Sitting of 7 July 1910

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Mansfield Railway Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Fylde Water Board Bill,
As amended, considered:—
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill, Read the third time, and passed.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 11) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next, at a quarter past Eight of the clock.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 12) Bill,
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Local Government Provisional Order (No. 12) Bill that, if they pass the Preamble of the Bill, they shall insert a Clause in the Bill providing that financial adjustments shall be made in accordance with the decision of the Joint Committee of both Houses on Financial Relations when ascertained, such financial adjustments to take effect as from the date of the coming into operation of the Order. —[Mr. Burns.]
Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time tomorrow (Friday).
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered tomorrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time tomorrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered tomorrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time tomorrow.
City of London (Tithes and Rates) Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time.
Railway Passengers Assurance Company (Transfer) Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time.
Great Grimsby Gas Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
Message from the Lords,—That they have agreed to,—
Brighton and Hove Gas Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Education under the Education Acts, 1870 to 1907, to enable the London County Council to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts." —(Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill) [Lords].
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Caledonian Railway."—(Caledonian Railway Order Confirmation) [Lords].
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords],—
Read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Caledonian Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],—
Read the first time; and ordered (under Section 9 of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be read a second time To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Congested Districts Board.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland when the Congested Districts Board hoped to commence operations in county Clare?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry): The Congested Districts Board are at present engaged in negotiations for purchase of some properties in county Clare.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Would the right hon. Gentleman indicate what properties they are and how many?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I am told that it would be undesirable to state the particulars at the present moment.
  Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board had opened negotiations with landlords in the Poor Law unions of Sligo, Tubbercurry, and Boyle (No. 2), county Sligo, with the view to the purchase of their estates; and, if so, could he give the names of such landlords and state how the negotiations entered upon were progressing?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Congested Districts Board have communicated with a number of landlords in these localities with a view to negotiations for the purchase of their estates. It is not desirable, at this stage, to enter into further particulars.
  Mr. O'DOWD: Can the right hon. Gentleman furnish me with the names of those landlords?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I must give the hon. Member the reply I gave to the hon. Member for East Clare (Mr. W. Redmond)—I am told it would be undesirable at present to give further particulars.

  Pollock Estate, County Galway.
  Captain COOPERasked whether any persons were identified by the police as having participated in the cattle-drives that took place on the Pollock estate, county Galway, in April last; whether a force of thirteen police was present on the occasion of the second of these drives; and whether any proceedings had been instituted against the offenders; and, if so, what had been the result?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: Some persons were identified on the occasion referred to. Twenty-one police were present on the occasion. No proceedings have been instituted. There has been no further outbreak and it appears that everything in connection with the sale of the estate has been satisfactorily settled.
  Captain COOPER: May I ask why proceedings were not taken against persons who were identified as having taken part in these lawless proceedings?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The circumstances of the case, as the hon. Member knows, were very exceptional. Peace has been restored in the district, and the general view was that it would be undesirable to take proceedings.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Is there peace in Belfast?
  Captain COOPERasked the Chief Secretary if he would state by whose authority the district inspector of constabulary interviewed Patrick Kilby, the leader of the cattle-drivers on the Pollock estate, county Galway; whether that officer obtained from Kilby a written undertaken that there would be no repetition of the crime of cattle-driving provided the negotiations for the sale of the property were completed by a specified date; and, if so, whether he would communicate to the House the text of this undertaking?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the question on the same subject asked by the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh on 23rd June last.

  Warrenpoint (County Down), By-law.
  Mr. HAZLETONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he was aware that the urban council of Warrenpoint had adopted a by-law restricting the rights of the boatmen who plied for hire between

  1765
  Omeath and Warrenpoint; whether the Local Government Board had sanctioned such by-law; and, if so, whether, on representations as to its hardship on the boatmen of Omeath being made, the Board would reconsider the question?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Local Government Board have no information regarding the by-law mentioned in the question.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Are the Warrenpoint Commissioners not quite within their rights in passing this by-law.

  Mountjoy Prison, Dublin.
  Mr. NANNETTIasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he was aware that a number of warders in Mountjoy Prison, Dublin, did not get their leave of absence for the past two years; that up to the present date this year only thirteen had got full annual leave; and whether provision would be made so that all warders in Mountjoy Prison would get their leave this year?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: No warder on the staff of Mountjoy Prison was refused his annual leave for the past two years, but a few did not ask for it. Ten warders have had their annual leave this year, and all will get it if they want it.
  Mr. NANNETTIasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he could give the name of the warder in Mountjoy Prison who was selected for court duty, and how he came to be selected; how long had he been doing this duty; how much extra pay did court duty mean; could he say how many trades warders there were in Mountjoy Prison; how were they selected, and how much extra pay did the duty involve; and had warders with one or two years' service been selected for court duty while men of long service were deprived of the chance of earning extra pay?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I understand that Warder Mackerell was selected for this duty by the governor of the prison and has been generally employed on it for the last five or six years without extra pay. There are twelve persons employed as trades warders in Mountjoy Prison. Five are on special scales of salary and the remainder are ordinary warders with special allowances of from £5 to £10 per annum. Warders with one or two years' service have been selected by the governor
  1766
  to assist in court duty. They get no extra pay, but only subsistence allowance to cover out-of-pocket expenses for meals.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: May I ask whether the warder who has been selected for this duty for the last five years by the governor was selected by the governor because of his Ulster accent?
  Mr. MOORE: Cork accent.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Orange accent.

  Directory of Irish Exporters.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he could state what progress had been made with the compilation of the directory of Irish exporters; and the approximate date of its publication?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The compilation is well advanced and the book will probably be out in September.

  Evicted Tenants (Kildare Case).
  Mr. KILBRIDEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he was aware that Mr. Phelan, who was evicted for one year's rent and costs on the 5th July, 1902, from his holding at Cloney, county Kildare, on the estate of Mr. Arthur Robert Verschoyle, had made repeated applications to the Estates Commissioners for reinstatement but received no reply; and could he say if this case had been inquired into and when Phelan may expect to be reinstated or supplied with an equivalent holding?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Estates Commissioners are unable to trace the receipt of any applications from a person named Phelan claiming to have been evicted from the Verschoyle estate.

  Department of Agriculture, Ireland.
  Mr. KILBRIDEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he could state the nature and duties of the position occupied by the late Mr. James Harper in the Department of Agriculture; was his post intimately connected with the fruit-growing industry, requiring a thorough knowledge of the growing, packing, grading, and marketing of the fruits grown in Ireland; whether the vacancy had been filled, if so, by whom, and what were his qualifications and previous knowledge of the soft fruit trade; and whether a change had been made in the duties of the office?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: Mr. Harper was in the first instance employed as an expert in fruit drying, but was subsequently appointed to represent the Department in connection with the marketing in Great Britain of Irish agricultural produce in all its various classes. No change has been made in the duties of the office. Mr. Sidney Smith, who has had a wide experience in the provision trade, has been appointed to the vacancy.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: May I ask if Mr. Sidney Smith had the smallest bit of knowledge of the soft fruit trade, and as a matter of fact if he was not a commercial traveller for a Liverpool firm in the dry fruit trade?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: That is only part of his present duty.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Are we to take it that the Department thinks that a proper man to be employed in the soft fruit trade is a man whose only knowledge of the trade is in the dry fruit trade as a traveller in Liverpool?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: My hon. Friend will notice that his present duties extend far beyond that.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what his other duties are?

  Captain Murphy's Estate, Rathangan, County Kildare.
  Mr. KILBRIDEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on Captain Murphy's estate, Lullymore, Rathangan, county Kildare, met the landlord some time ago and asked him to sell, which he refused to do under any conditions; that the tenants through their solicitor forwarded a memorial to the Estates Commissioners setting out the facts of the situation; that there are fourteen tenants on this property whose families number ninety-one human beings, the aggregate of these fourteen holdings being seventy-five acres, all of which has been reclaimed by them from bog and heath; whether Captain Murphy, who is non-resident, has on his own hands in Lullymore about 200 acres and ninety-five let on the eleven months' system, in Kilpatrick on his own hands forty acres, let on the eleven months' system ninety acres, in Lullybeg on his own hands seventy acres, set by eleven months ten acres; have the
  1768
  Estates Commissioners considered the circumstances of this estate; and what action they propose to take in the matter?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Estates Commissioners have received the memorial referred to, and are in communication with the owner on the subject. They have no information as to the other matters referred to in the question?
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate when the Estates Commissioners are going to reply to a memorial that has been sent by an Eden-derry solicitor?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I will call the attention of the Estates Commissioners to it.

  Constable Treacy (Clonaslee, Queen's County).
  Mr. DELANYasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of Constable Treacy, lately stationed at Clonaslee, Queen's County, against whom it was alleged that on a certain Sunday in October last, when acting as barrack orderly between nine and ten o'clock at night, he stopped two men outside the barracks, and, after procuring drink for them from an adjacent public-house, incited them to smash the bicycle belonging to the sergeant of a neighbouring station and throw it into the river; that on another occasion this constable supplied horns to two young men, prompting them at the same time to sound a local Protestant, lately married, with the object of annoying the sergeant; and that he advised certain persons to feign drunkenness before the sergeant, get arrested, and then go before a doctor and a magistrate and charge the sergeant with unlawful arrest; whether he is aware that evidence of a most reliable character is forthcoming in support of those charges; and will he grant a public sworn inquiry in order that the allegations against this constable may be thoroughly investigated?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: My attention has already been drawn to the matters referred to in the question, which were investigated by two experienced police officers some months ago. The Inspector-General then came to the conclusion that the case of Constable Treacy would be sufficiently met by his transfer to another county, as already ordered on other grounds. I see no reason for any further inquiry.

  Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1903.
  Mr. KERR-SMILEYasked the Chief Secretary how many estates have been sold in county Antrim under the Land Act of 1903, the acreage, the amount of the purchase price, and the number of years' purchase?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: Purchase agreements for the sale of 217 estates in county Antrim have been lodged under the Irish Land Act of 1903. The purchase money applied for is £2,511,306 and the average number of years' purchase is 24.6 for all classes of rent. Statistics as to the acreage are not available at present.
  Mr. KERR-SMILEYasked the Chief Secretary how many estates were sold in county Antrim more than four years ago, the purchase money for which has not yet been paid by the Government; what is the amount of money required to pay for these estates; and whether, having regard to the loss inflicted on the tenants by the delay, he will take steps to raise the money at once?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: In the case of twelve estates in county Antrim in which the purchase agreements were lodged before 31st March, 1906, the purchase money, amounting to £178,115, has not yet been advanced. In two of these cases the purchase money can be advanced when the requirements of the Estates Commissioners have been complied with. The other cases will be dealt with in order of priority.

  Dairies and Cowsheds Order (Ireland).
  Mr. KERR-SMILEYasked the Chief Secretary whether he can state the total cost to the ratepayers of Ireland of administering the Dairies and Cowsheds Order; and whether he proposes to make this a charge on the Exchequer?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The total cost of administering the Order is about £10,000 a year. Recoupment of a portion of this cost can be obtained from the Local Taxation Account under certain conditions which I explained in my reply to a question asked by the hon. Member on 6th April last. I am not in a position to state the net cost to the ratepayers.

  "Longford Leader."
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary if he was aware that the "Longford Leader" newspaper of Saturday, 2nd July,
  1770
  contained a paragraph indicating that Mr. Michael Magaw had refused to surrender the Middleton farm, and that a monster meeting is to be held on Sunday next, 10th July, to deal with this latest attempt at grabbing in the county; whether this meeting will be permitted to take place; and whether any further action is to be taken against this and other newspapers which continue to publish intimidatory notices?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I am aware that the "Longford Leader" did make the publication referred to in the question. The matter is receiving the attention of the Government. Prosecutions are at present pending with respect to the publications in this newspaper.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: May I inquire whether a prosecution will also take place in Belfast against the magistrates and others who held a public meeting to intimidate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Walter Long)?

  United Irish League (Meeting at Newtownbond).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary if he has seen the official report of the speeches delivered at a United Irish League meeting, held on Sunday, 19th June, in the vicinity of Newtownbond, for the purpose of denouncing Captain Bond and his agent; whether he is aware that the object of the meeting was to secure that until Captain Bond sold to his tenants a ring of fire should be drawn round Newtownbond, and that the Nationalists of the district should use the weapon at their hands; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I have seen the official report of the speeches referred to in the hon. Member's question. I have no doubt that the object of the meeting was to try and compel Captain Bond to sell his lands to the tenants. The action of those concerned in the movement against Captain Bond is being closely watched, but at the present stage it is not considered expedient to institute a prosecution.

  Clare Summer Assizes (Undetected Crime).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the remarks of Lord Justice Cherry, at the Clare Summer Assizes on Friday last, that there was a great deal of undetected crime in the county; and whether,

  1771
  having regard to this circumstance and the failure to secure convictions under the ordinary law, he intends to take special measures in this county to ensure that criminals are brought to justice?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: My attention has been called to the observations of the learned judge. The difficulty in that county arises in connection with obtaining evidence, and I am not aware of any measure that would meet that difficulty.
  Mr. LYNCH: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if his attention has been called to an expression of high opinion in another place yesterday, that the best means— [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, Order."]
  Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that he cannot refer to the Debates in another place.

  Royal Irish Constabulary (Extra Positions).
  Mr. HAZLETONasked how many of the Royal Irish Constabulary hold paid positions in addition to their work as policemen; and what is the regulation governing their action in this respect?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The only cases of the kind are those of five members of the force who have been specially appointed to act as ship inspectors under the Department of Agriculture. This work does not interfere with the efficient discharge of their ordinary duties. There is no regulation on the subject.
  Mr. HAZLETONasked how long Sergeant Jenkins, Greenore, has held the position of ship inspector under the Department of Agriculture, and who appointed him; what are the duties of this office and what remuneration does he receive from it; what arrangements are made to discharge his duties as sergeant while he is acting as ship inspector; when was he in England as ship inspector, and for how long; who paid the expenses of his trip to England; who discharged his police duties while he was away; whether his locum tenens received payment for this duty; and, if so, whether the cost will be charged upon the ratepayers of county Louth as a charge for extra police?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: Sergeant Jenkins has held the position of ship inspector at Greenore since 5th September,
  1772
  1903. He was appointed by the Department of Agriculture. His duty is to see that the by-laws and orders of the Department with respect to the transit of cattle are observed. He is paid £36 a year. His employment as ship inspector only occupies him for a short time daily, and does not interfere with his duties as sergeant, his barrack being close to the port. He was in England from 28th to 30th November last as a witness for the Department, who paid his expenses. His duties during those three days were performed by the senior constable at the station without extra pay.
  Mr. HAZLETONasked the Chief Secretary whether, in view of the fact that the holding of such a position as that of ship inspector under the Department of Agriculture, which may involve frequent absence in England or Scotland in the discharge of its duties, interferes with the efficient discharge of their own duties by members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, he will have the practice of the police holding such positions discontinued?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: There has been only one case during the past seven years in which a policeman holding the position of ship inspector has been absent in Great Britain. The difficulty suggested by the hon. Member has not, therefore, arisen, and does not seem likely to arise.

  Dublin Metropolitan Police (Regulations).
  Mr. HAZLETONasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that it is a regulation of the Dublin Metropolitan Police that the members of the force shall devote their whole time to the police service; for what reason is there no similar regulation in the Royal Irish Constabulary service; and whether it is proposed to assimilate the practice in both forces?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Constabulary Regulations do not state in so many words that members of the force shall devote their whole time to police service, but this is nevertheless the rule and practice of the force. The employment of certain members of the force as ship inspectors under the Department of Agriculture does not violate this rule as the work is practically police duty.
  Mr. HAZLETONasked whether it is an official regulation that anyone joining the Dublin Metropolitan Police is not to belong to any political or secret society (that of Freemasons excepted); what are

  1773
  the grounds on which an exception is made in favour of the Freemason Society; whether it is proposed to continue this regulation; and whether a similar regulation applies to the Royal Irish Constabulary?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The matter is not one of official regulation. Both the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police are obliged to take an oath to the effect stated in the hon. Member's question, by virtue of the Statutes 6 and 7, William IV., c. 13, Sec. 17, and 6 and 7 William IV., c. 29, Sec. 44, respectively. No change could be effected under the existing law.

  Departmental Loans, Ireland.
  Captain COOPERasked the Chief Secretary if he will state from how many credit societies has the Department been compelled to recover their loans by means of legal proceedings?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: Twenty-one cases were placed in the hands of the Chief Crown Solicitor. In fifteen of these cases the amounts due have been recovered. The remaining six cases are still pending.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Can the hon. Gentleman say what was the amount?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I am sorry I cannot.

  Proposed Agricultural College (Connaught).
  Mr. DUFFYasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that a large farm of land was acquired some years ago by the Congested Districts Board in the neighbourhood of Athenry; that the farm was subsequently acquired by the Estates Commissioners; and that later on the greater portion of the farm was sold to the Agricultural Department for the express purpose of building a college thereon and maintaining the farm for the training and education of the young men of Connaught in the science of agriculture; will he state at what date the farm was purchased by the Department; what sum or sums of money have been earmarked for the purpose of building the college; is it the intention of the Agricultural Department to fulfil the promise made, on the strength of which they acquired the farm—namely, to build a college thereon; and whether he can state how the farm has been worked for the past five years?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I have nothing to add to the reply given by the Vice-President of the Department to a question on the same subject asked by the hon. Member for South Mayo on 29th July, 1909?

  Chartered High Court (Burma).
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Undersecretary of State for India what the reasons are for the refusal to establish a chartered High Court of Judicature for the province of Burma, in lieu of the present chief court?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): After careful consideration, the Secretary of State in Council has come to the conclusion that the establishment of a Chartered High Court, whether for the whole of Burma or for Lower Burma only, is not required in the interests of the Province.

  University for Burma.
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Undersecretary for India whether any decision has been passed on the application of a public meeting held at Rangoon, and presided over by the Chief Justice, for the establishment of a university for Burma?
  Mr. MONTAGU: No proposal on this subject has yet been put before the Secretary of State.
  Sir JOHN JARDINE: Has the matter not been put forward by the Government of Burma, or possibly by the Government of India?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The first movement in this matter must come from the Government of Burma. No representations from the Government of Burma or from the Government of India have been received.

  4th Battalion Worcestershire Regiment (Ammunition Supplied).
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Under-Secretary for India whether he had received any complaint as to the quality of the ammunition supplied during the last musketry course of the 4th Battalion Worcestershire Regiment; and what was the date of manufacture of the ammunition issued for that course?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State has received no complaint or information regarding the ammunition in question.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to obtain some information in view of the fact that a considerable number of the men who in previous years have been first-class shots this year failed to pass?
  Mr. MONTAGU: If my hon. Friend will give me any information he possesses I will only be too happy to make inquiries.

  Cigarettes (Imports into India).
  Mr. RICEasked the Under-Secretary for India what were the imports of cigarettes into India in each of the last three months compared with the same months of last year?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The comparative figures in pounds are: March, 1909, 231,700; March, 1910, 204,618; April, 1909, 283,447; April, 1910, 171,466; May, 1909, 251,293; May, 1910, 17,744. Figures for June, 1910, are not yet available. I should explain, however, that for the purpose of obtaining information as to the quantity of cigarettes that pass into consumption, on payment of duty, in each month, these figures, as they stand, are useless, since it is necesary to take into account the quantity passed into bond or taken out of bond month by month.

  Postage Stamp Books.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that advertisements are inserted in the 2s. stamp books, but the purchaser only gets stamps to the value of 1s. 11½d., he will state whether he will now undertake to give the purchaser in future full value for his 2s.?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The revenue from advertisements at present defrays only a small part of the cost of issuing the stamps in book form, but the matter is receiving special consideration.
  Mr. BOLAND: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that if the receipts from the advertisements enable it, in a reasonable time, to be done, full value will be given?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That, I am afraid, is a hypothetical question. If the hon. Gentleman will assist me to obtain remunerative advertisers I shall be grateful.

  Advertising Circulars (Postal Surcharge).
  Mr. SUMMERSasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a large number of advertising circulars posted at Prestatyn by the secretary of the Town Improvement Society, have been surcharged one penny, which has been demanded from the recipients in various parts of the United Kingdom; and whether he will grant facilities for the despatch of circulars from Prestatyn at the halfpenny rate?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I very much regret that, owing to a misapprehension on the part of the local officials, some of the circulars referred to by the hon. Member were wrongly surcharged. I have caused instructions to be given in the matter, which will prevent a recurrence.

  Voluntary Schools (Scotland).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Lord Advocate what steps, if any, he proposes to take to carry into effect the undertaking of the Secretary for Scotland that the amount of the residue grant for voluntary schools would be 6s.?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The amount distributed to voluntary schools in Scotland under the provisions of Section 17 (11) of the Act of 1908 for the year ending 15th May, 1910, was £27,229 Is. 11d., being a sum of 5s. 9d. per head of the average attendance in these schools. This is a sufficiently close approximation to the sum of 6s. mentioned to justify the hope that by the exercise of greater economy by the secondary education committees as regards various first charges on the district funds and by the probable increase in the total amount of the Education (Scotland) Fund for the present year the sum named may be reached.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is it a fact that the 5s. 9d. in question comes entirely from the residue of the Act of 1908?
  Mr. URE: It comes from the residue.

  Old Age Pensions (Scotland).
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked whether an application for an old age pension from Mr. John Tulloch, retired gardener, aged seventy-five years, living in the parish of Melrose, has yet been disposed of; and, if so, what decision has been come to?
  Mr. URE: I am informed that the claim is at present being dealt with by the pension officer, and has not yet been decided.

  Board of Agriculture (Ireland) Inspectors.
  Mr. MOONEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether police pensioners employed in Ireland as watchers in the Customs Department are not called upon to retire until the age of sixty-five, whereas civilians employed by the Department of Agriculture as ship inspectors to do similar work are, by Treasury regulation, compelled to retire at the age of sixty, although physically quite competent to carry out their duties; and whether he will consider the possibility of giving a discretionary power to the Board of Agriculture, Ireland, to retain such inspectors as are efficient at least as long as police pensioners and so prevent this discrimination in favour of persons who have other means of support than their salaries?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I understand that the facts are as stated. The Department consider that the rule requiring all ship inspectors to retire at sixty is a salutary one, and should not be changed.
  Mr. MOONEY: The question on the Paper was directed to the Treasury as the retirement is called for by the Treasury, so, therefore, I think I am entitled to an answer from the Treasury representative.

  Agricultural Banks and Credit Societies (Ireland).
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the hundred agricultural banks and credit societies which he stated to be in arrear for two years or more with their annual returns are all situated in Ireland; whether he can state to how many of these societies the Agricultural Department or the Congested Districts Board has lent money; and what arrangements exist for the regular audit or inspection of the accounts of these societies?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have no material for answering the second part. As regards the third part, every society registered under the Friendly Societies Acts is required to have its accounts audited not less often than once a year, and annual returns have to be furnished to the Registrar, containing the accounts as signed by the auditors.

  Scottish Salmon Fisheries.
  Captain WARINGasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the salmon fishings in Banffshire of Ballintore, Shand-wick, Rockfield, Geanies, and Leafield are to be let by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests privately to a syndicate instead of as hitherto by public tender; and, if so, whether he will reconsider the proceeding in view of the fact that such a course, if persisted in, would cause hardship to the inhabitants of the districts concerned?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: As explained in reply to a question on 18th April last, the Commissioner has entered into an agreement for the letting of these fisheries to a company with the object of preventing the regrettable decrease of fish on the coast. The agreement is, however, provisional, and subject to the approval of the Treasury; and, having regard to the representations which have been made since it was concluded, further inquiries will be made before a final decision on the subject is arrived at.

  Willesden Junction (Railway Footpath Toll Charge).
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state what reply he has received from the London and North-We stern Railway Company to his communication regarding the action of the company in charging a toll for the use of the footpath connecting Willesden Junction with Hyde Road, Willesden?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The railway company's reply is to the effect that there was ample access to and from the Willesden Junction Station, but that they were asked to provide an additional footpath to afford a more direct access to the station for passengers having business in the Hyde Road district and also for the public wishing to pass between that district and Harlesden. The scheme, however, involved more expense than the company felt justified in incurring without some return, and they only agreed to carry out the work on the condition that persons using the path should pay Id. for a return journey, or, if they preferred to do so, take out season tickets at a cost of Is. per month, 5s. for six months, or 10s. annually.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: With whom did the railway company consult

  1779
  before it agreed to undertake this expenditure which committed the company to charge a toll upon the footbridge?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am afraid I cannot say, but I imagine with those representing the convenience of the district. If the hon. Member will put a question down I will endeavour to ascertain.

  Twentieth Century Equitable Friendly Society.
  Mr. JAMES THOMASasked whether the Twentieth Century Equitable Friendly Society has refused to pay the death benefit to the widow of a deceased member; and, having regard to the fact that such society continues to receive contributions and are unable to meet their liabilities, what steps he proposes to take?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It has been brought to the notice of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies that the benefits to which certain members of the Twentieth Century Equitable Friendly Society were entitled have been unpaid, the direct cause being the locking up of the society's funds on mortgage. The society, by the last valuation of assets and liabilities, was shown to have a serious actuarial deficiency. The Chief Registrar required this fact to be brought before the members, with a view to their deciding what was to be done, and pointed out that, unless new tables of contributions and benefits approved by their valuer were adopted, the only alternative was dissolution. At their annual meeting last Whitsuntide the members decided upon the former course; and amendment of application is to be made for the necessary rules. I am not aware to what specific case the question refers, but if the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars I will gladly look into it.

  Dockyard Imperial Service Order Medallists.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can explain to the House the Admiralty objections to placing the Imperial Service Order medallists in the Royal dockyards on the same footing as seamen and Marines in the Royal Navy, who, having obtained a medal for meritorious service, are also granted a gratuity?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The Statutes governing the award of the Imperial Service Order and Medal apply to the whole of the Civil Service, and not merely to established employés of the Admiralty. I may, however, state that the conditions of employment in the naval and civil services are entirely different, and it would be impossible to establish any effective comparison between them on matters of detail such as that referred to in the hon. Member's question.

  His Majesty's Engineer Officers.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY (for Lord Charles Beresford)asked if there was a Committee on the question of the rank and status of the engineer officers of His Majesty's Fleet; and, if so, whether he can now state to the House the finding of that Committee?
  Mr. McKENNA: I must refer the Noble and Gallant Lord to the reply given to a similar question from him on 30th March last.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask whether the interval between the 3rd of March last and now has not been sufficiently long to-enable the right hon. Gentleman to reply?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, the Committee to which the Noble Lord referred sat some years ago. Its proceedings were confidential, and remain confidential to-the present time.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Does that mean that the proceedings will not be published?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir, they will not be published.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Why did the right hon. Gentleman not say so before?
  Mr. McKENNA: I did say so before.

  Fair Wages Clause (Work on His Majesty's Ships).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the result of the investigations into the allegations of violations of the Fair Wage Clause in connection with painting work and cork dusting on His Majesty's ship "Gloucester," under construction at Messrs. Beardmore's, Clydebank, and on His Majesty's ship "Glasgow," and some torpedo boats, under construction at the Fairfield Shipbuilding Company's yard?
  Mr. McKENNA: I understand that there is no agreed line of demarcation between painters' and red-leaders' work. Both firms have been communicated with, and both have reported that they are not employing any labourers on painters' work.

  Mail Bags (British and Foreign-Made Cloth).
  Mr. KILBRIDEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any of the canvas required for the making of mail bags has been ordered from British manufacturers at a higher price than that quoted by British merchants for perfectly satisfactory Foreign-made cloth and such as has been used by the Department for very many years past; can he state the price now paid for British manufactured stuff and the price quoted for foreign, such as formerly used; and can he say whether similar preference will be given by the Government in the case of Irish manufacturers or foodstuffs.
  The SECRETARY Of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): In four out of sixty-eight items, representing 704,500 yards, the prices for British woven canvas were higher than those quoted for canvas of foreign manufacture. In the remaining sixty-four items, representing 350,900 yards, the tenders for British woven canvas were lower than those for foreign. In view, however, of the very small margins between the British and foreign prices, and the extra difficulty of inspection of foreign goods, I decided that the whole of the contract for this year should be placed with British manufacturers. It is not customary to publish the accepted prices, but the total additional cost, as compared with the lowest tenders for foreign canvas, amounted to £985 7s. 6d. on a contract of about £50,000. I shall be prepared to pursue a similar policy under similar conditions in respect of Irish produce.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Secretary of State for War to have Irish foodstuffs supplied to Irish soldiers in preference to foreign?
  Sir F. BANBURY: Are we to understand the right hon. Gentleman has been converted to Tariff Reform?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that would be an extraordinary deduction from the facts as stated.

  Whitehaven Coal Company (Crown Minerals).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked (1) What is the amount of royalty per ton paid by the Whitehaven Coal Company on the Crown minerals now being worked by that company; and (2) whether he has claimed or obtained payment of royalties on the coal which has been worked under the sea beyond the three mile limit at the Wellington Colliery, Whitehaven; if not, what action he proposes taking to recover the same?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: With the hon. Member's permission, I will answer these questions together. The interest of the Crown in the mineral substances down to the bottom of the coal measures under the bed of the sea and below low water for a distance of ten miles from the lighthouse on St. Bees' Head was sold to the Earl of Lonsdale in 1881. In consequence of this sale no royalties are received or could be claimed by the Crown in respect of workings by the Whitehaven Coal Company.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can a copy of the agreement under which the interest of the Crown was sold be seen?
  Mr HOBHOUSE: I cannot answer offhand, but, speaking off-hand, I see no objection.

  FINANCE ACT, 1909–10.

    MINERALS UNDER SEA (CROWN RIGHTS).
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the terms of the document by which the rights of the Crown to mineral royalties for coal or other minerals being worked under the sea beyond the three-mile limit are protected, and the mines which are at present paying royalties to the Crown under the terms thereof?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: In no cases up to the present have the Commissioners of Woods, etc., granted leases beyond the three-mile limit. In all leases of under-sea mines they require the lessees to leave a barrier on the seaward boundary so that they cannot work beyond the three-mile limit without committing a breach of covenant for which the lease would be forfeitable. The workings in under-sea leases granted by the Commissioners of Woods are usually inspected at least once a year by the Crown mineral inspector.

    INCOME TAX (REBATEMENTS AND DEFINITION OF PROFITS).
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, seeing that under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act of 1853 rebates of Income Tax are allowed for payments on account of premiums for life assurance up to one-sixth of one's income, and that under Section 66 of the Finance Act it is provided that, in estimating the income of persons liable to pay Super-tax, the amount paid in assurance premiums is deducted and that, in consequence of these allowances, a person whose income is exactly £5,000 a year effects a saving in the amount of his taxes of £70 a year if he insures to an amount equal to one-sixth of his income, he will say what is the equivalent advantage which a workman, who is disqualified for the receipt of an old age pension on account of friendly society or trade union superannuation, may be said to receive in return for the premiums which he has paid out of his wages throughout his working life?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: As the hon. Member is aware, the Old Age Pensions Act does not allow deductions in respect of insurance premiums in calculating the yearly means of a person for the purposes of the Act. There is no necessary analogy between the calculation of income for the purposes of taxation and the calculation of yearly means for purposes such as that of the Old Age Pensions Act, but even if the same rules were applied, the deduction would be allowable in respect of life assurance premiums only.
    Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he proposes this year to revise the definition of profits assessable to Income Tax so as to avoid the anomalies and well-known injustices in the present method of the calculation of such profits?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: If the hon. Member will be so good as to furnish my right hon. Friend with detailed information as to the cases referred to, he will be glad to give the matter his consideration.
    Captain CLIVEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that, although Super-tax forms have been issued, forms for claiming the increased lebate of Income Tax for upkeep of lands and buildings are not yet obtainable, and in consequence applications for this rebate have been hitherto refused; and if
    1784
    he will take steps to see that the benefits of the Finance Act are as readily accessible as the burdens?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am informed that the forms referred to by the hon. Member are now in course of being printed, and will be available at an early date.

    APPOINTMENT OF VALUERS.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH COOKEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government intend to appoint any surveyors under the Finance Act, 1909–10; and, if so, whether he is in a position to inform the House of the nature of these appointments, both as regards number and emolument?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: If by "surveyors" the hon. Member means valuers, I may refer him to the answers given to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Cheshire) and to the hon. Member for Faversham respectively on 29th June last.

    MINING ROYALTIES TAX.
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked whether any deductions are made in assessing the Mining Royalties Tax for surveyors' costs and cost of collection?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, does not contain any provision for deductions from Mineral Rights Duty of the nature referred to by the hon. Member.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope of any change by which the owners will not be taxed on what they do not actually receive?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not know. I shall have to bring that to the attention of the Chancellor.

    SUPER-TAX OFFICE (OVERTIME).
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked whether the Super-tax office have been working overtime; whether such overtime includes any work on Sundays, and, if so, how much; what increase in salary of the staff will be involved; and on what Vote such increase will be taken?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: With regard to the first and second parts of the hon. Member's question, a few of the officers employed in connection with the work of Super-tax have been working over-

    1785
    time, which does not include work on Sundays; but it is not possible at present to state what will be the consequent increase in their emoluments. Any increase will fall on Sub-head A of the Inland Revenue Vote, "Provision for extra or for special services."

    STAMP DUTY.
    Lord BALCARRESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, where a building estate is developed by the erection and sale of small houses, each sale being carried out by means of a lease to the purchaser at a ground rent for a consideration representing the value of the house, the leases are subject, under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, to double Stamp Duty, notwithstanding that the total value of the rent and premium may not exceed £500; and, if so, whether he will introduce into the Finance Bill of this year a provision for extending to transactions of this character the exemption from double duty accorded by Section 73 of the Act of last year to other purchasers of small houses?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As I informed the hon. Member for Clitheroe, in reply to a similar question on the 28th ultimo, my right hon. Friend has this matter under his consideration.

    INCREMENT DUTY.
    Mr. FELLasked how many of the 10,000 deeds which were presented for stamping and assessment of Increment Duty during the months of May and June have had the Increment Value assessed and the duty paid, and the transaction closed up to the present time?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: None, Sir.
    Mr. FELL: Taking 200 deeds registered a day, has the Treasury any prospect of picking up the arrears in view of these accumulations?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is a fact, as I have stated, that there has been some delay, but it is not anticipated to be serious.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say approximately how many of these 10,000 deeds had an interim denoting stamp?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I could not tell that without notice.

    Cocoa and Chocolate Duty.
    Mr. PETOasked the amount of revenue collected from the duty on raw cocoa, prepared cocoa, cake chocolate, and sweets only partially composed of chocolate, such as chocolate creams, respectively?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The amount of revenues collected from the duty on cocoa, chocolate, and confectionary containing chocolate, during the year ended 31st March, 1910, was:—

    Cocoa, raw

    £205,374

    Cocoa husks and shells

    229

    Cocoa or chocolate, ground, prepared, or in any way manufactured

    97,139

    Cocoa butter

    361

    Confectionery containing chocolate

    7,205

    £310,308

    The duty received on cake chocolate as distinguished from other kinds of chocolate cannot be stated. I should add, in regard to the heading for confectionery containing chocolate, that the duty received on the chocolate contained in this confectionery was £5,704, the remainder of the duty being in respect of spirit and sugar.

    Development Fund (Agricultural Research).
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether grants out of the Development Fund for such objects as agricultural research or the development of any branch of rural industry will be made to meet capital outlay upon buildings and equipment or only for the purposes of annual maintenance; or whether such grants will be available both for capital outlay upon and the maintenance of such objects?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No distinction is drawn in the Development Act of last Session between advances in respect of capital outlay and annual maintenance, but it is manifestly impossible for my right hon. Friend to foresee what view the Development Commission may take on the subject.

    Tobacco Duty.
    Mr. FELLasked if it is proposed in the Finance Bill to rearrange the Tobacco Duties so that the tobacco which is stripped shall bear the same extra duty

    1787
    which it bore in 1905, with results which were so beneficial to the stripping trade in this country?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend does not propose to rearrange the Tobacco Duties.
    Mr. FELL: Arising out of that reply, may I ask if the Treasury is not in possession of a considerable amount of further information since this duty was changed, and whether, under those circumstances, they will not reconsider the question?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, I do not recollect the Treasury being in possession of any further information.
    Mr. FELL: Is there no further information regarding the results of the change?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, not so far as I am aware.

    Cadet Corps (Provision of Equipment).
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn by county associations to the difficulty in raising and maintaining cadet corps owing to the alteration of the original regulation promising free equipment; and whether he can see his way to providing such corps free of cost with arms and equipment from any stores that may have been discarded as obsolete for other units?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane: The money Grant for these corps was fixed on the understanding that there would be no free issues. I am considering what can be done in the way of sale of obsolete stores at low prices.

    Territorial Artillery (Berkshire).
    Major HENDERSONasked what was the cost of conveying the Berkshire Territorial Artillery from Salisbury Plain to Shoeburyness to fire their annual course?
    Mr. HALDANE: The cost of the move was approximately £60.
    Major HENDERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that in future this unnecessary expense is not incurred?
    Mr. HALDANE: These arrangements are always left to the General Officer Commanding in Chief, and he presumably knew whether the range was being used by other troops.
    Major HENDERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on that particular day the range was not being used?
    Mr. HALDANE: I am not aware one way or the other. It is extremely unlikely the officer Commanding in Chief would not know on what days the range was being used.

