby repealed and a person shall not henceforth be disqualified for being elected or for being a councillor of a municipal corporation by reason of being in holy orders or a regular minister of a dissenting congregation,"
by inserting, after the word "henceforth," the words "in England or Wales." He
896
explained that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill and himself were at one in the matter, their object being to make certain that the Bill should not apply to Ireland.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 1, page 1, line 7, after the word 'henceforth,' to insert the words 'in England or Wales.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
LORD MONKSWELLwho had an Amendment on the Paper to insert, as a new clause, the words—
"This Act shall not apply to Scotland or Ireland,"
said that the Government draftsman appeared to think that his (Lord Monkswell's) method of dealing with the point was the better of the two, with a slight amendment, as the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, though it only applied to England and Wales, could be put into operation in Ireland by the action of the Lord Lieutenant.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid he would be quite satisfied to withdraw his Amendment and to accept the one standing in the name of Lord Monkswell.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONKSWELLthen moved his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 1, to insert the following new clause—
'This Act shall not apply or be capable of being applied to Scotland or Ireland.'"—(Lord Monkswell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

MILITARY MANœUVRES ACT, 1897.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying His Majesty to make an Order in Council under the Military Manœuvres Act, 1897, a draft of which was presented to this House on February 16 last (The Lord Lucas); agreed to, and ordered accordingly, the said Address to be presented by the Lords with White Staves.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o' clock.