Sitting of 1 March 1910

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
Several other Members took and subscribed the Oath.

KING'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS).
The Treasurer of the Household (Mr. W. Dudley Ward) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address as followeth:—
I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I have opened the present Session of Parliament.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Warrington Corporation Bill (by Order). Read a second time, and committed.

RADIOTELEGRAMS.
Return ordered "showing from the 31st day of March to the 31st day of December, 1909:—

1. The total number of unofficial or non-departmental Radiotelegrams to and from commercial ships at sea;

2. The number dealt with at each wireless station;

3. The number of such Radiotelegrams calling for assistance to ships disabled and for those in danger, with the names of the ships and the results of any such appeals;

4. The total number of licences held by shipowners, the number and names of ships so covered and actually fitted, and the trades in which the ships are engaged;

5. The total revenue derived by the Post Office from such Radiotelegrams;

6. The total number of stations licensed in the United Kingdom apart from ship installations, specifically stating the number in the County of London."—[Mr. Carr-Gomm.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  English Peruvian Amazon Company (Alleged Cruelties).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he had yet received any Report as to the alleged cruelties committed under the control of the English Peruvian Amazon Company; and whether the United States Government had also supplied His Majesty's Government with information on this matter and to what effect?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): No further reports on the subject are expected, nor has any information been received from the United States Government since the date of my answer to Mr. Hart-Davies on 24th November last. The-information in my possession gives rise to a presumption that abuses have occurred. I have brought the charges to the notice of the company, who deny that they have any foundation and repudiate all responsibility. In these circumstances, I have suggested to them that a Commission of inquiry should be sent to the Putumayo.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how long ago that suggestion was made, and whether there is any chance of its being accepted?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: I cannot answer the latter part of the question. That is a matter that rests with the company. I will answer the first part if the hon. Gentleman will give notice of the question.

  Lado Enclave on Nile (Lease).
  Mr. FELLasked if the lease of the Lado Enclave on the Nile lapsed or expired on the death of His Majesty the King of the Belgians; if the Government had resumed possession of that territory; and if it was now being administered by the Government of the Soudan?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: By Article 1 of the Agreement of 9th May, 1906, between the United Kingdom and the Independent State of the Congo it is stipulated that the Lado Enclave shall be handed over to the Soudanese Government within six months of the termination of the reign of His Majesty King Leopold. Steps are being taken to settle the arrangements necessary for the transfer at the season of the year most convenient for effecting it.
  Mr. FELL: May I ask whether there is any doubt that at the end of six months this territory will be handed over?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: If it is not done exactly at the end of six months, it will only be that because of climatic conditions the Soudanese Government will wish to be consulted as to the most convenient time for taking it over.

  Brussels Sugar Convention.
  Mr. LOUGHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, at the meeting of the Brussels Sugar Convention held in December, 1908, when the Russian delegates were received for the first time, the proposal was made by them that when 88 per cent. beet sugar exceeded 11s. per cwt. on the London market Russia should be allowed to suspend the restriction upon her exportation, a suggestion which was supported by the British delegate but opposed by the other delegates, who postponed the matter to subsequent meetings; whether he was aware that this sugar was now 13s. per cwt. in London; whether the Convention met in June and December, 1909, and why no White Papers had been issued with regard to these sittings; and what had become of the Russian proposal?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I am informed that the present price of 88 per cent. beet sugar is about 14s. per cwt. As regards the third part, the Permanent Commission met in June, but the meeting fixed for December, 1909, was postponed to February last. I did not consider it necessary to lay a White Paper respecting the June sitting as the British delegate's report contained no points of special interest. No documents have yet reached me regarding last month's sitting. With reference to the last part of the question, the proposal has not again been raised by the Russian delegates.
  Mr. LOUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to issue these White Papers? After all, although they are small, they are the only information we have to let us know what is going on in the Convention?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: I am not quite sure how frequently the sittings take place. I will look into the matter. I am not aware of any reason why they should not be published.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask whether there is any prospect whatever of the restrictions being removed from Russian sugar, Russia being the largest beet-growing country in the world, so that we may have cheaper sugar in this country?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: That does not depend upon our action.

  Opium Suppression (Kucheng Incident).
  Sir MARK STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an official reply had been received from His Majesty's Minister in Pekin in regard to the incident at Kucheng in the matter of opium suppression, referred to in his letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, 15th December, 1909; and whether he could now hold out hopes that the proclamation of the Kucheng magistrates ordering the opium shops to be closed should be sustained and enforced?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: A report has been received from His Majesty's Minister at Pekin from which it appears that the statements made in regard to the action of His Majesty's Consul at Foochow respecting the closing of opium shops in the district of Kucheng are in many respects inaccurate. After further consideration of the circumstances the Consul, with the concurrence of His Majesty's Minister, decided to take no further action in the matter, and it appears on recent inquiry that as far as can be ascertained all shops dealing in either foreign or native opium in Kucheng are now closed.

  Instruction in Temperance (India).
  Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention had been called to the fact that the syllabus of temperance instruction issued by the Board of Education last year was being translated into the vernacular and adapted for use in schools in Burma; and whether the Government of India had under their consideration the desirability of taking similar action in the other provinces of India?
  The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Secretary of State has no information regarding the action said to have been taken in Burma. As regards the latter part of the question, an inquiry made in 1907 showed that in three of the provinces of India lessons on temperance were already included in the

  725
  books read in schools, and that such lessons were about to be introduced in two more.

  Indian Police Inquiry.
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Under-Secretary for India whether he had any official knowledge as to when the inquiry instituted by the Government of India into the conduct of the police officials condemned by the High Court of Calcutta in the Midnapur appeal on the 1st June last was concluded; what was the nature of that report; and what steps the; Government of India had taken upon it?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The inquiry referred to in the question has been held, and the report was submitted on 6th November to the Government of Bengal. But certain civil suits, claiming large sums as damages for false charges and imprisonment, have now been brought against the district and police officers into whose conduct the inquiry was held. While these suits are before the courts it is impossible to publish the results of the inquiry, in which the same questions are dealt with as will now come before the civil courts for judicial decision.

  Classification of Prisoners (India).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the undersecretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State had yet come to any conclusion as to the desirability of treating British subjects in India, who were imprisoned for offences of a seditious nature, as first-class misdemeanants, in the same way as such prisoners are treated in England?
  Mr. MONTAGU: This matter has received careful consideration by the Secretary of State. Having regard to the differences between the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Law here, and considering also the latitude of discretion permitted by the Penal Code in passing sentence for different offences of a seditious nature, the Secretary of State does not propose to interfere.

  Prosecution for Sedition (Lahore).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention had been drawn to the prosecution for sedition of one Lal Chand, of Lahore, by order of the Punjab Government, for publishing a Hindustani translation of two chapters of Professor Seely's "Expansion of England," and of Mr.
  726
  William Jennings Bryan's article on British Rule in India, which was originally published in the "New York Sun" in 1906; and whether His Majesty's Government proposed to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Lai Chand has been prosecuted by the Government of the Punjab for publishing (in conjunction with Kishen Singh, referred to in the answer given on the 24th February to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme) nine different pamphlets alleged to be of a seditious character. The Secretary of State has no details as to the actual contents of the publications. His Majesty's Government propose to leave the matter to the decision of the Courts of law.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Have steps been taken to advise those who may be affected as to what is the standard of historic works that are considered seditious by the Indian Government?
  Mr. MONTAGU: These questions are being decided in a court of law. The report will be forthcoming in the ordinary way.

  Purchase of Army Forage.
  The MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Secretary of State for War, what amount of the sum (page 62, Army Estimates, 1909–10) of £701,000 voted for forage and allowances in lieu, and paillasse straw had been expended, respectively, upon oats, home-grown; oats, grown abroad; hay, home-grown; hay, grown abroad: straw, home-grown; straw, grown abroad?
  The HON. MEMBER furtherasked the Secretary of State for War what were the total sums included in the Army Estimates, 1909–10, of £701,000 voted for forage, etc., expended upon hay and corn only for the Regular Army quartered in Great Britain and Ireland and for the Territorial Forces, respectively, the values of home-grown and grown abroad to be specified?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): In reply to these two questions I would point out that the Army Contracts for Army Forage do not contain any specification as to sources of supply—whether home-grown or grown abroad—and accordingly it is not possible to give the detailed information required. Further, it would involve considerable

  727
  time and labour to calculate the expenditure on the different kinds of forage, and as the object of the Noble Lord's question appears to be to differentiate between home-grown forage and forage grown abroad which cannot be given, I hope he will not press for the other figures.
  The MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I understand that so far as possible, for the purposes of recruiting and not for the purposes of Tariff Reform, forage will be bought in the districts where the yeomanry are recruited?
  Mr. HALDANE: We always try to give local contracts to encourage the people about. It makes them more friendly to the military operations which take place in the locality. But on the general question we make the contracts under such conditions as will get for us the best stuff.
  The MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Speaking generally, is it not the fact that nearly the whole of the meat bought last year for the Scottish Territorial regiments came from Liverpool?
  Mr. HALDANE:I was not aware of that.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: May I take it that all the contractors in the neighbourhood of the Curragh and Newbridge in the county Kildare will get a preference over foreigners in the interests of local produce?
  Mr. HALDANE: No. These contracts are given where we can get the best beef.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: The right hon. Gentleman knows well that there is no better beef in the world than is produced in Kildare.
  Mr. HALDANE: If the contractors give the best meat at the lowest price we shall be glad to deal with them.