    Army Flour Supply.
    Mr. LONSDALEasked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the deleterious ingredients introduced into flour as the result of bleaching with nitrogen peroxide; and whether any measures are taken to prevent the supply to the Army of flour which has undergone this bleaching process?
    Mr. HALDANE: I have not received any reports of the flour supplied to the Army being treated in the manner referred to. The specification governing supply under contract requires that the flour shall be the produce of good, sound wheat and dry wheat, without any adulteration whatever.
    Mr. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries of the President of the Local Government Board as to the question of the adulteration of flour?
    Mr. HALDANE: In the Army we look after our own flour.
    Mr. LONSDALE: What means does the right hon. Gentleman take to have the flour analysed?
    Mr. HALDANE: We have experts, and we have access to the laboratories we wish.
    Mr. LONSDALE: Does the salary of the expert appear on the Vote?
    Mr. HALDANE: If the hon. Member will put down a question, I will answer it.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's experts advise rolling flour with a steam rolling mill?

    Flour Supply (Royal Navy).
    Mr. LONSDALEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that, as the result of bleaching flour with nitrogen peroxide, poisonous and deleterious ingredients are introduced; and whether, in the interests of the health of the men in the Navy, he will direct that flour bleached by this process should not be supplied for Navy purposes?
    Mr. McKENNA: The matter is receiving the attention of the Admiralty, and the action taken will depend upon the result of the inquiries which are being instituted by the Local Government Board on the subject.
    Mr. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman have the inquiry completed as soon as possible?
    Mr. McKENNA: My right hon. Friend will see the inquiry is conducted as rapidly as possible by the Local Government Board.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the inquiry be extended to other forms of bleaching than that mentioned in the question?
    Mr. McKENNA: That question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board.

    Military Bands at Political Gatherings.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that, on the 28th ultimo, the band of the 8th Middlesex Regiment discoursed music at an Empire Day celebration at Brentford; whether he is aware that the gathering was organised by the Conservative Association, and that the hon. Member for the Constituency addressed the meeting on the Budget, the House of Lords, the Conference, Tariff Reform, and Mr. Roosevelt; whether this was a political gathering; and, if so, whether it is in accordance with the military regulations for a regimental band to be present?
    Mr. HALDANE: I have called for a report on this case, and will let the hon. Member know the result in due course.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will let the House know.

    Display of Recruiting Poster (Nenagh).
    Captain COOPERasked whether the recruiting officer at Clonmel asked the Nenagh Urban District Council for permission to display a recruiting poster on any premises under their control; and what was the result of his application?
    Mr. HALDANE: I have ascertained that the Nenagh Town Council were asked for permission for a recruiting poster and a booklet setting out the advantages of the Army to be displayed in the public library, but that the application was refused.

    Cordite Manufacture.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Secretary of State for War whether cordite is manufactured otherwise than with acetone in any and, if so, what other countries; whether such process is easier and more expeditious than that in which acetone is employed; whether it has yet been proved that the cordite so produced is equally effective for all purposes as an explosive; and whether, when finally selecting between the alternative processes, he will bear in mind the potentialities of the manufacture of acetone either in the Forest of Dean or in the New Forest as a means of providing this country with a new and important woodland industry employing additional British labour both in the factory and in the forest?
    Mr. HALDANE: So far as is known in my Department, no country is manufacturing cordite otherwise than with acetone. Whether any other process is easier and more expeditious is not known, and could not be ascertained without extended trials, nor has it been proved on any large scale of manufacture that cordite so produced would be equally effective as an explosive. In answer to the last part of the question, it is not proposed to adopt any alternative process as long as acetone is available, and the sources of possible supply to which the hon. Member refers are being borne in mind.

    Army Ordnance Department (Writers' Pay).
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Secretary for War whether he is aware that the present rates of pay granted to writers in the Army Ordnance Department at out-stations are much less than those granted to similar grades in other branches of His Majesty's Service, namely, the Army Pay Department, Naval Ordnance Department, and the Army Ordnance Department at Woolwich Arsenal; and whether, seeing that these clerks perform duties not inferior to those of the other writers mentioned, he will revise the rates of pay of out-station writers and advance them to the same level as those of the clerks quoted above?
    Mr. HALDANE: The question of the rates of pay of these writers was only recently settled after a full inquiry into all the circumstances, and I am not prepared to make any increase.

    Japanese Customs Duties.
    Mr. PETO: asked the secretary of state for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement as to the progress of or prospects of negotiations with the Government of Japan for the modification of the proposed increased Customs Duties, particularly on manufactured metal, woollen, and cotton goods; and whether he has formed any estimate of their effect on the exports of these goods from this country to Japan if no modification of the tariff proposed is made?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): I am not in a position to make any statement at present.
    Mr. PETO: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has reason to believe that Count Kommura was correctly reported in the "Japan Mail," dated 31st January last, as having said in the Budget Committee of the Japanese Diet: "England, for example, being a perfectly Free Trade country, had no means of purchasing tariff concessions from other nations"; and whether he agrees with the opinion of the distinguished Japanese statesman, and, if not, whether he can inform the House as to the nature of the concessions that this country can make "in order to purchase tariff concessions from other nations" on British manufactured goods?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It must be obvious to the hon. Member that the Secretary of State cannot answer a question of that sort without notice.

    Scottish Estimates.
    Mr. EUGENE WASONasked the Prime Minister if he can now say on what day or days Scottish Estimates will be taken?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I hope a date may be fixed early in the week after next.

    Holland Park.
    Mr. FELLasked if the Government have received any information relating to the threatened sale of Holland Park for building purposes in consequence of the charges put upon it by the Budget; and if any step is proposed to be taken by the Government to keep this space open and un-built upon?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I am not aware that the Government have received any information on this matter.
    Mr. FELL: As the matter is so important, will the Government pay very close attention to it?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I know nothing about it.
    Mr. FELL: Is there no Department of the Crown which can deal with it?

    Unclaimed Bank Balances and Securities.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister whether, if satisfied that there is a general desire on the part of the House for an inquiry into the subject of dormant balances and unclaimed securities in the hands of bankers, he will consider a request for the appointment of a Select Committee?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not at present satisfied that there is such a general desire. If my hon. Friend can satisfy me that it exists, I will consider the matter.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman encourage me to this extent by saying that if he is satisfied there is such a desire he will lend a sympathetic ear to the recommendations for finding revenue, as he stated yesterday he would, in regard to new taxation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly.

    Convention of London.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister when an opportunity would be given for considering the question whether the Convention of London should or should not be ratified?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will consult with the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and perhaps the hon. Member will repeat his question at a later date.
    Earl WINTERTON: May I ask whether, in view of the fact that, for good or evil, this Convention profoundly affects the maritime interests of this country, the right hon. Gentleman will undertake that ratifications shall not be exchanged before the House has an opportunity of considering the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That undertaking has already been given.

    Finance Bill, 1910–11.
    Mr. FELLasked the Prime Minister if he proposes that the Finance Bill shall be brought in before the adjournment for the Summer Recess; and, if so, how far does he propose to carry it before the adjournment?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I hope to make a statement on this subject next week.

    House of Commons (Autumn Sitting).
    Captain CLIVEasked at what date in November, or approximately what date, the Autumn Session will begin?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not in a position to make a statement on this subject at present.

    Women Inspectors (Local Government Board).
    Mr. S. H. BUTCHERasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the Welsh-speaking woman inspector, whose appointment has been promised, will be in addition to the three new inspectors recently appointed, or will she only fill the vacancy caused by the retirement last March of the senior inspector of boarding out, thus completing the number of six who were announced last January as intended to work under the woman superintendent?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The new inspector will be additional to the three inspectors whose appointment was announced last January. She will, like the others, act under the superintendent lady inspector. This appointment completes the number of six referred to in the question.
    Mr. S. H. BUTCHER: Does that mean that the Welsh inspector merely fills a vacancy created by the withdrawal of another inspector?
    Mr. BURNS: Yes.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I suppose the Prime Minister will make his usual statement as to next week's business. May I ask him to say at the same time whether it is the intention of the Government to accept the Motion of my right hon.
1794
Friend the Leader of the Opposition asking for additional days in Supply? Perhaps I may be allowed to add I think it would be for the convenience of the House if the Prime Minister can sketch out the course of business up to the adjournment? Under ordinary circumstances this is about the time when a general statement is made as to the intentions of the Government.
The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I am not able to do that, but I will on the earliest possible day next week, and I would rather defer till then my answer to the question as to giving additional days in Supply. As regards next week, I have nothing to add to the statement I made to the House last Thursday. I said then we had allotted Monday to the Parliamentary Franchise (Women) Bill, and at the request of the promoters Tuesday will also be given to it. On Wednesday we shall take the Board of Education Vote, and after that Report of the Army Vote that has already been passed in Committee. On Thursday we take the Naval Construction Vote, and on Friday Supplementary Estimates. I may add that tomorrow we hope to conclude the Debate on the Budget, and I am glad the right hon. Gentleman opposite has expressed his intention to help facilitating that. As regards the general conduct of business before the adjournment, I have to say that, in consequence of representations which the Government have received from nearly every quarter of the House, the statement I made last week to the effect that we might possibly defer until the autumn the later stages of the Accession Declaration Bill will be modified, and we hope to get all the stages of that Bill before we adjourn for the Recess.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am obliged to the Prime Minister for what he has said in answer to my question. I hope the House will allow me to urge upon him to make his statement, if possible, on Monday, so that we may not have to wait until Thursday.
The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly; it will be made before Thursday.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I will ask the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury to place himself in communication with my right hon. Friend, as to tomorrow's business, and the suspension of the Five o'clock Rule5 to see what can be done.
Mr. BARNES: Can the Prime Minister say when the Debate will be taken on the Civil List Report?
The PRIME MINISTER: I will answer that next week. Meanwhile I may mention that among the Supplementary Estimates to be taken on Friday in next week will be one for the expenses of the late King's funeral.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: When will the Indian Budget be taken?
The PRIME MINISTER: Our present intention is to take that on the 26th.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I presume there is no intention to enter on Report of the Army Votes at a late hour should the Education Vote occupy the whole evening?
The PRIME MINISTER: It is only one Vote.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It involves a very large sum of money.
The PRIME MINISTER: No. A sum of £429,000, and the Vote has already been fully discussed in Committee.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I must not be taken as assenting to the suggestion that the Vote should be taken after 11 p.m. I do not think that that will meet the views of my hon. Friends.
Mr. EUGENE WASON: May I ask what are those bundles of papers on the floor of the House in front of the Mace?
Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member has seen petitions before.
Mr. EUGENE WASON: Ought they not to be presented in the ordinary way?
One other Member took and subscribed the Oath.

PRESENTATION OF BILL.
  CIVIL BILL COURTS (DUBLIN) BILL.
  "To improve the Procedure and make better-provision for the discharge of the business of the Civil Bill Courts of the City and County of Dublin," presented by Mr. CLANCY; supported by Mr. Fetherston-haugh, Mr. Field, Mr. Homer, and Mr. Nannetti. (To be read a second time upon Monday next.)
COMMONS.
Mr. Hicks Beach, Mr. Bentham, Mr. Noel Buxton, Mr. Brunner, Mr. Cautley, Mr. Lardner, and Mr. Mount nominated Members of the Select Committee.— [Master of Elibank.]
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND).
Return ordered, "Showing for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1910, (1) the amount contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, to the Revenue collected by the Imperial officers; (2) the Expenditure on English, Scottish, and Irish services met out of such Revenue; and (3) the balances of Revenue contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, which are available for Imperial Expenditure (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 208, of Session 1909).—[Mr. John O'Connor.]
SUPPLY.— [15th Allotted Day.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1910–11.— [CLASS II.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £62,447, 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, 1911., for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board in Ireland." [NOTE.—£40,000 has been voted on account.]
  Mr. CLANCY: I regret that in drawing attention to the question of providing cottages and allotments for labourers in Ireland on this Vote we have not before us the Returns for which we have moved and which I think the Chief Secretary promised would be in our hands before this discussion commenced. I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman, of course, for failure to produce them, but it is at the same time unfortunate that we have not

  1797
  got them, because I think an intelligent conclusion can best be drawn from an accurate statement of facts. We know, however, the main facts which cause the construction of these dwellings to be an absolute necessity at this moment, and I think the Chief Secretary, above all, will not be surprised that we raise this question at this moment and before any later date in the Session. In the first place, it is unnecessary to tell him, or indeed anyone connected with the Government of Ireland from the inside of the Department, of the urgency of the whole question of improving the conditions of living of the agricultural labourers of Ireland. The matter has become the subject of so many inquiries and of so many discussions in this House that I do not think it necessary to dwell at any length upon that question of urgency. I think the very fact that there have been so many Labourers Acts passed, and that one Government after another have been concerned in passing these Acts, is a conclusive proof that some serious condition of things had to be removed, and that it was the duty of Parliament to remedy it at the earliest possible moment. The point I wish to make at present with regard to this matter, however, is that although a good deal has been done, as I shall show, in the way of providing housing accommodation and plots for agricultural labourers, the condition of a very considerable number of them is still—I do not think I exaggerate in using the word—awful, from the point of humanity and civilisation. Mr. Bryce, when he was Chief Secretary for Ireland, was quite frank in making admissions on that head. He said, amongst other things, in May, 1906:—
  "The condition of the dwellings of these poor labourers was deplorably bad. He did not think it would be possible to overstate the wretchedness and the misery in which the labouring population of Ireland lived, and the necessity of ending the evils they suffered from."
  He went on to refer to the fact that the conditions of living led to tuberculosis, and even to insanity, and I am afraid there is too much ground for believing that it has led to an increase of insanity. In fact, What is mainly remarkable is that the people who live in these dwellings appear so healthy, and undoubtedly do lead such moral lives. I imagine it is the amount of fresh country air that enables them to keep an appearance of healthiness, and I am perfectly sure in my own mind that it is their religious faith alone which, amidst such surroundings, keeps them in a state of morality
  1798
  not found in any similar class in any country in the world. All this which Mr. Bryce mentioned is a true statement, as I have said, of a very considerable number of houses, if they can be called houses, in which these poor people live. Therefore, the Chief Secretary, who, I am sure, has general sympathy with the labouring classes, and especially, I should think, with those of Ireland, will not be surprised that Irish representatives, especially those who have been more active in the matter of reform, are determined to raise this question at the present moment in the House of Commons.
  There is a second reason for mentioning the matter now. A crisis is arising in the administration of the Labourers Acts. The provision made in 1906 for remedying the state of things I have referred to may now be said to be exhausted, and if it is not renewed the progress of one of the most beneficial of all social reforms must come to a dead stop. The Act of 1906, the last Act which was passed in reference to this subject, was passed to meet a similar crisis. In 1883, the first attempt was made to provide decent houses and plots of land by legislation for the working agricultural population. From that time up to 1906, that is in twenty-three years, only 20,000 cottages and allotments have been provided. That was a totally inadequate output, but the causes of it were perfectly evident, and were quite sufficient to account for even a smaller output. Mr. Bryce explained them, and we all know what they were. They were, first of all, costly and tardy procedure, which, in many cases, as many of us know by our professional experience, caused a house to take four or five years in construction, and caused oftentimes a greater sum to be paid in costs than sufficed to buy the land. That was the fault of the Acts then in force. Then there was a deliberate disinclination in some parts of Ulster to put the Act into force at all, and that became very evident when, in 1906 financial arrangements were made by which part of the Exchequer contribution then given was for the future to be diverted in aid of other parts of Ireland, which had the public spirit to put the Acts into force.
  But neither of these was the chief cause of the failure of the Act of 1883, and of all the subsequent Acts up to 1906 to make any considerable impression upon the evil which existed. The

  1799
  real block in the way was finance. The burden thrown upon the ratepayers under the old system of financing these schemes was too serious for the ratepayers to put it into operation. In 1906 it was quite clear that the Chief Secretary of that day had made up his mind, and had also induced the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Prime Minister, to take the same view, namely, that if these financial conditions were not changed and different financial terms offered they might as well never have passed any Labourers Acts at all so far as the future was concerned. The Act of 1906 was the result of all this. I do not hesitate to say, and I think I express the opinion of all my colleagues, that the Act of 1906 was a very liberal measure and constituted a very considerable step in advance in this work of social reform. It has not worked, no doubt, in every respect as we hoped and expected. It is very rarely that any British Act of Parliament ever works out, even when it is well conceived, so as to meet the necessities of the case in Ireland, and we have abandoned the hope, if we ever had the hope, that any Act, no matter how framed, will ever be properly administered by your representatives in our country. At the same time I should be false to my own convictions and I should be speaking against what I know to be the truth if I did not say that, so far as I personally know, this Act has been worked in a more or less sympathetic spirit by the officers of the Local Government Board, and I am perfectly convinced that it has done a very great deal indeed of the work which it was expected to do.
  4.0 P. M.
  It proposed to shorten and to cheapen "the procedure. In my opinion it has done both, and I think the very fact that more has been done in less than four years to provide cottages and plots for labourers than had been done in twenty-three years before it passed is a conclusive proof that it has both shortened and cheapened procedure. It offered, in the second place, better financial terms. I may mention a couple of figures to show the differences between the old state of things and the new. I do not know whether these terms have been actually worked out in practice as it was expected they would, but the estimate is what I am going to give; and what I particularly desired to see the return for was to see whether the estimate was borne out by the actual result. At all events the estimate was that whereas the old charge for a cottage and plot, that is for repaying interest and principal,
  1800
  was £5 12s. 6d., the new charge was £l 6s. 8d. That was a very considerable advance, as is manifest from the state of things that had previously prevailed. Still the condition of these labourers was such, they were so poor and the wages were so low in a great many places, and in a great many other places where the wages were comparatively high the employment was so inconstant and so non-continuous, that it still left, in order that these people might be provided with houses at rents which they could pay, a margin of cost to be borne by the rates, and with all the charges which have been put on the rates, and with all the ratepayers voluntarily burdening themselves in the greater part of Ireland, it was quite impossible to make them go on and continue to bear this burden. Accordingly a Grant—nearly half of which came out of strictly Irish funds—of £50,000 a year was given in aid of those schemes and in relief of the rates. There was a Grant of £22,000 a year which was purely Irish; it was not voted by this House. There was also a Grant of £28,000 a year which came out of the Exchequer, and which, of course, is also Irish money. The fact that more has been done in the four years since 1906 than in the whole of the previous twenty-three years is in itself proof of the success of the Act of 1906. At the same time, it has become necessary to bring up this question afresh. This progress is going to come to a standstill unless something further is done. I admit that there is plenty of building going on. Land is being acquired and all the money available is being expended, but, as a matter of fact, all the money has been hypothecated, and the work now going on is that of carrying out schemes sanctioned up to the beginning of the year. I am not quite sure that any new scheme has been initiated during the last six months at least. I have not the figures on that point, and that is one of the matters which I desire to inquire into.
  The reason why this progress is going to be brought to a stop is, of course, perfectly evident. The Act of 1906 provided for advances of £4,500.000 on certain financial terms, and I think I am right in saying that the Grant-in-Aid was calculated on and proportioned to that amount. Twenty per cent, was given as Grant from the Exchequer and 16 per cent, from those Irish funds to which I have alluded. You have exhausted the £4,250.000, and, of course, you have exhausted the £4,500.000, and if the Grant-in-Aid was proportioned

  1801
  to that amount, you have exhausted it too. The meaning of that is that we are back into a state of things similar to that which existed in 1883 in so far as future schemes are concerned. I have no intention of denying—on the contrary, I rejoice in the fact—that since 1883 we have probably erected in Ireland over 50,000 cottages, and I consider that one of the most gratifying sights that can be seen in Ireland. It seems to me to be undoing in some degree the clearances and devastations by the landlords in the last half century. It is one of the things which console one for the many unpleasing and mortifying incidents in the social and political history of Ireland. But as a matter of fact we are now worse off than in 1883, with a good deal more to do in the way of providing cots and cottages for labourers for one particular reason. That is, because while the £4,250,000 which was provided under the Act of 1906 has been exhausted or hypothecated, at the same time the old power of borrowing under the old terms has also ceased. At the present moment if any scheme had to be provided, it could not be financed at all. No money could be borrowed from public funds or any source, and consequently we are in a worse position now so far as future schemes are concerned than in 1883. To my mind it is inconceivable that this work should be allowed by any Government to stop. What we are here to urge upon the Government is to continue the provision made by the Act of 1906. The Government admitted in 1906 that the provision then made would not be sufficient. In fact, it was taken for granted that the money would not be sufficient, but it was also taken for granted that the £4,250,000 would suffice for several years without placing any appreciable burden on the ratepayers to carry on the work of rebuilding the homes of the poor in Ireland. I have no doubt the Chief Secretary will agree with his predecessor that £4,250,000 was not sufficient to complete the work, and if he admits that, I hope he will have the courage to declare that some additional provision must be made to prevent the work being stopped.
  In my opinion it would be fruitless and it would be most unwise to offer us now less favourable terms than in 1906. I might read from "Hansard" the speeches made by Mr. Bryce, who was Chief Secretary at that time, in which he gave several reasons for making the arrangement which he then proposed and which he offered in advance of any criticism that might be made from England on this subject. I
  1802
  would refer anyone who doubts that this is an exceptional case to the speech made by Mr. Bryce when he introduced the Bill, and also to his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill in May, 1906. If the Government offers less favourable terms now, the result I am afraid will be that, no matter what you may say, no matter what your wishes may be, the process of providing cots and buildings will be stopped. The ratepayers will be afraid to embark in these schemes. I would submit to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be a most unfortunate state of things if there were even for one month a stoppage in the performance of this most necessary work. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman is personally acquainted with the condition of some of the houses in which the people live where new houses have not been provided. The houses of the agricultural population in Ireland have no parallel in England at all. I read occasionally in the English papers of agricultural slums. I have gone about some of these places myself, but I have never seen anything in England like the wretched habitations in which the poor labourers of Ireland live. I would say, in the name of humanity and justice to this class, you ought to continue the provision made in 1906, which has already done so much good.
  Mr. JOYCE: After the very able and lucid statement made by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Clancy) I think I shall be very much more at home if I deal with the question of labourers' cottages in the locality in which I live. In this connection one must be forcibly struck with certain work which has been going on in Ireland within the past few years. I mean the work in relation to the prevention of disease, and especially tuberculosis, which we in Ireland have known as decline or consumption. One of the best means of combating this disease is by housing the people in good sanitary dwellings. In those parts of the country where the Labourers Acts have been put in force, and where a good number of cottages have been erected, there has been a great diminution in this class of disease. Under the old Labourers Act the district councils, especially in Munster, and I believe also in Leinster, pledged the rates up to the very extreme farthing they could go, and put on a rate of a shilling in the £ in order to carry out their endeavours to house the people under better conditions. I cannot say what was done

  1803
  in Connaught, where the Labourers Acts do not assume the same proportions as in the South or East of Ireland, and I do not know enough of the North of Ireland to speak of it. The Act of 1906 came as a great measure of relief, and it was a great incentive to those councils to go on with the work when they were placed in such a position. To their credit be it said, they have carried on the work. The procedure was simplified by that Act. Money was made cheaper to them, and the conditions were altogether different from what they had been in the past.
  I do not know whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland ever went into any of the hovels in which labourers live in Ireland. He may have; but if I had the power myself I would make the Secretary to the Treasury, when he takes his holidays, live in one of those hovels in Ireland—and he would then be a far better judge of the conditions under which those people live than he is now—because the great difficulty we have in Ireland in dealing with any question relating to the wants and necessities of our people is this eternal question of the British Treasury, and if there is any portion of the British Government that we hate most in Ireland it is this British Treasury. I know a great deal of the way in which the poor people have been housed. I went into a labourer's hovel—I was going to say cottage—in which a poor old woman and her two daughters lived, within six miles of the City of Limerick, in which I live. Would the House be surprised to know that it was on all fours that I had to get in, because I could not walk in through the door upright? You could not see worse in a Kaffir's kraal, and certainly an Indian wigwam would be a paradise to it- I have seen both. I think the men who set themselves to see, and devote portions of their lives to seeing, that the people, are better housed deserve great credit for the work they are doing. Are we asking now anything that is not our own? I always held that anything which a British Government could do to ameliorate the condition of the Irish people at home would only be paying back a very small instalment of the millions and millions that they have robbed from our country. I drew the attention of former Chief Secretaries, and I have drawn the attention of the present Chief Secretary, to the condition of some of those hovels, and he knows very well that medical officer after medical officer has
  1804
  condemned them as being unfit for human habitation. And if I have any little complaint to make with regard to some underhand work that goes on at a certain district council, yet in the main those district councils have done their work splendidly, and none better than the district council with which I had a little variance, though I would strive to make them keep on the right lines all the time.
  Those hovels of which I have spoken, and which every colleague of mine on the benches knows so well, are an eyesore to the community, a disgrace to civilisation, and a standing menace to the health of the people. The sooner the British Government realise the fact that they must advance enough money on the lines of the Act of 1906 in order to complete this good work, the sooner they will have the thanks and the gratitude of the Irish agricultural labourer. They will be doing good work, and they will be losing nothing by it. I heard the Chief Secretary state in this House, as I heard former Chief Secretaries state on many occasions, that every loan granted to Ireland is paid up regularly and well. I think that that is one of the greatest tributes that can be paid to the honesty of our people. I was reading in the "Irish Times" yesterday a statement made by a judge in Ireland, the going judge of assizes in the City of Limerick, on Tuesday. He paid a great tribute to the condition of the city, and stated there was no other city, he believed, of its size in the world that could show such a state of crimelessness and peace, yet I know there are many poor people in that city and its environs living in houses that are unfit for human habitation, and how in such circumstances they can be good, Christian, moral people passes my comprehension. This is the state of affairs which we want to remedy, and which must be remedied, and the Government and the Chief Secretary that carry out this good work will deserve the eternal thanks of the Irish people.
  Mr. O'DOWD: I desire to associate myself with my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Clancy) who opened this discussion, and also my hon. Friend (Mr. Joyce) who has just spoken. They have put forward their views on the question of the housing of the labourers with such force and such clearness that I have little to add to what they have said on that point. It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Limerick said, that the circumstances in Connaught with regard to the working of

  1805
  the Labourers Act are somewhat different from those in the south of Ireland from which my hon. Friend comes. We have, in Ireland, two sets of agricultural labourers. We have the agricultural labourer pure and simple, and we have the extremely small farmer who also does agricultural labour work. It is the latter class that we have chiefly in Connaught. In Connaught the agricultural labourer is more or less of a cottar. He cannot be called an agricultural labourer in the strict Sense of the term. Neither can he be called a farmer. He occupies, perhaps, two or three or four acres of land. He cannot be called an agricultural labourer, because he has an interest in his holding, no matter how small it is, and he is a member of a congested community—that is, that the men who principally do agricultural labouring work in Connaught reside in congested districts. But, notwithstanding these limitations, I can say that the Labourers Act of 1906 has been worked with the greatest benefit in the province of Connaught, and any encouragement that could or would be given for the carrying out of that work to a successful termination should be given by a sympathetic Government. I have not risen only with the object of following up this point, because it has been dealt with already. I have rather risen to criticise the action of the Local Government Board, as I believe I am entited to do on this Vote, and as one who holds that the Local Government Board, as at present constituted, is not calculated, in these progressive times, to supervise efficiently or well the system of local government created by the Local Government Act of 1898.
  I maintain that the Local Government Board, under the new conditions created by the Act of 1898, is completely out of date and out of place. Previous to the passing of the Act of 1898 the fiscal and county affairs of the counties and boroughs in Ireland were managed, or, rather, mismanaged by the grand juries. Let me say in passing I regard the Act of 1898 as a great Act. No matter from what party it came, it gave us emancipation, and in my own county, where the Nationalists form 90 per cent, of the population, it transferred the Government of that county from the hands of the minority to the hands of the majority. When the grand juries governed the counties, the Local Government Board, as then, and as at present constituted, used its efforts in dealing with these non-representative bodies in the
  1806
  direction of economy. It did so because of the extravagance of those bodies who represented the minority, comprised the territorial magnates of the country, and were for ever manufacturing jobs for their friends; and it was necessary in the interests of the ratepayers that some check should be put upon the extravagance and expenditure of the grand juries in that direction. But that whole order of things has changed, and with it has changed the politics of the Local Government Board, because, while their efforts with regard to the grand juries were in the direction of economy, their efforts with regard to the new bodies created by the Act of 1898 are entirely in the opposite direction. I can speak with some authority on that point, because I have been unanimously elected for the last eleven years as chairman of my own county council, and I have been connected with public bodies in my own country before the Local Government Act came into operation at all. I have no fault to find with any member of the Local Government Board. Several members of the Local Government Board whom I know are gentlemen of high standing, men like Sir Henry Robinson, Mr. Micks, and others; but I maintain that the Local Government Board as at present constituted is not fit to supervise the democratically constituted public bodies created by the Act of 1898. We are living in a progressive age, and we should advance with the age. We have a progressive Government in office. It was found necessary in passing the Land Act of last year to put popular representatives on the Congested Districts Board. I say that with the complicated questions of local government with which we now have to deal it is absolutely necessary that the Local Government Board should be revised and reformed holus bolus and some element of popular representation put upon it which would command the confidence of every class in the country. I have two or three points in reference to the Local Government Board's action and to its relations with public bodies. When the Act of 1898 was being passed through this House, cynical critics, both here and elsewhere, predicted that it would be goodbye to efficient local government in Ireland and to careful and economical administration. That prophecy has been falsified. Indeed, if there is any complaint it is in quite the opposite direction. Take the question of official salaries fixed by the county councils and district councils.

  1807
  Those bodies performed their duty with due regard to economy; but now the contrary obtains, because of the fact that the Local Government Board fix the salaries themselves. I make the complaint that they compel us to pay higher salaries than we think necessary, and I regard the Local Government Board as a sort of Irish House of Lords, who interfere with the freedom of elective bodies in the matter of official salaries. As illustrating the criminal chaos which exists, I give two cases which are typical of hundreds within my experience. The Tobercurry Board of Guardians, when they had occasion to enter into a contract for medicines, chemicals, and other goods, gave it to a chemist in Sligo. For years it has been the unvarying practice of that board of guardians to give the contract to him. It was only right they should do so, for the special reason that Sligo is easily approached from Tobercurry; it is a half-hour's run by railway, and in a case of emergency a surgical appliance or any particular medicine can be procured by sending a sixpenny telegram. It was these considerations which determined the board of guardians during fourteen or fifteen years to give the contract to this particular tradesman. In April last tenders were invited, and there was a tender from the Sligo chemist and another from Dublin. The Sligo tender was a shade higher than that from Dublin—I do not think there was half a farthing's difference in the £. The Sligo tender was accepted by the guardians on the ground that the contractor had given satisfaction for fourteen or fifteen years, and also on the ground that his place was near and easily approached in an emergency.
  The Local Government Board stepped in and overruled the whole thing, and gave the contract to the Dublin firm over the head of the local firm. It may be said that this chemist was a Nationalist. He was not. Though the guardians are a Nationalist body to a man, they gave the contract to the Sligo tradesman, who is a Unionist of Unionists, and it is considered a grievance in that part of the country that a reliable man, no matter what his political or religious views, should be deprived of a contract which had been unanimously given to him in the public interest and convenience. His tender was refused, while the tender of a stranger 200 miles away was accepted. Why should the Local Government Board exercise such
  1808
  authority? Have not the elected representatives of the people who live in the district, who understand the wishes of the people, and who are familiar with their requirements, all the knowledge necessary to fit them for a proper and economical discharge of their administrative duties? The other case discloses criminal carelessness in the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act by officials— I will not say by the Local Government Board, though the Department must be held responsible. Mary Casey, who lives in the county of Sligo, applied for a pension in 1909 and obtained it. The committee, consisting of representative men of the district, unanimously granted her the pension, having satisfied themselves that she was of the statutory age. The local pension officer—I suppose one of those who were imported from Somerset House as emergency men last year—appealed against the grant of the pension to Mary Casey, and the appeal was heard by the Local Government Board, who, of course, decided against her. This case, as I have said, is typical of many over the country. Mary Casey was deprived of her pension for twenty weeks, which means that she lost £5. At her own expense, or that of some neighbour, inquiry was made at the Census Office, which I should imagine the officials of the Local Government Board could also search. What was discovered? It was found that Mary Casey was three years old in 1841. My demand is that Mary Casey should get this £5, of which she was deprived through no fault of her own but through the bungling of the officials of the Local Government Board. I only hope that the Progressive Government which is now in office will devise some means of introducing a popular representative element into the Local Government Board.
  Mr. HUGH BARRIE: I think it only right to take the earliest opportunity of supporting the hon. Member for North Dublin and his colleagues in asking for further help in working the Labourers Act. It would be impossible to exaggerate the seriousness of allowing this matter to run over without further help from the Treasury to another Session. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for North Dublin, various powers of the Act of 1906 were used to the fullest advantage, and they have to a large extent met the needs of many district councils. But other district councils, who have not

  1809
  moved so rapidly, have now schemes advanced to a certain extent, but find them absolutely blocked by the exhaustion of the funds provided under the Act of 1906. I respectfully submit that is a state of affairs which cannot be permitted to continue after you have raised hopes in the breasts of many labourers throughout the country that they will shortly occupy decent and habitable houses. If the Treasury adheres—and we are inclined to think it does mean to adhere— to its refusal to give further advances, then we will have the position that in certain parts of the country the labourers' question may be said to be solved, while in other parts the hovels which have been described to us this afternoon will still remain as obnoxious blots on the landscape. I trust we shall have some encouraging reply from the Chancellor of the Exchequer or from the Chief Secretary on his behalf. I also desire to associate myself with what has been said below the Gangway as to the hopelessness of the Treasury thinking they will meet this demand by a proposal to grant additional loans at a higher rate of interest. You cannot expect the local council to go on with their schemes if the rate of interest to be charged by the Treasury is to be greater than it was for the £4,500,000 supplied under the Act of 1906. There is only one other matter to which I wish to refer, namely, the appointment of arbitrators under the Act of 1906. Under the former Act the Government, I think very wisely, provided that those arbitrators should be selected by the popularly elected local council, and the awards given by the arbitrators so appointed were, I think, universally satisfactory. But under this Act the Local Government Board appoint the arbitrators, and, while I do not make any personal criticism, I would point out that almost without exception the awards made by the arbitrators so appointed have been contested in Ulster both by buyers and sellers. I rather think the explanation is that these arbitrators have been chosen in districts of the country where the ruling price of land is a good deal lower than it is in some parts of Ulster. The Chief Secretary, I am sure, must have knowledge of the fact, as he has received many resolutions of protest from different rural district councils against certain arbitrators continuing to act all over the province. As I said, where the arbitrators were appointed by
  1810
  the popularly elected bodies, the awards have been satisfactory both to buyers and sellers. I only mention the matter in order that the Chief Secretary may see tort that in the future some further choice is made that will be more satisfactory t those bodies who have been eminently reasonable in their demands. The hon. Member for Sligo made reference to the old grand jury system in Ireland. I am not concerned with that, but I should like to say that, whatever be the explanation, we sometimes hear of the old grand jury system being referred to with satisfaction now the elected body do the best they can for the people. They have to bear the brunt of constantly increasing rates, and therefore decreasing popularity, but with that exception we find over the greater part of the land—there are some notable exceptions—under the Local Government Act of 1898 a very large measure of progress has been made. I only referred to that to show that in the main object for which this reduction has been moved we are heartily at one with the Nationalist Members.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Of course, the whole question of the Local Government Board is raised by this Vote, and therefore my hon. Friend the Member for Sligo was quite within his rights in dealing generally with the Vote, but, if I may be allowed to give a word of advice to the hon. Member, I would say that the practical thing for us to do in the discussion of this Vote is to confine ourselves to the most urgent point that arises, and that is the point about the Labourers Act. And if by confining ourselves to that one point we arrive at some practical conclusion, it will be far more useful for Ireland than if we had had a general discussion roaming over the whole question of the conduct of the Local Government Board. I am gratified to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in his place, because, of course, this is a question which affects him almost more than it affects the Chief Secretary. At any rate it affects him as much. The history of this question is familiar to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He knows, as my hon. Friend for North Dublin has pointed out, that because of the costly and cumbersome work of the earlier Labourers Acts, only 20,000 cottages were erected after over twenty years' experience, and that the working of these Acts has practically come to a standstill. He knows also the urgency of the case. No one knows better than he does how badly

  1811
  the people are housed, and how necessary it is to do something to alleviate their condition. He knows also what happened in 1906, and let me say, in passing, that I am glad to be able on this occasion to bear testimony to the conduct of the present Prime Minister, when, in 1906, he, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, consented to the Bill. Nothing could be more sympathetic than his attitude, and I think that on the whole it was one of the best and most beneficent Bills that Ireland has ever obtained. The Treasury lent us for the purpose of this Act, on the security of the rates, £4,500,000 at 2¾ per cent., and they have borne the loss. They had to face the loss on the flotation of that amount. Not only that, but they came to the aid of the rates of Ireland by contributing from the Treasury 20 per cent, towards the payment of the instalments in connection with these loans. The local Irish funds were brought into requisition, and they provided 16 per cent., so that in all 36 per cent, was provided under that Bill towards the payment of the instalments on the loan which was given to us at 2¾ per cent. The result was that the cost to the ratepayers of building these cottages was diminished so enormously that the necessary work went on full speed ahead, and we had, in the course of four years, more cottages erected in Ireland than in over twenty years before. That is a most beneficent work. Anyone at all acquainted with Ireland, and who has visited the country, must admit that a more beneficent work was never undertaken for the material, moral and physical elevation and improvement of the people. That has suddenly come to an end. The Member for North Dublin said he did not know whether there were any schemes that had actually been stopped by the exhaustion of the money. As a matter of fact, the Chief Secretary, or the Secretary to the Treasury, told us the other day that in the case of forty-two councils the schemes they had on hand were hung up, and I understand that the Local Government Board actually issued a circular to all the local bodies warning them not to go on with schemes because the money was exhausted. In that way the work has come to an absolute dead-stop. Of course, no Government and no party could be a party to allowing that work suddenly to come to an end. They must take steps to enable it to proceed until the whole problem is solved. The greater portion of the
  1812
  problem is solved, but they cannot afford to stop this work until the problem on which they have entered has been entirely settled. I have risen largely for the purpose of emphasising what has been already said. It is not the slightest use for the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who, I am sure, is quite as sympathetic in this matteras his predecessor was, and just as anxious that the work should go on—to provide money on worse terms, because if he does the work will stop. The ratepayers of Ireland have undertaken great sacrifices for this work. But if they are put to additional sacrifices now the work will undoubtedly come to an end. The Government will have to be as good as they were in 1906. I do not see any argument they can use why they should recede from the position they took up in 1906. If that was a fair and just provision then, it is a fair and just provision now, so long as they cannot deny that the problem is still unsettled. I trust the Chief Secretary will be able to tell us that additional money will be provided at once, as it may be required, on the old rate of interest; and that the Treasury will be as good as it was in 1906 in providing free Grants towards the reduction of the instalments. That is the demand we make, and I hope public opinion in Ireland will not be disappointed, but that a statement will be made on behalf of the Irish Government and of the Treasury that to-day they will be as good as they were in 1906, and take what is the only possible step to finish this necessary work.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am not at all surprised that the hon. Member for North Dublin, who has introduced the Debate on this Vote, should have begun his speech and ended his speech by calling the attention of the Government and of this Committee to the question of labourers' cottages in Ireland, because undoubtedly something like a crisis has arisen in the history of that work. In this matter I need not go back upon ancient history, because when I came to take the office which I now hold I found the Labourers Act of 1906 still in its beneficent operation, and that Act has been already fully described by the hon. Member for North Dublin in language of fitting appreciation. He has spoken of it as a great and liberal measure and one which has wrought already great improvement upon the face of Ireland. I am glad indeed, standing here, to recognise how good a work my distinguished predecessor was able to do, because I do

  1813
  not think anybody who has acquaintance with Ireland—which it is not very difficult for the Chief Secretary to obtain owing to the excellence of motor cars—can travel through the South or through the Midlands of Ireland without recognising the enormous change that has during the last few years come over the face of the country by the erection of these cottages. They are not all of them architecturally beautiful. Some of them, I am sorry to admit, are hideous, but the greater part of them may be described as in themselves an addition to the landscape; and what is particularly gratifying is the care that is taken of them by their inmates, who really take a pride in their slate-roofed cottages, which, with their flowers, lend a pleasing and peaceful charm to the landscape.
  Attention has been called to the operation of the previous Acts. I will give the House the figures. The Labourers Act between 1883 and 1908—a long period of years—resulted in the building of 21,900 of these cottages. They were built upon certain terms at current rates of interest, and undoubtedly they imposed, I will not say an excessive, having regard to the work done, but a very heavy addition on the ratepayers. In 1906 Mr. Bryce came along with his proposals, and he placed £4,250,000 on what are called Land Purchase Terms, namely, 2¾ per cent, interest and 3¼ per cent, annuity—the difference being accounted for by the Sinking Fund—at the disposal of the rural district councils. That resulted in these figures. Under this Act up to the present time 23,000 cottages have been undertaken—that is to say, more cottages since 1906 than were built in the years between 1883 and 1903. It is money that makes the mare go, and this great increase in the building of cottages indicates very clearly the improvement in the financial terms. Therefore we always can assume not only in Ireland, but in any other country, that if you only make the terms easy enough you will secure the result that you have in view. I fully recognise—I feel it as strongly as anyone can—that Mr. Bryce's Act, with which I am glad his name should be associated, was a necessary consequence of the financial terms in Mr. Wyndham's Act. Mr. Wyndham's Act produced precisely the same effect in the acceleration of land purchase as Mr. Bryce's Act has done in the building of cottages. The terms were so good, remarkably good, that landlords and tenants alike proceeded to sell and to buy at a pace which made it almost
  1814
  impossible for the Land Commission to deal with the enormous number of estates that came through their hands. Everybody will agree that if good terms were offered to the landlords and to the sitting tenant, it would be little short of a scandal if the poor labourer in Ireland did not have an opportunity at the same time of benefiting in this great agrarian revolution, and did not get some chance of getting quit of the stinking mud-heap in which for long years he had to live. The hon. Member for Limerick asked me if I had seen any of these so-called cottages— hovels, mud-heaps. Well, I have, and I share to the full in the description that he gave of them. The only pleasing feature about them was the remarkable contrast between the barbarity of the dwellings and the civility and good manners of the people inside.
  5.0 P.M.
  When you had crawled in on your hands and knees and found yourself under what, in politeness, may be called a roof, sharing, it may be, the company of a cow, a calf, or other four-footed animal, with all that, you found yourself enjoying the hospitality of a person or persons as well qualified to show you hospitality, to give you a kindly greeting, as any people over the whole Dominions of His Majesty the King. But, however, there was the thing; there were these cottages, so-called, and without entering too closely into a criticism of the financial arrangements, considering it as a mere matter of finance, I am perfectly certain that no money, no credit—for, after all, it is more a question of credit than of money—was ever better spent, out of Imperial resources or out of Irish money, than for this rebuilding of the cottages of the labourers in Ireland. Four million and a quarter pounds was placed at the disposal of the rural district councils under the supervision, to some extent, of the Local Government Board, and the district councils were invited and urged, and, indeed, it was their duty, to proceed to provide accommodation for the labourers within the areas of their respective authorities. For the most part they have acted with celerity. In some parts they have acted with the reverse of celerity; in some places they have been very slow. To one place, and one place only, it was found necessary to take the extreme proceedings of the law against a local authority that did not in any way move in the matter. But in other parts of the

  1815
  country, and in the North, they have moved very slowly indeed, and it is quite true, as the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Hugh Barrie) remarked, that the consequence of the different rates of speed has been that in some parts of Ireland sufficient accommodation has already been provided for the labourers, whilst in other parts, owing to this slowness, that accommodation has not properly been provided. It would be a severe punishment for this sluggishness of action if they were advised that they had lost the great and remarkable advantages of the Act of 1906, and were condemned to find cottages at a higher rate. I should not mind that so much, but they would not find the cottages at all. Therefore the situation, be it right or be it wrong, comes very much to this, that having supplied the people with these extremely advantageous terms—terms which, in my opinion, can only be justified by the terms of the general scheme of land purchase throughout Ireland—it would be impossible to hope, at all events in the near future, that anything would be done to continue this good work. The provision of the Act of 1906 has been pretty well described. The £4,250,000 was advanced as required on land purchase terms, but it did not stop there, because assistance was offered, both out of exclusively Irish funds and out of Imperial funds, by way of reduction of the annuity—16 per cent, in reduction of the annuity payable over a period, roughly speaking, of sixty-eight years. The whole of that 16 per cent, was contributed to out of the Petty Sessions' Fund, and by a saving effected on judges' salaries. The remaining 20 per cent, was put, first of all, upon the Irish Development Grant, and, subsequently, upon the Votes. The result was that the actual ratepayer, that overburdened animal, has had collected from him, in respect of each cottage, a sum not amounting to more than 18s. 9d. per annum. You have to bear in mind that that is an additional charge to cast upon the owners—namely, the district councils—but after all the annuities have been paid they will become the owners of all these cottages at an annual charge of something like £2 a year for each cottage, to pay for insurance, repairs, and the cost of collecting the rents, so that you always have to add that £2 per cottage on whatever system is adopted for the raising of the cost of the purchase of the
  1816
  site and the actual erection of the building. Those terms we now have to reconsider because the £4,250,000 is gone. Hon. Members opposite are perfectly right in the statements they have made. We, the Local Government Board, have been conscious for some time past that we were getting nearly to the end of the annuity provided by the Act of 1906, and that unless it was fed again from some other or the same source we should come some day bolt up to the actual ending of this cause of building, and we have from time to time given warning of an informal character to local bodies that they must bear in mind that the £4,250,000 was very nearly exhausted. As a matter of fact, I find from information we now have, that when we have got to the end of the £4,250,000 there will still be forty-two rural districts with claims made, or in course of making, comprising 3,582 cottages. To those schemes we should have to reply, "We are very sorry the Act is spent, the money is gone, and we cannot proceed any further." They would then be worse off than before, because the Act of 1906 repealed certain provisions which did enable local authorities, to obtain loans for these purposes on rather better than the ordinary market terms. To cut the matter short, the Government, having to consider these questions, I have had to consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have an ancient right to abuse the Treasury, and very often they appeal with great confidence to the Chief Secretary for the time being to Join with them in that abuse. But I am bound to say that in this matter, as in matters connected with the Land Act of 1909 and the provision made for the Congested Districts Board, I feel I should be unworthy of sitting in the same Cabinet with my right hon. Friend if I did not recognise that he has always met me to the very best of his ability. Of course, all financial arrangements of this kind are open to criticism on a purely financial basis, and people may ask, "Why do you do this and why do you do that? Why cannot the people in Ireland provide the money that is necessary by loans at the ordinary rates of interest to do this particular kind of work?" I am not going to go into that, because, in my judgment, this provision for labourers' cottages flows naturally and equitably from the provision that has already been made to settle the land question of Ireland and to secure the sitting tenant, on very favourable terms, all the proud privi-

  1817
  leges of land ownership, and also to supply the landlords with a bonus which enables them to meet tenants in a manner they would otherwise, perhaps, not have been able to do. Therefore I think the Act of 1906 was well justified, and anybody who took any part in the passing of that Act need not trouble his financial conscience very much about it, because the result has been of such a character, having regard to the past history of Ireland and to the whole question of the land laws, land tenure, and the position of poor people in that country—the results have been ample to justify the expenditure. Well, I think we have to go a bit further in this matter, and we have to enable those schemes which are already made, or in course of making, to be carried out, as also other schemes of a similar nature which will undoubtedly be presented. We must supply them as best we can with the funds necessary for the purpose. Therefore the Government is prepared—legislation will be required for the purpose— to provide another million on precisely the same terms with regard to the rate of interest, 2¾ per cent., and the annuity, 3¼ per cent., as before. Then we come to the other question, also a very important one, the reduction in the annuity—the contribution towards the reduction in the annuity so as to reduce the burden upon the ratepayer. The ratepayer and the taxpayer are two over-burdened persons in the eyes of many, and some people think one is more ever-burdened than the other. My own belief is that the ratepayer is quite as over-burdened, in my judgment rather more over-burdened, than the taxpayer, therefore I quite agree that anything which materially increases the already heavy burden upon the Irish ratepayer will have the very result we do not want. As we are supplying money upon liberal terms we want to get through the business as quickly as possible, and to provide other terms would be to frustrate the main object we have in view. The Treasury propose to continue to pay, in respect of the new transactions, the 20 per cent, which they paid before out of the Votes. There remains 16 per cent, which in Mr. Bryce's Act was secured by Irish funds. Well, I propose to look about and find Irish funds which will be sufficient to act as a means of supplying this money. The House must not at this moment ask me what those funds are because I have not quite decided as to what shall he my choice, which I admit is not
  1818
  very wide, but I believe they can be forthcoming and nobody need be under any apprehension that anybody will be robbed in the conception. Under the Housing Act of the hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) we laid hands not sacriligous hands, upon certain suitors —the Dormant Suitors' Funds. But those imaginary or possible persons had no cause for alarm because the Act provided that if they ever did assume corporeal form, and were capable of going into the court in pursuit of their claim, they would find the Treasury the finally responsible persons to make good any of those demands. So in regard to this 16 per cent. I hope to find Irish funds which will therefore make this new proposal, this extra £1,000,000, on all fours with the £4,250,000 which we provided for before. There are one or two things I should like to say about the administration of these funds. There is one point very much on my mind. Any Bill I introduce must obviously be of a non-controversial character, and I hope there will not be any opposition to the proposal I make, and that is this: A number of those mud-huts unfit for human habitation, though I have to admit that human beings have lived in them—those huts, when they have been condemned, and when the people have taken steps and made certain sacrifices to replace them with others, ought to be pulled down. As things are, they are not pulled down. The actual inmates leave them and go, and are happy to go, to nice, clean houses in the neighbourhood. Those old mud huts are left, sometimes a beast is put into them, or they are used as stables, and cows or other animals are put into them, or else there is always some tramp or some person to occupy them. In this world there is always some person who is willing to take up what you have cast aside. I am told, and I know it to be a fact, that a great number of those old mud huts are still inhabited. That is not the intention of this House, or of the Government, or of anybody. Therefore. I hope to be able to insert in the Bill which will be necessary for this purpose, some provision for the demolition of those houses. Do not let us have any sentiment about those houses; I hope the time may soon come when there will be no such places whatever for human habitation.
  There is another point I wish to mention. I do not want to encourage the notion in people's minds that they are going on building these cottages for ever The reason I do that is this: that you may

  1819
  over-build, and you have got to remember that these things ultimately are a charge upon the district council, because the district councils become owners, and that they have got to keep the cottages in repair, and to have proper tenants. If they could not find those tenants to pay what is undoubtedly a small rent, they would then find themselves really in the possession of a damnosa hereditas. These cottages are for really genuine agricultural labourers, and for nobody else. We do not want other people living for a shilling per week in houses that cost £170. We want to see to it that those cottages are used really for the habitation and comfort of the persons for whom they were intended. I am sure that if this be carried out, and if that is done, that this additional million of money will be of immense advantage to the Irish people. Although I am not here to preach finality, and anybody who preaches finality on this bench becomes the laughing stock of everybody. Yet at the same time I will tell the people generally that the advance of these large sums of money at the rate at which they have to be advanced is very difficult, and sometimes, some people think, a disastrous thing to British credit. However, it cannot be regarded that what I am doing is anything more than a genuine and honest effort to carry out the objects Mr. Bryce had in view, and which he stated with perfect clearness in the speeches referred to just now by the hon. Member for North Dublin. To stop now would be both wrong and unjust. I am very glad my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has come in to my assistance, and to the assistance of the whole of Ireland, on this matter, for all parties are alike interested. I hope the North of Ireland will now wake up a little in this matter and join with the South and the West, and erect these cottages. I know there are difficulties in the North; the price of land is very high, and the farmers in the North have not, hon. Members will admit, been amongst the keenest and most eager to give this Act full operation.
  Mr. LONSDALE: The price of land is no higher than in the South.
  Mr. BIRRELL: Then I do not know the reason of the apparent sluggishness, but I do not wish to go into that at all. This money is for the whole of Ireland, irrespective of nationality, creed, or anything else. I honestly say, though my conscience
  1820
  sometimes pricks me on Irish finances, I think in this we have a great and good object, and that the money will be wisely spent, and that it will redound enormously to the happiness of the Ireland of the future.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I hope the Committee will forgive me for intervening for a second time, but I think it right to rise at once after the speech of the Chief Secretary, in order, in the name of my colleagues, to make acknowledgment of the spirit in which he has met us. As to the concluding words of the right hon. Gentleman, as to finality, on those words all I say is that, in my opinion, this million pounds will not settle the problem. It will go, no doubt, a considerable distance further than we have gone now, and I have to acknowledge in the fullest possible way that the Government, in giving us this money on the same terms, that is, 2¾ per cent., as in the Act of 1906, and, in addition, giving us the same 20 per cent, free grant from the Treasury towards the payment of instalments, has acted in a handsome manner and quite in accordance with the spirit in which the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, now Prime Minister, acted when the Bill of Mr. Bryce was passed. I am sure that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman will give very great satisfaction not only to the labourers in Ireland, but to the whole people who are interested in this question. In order to carry out the promise of the right hon. Gentleman, as he has said, he will require legislation, and it will be necessary for him to introduce a Bill. That Bill will only be of the simplest possible character, and I feel absolutely certain that there is not a single man in this House who will oppose it. It is sure to get the support of hon. Members from Ulster. Under those circumstances it ought to go through practically without a word. The whole problem was discussed at full length in 1906, and therefore the Bill ought to go through at once. I would therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to introduce his Bill at once and pans it into law before the House rises at the end of the month, so that we may not have a number of months of delay and uncertainty in Ireland. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the speech he has made.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: It has not often been my, I do not know whether to call it pleasure or not to be able conscientiously to congratulate the Chief Secretary on having done his obvious duty. I ac-

  1821
  knowledge that he has risen to the occasion so far as he can, and has momentarily, at any rate, saved the situation. He stated at the end of his speech that he does not preach finality. I am glad he took that precaution, because if he thinks that the labourers' question can be left in the condition in which it is at the present time, any more than the land question can be left in the condition in which it is at present, he is greatly mistaken. His predecessor, Mr. Bryce, passed the Act of 1906, which I agree in several respects was a most admirable Act. That Act gave money on such advantageous terms that it was bound to be availed of by everybody in the direction of getting labourers' cottages. The Chief Secretary surely does not mean, having given that money on those favourable terms, and the result having been that the Act has been worked with great success, that therefore the matter of supplying the money for whatever labourers' cottages are still necessary, must cease. The very fact of providing the money on those favourable terms makes it all the more necessary to carry through the operation to a conclusion. I do not say that every person who feels himself entitled to a labourers' cottage should necessarily be provided with one, but I do say that where a labourer's cottage is genuinely needed that that cottage must sooner or later be provided. Therefore, the very fact of having started the provision of those labourer's cottages on the terms of the Act of 1906 renders it absolutely neressary that the operation must be continued until the labourers' question is finally and completely settled.
  While I readily offer my congratulations to the Chief Secretary for having provided this extra million on practically the same terms as the original £4,250,000, I just wish to give one word or warning to him and to his successors, because this is a question on which, no matter which side of the House is in power, they both require to be reminded that the question is not settled, and that this million of money will not settle it. Hon. Members below the Gangway know very well that when this £1,000.000 is expended, and it soon will be, we will have to renew our application for further help in this matter. The Chief Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer more than the Chief Secretary, ought not to go away from the House this evening with the idea that they will not in due course be called on for more money to
  1822
  carry out this Act. With regard to the provision which the Chief Secretary proposes-to put in his new Bill for pulling down, the old houses, at first sight, at any rate, I am inclined to agree that that is a necessary thing to do, but I do not think we will give any pledges on that for the moment. I will not say there will be no-opposition, or that no criticism will be offered to that proposal, because it may be that district councils and individuals who are more conversant than we are with these matters, may have some suggestions to make on the subject. Generally speaking, the Chief Secretary need have no fear of any opposition coming from any part of the House, more especially from the part where I sit, but I presume if any such suggestion, such as I have indicated, should come from the district councils or other persons that the Chief Secretary will be quite willing when the time arrives to consider them. I think I can say on behalf of my colleagues that the Bill which the Chief Secretary proposes to introduce will receive nothing but the heartiest support from the Members on these benches, and I would like to join in the appeal of the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford (Mr. John Redmond) that the Bill should be introduced at the earliest possible date.
  Mr. E. JARDINE: I quite agree with everything that hon. Members have said as to the desirability of extending the facilities for obtaining money for Ireland; but, although my sympathies are with them, I am afraid when the Bill comes forward I shall feel it my duty to oppose it. As a Member representing an English agricultural constituency, I feel that the English sitting tenant and the English labourer has not a reasonable chance of advancement and of happiness under present circumstances. It is a growing evil that the man on the land has not the same chance as the artisan in the cities of this country or as the peasant or small landowner in Ireland. Although my sympathies are entirely with the Irish party, and although I hope they will get what they are asking for, still a larger question is that the whole of the peasantry and the whole of the sitting tenants should be put on a higher level, to give them a better chance in life, with the Irish Nationalists— and one is almost tempted to become a Nationalist. They are insisting and demanding, and very properly getting-—
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: We will support you.
  Mr. JARDINE: I think from what my lion, and learned Friend says it will be perhaps my duty not to oppose the Bill. When the time comes I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the support of the Chief Secretary, whose sympathies are so great for the Irish, will extend his benevolence and great ability to get for the English labourer and the English sitting farmer what the right hon. Gentleman proposes to, is anxious to, and will get for the Irish. As my hon. Friends of the Irish party promise their support—and it is the most valuable support that anybody can have in this House—I may say, Mr. Emmott, that instead of opposing the Bill, as I intended to do at the outset, I will support it.
  MARQUESS of HAMILTON: I would like to ask the Chief Secretary one question, and that is, will he make his new Bill retrospective?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will consider that point. I should certainly like to make it retrospective.
  Mr. LYNCH: I desire to say only a few words because I am happy to see that the occasion has arisen that makes it simply a pleasant duty. When I came here this afternoon it was with the idea of joining in a fight to help my Leader and my colleagues on behalf of the labourers in Ireland. I am glad to say that all occasion for battle has disappeared principally owing to the happy thought of the Chief Secretary. When we entered there was an atmosphere of battle, now we find such a serene and radiant air that the Members of the Unionist party themselves have joined in the rejoicing. I was pleased indeed to hear the concluding remarks of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, because I think nothing could be more true than that the interests of the democracy of England may be quite coincident with those of the democracy of Ireland. It is time to dissipate entirely the idea that there is any antagonism between the progress of Ireland and the interests of England. I desire to say a few words in respect of matters of detail. One thing is that I hope the Chief Secretary will not conclude that the agricultural labourer is necessarily one who cannot reside in one of the small towns in Ireland. I am continually receiving letters from my Constituents on this question. Few questions are of more importance than that of the labourers'
  1824
  cottages. One that I received only two or three days ago informs me that in the town of Miltown Malbay there are at least fifty agricultural labourers whose work is very precarious and unfortunately intermittent. In the coming season they will have about six or seven weeks' work, and during the long winter they will be deprived of work altogether. Their hope was that the system of what is called in Ireland direct labour on the roads would be continued and extended. They saw that that would provide certainly for a fair amount of work for these labouring classes. But these men live in towns, and by their occupation have found it more convenient to live in town, being nearer to their precarious work; so that I hope labourers of that class will not be excluded from the beneficent operation of this Act, and that their case will be taken into account quite as much as the case of those who live in the country. In fact, I go so far as to hope that the construction of model cottages of the kind may be the beginning of a movement to sweep away the slums of these small towns altogether.
  One of the most gratifying features to me when I visited Ireland was to observe these cottages growing up in various parts. And that was pleasing not merely because they were a benefit to the labourers who lived in them, and more healthy and more sanitary, but that each one was, as it were, a type to all the others who possessed cottages in the neighbourhood, a legitimate object of ambition, and a model to stir their best exertions, so that every man who saw one of these model cottages desired that he himself should have a dwelling of a somewhat similar character. I was also glad to notice that the Chief Secretary brought to mind the fact that the benefit does not really end in the material advantage of living in a cottage of this kind, but that the householders themselves, in the pride of their dwellings, begin to beautify their surroundings, to cultivate gardens, to grow garden flowers, and so forth; and this is really a new note in the landscape. And not merely that; it has given the people themselves and those they come in contact with new ideas of sanitation and new notions of what is possible in small things in the comfort of dwelling-houses. One other small matter, and that is that in some districts, according to letters which I have received, it is said the houses are not being built entirely according to specification. I am sure that

  1825
  if it be the case it can only be due to some accidental oversight. Therefore I will refrain from indicating to what rural districts those who have written to me complaining refer. I shall merely draw attention to the importance of adhering in the future to the good model of the houses that have been built.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION, IRELAND.— [CLASS 2.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £207,356, 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, 1911, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Agriculture and other Industries and Technical Instruction for Ireland, and of the services administered by that Department, including sundry Grants in Aid." [NOTE.—£209,000 has been voted on account.]
  Mr HUGH BARRIE: I beg to move, "That Item A be reduced by £100, in respect of the salary of the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland)."
  I do so for three reasons. The first is in order that I may call attention to the position in which Mr. T. W. Russell stands in this House. Secondly, I do so to call attention to his action in connection with agricultural credit banks in Ireland. Thirdly, and very briefly, I do so to call attention to some small matters connected with the administration of that Department. Mr. T. W. Russell is not a Member of this House. He has taken no steps in order that he might again become a Member, and so far as we know the Government intend to allow this position of affairs to continue. Bearing these facts in mind, it is interesting to recall the words of the present Chief Secretary when, under pressure of our Friends below the Gangway, in 1907, Sir Horace Plunkett was removed from this office, and very shortly thereafter Mr. T. W. Russell was installed in "his place. May I venture to ask the attention of the House to the short extract from the speech of the Chief Secretary on that occasion. He said the Government—
  "have definitely and determinedly made up our minds that the office shall be held in accordance with the original intention with which the Act was passed, not only by a Member of the House, but by a Member of the Administration, and from that view and that intension we do not intend in any way to depart."
  1826
  In the Act where it refers to this matter the terms are as follows:—
  "The office of Vice-President of the Department shall not render the person holding the same incapable of being elected as a Member of Parliament."
  This evidently does not make it compulsory for the holder of the office to be in Parliament. On the other hand, His Majesty's Government have declared that that is essential to the due carrying out of the various duties of this Department. It is quite true that for a short time after the Department was initiated Sir Horace Plunkett was a Member of this House. He then ceased to be a Member of this House. He lost his seat in the 1900 election, and with the general consent of all parties here continued in that office, although no longer a Member of Parliament. I think the reasons why he was continued in that office were admirably stated in the Debate to which I am referring by the present Leader of the Opposition, whom I will quote:—
  "It is perfectly true that this office was intended to be a Parliamentary appointment. It is also true, in my belief, that as the present Chief Secretary for Ireland has said, Sir Horace Plunkett would have continued, during the tenure of office of the late Administration, his work on the Agricultural Board in this House had he succeeded in obtaining a seat in this House. He failed to obtain a seat in this House, and the question which arose and had to be decided by His Majesty's late advisers was whether it was or was not for the interests of Ireland, and for the interests of the great industry of Ireland, that Sir Horace Plunkett should continue out of Parliament the functions which, no doubt, it was originally intended should be carried by a Gentleman in this House.… The reason why we persuaded Sir Horace Plunkett to continue his work out of Parliament as he had begun it in Parliament, was that we believed that that was for the best interests of Ireland. I am convinced that no man in this House who knows anything about Ireland will deny that the decision come to by the late Government, and endorsed by the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bryce), was, in the interests of Ireland, the right decision."
  No man can differ from these remarks which I have ventured to quote. Sir Horace Plunkett was continued in office by the late Government for reasons which were given by the then Chief Secretary (Mr. Bryce) in a letter to Sir Horace Plunkett. In view of the great importance of this matter I venture to quote again. Mr. Bryce's letter to Sir Horace Plunkett was sent shortly after the present Government came into office in 1906. In that letter Mr. Bryce said:—
  "I have under consideration the arrangements necessary for continuing the duties of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction. I understand that, regarding your appointment' as Vice-President of the Department as being of a political character, you are desirous of retiring from it at the change of Ministry. On this point I have consulted the Prime Minister, and with his concurrence, I conceive that it may be proper to treat the matter as being one which for our immediate purpose is outside considerations of party. I therefore hope

  1827
  you will be disposed, seeing that the arrangement is one of a purely provisional character, to carry on the duties of the Vice-President It is the intention of the Government to examine fully into the organisation and working of the Department and its relations.…your presence will facilitate that examination."
  It is a matter of knowledge that Sir Horace Plunkett accepted office at the request of the Government. The matter being again raised in this House, the late Prime Minister (Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman) thus referred to precedent:—
  "My view of the case is this, that the present state of things is purely temporary and purely exceptional. There is no intention of converting an office which is of one character into an office of another character with the same official serving in it. That has never been contemplated. But as the whole matter was under review, in order to place the Department in many respects on a better footing, it was thought that there was no harm in continuing Sir Horace Plunkett in the position rather than make a new appointment, which would have to be subject to any change found to be necessary."
  At that time there was general expectation held in some quarters of the House that some attack which had been made upon the work of the Department would have marred it, and that therefore large changes might become necessary. But to the relief of all friends of this movement, and possibly to the disappointment of some of our Nationalist friends below the Gangway, the Committee which investigated the work of the Department finally made a Report entirely eulogistic and entirely approving of the lines on which it had been conducted by Sir Horace Plunkett. This temporary arrangement was continued until April, 1907. The pressure to which the present Chief Secretary yielded was pressure exercised on the eve of the publication of the Report of the Committee and not after this Report became a matter of public knowledge. Then what happened? We had speeches, to some of which I have referred, and a Motion was moved from the Nationalist Benches, the terms of which I will venture to quote. It was moved by the then representative of East Kerry, who is not, I believe, now a Member of the House, and it was in these terms:—
  "That the position of the Tice-President of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland was intended by Parliament to be and, in fact, is a Ministerial and Parliamentary office properly vacated on a change of Government, and that the retention of that office by a political opponent of the Government of the day is undesirable as a permanent arrangement."
  To that was moved the following Amendment by supporters of the Government:—
  "That in view of the continued confidence expressed in the policy of Sir Horace Plunkett by the Council of Agriculture, two-thirds of whose members are directly appointed by the county councils of. Ireland, it is in-
  1828
  advisable before the House has had an opportunity of considering carefully the Report of the Committee of inquiry into the organisation and working of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction to make any change in Sir Horace Plunkett's tenure of the Vice-Presidency."
  The Chief Secretary said on that occasion that the Government had decided to support the main Motion and not the Amendment, and the Amendment was rejected by 247 votes to 108. The Prime Minister and other Members of the Government supported it. But let us not forget that in that Division, in sharp contrast to any Division I remember in the last Parliament, thirty Radical Members, refused to obey the Government Whip, and voted with the Unionist party, and I think it should be mentioned that they did that in spite of the call of the Nationalists, and stood by a man who was badly treated and who had done so much for Ireland and so much for agriculture on this side of the-Channel as well.
  Mr. JOHN DILLON: Who drove him out?
  Mr. HUGH BARRIE: I do not think it is necessary for me to refer to that. Charges are made on every occasion when-the name of Sir Horace Plunkett is mentioned. I have no knowledge of the local circumstances that, unfortunately, deprived us of Sir Horace Plunkett. We have been asked sometimes why a seat has not been found for him. I believe the true answer to that is that Sir Horace Plunkett has never put himself in a position to woo the suffrages of any constituency since. I know he did once since contest Galway, but his chances of success were very limited. I say this, and I say it to the credit of Sir Horace Plunkett, that I think he is a man so full of patriotism that he will never make a good party politician, and I think the value of his work in Ireland is emphasised by the fact that he is so detached from political party. Personally I should regret to see Sir Horace Plunkett a strong party man, because I think it would jeopardise the work he has done from the most elevated of motives, notwithstanding the attacks which were laid upon him by the Nationalist party in 1907.
  Of course, I am aware that an attempt will be made to-night to say Mr. T. W. Russell's position is similar to that of Sir Horace Plunkett in 1907; but I venture to submit from the knowledge we have of both these gentlemen that the two cases-are absolutely apart, and are not upon the same plane at all. Sir Horace

  1829
  Plunkett, with the help of some others— and he will be the first to acknowledge that help—founded this Department, and fought and conquered public opinion in Ireland, which was almost universally hostile to it at the start. The success it has now attained is such that we may say when he is gone it will remain a monument to the splendid work which one great Irishman was able to do for his native land. So great has been the success of that Department that it was most instructive and interesting last year to hear demands from English Radicals and Scotch Liberals that a Department upon similar lines should be established by the Government in Scotland.
  I pass now from the merely personal aspect of the matter to say that, however objectionable, on purely political grounds, it may be to continue Mr. T. W. Russell in his office, and to enable him to enjoy its emoluments, without making any efforts to fulfil the conditions under which he received it, and under which another Irishman was dismissed from it, that by far the most serious ground upon which we challenge the further continuance of Mr. Russell in his office is the action he has taken in regard to agricultural cooperative efforts. I venture to say that when the House hears some particulars as to what has been happening, as we believe, under Nationalist dictation—not, I am happy to say, from the majority of the Nationalist party but from some Members of it, who have always been vigorous and eloquent in their denunciation of the Department and its work, it will agree with our view. Mr. Russell has taken certain departmental action in connection with those agricultural credit banks, which, as some of us who have knowledge of the working of these banks know, have so far succeeded in backward parts of the country that we view his action with alarm, and hope it will be put an end to.
  Mr. DILLON: Do I understand the hon. Member to say that this action was taken as a result of Nationalist dictation? If so, I would advise him to give us some proof.
  Mr. HUGH BARRIE: We say in connection with this matter that we have public evidence of the action of the Department while it was under the guidance of Sir Horace Plunkett, who founded and subsidised so many of these banks, so bitterly attacked by some Members of the Nationalist party, and I think the hon. Member who has just interrupted me gave
  1830
  us himself an excellent example of some sharp criticism directed against that Department. I have not the particular speech by me, but I remember in one speech which the hon. Member delivered at Liverpool he referred to the Department in the time of Sir Horace-Plunkett as a political machine which was being very largely used to the detriment of the Nationalist party in Ireland. I am happy to think that that feeling ii not shared by the rank and file of the Nationalist party. That is a matter of knowledge to many of us, and we are much gratified at it. We know that there are at least ten or twelve Members of the Nationalist party who are actively engaged in promoting the work of the Department.
  I wish first of all to give a short summary of the working of these agricultural banks in Ireland. I think that is necessary in order that Members may understand the position to-day. The idea of introducing these banks originated with Father Finlay, who is still a vice-president of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, and who made a study of the question in Germany. I would like to pay a passing tribute to the fine work he has done in connection with Sir Horace Plunkett. He went to the Continent and found how excellently small agriculturists were being dealt with and arrangements were made to help one another in connection with all sorts of agricultural matters by means of these credit banks. He was also helped by Mr. Henry W. Wolff, an agricultural economist, who had special knowledge in this most essential branch of agricultural co-operation.
  6.0 P.M.
  Briefly, the constitution of these banks is as follows. The area of the society is limited, so that all members may be acquainted with each other. Loans are made for productive purposes or economical purposes only, the object being to enable the borrower to realise a profit or effect an economy which would enable him of itself to pay back the money borrowed The period for which the loan is granted is regulated by the object of the loan, and is always calculated to fulfil this condition. Applicants for admission are admitted to membership if known to be sober, honest, and industrious. Poverty, so long as it does not result from the absence of these qualities, is no bar to membership. Members on admission become jointly and severally liable for all the debts of the

  1831
  bank, that is for loans granted to themselves or other members, and for all sums of money either deposited in or lent to the bank for the purposes of being re-lent to its members. Borrowers must comply with the following conditions: They must be members, the purpose for which the loan is required must be stated, also the term for which the loan is granted, they must find two sureties who will join in a bond guaranteeing the repayment of the loan and interest thereon, and who will further bind themselves to repay the loan in the event of its misapplication. The management of the bank is vested in a chairman and committee elected by the members. No profit earned by the banks may be divided amongst the members by way of bonus or dividend, or otherwise disposed of. It must be allowed to accumulate as a reserve fund which may be used to augment the capital of the society, and which, being free of interest, will in time enable the society to reduce the rate of interest charged to borrowers. The capital is derived mainly from three sources: first, from the joint stock banks which have been advancing money at the rate of 4 per cent, irrespective of fluctuations of the Bank rate; secondly, from individuals who deposit cash there; and, thirdly, from the Department of Agriculture. These societies are all registered under the Friendly Societies Act and are described as "Specially Authorised Societies." The power to borrow capital from sources outside their own membership was conferred upon them by the Societies Borrowing Powers Act, promoted by Sir Horace Plunkett. Their accounts are open to inspection by any persons or body having an interest in the banks. That, of course, means the managers of the joint stock banks who have been making advances, the Department, or the Congested Districts Board. So far as circumstances have permitted, the Organisation Society has performed its work in a manner which, I think, leaves very little to be desired.
  I think I have said sufficient to show how carefully organised and thought out the whole scheme under which these? banks are run has been considered by those responsible for it. You get the best test of that, I think, in the figures. If you refer to the figures of 1908 you will find the joint stock banks considered these agricultural banks sound and good enough to advance them £15,000. They received from depositors, who are even
  1832
  more conservative, £20,000, from the Department £12,000, and from the Congested Districts Board £6,000, making a total capital of £53,000. It will be seen from these figures that the loans from the Department amount to barely one-third of the total involved. I am assured that in no case has the joint stock bank ever had to resort to legal pressure to recover any loan advanced to these banks. It is worth recalling that this is the first time the character of the borrower has been challenged. We find, when we go into these charges, which I think it is as well the House should clearly understand, that they begin with the statement made by Mr. T. W. Russell at a meeting of the Congested Districts Board, in which he suggested that these agricultural banks were mostly insolvent. He described the system under which they were conducted as absolutely rotten. At the January meeting of the Congested Districts Board Mr. Russell described the banks as rotten, and stated it as his belief that if they were wound up they would not realise 2s. 6d. in the £. That is to say, that while the Department would lose some £10,000, others, who had embarked money in these banks, would lose £37,000. In correspondence with Sir Horace Plunkett, Mr. Russell has seen fit to modify that charge. At first he said £2,000 had been recovered by legal process, £2,000 more under threat of legal proceedings, and that the Department would have to proceed against twenty-five or thirty banks by the end of the year. Mr. Russell further stated that by legal process he meant the issue of writs. When asked by the secretary of the Organisation Society for particulars of the banks proceeded against, Mr. Russell refused to give them. Let me express my regret that when across the floor of the House the Chief Secretary was asked to furnish this information to the society, which had instituted the whole system, although at first he saw nothing unreasonable in the request, and promised the information, he should a little later, I suppose on more recent instructions from Mr. Russell, have refused the information.
  Briefly, this is the position as it now presents itself to us: The whole of these banks, roughly 100 in number, have been condemned as rotten and insolvent, and we can get no information, either in this House or from the Department itself, which can justify the charge or enable the friends of these banks to discriminate

  1833
  between those which may be sound and those which may be unsound. When this charge is further gone into, we find that, instead of £2,000 being recovered by legal process, a sum of only £1,375 was recovered through the chief Crown Solicitor; and that, instead of £2,000 being paid under threat of legal proceedings, £1,285 was withdrawn by the Department. Mr. Russell also stated that of the £10,000 outstanding, £600, and not the large sum previously mentioned; must now be considered as bad. The whole of these charges under pressure have now been boiled down to this, that, after all the years the system has been working, the total sum the Department at present thinks is bad is £600. If we were acting as individuals at a bank owing us a debt, and if every member of that bank—the average number of members of these banks I think is something like ninety—was responsible for it, I think the proper businesslike course would be for us to instruct our solicitors to select three or four of the most prominent members of the bank and proceed against them first. I do not think it would become necessary to sue the larger number. That is not the policy of the Department. They apparently have preferred to damn the whole system, because, as I have said, certain members of the Nationalist party, outside as well as inside the House, have found this credit organisation has made a somewhat detrimental effect on certain trade concerns in Ireland.
  I do not wish it to be taken, as suggested, that there might not be some foundation for this charge. What I do say is that it has been found in some of the most backward parts of the country that small farmers in the struggle for existence have been very largely in the hands of either one large trader who has a monopoly of the district, or what has been termed the gombeen man. It is because these large traders and gombeen men have found that farmers prefer to get easier terms from the banks that we have had this savage attack made on the banks. I think we have every right to complain that the holder of an office which should have its duties discharged in a judicial manner should, at the dictation of a few powerful gombeen men and trading monopolies—let it not be forgotten that these banks number 9,000 farmers in Ireland—condemn the whole system, root and branch. It is still more regrettable that the information which would enable the Organisation
  1834
  Society to test the truth of this wholesale charge, which up to now has not been substantiated to any important extent, should have been continually refused. It is a somewhat remarkable state of affairs that under force of circumstances Mr. Russell, so long one of the most eloquent advocates and defenders of the Irish, farmers, should have been the man, using his temporary position of influence and power, to claim that there are 9,000 farmers in Ireland who are not worth the obligations which they nave incurred under this system.
  The whole amount which the Department has involved at the present moment is admitted by Mr. Russell to amount only to £10,000. Are we to accept the conclusion of Mr. Russell that co-operative credit banks have no service in Ireland, while all the leading Continental nations are year by year increasing State aid in this direction1? Some of us know that, instead of a paltry £10,000 or £16,000 a year, the French nation has committed itself to the expenditure of £1,250,000, and a very-great industry in agriculture has been built up under the fostering care of banks conducted under the system I have described. We have every right to draw the attention of the Committee to this grave state of affairs, and we have a right to ask the Chief Secretary to see to it that the information should be given to the House without the slightest reservation and that every facility should be given to the Organisation Society to investigate the particular banks alleged to be insolvent. I think we have a right to go further—we intend to support it by vote to-night—and to demand that the tenure of Mr. Russell's office should be brought to an end. In the North of Ireland the action of Mr. Russell in this matter is keenly resented. We have not, for obvious reasons, so largely used these banks as some other parts of the country. The condition of our farmers is better, and there is not the need for small self-help of this character which is so valuable in other parts of the country. Still in the neighbouring counties, in county Donegal, which is very near to my own county, the very greatest advantage has been taken of these banks. The manager of a joint stock bank in one of the congested counties, to whom I wrote asking: his opinion of these banks, says:—
  "The joint stock banks are lending the credit banks, which are doing good work here, money at 4 per cent, on the joint and several guarantees of individual members."