  Royal Garrison Artillery (Promotion).
  Captain COOPERasked the Secretary of State for War if his attention had been called to the block in the promotion of lieutenants of the Royal Garrison Artillery; and whether he proposed to offer any incentive to officers of the Royal Garrison Artillery to transfer to other branches of the Service?
  Mr. HALDANE: The whole question has been considered by a Committee and subsequently by the Army Council, who did not consider that any special steps were necessary. At the present time there are only five supernumerary captains, and
  728
  promotions from lieutenant to captain, it is hoped, will shortly recommence. It is not proposed to transfer officers from the Garrison Artillery to other branches of the Service.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to state the report of this Committee on the forthcoming Estimates?
  Mr. HALDANE:I shall be glad to give any information to the right hon. Gentleman in the course of the Debate.
  Mr. LEE: I will raise the question.

  Canadian Tariff on Trade Catalogues.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether he was aware that the Canadian Government imposed a tariff upon trade catalogues coming within the Dominion; and whether he would make representations with a view to the removal of this obstacle to British commerce?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Master of Elibank): The question of revising the duty on trade catalogues was considered by the Canadian Government on the occasion of the last general revision of the tariff in 1907, but it was decided to make no alteration. The Secretary of State is of opinion that there would be no advantage in making further representations to the Dominion Government on the subject at present.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Has the hon. Gentleman represented to the Secretary of State that in this matter as in so many others Canadian opinion is much more oppressive than that of the United States?
  MASTER of ELIBANK: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice.

  Lord High Treasurer of Ireland.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury if he could state if there was such a position as Lord High Treasurer of Ireland; and, if so, what were the duties of this office?
  MASTER of ELIBANK: The office of Lord High Treasurer of Ireland was united with that of the Lord High Treasurer of Great Britain by Section 2 of the Act, 56, George in., cap. 98, and the title of the united office is Lord High Treasurer of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; but when there is no such officer, His Majesty is authorised by the same

  729
  Section to appoint Commissioners for executing the offices of Treasurer of the Exchequer of Great Britain and Lord High Treasurer of Ireland. Perhaps I may add for the information of my hon. Friend that the present duties of the Lord High Treasurer of Ireland are to make a House, to keep a House, and to cheer the Government.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to add to his information by saying who this remarkable person is, because so far I have not met anybody who is prepared to cheer the Government at all?
  MASTER of ELIBANK: I shall have great pleasure in introducing my hon. Friend to the Lord High Treasurer of Ireland to-morrow.

  Instructions to Pension Officers (Ireland).
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any instructions of a special and confidential character had been issued to pension officers in Ireland to set themselves to the task of hunting down old age pensioners and getting them removed off the list in that country; whether any bonus was paid to these officers for the number of persons whom they could get disqualified, and, if so, at what rate; and whether he was prepared to lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the instructions issued to these officers for their guidance in this matter?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): No such instructions have been issued. No such bonus as that referred to has been paid or contemplated. The suggestion, which has been widely circulated, that it has been paid is one which I am informed pension officers have keenly resented, and I am obliged to the hon. Member for affording me an opportunity of contradicting it.
  Mr. FARRELL: How is it, although this Act has been fourteen months in operation, that it is only within a comparatively recent period that the activity of those officers has been so keenly shown?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am afraid that that is not exactly the fact. They are doing exactly what they did for the last thirteen months.
  Mr. CULLINAN: When were the instructions issued to pension officers in
  730
  Ireland to revise their former decisions on the questions of age and several other points?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: As I have often pointed out to this House, these pension officers give no decisions and therefore they have no power to revise them.
  Mr. CULLINAN: That is not my point. I ask whether instructions were issued to the pension officers in Ireland to revise the original decisions arrived at, or at least to investigate the details and report to the Local Government Board the decisions which might be come to?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: There has been no alteration in any of the instructions to the pension officers since February, 1909–one month after the Act came into operation. Since the extreme pressure of getting the first flow of applications through there has been no alteration of the instructions.
  Mr. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that, though the Act has been fourteen months in operation, only recently a large number of appeals from pension officers have been lodged with the Local Government Board?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is natural that there should be appeals as time goes by.
  Mr. LARDNER: May I ask if the increase in the number of appeals is due to the fact that pension officers who have not been active in making appeals have been transferred?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: There is no truth in that suggestion at all.
  Mr. LARDNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why there has been so much shuffling among pension officers recently?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am not aware of the fact. I will make inquiry.

  Ordnance Survey.
  Mr. NANNETTIasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if the labourers engaged on the Ordnance Survey in England had been classed under the new scheme issued by the Department; if so, why was it that the labourers of the Ordnance Survey in Ireland had not been included under the scheme; whether the labourers on the English survey had had their rate of pay

  731
  increased; and, if so, would the same concession be given to the labourers on the Irish survey?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): Neither the pay nor the status of the labourers employed on the Ordnance Survey either in Great Britain or Ireland has been in any way affected by the issue of the scheme of classification to which the hon. Member refers.
  Mr. NANNETTIasked if the hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to the fact that labourers engaged on the Ordnance Survey in Ireland were compelled to retire when they reach the age of 60 years; whether these men received any pension; whether the age limit could be increased to 65; and, if not, could a contributory scheme be set up for labourers who were now compulsorily retired and thrown out on an overcrowded labour market where it was impossible for them to find any employment?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The age for retirement of labourers on the Ordnance Survey whether employed in Great Britain or Ireland, is 60. They receive no pension, but a gratuity of £1, or one week's pay, whichever is the greater, for each year of service is paid if a labourer has been employed for fifteen years. The Board are not prepared to extend the age limit, but they will be glad to consider the suggestion made in the last part of the question.

  Worn-out Horses (Export).
  Mr. BYLESasked the hon. Gentleman whether he could give the House any statistics of the export trade from this country in decrepit worn-out horses; whether the trade was increasing; and whether the attention of the authorities was vigilantly directed to prevent cruelties and to punish offenders?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: We have no statistics as to the number of decrepit worn-out horses exported from this country, but the extent of the trade will appear from the fact that 16,420 horses, valued at less than £5 per head, were exported in 1909. The trade shows no signs of increasing. We have frequently called the attention of the local authorities concerned to the necessity for the utmost vigilance in the supervision of this trade, and we have appointed a veterinary inspector
  732
  to give his undivided attention to the subject with a view to securing the efficient administration of the law. The punishment of offenders on conviction is a matter which rests with the magistrates but I may say that offences are being treated with much greater severity than was formerly the case.
  Mr. BYLES: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman's attention has been drawn to an article in "The Animals' Guardian" in which the writer gives a very definite narrative of the cruelties that he himself witnessed on the Antwerp boat?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I have not seen the article which the hon. Member mentions, but I will get it.

  Labour Exchanges.
  Mr. NANNETTIasked the President of the Local Government Board whether on the opening of Labour Exchanges all over Great Britain and Ireland, it was intended to discontinue the work of the Distress Committees set up under the Unemployed Workmen's Act; and, if not, whether it was the intention of the Government to appeal to Parliament this year for the money to carry on the work of the Distress Committees as heretofore.
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The opening of Labour Exchanges under the Labour Exchanges Act, 1909, does not involve the discontinuance of the work of Distress Committees under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905. I am not at present in a position to reply to the inquiry contained in the latter part of the question.
  Mr. NANNETTI: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a minute has been sent to the Dublin District Committee telling them to keep open their Committee and to work along with the Labour Exchanges, and, if they are to keep open their Distress Committee, how are they to do so without the money to finance them?
  Mr. BURNS: I will make inquiry.

  Poor Law Administration.
  Mr. STAVELEY-HILLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to make any changes in the administration of the Poor Law as a result of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws?
  Mr. BURNS: Some administrative action has already been taken in accordance with

  733
  the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and other measures are in contemplation.

  Chinese Pork.
  Mr. FELLasked if the whole of the cargo of Chinese pork, which was landed at the London docks in July last, had now been inspected; and, if so, how many carcases were condemned by the inspectors; and how many had been passed for consumption?
  Mr. BURNS: I understand that the whole of the cargo in question has been inspected, and that the total number of carcases landed and inspected was 4,643. Of these 391, or 8.4 per cent., were condemned by the inspectors, and the remaining 4,252 were passed as fit for consumption.
  Mr. FELLasked the right hon. Gentleman if he had received notice of the arrival in the Thames of any further shipments of Chinese pork; if they had been inspected; and, if so, with what result?
  Mr. BURNS: I have received a copy of a report made to the Port of London Sanitary Authority by their medical officer of health stating that two cargoes of pigs from China had arrived in the port in January last. On preliminary inspection it was found that the pork did not comply with the requirements of the Public Health (Foreign Meat) Regulations, and a notice was therefore served under the Regulations by the medical officer of health forbidding removal of the meat for any purpose other than exportation.
  Mr. FELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to what has become of these carcases not allowed to be landed?
  Mr. BURNS: I have no definite information.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: What is the matter with those carcases?
  Mr. BURNS: The 4,252 carcases which were passed as fit for consumption were severely tested. The 8.4 per cent. rejected were rejected because there were signs of some disease which in the opinion of the medical officer of health did not warrant their being put into circulation.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain what has become of the pork that was condemned as diseased—whether it has been re-exported?
  Mr. BURNS: I cannot say at this moment where the pork which was not to be landed here has gone.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry?
  Mr. BURNS: Yes.
  Mr. FELLasked the right hon. Gentleman if he has had notice of the arrival at Liverpool of a cargo of Chinese pork; if the same will be inspected under his supervision; and if he has any jurisdiction over similar shipments at whatever port they may be landed?
  Mr. BURNS: I have not received any formal notice of the arrival of Chinese pork in the Port of Liverpool. In the event of such an occurrence the matter would be dealt with at the Port of Liverpool by the Customs officers and medical officer of health, whose action in regard to such a consignment would be governed by the requirements of the foreign meat regulations. These regulations apply to all ports in England and Wales.
  Mr. FELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman no jurisdiction over no port except the Port of London?
  Mr. BURNS: Oh, yes; the foreign meat regulations apply to all the seaports in England and Wales. The Irish and Scotch Local Government Boards have a similar jurisdiction under the same Act of Parliament in all the ports of Ireland and Scotland.
  Mr. FELL: Could not the inspector in London, who has now some experience in the matter, inspect the carcases in Liverpool?
  Mr. BURNS: That probably might be necessary when the cargo is landed, or an-attempt is made to land it, but until such-an attempt is made I ought not to be asked to send a medical official to Liverpool when there is no need.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the 8 per cent. condemned carcases were what in China are known as "scavenger pigs"?
  Mr. BURNS: No; that matter was dealt with some months ago. These carcases are not the carcases of scavenger pigs. The pigs were brought from the Yangtse Valley, and were in the main fed on rice.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: What particular form of disease was found in those carcases?
  Mr. BURNS: Pigs generally suffer from trichinosis and tuberculosis, and in several cases they had each of these diseases.