  1835
  He adds:—
  "If the gombeen man, pure and simple, can be scotched, as I think he can with this system of help, it will be good business, but he seems, however, to hare Mr. T. W. Russell in his pocket."
  Then I pass to the opinion of a well-known man in another part of the country (Claremorris), who says:—
  "Greater even than the material advantages of the bank are the moral effects resulting from it in the district of Murneen: firstly, in the education the people are receiving in the true use of credit, and again in the gain for the country that can so easily be obtained from mutual co-operation. Heretofore the man who borrowed lost caste in the neighbourhood, was regarded as a ne'er-do-well, and fast hastening to join the class who are a burden on society. Now the people are learning that it is honourable, when necessary, to borrow for the honest purpose of improving one's position and ascending higher the ladder of industrial prosperity. From the success that has attended the working out of this little experiment in such a remote district, one is forced to wish that branches were multiplied in the country, that this influence for good may be more widely extended"
  Lastly, I venture to quote the words of a well-known Nationalist in county Donegal, whose name must be familiar to hon. Members below the Gangway. Mr. P. Gallagher says:—
  "As one who has a practical knowledge of the cooperative movement, I wish to inform my fellow-farmers that Sir Horace Plunkett was appointed Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture when that Department was first established, and above all the Government Departments in Ireland it was the only one ruled by Irishmen. Sir Horace was responsible to the Council of Agriculture, who were elected by the county councils. They soon found out that if their work was to be a lasting benefit to the farmers they (the farmers) must be organised, and as the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society had been voluntarily doing this work for years, they decided to bear part of the expenses, and all went well for some time. Co-operative banks, poultry, dairy, flax, agriculture, and threshing societies had been established all over the country. In 1903 we got an agricultural bank started in Dunglow, and this is a most useful form of co-operation. I am a member of the committee, and our parish priest is president since it was established. He is treasurer as well for the last two years. We got a loan of £50 from the Congested Districts Board, of which every penny has been repaid. We are able to give our farmers better prices for produce."
  That is a district which is not confined to Unionist farmers I only hope that even now the Chief Secretary will realise the danger the recent action of the Vice-President has brought about. You have these wholesale charges levelled against this organisation society, and I venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman most earnestly and most respectfully is it likely that a society of this kind, slandered in this wholesale manner, can hope to get the facilities in the future from local lenders and joint stock banks which it previously enjoyed? I call upon the right hon. Gentleman, in the name of all well-wishers of this system, to put the matter right and see to it that this organisation society is
  1836
  given every information necessary to enable it to make a fair examination into the solvency of every bank that has been challenged.
  I pass from this matter to one or two small points of administration. I am happy to think that, in so far as Mr. T. W. Russell has permitted the work of the Department to continue on the lines laid down by his predecessor, it has gone well. The Department is still giving the great help in all directions in which it formerly worked so well, but there still remain one or two grievances requiring attention. I especially refer to the technical side of the work. When demands are made for increased grants for building technical schools in Ireland we are always reminded by the Chief Secretary and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that when the Act was passed in 1898 the proposal was to allocate only £55,000 to this work. But that amount has been entirely utilised by grants made all over the country, and there is not now the provision of a single penny for the building of schools under the present Act. I was one of a deputation which waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer two years ago on this matter, and we put our case before him. We pointed out that in some small towns, and this I think applied generally north, south, east and west, this work of technical education, which students were anxious to take advantage of, has often to be carried on in all sorts of rooms and places. I have a case of a school under the control of a Committee with which I am connected in which the work is being done in four different buildings in one small town. I want the Government to realise the importance of giving building grants for this most important and necessary work. A question was put in this House the other day with regard to grants to technical societies, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that up to now he had not had a concrete case put before him by the Department. If that is true, the Department has been somewhat at fault, as it was clearly their duty to elaborate schemes under the Act. I venture to assert that the work is being greatly handicapped by want of suitable buildings, and that the expense of conducting it is also being unnecessarily added to by the present system. I hope the Chief Secretary, when he replies, will give us some encouragement with regard to this most important matter. We, in the North of Ireland, are disappointed that we have had no sign that the official

  1837
  work of the Department is to be better controlled. It is the old trouble and the old complaint, and I hope to hear that this matter is receiving attention. We recognise that the Chief Secretary cannot be held responsible for the present condition of things. He cannot be expected to go into these matters personally. But I am now putting the facts before him, and I earnestly and respectfully hope that the time will soon come when we will have a direct representative of the Department in this House. I beg to move the reduction of Item (A) by £100.
  Mr. S. H. BUTCHER: I shall do my best to keep clear, as far as possible, of the personal questions that are raised by this Motion—questions affecting Mr. Russell and Sir Horace Plunkett. The official whose salary it is proposed to reduce is one who holds his office contrary to the pledge of the Government, as he has not now a seat in this House. He has, however, managed, holding a somewhat precarious tenure, to exhibit administrative discourtesy, which is, I believe, almost without parallel. I shall say no more than is necessary, because I wish to look at the matter from a very much larger point of view—that affecting Ireland as a whole. I do not propose to go over the main facts which have been placed before this Committee, but I would remind it that when Mr. Russell first came into office he lost no time in showing hostility to this Agricultural Organisation Association, and he cut off the subsidy, of which it had been in receipt from the Government. The Association accepted the position, it resolved not to come into conflict with the Department, if it could possibly help it. It realised that a good understanding between the State Department and the cooperative associations in Ireland was of the highest importance for the carrying on of the co-operative movement. But as far as I am aware there was no overt act of hostility shown to the Organisation Society for some time. It was on the occasion of a deputation to the Congested Districts Board that Mr. Russell first used language which aroused these co-operative societies. He said that the system of credit banks was a rotten system, and that the banks could not possibly pay 6d. in the £. I am aware he put forward as a defence that the occasion was confidential and not public, and that, therefore, the fault rested with those who made the statement public. But I would really ask the Committee to consider what the occa-
  1838
  sion was. It was a deputation of men from different parts of Ireland who were deeply interested in the co-operative movement, and when the head of a State Department calmly told them, without any previous suggestion, that the whole movement was unsound, was it likely that the occasion could be treated otherwise than of a semi-public, if not of an entirely public, character? The facts could not help being known to all concerned, and it seems to me that the defence of privacy or privilege cannot stand for one moment. Mark, then, what happened. This startling announcement was met by a courteous request on the part of the secretary of the Agricultural Organisation Association to Mr. Russell to give details and particulars regarding the banks on which he based his statement. I would like to call attention to this, that what they demanded, or, rather, requested, was not that publicity should be given in Ireland as regards banks which Mr. Russell said were in this shaky condition, although in public Mr. Russell hinted at that, and one of the answers of the Chief Secretary in this House defended Mr. Russell on that ground, that it was very inadvisable to give that publicity. But of course what the organisation demanded was not such publicity. What they said was, "We want to know for our information which are the banks referred to." Was that an unreasonable demand for the parent society to make? They had been watching the progress of these banks from their inception, and they had suddenly this bombshell thrown at them that the whole system was rotten. It had been their business not only to foster the banks in their infancy, but to watch their growth and to give them advice from time to time. They had sent down auditors and inspectors to go through their accounts, and they not only got reports from their inspectors, but they submitted them to the Department itself. They further, not long ago, in 1909, pressed the Department of Agriculture to let them, in return, see the reports which their inspectors made upon the banks, and after some pressure the Agricultural Department consented that the society should see such reports.
  Was it unnatural, this being their relations with the Department, that they should look upon this as an obvious request, so that they might, if possible, give advice which would not only be of assistance to those institutions which they had

  1839
  founded, but which might also save public money which had been invested. It was for the benefit both of the agricultural banks themselves and also for the benefit of the public and the depositors who had put money in, that the request was made. What was the pretext given in public by Mr. Russell in April of this year? I will not allude further to the excuse in regard to publicity, which will not hold water for a minute. There was another defence made through the Chief Secretary who in answer to a question said that the Agricultural Organisation Society already knew all the facts and that they had all the particulars and the information required. He said in regard to twelve out of the fifteen of the incriminated societies that the report concerning them had been seen by the Agricultural Organisation Society and that they therefore knew the facts. That has been repeated again and again in the public prints. It is quite true that the Agricultural Organisation Society had reported not upon twelve out of fifteen but upon hundreds of banks during the last few years, but they did not in the least know which the twelve banks selected by the Department were. They could not possibly identify those twelve. I have asked the question privately and personally in order that I might give it a public answer, "Did you know as the Chief Secretary said in twelve out of fifteen cases which the banks were, and are you able to mention the names of the societies or the members of those particular banks?" They in reply say they have not the least notion as to which banks are referred to. I hope that will be sufficient as regards that particular point and I need not go through the other pretexts—for they were hollow pretexts—for this refusal because Mr. Russell in a letter to the "Irish Times" let out the real reason for his peremptory refusal. He said:—
  "It was rather too bad to call upon me to co-operate with a body which is identified with hostility to a political party."
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] In that cheer you have the true reason acknowledged by the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway for the attack upon these banks. I put it to the Committee, is there any ground for saying that this Agricultural Organisation Society is the organ of a political party or identified with it in any sense whatever? I can only say this, that the members of that Society are I believe, nine out of ten of them Nationalists and
  1840
  not Unionists, and that they represent a membership of 20,000 members. No, it is a great deal more than that. That is as regards the banks, but as regards the Agricultural Organisation Society the number of members is a great deal larger. There are nearly 1,000 of these associations, there are 100,000 members, and I may add that there has been a turnover of £2,500,000 last year by that organisation. There is no suspicion of any political character or political taint of any sort attaching to that organisation society, and the only ground for identifying it with a political party is a miserably bad one. It is that Sir Horace Plunkett was the original founder—he originated the idea, and he was the founder of the movement— but these men are not politicians, they are farmers, and, in many cases, poor farmers of Ireland, in whose interest the movement was founded. There we come, as I say, to the real heart of this ungracious discourtesy and unwise action—that it is said that the association is supposed to represent politics. Politics it does not represent. It is quite true that there are some trade interests which are connected with politics, and which are supposed to be opposed to the co-operative movement generally. The small local trader, it is quite true, thinks that he is often injured by the co-operative movement.
  At the beginning of the movement there was a very much more widespread fear on that point, and there was one important paper which said that this Agricultural Cooperative Organisation was the invention of the Devil, and that Sir Horace Plunkett was the person who played the leading role in the tragedy, but on the whole the traders of Ireland have begun to see that although they may be some of them hurt by co-operation in the first instance yet that the production of the country has increased, and also that the consumption has risen, and that in the long run trade interests do not suffer. To say, however, that because that section of traders should so regard it, is sufficient through their political influence to make the whole movement political, is surely a very gross slander upon its nature. But I pass from this spirit and this manifestation of arrogant bureaucracy and official discourtesy—I pass to the larger question which is at the bottom of this whole matter, and it is this. A very great social and agrarian revolution has occurred in Ireland, and so far as land legislation is concerned, you have the whole

  1841
  of the old arrangements swept away, or being swept away. You have the State on the one hand and the individual farmer on the other left confronting one another as creditor and debtor. The old clan system with the head of the clan has long since gone. Now the landlord and the estate office is disappearing also, and you have nothing but those two isolated parties left, the individual farmer and the State. The real question, therefore, that now presents itself is, Can you reconstruct, or rather create, a new rural community in Ireland consisting of something more than the individual, and consisting of a group of associated interests who shall be able to act together, and so put the economic basis of agriculture on a sound footing? That is the real question. Legislation has not done it. It has merely created Na change of ownership. It is left, therefore, for others who have taken up this work voluntarily to see what they can do.
  What is the experience of other countries in this matter? This is really of vital importance. What has happened everywhere else is, that the unorganised isolated farmer cannot by himself face the fierce stress of agricultural competition, and every prosperous agricultural community that has sprung up in other parts of Europe has been worked through voluntary associations—through the organisation of the farmers, and through that and that alone. Just as industrial combinations have been found necessary in the great towns and cities and in centres of industry, so agricultural co-operation for the very same object is necessary in rural districts. The success of peasant proprietary is absolutely due to that, and I venture to believe that in a country like Ireland, where the farmers are poorer than in any other part of Europe, and the farms even smaller, that the existence of a peasant proprietary can only be safely realised by means of such organisations. It has been proved elsewhere by experience that as regards these organisations two things are necessary—first of all, there should be a power of organisation in voluntary associations for buying and selling, for getting the necessary equipment of the farm and all else that goes with the farming industry; and, secondly, that State aid should be aided by self-help, and that the State help shall be of a kind to support and encourage self-help. It is these two principles on which Sir Horace Plunkett, in
  1842
  the first instance, and then those who carried out legislation have built up the co-operative movement in Ireland. On the one hand, you have the Agricultural Organisation Society, representing the elementary principle of self-help, and, on the other hand, you have the Department of Agriculture, representing the principle, of State aid. They are essential to each other. The organisation of the farmers from the business point of view is also, necessary to the Agricultural Department for its efficient administration. It can deal not with the isolated man, but with groups of men who have got a common interest. That is really the point—the larger matter of policy which affects, not only Ireland, but England, and which I wish to drive home, that if your system of land purchase-is to work out with ultimate success in Ireland you must work it largely by the aid of agricultural co-operation when that co-operation is organised, fostered, and strengthened by State aid. I would add that it affects your capital just as much as it does Irish welfare. It is really the Agricultural Organisation-Society that is being struck at by that attack upon the banks, though that is only one part of the great co-operative enterprise in which they are engaged. I should like to mention, as regards that attack, that while—an Irishman I was going to-gay, but, thank goodness, he is not an Irishman—is running it down in this calumnious way, on the other hand you have students of political economy and rural economy coming from all parts of Europe, and even from America, to study the success of the working of that co-operative system in Ireland, and they have written and spoken about it in terms of the most lavish praise. It remains for this official of your Government to strike this blow in the dark—I do not know whether meaning to kill it, but with the obvious result that it will damage it beyond repair if he-succeeds.
  This agricultural co-operation is necessary, I believe, for every agricultural community, and even for agriculture generally, but there is no country in Europe where it is so necessary as in Ireland, because in proportion as the farmers are-poor and weak and backward in education, all the more necessary is it that they should intelligently combine. In the very poorest districts in Ireland, the congested districts, these land banks have made a far greater success than in any other part of Ireland. The truth is that cheap capital is the very first essential for small farmers

  1843
  because you need something that is far more flexible than the employment of capital in ordinary business transactions, and the system which has been adopted In the organisation of these banks is not a, fad of Sir Horace Plunkett's. It is a system which has been adopted deliberately after examining the systems of credit banks all over Europe, and it has already worked wonders in those parts where it has been applied. You have that great principle first of all of collective security. The small farmer who can get no advance from the joint-stock banks on his little piece of land is able to get money advanced to him through the association at 5 per cent, or 6 per cent. If he were attempting to get any capital either from the bank or from the local traders, or the Gombeen man, lie would have to pay 20 per cent, or 30 per cent., but here he is getting this money at that low rate of interest not to pay bills, but for a purely productive purpose. He belongs to a group who all know one another, and among the moral results which have followed from that form of cooperation is this, that this group of men begin to trust one another instead of mistrusting one another, and they form a friendly rural community who feel that their interests are bound up together. By the help of these banks numbers of these men in Ireland are being gradually freed from the load of debt which they owed to the local traders or the Gombeen man, for a very great deal of that indebtedness tomes from shop credit and from the barter system. They have been freed from that debt in very much the same kind of way that Lord Cromer managed in Egypt by somewhat similar means to lend money to free the fellaheen there, and with results that are not at all dissimilar. The same thing has been done in India. Would you not have thought, with this great movement going on, not relating to banks only, that it was the duty of the Government Department that existed for the benefit of agriculture, to give advice, and, as far as possible, to maintain supervision? If they found that these poor, backward people were a little shaky, was it not their business to do all they could to restore their credit, to call in the parent body which brought them into existence, to take their advice, and to ask them to co-operate with them instead of to follow this malignant and ruinous policy?
  1844
  Lastly, think of the contrast of the policy that has been adopted by this Government in England and in Ireland. In England an Agricultural Organisation Society has come into being. It was modelled upon the Irish Organisation Society. The Board of Agriculture, following the advice of the Departmental Committee which sat some years ago, has done two things. It is using that Agricultural Organisation Society to teach the methods of co-operation on the one hand, and already it has got, through the Act of last year, a subsidy from the Development Fund, the very thing which was withdrawn in Ireland—the equivalent paid to the Irish Agricultural Society. That is what is being done in England and Ireland. You have, as regards the action of the Department, I am sorry to say, a spirit of embittered partizanship. The effect of what is being said must be to discredit the whole movement, and yet it is far more vital for Ireland than it is for England. In England it may be useful. In Ireland it is indispensable for these small men. I hope a real inquiry will be made into the condition of these banks. Confidence has been shaken in Ireland. Mr. T. W. Russell had to modify and almost withdraw at last his ill-omened words that £600 might possibly be lost. There has been £250,000 already lent since these banks came into existence. There might be a loss of £600, but it appears there might not be a loss at all. Anyhow, it is a case where the Government, recognising the necessity of cooperation in England, and still more in Ireland, ought to be in a position either to undo the wrong or else at least to show up the facts.
  Mr. DILLON: The hon. Member commenced his speech by declaring that he would studiously avoid any personal observation as far as possible, and he proceeded, in a tone of really ferocious bitterness, to a personal attack on the Vice-President, who is not present and is, unfortunately, unable to defend himself. If that be the hon. Member's idea of avoiding personalities I should be very curious to hear him when he is indulging in personalities. He thanked God that the Vice-President was not an Irishman. I could not but be reminded of the time when the Vice-President was a member of the Tory party, and when they were always thanking God for the fact that he was. The hon. Member's attack was most malignant and ferocious, and there was not a single charge on which he built up his fabric of furious indignation which has a shred

  1845
  of foundation. This attack has brought a vast and formidable array of Members above the Gangway. It is an attack of a purely political character. It is a mixture of politics and personal spite, because the right hon. Gentleman who now presides over the Department supplanted Sir Horace Plunkett. Accustomed as I am to the sublime audacity of my countrymen above the Gangway, I did not expect to hear the complaint that Mr. T. W. Russell was retained in an irregular fashion as the Vice-President of the Department. That comes rather strangely from the men who supported their Government, and the Liberal Government afterwards, in keeping Sir Horace Plunkett in that position for six and a half years after he failed to obtain a seat. They complained most bitterly, and they renewed their complaint this afternoon, that Sir Horace Plunkett was badly treated because he was requested to retire from that position after six and a half years. Mr. Russell has held the position for six months, and they think it highly irregular and objectionable. That is really a new idea of fair play, and so far as that charge goes the Government were well advised not to gratify Mr. Russell's personal enemies, because this is a matter of personal enmity, and their enemies, by accepting his resignation the moment he lost his seat, without allowing a reasonable interval to see whether he could secure another. His resignation was instantly at the disposal of the Government, and he only held the position because the Government requested him to do so. I remain as strongly of opinion as I have always been that this position of Vice-President of the Department ought to be, and must be, kept a Parliamentary Ministerial position, and if Mr. Russell has not within a reasonable period obtained a seat he ought to resign his position, and I am quite certain he will.
  7.0 P.M.
  Let me come to the points upon which this great attack has been based. First of all, there was the cutting off—an old story—of the subsidy from the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, and the relations which prevailed since then between the society and the Department. Secondly, there was the alleged attack on the banks. I had expected to hear a further attack in respect of the butter report, but, as nothing was said about that, I shall pass away from the subject altogether. Let me deal, first of all, with the attack on
  1846
  the banks, because that has been made the main ground on which this attack has been made on Mr. Russell to-day. It has been alleged that Mr. Russell, out of sheer malignity—that was the word used—made an attack, without any justification whatever, on this great system of co-operative banks in Ireland, and that he made it in the interest of certain traders and under the dictation of the Nationalist party. I immediately challenged the hon. Member for North Derry (Mr. Hugh Barrie) when the attack was made. It will be in the memory of those who were present in the House at the time that I challenged him to give a shred of evidence in support of that statement, and he slid gracefully off to some other subject. He knew perfectly well the statement was unfounded. There is not a word of truth in it. It is absolutely false. I think it is desirable to put that categorically and without any mistake, because a more outrageous charge could not have been made than that Mr. Russell was acting under the dictation of the Nationalist party when he made this attack on the banks. Whatever action Mr. Russell took regarding the banks he was not acting under the dictation of the Nationalist party, and the hon. Member ought not to make such charges in this House unless he is in a position to prove them. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. S. H. Butcher) stated in his speech that the first act on the part of the Department against the Agricultural Organisation Society took place at a deputation which waited on the Congested Districts Board asking that Board to give £1,000 a year as a subsidy to the society in order to pay two inspectors to inspect the banks in the West of Ireland. That meeting, at which this alleged language was used, was a perfectly private and confidential meeting. The members of the Congested Districts Board are expected, though I do not think they are pledged, not to make public any of the proceedings of the Board. What happened? There was a frank and free discussion, and of course a discussion takes a somewhat different form as regards language and temper when it is absolutely confidential as compared with what would be said before the public. There was a frank discussion about the banks. Mr. Russell expressed his opinion, as head of the Department, for reasons which I will state, that this subsidy of £1,000 ought not to be given. The Congested Districts Board finally decided—I do not know whether at that meeting or at a subsequent one—that they would not

  1847
  give the subsidy, and the secretary of the organisation society wrote to Mr. Russell a most provocative and impertinent letter which was published in the public Press disclosing the proceedings of this confidential meeting of the Board. He wrote this letter making a demand on Mr. Russell which was in point of fact a preposterous and entirely bogus demand for information as to certain banks which Mr. Russell said were in a shaky or doubtful condition. That demand was made for the purpose of giving offence. These banks were fifteen in number, and the organisation society demanded that they should have the names of the banks. For reasons which I shall explain the relations between the organisation society, and the Department had been totally changed under the direction of the Board some years before. Mr. Russell refused to give this information on, I think, exceedingly good grounds. What were the main grounds? He knew it was a purely bogus demand put forward for the purpose of insult. [Several HON. MEMBERS dissented.] Certainly, I adhere to that statement. That was what the demand was. As a matter of fact, when the records of the Department were searched, it was found that out of these fifteen banks the Agricultural Organisation Society had reported in respect of the condition of twelve. There were only three out of the fifteen which were proceeded against by the Department. The Organisation Society had taken the initiative against the banks, and, in the case of those three, the managers or secretaries had been guilty of some irregular conduct in connection with the management of money, and the President of the Department did not think it desirable to give the information asked for, inasmuch as possibly other proceedings might have followed of an unpleasant character. Therefore, as regards these fifteen banks, the Organisation Society were in full possession of information, and had sent in reports regarding twelve. I am justified in saying that the entire demand was a bogus demand, got up for the purpose of initiating controversy in the newspapers and dragging out all that occurred at this confidential meeting of the Congested Districts Board, whose proceedings were never intended to be made public. That was done for the purpose of stirring up agitation in the country against the Department and Mr. Russell. I am credibly informed that the result is that the credit of the banks has
  1848
  been most seriously shaken [Cheers.] Yes, and who shook it? Nobody knew what had taken place at the private meeting of the Congested Districts Board until the angry controversy in the newspapers had been inaugurated by the secretary of the Organisation Society. That has gone on for several weeks, and the result is that the banks are seriously injured by this-controversy which has been most improperly inaugurated by the Organisation Society for the purpose of stirring up agitation in the country against the Department.
  What has been the relation of the Department towards the banks? It is alleged' that certain traders in Ireland have been hostile to these banks. I venture to say that these are very cowardly statements. When such statements are made they ought to be made frankly and openly. I deny that certain traders are hostile to-these banks, and I challenge hon. Members to quote the language used and to point to any word or act of hostility on the part of certain traders in Ireland. What some of us have been hostile to, and what we are not ashamed to maintain in the face of this House, is that the Organisation Society has been used, and frequently used, as a political weapon to attack our party in the country, to the infinite injury of the whole co-operative movement and the banks, too. But I deny absolutely that we have ever shown the smallest atom of hostility to those banks. Let me state what has been the recent relation of the Department to those banks. Here is an extract from Mr. Russell's evidence, given before a Committee a fortnight ago. If any man wants to inform himself of the-real facts of the situation, I would recommend him earnestly to read the evidence, in which he will find an authentic account. Mr. Russell said:—
  "The policy of lending money to these banks was that of my predecessor in office. I inherited it. The question as to the position of these banks was raised at a recent meeting of the Agricultural Board."
  The Agricultural Board is the Board which controls to a very great extent Mr. Russell's action in this matter. It is a representative Board to the extent of eight members, and four members are appointed by the Department.
  "The object was to discuss whether it would not be possible to put this system of agricultural credit with which some of the Members were dissatisfied on a sounder basis. I undertook at that meeting, at the request of the Board, to have an inquiry made by an inspector into all the banks which owe money to the Department. This inquiry occupied three or four months, and the Report was presented a few weeks ago."

  1849
  I ask the Committee to listen to what is stated in the Report, and to observe whether it bears out what has been stated by hon. Members above the Gangway. On the contrary, the whole thing was initiated, not by Mr. Russell, but by a member of the Agricultural Board, and was for the purpose of aiding the banks and putting them on a sounder basis. That was the object of the movement, and I think it is a shame, and really most disgraceful, to bring charges of malignant hostility against Mr. Russell. As a matter of fact the whole of this action originated in the Board of Agriculture, and not with the President of the Department, and the object was not to destroy the banking system, but to put it on a permanent and more secure basis. Mr. Russell, in his evidence, gave an account of what the inspector found, and let it be remembered that all these inspectors were appointed by Sir Horace Plunkett. Mr. Russell said:—
  "One hundred and eight banks were inspected; twenty-six were reported as satisfactory, thirty-six as fair, and forty-six as unsatisfactory."
  That was the condition of the banks a few weeks ago. Mr. Russell further said:—
  "My views as to agricultural credit in Ireland are of a mixed character. I think, in view of the great changes that are taking place in Ireland under the work of the Department and the Congested Districts Board, a system of agricultural credit founded upon proper business principles is capable of conferring very considerable advantages upon the Irish peasantry. I realise the dangers attendant upon undue facilities of borrowing, but I am still of opinion that a system of agricultural credit founded upon a proper basis and worked on proper principles might be extremely advantageous to the people."
  The whole of this action, therefore, with regard to banks was not in the slightest degree action of hostility, but for the purpose of inquiring into their condition and putting them on a sound basis.
  I myself have been charged over and over again with hostility to these banks. There is not a shred of foundation for that charge. I defy any man to quote any speech of mine or point to any action of mine justifying that charge in the slightest degree. The position I have always taken up is I have never inquired personally into the working of these institutions. I think they ought to be very carefully watched and guarded, because I think if you introduce a system of lending money among very poor people, unless you give them a careful training and see that their accounts are properly watched, you are bound to have defalcations and misappropriations. I think you cannot be
  1850
  too careful in respect of them. At the same time, I have no doubt that these banks, if properly managed, would be extremely useful to the people. I want to say to the hon. Members who have made these charges here to-day, charges frequently made in Ireland, and which I am glad they have had the courage to make now in the House of Commons, that it is a most cruel injustice and it is very mischievous to be bringing these charges against the traders of Ireland. You would imagine, to hear hon. Members above the Gangway speak, that the traders of Ireland were a set of robbers and scoundrels, and that they were a peculiar class of traders, quite different from the traders in any other country in the world. Is it a crime or a thing to be ashamed of to be a trader? There are a great many traders in this House. I do not think, at all events in England, that it ought to be a term of reproach to be a trader. But these men are doing great injury to the cause of co-operation and the cause of the banks by this perpetual attempt to raise animosities between them and the traders of Ireland. I have never believed that these banks will in any way injure the traders of Ireland. I do not believe that the traders of Ireland have the slightest atom of hostility towards them; they have never shown it. I think it is a very great shame for hon. Members to be endeavouring to rouse these evil feelings by very unfair and unfounded charges.
  I have already explained how this row in the Irish newspapers commenced and the nature of the demand for information, and I have pointed out that whatever steps were taken by Mr. Russell in this matter were not taken on his own initiative at all, but were taken at the request of the Board of Agriculture, and had for their object not at all any attack upon the banks but the putting of the whole banking system upon a sounder foundation. The report of the inspectors must convince the House that steps of the kind were absolutely necessary, because out of 120 banks, which were inspected, forty-six were in a very unsatisfactory condition, and the Secretary to the Treasury stated to-day, in answer to a question put by myself, that of these banks the vast majority are more than two years in arrear in giving in their annual account. As the Member for Cambridge says, they are all registered under the Friendly Societies Act, and are bound to send in annual reports, yet according

  1851
  to the Secretary to the Treasury they are mostly two years in arrear. With regard to the so-called Raffeisen banks, I do not know whether the system is really the same as the Raffeisen system, but the one chance of safety for these credit institutions in Ireland is constant and most vigorous inspection, and watching of the accounts; and those who insist upon that regular inspection are not enemies but friends of the banking system. So far as I am concerned I say really honestly and from the bottom of my heart that I wish them nothing but success, but certainly they will not be successful if carried on in the spirit displayed by the hon. Member for Cambridge, and if they be used as part of a political weapon to attack and discredit the Nationalist Party. There is not the slightest use in laughing at that because it is a fact. I am going to give now one instance. I do not want to go into this highly contentious matter at too great length, but I could quote witnesses for it.
  Rather more than a year ago two organisers came down from the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society to address a meeting in the county of Cork for the purpose of forming a co-operative association, and they addressed the meeting, and said that the farmers who were present would have to make up their minds to fight the National party and the Irish Parliamentary party, and put them down. That was part of the programme, and at the end of the meeting the people decided that they would not start a bank there. That kind of thing is bound to injure the movement. They cannot succeed on those lines. Really, the crime of which Mr. T. W. Russell is guilty is this, and it is the reason he has been attacked tonight, that he has lifted the Department out of politics—that is his crime; that is the reason why these benches are so full— whereas it was previously or had been for a long time a thoroughly political institution. Let me deal for a few moments with the second charge, the only other charge made. That was that Mr. T. W. Russell when he became Vice-President of the Department lost no time, said the Member for Cambridge, in exhibiting a malignant hostility to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society and that he promptly deprived them of the subsidy. What is the history of that transaction? Here is Mr. Russell's own answer:—
  "During the seven years that the Department was in existence before I became Vice-President, a subsidy
  1852
  had been granted to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, and in the seven years this subsidy amounted to £29,000. The society claimed and are entitled to claim that they founded and protected the co-operative movement in Ireland. I know of nobody opposed to co-operation in Ireland—"
  That is absolutely true.
  "In the matter of the subsidy, I submitted my policy to the Council of Agriculture in the year 1907. The Council consists of 108 members, two-thirds being selected by the County Councils, and the remainder nominated by the Department. I informed the Council I had made up my mind to withdraw the subsidy which my predecessor had paid to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, but that in order to avoid hardship, I proposed to continue it in reducing and gradually lessening amounts for three years. After a debate extending over several hours, this proposal was accepted unanimously by the Council, and on that Council were several members of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, and the Organisation Society at their next meeting a few days afterwards expressed satisfaction at the withdrawal of the subsidy, and declared that they were now at last free to do their work."
  They described the subsidy as an incubus on their work. A few weeks after that there appeared in the Irish Press a most remarkable correspondence which led to the final withdrawal of the subsidy. That correspondence consisted of a letter written by Mr. Rolleston who was a very prominent member of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society and one of Mr. Plunkett's chief friends and lieutenants, to a gentleman out in St. Louis, America, in which Mr. Rolleston in a moment of naive confidence explained to this gentleman in St. Louis how they were engaged in undermining and destroying the whole national movement, and what splendid work for Ireland the Organisation Society would do in freeing it from this intolerable tyranny of the Nationalist party. This letter and corespondence was submitted to the Agricultural Board in Ireland, which controls the Vice-President and the Department, as without its consent the Vice-President and the Department cannot give a penny for anything, as it can hold up every Grant. After full discussion the Board of Agriculture in Ireland, and not the Vice-President at all—that is where your action has been so malignant a misrepresentation—I like that word "malignant"—the Board of Agriculture unanimously, without a single dissentient voice, although there were some members of the Organisation Society upon it, cut off the subsidy altogether. Why did they decide to do so? They published a minute, which I have here. It is too long to read, but in this minute they decided to cut off the subsidy altogether, and not alone that, but they directed the Vice-President and the Department not to work any further with the Organisation Society, and the reason

  1853
  given by the Board was that after the evidence that had been laid before them of the political character and objects of the Organisation Society they thought it was injurious to the work of the Department to be tied up with that of the Organisation Society. That is the unanimous decision of the Board of Agriculture, and not of the Vice-President, and I say that this whole mischief has arisen simply and solely from the bias of this Organisation Society, which, not content with doing its work honestly and apart from politics, turns itself into a regular political organisation for the purpose of attacking the National party, and it is no wonder that hon. Members above the Gangway are enraged and disgusted because this game has proved a total failure. That is the whole secret of it.
  To show that public opinion in Ireland is not entirely behind these gentlemen, I would direct attention to a meeting which took place the other day at the Chamber of Commerce in Limerick. It was a very influential meeting, with Mr. Goodbody in the chair and Sir Alexander Shaw moving the first resolution, and with all the great manufacturing industries and trades of Limerick represented at it. The resolution referred to stated that Mr. T. W. Russell was perfectly justified in withdrawing the subsidy from the Agricultural Organisation Society. It was seconded by Mr. Power, who said that it was now three or four years since the Chamber of Commerce protested against the Department subsidising any particular bodies outside, and especially handing over large sums of the public money to an irresponsible body like the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, and it was not generally known that the policy introduced by Sir Horace Plunkett had led to a great expenditure of money and had but very little results to show in Ireland. That was the Resolution of a very important body, and the Resolution was unanimously passed. Therefore, I say that all the trouble has arisen from political bias. Mr. Russell has been charged because he has endeavoured to run this Department upon honest and non-party lines. What is the record of Mr. Russell's administration? When he took over the administration of this Department it was in conflict with the vast majority of the Irish people. Its work was hampered by the fact that it did not enjoy the confidence of the people of Ireland. One short year before Mr. Russell
  1854
  took over the Department the policy of the Department was challenged from these benches, and by a unanimous vote of the Nationalist party it was condemned. Since Mr. Russell took over the working of the Department it has worked with absolute smoothness. It has enjoyed the confidence of the whole mass of the Irish people, and its policy from that hour to this has never been challenged until this moment in this House, and I say that the challenge to-night has ended in a remarkable fiasco for those who attempted to attack it. Mr. Russell's administration of that Department, in my opinion, has been a very great success. I think he has made the Department for the first time work smoothly with the people of Ireland. Let me tell hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway that the Agricultural Department cannot begin to do any good in Ireland until it enjoys the confidence of the people. Mr. Russell has succeeded, and he is attacked for that reason and none other. Should he unfortunately fail to secure a seat in this House he will be obliged to resign his position, and I know it is his intention to do so within a reasonably brief period. Should that occur I, for one, shall deeply regret his departure, and I trust that whoever else is put in his place will run the Department on the lines which Mr. Russell has followed.
  Sir EDWARD CARSON: I have been in the House a great many years, and though I have heard the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) on frequent occasions, this is the first ins my recollection, at all events, on which he has appeared as the official representative and champion of the head of a Department in Ireland. I do not think anyone who has listened to his statements will deny that it would be very hard to find anything more effective than the manner in which he tried to draw attention from the real point which had been raised on these benches. It is the method employed by advocates, when well briefed, of becoming enthusiastic about the facts as if they were real facts. But in the end—I am an old advocate myself—I think he reached the climax of the advocate's art when he announced that Mr. T. W. Russell had for the first time lifted his Department out of the region of politics. I congratulate the hon. Member—I am sure he believes that. But the hon. Gentleman always thinks that everything is lifted out of the region of politics which is lifted more or less into the hands of the Nationalist League. He wound up by assuring the House that

  1855
  now, for the first time, this Department has the confidence of the people of Ireland. I know that when hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway use the words "people of Ireland" they mean the Irish National League under the direction of the hon. Member and his friends. I remember perfectly well that some years ago, when Sir Horace Plunkett brought forward the project of the Agricultural Organisation Society, I was asked by a London newspaper to write a review of his proposal. It was the only review I had written in my life, and I remember I was very badly paid for it. I said in that review that, however excellent might be his idea of helping the people of Ireland, especially the poorer classes, by a system of co-operation— which hon. Members below the Gangway always support as being a good thing when it is done here, but which they do not regard with great enthusiasm in Ireland— yet in Ireland the difficulty was and the doubt was as to whether the Nationalist party, if it became a success, would leave it alone. I knew perfectly well that at any moment the whole thing would be tottering to pieces if the Nationalist party thought that by its success it was bringing about a peaceful condition of affairs outside.
  The real reason why this Organisation Society is abused to-night and has been abused is not because it is a political movement, for that is absolutely untrue, but because it is looked upon by some people and by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down as undermining the party to which he belongs, because it turns the minds of the people to economic and industrial questions, and away from mere agitation and political conflict. That is what the hon. Gentleman means. He knows that it occupies the minds of the people, and takes them away from what is called the Irish Parliamentary party. I know that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway think that is the beginning and end of everything in Ireland, and that unless their agitation is kept up in all its various phases Ireland cannot go on at all. There is a movement in Ireland by which people are turned to economic questions which they try to understand, and they co-operate among themselves with a view to bettering their condition, entirely apart from politics, and that is why the Agricultural Organisation Society has been so much attacked. The hon. Member for Mayo
  1856
  says it is not Mr. T. Russell's act. It is a very curious coincidence that up to the moment Mr. Russell came to the Department the Agricultural Organisation Society was helped and encouraged by, and it worked in co-operation with, the Department, and did so, I think, with the most satisfactory results. But that ceased from the moment Mr. T. W. Russell came there, and the grants to the Society were taken away—which, as the hon. Member for Cambridge stated, the Organisation Society themselves acquiesced in, so that they might as far as possible keep on friendly relations with the Department, if that was possible. Let nobody be deluded about the Organisation Society. It has been constituted, and has 100,000 members. It has been stated here to-night that nine-tenths of these members are Nationalists. Certainly, that has never been denied. What is the use of saying then that this is a political organisation opposed to the Nationalist party in Ireland? The thing is too absurd. The question has been raised as to how long Mr. T. W. Russell is to go on without a seat in this House. May I say that personally I dislike very much saying anything which would lead to the belief that I wanted to get a man out of his office. It has been pointed out that Sir Horace Plunkett stayed in the same position for six years without a seat in this House. That is perfectly true. But the hon. Member for Mayo would appear to forget that in the end Sir Horace Plunkett was turned out at the bidding of hon. Members below the Gangway because he was Dot a Member of this House.
  Mr. DILLON: No; because he was an opponent of the Government in power, and he had no right to remain.
  Sir E. CARSON: The reason why he was put out of office was that he had not a seat in this House. As regards his having been an opponent of the Government, I think the Chief Secretary will bear me out that when the change of Government took place in 1906 Sir Horace Plunkett only remained on at the special request of the new Government themselves, and he was only turned out after an agitation begun from below the Gangway, on the ground that he was not a Member of the House. Therefore when it is said that Sir Horace Plunkett stayed in the office for six years it does not meet the point, because the present Government have laid down the policy that a man has no right to hold office unless he has a seat in this House.

  1857
  How can they, simply because Mr. Russell has lost his seat, say that they are prepared to have a change of policy? No, the truth of the matter is Sir Horace Plunkett was turned out, because he had no seat, at the bidding of hon. Members below the Gangway, and Mr. T. W. Russell is kept in because he has no seat—also at the bidding of hon. Members below the Gangway. The hon. Member for Mayo seems entirely to misunderstand what is our complaint about the banks which were formed in connection with the Agricultural Organisation Society's work. Our complaint is not if the banking system is a failure that it ought to be maintained. Our complaint is that Mr. Russell stated, and we have yet seen no justification for the statement, that these banks were, in his judgment, "rotten and indefensible."
  Mr. BIRRELL: When did he say that?
  Sir E. CARSON: He said that in January, 1910.
  Mr. BIRRELL: That was when he was considering the Congested Districts Board and the application for a Grant.
  Sir E. CARSON: Mr. Russell's words were that they were "rotten and indefensible." Look at the position these banks are in. They have had large advances made to them by various joint stock banks in Ireland—I do not know what the figures are, but I know they have had considerable advances made to them—and they have had thousands of pounds entrusted to them by local authorities. Under these circumstances it is not unreasonable to ask Mr. T. W. Russell to kindly tell us upon what he is founding the charge that these banks are, to use his own elegant words, "rotten and indefensible." Surely the Agricultural Organisation Society have some obligation in the matter; surely there is some obligation towards the depositors; and surely there is some obligation towards the various banks making them loans. I put it to the Chief Secretary that in any Department, if a man makes a statement of that kind, he means it, and if he is not really trying to do a political injury, I ask him is there a Minister who would refuse either to withdraw the statement or to substantiate it? A question was put in this House to the Chief Secretary as to whether there was any objection to the Agricultural Organisation Society being given these various reports on which these statments were made. He said he saw no objection. Then
  1858
  he no doubt gets corrected by this Minister without a seat in Parliament, and he is told, "Oh, you must not go into this matter at all; this is not a matter we can discuss at all." And then he refuses to give it.
  And what is the pretext? "Oh," he says, "all these cases were submitted to the Agricultural Organisation itself before any proceedings were taken." It has been stated to-night—and is it denied?— that out of thousands of cases they have never given any data to identify the cases referred to by Mr. Russell. Is that denied, and if not, why is not the information given? We press for that information, and I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why. Because we want, if we can, to get at what is the real policy of Mr. Russell and the Government in this matter. We have a grave suspicion that the whole thing is exaggerated. We have never been able to get at how much they say is lost, or will probably be lost, and how we can compare that with the money which has been used and utilised for the saving and making of many of these small people in Ireland, but, above all, we want to know, and let it be stated openly, is the policy of the Government to attempt to destroy the co-operative Organisation?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Certainly not.
  Sir E. CARSON: Then we want to know why it is that every opportunity is being taken of trying to withhold information from the societies in matters in which they are vitally interested, and why are all these pretexts, shifts, and evasions gone into if this is not the policy of Mr. Russell, who presides over the Department? You must not misunderstand us. We do not want to maintain these banks, or to have them maintained if they are "rotten," but we certainly do ask that the conduct of a gentleman in Mr. Russell's position should be made clear, because we know he is one of these gentlemen who thinks right to-day what he thought wrong yesterday. We know he is equally emphatic in whatever course he takes, and it is quite possible that Mr. Russell may only the other day have thought that co-operation was a good thing, and the next day that it was a bad thing, and therefore it is not unreasonable to ask for information as regards statements he has made, information regarding statements which up to the present, so far as any evidence is forthcoming, are absolute exaggerations, and to a large extent without foundation.

  1859
  The matter is of vital importance, and unless the Chief Secretary can give us some assurance that this question will be seriously dealt with without the autocratic methods which are now being introduced into this particular office, I hope my hon. Friend who moved this reduction will divide as a protest against this action.
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is a great pleasure to me to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College in his place as Leader of the party in this House. I cannot help thinking he would have preferred that the subject had been my salary rather than that of the Vice-President, and then it would have given him wider scope for his great and undoubted talents. However, it is well to have a beginning somehow. I must say I listened to this Debate with feelings of wonder. I know in Irish matters what it is the quarrel is about, and why the Debate has arisen, but on this occasion I feel myself absolutely at a loss. I think I shall have no difficulty in showing that the point which has been chiefly raised is one which is of an insignificant character. The point has been raised as to why Mr. Russell remains Vice-President of this Board of Agriculture at all. While he remains there His Majesty's Government is responsible, and I hope no attack will be made upon Mr. Russell himself as if he were clinging to office against the wishes of the Administration to which he belongs. On losing his seat he at once placed his resignation or whatever corresponds to that in the hands of the Prime Minister, and certainly he would not have hesitated for a moment in resigning, or questioned for a moment the action of the Prime Minister in this matter. But here I come in, and I feel two things very strongly. The first is that the Vice-President of this Department ought to be a member of the political administration for the time being. I daresay a Commission or Committee of some kind reported to the contrary. Well, I have no doubt they came to the conclusion very satisfactorily to themselves; but I was not on that Commission, nor was anybody representing the House of Commons. I felt for my own part the strongest possible view that it would have been ludicrous to have a Vice-President who was not a member of the political Administration. I do not know why the Chief Secretary remains President. I am still President of that body. I do not know that it was ever intended that the
  1860
  Chief Secretary should be concerned in it. I think it was a great pity when the Act was passed that he was put there as the nominal head of this concern, because this is no mere ordinary Department, like the Local Government Board over which the Chief Secretary has control. This was a body with an Advisory Council of 100 members appointed by all the county councils in Ireland, and then there was a. board of twelve members, of whom eight were more or less of a representative character; and I think the Vice-President, who had to be in constant communication with this Committee, that meets twice a year, and this Board, which meets six or seven times a year, and also with the Board of Technical Education, ought to have been a Member of this House and made solely responsible to Parliament. For some reason which I do not understand, the Chief Secretary was retained, and so long as he is retained it is absolutely essential in my judgment that the Vice-President, who of necessity has to do all the work and to control the constitution of this body, should be a Member of this House and also a Member of the Administration. This new-fangled idea of expecting you to work in a Department, and to be responsible for that Department, with a man who really does the work, who, differing from you on political matters and having another set of political friends, is a monstrous absurdity. Therefore I took strongly the view and impressed it upon all my colleagues, who, of course, did not have the same personal and direct interest as I had in the matter, that in my judgment the Vice-President, whatever the Committee may say to the contrary, ought to be a Member of this House and ought to be a political colleague. I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite differ from that view. Mr. Russell loses his seat. That is a circumstance that has happened to a good many of us. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, knows nothing of such things, but I do not think that anybody's political education is complete until he has lost his seat. I see persons before me who have already lost their seat, and I see many also who will lose their seats in the ordinary course of political warfare. I congratulate them on the experience which awaits them. The only question when a Member of the Ministry loses his seat is how long a time you should in decency allow him to find another.
  Sir E. CARSON: Make somone a peer.
  Mr. BIRRELL: That is a good suggestion. Yes, we have discharged that obligation. When people lose their seats they ought to have a decent time given them in which to find out if they can find another. We hope to meet them not only in another world but here. Has Mr. Russell had too long a time given him? In my opinion, no. Four, five, or six months is not at all too long a time to retain a Member of the Administration in whom we have, at all events on this side, perfect confidence, and I confidently feel that he may ere long be once more seated by my side. Nothing could give him greater pleasure than to be able to reply in person to the unworthy attacks that have been made upon him.
  Mr. J. G. BUTCHER: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to have Mr. Russell by his side?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I hope in a reasonable time, and it is not for me, and it is not for the hon. Gentleman, to define exactly what a reasonable time is. The sands of the hour glass are running out, and the time will very soon come when Mr. Russell, or rather the Government—because Mr. Russell is entirely in their hands—will have to consider whether it will not be necessary to find some other occupant for his post.
  Mr. J. G. BUTCHER: Wait and see.
  Mr. BIRRELL: Well, in the meantime he is discharging his obligations, so I do not see why hon. Gentlemen should be annoyed at that. This subject has been selected out of the whole range of the enormously varied work of this Department. This is a most important Department, with large endowments—of course, I need scarcely say inadequate—and it has work to do all over Ireland and in all parts of Ireland, and yet we have all this array and all this fuss simply because of one item in the administration.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Give us time.
  Mr. BIRRELL: Well, the sense of perspective requires to be remedied. Mr. Russell has, it is alleged, criticised too severely certain credit banks which are established in Ireland, and which are no doubt doing very good work in certain parts of the country; and it is said that Sir Horace Plunkett has taken a very friendly view of these banks and considered them excellent institutions worthy of all support, and that, while he was the dominant factor in this somewhat elaborate constitution, while he had his own
  1862
  way, if he had his own way in this body, these banks and the organisation of which they were a part received very considerable subsidies of public money. Then, it is alleged, that Mr. Russell succeeded him, and he takes a different view. He considers that this organisation ought not to rely so much as it was doing upon a subsidy from a Government organisation, and therefore, with the consent of his Agricultural Council of 100 members and with the consent of his Board of twelve members, it was agreed that the subsidy should be gradually reduced. Then the letter which has been referred to, appeared, and there was a certain amount of to-do and temper over the matter. I did not understand that the Organisation Society resented very much the stopping of their subsidy altogether, which was to have been in 1910 accelerated by a couple of years.
  8.0 P.M.
  Then we come to the question of banks. Mr. Russell, it may be, takes a strict and severe view about the nature of banks to which subsidies should be made. I entirely agree with him, although I am in favour of these banks if they can be well maintained. It is of the very essence of a bank that it should be properly audited, and that it should publish its statutory accounts. But on investigation of these banks Mr. Russell found that most of them were a few years behind, both in their audit and in their statutory accounts. That, I agree, does not show that they could not pay 20s. in the £, but it does show that they required very close looking after and very close examination. Anybody who has anything to do with banking, either on a large or small scale, knows that eternal vigilance is the only possible course if any bank is to maintain its character and its credit, and the notion of a bank getting into the habit of putting off its audit and its obligation to pubish its statutory account as a light matter, something that could stand over from year to year, is, I confess, to me perfectly repulsive, and therefore I do not at all blame Mr. Russell, although I dare say that in this respect he differs from his predecessor. Sir Horace Plunkett, very closely concerned with the foundation of this very excellent society, and very closely concerned, it may be, with the working of these banks, took the view that they might very safely and properly be allowed to go on their way somewhat loosely, and after a fashion which I certainly could not approve of for a moment. Then it is said that Mr. Russell

  1863
  went out of his way to make a public attack upon these banks. He did nothing of the kind; he did not open his mouth in public about the credit of any of these institutions. He did not say a single, word in public about them. But he is a member of the Congested Districts Board. This association, which wants to be subsidised not only by the Board of Agriculture, but also by the Congested Districts Board, waited upon him through the medium of a deputation of persons connected with the association, not the public. The Press were not admitted. Hon. Gentlemen seemed to speak as if it were absolutely essential that anything that passed when the deputation waited on the Congested Districts Board would of necessity have become public. The only people who could make it public were the people who now complain that the effect of making it public affected their business. This association were the people affected by anything that was said. Mr. Russell is a member of the Congested Districts Board. The association came for money, for a subsidy, for a portion of the funds of the Congested Districts Board, and Mr. Russell gave his reasons, as he was bound to do, for thinking that it was not a desirable thing to make that subsidy, and he expressed his views strongly, as everybody expresses views that he holds very strongly in private. It is all very well to say that nothing is private in Ireland, that everything gets out. One would have thought, if you made a statement affecting a person's character, that the person affected would not himself be the person to make it public and then to grumble that his character was affected by it. I think it was most unfortunate that the Congested Districts Board received this large deputation. I myself am rather shy of receiving large deputations even when the Press are not excluded. But I think Mr. Russell on this occasion was perfectly justified in assuming, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that although he felt it his duty to criticise this bank—although only a branch of their operations—and to criticise them somewhat freely, that every word he said was confidential, and I cannot help feeling that if there had not been this strange sort of feud between the outgoing and the incoming person, if there had not been this strained public sense on this question, we should not have heard anything about it. Because the late Vice-President favoured a thing very strongly you say it ought not
  1864
  to be criticised. We cannot inspect any of these banks; we have no legal right to do so; they are perfectly independent institutions. But they come to us and ask us to lend them money. Very well; we ought not to lend them a farthing except they adhere most stringently to their own legal obligations and look after their own audits and their own statutory accounts. I am quite sure that Mr. Russell would never have said the thing he said at the time he said it if he supposed it possibly could have become public, and I think the only persons who can complain of any effect it may have had on their public credit are the members of the deputation, who must have blabbed in some way or other outside as to what this terrible Mr. Russell said when they got into his presence at a meeting of the Congested Districts Board. I think, therefore, Mr. Russell's conduct is absolutely free from blame in the matter. The whole question-really is a matter of departmental discretion. You get a new man at an office; he takes a somewhat different view from his predecessor. That happens in all offices whenever there is a change of office. You get a new man, and you get to some extent new methods and new conditions. One man will be very severe, and stern, and strict about something, and loose about something else. His successor will take a different view. Perhaps he will be severe where his predecessor was loose, or loose where his predecessor was severe. It is entirely a small matter. Mr. Russell thinks that the condition of these banks requires close examination, and that they ought to be reminded of their obligations, and that it would not be wise for the Board to continue to grant subsidies any longer. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. S. H. Butcher) spoke of what they do in England. Mr. Russell is not, and certainly I am not, unfriendly in any shape or form to co-operation. I, individually, strongly support co-operation, and hope it may be successful, although everybody knows you have to go delicately in these matters. Certainly, if you start off by waging war against what are called "gombeen" men, and if you call everybody "gombeen" men, and speak of them as if they were enemies of mankind, you will delay for many a long day the success of your co-operative movement. Once you talk about a bank, anybody who knows anything about the business knows you have to proceed with great caution and to pay strict observance to all statutory

  1865
  obligations. I hope these banks may succeed; I know no reason why they should not. They are historic in Germany. Anybody can talk about them; there is no mystery about them. Sir Horace Plunkett did not create them out of his brain; they are a well-known institution for the peasant proprietor and people of that sort. They are a great success both in Germany and in India, and I know no reason why they should not have a great success in Ireland. But Ireland, of all countries in the world, is a place where you have to proceed with great caution when you are lending money to very poor people if you want to see it again. You are no friend to the cause who deal in a free and easy way with these things who say, "These are all excellent banks, belonging to this admirable association, and all the Congested Districts Board and the Board of Agriculture have to do is to subsidise them, help them, back them up, and supply the necessary money to them." That is all very well, but it is not my view with regard to the function of public bodies with reference to such institutions. I am sure Mr. Russell shares my views on that subject. To make out that the Government are responsible for this association, or for any association concerned with the cooperation of these banks, is an entire mistake. I hope hon. Gentlemen will be satisfied with the assurance I have given. There is no change of policy—there may be a change of method. Sir Horace Plunkett may not have been so keen a critic of these things as Mr. Russell, but to make a regular full-dress attack upon Mr. Russell on that one point is not wise. The hon. Member For Cambridge University (Mr. S. H. Butcher) said that England was taking up these admirable notions at the very moment Mr. Russell was snubbing them in Ireland. I have tried to show that Mr. Russell was not snubbing them in Ireland. But I would call the attention of the hon. Member to the principle on which, in England, grants for assistance are rendered to the English Agricultural Organisation Society. For instance, I find that the society applied to the Board for a Grant, and the Board, with the approval of the Treasury, decided to give a grant of £1,200 a year for three years from 1st April, 1909, "provided that the income of the society from subscriptions and donations in each previous year is not less than that sum." In other words, it proceeds upon the assumption that a Grant can only be made to a society that in the main supports itself.
  Mr. S. H. BUTCHER: The Agricultural Association in Ireland would not object to those conditions.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am not saying anything about that. I am only saying that certain conditions are attached to the Grant. These conditions are that the Board shall nominate six members of the committee of the society; that the society shall appoint at least three additional organisers to promote co-operation amongst small holders; that the Grants shall be expended only on works connected with small holdings and allotments, and not on the general work of the society. I point that out to show that the English Grant is one based upon very sound principles—namely, that so long as they give the Grant they should have a large voice in the management of the society itself, that the subscriptions and donations of the society are to be at least equal to the Grant, and that it should be expended only on the work connected with small holdings and allotments and not with the general work of the Society. There is nothing there about credit banks or anything of that kind. I hope in Ireland assistance will from time to time be given to work of this kind, but it can only be done on very stringent conditions, and subject to very exact and even rigorous terms. The principal point seems to me a minute one of departmental criticism—of the discretion of the present Vice-President differing in some particulars, but not altogether in principle, from that of his predecessor. In my judgment the Vice-President was perfectly right in making the demands he did in this matter. It is all very well pooh-poohing the Agricultural Board of twelve members, but Mr. Russell has had their support in this matter. Only a few days ago the subject of agricultural banks and kindred societies came before the Board on a proposal to allocate a sum of £3,000 for the expenses of a bank. The Board held there was no legal power to grant the £3,000 for such a purpose. One and all present agreed. The Vice-President was not in any way responsible for the publication of the criticism or for any injury which may have resulted from it. That was the view taken by a Board which contained supporters of this association. They entirely exonerated the Vice-President from any responsibility for it becoming public, although he may at the meeting of the Congested Districts Board have expressed himself somewhat strongly about the character of some, at all events, of these banks. I am content,

  1867
  therefore, to leave that case where it stands.
  I really do think that in the absence of Mr. Russell I ought to speak as representing the Department, which I am bound to say does its work very well, and certainly without much consultation with the President. Sir Horace Plunkett was Vice-President for a good many months, while I was Chief Secretary, and I never saw him and he never communicated with me on any point. I am not prepared to say that Mr. Russell shows any great anxiety to do so either. He has acted with the Agricultural Council and the Board, and I think he is perfectly entitled to say, "If I get on very well with them and manage my business I will not trouble myself very much about the President." Representing him on this occasion, I am bound to say I do not think there ever was a more useful Member of this House in that position than he was. In the year 1908 he was most successful in the legislation that he passed. He passed measures dealing with bees and whales. The Bee Pest Act has proved to be a most useful one. I remember it excited the interest of the illustrious occupant of the Chair, who is himself a beekeeper, and of a great many persons in all parts of England and Wales. It is a most successful measure, as is also that dealing with whales, although my mind is not large enough to grasp that. There was the Grand Jury Act next Session, and the Fisheries (Ireland) Act and the Merchandise Marks Act for Ireland, and the Weeds and Agricultural Act. The latter was a measure which excited uproarious applause in the other place when it went there. I never saw an Irish Bill received with such a chorus of approbation. All the English Lords wished that those weeds might be destroyed, I suppose, at somebody else's expense.
  At all events Mr. Russell was one of the most successful passers of Bills through this House that I have ever had the good fortune to be connected with. That was one reason among others why I was anxious to see him back, or, if he cannot come back, to see if I cannot find somebody else who would have equal success in accomplishing the passing of Departmental measures which from time to time come forward from a Board which touches Irish life and Irish industries at many points. The Merchandise Marks Act engaged his attention, and the prosecutions under it are fifty times more important
  1868
  than whether he is right or wrong in the views he takes about the particular credit banks. Although I do not want to raise controversial points, I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that neither Mr. Russell nor the Government, of which he is still a Member, have any hostility whatsoever to co-operation in Ireland, or to the work of any association to carry out any work connected with it. Everybody is agreed that the work has got to be done. Small peasant proprietors and cottiers have to live their lives, and do their work, and carry on that work at a profit. You do not need to be a great man to see a necessity of that sort. Everybody is in favour of it. It is the same with the credit banks, only that they must be thoroughly business-like institutions, watched and guarded and protected in every step from themselves, and they must obey all the rules which great institutions in Lombard Street are not afraid to obey. Any looseness in their management would only work great disaster to some of the poorest people in England. I think that Mr. Russell, so far from being to blame for having called attention to the position of those institutions, deserves well of Ireland, and ought to receive thanks for his action.
  Sir THOMAS ESMONDE: I submit that we have now discussed Mr. Russell quite long enough—for some four hours—and that, as this is the only chance we may have this Session, that we might devote the rest of the evening to the consideration of various matters which arise in connection with the administration of the Department. With reference to the inspection of banks, everybody knows that a proper inspection, and capable inspection, of those institutions is absolutely essential to their success. I do not know what arose between Mr. Russell and the gentlemen who represent agricultural banks, but everybody will admit that it is most necessary that those banks should be inspected within fairly reasonable periods of time. I would like to discuss another matter, and that is the question of technical instruction. Since the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction has been established in Ireland, technical education has made enormous strides, or comparatively enormous strides. A very much larger number of the people are experiencing the benefits of technical education than heretofore. One result of that most satisfactory state of things is that there is not proper accommodation either for the students or

  1869
  the carrying out of their technical studies. The difficulty appears to be that there is no specific fund set apart for building technical schools. We had a very interesting illustration of that the other day, when the representatives of the Technical Committee laid their views before the Chief Secretary. Kilkenny has achieved very great success in the direction of technical education. There are other places in Ireland endeavouring to follow the same course, and in all these places, although, perhaps, not to the same extent as in Kilkenny, the very same difficulty has arisen, namely, that there is no proper institution for the housing of local technical schools. I would impress upon the Chief Secretary the great desirability of doing something towards providing a building Grant for technical schools by making a beginning in the matter as soon as possible.
  With regard to the county schemes, the funds of the Department are limited to something like £55,000 per year. If anybody on the committee proposes anything new in the county schemes they are always met with the objection that there is no money, and that what money there is is already earmarked. I would like to impress that point also on the Chief Secretary, to provide more money for carrying out technical schemes in the counties and towns. I would also direct his attention to a matter to which I have already referred, and a matter of very great importance to Irish farmers, and that is as to the cattle disease of contagious vaginitis. That disease is spreading, and I believe it is quite capable of treatment. I do not know what investigations the Department have made into it, but it is of very serious importance to the' farmers, and may cost them thousands of pounds, so that the sooner it is dealt with the better. The disease can be treated. It has been in other countries, and there is no reason why it should not be treated successfully in Ireland. There is also the condition of our fresh water fisheries. We have done little for them, and we have not done anything like enough. I went this morning to the Japanese Exhibition and saw the person in charge of the fishery department and official Government publications. I was surprised and delighted to find that the Japanese Government had set down hatcheries last year of 85,000,000 ova of salmon and trout.
  I was lately in Switzerland, and I studied the official reports of the Swiss Depart-
  1870
  ment of Fisheries. Last year that department laid down 65,000,000 of trout and salmon ova. Both these countries are small countries so far as area goes. I have taken them as they correspond in respect of area, and possibly in respect of facilities for developing fresh water fisheries, to a certain extent to Ireland. But I do not think we laid down in Ireland either one or other of the two figures I have named. I have no fault to find with what the Department has done, but I think it ought to do more. I think it ought to be encouraged to devote more of its energies to this question of stocking our fresh water lakes and the rivers with trout and salmon. Few countries in the world have the opportunity that we have in Ireland to develop fresh water fisheries, and I think a great deal more ought to be made out of it. I want to say a word on that perennial question, the salt water fisheries. We have been pleading the cause of our fishermen for years and years. So far little has been done for them. The Chief Secretary admitted last year, I think, and certainly Mr. T. W. Russell when last in the House admitted frankly, that there was not anything like sufficient money for developing further the salt water fisheries. I wish again to press that point. I would also like to urge upon the Chief Secretary the necessity we find for the provision of better pier accommodation for our fishermen. For the last dozen years we have been pressing this point on various Chief Secretaries, and so far very little has been done. Outside the congested districts nothing has been done for the fishing around the Irish coast. In particular I would like to direct the attention of the Chief Secretary to the fact that the small harbour at Portadown is in a very bad way and has been in a bad way. Various attempts have been made to improve its state, but the results have not been satisfactory. I would ask the Chief Secretary whether it would not be as well for the Department to investigate the case of Courtown and see if something permanent could not be done for the relief of the fisheries there.
  Mr. LONSDALE: I think we must all feel that it is most unfortunate that we have to discuss this Vote in the absence of the Vice-President. The presence on the Treasury Bench of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who is the titular head of the Department, does not in the least compensate us for the absence of Mr. Russell. The Chief Secretary, I venture to say, has quite enough to answer for in

  1871
  respect of other branches of Irish administration, especially and particularly in reference to the guardianship of law and order. We shall, I hope, have an opportunity before the Session closes, of discussing, upon the Vote for the salary of the Chief Secretary, the general administration of Ireland. In the meantime, Mr. Whitley, I desire to allude to some points of a most important character connected with the Agricultural Department which require to be investigated. It is, to say the least, unfortunate that we have not on the Treasury Bench the one man who may be supposed to be in a position to give the House first hand information upon the working of the Department. Of course, it is not necessary to say that no one on these Benches pretends to feel the smallest regret that the Vice-President lost his seat at the last election. But we think it is due to the House, to say nothing of their consistency, that the Government should have found a seat somewhere out of Ulster for their Vice-President. It cannot be said that opportunities have not occurred. There have been several vacancies in Nationalist constituencies in Ireland since the General Election. Surely the Government might have arranged that the Vice-President should be nominated for one of these seats! Right hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot plead that they have had no opportunity to consult the Nationalist leaders. We have all heard of the continual comings and goings in Downing Street of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, of his underground burrowings, of his entrances at one door and his exits through another door. Surely opportunity may have been taken in one of these visits to have discussed the sad case of the unfortunate Vice-President, who, while holding Parliamentary office, has been left without a seat in this House. It seems to me that the Government have shamefully neglected their opportunities, and the fact that they have done so is not only a reflection upon their own Vice-President, but is a violation of every canon of political consistency. The only plausible reason which the Government could advance for removing Sir Horace Plunkett from the Vice-Presidency was that it was a Parliamentary office. They contended that it should be held by a Member of this House. It was on that ground, and on that ground alone that the Government attempt to justify
  1872
  their action in interrupting the splendid work which Sir Horace Plunkett was doing at the Department of Agriculture. I may remind the House that in the Debate which took place in this House on 24th April, 1907, the Chief Secretary was perfectly explicit upon this point. He said in the course of his observations:—
  "It is the fixed opinion of the Prime Minister that this office should be a Ministerial office, held by a gentleman in sympathy with the party in power, sitting on these benches, and responsible to the House for the work of his Department."
  The right hon. Gentleman also in the same speech said:—
  "We (the Government) have definitely and determinedly made up our minds that the office shall be held in accordance with the original intention with which the Act was passed, not only by a Member of the House but by a Member of the Administration; and from that view and that intention we do not intend in any way to depart."
  But I do not intend to pursue that matter further.
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I am glad to hear it, because it is not in order.
  Mr. LONSDALE: We should like to hear Mr. Russell in this House this evening for a variety of reasons. The first reason is that he, and he alone, is able to give us the information we require in regard to a number of subjects of great public importance. There is, for example, the question of the Normandy sires. We heard a great deal about these sires during the General Election—and a great deal too much, I fear, for the peace of mind of the Vice-President—but, notwithstanding all that has been said, notwithstanding all the talk which took place then and since, we are still very much in the dark as to the real history of the purchase of these animals. The Vice-President has betrayed a good deal of sensitiveness on this point. That is not, indeed, to be wondered at. But I should think that sufficient time has now elapsed for any feeling of irritation to have subsided. I should like to hear the reasons, a full explanation of the reasons, which have prompted the Department to purchase these animals, and what it is now proposed to do with them. The history of the transaction, so far as we have been able to follow, is certainly somewhat peculiar. When the Normandy sires were first obtained they were promptly condemned by the South of Ireland. The Vice-President went out of his way to explain that they were not intended for the South of Ireland, and were intended only for the North of Ireland. He gave this

  1873
  explanation to the breeders in the South of Ireland, and that statement naturally gave rise to the impression that, although they were rejected by the South of Ireland, the Vice-President considered them good enough for the North of Ireland. Consequently, and not unnaturally, a considerable amount of feeling against the introduction of these horses was created throughout the whole of Ulster, and so strong was the opposition that the Vice-President was actually driven to make a promise that they should not be sent into the country districts at all, but should be kept for experimental purposes at the stud farm, of the Department. Let the Committee observe what followed.
  The agricultural committee of the county of Armagh, after some difficulty, obtained the permission of the Vice-President to see these horses, and arrived at the conclusion that there was one that would be suitable for their requirements, and requested that one should be stationed at Armagh. What was the result? They were told their desire could not be met, although it was in accordance with the original intention of the Department, because a pledge of the Vice-President had been given that they should not be sent into the country districts. It is curious how inconsistent the Government has shown itself to be in the matter of pledges. The words of the Prime Minister, as declared by the Chief Secretary in this House, that the Vice-President should be a Member of the House, may be virtually disregarded altogether. Six months have elapsed since Mr. Russell appeared in this House, and we think it is about time that either the Government found a seat for him in the way I have suggested or that some other person was appointed to his place.
  The manner in which this business of the Normandy sires has been handled by the Vice-President has certainly not in creased confidence among the northern breeders of horses in the Agricultural Department. The people of Ulster are interested in horse breeding just as much as the people in the South have been. For years they have been dissatisfied with the class of sires sent into the horse-breeding counties of the north, and this feeling has at last found expression in a definite proposal that there should be separate horse-breeding schemes for Ulster. I really feel it is almost a joke to discuss this matter with the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General, who is
  1874
  representing the Government just now, and who cannot be expected to have any personal knowledge on this matter, so that I have not an opportunity of ventilating what is undoubtedly regarded as a very serious grievance. I am well aware from information I have received that there is a considerable difference o£ opinion as to the advisability of having separate schemes for the two parts of Ireland; but, at any rate, I think the time has come when the Department might make every effort to satisfy the legitimate desires of Ulster breeders. Some attempt has been made, I understand, to remedy the grievance of which the northern breeders complain by putting two additional representatives from Ulster upon the Advisory Committee of the Department. I understand that has been done by way of concession to the views of the northern breeders, and in order that they might receive full consideration. That step I hope may lead to useful results, if the Advisory Committee is allowed to advise. There is no use having two gentlemen from Ulster going up to Dublin and taking part in the deliberations unless some consideration is given to their views. It would be no advantage to Ulster to have them on the Advisory Committee unless they are allowed to exercise some influence upon the work of the Department. We know that the Advisory Committee was not consulted at all on the purchase of these Normandy sires. I think those interested in horse breeding in Ulster will appreciate any definite information that the Chief Secretary is willing to give us that will show that the Ulster representatives may be able to influence the decisions of the Advisory Committee.
  At the meeting of the Council of Agriculture which took place on 13th of last month, where this subject of the Normandy sires was discussed, it was suggested by Mr. Gill, the secretary to the Department, that the question of sending those animals into the counties requiring them should be referred to the Advisory Committee, and it was for that reason that I attach considerable importance to the representations that may be made by those two gentleman on the Advisory Committee from Ulster. I should like to know if anything was done and what view the Advisory Committee has taken.
  There is one other matter to which I would refer, and that is the question of establishing a department in connection