  Sherburn-in-Elmet Sewerage.
  Mr. LANE-FOXasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he will reconsider his refusal to hold a local inquiry, or to allow a deputation from the Tadcaster Rural District Council to interview the Board, in the matter of the sewerage of Sherburn-in-Elmet?
  Mr. BURNS: I have not refused to hold a local inquiry in regard to the council's scheme. Such an inquiry has, in fact, been held, and as a result I have been advised that the scheme would not be likely to give satisfactory results. In the circumstances I am afraid an interview would not be of any advantage.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: May I ask whether it might not save time and cause very little trouble if he would grant them an interview?
  Mr. BURNS: The inquiry held into this matter was held no later than July, 1909, when representations were made by the Local Government Board to the local authority. We can see no advantage to be gained by an interview quite so soon with the Local Government Board, but if the hon. Member presses it I shall be pleased to see them.

  Diphtheria Outbreak (Patrington).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board if he was aware that an outbreak of diphtheria had occurred in the villages of Patrington and Keyingham, in the area of the Patrington District Council, Holderness, Yorks; that on 19th February the medical officer reported forty-three cases; that this was due to the insanitary condition of the villages, to which the medical officer and others had been calling the attention of the council for ten years; and that recently an inspection of the drains at Keyingham was made, when it was found that there was accumulated sewage to the depth of three feet, two feet wide, and 200 yards in length; and would he cause an inspector to be sent down to inquire and report?
  Mr. BURNS: I am aware of this outbreak, and have already sent an inspector to the district. He visited the villages last week, and a preliminary report received from him is now under consideration.

  Workmen's Petitions (Admiralty).
  Mr. WILKIEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the answers to the workmen's petitions will be issued?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): It is hoped that it will be possible to issue the answers to the petitions about the middle of April.

  Heavy Gun-Layers' Tests.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any of His Majesty's ships carrying guns of four inches calibre and over, and being in other respects liable to carry out heavy gun-layers' tests in 1909, did not, in fact, carry out those tests; what ships were they; and why did they not carry out the tests in question?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir; the ships were the "Invincible," "Blake," "Commonwealth," "Cambrian," "Hermione," "Roxburgh," "Topaze," "Lapwing," "Philomel," "Fox," "Speedwell," "Speedy," "Sharpshooter," "Flora," "Dwarf." The case of the "Invincible" I have already referred to; the remaining ships had no opportunity for carrying out the test named on account of the services on which they have been employed.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Why did those ships not carry out the tests?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have given the reason. They were engaged on various services, which gave them no opportunity of carrying out the tests.

  His Majesty's Ships (Period of Commission).
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether His Majesty's ships are understood to be commissioned for a period of two years; whether it is intended to extend the commission of the surveying ship "Egeria," commissioned in March, 1908, from March, 1910 to 1911; whether he is aware that this would entail inconvenience and dissatisfaction on the part of the ship's company: and whether, in view of these facts, the Admiralty will reconsider its decision?
  Mr. McKENNA: The usual period of a commission is two years, but the actual length is at the discretion of the Admiralty. In the case of the "Egeria" it has been extended beyond the usual two years to 1911 to suit the work on which she is employed, and it is not proposed to vary this decision.

  Cost of Destroyers ("Stour" and "Test")
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the cost of the destroyers "Stour" and "Test," purchased to replace the "Lee" and "Blackwater," lost at sea, has been met out of the Navy Votes for 1909–10; or whether it will be provided for in the Supplementary Estimates to be submitted to the House?
  Mr. McKENNA: The cost of the two torpedo boat destroyers purchased in the current year is provided for in the Supplementary Estimate presented on 22nd February.

  Granite at Rosyth Dockyard.
  Mr. GOLDMANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether all the granite likely to be needed for Rosyth has been contracted for; and, if not, whether he can state when tenders will be invited in respect of any additional dock that may be projected?
  Mr. McKENNA: This is entirely a question for the contractors for the works, and the Admiralty have no information on the subject.
  Mr. GOLDMAN: May I ask whether, in the event of the Admiralty deciding on a further dock for Rosyth, and for which, I understand, they have Parliamentary powers, they will instruct the contractor to have British granite?
  Mr. McKENNA: I can give no undertaking with regard to it.
  Mr. GOLDMANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any information as to the wages paid for quarrying and dressing granite in Norway from whence the granite required for Rosyth is being supplied: and, if so, how those wages compare with the wages paid for the same class of work in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. McKENNA: I would refer the hon. Member to the information given on this subject on Page 9 of the Diplomatic and Consular Report on the Trade and Commerce of Norway for 1908, presented to Parliament in June last (Command Paper 4446–102), and to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary in this House on 18th March last.
  Mr. GOLDMANasked whether, under the system of alternative tenders for the granite contract at Rosyth, the conditions of the fair wage clause applied to tenders
  738
  for British contract; whether the same conditions applied to rates of wages and conditions of labour in the contract as placed in Norway; and, if so, what steps are taken to ensure that these conditions will be fulfilled?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part of the question in the negative.

  Wick Harbour.
  Mr. MOOREasked the Lord Advocate if it is intended to make any further grant or loan for the purposes of the harbour at Wick, N.B.?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Dewar): No application for a grant or loan for this purpose is at present pending, so far as I am aware.

  Sheep Stock Valuations (Scotland).
  The MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Lord Advocate if he will state when the Government intend to introduce the Amendment in the Agricultural Holdings Act with regard to sheep stock valuations in Scotland, which he announced in his letter published shortly before the recent election?
  Mr. DEWAR: As the Noble Marquess is doubtless aware, an appeal has been taken to the House of Lords against the decision of the Court of Session on which the request for legislation was based. Until the appeal is decided it would be premature to introduce a Bill.
  The MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask is it not the fact that when the Lord Advocate wrote his letter he stated it was decided to introduce a Bill amending the Act of 1908, without any qualification at all with regard to future legislation which may, or may not, suit certain parties?
  Mr. DEWAR: If there had been no appeal then legislation would have been necessary, but the matter will be decided on appeal, and probably no legislation will be necessary. The appeal has been taken since letter was written.
  The MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I point out—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to argue.

  Police Superannuation (Scotland).
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGERasked the Lord Advocate whether, amongst the

  739
  administrative Bills the Government propose to introduce during this Session, it is intended to include a measure dealing with police superannuation in Scotland?
  Mr. DEWAR: The Government cannot give any undertaking at present in the natter.
  Mr. YOUNGER: Is he in a position to state whether, in the event of last year's Bill being introduced by a private Member, the Government will withdraw its persistent opposition?
  Mr. DEWAR: The hon. Member had better give notice of that question.
  Mr. YOUNGER: I give notice of it now.

  Secondary Schools (Scotland).
  Mr. THOMAS O'DONNELLasked the Lord Advocate whether he will state the amounts voted by Parliament for secondary schools in Scotland during each of the past five years, and what is the amount per pupil in average attendance?
  Mr. DEWAR: The amount voted for secondary schools in Scotland is included in the Vote for "Grants for Continuation Classes and Secondary Schools." The amounts spent in grants to secondary schools from the Vote named during the years in question are as follows:—

  £

  1905–6

  …

  …

  17,208

  1906–7

  …

  …

  17,967

  1907–8

  …

  …

  21,073

  1908–9

  …

  …

  34,594

  1909–10

  …

  …

  about 36,000

  The rates of grant are at present £3 on the average attendance of qualified pupils over twelve, and £5 for pupils who have obtained the Intermediate Certificate of the Department.

  Old Age Pensioners (Disclosure of Names).
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Lord Advocate whether any rule has yet been made to allow or forbid the disclosure of the names of recipients of old age pensions to persons applying for the same?
  Mr. DEWAR: I am informed that pension officers are expressly forbidden by the Board of Customs and Excise to disclose information of the nature referred to by my hon. Friend.
  Sir J. JARDINE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the systematic sending of circulars to old age pensioners at the last election?
  Mr. DEWAR: I have no such information, but I shall be glad to consider it.
  Mr. EUGENE WASON: May I ask whether he does not consider it desirable that other persons who may possess the same information as the pension officers should be forbidden to disclose the names of pensioners?
  Mr. DEWAR: I think old age pensioners' private affairs should be treated with the same consideration as those of anybody else.

  Investment of Savings (Extension of Area).
  Mr. WINGasked the Postmaster-General if his Department will consider the advisability of extending the area of investment of the savings of the people to include direct loans to municipalities, with a view to increasing the earning capacity of the people's savings and the cheapening of money required by municipalities, in place of the present system?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I beg to refer my hon. Friend to the answer given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a question by the Member for the Colne Valley Division.
  Mr. WING: Will he be good enough to consider the question of appointing a Committee to consider the matter, since quite a number of communities feel that it is very difficult to have to pay such large sums of money for municipal purposes, and that the Post Office money should be available?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think the objections, on the whole, to raising money from this particular source are of a sufficiently strong character, it is not possible to disclose them all in detail, as to render such is a course undesirable and unnecessary.