  1875
  with research work in Ireland. At present we all know very little has been done in this direction. What is wanted, as I understand, is a station where scientific questions bearing upon agriculture, particularly those affecting diseases in animals, may be investigated by competent men, who can give their whole time and attention to the work. That is a matter of burning importance, not only to the people in the North of Ireland, but in all parts of Ireland. Nationalists and Unionists are united in their determination to have such a station established if they can. Of course, it is a question of money, and must be dealt with by the Treasury; but I hope the Chief Secretary will, at all events, give us a promise that an effort will be made to induce the Treasury to advance sufficient money for the establishment of such a station as I have described. The Department have certainly a very large field to cover and a most important work to do for Ireland, and I trust it will endeavour to keep its operation, as far as possible, entirely free from party politics. Everybody who has the true interests of Ireland at heart must desire to see the Department brought to as high a state of perfection as possible, and I am sure such research work would tend to greatly advance the agricultural prosperity of Ireland.
  Mr. DUFFY: I intend to deal with that other side of the Vote before the House which affects the administration of the Department in Ireland. There can be no doubt that great dissatisfaction exists, at least in some parts of Ireland, and particularly in the West of Ireland, in connection with the administration of the Agricultural Board. From time to time my Friends and I have asked questions in this House in connection with the establishment in Athenry of an agricultural board or college. As far as the people living in that district are concerned, no one seems to be pleased or satisfied with the operations of the Department, and a feeling of general and widespread dissatisfaction exists in that locality in respect to the way in which the farm belonging to the Agricultural Board is being administered.
  When the Act of 1903 came into existence a great demand was put forward by a number of the congested villages in the neighbourhood of Athenry for a large farm which was in the immediate neighbourhood. The land was then in the possession of and was worked by Messrs.
  1876
  Goodbody, of Clare. When the people of the locality approached Messrs. Good-body and requested them to sell the land to the Estates Commissioners with a view of serving the people who had small or congested holdings in the neighbourhood, and at the same time of providing reasonable accommodation for the people living in the town, they, be it said to their credit, immediately acceded to the request and parted with their estate. At that particular time, very fortunately, or unfortunately, two Government purchasing Departments were buying and competing with each other for the possession of such an estate as the Goodbody estate, which comprised a good deal of grazing or un-tenanted land. After some negotiations it was announced in the district one day that the Congested Districts Board had purchased the estate, and the congests, who were eagerly looking out for some relief as well as the people in the town, felt pleased and gratified because they looked forward hopefully to a division of the land and to blighter and better days as the result of the operations of the Board. I am sorry to say they were greatly disappointed, because the one and only act of the Congested Districts Board, so far as that estate is concerned, was to immediately hand it over holus bolus into the hands of the Estate Commissioners, who gravely and seriously disappointed the hopes and expectations of the people living in the neighbourhood. Instead of striking out this farm in the interests of the congests and using it for the purpose of providing reasonable accommodation for the people in the town, they actually carved out a not inconsiderable area of this grazing farm and distributed it among local proprietors living in the neighbourhood. They gave a large slice of it to a landlord whose property was sandwiched into the Good-body land, and a considerable acreage of it, comprising a very valuable lot of timber, to another landowner in the neighbourhood, and they handed over the remainder to the Agricultural Department. The Agricultural Department were approached by the people of the town. It was pointed out to them that the people were gravely disappointed in not benefiting to some extent by this vast stretch of land in the immediate neighbourhood of the town itself. A public meeting was held at Athenry at which some of my colleagues were present, and it was there demonstrated, beyond all manner of doubt, that the people considered they were entitled, if

  1877
  not to the whole, to at least a considerable share of this grazing farm. It was also made manifest that the people would be prepared to allow a considerable and substantial share of the farm to pass into the possession of the Agricultural Department provided that a fair portion was set apart in the interests of people living in the locality who, in consequence of then very small holdings, required additions in older to make those holdings economic. When this representation was made to the Agricultural Department the reply was that the Department intended this farm to be used as an agricultural farm upon which substantial buildings would be erected to provide a training college for the practical and scientific education of the young men of Connaught. When the people heard this, and when they were told, too, that Parliament had ear-marked a certain sum of money as a nucleus for the building fund, the agitation ceased to a very considerable extent, and, although the people stood very badly in need of this land, they were prepared to allow the Department to remain in possession of it provided that they carried out their promises.
  9.0 P.M.
  Many years have since passed. The farm was bought when Sir Horace Plunkett was administering the affairs of the Department, and when I heard yesterday, as I have frequently heard in this House, strictures passed upon the conduct of the people of Athenry, when I heard them subjected to unreasonable condemnation on the part of the authorities, when I heard them charged with disloyalty, I could not help thinking that some of our public Departments were really responsible for the ebullitions of feeling which have been manifested from time to time in that district. Two days ago I received a copy of a series of resolutions passed at a very large and representative meeting held in the town of Athenry, and these resolutions show the state of feeling that exists and the nature of the grievances under which the people suffer, as well as the provocation which they are receiving. They tend, in fact, to justify the attitude which they have taken up in respect of the general administration of the Government. These resolutions set forth that those assembled, being delegates from the various divisions of the county of Galway, desired to draw the public attention to the conduct of the officials of the Department of Agriculture in retaining at the agricultural station at Athenry a large and
  1878
  unnecessary force of extra police since February, 1908, as well as a canteen for the sale of drink and provisions throughout the entire county. In February, 1908, there was a force of seventeen policemen, with three huts and a canteen which was established on the land of the Agricultural Department at Athenry, and, besides this, two men had been constantly employed in the canteen selling drinks and provisions, while, most extraordinary of all, the police transport had been used for the delivery of goods to the towns throughout the entire county. The cost to the ratepayers of the county for the support of this garrison on the land of the Department, between February, 1908, and May, 1910, worked out as follows:—Twenty-one extra policemen at £39 3s. 9d. per year, £1,840 12s. 6d.; cost of transport delivery for the same period, £225; making a total cost to the rates of £2,065 12s. 6d. The resolutions concluded:—
  "As it appears to be the intention of the Department of Agriculture to continue this penal force against the people in the town and district, we consider the time has arrived when all classes of the community should join together for the removal of this intolerable burden."
  I can only suggest that the position of this agricultural training college reminds one of a scene taken from the late Boer War, when a huge military force was entrenched in blockhouses stretched all over the entire country. After so many years of suspense and anxiety, the people are weary of waiting, and on their behalf I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to say to-night what is really going to happen in connection with this agricultural college at Athenry. What are the Government going to do? Are they determined to prosecute their original intention of building a college upon this farm and throwing it open to the people of Connaught? Because, in the absence of any indication, I may tell the right hon. Gentleman that the people of the district are growing weary and impatient, and are losing hope as to the good intentions of the Board of Agriculture. Therefore I think some assurance should be given to allay apprehension, as well as to satisfy people of the locality that they are not being fooled and trifled with. I invite the representative of the Board of Agriculture to make a clean breast of the entire matter, and tell us once for all what the Department are really going to do with this farm. I may tell the Attorney-General that the people of the district are perfectly friendly in this matter, and have shown every desire to help the Government, if the latter carry

  1879
  out the proposition which they made to them in so far as the college is concerned. But I think I have brought forward matters which will induce hon. Members to agree with me that the Government have to a great extent irritated and annoyed the feeling of the district, and that the people were justified in the attitude which they took up.
  Mr. KERR-SMILEY: I should like to take the opportunity afforded by this Vote to bring before the Committee the grievances of the fishermen in the North of Ireland. There is no part of the United Kingdom where fishermen have a more strenuous struggle with the forces of Nature than on the northern shores of Antrim. They have for some years past been putting forward reasonable claims for assistance. Their case is urgent, and unless something is done for them, a hard-working, respectable, and independent class will soon cease to exist. There are many reasons which I could urge in support of the claims of these fishermen. Take, for example, those who live in the district of Portrush, who ask for a small grant to help them to improve their harbour accommodation, and who have been badly crippled by reason of the unfair advantages which the Government had given to the steam trawlers. The wish of the local fishermen is that these trawlers should be kept at a proper distance, but it has not been, I am sorry to say, respected. The fishing grounds which ought to be for the use of the local fishermen are being regularly invaded by these steam trawlers. I think that if the Chief Secretary was as familiar with the conditions as I am, and if he knew how badly the fishermen of North Antrim suffer, he would not continue to put them off with promises, which are apparently never intended to be carried out. The importation of foreign fish has reduced very considerably the amount which the local fishermen can earn, and Parliament should be anxious to protect them from the depredations of the steam trawlers, in regard to which assistance is most needed. If the Government would agree to put Port-an-Doo Harbour into proper condition, the cost would not be more than £1,000. If there was a decent harbour, there are weeks when these people could run out and fish and take shelter in the Skerry Islands, whereas it is sometimes almost impossible for them to get round Rathmore Head.
  1880
  Representation after representation has been made to the Government, but owing to red tape or their unwillingness to do anything for the North of Ireland, it seems impossible to get anything done.
  I have no objection to other parts of Ireland being assisted, but I do protest against the North being continually overlooked, as we have a just claim to a fair share of the public money which is being distributed year by year. The grievances of the Portrush fishermen are urgent, and really I must appeal most earnestly to the Government to remedy them. Then again, the communication between Rathlin Island and the mainland can only be maintained in fair weather, and although the Commissioners very kindly made certain recommendations for the consideration of the Government, unfortunately they have done nothing except make promises for the last four years. Four years ago Mr. James Bryce, then Chief Secretary, visited this neighbourhood, and after his visit there was a feeling that we might get something done and the grievances might be removed. Mr. Bryce, however, unfortunately left, but the grievances remained unremedied. Three years ago the Chief Secretary visited North Antrim, and I understand that promises were made, but I regret to say that they have not borne fruit. Then we had the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture—he made a trip to the island, but on the way back he succumbed to an attack of sea-sickness, and as he could not land and the agonies of sea-sickness increased he promised proper accommodation, but, like Pharaoh, as soon as the plague was stayed and as soon as he had reached dry land these promises were forgotten. I can assure the House that the hardships of these islanders are very great and I earnestly appeal to the Government to come to their rescue without further delay.
  Mr. KELLY: Earlier in the evening the Chief Secretary seemed to be complaining rather that the whole attack on the Department had been concerned with the question of securing a seat for Mr. T. W. Russell, but I think if he had remained he would not have to complain that there was only one grievance to discuss to-night. I propose to raise a separate point, but before doing so I must express great surprise that the hon. Member for North Antrim actually proposed that a Nationalist seat should be provided for Mr. T. W. Russell. I did think that the hon.

  1881
  Member had sufficient experience of buying seats in Ireland to know that Irish Nationalist seats are only for Irish Nationalists. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about North Tyrone?"] North Tyrone is a Home Rule seat, but I would point out there, too, that a Home Rule seat is not for a Tory candidate, and we are not going to try it again. Furthermore, the hon. Member (Mr. Moore) should remember that when the ex-Vice-President of the Department, Sir Horace Plunkett, lost his seat there was not one of the noble army of Ulster Unionists who came forward and offered his seat. There was not one who said, "Come along and work for my seat, and I will do all I can for you." And they would not again if another General Election came, and the Tories got in and Sir Horace Plunkett were reappointed and lost his seat.
  I rose, however, to lay before the House the constant policy of the Department since the year when it was established, in 1889, in one of its branches. That policy has been the undue favouring of temporary clerks at the expense of permanent Civil servants—those who have passed their examinations and are recognised by the Civil Service Commissioners as a portion of the public service of the country. The Order in Council of 29th November, 1898, may be regarded in a certain manner as the Magna Charta of the permanent Civil Service. That Order lays down that—
  "Below the second division, persons may be employed for copying routine work under strict supervision, or work inferior to that of the clerks of the second division, in accordance with regulations to be from time to time framed by the Civil Service Commissioners and approved by the Treasury, and at rates of pay from time to time prescribed by the Treasury."
  The clear intention of that Order in Council is that the second division clerks should be placed in direct charge of all work of a permanent character, and that such second division clerks should have priority over temporary clerks, and should have a prior claim to promotion to staff and higher posts in the permanent Civil Service. That has been the policy in every Department for a great many years, but that policy has been deliberately set aside in all the promotions that have taken place in the agricultural branch of the Department of Agriculture since the institution of the Department in 1899. It is not a very far stretch from 1899 to 1905, and yet we find that in 1905, of the twenty best-paid officials in the Department of Agriculture, there are ten temporary officials with higher salaries than the ten permanent officials. That is one source of grievance,
  1882
  namely, the fact that the temporary clerks receive higher remuneration than the permanent staff. The second grievance is that a distinct preference is on every occasion given to a temporary clerk when the occasion occurs for the promotion of a man from the ranks to a staff post. For instance, early in 1907 there was a vacant stall post in this branch of the Department and a temporary clerk got it. That meant three staff posts, two of them held by temporary men and one by a permanent Civil servant. Naturally the permanent Civil servants felt a grievance and they sent a protest to the authorities, and the following letter was received from the Secretary of the Department in March, 1907:—
  "With regard to the question of temporary officers, it should be borne in mind that this is a new Department, that it was established to do work of a kind not previously attempted in the country, and that it had to begin the organisation of its work under circumstances of unusual pressure. For such reasons, amongst others, it was necessary in the beginning to engage men other than established Civil servants to take charge of work of a responsible character. This necessity, however, does not now exist, and the Department as a matter of fact are opposed to encouraging the employment of temporary clerks."
  Owing to this early history of the work there were certain exceptional cases in the branch in regard to which he explained the position of the Department; but those cases stood apart, and the circumstances under which they had arisen had passed. With this exception, he was in full accordance with the claims of the second division clerks that in the allotment of responsible work the members of the permanent staff should have priority of consideration over the non-established members; and the staff might rest assured that their just interests would always be carefully protected. Surely it is a strange plea for a Civil servant in a high position to advance that this was a new Department, and that in the ranks of permanent Civil servants none could be found to do the routine work of a public Department. It is surely a strange thing to say that the Civil Service Commission and the other public Departments in Ireland could not supply men capable of dealing with the ordinary correspondence and and carrying out the ordinary routine work as they would in every Department. It strikes me, as I am sure it must strike the House, that that plea was only advanced as a mere pretext to excuse the advancement of temporary men which was determined upon for other reasons. The permanent staff did not rest content with the assurance received in that letter.

  1883
  They went to the Vice-President, Mr. T. W. Russell, and this assurance was received from him with regard to the question of staff promotion. Speaking of the grievances of the permanent Civil servant, he says:—
  "This state of things arose before I came into the Department. It must be remembered that the Department was established to do work not previously attempted in Ireland, and had to begin organising its work under unusual pressure. It was therefore necessary in the beginning to engage men other than established Civil servants, and to give some of them charge of certain responsible duties. This necessity will not, however, exist in the future, and, indeed, the Department discourages, as far as possible, the employment of temporary men … No such promotion will be be made unless we are absolutely forced to it by the fact that no second division man can be found in the branch capable of performing the particular duties equally well."
  That was in October, 1907. Naturally a reply like that contented the permanent staff to a certain extent. They said to themselves: "Here, at any rate, is an assurance from the Vice-President of the Department that he will have nothing whatever to do with the undue favouring of temporary men at our expense. He says that this thing arose before he came to the Department, and that it is one of those ancient vices of which he hopes to purge it." Let us see what happens subsequently to that. Last month a vacancy occurred for a staff officer. Who got it? In spite of the explicit statement of the Vice-President that this old state of things was to be swept away, and that he was to have nothing whatever to do with it, we find that he promotes a temporary man to the vacant staff post. I should like to ask the Chief Secretary if he admits that he was unable to find in the permanent staff of the office a man capable of discharging the duties to which this man was promoted last month. The present state of the staff in that branch is this. There are four staff posts, and they are the best-paid clerical posts in the branch. Three are held by temporary Civil servants and one by a man brought into the office by influence and promoted by influence. It was stated by the Chief Secretary that none of these promotions were to the prejudice of officials who had passed competitive examinations. How can it be that it is not to the prejudice of the permanent officials if you give the best posts in the Department to men outside, while the men who are working there and have a right to expect promotion are not promoted? There is something at the back of this policy. There is some influence at work which this House
  1884
  has a right to see laid bare. There has been some covert influence at work ever since the inception of this Department, and we should like to have light let in upon it.
  There is another special point in which we suffer with respect to the promotions of these temporary men. By the Act constituting the Department certain moneys were voted to the Department for the discharge of its functions, and that Act further laid down that all the staff posts were to be paid in the ordinary way by the Treasury. Therefore, a very distinct division is drawn between the two sources of revenue of the Department. The permanent staff are to be paid by the Treasury, but a certain amount of money was voted to be spent by the Department for the purposes for which it was constituted. When a temporary man is brought into the Department and he receives an increase of salary, his salary and the increase of salary come, not from the Treasury, but from money which ought to be spent upon general, agricultural, and technical schemes of the country. Therefore, in respect to every temporary position and every promotion of a temporary man the country suffers, because money that ought to be spent on these schemes is wrongfully spent in improving his position. This is not a state of things that has ceased. Temporary clerks are still coming in, and the old rule still holds in connection with every vacancy that occurs in the staff office, and a temporary man is secured. I submit that all these appointments and all these promotions are most prejudicial to the interests of the permanent Civil servants, and to the interests of the purposes for which the Department of Agriculture was called into being.
  Mr. P. J. POWER: The hon. Member for North Antrim (Mr. Kerr-Smiley) alluded to the way the fisheries on the Irish Coast suffer. I can assure him that is not a new subject. We drew attention to it so far back as the time when the present Leader of the Opposition was Chief Secretary for Ireland. We also drew the attention of Mr Gerald Balfour and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham) to the matter during their terms of office. These Gentlemen promised that they would see that the fishermen along the coast were properly protected, particularly as a Conservative Government was responsible for the Act which prohibited trawling along the Scotch Coast, and which had the effect of sending

  1885
  a great number of steam trawlers to the Irish Coast. We have pointed out that the Scottish fisheries have four boats placed at their disposal by the Admiralty to protect the fisheries from this illegal action, while we in Ireland receive no assistance from the Admiralty. We pay for the Army and Navy and get no return at all. We have no trade to protect, and when we ask a little assistance to protect our fisheries from the depredations of trawlers we may get soft answers, but we do not get what we ask. At present there are two boats at the disposal of the Department for the protection of the Irish fisheries, and they do their duty as well as they can. Latterly few complaints have been sent to me, but at the same time, if the sum we have to pay out of these funds for providing boats were available for other purposes, and if the Admiralty would give the assistance we ask, we could do something useful with the money. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind. We have a Scotchman at the head of affairs in this Department, and he knows well the way in which the fisheries in his own country are protected. I hope he will assert the rights of Ireland to proper protection in this matter.
  I rose mainly to enforce the remarks made by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wexford (Sir T. Esmonde). My hon. Friend spoke of the necessity of providing buildings for giving technical instruction in Ireland. A large and influential deputation waited upon the Chief Secretary this week, and I think they impressed him with the necessity of doing something of the* kind. An Act was passed enabling local authorities to establish centres for giving instruction, but no assistance was given to provide the buildings which are absolutely necessary for imparting information. I wish the Chief Secretary to know that the state of things represented to him as existing in county Kilkenny prevails in several other districts. I believe that on the whole the giving of technical instruction is done extremely well in Ireland. Most of our disappointments in life come from expecting too much. Many people when the Act was passed thought that industries would blossom out and factories spring up at once, but I think every nation recognises that if these things are to be successful, it is absolutely necessary that the youth of the country should be instructed in matters technical. It is a most short-sighted policy for the State not to provide the buildings in which the neces-
  1886
  sary instruction can be given. I have little doubt that if they were provided, the youth of the country would go to them in increasing numbers. Considering that our country is not a great mercantile or industrial country, it is absolutely necessary that the people should be gradually induced to attend institutions where information is given for the proper conduct of industries in general. I hope the Chief Secretary will bear in mind that the amount leceived for technical schools from the Department is largely gobbled up for their upkeep.
  Captain COOPER: In a survey of the Department's operations it is not surprising that the Debate should cover a wide area; but I am not going to talk about the matters which have been referred to by the hon. Members for East Donegal and North Antrim, which reveal a well-founded grievance. I want to bring the Debate back to the reason for which the reduction was moved. The Chief Secretary told us that he was the chief sufferer by the fact that the Vice-President was not in the House. If he had been here at Question Time and heard the struggle of the Attorney-General in answering questions which would come within the scope of the Department, he would have associated the Attorney-General with himself as a fellow-sufferer. The Chief Secretary, in reply to a supplementary question a short time ago, made a statement which I do-not think the Vice-President would have made had he been here. When I asked him if there was any objection to giving information with regard to these credit societies to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, he said he did not think there was, but he would inquire. I do not think the Vice-President would have said that if he had been here. Therefore his absence is a certain inconvenience. After all, I must say it is somewhat anomalous if a Member of the Government is to be free from the necessity of attending this House and to be free from the ordeal of answering questions and at the same time to enjoy his rank and the emoluments and patronage attached to the rank, and if to do so he has only to forfeit the confidence of his constituents. Personally I am very sorry that the Vice-President is not here, because I want to criticise his action, and it is a great deal more pleasant to criticise a man before his face. I hope I shall do it without indulging in unnecessary personalities

  1887
  There are a great many matters I would like to deal with. One is the provision of adequate buildings for technical instruction. The fact that in Arklow the manual instruction classes are held in a loft approached by a ladder is something of a disgrace. With regard to the question of the Butter Committee's Report, which the hon. Member for East Mayo thought was going to be raised, I will only say in passing that I think it a pity that the Committee consisted entirely of officials of the Department and of the English Board of Agriculture. More confidence would have been felt in the Report if the Committee had included an outsider. With regard to the question of the credit societies, I think a great deal more importance attaches to it than the Chief Secretary or the Department are disposed to allow. I have got here a report on the moral and material progress and improvement in the condition of India. I wish that the Chief Secretary would give us a report on the moral and material progress and improvement in the condition of Ireland. In this report on India there are over two large pages given to the question of credit societies, though the report deals with the whole aspect of life in India, the Army, the Navy, the books published in the course of the year, and almost everything else; while in the report of the Department in Ireland for the year there are only twenty-three lines dealing with credit societies, though the report is only concerned with the operation of the Department to which these societies are a problem of absolutely vital importance. The policy of this House has been to make Ireland a community of small peasant proprietors—small owners—without generally speaking any capital whatever at their backs. How are they going to face the problem of ownership, and bad seasons— and, I am sorry to say, there appears to be every prospect of a very bad season this year—unless there is some means of securing capital?
  I do not say that the present system of credit societies is perfect, but it is the only one that at present exists, except loans from joint stock banks which, of course, can be secured by fairly large farmers, but cannot be secured by the very small and the poorest farmers. The main indictment against the Vice-President is that he declared that the present system is "rotten" and indefensible, and that he has not suggested anything to put in place of it. I know
  1888
  that the Chief Secretary has made an eloquent plea that the Vice-President did not say it was rotten and indefensible in public. Where did he make that statement? It was at a meeting of the Congested Districts Board? The Congested Districts Board is composed, I suppose, of the most influential men from the poorest districts in Ireland. There are bishops and priests—I do not think there are any deacons—but there is a certain number of other influential local men. These were all there and heard the Vice-President's statement. I do not suppose they went away and said, "Mr. Russell says our credit banks are rotten," but a natural prejudice was created in their minds against these banks, and when they went back to their own towns and were asked for their advice they might say to a man, "I should not advise you to have anything to do with them." I daresay they did not quote Mr. Russell, but the effect on their minds was that these were unsound institutions, and that is why it was desirable to have the whole thing thrashed out and to have the whole thing published, so that the grounds on which Mr. Russell said these things might be made known. I am not going to go into the whole question of the indictment preferred against the Irish farmer by the hon. Member for East Mayo, because these societies are run by ordinary farmers and they are all that there is at present. Improvements have to be made. Is not it the duty of the Vice-President to put forward any suggestions for improvement? All through this correspondence there is plenty of destructive criticism. There is not a single constructive suggestion or thought in the whole thing, and not a single idea by which the working of the system of credit banks may be improved. He may have very good ideas in his head. They may spring forth like Minerva from the brain of Jupiter, but I wish that he would bring forth at once a system of adequate and impregnable credit.
  Not only is there no suggestion of his own, but he will not give the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society any information which will enable them to improve them. They do not put forward any suggestion that their banks are beyond criticism. What they say is, "Give us all the information available so that we may improve them." That is their desire. That is the only thing which they want to do and the one thing that the Vice-President is reluctant to do. He says there are only about

  1889
  twelve or fifteen banks concerned, but we do not know which they are. He says that in the case of three others it would involve the names of individuals and reflect on their credit. If it would reflect on the credit of individuals it must be presumed that they are either incompetent or dishonest. Is not the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society to be warned against them? Are they to go on putting trust in men whom Mr. Russell knows to be either incompetent or dishonest? That is a case that looks rather like compounding a felony. Then before the Select Committee of the House of Lords I believe he stated that his duty began and ended with seeing that the Department was repaid the money that was lent, and he had no other duty in connection with these credit banks. Accepting his own admission of his duty, he is not a very efficient official, because the Department advanced £17,000 to these banks, of which he thinks £600 irrecoverable. The Government of India has advanced £45,000, of which it does not think a penny irrecoverable. The Under-Secretary informed me so the other day. Therefore if his only duty was to see that the money lent was repaid he has succeeded in allowing the State to lose £600. The essential feature of these banks is their unlimited liability, every member being responsible for money advanced to another member. This is a protection to the bank against dishonest members, for they take very good care that dishonest members shall not be allowed to join. This system of banks is at work all over the Continent and in India. The whole essence of the system is in its unlimited liability, and where one member is responsible for money advanced to another the utmost care is taken that the wrong men shall not get in. I cannot see why these banks should not work satisfactorily in Ireland. They have worked well in India, and why should not they work well in Ireland? I hope hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway will not suggest that Irishmen are less able to work these banks or that they are less honest or less industrious than Hindus. If hon. Members made such a suggestion they would be very considerably denounced.
  Mr. HAVILAND-BURKE: We are not Hindus. Leave India out.
  Captain COOPER: The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) made an elaborate indictment of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society as a political organisation working against the
  1890
  party to which he belongs, though nine out of ten members of that society are Nationalists. Is it suggested that the society is hostile to a political party when it se6ks to put down gombeenism? I do not think that hon. Members fully realise the effect of the gombeen system. No one denies that there are honest traders in the West of Ireland, and I think there is no more honest and representative tradesman than my hon. Friend who moved the reduction of the Vote: but there is a certain number of tradesmen in the West of Ireland who think that they should give very long credit, so that when a man is in their debt they may manage to induce him to deal with them alone. They supply him with what quality of goods they like, and charge what price they like. Hon. Members on that side of the House who are very loud in their denunciation of tied houses might remember that there is some inconvenience in a system of tied customers. That is the only form of industrial enterprise to which these credit banks are opposed. They are not opposed to any kind of legitimate industrial or commercial enterprise whatever; then operations are distinctly calculated for good, and they should be assisted by the Department, which should endeavour to make them a success in every way, and not pursue this rather bad and pin-pricking policy which is being indulged in.
  Mr. HAVILAND-BURKE: My reply to the delicate innuendoes with which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has favoured us shall be in plain English. To begin with, he said that the Agricultural Organisation Society was largely composed of Nationalists. I have to deal, not with the subscribers, but with the leading spirits of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society. The leading officials of that society, who give forth that they are Nationalists, to my personal knowledge and that of my colleagues on these benches, are, and have been for many years, the bitter personal and political antagonists of any supporter of the Irish Parliamentary party. By way of giving him a practical example, I may tell him that one of his Nationalist heroes of the Agricultural Organisation Society, and fundamentally the chief cause of the whole trouble that is keeping us here to-night is Mr. George Russell, a gentleman whose chief qualification, so far as I have been able to discover, for the post that he

  1891
  occupies is that he was a crystal-gazer and an oculist—a man who exhibited in public galleries in Dublin pictures of his own painting of visions of ancient Irish kings that he had seen when he was roosting on top of Sugarloaf Hill, near Bray. This fiery, and indomitable Nationalist revolted against the bare idea of an Irishman setting up in Bray as the representative m Parliament of Irish Nationalists, but he could see nothing whatever wrong in taking a position in the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society in common with twelve, thirteen, or fifteen other gentlemen, with their salaries guaranteed by British credit. That is one example of the noble independent Nationalist spirits of whom the hon. and gallant Member has been speaking. I say deliberately that the beginning and middle and end of this whole trouble has been, not the merits or demerits of Mr. Russell, or anybody else, but the cutting off from these gentlemen the Treasury guarantee which fixed their salaries at a certainty, whereas now the Organisation Society have to collect their salaries as best they can. That is the plain English of the whole situation, and when I hear hon. Members talking about the discourtesy of Mr. T. W. Russell I think his namesake, namely, Mr. George Russell, has so conducted himself that if he fell upon evil times and started a class in manners and deportment, I would certainly not recommend any youth or maiden to attend it.
  From the first moment hon. Members above the Gangway have complained of politics being raised. Why Mr. George Russell was not five minutes in the Committee upstairs before he raised the whole political question. He complained, he sneered, he jeered, he said the policy of the whole Department was changed because a Conservative Government went out and a Liberal Government came in. What I would impress upon hon. Members above the Gangway is that they may not always be in opposition. They may be in office. They may have a Department to control, and they in their turn may have to deal with an insolent gang of outsiders who come to interfere with the head of their Department, and dictate to them as to what he is or is not to do. What, after all, is the whole question at issue against the Department. I do not speak of Mr. T. W. Russell for the simple reason that you have a much bigger question, and I can assure hon. Members above the Gangway that
  1892
  they will certainly have to deal with it if they come to office, and that is whether outside organisations, outside gangs, no matter how influential or financially powerful they may be, shall have the right to come in and tell the head of one of their Departments what he is or is not to do. What was the demand made upon the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture and his Department? I must not allude to Sir Horace Plunkett—a stained glass window saint against whom no man may cough or sneeze inside the House or outside of it, the perfect man, the man who held office for six years without a seat in this House under a Conservative Government, who held it for nearly a year more under a Liberal Government equally without a seat in this House. I am not to allude to him. He is the great saint. But what was the demand made upon Mr. Russell by Mr. George Anderson and his clique? It was that he should supply certain information to that particular clique as to the particular banks that were in default. Let me call the serious attention of the House to this point. The Irish Agricultural Organisation Society is on the horns of a dilemma. I will leave Mr. George Anderson and Sir Horace Plunkett and all the others to sit on whichever horn they find most comfortable. Either the Agricultural Organisation Society kept its books in such a slovenly fashion or in such loose touch with the banks for which it was responsible that it did not know what and where these banks were, or, as in my heart and soul I believe, Mr. George Russell, Mr. Anderson, and the rest of the gang had information pigeon-holed at their elbow, and pretended not to have it, and asked for it in order to pick a quarrel with the Department and the Government. And it was very properly refused.
  10.0 P.M.
  Otherwise, on the most generous estimate of the case, they wanted, if they had lost their references, to get references in order to-get up money to supply the defaulting banks with such funds as would enable them to come forth and confound Mr. Russell and the Department by saying. "Oh, you said we were short of our funds; we are overflowing with funds." And that would have been done, and that was the game that was being played. It was a game of having the information actually in their possession, concealing it from the public, and asking for it, only to be re-fused, and then to make a grievance of the

  1893
  refusal. I think this question goes far beyond the personality of the Vice-President of the Agricultural Department and of the active clique who have been intriguing privately, and publicly to my personal knowledge, in Dublin for months and months past to pick a quarrel with him at any price. I will give you a notorious fact —a fact that every man in Dublin knows. I was certainly amazed the other day by being told by a good Nationalist that Mr. Russell had made a speech in which he had boasted that his Department was everything, and that Dublin Castle was nothing. This story was told me again and again by honest men and honest women, who were good Nationalists, and who believed it. [Hear, hear.] I am glad to get that response from these benches, because I am going to make hon. Gentlemen feel a trifle small.
  What actually happened was this. One of the best known of English journalists, Mr. W. T. Stead, was over a few months ago in Dublin on a visit, and when he got back from Dublin he wrote an article in some magazine or paper in his well-known vigorous and picturesque style, in which he said that the Agricultural Department was the great Department in Ireland and that Dublin Castle had sunk into insignificance comparatively, and that the Vice-President of the Department was virtually Chief Secretary, and that Mr. Gill came next in rank. Of course, it was Mr. Stead's little joke, and the Vice-President of the Department, repeated it only to repudiate it and to say he was afraid that the day was far distant when such a description of Dublin Castle taking the background in the rule of Irish affairs could apply. Yet, with absolute unscrupulous-ness, deliberately—and I charge Mr. George Russell and his friend with having deliberately circulated the story—that little bit of joke made by Mr. Stead and quoted by the Vice-President of the Department has actually been quoted as a specimen of the Vice-President's arrogance. A more shameful and disgraceful thing I have never come across in the twenty-five years I have been in public life. That it should be cheered and laughed at and approved by hon. Members above the Gangway is really a matter that passes my comprehension. It is the greatest bit of injustice I ever heard of— the quotation in a man's speech of a joke being brought up as the original speech of the man himself. I have one last thing to say, and it is this: Government Departments should be made strictly subordinate
  1894
  to this House. I do not care whether a Liberal Government or a Tory Government is in office.
  The heads of the Departments of Government are responsible to this House. They are not dependent upon any outside organisation whatever, no matter what power and wealth and fashion may be at the back. We have no ill-will against the principle of co-operation. We know that co-operation has prospered and flourished in many parts of England. No one ever dreams of questioning the right of fifty, five hundred, or a thousand men combining together to trade, but I do say this— and I hope it will follow the hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway when they go into the Lobby on this question—that no man with an elementary sense of justice in him should stand up and encourage the idea of co-operative trading organisations subsidised by public money being started in any town or village, whether in Ireland or in England, against the local traders who pay their rates, who have got their businesses established, who give employment, and who stand to be ruined by these subsidised organisations. That has been one of the chief ends and aims of the Agricultural Organisation Society, and it will be interesting to note how hon. Members above the Gangway, whether they come from the North of Ireland or the South of England, will face their constituents with a vote recorded against them as having gone into the Lobby as men who have supported the principle of co-operation for the wiping out of the small stock-keeper by means of stores and local cottages organised and financed with public money. I do not care whether it is Tory, Liberal, or Nationalist money, it is a shame. I have no personal interest for or against anybody in this quarrel. I think this dead-set on this Department is really founded on an agitation started by a clique of disappointed men, who have not, got their salaries guaranteed any more by the British Treasury, who are not as important as they thought they were, who are not as absolutely essential to the existence of Ireland as they thought they were, and who now, at this eleventh hour, pick a quarrel on what is a deliberate fabrication.
  Mr. J. G. BUTCHER: As an Irishman sitting for an English constituency I desire to enter my protest against the undeserved attack made by Mr. Russell upon the credit banks in Ireland, which are intimately associated with the whole system