  Underground Cables.
  Mr. WILKIEasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the dislocation of business, the financial loss, and the exasperation caused by the recent-failure of the telegraph to Dundee and the North-East of Scotland, also considering the frequent recurrence of these breakdowns, he will implement his Department's qualified promise of a year or two ago, and now without further delay have these lines placed underground?
  The HON. MEMBERfurther asked whether, in view of the statements of members of the Government that they recognise their liability to the unemployed

  741
  workers of the country, he will now make financial arrangements whereby the work of placing underground the telegraph lines to Dundee and the North-East of Scotland could be at once proceeded with, and thus provide work of general utility and national benefit for some of the unemployed?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply yesterday to questions on the subject of underground cables. I much regret that, in view of the very heavy cost of laying these cables and the many claims which have to be considered, I see no present prospect of laying lines to Dundee and the North-East of Scotland. The hon. Member doubtless realises, however, that a considerable part of the expenditure on underground cables already incurred—over £1,500,000–is on the line from London to Edinburgh, by every mile of which Dundee and places beyond benefit.
  Mr. WILKIE: Could the right hon. Gentleman not see his way to have some financial arrangement made whereby this could be done, especially as members of the Government have so repeatedly told us what useful work it would be as a means of giving employment?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Government is proceeding to develop the system of underground cables, but, of course, the claims of the districts have to be balanced against one another.

  Lighthouses (West Coast of Ireland).
  Mr. JOYCEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he could state the number of the principal lighthouses on the West Coast of Ireland, from the Fastnet Rock in the south to Tory Island in the north, including both; what were the names of the fog-signal stations on the same coast, and what was the distance between each station?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Sydney Buxton): The number of principal lighthouses on the coast mentioned by my hon. Friend is thirteen. The fog-signal stations on the same coast are as follows:—Fastnet; Mizen Head, nine miles from Fastnet; Bull Rock, twenty miles from Mizen Head; Skelligs, fourteen and a-half miles from Bull Rock; Loop Head, fifty-seven and a half miles from Skelligs; and Tory Island 190 miles from Loop Head.

  Labour Exchange (Brecon).
  Mr. ROBINSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the number of casual labourers who pass through Brecon on their way from Ireland and West Wales to England, he would consider the advisability of establishing a Labour Exchange in that town?
  Mr. BUXTON: The further development of the Labour Exchange system in Wales is receiving careful consideration, but it is not possible at the outset of the scheme to establish Exchanges in all industrial areas of the country.
  Mr. KETTLE: Is it the policy of the Government to employ these Labour Exchanges for the purpose of encouraging the migration of labour from the rural districts of Ireland to Great Britain?
  Mr. BUXTON: My right hon. Friend particularly stated the opposite. We are very anxious to avoid that, and if the hon. Member will look at the regulations he will see a special regulation dealing with the matter.

  Asiatic Seamen (Deaths at Sea).
  Mr. JAMES PARKER (on behalf of Mr. William Thorne)asked the President of the Board of Trade, whether his attention had been called to the death at sea on 27th September, 1909, of an Asiatic coal trimmer, named Allee Mahomed Rajan, whilst serving on the steamer "Mahronda," of Liverpool; whether any inquiry had been held into the matter; and whether he could state the circumstances attending the seaman's death?
  Mr. BUXTON: Yes, Sir. The disappearance of the trimmer belonging to the "Mahronda" was inquired into by His Majesty's Consul-General at Port Said, by the Superintendent of the Mercantile Marine Office at Tilbury, and by one of the Board of Trade surveyors. The man disappeared while dumping ashes, but no one saw him go overboard and no reason for his disappearance can be assigned.
  Mr. JAMES PARKER (on behalf of Mr. William Thorne)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the death at sea, on 30th July, 1909, of an Asiatic fireman named Annisalla Cadis Mahd, whilst serving on the steamer "Arracan," of Glasgow: whether he could state the cause of death; and, if so, why the cause was not given in the Return of Deaths, published

  743
  by the Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen, for the month of September, 1909?
  Mr. BUXTON: The cause of death in the case of the Asiatic fireman referred to while serving on the steamer "Arracan" was not given in the Return of Deaths published by the Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen, as it was not shown in the return from which the other particulars of the occurrence were taken, but according to the official log book, and a return subsequently received, the man is supposed to have died from the after effects of a specific disease.
  Mr. JAMES PARKER (on behalf of Mr. William Thorne)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention had been called to the disappearance at sea, on 23rd August, 1909, of an Asiatic fireman named Shibatoola Romeezoola, whilst serving on the steamer "City of London" of Glasgow; whether any inquiry had been held into the matter; whether the seaman was medically examined before joining; how long he had served on the vessel, and whether he had had any previous sea service; whether he was on duty at the time; what was the temperature of the engine-room and stokehold; how many tons of coal the engine-room hands were required to work each twenty-four hours; and whether any previous cases of death from suicide, supposed suicide, or disappearance had occurred on this vessel?
  Mr. BUXTON: The disappearance of the Asiatic fireman referred to from the steamer "City of London" was inquired into by His Majesty's Acting Consul-General at Port Said, by the Assistant Superintendent of the Mercantile Marine Office at Glasgow, and by one of the Board of Trade surveyors. I am informed that the man was medically examined at Calcutta previous to being engaged, and that he had had previous sea service. He had served on the steamer twelve days, and was on duty when he disappeared. The temperature of the engine-room on the day of his disappearance was 100 degrees, and of the stokehold 96 degrees. The coal consumption was 90 tons per day, and the number of firemen and trimmers was forty-eight. No previous cases of death from suicide, supposed suicide, or disappearance have occurred on this vessel.
  Mr. REES: In respect of this deceased seaman, or of those mentioned in previous
  744
  questions to-day, were any complaints received against the masters or owners of the vessels concerned?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have not heard of any.

  Engagement of Chinese Seamen (Poplar).
  Mr. JAMES PARKER (on behalf of Mr. William Thorne)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he could furnish a Return showing the number of Chinese seamen engaged through the mercantile marine office, Poplar, during the quarters ended 31st December, 1908 and 1909, respectively, distinguishing the number who signed agreements at the mercantile marine office from those who signed on board ship?
  Mr. BUXTON: Three hundred and eighty-seven Chinese seamen were engaged through the Mercantile Marine Office, Poplar, during the quarter ending 31st December, 1909, of which 304 were engaged at the Mercantile Marine Office and 83 on board. The numbers for the corresponding quarter of 1908 are: Number engaged, 358; engaged at the Mercantile Marine Office, 236; on board, 122. It may be added that of the 387 Chinese seamen engaged at Poplar during the quarter ending 31st December, 1909, 226 were for vessels lying at other ports, 161 only being for vessels within the Poplar district.

  Payment of Members of Parliament.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister whether, in view if the recent decision in the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales and others and Osborne, he would consider the desirableness of introducing legislation at an early date providing for the payment of Members of Parliament?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr Asquith): I am afraid that, for reasons that are well known and that have already been stated, I cannot promise any legislation in regard to this or any other contentious matter during the present Session?
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman really think that some provision for the maintenance of Members of this House is a necessary preliminary to the destruction of the other House?

  Lord Advocate (Duties).
  Mr. LANE-FOXasked what duties, if any, are, attached to the post of Lord Advocate for Scotland, for whom a salary of £5,000 a year is provided by Parliament;

  745
  and what provisions, if any, were made for the discharge of such duties during the four months immediately preceding the General Election?
  Mr. EUGENE WASON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, Has he received any complaints whatever from Scotland or elsewhere as to the way in which the Lord Advocate has discharged his duties?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the supplementary question is an emphatic negative. The duties of the Lord Advocate as Chief Law Officer and Law Adviser of the Crown in Scotland are multifarious and responsible. They were discharged during the time referred to with the utmost ability and promptitude. My right hon. and learned Friend attended daily at his office, and conducted in court during the election a number of important Crown cases. There are no arrears of work of any kind in his Department.

  Coal Output.
  Mr. MASONasked what had been the decrease in the output of coal in the United Kingdom during the last six months of 1909, compared with the same six months of 1908?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): I am unable to say what has been the output of coal during the last six months of 1909, as the returns which are furnished to the Home Office in pursuance of the Act give only the total output for the year. The output for the year shows an increase over the whole country of two and a quarter million tons, seven districts—including Northumberland and Durham, where the Act was not in operation—showing increases and five districts showing decreases. The figures will be published in the course of a few days.
  Mr. MASON: May I ask whether the five districts are districts in which the Act is already in operation?
  Mr. HARVEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the pits were working full time, even under the Eight Hours Act?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I understand that Northumberland and Durham are included in the seven districts where there has been an increase, and in those two counties the Act is not yet in operation. Over the whole country there has been an increase of two and a quarter million tons.

  Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Act (Cost of Coal Production).
  Mr. MASONasked what had been the increase in the cost of production per ton of coal in Wales, Scotland, and the Midlands respectively since the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Act came into operation?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Returns in regard to cost of production are not furnished by mine-owners to my Department, and I regret that I am unable to furnish the hon. Member with any definite information on the subject.

  Workmen's Compensation Act (Insurance Company's Action).
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he was aware that a mine-owning company in North Ayrshire, who were also large shareholders in a mine-owners' mutual insurance company, recently refused to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act to a young miner who had been injured in their employment; that they ultimately, under pressure, paid the compensation due, and that thereafter, although work was plentiful and the miner had been in their service for more than twelve years, they dismissed him on the ground that the said insurance company, in which it was understood they had a controlling interest, would not insure him; that numerous other cases of a similar character had occurred in Ayrshire and other parts of Scotland; that men making successful claims for compensation were marked, and, in order to earn their livelihood, were forced to seek employment under assumed names; and if he proposed to introduce legislation dealing with this state of things?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no information regarding the case referred to in the question, nor have I evidence before me to show that such a practice as suggested exists to any considerable extent. The question, however, was brought to my notice, with other questions touching the working of the Compensation Act, by the deputation which my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State, received the other day on my behalf from the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress, and will receive my consideration.

  Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Act (Additional Hours).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether

  747
  his attention had been drawn to the trouble which had arisen in the Welsh coalfields over the interpretation of the Clause in the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Act, by which underground workmen may be required to work an additional sixty hours a year; whether this Clause was only intended to apply to house coal districts, and was not meant to be of general application; and whether he would bring in or support an amending measure making that fact clear, or, as an alternative, issue a circular letter to colliery owners to that effect?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My attention has been called to the question which has arisen in South Wales in connection with Section 3 of the Act. I am not aware that there was any intention on the part of the Government or of the House that the operation of the provision should be limited to the special class of house coal mines, though those mines may have been specially mentioned as illustrating the need for a provision of this kind. I believe it was, in fact, intended to meet difficulties in times of pressure, but it is not so limited in the Statute. I am afraid I can make no promise as to legislation on the subject, and I do not see how I can usefully intervene in the matter at the present moment.

  Strangeways Prison (Assault upon a Woman Prisoner).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he was aware that certain of the visiting justices of the Strangeways Prison, Manchester, were recently convicted for an assault upon a woman prisoner; and could he say what action had been taken to remove these men from their positions as visiting justices and as magistrates.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware of any proceedings of the nature indicated by the hon. Member. A prisoner discharged last year from His Majesty's prison at Manchester did, however, institute an action for damages against certain of the visiting justices. It was held by the court that a technical assault had been committed on the prisoner, but that, the justices having acted in good faith and on reasonable grounds, and no substantial injury having been done to the prisoner, the damages should be merely nominal. The proceedings afford no ground for action on my part, and, further, the selection of justices for appointment on the visiting committee for a
  748
  prison is not a matter over which I have any control.

  Secondary Schools.
  Mr. EDWARD BARRY (for Mr. Thomas O'Donnell)asked the President of the Board of Education what is the amount voted by Parliament for secondary schools in England and in Wales in each of the past five years; and what is the amount per pupil in average attendance?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): The answer to this question contains a very large number of figures, which I should like to circulate with the Votes.

  Intermediate Education (Ireland).
  Mr. THOMAS O'DONNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that the money available for intermediate education in Ireland, all of which is purely Irish money, is most inadequate, and will be still further reduced for the coming year, he will consider the necessity of giving a grant in the forthcoming Estimates in order to enable secondary schools in Ireland to carry on this most important branch of education?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to answer this question. The income of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland is not provided by Vote of Parliament, it is made up of the interest on a sum of £1,000,000 derived from the Irish Church Temporalities Fund and of the residue of the Irish share of the Customs and Excise Duties after certain statutory charges have been paid. The latter portion of the Board's income has no doubt decreased owing to the falling off in those duties. I will confer with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the possibility of providing a grant from the Votes of Parliament, but I am afraid it is too late to do anything in connection with the Estimates for the coming year.

  Inland Revenue Officers (Increased Work).
  Mr. FRANCEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any complaints have reached the Treasury from Inland Revenue officers now acting as pension officers with regard to the increase in their work without regular increase in remuneration?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The introduction of Old Age Pensions threw a considerable

  749
  amount of new work upon Excise Officials, and complaints on the subject have from time to time come before the Treasury. Many of the causes of complaint have been remedied, and others are still engaging the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself and our advisers. As the hon. Member is possibly aware, a Committee, under my Chairmanship, will shortly inquire into the conditions of service of those Officers of Excise and Customs who are affected by the recent amalgamation of the two Departments.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the removal of the pauper disqualification will add at least 30 per cent. to the cost?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is quite impossible to make any calculation until we find out through the agency of this Committee what the amount of the work is.

  Labourers' Cottages, County Clare.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many labourers' cottages have been erected in county Clare, and how many are in course of construction?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Up to 31st March last 518 cottages had been erected in county Clare, but the Local Government Board have no information as to the number since completed or the number at present in course of erection. The hon. Member may be glad to know that 1,304 cottages in all have been authorised under the Labourers Acts in the county.
  Mr. LYNCH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether a list of such cottages will be available for each district, giving certain indications as to the localities?
  Mr. BIRRELL: That has never yet been done.
  Mr. MOORE: Is it not a fact that in the annual Report of the Local Government Board, published every year, they are shown union by union?
  Mr. BIRRELL: That is so. There is no doubt whatever where the cottages are.

  Estate Sales (North Longford).
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the order of priority of sale for the thirty-four estates pending in North Longford, a list of which will be
  750
  sent to him to assist in expediting an answer at the earliest moment?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that registers have been prepared showing the order of priority of all pending cases, and these registers are open to inspection in the Commissioners' Offices by all persons interested.

  Old Age Pensioners (County Longford).
  Mr. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that within the past few months hundreds of poor persons have, after a few months' enjoyment of them, been struck off the list of old age pensioners in county Longford; whether in the case of doubtful age it is now ordered that evidence of a proved older person cannot be received as satisfactory corroboration of applicant's statement; and whether any special instructions have been given to the Local Government Board to confirm in all cases the objection of the local pension officer?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am aware that cases have occurred in county Longford in which pensions have been discontinued, but I cannot say what the total number of such cases has been. The reply to each of the remaining portions of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. FARRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take any steps to ask the Local Government Board to take evidence of the age from persons older than the persons claiming? For instance, the English Local Government Board took evidence from a sampler in possession of a woman to show her age, but in the case of Ireland the Local Government Board will not take the age of living persons.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member is quite mistaken there. The Local Government Board are perfectly ready to consider any trustworthy evidence.
  Mr. FLAVIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why the Local Government Board will not give any information as to the grounds for the reduction or the refusal of old age pensions?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There is no reason why they should give the grounds for refusal.
  Mr. FARRELL: Are these matters dealt with by a Committee of the Local Government Board, or by the Local Government Board itself?
  Mr. BIRRELL: They are dealt with by a Committee of the Local Government Board.
  Mr. CULLINAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that the decisions in these cases are decided by clerks to whom a certain number of applications are sent?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I can assure the hon. Member that the Local Government Board take the greatest possible pains in the consideration of these cases.
  Mr. FARRELL: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman himself, as President of the Local Government Board, has ever been consulted in these cases?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Oh, yes, I have.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what is the Local Government Board?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No.
  NEW MEMBER SWORN.—Sir David Brynmor Jones, for Swansea District.

  BILLS PRESENTED.
  The following Bills were presented, and read the first time:—
  Mr. COURTHOPE—Hops—Bill to prohibit the use of Hop substitutes and to provide for the marking of imported Hops. (To be read a second time 9th March.)
  Mr. MORTON—Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland)—Bill to provide for the suppression of illegal fishing by trawl vessels. (To be read the second time 9th March.)
  Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON—Nurses Registration—Bill to regulate the qualifications of trained Nurses, and to provide for their registration. (To be read a second time 14th March.)

TREASURY (TEMPORARY BORROWING).
Resolution reported,
"That it is expedient—
(1) To authorise the Treasury to borrow any sums which they have power to borrow under the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act, 1909, and the Appropriation Act, 1909, and any sums which may be required for the payment of Treasury bills already
752
issued under those Acts, or hereafter issued, by the issue of Treasury bills, the date of the payment of which shall be a date not later than the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and ten, instead of the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and ten.
(2) To authorise the suspension in part of the New Sinking Fund for the financial year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and ten."
Resolution read a second time.
Sir F. BANBURYmoved, as an Amendment, to add at the end of the Resolution the words, "provided that such suspension does not exceed the sum of £3,500,000."
This Resolution authorises the Government to borrow large sums of money, and to suspend the Sinking Fund, or, rather, part of it. I am glad the Prime Minister is in his place, because I am anxious to refer to the inexplicable confusion to which four and a-half years of his Government have brought the finances of this country. When the Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1906 he told the late House of Commons that the one thing the Radical party would not do was to borrow, and further, that the one thing the Radical party considered as paramount in finance was that the expenditure of the year should be met out of the revenue of the year. Has the Prime Minister met the expenditure of this year out of the revenue of the year? He has done nothing of the sort, because this Resolution provides that the expenditure of the year is to be met out of borrowing, and that the Sinking Fund shall be suspended. With regard to the question of borrowing, it may be said it would have been utterly impossible to provide for the collection of the taxes this year, and that the only way to meet the revenue is by borrowing. We might have met a fortnight earlier, or the General Election might have taken place a fortnight or three weeks or a month earlier, and we might have had an opportunity of arranging for carrying out the Radical doctrine that the expenditure of the year should be met out of the revenue of the year. But in order to meet the exigencies of the Radical party we have sacrificed all this high principle, as the party opposite have sacrificed many other principles which, a few years ago, they told us were vital to the interests of the country.