  1895
  of co-operation carried on by the farmers of Ireland. I feel that this is not merely an Irish question, it is also an English and a Scotch question. Parliament has recently, with the assent of all parties, sanctioned a large scheme by which the whole of the agricultural land of Ireland will in time be transferred from the owners to the occupiers. The English Treasury has spent something like £50,000,000, and is under an obligation to advance something like £200,000,000 in all. The security of those loans rests upon the success of the industry of agriculture in Ireland, and one thing absolutely certain is that unless Irish agriculture, carried on as it is by large numbers of small holders, is organised upon sound commercial and business principles, not only is the future prosperity of the Irish farmer an absolute impossibility, but the security of the English taxpayer is most grievously imperilled. May I call the attention of the Committee to the agencies which are at work for the purpose of stimulating and organising the agricultural industry in Ireland? I do not refer for a moment to the Congested Districts Board, which is founded upon a system rather of State help on the parental or bureaucratic system. No doubt it has done good work, and it is, no doubt, suited for the less wealthy communities, but what I do ask is this.
  If you want agriculture to flourish on the system in Ireland of small holders, you must have both State and voluntary effort —State effort supplemented, and rendered effective, by voluntary effort. That larger policy for Ireland, that magnificent policy, was inaugurated some years ago by Sir Horace Plunkett, aided as he was by men of all political parties. Sir Horace Plunkett, I agree, was the prime mover in the policy, but he had loyal support from Nationalists as well as Unionists, Roman Catholics as well as Protestants, throughout the length and breadth of Ireland. That policy deserves the tribute of the gratitude of everyone who has the interests of Ireland at heart because of the beneficial results it has already produced. Let me point out the way in which this new policy was carried out. In the first place, there was established in Ireland a Department now represented by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, of which Sir Horace Plunkett was himself Vice-President. It was recognised, and I think justly recognised, that the Government
  1896
  Department, in order to be effective and in order to carry out its work properly, ought to be assisted by voluntary effort. In order to enable that voluntary effort to be efficient there was organised in Ireland the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, the object of which was to enable the farmers of Ireland to organise themselves on a system of self-help and mutual help, a system of co-operation such as has been found necessary in other industries, and which is notoriously necessary in order to render prosperous the agricultural industry carried on by small holders. I am sure hon. Members opposite on the Labour Benches will give their cordial sympathy to the farmers of Ireland, who are endeavouring by co-operation, by steady combination, peaceful, lawful combination, to promote their own industries and their own interests. This system prospered extraordinarily well during the time Sir Horace Plunkett was Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture. There was no friction, there was cordial co-operation on the one hand between the State, and, on the other hand, between those voluntary organisations. That went on with great advantage both to the State and to the societies during the time Sir Horace Plunkett was in office as Vice-President. It must be obvious that if this system is to be successful you must have cordial cooperation between the State on the one hand and the voluntary organisation on the other. Three years ago Sir Horace Plunkett left office and his place was taken by Mr. T. W. Russell. Since that time, I think, no one who knows the condition of affairs in Ireland can deny that there has been trouble between the State effort on the one hand and the voluntary effort, as represented by the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, on the other. The Irish Agricultural Organisation Society consists of over one hundred thousand farmers, nine-tenths of whom are Nationalists, but they have the good sense to see that business and industry is better occupation than politics, and, so far as they are connected, it is perfectly true, with this Irish Agricultural Organisation Society have desired to make it a success, and have made it a success apart from politics, which I venture to think ought not to be introduced into this topic to-night because in the matter we are discussing, the prosperity of Ireland, the less politics there is in it the better it succeeds. I said that there was trouble, and what I want

  1897
  specially to call attention to to-night is a topic which has already engaged the attention of the Committee, and that is the action of Mr. T. W. Russell with regard to these credit banks. The Chief Secretary spoke about that as if it were a small matter of Departmental organisation. In his airy delightful way, delightful except when you consider the interests involved, he minimised the whole thing and said that Mr. Russell was only anxious to see that the banks were closely examined.
  Mr. BIRRELL: Hear, hear.
  Mr. J. G. BUTCHER: The Chief Secretary says, "Hear, hear," but has he read the correspondence that has passed between Mr. T. W. Russell and Sir Horace Plunkett?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes.
  Mr. J. G. BUTCHER: Why, Sir, it was stated in that correspondence—and it isadmitted—that the charge made by Mr. Russell against those credit banks was not one requiring examination. That is exactly what is insisted on by the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society. That is not the charge in the statement which was made by Mr. T. W. Russell. The statement that was made by him on a public or semi-public occasion—
  Mr. DILLON: It was not a public occasion.
  Mr. J. G. BUTCHER: A semi-public occasion.
  Mr. DILLON: No, nor a semi-public occasion. It was strictly confidential.
  Mr. J. G. BUTCHER: A public occasion; an occasion when a deputation from different parts of Ireland visited the Congested Districts Board in Ireland; an occasion which could not by any conceivable possibility of language be called private—the statement made by him then was this:—
  "That these banks were rotten concerns, and that if they were wound up they would not pay more than 2s. 6d. in the £."
  When he was challenged for that statement, said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo to be "an alleged statement," did he deny it? Not for a moment. He not only did not deny it, but he actually repeated it in writing. In his letter he said:—
  "The present system is, in my judgment, rotten and indefensible."
  Mr. DILLON: Quite different from what he said.
  Mr. J. G. BUTCHER: Quite different from what he said! Why, it is a far worse statement. He did not confine himself to saying that the banks were rotten. He went on to say that the system was rotten. I do not think the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo betters the position by his interruption. The matter is not a personal one. I am regarding it from the point of view of Ireland, England, Scotland. I say that for a man in his responsible position, as head of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland, to state on this, what I call semi-public occasion, that these credit banks, got up by the farmers of Ireland for their own assistance, and for the organisation of their own industry, were rotten concerns, and if they were wound up would not pay more than 2s. 6d. in the £, is out of place. We have not had a word from the Chief Secretary or from anyone else in this House who has defended the action of Mr. Russell to say that that statement of Mr. Russell has a shadow of foundation in fact. We who are concerned both with the interests of England, Ireland, and Scotland, in the prosperity of Irish agriculture, and the success of this great measure of the extension of small holdings, and of peasant proprietorship in Ireland, have reason to complain of the head of the Department, whose statement the Chief Secretary, in his light, airy way, to-night has endeavoured to prove as being of no importance.
  Let me quote from a journal which is not a political organ, but which is devoted to discussing business matters in a business spirit, "The Statist." In one of the June numbers there was an article in that paper in which reference was made to the correspondence which has passed between Mr. Russell and Sir Horace Plunkett. After considering the facts—
  "not from us party point of view, for we have nothing to do with either party movements or personal activities,"
  the journal concluded:—
  "It appears to us that Mr. Russell has been wrong from the beginning, and that he has acted contrary to the interests of the Department committed to his charge, contrary to the interests of good government in Ireland, contrary to the interests of agriculture in the country, and contrary to the interests of public peace and civil order."
  And they go on to say, commenting upon the fact that the society had offered to give Mr. Russell their help in an exami-

  1899
  nation into the condition of these banks and to do what they could to help the banks to continue solvent, as in the past:—
  "Not only did Mr. Russell decline the assistance of the society, but when the assistance of the society was profferred to him he refused to make use of it."
  Perhaps the Chief Secretary will be interested to hear this:—
  "In the true spirit of an arrogant bureaucrat he tells the society that he recognises no right on its part to interfere with his Department."
  And their last word is:—
  "We hare no hesitation in saying that the action of Mr. T. W. Russell, as set before the country in the correspondence to which we have referred, proves that he is entirely unfit for the position he holds at present, and the sooner he is removed from it the better it will he for the peace of the country."
  Is this a trivial matter? Does the Chief Secretary still protest that this is a matter of no importance? A small administrative act, which apparently is worthy of a joke, and of no more serious consideration. I say, with this state of things before us, we are entitled to demand what is the policy of the Government? Have they one policy in England and another totally different one in Ireland? Does their Agricultural Department in England conduct in a different spirit the system of co-operation between farmers, which we are glad to think is making such progress, and is their Agricultural Department in Ireland, with Mr. T. W. Russell at its head, justified in inflicting a severe blow on the whole co-operation movement in Ireland, of which one of the most important and essential portions is this system of credit banks? Is the action of Mr. T. W. Russell approved by the Chief Secretary or not? If it is approved by him then we know that he at any rate, whatever his private wishes or desires may be, intends to act in a manner which to my mind would be fatally injurious to the farmers of Ireland who are engaged in an organised system of co-operation and would inflict grave injury upon the security of this country for the loans which it has most properly made to Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman tells us his policy is not that of Mr. Russell then I think we are entitled to ask that Mr. T. W. Russell should be requested to change his course of action and policy and if Mr. Russell refuses to act in accordance with the desire of the Chief Secretary and if the Chief Secretary is really anxious to support this system of co-operation, I think we may fairly ask
  1900
  the Chief Secretary and the Government to remove this obstacle which stands in the way of industrial progress in Ireland and to find someone with larger intelligence and wider experience, apart from politics, who will carry out the scheme which the Government profess. We are entitled to ask that they should appoint a man to carry on this beneficent work in Ireland who is determined with a free and unprejudiced mind and free from all outside influence to do all he can to support the true interests of Ireland and to maintain those great interests which are involved for the whole of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I rise for the purpose of protesting against the uncalled-for and unjustifiable attacks made upon Mr. Russell. If Mr. Russell was an Ulster Tory we would hear nothing about this attack. It is made chiefly and principally from a political motive. We all knew that the Ulster Tories are not the friends of Mr. Russell, and, consequently, I think they are taking advantage of their position in this House to attack him when he is not here to defend himself. The opinion that my Constituents and I hold of Mr. Russell is that he is a great administrator, and that he is doing his very best in the Department to advance the country's interests. I have been speaking to those in my Constituency who are connected with agriculture, and they have confidence in Mr. Russell as evidenced by the harmonious way in which they are working with him. I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more than that he enjoys the confidence of the people in my part of the country. With regard to the subsidy withdrawn from the Irish Organisation Society, of which we have heard so much, I say Mr. Russell was quite right in withdrawing it. Why should Mr. Russell or Sir Horace Plunkett in his time, or any Member of the Government subsidise an association that is competing with the shopkeepers in the towns in Ireland in the sale of seeds and manures and other agricultural produce? It was not fair to do so. The shopkeepers have as good a right to live and prosper as any other class in the community. They have as good a right to live as the farmers, and it was unfair of Sir Horace Plunkett to subsidise an institution that was trying to kill an important class in the community. I wish to see the towns in Ireland thrive and prosper, and if ever

  1901
  it is endeavoured to give a subsidy to an association of this kind that is trying to injure the towns in Ireland, I shall certainly enter my protest against it. I should not have risen if it had not been for the attacks made upon Mr. Russell They were, in my opinion, uncalled for, and, as one living in the country and hearing so much praise of the work he has been doing, I thought it only fair for me to stand up in my place in this House and say a word in his behalf when he is not here to defend himself. Personally, I regret that he is not in his place in this House. He always enlightened me on any subject on which he spoke by his able arguments and by his clear reasoning and convincing manner, and I trust he will soon be back again to give us information as to the working of the Department of which he is, in my opinion, such a brilliant and distinguished chief.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I desire on behalf of my hon. Friends around me to say briefly why we shall pursue our intention of dividing the Committee on the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for North Derry. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has suggested that the object of this Motion is not to clear up what is undoubtedly a very unpleasant and disagreeable question as affecting the government of Ireland, but that it is political. I do not expect hon. Members who never see any good in a political opponent to accept my statement, but, still, I do most clearly and definitely say that there is nothing political in the action we are taking. One hon. Member below the Gangway reinforced that argument by calling attention to the fact that Ulster Members disliked Mr. Russell. Surely he has omitted to notice that Ulster Members have taken a very limited part in this Debate. The majority of the speeches have been made by Gentlemen representing other constituencies—not always Irish —such as York and Cambridge University and South Dublin. Anybody who has taken any part in political contests in the North of Ireland knows full well there is sufficient justification for the suggestion of the existence of strong feeling between Mr. Russell and his opponents in the north. No man has ever spoken more freely of his opponents than Mr. Russell, and I can answer for it—I have done my little share—they have spoken of him equally frankly. But although I do not deny there is considerable feeling, I assert
  1902
  it has nothing to do with the action taken to-night. The charge is a very simple one, although it may have far-reaching effects. It is that a Minister of the Crown, called on, in his position as Minister, upon an occasion which I venture with great respect to say it is ridiculous to suggest it was anything less than a public occasion — an occasion on which whatever occurred was certain to transpire—this Minister of the Crown called upon as Minister and speaking with the full weight of his experience as Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland, made a declaration about a great industrial society in Ireland which, I say, no Minister ought to have made unless he was prepared to substantiate every word, and unless, after full inquiry, he had come to the conclusion and was determined not to recede from it, I say it is contrary to all precedent, and to all the best traditions that govern Ministerial office for any man holding an office such as this to make such an answer to a deputation waiting on him. In so doing he was guilty of an offence which I am happy to think Ministers on both sides can rarely be charged with. There has been no answer attempted this afternoon, except in two replies—one by the hon. Member for East Mayo, and the other by the Chief Secretary.
  The Chief Secretary told us that Mr. Russell was an exemplary Minister and had succeeded in passing a large number of Bills, and he lamented the fact that he was no longer sitting by his side and he assured us that there was nothing in the world he longed for so much as the immediate society of Mr. Russell. But what was the defence of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), who appeared to speak with an even more intimate knowledge of Mr. Russell's views and the reasons which governed his actions past and present and which were likely to govern his actions in the future? He seemed to have an even more intimate knowledge of Mr. Russell's mind than that possessed by the Chief Secretary. What is the hon. Member for Mayo's defence? I think it is the most remarkable ever made in regard to any Minister, having regard to the conduct of the people concerned. He said it was a controversy as between the late and the present head of a Department. I think that is a most inadequate description in the case of Sir Horace Plunkett. Whether you agree with him or not, he is something more than the late

  1903
  head of a Department. He founded the Department, he gave it its prestige and all the authority which it has in Ireland. Sir Horace Plunkett since his connection with the Department terminated has continued, with great credit to himself and great advantage to Ireland, the private work which he has carried on in connection with voluntary associations and this one in particular. Therefore to say this is a controversy between the late head of the Department, and the present one is to give a very inadequate description of the matter. But the hon. Member for East Mayo also told us not that Mr. Russell deserved well, because he had passed Acts of Parliament—not because his society was so delightful that anybody deprived of it suffered in consequence—but he told us something more remarkable still, namely, that the reason why this question was raised here to-day is because Mr. Russell has for the first time lifted the Department out of the mire of politics. I suppose this Parliament is composed of a larger number of what are called groups than any Parliament before, and I am not exaggerating when I say that Mr. Russell from his past experience and associations in politics would find it difficult in this Parliament not to find a group with whom he would be able to act in complete accord. I do not know that there ever has been a politician of such varied views and such remarkable performances, and yet this is the gentleman of whom this is said. The hon. Member knows very well, and I know it that Mr. Russell in the course of his political career has boxed the compass, and there is not a part of the House in which he has not sat as fidus Achates to some party. What of Sir Horace Plunkett? You may think he goes too far, but anyone who knows him will know that he has given his best energies and abilities not to politics— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Let me remind hon. Gentlemen who interrupt me of the question which they put to us. When the hon. Member for North Antrim was speaking, what was the interruption? It was: "You turned him out of Parliament." Who turned him out?
  Mr. DILLON: The same people who turned you out of Belfast.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: They may have been the same people, but the interruption, of which I admit the full charm, and which does not in the smallest degree
  1904
  ruffle my personal feelings, only shows that the hon. Gentleman is extremely anxious to divert the attention of the Committee from the question I was trying to put, namely, that whatever the objections of individuals or of parties may be to Sir Horace Plunkett, no one can deny who has watched his career and his work that he has devoted himself with immense labour, energy, and ability to the advancement of the material prosperity of his native land, and that in pursuing this object he has left ordinary political ideas entirely on one side. Therefore, he finds he is disowned by those who are Liberals or Nationalists, and I believe there is no man at this moment who is less entitled to be called a party politician than Sir Horace Plunkett, and yet we are told that this charge is to fall to the ground because Mr. Russell is worthy of all honour, he having lifted the administration of the Department out of the mire of politics, and I presume Sir Horace Plunkett pushed it into the mire of politics. A more extraordinary defence I never listened to. This being the only defence put forward in answer to the charge, we shall certainly press our Motion to a Division. We shall do this, not because we are animated by any personal feeling in regard to one person or other in the controversy, but because we hold that if this kind of conduct is to be allowed on the part of Ministers— whether they are here or not to defend themselves is no part of our business; it is idle to suggest that we should be dumb because the Minister is not present—it is injurious to the best interests of good government.
  We contend, further, that you cannot make a wholesale charge of this kind against a great association like the one-concerned without running the very grave risk of injuring the association and all similar associations. If he does that, he then puts back the hands of the clock which regulates Irish material prosperity, and he will be doing incalculable harm, from which it will take probably some years to recover. For these reasons, and for no personal reasons, for nothing to do with Mr. Russell's conduct as a politician, or for the ordinary discharge of his duties in his Department, but solely because we hold his action has been injurious in the respects which I have indicated, we shall certainly express our Motion to a Division, thinking, as we do, that the conduct of the Minister concerned with this case has been unworthy the best traditions which govern the discharge of Ministerial duties.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I had intended to refer to various points, apart from this particular point about Mr. Russell, which has been raised in the Debate. I have not time to do justice to my Votes, and I do not wish to single out any particular Member rather than another as though he alone were worthy of my consideration, and I will communicate to the hon. Members, some of whom dealt with points of interest affecting their particular localities and others with points of general public interest connected with the Department, if they will permit me—and indeed they cannot prevent me—the answers to their various points, or at all events some of them; and in that way I daresay I shall meet their views just as well. Really from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman this becomes a very serious matter. This is an impeachment of a Minister of the Crown because when certain persons came to him for a subsidy of public money he expressed an opinion in which I entirely concur, that, not the whole association, but that many of the credit banks were in a situation which required most careful watching. That is what it comes to. Many of these banks are not, in his opinion, worthy of continuing to receive subsidies of public money. The language Mr. Russell used he was bound to use, and in my opinion he would have been guilty of a dereliction of public duty if he had, in the easy manner of Sir Horace Plunkett, failed to submit these banks to the test which every bank should submit to. Mr. Russell, in my opinion, did what was perfectly right m calling attention to these banks and using the language which he used. He did no more than call attention to certain public institutions which came to him asking for public subsidies, and he declared his opinion on an occasion which he thought was privileged. These banks are not in such a position as credit banks ought to be in. The hon. Member said the great principle of these banks was un-
  limited liability. Yes, the unlimited liability of a lot of poor farmers. No Government could subsidise banks of that description simply on the ground that these poor people were liable to be sold up to their last pig or cow. That is not the sort of way in which these banks are worked. They are worked by the strictest supervision and the utmost care. What Mr. Russell did was to express the opinion that many of these banks were in such a position that they no longer justified public money being granted to them.
  Hon. Members said it was the business of Mr. Russell to put those banks in order if he thought they were not all that they ought to be. They are not banks belonging to the Department. The Department is wholly independent of them, and they must make their own way and secure their own footing in the country. I have no doubt Mr. Russell would have used language of a different description if he had supposed it was going to be reported. On this occasion Mr. Russell was justified, and if I had been there I should have felt equally protected by being in the office of the Congested Districts Board. To say this was an onslaught on the principle of credit banks or the general principle of co-operation was ridiculous. There are many rotten banks in this country. There are credit banks in Germany and India which are perfectly sound, and there is no reason why these credit banks in Ireland should not become perfectly sound, if they will behave as banks ought to do, and therefore to-attempt to impeach a Minister on these grounds is simply ridiculous.
  Question put, "That Item A be reduced by £100, in respect of the salary of the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction,. Ireland."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 67; Noes, 171.

  Division No. 85.]

  AYES.

  [10.58 p.m.

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

  Cator, John

  Grant, J. A.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Clay, Captain H. Spender

  Gretton, John

  Arbuthnot, G. A.

  Colefax, H. A.

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cooper, Capt. Bryan (Dublin, S.)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Branston, H.

  Craig, Norman (Kent)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Dixon, C. H.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Burgoyne, A. H.

  Duke, H. E.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Butcher, J. G. (York)

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Butcher, S. Henry (Cambridge Univ.)

  Gibbs, G. A.

  King. Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Calley, Colonel T. C.P.

  Goldman, C. S.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

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

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Carllie, E. Hildred

  Gordon, J.

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Macmaster, Donald

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Newman, John R. P.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Stanier, Beville

  White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)

  Nield, Herbert

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Willougnby, Major Hon. Clauds

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid.)

  Stewart, Gersham (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

  Hugh Barrie and Mr. Lonsdale

  Royds, Edmund

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  NOES.

  Abraham, William

  Hackett, J.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Hancock, J. G.

  Nuttad, Harry

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Agnew, George William

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Alden, Percy

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Armitage, R.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Dowel, John

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Malley, William

  Barlow, Sir John E.

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Louth, N.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Barton, W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pearce, William

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Pearson, Weetman H M.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hogan, Michael

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Boland, John Pius

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Phllipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Philip is. Sir O. C (Pembroke)

  Brady, P. J.

  Hughes, S. L.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jones, Willam (Carnarvonshire)

  Reddy, M.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Keating, M.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Kelly, Edward

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lambert, George

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Clough, William

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Scanian, Thomas

  Compton-Rickett. Sir J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Seddon, J.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Lincoln, Ignatius T T.

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Crossfield, A. H.

  Lundon, T.

  Sheehy, David

  Crossley, Sir William J.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Davlet, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Davles, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Toulmin, George

  Dawes, J. A.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Denman, R. D.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Twist, Henry

  Devlin, Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Verney, F. W.

  Dillon, John

  M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Donelan, Captain A,

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Wardie, George J.

  Doris. W.

  Marks. G. Crovdon

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmanan)

  Duffy, William J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leltrim, N.)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Elverston, H.

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Millar, J. D.

  White, Patrick (Meath. North)

  Falconer, J.

  Molloy, M.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mond. Sir Alfred

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Furness, Stephen

  Mooney, J. J.

  Williamson, Sir A.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Morgan. G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Gibson, Sir James P.

  Muspratt, Max

  Wing, Thomas

  Gill, A. H.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Glanvllie, H. J.

  Neilson, Francis

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—waster

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Nolan, Joseph

  of Elibank and Mr. Guliand.

  Original Question again proposed.
  And, it being after Eleven of the clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
  ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn,."—[Mr. Joseph Pease.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Ten minuted after Eleven o'clock.

  Valuerships in Dublin.
  Valuerships in Dublin.
  Income Tax.
  Income Tax.
  Registration of Title Office.
  Registration of Title Office.
  Evicted Tenants.
  Evicted Tenants.
  Drunkenness (Return.)
  Drunkenness (Return.)
  Cleary Minors Estate (Limerick).
  Cleary Minors Estate (Limerick).
  Waterford Bridge.
  Waterford Bridge.
  Land Purchase (County Cork, East Riding)
  Land Purchase (County Cork, East Riding)
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (County Galway).
  Land Purchase (County Galway).
  Firing from Excursion Train (Portadown).
  Firing from Excursion Train (Portadown).
  19th Hussars (Private J. T. Jenkins).
  19th Hussars (Private J. T. Jenkins).
  Punctuation in Prayer Books.
  Punctuation in Prayer Books.
  Indian Vernaculars.
  Indian Vernaculars.
  Southern Nigeria (Liquor Traffic).
  Southern Nigeria (Liquor Traffic).
  British Guiana, Drink Regulations.
  British Guiana, Drink Regulations.
  Magistrates in British Guiana
  Magistrates in British Guiana
  Ottoman Government (Creditors).
  Ottoman Government (Creditors).
  Soudan (Cotton Production).
  Soudan (Cotton Production).
  Post Office Service (London).
  Post Office Service (London).
  Dundee Post Office.
  Dundee Post Office.
  Coast of Alderney (First-class Light and Fog Signal).
  Coast of Alderney (First-class Light and Fog Signal).
  Wandering Tinkers.
  Wandering Tinkers.
  Voluntary Schools Grant (Scotland).
  Voluntary Schools Grant (Scotland).

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
Cardiff Railway.
Eastbourne Corporation.
Yorkshire Registries and Driffield Navigation.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

NORTH EAST LONDON RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee that it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: Costs awarded to the Great Eastern Railway Company, the Petitioner against the Bill.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
KIRKCALDY CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
FYLDE WATER BOARD BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
PAISLEY GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, relating to Paisley Gas—Was presented by the Lord Pentland; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 90.)
KIRKCALDY CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Pentland); and reported from the Committee. (No. 91.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROV ISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
CALEDONIAN RAILWAY ORDER CONFIR MATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order), and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.

ARMY RETURN.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, seeing the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for War in his place, I venture to ask him a question of which I have given him private notice. He was good enough to say that he would lay a Return giving certain figures with regard to the cost of the Territorial Army as compared with that of the old Volunteers. It would be a great advantage to your Lordships to have the figures, if possible, before Lord Dartmouth brings on his Notice on Monday next.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD LUCAS): We are arranging so that the Return shall be laid in time to be in the hands of noble Lords before Monday's debate begins.

CENSUS (GREAT BRITAIN) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, this Bill to which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading follows generally the Acts of 1900 and 1890. It applies, as both of those Acts did, to Scotland as well as to England, but it does not apply to

1151
Ireland. There is a separate Bill in the name of my noble friend Lord Ashby St. Ledgers, under which the Irish census is taken in rather a different manner. The Bill the Second Reading of which I am now moving does not in itself call for much comment. There are, however, two important points in which it differs from its predecessors.
The present Bill requires that the schedule to be filled up by the householder should include, in the case of married persons, particulars indicating the duration of the marriage and the number of children born of the marriage who are still living. A good deal of importance is attached to these figures by the medical authorities and also by some of the statistical authorities, who think that by the help of these figures interesting information will be secured. The Bill also requires that the number of rooms inhabited shall be specified in each case. It is thought that over crowding is not confined to tenements of four rooms, and information on this subject will be useful.
I suppose the cheers which greeted the Bill just now indicated that in the opinion of some noble Lords opposite it is remarkable rather for what it does not, than what it does, provide. I suppose that there will be some criticism as to the omission of the religious census. That is an old question which has been raised time after time, and on each occasion this House, as well as the other House of Parliament, has decided that it is unnecessary to ask for these particulars. At any rate noble Lords opposite as well as ourselves are equally guilty in this respect. In 1890 a Departmental Committee was appointed to inquire into the question, and in their Report they said—
"Representations have been made both in favour of and against the census of religious profession in Great Britain. In other countries and in our Colonies such information is obtained, but reasons of a political character have been urged against returns under this head, and we are not in a position to make any recommendation regarding the matter."
When the Bill of 1890 was before the House of Commons the then Leader of the House opposed the taking of a religious census on the ground that it would cause heat, and to a certain extent, ill-feeling.
Then there was a debate in your Lordships' House inaugurated by the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, who was very
1152
anxious that these figures should be asked for; but the late Lord Salisbury, who was then Leader of the House, suggested various difficulties that might arise and inquired whether it might not be necessary to obtain certificates of the religious belief of an individual from his two senior female relatives. The result of that discussion was that the Motion was withdrawn. The question was not raised again, and the Bill went through Second Reading and Committee in your Lordships' House without any difficulty at all. The then Archbishop of Canterbury took part in the discussion, but refrained from pressing the Government to obtain these particulars. I would venture to impress upon your Lordships that there is a very large number of people in this country who would really believe it improper for the State to ask such questions, and a very large number of them would certainly refuse to give the information. We believe that in those circumstances the value of the statistics would be very considerably diminished.
Noble Lords opposite, I am sure, will see that the value of the statistics which are obtained in the various Dominions where these particulars are asked for is so far invalidated by the number of people who refuse to answer the question. We think that the census should apply only to matters of fact that can be easily answered and to which no individual would object. We admit that these particulars are required in Ireland, but there the case is somewhat different. Noble Lords opposite admitted that last evening, when they said that even cattle maiming was different in England from what it was in Ireland. The circumstances in the two countries are so far different that we trust they will be accepted as a sufficient reason for making a difference in regard to this, matter. I submit that the inclusion of this request in this Bill would certainly not tend to peace between the various churches and denominations in this country, and therefore it is advisable that we should follow the example of previous Governments and not ask for these particulars.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the noble Earl, with that intuition which comes from years of official experience, has correctly anticipated the criticism which will

1153
be indulged in with regard to this measure. We live at the present day in an age of statistics; We are perpetually endeavouring to obtain information, useless or the reverse, upon every variety of subject except that of the religion of the people, which we are forbidden to obtain unless we happen to live in Ireland. The relation of religion to population is universally recognised as one of the most interesting facts of the present day. I observe that the President of the Local Government Board claims that in forming an exception to the rest of the world we show our good sense. But if that is correct, it shows not only that good sense is very sparsely distributed throughout the universe, but that this country and Scotland have a monopoly of it. I have made some inquiries into the matter, and I find that in every country in Europe, with the exception of France, and I believe in every British Colony without exception, a religious census is taken, and in no quarter is any opposition raised to it.
In this country we enjoy, or it is supposed that we enjoy because we have no means of ascertaining the fact, a larger number of religious denominations than any other country, and the fact of there being so large a variety of these denominations has led to difficulties with which everybody is well acquainted with regard to education and other matters. It is an open secret, in fact it is blazoned, so to speak, upon the housetops, that as soon as the Government feel themselves strong enough to undertake the task, they will attempt to disestablish the Church in Wales. That being the case, surely it is obvious that an impartial religious census is much more required in this country than in any other. One would naturally suppose that the first thing that people interested in this subject would desire would be that there should be an impartial set of figures to which they could refer. Failing an official census, you are depending upon amateur censuses which irresponsible people are always prepared to take. In Wales, for example, which is the most striking instance, the political Nonconformists are only too glad to number themselves. In fact, if they get the opportunity, they are quite prepared to count themselves several times over. But, on the other hand, they have the strongest and most insuperable objection to their opponents being counted by an official authority.
1154
Putting Wales temporarily aside, I should like, if the House will permit me, to deal shortly with the objections which have been hitherto brought forward by the Government and their supporters to including a religious census. First of all, we have the fine old crusted Front Bench objection that they are not going to require these particulars because their predecessors did not require them, and that because the Government in 1890 would not give the figures they are not going to be silly enough to do anything of the kind themselves. In no circumstances would that statement make a deep impression upon me. But the circumstances are totally different. The reason why the figures Were not asked for in 1890 was that there was very little time, but that is an excuse which cannot be pleaded at the present moment, because it is obvious that the House of Commons has great difficulty in finding sufficient work to do. That is one argument which is already disposed of.
Then there is the so-called inquisitorial objection on which the noble Earl laid considerable stress. I may say, to start with, that any objection relating to an inquisitorial inquiry comes with singularly bad grace from the present Government, who have appointed hordes of officials for the purpose of prying into persons' private affairs. But as a matter of fact a census, in itself, is an extremely inquisitorial proceeding and cannot very well be otherwise, and it becomes increasingly so every time that one is taken. Is it not, for instance, an invidious thing to ask a man whether he is deaf or an imbecile and how many bedrooms his family occupy? Is it not an invidious and delicate thing to ask a woman her age? The majority of persons who have reached a certain period of life would far prefer to be asked what their religion is than their age. The fact is that it is an extremely delicate matter to put inquiries of this kind to either sex. I have heard on good authority of a noble Lord, a well-known member of this House, who was so appalled when filling up the census paper at the prospect of having to put the question as to her age to a lady occupying an important position in his household, that sooner than do it he took train and never stopped until he reached Naples. But there is a more serious side of this question. It stands to reason that working-men, for instance, are naturally apt to make their age out to be lower than

1155
it really is so as to secure better chances of employment.
But inquiries of this kind do not by any means exhaust the inquisitorial nature of the queries which it is proposed to put. In view of the dropping of the birth-rate at the present moment the Local Government Board are in this census instituting inquiries into what they call the comparative fertility of married couples in various social positions and of different ages. For my part I should have thought it was difficult to devise a more inquisitorial inquiry than this. It is obvious that there are many heads of families who have larger families than they can legitimately account for, and it is possible, in view of the method of inquiry, that the Local Government Board might appear to think their families were too small. But in either case it is difficult to see what effect these inquiries can have. It may be interesting to the Local Government Board, but what practical effect the information can have upon the birth-rate of this country passes my comprehension altogether. With regard to inquisitorial inquiries, I do not suppose it would be denied that a woman living alone is liable to be asked whether she is divorced or separated from her husband, and whether she has borne any children. Could there be anything more inquisitorial than these inquiries? Yet the Government come to us and say that while the ordinary individual, however fastidious and sensitive of nature, is going to submit to these interrogatories without wincing, a question with respect to his or her religion would be regarded as an intolerable insult.
In addition to this particular form of objection, it is contended occasionally that persons, chiefly domestic servants, would be in danger of losing their places if their religious denomination was disclosed. The imaginary victim of religious intoleration I imagine to be some housemaid or nurse who has successfully masqueraded for years as a member of the Church of England, but who is detected by a lynx-eyed head of the household when the census paper has to be filled up, and is forthwith dismissed with ignominy. I fail to believe that such establishments exist; but, even if they do, the grievance must be an imaginary one, because if anyone did hold these intolerant and tyrannical ideas it would be a condition of service, and therefore the contingency which is
1156
feared could never arise. There is yet another objection of a somewhat ingenious nature which I observe was raised in another place. It was pointed out that there are a number of persons in this country who worship occasionally in Nonconformist chapels and occasionally in Church, and it was argued that when the question was put to them as to what their religion really was, they would be seized with a kind of mental paralysis and would be quite unable to say what they were. Personally I should have thought there I would have been no more difficulty in stating what your religious convictions were in those circumstances than you would have difficulty in saying by what Christian name you are habitually known supposing you own to two.
The last objection of all, and the one upon which no doubt the greatest stress is laid, is that it is feared, as the noble Earl indicated, that persons who had no particular religious belief would inevitably be described as members of the Church I of England. This is a view which I am totally unable to understand. I noticed that the President of the Local Government Board adduced his experiences in prison as a proof of that danger, but all I that he proved was that criminals apparently found a Church of England service more attractive than any others. And with regard to the fear that Agnostics and Freethinkers and people of that description would write themselves down as members of the Church of England, all I can say is that as far as my experience goes such Agnostics as I am acquainted with would never for a moment dream of describing themselves as members of the Church of England, and they would be rather glad of the opportunity of proclaiming what their opinions really were.
I maintain that the hypocrisy—I can use no other word—the gross hypocrisy of these objections is most conclusively proved by the practice in Ireland. The fact that a different system obtains in Ireland is absolutely conclusive to my mind that the objections to a religious census in Great Britain are political and nothing else. The excuse made for treating Ireland differently I understand is this, that religions are so sharply divided in Ireland that there is no difficulty in discrimination and that subsidiary denominations do not exist. I have looked into the figures.

1157
Of course the vast majority of Irishmen are Roman Catholics, but there is a large number, as everybody knows, of Episcopalians; there are Methodists, and there are Presbyterians; in addition, out of a population of 1000,000, there are 60,000 put down as belonging to denominations which are not specified; and out of these 4,000,000 people there were not 700 who made any objection to stating what their religious belief was.
Let us be honest if we can over this question. The religious census was established in Ireland in 1861. Why? Because at that time it was proposed to disestablish the Irish Church, and the people who proposed to do so knew that it would be safe to take a religious census. In 1910 you would like to do the same thing in Wales if you had the courage to set about it, but you are not taking a religious census because you are afraid the figures would be against you, and it is desired to encourage the idea that the agitation which is conducted in Parliament and elsewhere is represented by an adequate majority in the country. In no civilised country in the world, so far as I know, with the exception of England and Scotland, is a man, whatever he may be, afraid to avow his religious belief. Here alone, for political reasons, baseless objections are put forward for evading a clear issue, and these baseless objections are admitted by an accommodating Government. All I can say is, it does not reflect much credit either upon the people who make these baseless objections or upon the people who find excuses for them, and I trust that when this Bill goes into Committee some member of this House, a right rev. Prelate for choice, will put down an Amendment embodying the views which I have ventured to express.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPH: My Lords, I will not detain the House for more than a moment, but I rise to express the hope that an Amendment on the lines suggested by the noble Lord will be accepted by His Majesty's Government. The position of Wales presents a strong case for the taking of a religious census. The Prime Minister, in moving his Resolution in the House of Commons regarding the Church in Wales, based his case upon figures, but arrived at the statistical position in a rather curious way. He did not select the number of adherents to the various religious bodies, but counted the
1158
various sittings in Nonconformist place; of worship—not a very exhaustive or satisfactory way of dealing with the numerical argument. I do not think there is any great objection to such a census in Wales, Churchmen, at any rate, could most cordially welcome it. For thirty years various religious bodies have organised voluntary religious censuses, but it is impossible to arrive from them at a satisfactory enumeration of the religious beliefs of the people. We are very anxious to know how the statistical argument stands with regard to Wales. If this argument, which I do not think is at all conclusive, is to be used, let it be as accurate as it can be. There has been a Royal Commission sitting on the question of the Church in Wales, and I believe they have been unable to make a satisfactory enumeration from the various statistics that have been supplied. I therefore sincerely hope that an Amendment in the spirit of the remarks of the noble Lord will be moved in Committee and accepted by His Majesty's Government.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two as to why, in my opinion, We should not treat this suggestion too seriously. This is one of those theatrical parades which we have whenever a Census Bill comes up, but it always comes to nothing, and nobody supposes that the policy which has been settled for many years will be altered this year. I should also like to say a word as to the extremely delusive character of a religious census in England. I have had experience in connection with an obligation to ascertain the religious beliefs of parents. I speak with reference to sending children to industrial schools. In the School Board for London we had a large number of those cases, and the Act of Parliament required that we should ascertain the belief of the parent in order to determine to what school the child should be sent. Year after year we found that when the parent was asked in the police-court what his religious belief was he invariably replied, unless he was a Roman Catholic, that he was a Protestant.
The average Englishman, if he is given to religious exercises either in church or chapel, knows what he is, but there is a large number of people whose religion consists largely, like the Royal Declaration, in disclaiming the errors of the Church of Rome. Some noble Lords may remember that a cyclone of religious controversy

1159
passed through the School Board for London when Mr. Athelstan Riley raised an educational discussion, and, aided by the then Home Secretary, Mr. Matthews, succeeded in getting the magistrates not to be satisfied with the declaration that the parent was a Protestant, but to press upon the parent that he should specify to what denomination of Protestantism he belonged. The majority under this pressure ultimately gravitated to Church of England. That is no doubt what you would get in this case. The ordinary man in the street would very likely call himself Protestant, and if he was goaded to say something further he would say "Church of England," but it would be quite worthless. I do not attach any importance to a census of chapel or church places, because we know that the energy of church builders outruns the zeal of church frequenters. In the United States no official census of religious opinions is taken, though an informal inquiry was set on foot by the various religious bodies themselves. In 1851 there was a religious census taken in this country, but it was a census of the attendance on a particular day in all places of worship. It did not give satisfaction, though so far as it tested preference for any form of religious adhesion it was as good as any.
In these theological controversies people make imputations freely. They are the amenities which are associated with theological discussion. For instance, there was the statement of the noble Lord opposite that political Nonconformists in Wales were so anxious to be counted that they wished to count themselves twice over. Since the time to which I have referred various voluntary organisations have attempted this census. The Daily News some years ago took statistics of the number of people attending churches and chapels in London, and similar censuses have been taken in various great towns in Wales, but the results have not been conclusive. If you take important events in men's lives, you are led to believe that there are more adherents to the Church of England than there really are. In the case of marriages, something like between seventy and seventy-five per cent. of the population in this country are married in church. But everyone who knows anything of life, and especially in villages, knows that it is quite the usual thing for people in a village to be married in church,
1160
then to frequent some form of dissenting service throughout their lives, and when they die their right is naturally claimed to a church service, and they are buried in the churchyard. I can assure the noble Lord who has raised this question that of all things the most delusive would be to attempt to get at the religious belief of that floating mass, which is very large, of the population who stand aloof from all forms of religious denomination. More and more the mass of the working-class population are sliding away from adhesion to any form of religious belief, though they are not sliding away from aggressive free thought. The tendencies of the age have brought out a different point of view of these matters. If a census official went round, most of these people, to save bother, would say they belonged to the Church of England, and you would get a most inconclusive conclusion. I hope noble Lords will recognise that, and not clamour for a thing which, even if you got it, would be useless.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

CENSUS (IRELAND) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

THE ARMY RESERVE.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD*THE DUKE OF BEDFORD rose to call attention to the state of the Regular Reserve, the Special Reserve, and the Special Contingent; and to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War—

1. If the 27 Fourth Battalion Special Reserve Infantry are considered capable of expanding the Regular Army abroad by battalion units.