753
I am glad to see the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles) in his place. The matter of the suspension of the Sinking Fund is rather an awkward one for him, because I have provided myself with some of his utterances, given expression to a short time ago, objecting to the suspension of the Sinking Fund by the Unionist party when in power. What were we told by the Prime Minister when he first took up the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer? That the first thing a Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to do was to provide for the redemption of the National Debt, and he took great credit to himself for having in two or three years provided for the redemption of debt to the extent of about £40,000,000. I will not go into the question as to how that money was found, but I would point out that the new Chancellor of the Exchequer is absolutely stultifying the principle laid down by his predecessor, the Prime Minister, because he is actually going to suspend, not a part of the Sinking Fund, such as the hon. Member for King's Lynn objected to in 1899, when £2,000,000 were suspended, but actually the whole of the Sinking Fund with the exception of £1,000,000. The Secretary to the Treasury told us last night that the amount suspended was £5,500,000. I think the right hon. Gentleman must have made a mistake, because, unless I am very much misinformed, the amount of the Sinking Fund is about £9,000,000, and, therefore, to suspend it, with the exception of about £1,000,000, would mean suspending £8,000,000.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I think there was some confusion in the figures due to my fault. The total amount payable for Sinking Fund for the reduction of debt is £7,300,000. Take from that £1,000,000 for the loan raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), and that leaves available a total sum of £6,300,000, and that is the sum which is in question at this moment.
4.0 P.M.
Sir F. BANBURY: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I was only speaking from memory, and I thought the amount was larger; but it is really a minor point, because what the House is concerned in at the present moment is the proposal to abolish the whole of the Sinking Fund with the exception of £1,000,000. It may be urged that at a moment when the Government is borrowing, and when it is necessary in the
754
interests of the finances of the country to do so, it is not wise to pay off debt with one hand and to borrow with another. That was the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman last night. When Mr. Pitt had to find very large sums of money in very different circumstances from the present, when the existence of the country was at stake, he continued at the same time to pay off National Debt. He was no mean authority, and if I may say so without offence, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer might do worse than follow the example of Mr. Pitt. But even supposing that Mr. Pitt was wrong, it is not contended by hon. Gentlemen opposite that the borrowing is going to be permanent. If they were to say the position of the finances are such that for nine and ten years it is absolutely necessary, in order to carry on the Government of the country, to borrow large sums every year, and in face of that it is hardly wise to pay off with one hand while borrowing with the other. But I do not think that will be suggested, though I am sure that if the party opposite continue much longer in office that would be the result, but we hope they will not continue much longer in office. They may say this is only a temporary borrowing. The Resolution, I think, only sanctions borrowing for a period of six months, and therefore, I venture to say, the argument that they should not pay off debt because they are borrowing falls to the ground. Let us see what the result will be if this Resolution passes and the Bill founded upon it becomes law. There will be six or seven millions from the Sinking Fund, and by that amount the borrowing will be decreased, and there-Fore people will not know how much the Government are really borrowing. Further, a policy like this, once entered upon, may go on, and we may find Chancellors of the Exchequer in the future getting up and saying, "It is quite true that the Sinking Fund ought to be maintained, but last year we had to borrow money; we want to borrow money again this year, and therefore we shall suspend Sinking Fund." I have not had time to look up Sir Stafford Northcote's speeches, made when he introduced, in 1874, the new Sinking Fund, but I know he introduced a fixed charge for the debt in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be free from the temptation to tamper with that portion of the finances of the country which ought to

755
be set aside for the reduction of debt. Consequently an absolutely fixed amount was instituted which was always to be devoted to the service of the debt. I find on 13th April, 1899, when Lord St. Aldwyn suspended £2,000,000 of the Sinking Fund, Sir William Harcourt said:—
"That the time of the largest revenue and the greatest prosperity, from a fiscal point of view, which this country has ever known, should be the occasion chosen for what I can only call a repudiation of the obligations under which this country has placed itself with regard to the extinction of the debt is, I confess, one of the most serious, and I will call it, one of the most disastrous proposals that has ever been made."
The present Lord Wolverhampton said much the same thing, and Sir William Harcourt further stated that:—
"The right hon. Gentleman has muddled away his income."
Those are very good words, and I think I may say that the right hon. Gentleman has "muddled away" his income. Sir William Harcourt proceeded:—
"I have always held that this provision is one of the greatest sources of strength to the British nation because that gives you credit at home and character abroad."
[An HON. MEMBER: "What do the Government care about that?"] Well, I do not think the Government have sunk so low as that. Then there was Mr. Pease, who said practically the same thing, and the hon. Member for King's Lynn also made an impassioned speech in the same direction, not to mention a speech made by Lord Swaythling. Those were the opinions of hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were sitting on this side of the House. To show I am not prejudiced myself I do not mind admitting that on that occasion I was in favour of the proposition brought forward by Lord St. Aldwyn, but I was in favour of it on sound grounds. Consols were then at 113, and Lord St. Aldwyn was redeeming the National Debt, and I thought he was throwing away £13 on each £100. I think there was a great deal to justify Lord St. Aldwyn not paying off debt so rapidly at that time, but the whole thing has changed now, and the finances of the country are not in the same position they were at that time, and the credit of the country is not in the same state. I think everything should be done to improve and strengthen that credit instead of bringing forward measures which, though nominally are only temporary, must prove destructive to the credit of the country. I propose to limit the amount to £3,500,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer last Session told us he proposed to reduce the
756
Sinking Fund by £3,000,000, but finding that his new taxes did not yield the amount he anticipated, he proposes to increase the amount by half a million. I think the Government might be content with the amount they proposed a few months ago. I do not see on what ground the Government make this proposal, because in November they thought £3,500,000 would be sufficient, and why is it not sufficient now? What has happened during the last few months? I have been looking about for an answer to that question, and the only answer I can find is that in November last the Government thought they were going to raise the whole amount from the Income Tax, but whose fault is that? [An HON. MEMBER: "The Lords."] It is the duty of the Government to see that the taxes are raised and the revenue obtained. What they are doing now is actually saying to the taxpayer, "You owe us a certain sum of money on account of the Income Tax, which has not been collected. We will not collect it, but we will borrow it from you and pay you interest on it." Consequently they are borrowing their own money and paying interest on it. From a financial point of view that seems the most foolish thing that can possibly be done, and I do not think any wise financier will agree with a thing of that sort. It is only because the Government have been driven into these particular straits that they have been obliged to throw over all their financial principles, as well as other principles, in order to introduce this Resolution.
Mr. GEORGE FABERseconded the Amendment.
The PRIME MINISTER: I should not have intervened in this Debate but for the appeal which the hon. Baronet has made to me. Out of respect to him I must say a word or two, but I shall leave my two-right hon. Friends to deal with the question in detail. I understand the hon. Baronet finds, or thinks he finds, some inconsistency in the present proceedings of the Government to the principles of finance which I laid down and practised when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer. What were those principles? In the first place, I quite agree that the revenue of the year ought to suffice for the expenditure of the year. That is an elementary principle of finance not peculiar to me and not enunciated for the first time by me, but I believe it is the common property of all sound financiers in every country in the civilised world. If the financial arrangements proposed by the Government

757
during the present year had been allowed to pass into law there is no doubt that that principle would have been observed. The whole of the hon. Baronet's speech and the whole of his objections are founded upon the assumption that the Government is responsible for the fact that in the month of November last the full financial provision of the year was, for the first time in our history, rejected by another place. I will come in a moment to the question of the Sinking Fund. If the financial provision proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and embodied in the Budget Bill sent to the House of Lords had passed into law I do not think there is any reason to suppose that my right hon. Friend would have been under any necessity of applying to this House for borrowing powers; therefore the whole responsibility for the introduction of this Bill, the whole cause and necessity out of which the Bill has arisen, lies not upon the shoulders of the Government, but upon a totally different authority.
It has to be admitted—and everybody does admit it—that inasmuch as the financial provisions made by the Budget Bill were rejected, although a certain number of taxes proposed by that Bill have been voluntarily paid, yet with regard to a large number of ethers there has been no payment, or only a very inadequate payment during the last three months. The Income Tax speaks for itself. It is not, however, only a question of the Income Tax, but also a question of the Death Duties under the new scale, which are not legally exigible, and there are the Licence Duties, the Stamp Duties, and various other duties in the Finance Bill which in consequence of the failure of that Bill to pass into law are no longer a fruitful source to the Exchequer. That is why we find ourselves under the necessity of this proposal to borrow at all. The facts speak for themselves. The hon. Baronet referred to the question whether admitting there is the necessity for borrowing, which he cannot dispute, it is a proper and ancillary provision of the operation to suspend the whole of the Sinking Fund with the exception of the£1,000,000, which is necessary for the lottery bonds. I can honestly say that there has been no more strenuous advocate for maintaining the Sinking Fund in a condition of efficiency and applying it to the payment of debt than I have been during the time I have been in office. We have paid off by the operation of the old and the new Sinking Fund a very considerable
758
amount of the National Debt, and I was certainly of opinion, and I said so to the House when I introduced the scheme for Old Age Pensions, that our operations in that respect had been carried on so effectively and on so large a scale that we might without any injury to the public credit look to the reduction of the annual amount of taxes appropriated to the reduction of that debt as a perfectly legitimate thing. The right hon. Gentleman when he introduced his Budget this year admitted that there must be a substantial reduction in the amount applied to the reduction of debt. When the Budget left this House the figure was £3,500,000, the sum at which I understand the hon. Baronet wishes to replace it. I think £3,500,000 was by general consent not an excessive sum by which to reduce the provision in the special circumstances in which we were placed for the reduction of the debt during the present financial year. Now what has happened since? The necessary shortage in the estimated receipts of revenue is due to the fact that we are not legally in a position to exact taxes imposed by the Budget. The question is whether under those circumstances it is not prudent and sound finance to still further reduce the amount of the Sinking Fund, and for myself I think it is. The hon. Baronet has cited the example of Mr. Pitt, who was in many respects a Financial Minister. There is, however, another authority commanding our highest respect. The one point in Mr. Pitt's finance which I think has been almost universally condemned by every well-founded economic critic from that day to this was the very point the hon. Baronet has singled out, namely, the fact that Mr. Pitt went on applying to the Sinking Fund for the reduction of debt of a certain amount of national Revenue, while simultaneously he was borrowing for the purposes of revenue. That is imprudent and slack finance, and although it has the sanction of that great name it reminds me of what Mr. Canning once said in a celebrated speech speaking to Mr. Pitt, who was his great exemplar and master in politics:—
"There are some savage tribes who do not reverence the sun when shining in its mid-day glory, but who only fall down prostrate before it when it is in a state of eclipse."
Mr. Pitt's financial genius was in a state of eclipse when he resorted to this particular provision. If you are in such an unhappy position, as I admit we are at the moment, through no fault of our own, that the Revenue of the year will not make

759
good the expenditure of the year, and that therefore you have got to borrow money, you do not go through the farce of pretending that you are paying off debt by the application of a certain amount of your Sinking Fund while borrowing in the market to make good the deficiency. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, under coercion and necessity and not of his own choice, has devised not only the most equitable, but the most prudent and common-sense method of dealing with the situation in which we stand.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman divided the subject, and rightly divided it, into two questions—the question whether it is necessary this suspension of the Sinking Fund should take place, and the extent to which it should take place, and the question who is responsible for the necessity arising at all. On one of those two issues there is a very sharp conflict of opinion between the right hon. Gentleman and his friends and those who sit on this side of the House. I and my hon. Friend behind me are much less divided. I take first the issue which divides us. The right hon. Gentleman said our whole trouble arises because the Budget was not passed by the House of Lords. That is true as far as it goes, but it is not the whole truth, and it does not absolve the Government of its particular and special responsibility. The Government had the opportunity—they had the promise of support from this side of the House and they had the knowledge of the promise that such a Bill would pass in another place—they had the opportunity of bringing in and of passing the Bill, which would have legalised for the year the collection of those taxes, from the non-collection of which they are now placed in this difficulty. That is common ground. It is not disputed by the right hon. Gentleman himself, but he says, "Can any man expect that we, as a Government or as a party, would submit to an indignity of that kind?" Very well, then where does the responsibility lie? It lies with the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, who prefer their dignity, or their supposed dignity, to the interests of the country.
If they had considered only how the King's Government could best be carried on, how the business of the country could best be done with least disturbance to trade, least injustice to taxpayers, and with least cost to the Government, they
760
would have legalised those taxes and collected the money, and neither they nor the House would have been in the difficulties in which they are to-day. There is more to be said than that. Even if they have refused to take that course, because they supposed it was irreconcilable with their dignity, they had other alternatives open. Let me say in passing that I do not myself perceive that it involves a greater sacrifice of dignity to send up to the House of Lords, for instance, a Bill authorising the collection of the Income Tax after the Budget as a whole has been rejected than it does to send up to the House of Lords a Bill authorising the Government to borrow money in lieu of collecting the Income Tax. You cannot do the one nor the other without the permission of the House of Lords. You have got to put your dignity in your pocket sooner or later and recognise the facts of the Constitution, and I really do not see that even that tender plant—and I admit it requires careful nursing—that tender plant, the dignity of the Government, gains anything by the methods they have adopted. They should have pressed all steps forward with the utmost celerity in order again to bring in their Budget at the earliest possible moment. They should have hastened the election instead of delaying it, because they thought a little delay was in their electoral interest, and, having hastened the election, they should have hastened the meeting of Parliament, and, having hastened the meeting of Parliament, they should have carried out the statement of their intentions made in the most definite and clear terms by the Prime Minister in the very speech in which he was moving a Resolution condemnatory of the action of the House of Lords—that the first business of the new House would be to pass the old Budget. They refused to pass legislation in the last Parliament in order to prevent these difficulties arising. Having met the new Parliament, they refused to bring forward their Budget for reasons which are palpable to everybody both inside the House and outside it, and they prefer to borrow money from individual taxpayers, as the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles) says, and to pay those individual taxpayers interest at the cost of the community at large rather than set about to collect the debt which is due and secure payment by all the taxpayers who are liable. That is a most unbusinesslike proceeding. It is one which would never have occurred to any Government who are

761
seeking only to serve the interests of the country, or, if it had occurred to them, it would at once have been rejected by them. It is only adopted by the Government because party exigencies compel them to take this method for staving off defeat.
Having said so much for the responsibility, for the position, and for the extent of the necessity, I admit at the same times given the course which the Government have followed, and even if they were to alter it at this moment, that some such measure as this would in any case be necessary. The matter has been left so long that you could not recover the whole of your unpaid Income Tax, and that being so, and it being necessary to borrow, I cannot resist the conclusion to which the Prime Minister has come, that it really serves no useful purpose to act to the contrary and to pretend to pay off debt on one side whilst borrowing money perhaps at a higher rate of interest on the other. I do want, however, to know a little more about the intentions of the Government. I want, in the first place, to really ascertain what is the amount of the Sinking Fund which they are suspending. I ventured last night to interrupt the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hobhouse) across the floor of the House, but I really could not understand his figures. He said there could be no doubt whatever about those figures, and there certainly ought to be none, but if I understood him rightly the total amount available for the Sinking Fund is £7,000,000.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: In this respect, leaving out of account the terminable annuities.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps that is the explanation. I am glad to have it now. The statement made by the Financial Secretary last night was to the effect that the Government were suspending everything except the £1,000,000 they could not suspend owing to the character and the conditions of what are called the Lottery bonds, for the issue of which I was responsible. I understand they could not suspend that million, but I do not quite understand that statement. Not in vain have I lived. I put something beyond their reach, but that is the only thing I put beyond their reach. I now understand they do not suspend the annuities. Am I right, therefore, in assuming that the amount of those annuities explains the discrepancy between the figure I will give to
762
the House in a moment and the figure given by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman said there were £7,000,000 in round figures. I suppose it will be £6,880,000. One million pounds of that is attached to the Ten Year Bonds with their annnual drawings. Therefore, that leaves, in round figures, £6,000,000. The figure, however, given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement of the amount available for the repayment of capital—that is to say, the amount of the Sinking Fund—was not £7,000,000, but £9,880,000. There are £3,000,000 of annuities—
Mr. HOBHOUSE: About £3,500,000.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Three and a half millions payable annually on account of the annuities? I wish the Government would give us a clear statement. It cannot be done by question and answer across the floor of the House, and I think it will be for the convenience of the Government themselves and the whole House if a full statement were made. What has; appeared to some of my Friends is that the Government are now suspending £6,000,000 additional to the £3,000,000 which they proposed to suspend in their original Budget statement, and that the amount, therefore, of Sinking Fund which is actually concerned by this Resolution is not £6,000,000, but £9,000,000. I understand that statement to be disputed by the Government. Under those circumstances, I should like to have an exact account from them of what the £9,880,000 of new Sinking Fund is—how much of it is applicable to the payment of these annuities which are not to be suspended, and what is the actual balance which will be suspended in consequence of these Resolutions? Be it remembered, of course, the Budget is dead, and the proposal contained in that Budget to suspend three millions of the Sinking Fund is dead with it. We are not therefore suspending something additional, we are now making a suspension of the whole sum, whatever it may be. While I am on this subject asking for information, I should be much obliged if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give me some information as to what was done with the Sinking Fund of the previous year. I confess I was somewhat surprised to find how much of the War Loan was still outstanding to be dealt with. It will be remembered that when the last financial

763
year was closed it was found that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had unexpended a quite unusual amount of Sinking Fund money. Rumours were rife in the City that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Treasury officials, had not been in the Consol market immediately before the introduction of the Budget, but had been very active in that market immediately after. Those rumours were, in answer to questions put in this House, directly contradicted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I, of course, have accepted his denial. I think there was some unusual abstention before the Budget, but I accept the statement that there was no exceptional activity after. The Chancellor of the Exchequer at a later stage explained the cause. He pointed out it was due to the fact that the War Loan was maturing, and the nearer we got to the date of maturity the better were the terms on which the Government could purchase, and it was added that the right hon. Gentleman wished to use the Sinking Fund money for the purchase of that War Loan. May I ask, have they done so, and to what extent, if any, they have done it? There was a sum of six millions involved. Have they, since the 1st April last, redeemed anything like six millions of the War Loan? If not, what was done, after all, with the old Sinking Fund money?
There are two further question which I hope I may be permitted to put before I conclude my observations. The first again has reference to the proposed suspension of the Sinking Fund. Ordinarily, and I say that with this qualification, because a Sinking Fund is never suspended in ordinary times but only on exceptional occasion, and those occasions have usually—indeed, they have invariably been when the country was engaged in war and money has been actually required for the expenditure of the year because the revenue of the year was not sufficient. That is not the case at the present time. The difficulty arises from the collected revenue being insufficient, and not from its being an insufficient revenue. If you have authority to collect the taxes, of course it is your intention to collect the whole of these taxes.
The PRIME MINISTER: Eventually.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I believe it is the intention of the Government to collect them eventually, but very eventually.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: When, then? Not before Easter. You do not seek authority to do that. It must therefore be after Easter. Is it to be immediately after? No, it will not be until the various Resolutions dealing with the House of Lords have all been discussed—each and every one of them—and the discussions concluded in this House. It will be a Committee discussion. [An HON. MEMBER: "And carried in both Houses."] I really do not know to whose observations on this subject I should pay attention, whether to the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench or to hon. Members behind them. We have, of course, seen the tail-wagging of the dog a good deal, and it is quite possible that the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) may have a greater effect on our ultimate proceedings than perhaps the intentions of His Majesty's Ministers. At any rate, their present intentions are to postpone the Budget only until the Resolutions have passed this House, and after that period they expect to collect their taxes. They may collect them eventually, but it will be very eventually. The time is a long way off. These Resolutions in Committee will prove highly controversial. They deal with a subject obviously very complicated. You cannot therefore expect to get them through in a day or in a week, and probably it will be May or June before you begin to collect your taxes for the past year. The Government seem to think nothing about the taxation for the coming year, but, at any rate, you eventually intend to collect the whole of these taxes. When you have collected them you will have got the revenue you expected on account on the year which has expired. "Do you then intend to restore this amount to the Sinking Fund? Your necessity, if I make my point clear, will have gone. It is simply a temporary necessity, unlike previous necessities arising from inability to get money to meet your expenditure in any other way. It is only a necessity for a few months before the collection of your revenue, but that revenue you will eventually collect. Will the Government tell us what they intend to do? Do they mean to replace the millions which they have withdrawn from the Sinking Fund, or, at any rate, so much as is in excess of the draft which they originally proposed by the Budget to make on the Sinking Fund, or do they, having once taken it out of the