2. The establishment of the Special Contingent Category B. in the Army Estimates of 1910 being 7,552 and the strength 552, how is this shortage to be made good for the Expeditionary Force.

The noble Duke said: My Lords, the Prime Minister, speaking last January at Haddington, is reported to have said that—
" He would be perfectly content that the administrative record of the Government should be judged as a test case by comparing the state of the Army as it was left by Lord Midleton and the state of the Army as it is to-day, after four years of Liberal administration."

1161
We know that the Regular Army of to-day is not so numerous as the Regular Army of 1905. If the Government on assuming office considered that the Regular Army, as they then found it, was needlessly large for all the possible demands of Imperial defence, by all means let them reduce its numbers, provided always that there is a corresponding reduction in Army Estimates. The strength of the Army is a matter for the Government of the day, advised by the Committee of Imperial Defence, to decide. It is not a matter which I presume to discuss. I do, however, strongly question the statement made by some members of the Government that by reducing the numbers of the Regular Army they have thereby rendered it a more powerful instrument of war than when they took office. The Under-Secretary of State for War last January went to Bodmin and made a speech, in which he is reported to have said—
" It is perfectly true we have reduced the Army by something like 18,000 men, but the Army is a stronger thing to-day than before those 18,000 men were taken away."
Stronger in what? Stronger in numbers or stronger in efficiency?
Let me first take numbers. You have not only reduced the number of men serving with the Colours by 18,000, but, by diminishing nine Reserve-creating cadres, you have reduced the quantity of the Regular Reserve. The high-water mark of the Regular Reserve, the outcome of Lord Midleton's policy, will be reached this year. It is 137,000 men; the low water mark, 106,000, is given in Lord Erroll's Return, and will be readied in 1913. The difference is 31,000 men. The Army Estimates of this year show the actual reduction of men serving with the. Colours to be one short of 24,000. That number, with the ultimate reduction in the Reserve, will amount to 55,000 men gone from the Regular Army and Reserve by 1913. But that is not the end of the story. In 1905, the strength of the Militia—that is, the number of men actually present at inspection—was 92,035. The Militia has been abolished, and the Special Reserve created. The Special Reserve to-day numbers 67,948 men and 1,823 officers—that is. 24,087 men and 625 officers less than the number actually serving and present in the Militia in 1905. We arrive, therefore, at this result, that the Regular Army and the Regular Reserve, plus the Militia, if it had remained
1162
at its strength of 92,035, would have been 79,087 men stronger than the Regular Army with its Regular and Special Reserves will be in 1913. The year 1913 will be an important year in military administration, because that is the date when the reductions initiated by the Government in our First Line will have been fully realised. Of course the Militia was not enlisted for foreign service. But officers and men always served abroad whenever required, and for some years previous to the abolition of the Force were asking for foreign service enlistment. A Bill for that purpose passed its Second Reading in your Lordships' House in March, 1905. There is, therefore, no weight in the argument that whereas the Special Reserve is enlisted for foreign service the Militia Force could not be reckoned upon to serve abroad.
The Army then is weaker in numbers. Is it stronger in efficiency? Any contention that the quality of the Army to-day is vastly superior to that of the Army of 1905 is at once disposed of by the statement of the present Secretary of State for War, who said in March, 1906, three months after he took office—
" Never before that time had there been such good material in the Army. The morale, both of officers and men, was higher than ever it was. The Army was in a condition in which it had never been before, both in point of quantity and quality."
Now can anyone seriously contend that whilst the quality of an Army remains the same, to reduce its quantity by 80,000 men—and I am not talking about a paper establishment but about men who were actually serving in the ranks—is to make it stronger for the purposes of war? But I quote from the closing paragraph of the noble Lord's speech at Bodmin—
"Here we are then. The Army is a great deal stronger than when we took office, and it costs the country a great deal less."
We may well ask whence comes this accession of military power, and do the Army Estimates show a great reduction in expenditure, and one that is likely to be of a permanent character? The Army Estimates for 1905 were £28,000,000; those for 1909, £27,435,000—a decrease of £565,000. It is, however, clear from the recent proceedings of many County Associations that unless the Government are prepared to give their new Territorial infant Army, now aged two years, a much more generous scale of diet in the way of pounds, shillings,

1163
and pence, it will very likely perish in its nursery from insufficient nutrition.
I am anxious to draw your Lordships' attention to the condition of the Regular Reserve, then to that of the Special Reserve, and finally to a puzzling lot of people who appear to be interchangeable during various phases of mobilisation between the Territorial Army, the Special Reserve, and the Regular Army. Ever since Lord Cardwell created the Regular Reserve, some forty years ago, the maintenance of its quality and the increase of its quantity have been the constant care of ten successive Secretaries of State for War. In 1906, when the Government assumed office, it was for the first time discovered that the Regular Reserve was unduly inflated and must be diminished. It has been diminished, and, as I have already said, will dwindle away from 137,000 until it touches bottom at 106,000 in 1913. But this year comes a most significant incident—namely, that the Secretary of State for War, in introducing the Army Estimates, expressed himself as not satisfied with the future of the Regular Reserve. He considers that there will be no danger for the next two or three years. That is obviously true, because the destructive policy of the Government will not make itself felt till the expiration of that period. It is no more possible to eat your cake and have it than to reduce the Regular Reserve and maintain intact at its original establishment the Expeditionary Force. The formation of this Force at the strength first announced was only possible owing to the presence of the Regular Reserve created by Lord Midleton, inherited by the Government, and now in process of reduction at their hands.
In 1907 the Secretary of State for War issued a Memorandum giving a table showing the composition of this Force. If you take that table and the state of the Army in 1908 as a standard of comparison and allow the same rate per cent. for unfitness and immaturity, which is always allowed by the War Office in these calculations, you will find, after a lengthy but simple process of arithmetic, that in 1913, when the Regular Reserve is at its lowest, the deficiency in the Regular Reserve to meet the war establishments required by the Expeditionary Force will be more than 5,000. But inasmuch as the Regular Reserve will be 5,000 men short of the number
1164
required, it will be necessary to dip at once, and pretty deeply, into the Special Reserve. I lay stress on this point for this reason. It is expressly stated in the last Army Annual Return that the Special Reserve will not be used for active service at once, but will, on mobilisation, commence to acquire that training without which I have never heard it suggested that the men are' fit to take the field as first line soldiers. The noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for War told us on the 18th of May of last year, when speaking of the mobilisation of the battalions upon the peace establishment—
"You may have a few hundred or a few thousand men over, but practically speaking whatever is left over is a negligible quantity."
The noble Lord is describing with great accuracy the result in 1913 of the Government policy of reducing the Regular Reserve. At present, owing to the large Reserve created by Lord Midleton, there would be a surplus of Regular Reservists left behind after the departure of the Expeditionary Force of more than 20,000 men, and that after allowing for all necessary deductions.
There are two great Army problems demanding simultaneous solution. They are the maintenance of a large Army Reserve and the supply of the Indian drafts. The noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, created the largest Army Reserve we have ever had by the plan of three years Colour service, but that period of enlistment did not suit for the provision of the Indian drafts, and hence it had to be abandoned. Mr. Arnold-Forster endeavoured to meet the double problem of the Regular Reserve and of the Indian drafts by creating concurrent long and short service enlistment. The present Government on assuming office hastened to wipe out that plan without even giving it a trial. In short, they reverted to the same system which had been proved by experience to furnish an insufficient Reserve in time of war, although it did meet the difficulty of the Indian drafts in time of peace. Then after four years they warn us that the problem of the Regular Reserve is unsolved and that its future is critical. The administrative record of the Government, as regards the Regular Reserve, is that having succeeded to the most numerous Regular Reserve we have ever had, they will in six years time reduce it to such an attenuated condition that, in

1165
their own opinion, it will give cause for anxiety. Are we expected to accept that result as a proof of superior success in Army administration?
I now come to the Special Reserve. In November, 1908—that is, in the first year of the existence of this Force—the Secretary of State for War, speaking at Guildford, is reported to have said—
"So far from the Regular Army having been cut down, we are to-day 90,000 stronger."
That number of 90,000 represented the total establishment of all branches of the Special Reserve when the formation of the new Force was first announced, and it corresponded approximately with the actual number of men present in the ranks of the Militia previous to its abolition. In dealing with the Army Estimates this year the Secretary of State for War informs us that the establishment of the Special Reserve will in future be 70,000. This means that a strength of 90,000 men who were actually present and serving in the ranks of the Militia will be reduced to a paper establishment of 70,000 Special Reservists, and that there is no Militia Force.
The Special Reserve comprises Infantry, Artillery, Engineers, Army Service Corps, Army Medical Corps and Veterinary Corps. To get at the true state of this Force it is necessary to deal with it in detail, and I cannot now go beyond the Infantry. The Special Reserve Infantry have seventy-four third battalions and twenty-seven fourth battalions. The establishment for subalterns is 1,915. By the Return on the Table of the House, and including twenty-four subalterns lately passed into the Regular Army, the deficiency is 1,381. You have 534 subalterns serving instead of 1,915 required. The number of Regular officers required for all the Special Reserve battalions is said by the Return to be complete, but by the Army List of the 1st of May fifty-six captains and fifty-three Regular subalterns have not yet been posted to the third and fourth battalions. Perhaps the noble Lord the Under-Secretary could say if the Return is right and the Army List wrong, or the other way about. The discrepancy of 109 Regular officers in the Infantry alone is considerable. On March 1st. 1909, the Secretary of State for War was asked if he was satisfied with the recruiting of the Special Reserve officers. The right hon. gentle-
1166
man replied that he depended on the new Officers Training Corps, the fruits of which would begin to be seen in the summer of 1909. We are now in the summer of 1910. On the 7th of March of the present year the right hon. gentleman stated that fifty officers from the Officers Training Corps had joined all branches of the Special Reserve, and that he was still hopeful of getting 1,000 per annum from this source. But the Return now on the Table of the House shows that since its formation the Officers Training Corps has supplied the Special Reserve Infantry with three officers. A deficiency of 1,380 subalterns met by an average intake of about one and a-half officers per year as far as the Officers Training Corps is concerned! As regards men, the Special Reserve Infantry shows an increase of 522 since last year.
The duties of the third and fourth battalions of the Special Reserve are different in time of war. The fourth battalions, we have always been told, are ready and are reckoned upon to expand the Regular Army abroad by battalion units the same as the Militia used to do. As regards officers, the establishment of subalterns for these twenty-seven extra special Reserve battalions is 513; the number now serving is 120—a deficiency of 393. Not a single battalion is less than ten officers deficient, and one of these fourth battalions is twenty officers deficient out of an establishment of twenty-eight. If the total number of boys under twenty years of age is deducted, as they must be, for foreign service, and ten per cent. of the remainder is allowed as medically unfit, the strongest of these battalions would number 470 for foreign service, and the weakest 120. The twenty-seven battalions would average 370 men for foreign service, but they are very uneven in strength, and it must be remembered that the ten per cent. allowed for unfitness is the rate for the Regular Army and is sure to be exceeded in the case of the Special Reserve, for the best of all possible reasons—namely, that the Force is recruited in the first instance from men unfit for the Regular Army in time of peace, and that the boys in the Special Reserve do not, like the Line recruits, grow all the year round under the eye of the Army surgeon amidst most sanitary surroundings, but at the end of six months are discharged into the streets to shift for themselves. I have made no allowance for absence due to desertion, death, emigration, and frau-

1167
dulent enlistment by the same man into several regiments, so that the figure of 370 is really an impossible maximum. These battalions have, of course, no Reserve to draw upon. I ask the Under-Secretary of State for War if the Government consider these battalions will be available for the expansion of the Army overseas by battalion units. It is idle to talk about increasing or rather doubling the establishment of these battalions, except you are prepared to show us how you are going to obtain the officers and men.
I now pass to the seventy-four third battalions who form the general drafting pool. In order to understand how this plan would work out, I must ask your Lordships to assume two things—first, that the year 1913 has come, and, secondly, that the Expeditionary Force has gone abroad. Then calculations based on Army Returns show that, taking the Army of 1908 as a standard of comparison, we should be left at home with seven Regular battalions, but depleted battalions, because of the many calls made upon them to help the Expeditionary Force. Then a mass of some 77,000 men and boys, composed of the unsound from the Regular Reserve and the immature and unfit from the Line and Special Reserve. This collection of 77,000 men and boys, all either too young or unfit for active service, are to bring the ranks of all the seventy-four third Special Reserve battalions up to a thousand men or more per battalion. We are told that these Reserve battalions thus swollen are to move into the vacated barracks and port defences, a move which will, by the way, denude the regimental depots of all their trained mobilisation staff at the very moment when their services are most required.
These third battalions, we have been told by the Secretary of State for War this year, are to serve three purposes—training drafts for the Army overseas, defending ports, and flocking to strengthen the central field force when crushing raids. How they are to defend a port and join a central field force at the same time is one of those secrets of mobilisation which we are not allowed to know. Let us consider their fitness for the discharge of this treble duty. I have mentioned the deficiency of subalterns. Then as to that vital third estate, the non-commissioned officers. A Line battalion would take into the field 880
1168
trained men in the ranks, with a staff of seventy-four non-commissioned officers. For the Special Reserve battalion a staff of thirty-two non-commissioned officers is allowed to manage 1,000 or more men and boys collected from different sources, and devoid of all regimental spirit and feeling, and with but little discipline. Battalions so composed and without any adequate supply of officers and non-commissioned officers are not battalions at all. They are crowds, incapable of performing any military duty requiring a battalion organisation. It is true that these seventy-four depots, for they are in no sense battalions, can send out drafts of men. The surgeons may patch up a proportion of the unsound men from the Regular Reserve and Line and make them temporarily fit to be sent abroad on active service, but not even the Army Council can turn Special Reserve boys of seventeen and eighteen into mature soldiers of twenty-two or twenty-three years of age in six months, or yet a couple of years. But who is going to take charge of these drafts when they go abroad, for there are no non-commissioned officers, there are no subaltern officers, and the First Line drafts must begin to leave the moment the Expeditionary Force takes the field?
We have been told in an Army Memorandum dated February 25, 1907, that to supply the waste of war during the first six months 3,500 officers will be required, and 75,000 men. The 75,000 men will be there, but not available for service overseas, because they are composed, as the War Office statistics tell us, of the discarded elements of the Expeditionary Force. Then as to the 3,500 officers. The only suggested source of supply is the Officers Training Corps, which up to the date of the Return furnished three officers to the Special Reserve Infantry since its formation by the Army Order dated March 8, 1908. It is all very well to talk of an Officers Training Corps of 20,000 members, but these are cadets in school corps. I hope they may all grow up, but will they ever be able to discharge the duties of a First Line officer on active service within a few weeks of the outbreak of war? There is, I know, at present a large paper reserve of officers, composed chiefly of ex-Militia and ex-Volunteer officers, who were once occasional soldiers, but retired some years ago when the great changes took place, since which time they have

1169
done no military training at all, but have outgrown a subaltern's age.
I now come to that category of men who appear to belong to all three branches of our military forces simultaneously. They are called the, Special Contingent. They originate in the Territorial Army to which they are supernumerary, but it is in theory only, because, so long as the Force is below its establishment, how can there be supernumeraries save in imagination? On mobilisation these men are to leave the Territorial Force, filter through the Special Reserve into the Regular Reserve, and ultimately be deposited in the Regular Army. They consist of Engineers, Army Service Corps, and Army Medical Corps. The establishment is 7,552, and their strength, according to Army Estimates of this year, is 552, leaving a deficit of 7,000 men. The Special Contingent is necessary to complete the Expeditionary Force, and I beg to ask how its absence, which is fairly complete, will be made good. The Regular Reserve is in process of rapid reduction, and in less than three years time it will not be able to meet the requirements of the Expeditionary Force. In its place we have the new drafting pool, filled by the Special Reserve, the Special Contingent, and officers and men in the Territorial Force who accept the metal badge for foreign service. As a result we are informed that now for the very first time arrangements have been made for the scientific provision of First Line drafts to the Army in the field. As regards the Special Contingent, with an establishment of 7,552 it shows a deficit of 7,000. It is non-existent.
I have described in detail the state of the Special Reserve Infantry. I now beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will kindly explain how he proposes to remedy the lack of officers, the lack of non-commissioned officers, and the lack of mature and sound men in the First Line Reserve. For my own part I cannot accept, as a scientific provision for drafts for the Regular Army, officers who have been at some time or other, and that some four or five years, ago, in the old Volunteer or Militia forces, or boy officers, that is to say cadets straight from school or college; Regular non-commissioned officers made by the simple process of sewing stripes on to the sleeves of non-Regular private soldiers; and, finally, unfit Reservists and unfit men from the Line and boys from the Special
1170
Reserve who must now go abroad without having done any Colour service at all. If all the officers required for the Special Reserve Infantry and for the Regular Mounted Infantry, which are detailed to act as divisional Cavalry with the Expeditionary Force, are sent to those forces from the line on mobilisation, there would be now, by the Army List, a shortage of 700 officers in the Line. There must be 700 vacancies on mobilisation for officers either in the Line or in the Special Reserve, because in spite of War Office legerdemain one pea cannot be under two thimbles. I beg to ask the Questions standing in my name.
LORD LUCAS: My Lords, the noble Duke is an extremely difficult debater to follow and extremely difficult to answer. He has an unparalleled knowledge of details and an unparalleled power of presenting them, but in taking part in a debate inaugurated by the noble Duke I always feel that we are in some danger of not seeing the wood for the trees. After all, we must consider this question not only from the point of view of details, but also from the general standpoint. The only criterion by which you can judge any military system is what are going to be the results of the changes which we know the noble Duke so greatly deplores. I am glad to be in a position to say that we are now within measureable distance of achieving the main object that we set before ourselves when we embarked upon this reorganisation scheme—namely, being able to mobilise six Divisions of Regulars with all their auxiliary services, with lines of communication, and the Cavalry Division. We can already mobilise more than four Divisions, with lines of communication and the Cavalry Division, and on a pinch I think we can mobilise the rest. We should not in these circumstances have the whole of the draft-finding machinery behind complete, because we should have to draw on that at the present moment to an undue degree, and to a degree which we shall not have to draw upon it when the organisation fills up. At the present moment we can mobilise a larger expeditionary force than has ever been possible before in the history of this country.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: No, no.
LORD LUCAS: And that force is a real force and composed of efficient soldiers.

1171
Therefore we are in process of carrying out the object which we set before ourselves at the beginning of this reorganisation. After all, you have to consider the various parts to which the noble Duke referred from the standpoint of how far they are fitted to be components in the general scheme. I will take them in the order in which the noble Duke dealt with them. But I would like to say that the value of the many speeches of the noble Duke, to which we always listen with interest, is to a great extent, if he will allow me to say so, spoilt by the fact that there are four principal fallacies underlying all his arguments. The noble Duke, first of all, argues that we are replacing Regular Reservists by Special Reservists. The noble Duke assents. We are doing nothing of the kind. There are two entirely separate questions involved. One is the reduction of certain units of the Regular Army. You may agree with that policy or you may not, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the question of mobilising the units that remain with their own Reservists. You have to treat those two questions entirely separately. We are perfectly prepared to justify, though I do not think we need enter now into that question, the reductions which are made in the Infantry. But there is one thing which comes out perfectly clearly and plain with regard to the Reserve, and it is this, that under the Cardwell system, or any other system, you cannot have any method or terms of service which will at the same time enable you to maintain your drafts for India and do more than fill up the home battalions to their fighting strength on mobilisation. It has been tried in every form. Various terms have been tried. Three years with the Colours and nine years with the Reserve has been tried, but that will not produce the drafts for India. Then six years with the Colours and six with the Reserve, and nine years with the Colours and three with the Reserve have been tried. Whichever you adopt you find that if you provide your drafts for India you cannot do more than bring your units up to fighting strength on mobilisation with Reservists that remain. You may have a few hundreds over, but, broadly speaking, that is all you are able to do under the Cardwell system. Therefore we did the only thing possible. We are maintaining the Reserve while at the same time finding the necessary drafts for India, and we shall be able to
1172
mobilise our fighting units when the time comes.
Then the noble Duke argued as if all Special Reserve recruits were only seventeen years of age, and he always argues as if they will continue to remain unfit for the Regulars. He also assumes that the Special Reserve is simply to be an expensive funnel by which men pass into the Regulars. How those two things can come about at one and the same time I do not understand. If a man is fit to pass into the Regulars from the Special Reserve, presumably you cannot consider him in every case unfit to join the Regulars in the form of drafts. There is another important assumption the noble Duke makes. He bases his arguments on the point of all Special Reservists being required for the purposes of drafts at once on mobilisation. That cannot be the case. How soon they will be required it is impossible to say. It must depend upon the nature of the war, but we should require none of the Infantry Special Reservists at first.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is the noble Lord speaking of the present state of things, or what my noble friend behind me called the moment when the Regular Reserve will be at its lowest—in 1913? On an outbreak of war in 1913 does the noble Lord say that no Special Reservist will be required at once to fill up the fighting line?
LORD LUCAS: I will take the year 1913, when the Regular Reserve will be at its lowest. In that case we shall require no Special Reservists to bring the Regular battalions up to full war establishment; we shall only require them subsequently for drafts and in a successive series of drafts, so that there will be time for these men to mature. To take the Special Reserve and to say that because at a given time there is a certain proportion of immature men, therefore that proportion will remain for the purpose for which we shall require these third battalions, is incorrect. The fourth point that always underlies the noble Duke's speeches is that for these purposes the Special Reserve is in every sense inferior to the old Militia. I would point out, as the noble Duke raised that question, that the Militia, though it is quite true they were prepared to volunteer for service abroad, were not

1173
prepared to volunteer for service abroad in the form which, from the general standpoint of military organisation, is incomparably the more useful—namely, to go abroad in drafts. They were prepared to go abroad only as units, and I say without hesitation that the value of men who will go abroad as drafts is double that of those who are only prepared to go abroad as units. The Special Reserve is by no means unique in having a considerable number of immature men, and there is nothing that can be said about them in that respect that was not equally applicable to the old Militia.
The noble Duke challenges the power of the Special Reserve to carry out its functions. I would like to place before your Lordships what the position of the Special Reserve is and its general fitness, and how the scheme is working in the light of our last year's experience. About this time last year I was able to tell your Lordships that the reports already received on the Special Reserve were satisfactory. I am glad to be able to say that the reports received this year show that the improvement has been more than sustained. Our military authorities in the districts tell us that the Special Reserve is more popular than it was; it is drawing a very good class of men; and the physique is very good. Those of your Lordships who may have read the annual General Return will have observed that we have been able to raise the height standard to 5ft. 3in., which was until quite recently the height limit for the Line, although it has now gone up to 5ft. 4in. for the first time for twenty years. In those ways there is a marked superiority in our reports on the part of the Special Reserve over the old Militia, although it is quite true that the men as a whole are younger—that is to say, there is a smaller number of men over twenty years of age coming in as recruits. In the matter of age, however, there is very little to choose between them. Last October there were 19,855 men under twenty out of a total of 67,548, which is just about the same average as with the Militia. In fact, I think that is an average which the force will probably always maintain. You cannot judge at the present moment of the number of men you will have mature and fit to send abroad in the early stages of a war, especially if you have to send them to some country where the climate is tropical and unhealthy.
1174
I know it is argued by the noble Duke that we have so many men over twenty in the Special Reserve at the present moment because of the old Militiamen, and that when those men go the state of things will be greatly altered. Out of 12,000 men who were dismissed to their homes on the completion of their six months training, on the analogy of last year's figures approximately 1,000 would have tried to pass into the Regular Army. That leaves you something like 11,000 men who have not tried to go straight into the Regular Army but have remained in the Special Reserve. The Militia in old days and the Special Reserve now consist of two classes of men—those who join in order to pass into the Regular Army and those who wish to remain. I have described these men who remain as a sediment, for in every year's intake there is a certain number who pass into the Regular Army and a certain number who remain. The latter will remain for six years instead of four years as in the old Militia, so that until the system has been running for six years you will not be able to tell what your normal proportion of mature men in the Special Reserve is going to be. There is a very fair proportion, about the same as in the old Militia, of men who join with the intention of staying on. I cannot say more on that point, because we have not had time to judge, but, so far as we can judge at present, the Special Reserve is coming out of the test very well indeed.
With regard to the general question of the efficiency of the Special Reserve, I am glad to say that our reports are particularly good. The results of the six months recruit training are excellent. We have had reports from the officers responsible for the training, in which they say that the system is working exceedingly well. We have lately received an exceptionally good report from the General Officer commanding at Salisbury as to the Special Reserve battalions who have been training on the Plain, and from the point of view of general military efficiency they are considerably superior to the old Militia. We are perfectly satisfied that these are the kind of men who will perform satisfactorily the work we intend them to do, which is to act as drafts for the Regulars. In the matter of musketry the returns are also good. It is quite true that there is less time for musketry, and perhaps the annual course of musketry is less thorough

1175
than it was, but the recruit has a much better grounding than formerly in his six months recruit training, and he does not therefore require so long for his annual course.
Complaints have been made as to the training of the non-commissioned officers. With a shortened training that is a difficulty, but this year we are instituting a course by which non-commissioned officers come up a month before their battalions come up. It is purely voluntary on their part, but they can, if they like, go through a month's extra training. There is another point which I daresay will interest your Lordships with regard to this. This year we are going to experiment with the Special Reserve and to impose a very high test on the Force in performing in peace time the functions for which it is intended in war. We are going to use a certain number of these Special Reservists to bring the Second Division up to something like war strength in this year's manoeuvres, and in some cases between 300 and 400 men of the Special Reserve will be incorporated for the time being in Line battalions.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Officers as well as men?
LORD LUCAS: Yes. It will be a very high test on these Special Reservists, because they will only have had about eleven days training before the manoeuvres, whereas, as your Lordships know, the manoeuvres come in the Regular Army as a climax to a long period of very strenuous training. The men are in extraordinarily good condition and fit to inarch, with great powers of endurance; therefore to put your comparatively untrained Special Reservist alongside of them is going to be a good test indeed. Then with regard to the twenty-seven extra battalions to which the noble Duke referred. When passing the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act we listened to the blandishments of noble Lords on the opposite side of the House and departed from our original intention, which was that the establishment of the fourth battalions should be considerably higher than the establishment of the third battalions. In deference to the wishes expressed in this House and in the other House by the Opposition, we agreed to bring down the establishment of the fourth battalions to that of the third, and we realise now that that was a mistake. I think there is perfect truth in the noble
1176
Duke's criticism that as they stand at the present moment they are not strong enough to go out as combatant units. An able Departmental Committee has for some time been considering the subject, and I can assure your Lordships that it is undergoing the most careful attention, as we realise that something will have to be done to make the battalions stronger than they are at the present time.
Then there is the question of the officers for the Special Reserve. We know that there is a great shortness of officers, and this is one of our most difficult problems. We started the Officers Training Corps, and we believe that we have found a solution for this. I am glad to say that we are now beginning to see the results of the system. Since the Return referred to by the noble Duke was issued, fifty officers from the Officers Training Corps have obtained commissions in the Special Reserve, and something like 120 in the Territorial Force.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: In the Special Reserve Infantry?
LORD LUCAS: In all arms, but most of them are in the Infantry. I am glad to say that we are receiving now a considerable number of inquiries from members of the Officers Training Corps with regard to commissions, so that the harvest is now commencing, and I think we are going to get a considerable number of officers. There is a further difficulty with regard to this. The class of officer who is able to go out at the particular time of year when his unit trains is limited, and I am not at all sure that we are not getting somewhere towards the end of that class. Some men, especially young men, in business do not control their own time, and have to take their holidays when they can get them. Such men, however keen they may be to do soldiering, may find it difficult to join a unit which trains at a particular time. To that class of men the Supplementary List, as we call it, is a greater attraction than joining a unit of the Special Reserve. When a man becomes an officer in the Supplementary List, he can go out for training at whatever time of the year suits him best, and he does his training with a Regular unit. There is no doubt, from inquiries we are receiving, that if we can extend the system of the Supplementary List we shall secure a considerable number

1177
of officers who would not otherwise be obtained.
As to the noble Duke's last question, it is quite true that the men in what we call Category B are not yet up to anything like establishment. They are men who for the purpose of training are attached to the Territorial Force; they are borne supernumerary to their units. Since the figures which the noble Duke quotes were issued they have considerably increased, and are now well over 800, but there still remains a considerable gap. We are adopting a temporary measure while they are filling up. Medicals form a considerable number of these Category B men. We have had satisfactory results from taking advantage of the big Reserve that exists at the present moment and training a certain number of Infantrymen. We have nearly 2,000 Infantrymen who have gone through a special course of training in medical duties, and who have undertaken the obligation to come out on mobilisation as members of the Royal Army Medical Corps. We are going to extend that this winter to a certain extent, so that that will partly fill up the gap. The remaining men who will be required are chiefly Army Service Corps drivers, but every day the need for these is diminishing as mechanical transport is becoming more and more the accepted thing.
I have tried to cover the ground as fully as I possibly can. I must say that we have every reason to be satisfied with the way in which the scheme is progressing. We are getting a good class of men, we are getting them in good numbers, and their training is satisfactory. We have now before us at least the prospect of obtaining an entirely new supply of officers, and our system in that way is, it seems to me, working well. I hope I have given the noble Duke the information he requires, and I trust he will see that we, at any rate, do not share any of the gloomy forebodings as to the future of any of the forces which were mentioned by the noble Duke.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I hope I shall not be considered disrespectful if I say that the interesting speech which the noble Lord has just delivered is not entirely convincing to us on this side of the House as regards the position of the Force with which he specially dealt. The noble Lord, while not admitting the noble
1178
Duke's conclusions, does not challenge his well-certificated figures, and he leaves us with the optimistic conclusions of the War Office but with the facts of the noble Duke unchallenged and unrefuted. I did not intend to take part in this debate in view of the series of military discussions which are to come on in your Lordships' House, but I really cannot allow the noble Lord or the House to go away with the impression that we accept the conclusions at which the War Office have arrived in this matter.
This and other Motions on the Paper are not the result of a desire to be continually harping upon the deficiencies of the Army, but they are the result of the provocative and highly-exaggerated accounts which the Secretary of State for War has given of our position time after time. The noble Duke quoted a speech which I consider to have been almost a criminal speech for a man in the position of the Secretary of State for War to have made. In that speech, which was delivered nearly a year and a-half ago at Guildford, the right hon. gentleman told the country that for purposes of offence abroad we were stronger by 90,000 men than we had been before the Government came into office.
LORD LUCAS: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Does the noble Lord accept that?
LORD LUCAS: Absolutely.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I absolutely challenge it. I say there is not a particle or shred of foundation for that statement. The figures quoted by the noble Duke refute it. The noble Duke has stated that the Government are now 18,000 men short with the Colours of the number they inherited; in the Army Reserve they will be 36,000 short, and in the Special Reserve 24,000 short of the old Militia—making 79,000 men short. All you have to put against that is that you have 57,000 men, I think the number is, in the Special Reserve who before were not obliged to go abroad, but who did, in point of fact, go abroad when they were called upon.
LORD LUCAS: I submit that that does not disprove my right hon. friend's statement last year, that we had at that time 90,000 more men available for service abroad than we had when he took office.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: What the Secretary of State for War said was that we were stronger by 90,000 men.
LORD LUCAS: Yes, for service abroad.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I challenge that figure. The Secretary of State did exactly what the noble Lord has done to-night. The noble Lord told us, I think with great inaccuracy, that the Government were able to send a larger number of troops abroad now than ever before. I say that we were able in 1905 to send as large a number of men abroad as he is now able to send in 1910.
LORD LUCAS: Not in anything approaching the proper proportion of the different arms.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: What the noble Lord is fond of doing is this, and he has inherited it from the Secretary of State for War. He takes the exact position of the moment in a scheme not fully developed and says, Look how much better we can do than that. My noble friend Lord Lansdowne added between sixty and seventy batteries of Artillery to the Army, and because, as would be the case under any system in any country in Europe, those batteries were not able within three years to produce the whole Reserve element which they would ultimately have produced, the noble Lord proceeds to say that the scheme inherited by the present Government would not have enabled the Artillery to have been mobilised, and then, having cut down the Artillery, he proceeds to say they never would have been mobilised. That is one way of bringing out the figures. With regard to the other position, when the Secretary of State for War was speaking of his 90,000 men he was drawing upon the Reserve of Infantry, 36,000 of whom are going to disappear in the next four years. He counted those in among his 90,000, although he has destroyed the cadre which produced them and done away with the period of service by which they might have been continued.
I could not allow these exaggerated statements to go unchallenged. I know them to be inaccurate. I know that they are founded on false premises, and that they have led the country to false conclusions. Seeing that the present state of things has been brought about by an
1180
enormous reduction in the number of men and that without the corresponding reduction in expenditure which had been promised, I am afraid that in a subsequent debate it will be necessary for your Lordships to consider this from the point of view of the Territorial Army and the general strength of the country. The whole of this subject of the Special Reserve is argued by the noble Lord as if it was only a question of getting a certain number of men to shovel into the Regular battalions now bereft of the Reserve which was created for them before, and to fill up the gaps which the abolition of those cadres which produced the Reserves has left. I would point out that there was a clear understanding, in the debates of 1907, that the cadres of the Special Reserve should themselves be able to mobilise. They were not to be bereft of all their men and were to be sent out with their officers. I want your Lordships to follow what has occurred in this discussion. The noble Duke pointed out that there are 500 officers short in certain battalions. The noble Lord, in reply, says, very ingeniously, that they are training officers who are not being trained with the battalions but will go up at other times of the year. How are those officers to take men whom they have never seen and with whom they have never trained out to join in a campaign, say, in India? You are not keeping to your bargain that you would maintain the cadres intact, and that any men you did take out as drafts you would take out under their own officers.
As between the two I believe your Lordships will feel that the noble Duke has made good his case when he said that what would remain behind in these cadres would not be of any great military value. Remember that after these six Divisions have gone—and you can only mobilise four now—you have nothing remaining behind against an invader except these cadres of Special Reserve battalions and the. Territorial Army, the value of the former of which the noble Duke has said so much about this afternoon. I do feel that on these points we have a right to complain of the exaggerated language which has been used by the representative of the War Office, not for the first time. As we are not in possession of the reports which are always cited to us showing a more admirable state of things than we on this side of the House are aware of—although it

1181
might not be in the power of the noble Lord, having regard to the public interest, to publish all these reports upon which he founds his roseate descriptions of the condition of the Army—it is inevitable that there should be a feeling of incredulity with respect to them when the figures which are quoted can be shown to be inaccurate; and I am afraid that in consequence I must charge at the noble Lord's door the multiplication of Army debates, which I for one, in the public interest, should be very glad to forego.

ARMY.
Return showing the strength and approximate total cost of the Imperial Yeomany and Volunteer Forces for the year 1905–1906 as compared with the strength and approximate total cost of the Territorial Force for the year 1909–1910:
Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.