765
Sinking Fund, propose that it shall never go back to the reduction of debt, but provide material for financing some future schemes at some future time? These are questions which are directly germane to the proceedings on which we are engaged.
There is another question of importance about which, perhaps, the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be willing to take the House into his confidence. Many Members of the House were no doubt aware of the financial necessities with which they were to be confronted at the beginning of this April, but to many they came as a surprise. Looking forward, there is another great financial claim which is beginning to loom large in front of the Government. It is, I think, at the beginning of next year that the Government have to take over the National Telephone Company's plant. Have they considered how they are going to meet that obligation, and are they making preparations for it? Are they prepared to inform the House and the country what their intentions are? It is not directly germane, I admit, to the immediate proposals of the Government, but when we are borrowing for emergency, borrowing because debt is falling due, I think it is well we should cast our eyes forward a little and see what other obligations will come upon us before long, under circumstances which may be as difficult as they are at the present time, and we should know from the Government now what steps they are taking to prepare for this occasion, and how they propose, if they have yet made up their minds, to meet the obligations that will then fall due.
The House will see that, on the main proposal of the Government, I am not, under all the circumstances, a hostile or unfriendly critic. I cannot vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London. I do not desire to pose as a hostile critic of the Motion before the House, but I desire to have further information as to the intentions of the Government. Where I am their critic is not in regard to what they are doing now, but in regard to what they are leaving undone, and what they have left undone, to minimise the disorder which has been occasioned by—[An HON. MEMBER: "The House of Lords."] No; by the reference of the Budget to the people, and by the very unfavourable opinion which the people have expressed upon it. Nobody contends there is a majority in this House for the Budget on its merits. If there were, the Prime
766
Minister would have, I will not say kept his pledge, but he would have fulfilled the statement of his intentions to make it the first business of the Government, if only to mark his triumph. The reason for his failure to do so is, I think, that the people have expressed so unfavourable an opinion upon it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): The right hon. Gentleman has expressed his inability to associate himself with the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London in suggesting we should go through the farce of borrowing money to pay our debts. Therefore, in substance, on this Debate the right hon. Gentleman finds himself supporting rather than opposing the proposals of the Government. He has administered a series of interrogatories to the Government, which I shall be happy to answer. Some were quite friendly, with a view to eliciting information; others were in a more hostile spirit, with a view to placing the Government, I should imagine, in a difficulty. But I think the right hon. Gentleman will find in regard to both categories of questions that there will be no difficulty in answering them. The first is with regard to the actual sum of money which we are appropriating under this Bill and how it is made up. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in his statement that the sum allocated for the purpose of reducing debt amounts to something like £9,800,000. He wants to know where the annuities come in there. There is something like £3,500,000 payable in respect of terminable annuities which we do not propose to interfere with at all. Out of the £3,500,000 £1,000,000 goes in interest, so that there are only £2,500,000 which go in reduction of debt. If the right hon. Gentleman will take £2,500,000 out of £9,800,000 he will find that leaves the £7,300,000 referred to by my right hon. Friend. We deduct another £1,000,000 which is earmarked for redemption of Exchequer Bonds, and that leaves £6,300,000. In our Budget proposals we reduced the amount for the payment of debt by £3,500,000, and I think the hon. Baronet, the Member for the City, agrees that that sum should be allocated in that way to the general expenditure of the year. That leaves £2,800,000, and what we are doing now is: we are asking the sanction of the House to devote that £2,800,000 rather to the general expenditure of the year than to the payment of debt.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: And the £3,500,000?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The £3,500,000 are not in dispute at all.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Baronet for the City is now, at any rate, perfectly willing that we should use the money, not in the reduction of debt, but for the purpose of the general expenditure of the year. What he objects to is our taking the balance, and the balance is £2,800,000, and that is the point in dispute. I think I have made it clear what the position is.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Do you propose to stop the terminable annuities?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No. It is perfectly clear that we intend to keep up the annuities, and the only sum which we divert from the Sinking Fund is £6,300,000. One million earmarked by the hon. Member for Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) goes in reduction of debt; £2,500,000 out of the terminable annuities also goes in the reduction of debt. So there is only £6,300,000 which we take away from reduction of debt. I hope that is clear to the right hon. Gentleman. The next note that I have is in regard to the point put to me about the War Loan. The right hon. Gentleman said that it had been the policy of my predecessor to utilise the money at his disposal rather in the reduction of the War Loan than by buying of Consols. That is not altogether correct. It has been a matter of price. At one stage the War Loan was considerably above par, and then we had necessarily to change our policy, since we found it cheaper to purchase Consols than to buy War Loan Stock. That occurred, not in last year, but in the previous year. We have only devoted £2,000,000 to the purchase of War Loans Stock during the last two years. Last year we devoted only £500,000, and this year £1,500,000. So that really we have devoted more money for the purpose of the War Loan this year than in the previous year. Therefore the impression of the right hon. Gentleman that there has been any change in our policy during the present year is erroneous.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I did not make myself clear. I only referred to the rumours in the City in
768
order to recall to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the anwser which he gave at the time. He told me, in fact, that I ought to be ashamed of myself for giving any credence to those rumours at the time, that the Government were borrowing upon Consols in order to produce the appearance of a good effect in their Budget, and he subsequently explained that the reason why they held so large a sum of Sinking Fund money as £6,000,000 was in order to purchase more Consuls. Now I understand that of this £6,000,000 only £1,500,000 has been employed in purchasing Wax Loans in this financial year.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is exactly what I am putting to the right hon. Gentleman. I am putting it that this year we applied three times as much money to the extinction of the War Loan as we had in the previous year, when the purchase was only £500,000. This year, however, as a matter of fact, we had purchased three times as much War Stock as in the previous year. We found that if we carried our operations much further we should be putting up the War Loan Stock to such a point that it would not have paid us to go on. We should have been increasing the value of the stock as against ourselves, but we did apply three times as much money to the operation as we had previously. That does not apply to the purchase of Consols, but in regard to the War Loan Stock we acted on the advice of the broker, and if the right hon. Gentleman had been in my place I am perfectly certain that he would not have purchased more than we did.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am not criticising what the right hon. Gentleman does. It may be right.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It was the only thing which could be done; if we had gone on beyond that it would be to merely increase the value of the stock in order to-pay for it ourselves, and we found that the operation would not be a profitable one, and we thought it much cheaper to buy Consols. I come to the question whether the borrowing is a temporary one or not. There are some taxes which will be irrecoverable; for instance, stamps. These duties can only come into operation after the Budget passes into law, and we shall never be able to recover those sums of money, and, therefore, the borrowing must not only be temporary but permanent. The same thing will apply to the Land Taxes, but how far it will apply to

769
the balances will depend upon the extent to which the financial chaos which has been created goes. I do not enter into the question of who is responsible, but whoever is responsible the result will not be known until the effect of the chaos which has been created, and which will have the effect of causing a serious permanent loss to the Treasury, is ascertained. The right hon. Gentleman will realise that it may go on for months, but whoever is responsible for the financial chaos is also responsible for causing a permanent loss to the Treasury to a substantial extent in regard to the Income Tax and other taxes which might have been collected easily if collected in the ordinary course. What will permanently be lost it is quite impossible for me to say at the present moment, because I cannot say to what extent we shall be able to recover the amount. The whole of the amount we shall not be able to recover, but the extent of the loss it is quite impossible for me at the present moment, or anyone else, to express an opinion upon which would be reliable. I naturally sought the advice of the experts, and they can only tell me what I am telling the House, that it is impossible to say what the loss will be. They have never dealt with a situation of this kind before, and probably they will never deal with it again, because it is quite clear that an end must be made of the possibility of a deadlock of this kind again. They cannot tell me, and how can they possibly tell me what the permanent loss is going to be; and when the right hon. Gentleman asks me whether this borrowing is permanent or purely temporary, my answer is that he is in just as good a position to express an opinion upon that as I am, because no one can tell the extent of the loss which will ensue to the Treasury, and which will occur owing to the delay in the collection of these taxes. I think that is the best answer I can give the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to the development of the national telephone system I understand the total operation is about £14,000,000.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Of that I think about £10,000,000 has already been spent, and we have got, I think, about a couple of years to spend the balance. The right hon. Gentleman may depend upon it that we shall make arrangements, but we know that it is inadvisable for us to indicate the way in which we shall raise that amount in the course of that period. I think I have
770
answered all the interrogatories which the right hon. Gentleman has addressed to me on this subject; but with regard to his very interesting criticisms I do not think they are altogether relevant to the Motion before the House, but when the time comes we shall be delighted to meet him on that particular ground. Of course, naturally he desires to cast the responsibility upon us, but I do not think he has been very successful in that operation, because he knows that the whole of this chaos is the result of the unprecedented action of the House of Lords in throwing out the provisions for the national expenditure of the year contained in the Budget.
Sir F. BAN BURY: It was a very bad Budget, to begin with.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That may be the case, but there have been bad Budgets sent up to the House of Lords before which they have never thrown out. It is the first time upon which they have undertaken that responsibility, and, for better or worse, it is entirely their doing. The right hon. Gentleman complains that we are not putting through the Resolutions. I do not know when we could have done it. We certainly could not have put them through before 24th March.
Lord HUGH CECILdissented.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Noble Lord is the only one to take the responsibility of saying that, but the point is how does the Noble Lord suggest that we could have put them through without a moment's discussion?
Lord HUGH CECIL: The less contentious Resolutions could be put through without any discussion, or with very slight discussion.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: What the Noble Lord suggests is that we should cut up the Budget and put it in a particular order which would suit him; but, after all, the Income Tax is not the only tax, and I think the Government are entitled to say that whatever their financial scheme is, it must be considered as a whole, and, really, I think things have come to a pretty pass if the House of Lords should really dictate to the House of Commons not merely what their Budget should be, but the order in which they should discuss it, and thus interfere not merely with our legislation, but even our procedure. I do not want to use any strong language; I should be the last to use it; but I do think that that

771
is arrogating to the other House a position of predominance which I think no one except the Noble Lord will even advocate. After all, the Government must in a matter of this kind interpret the will of the House of Commons, and they must be in a position to propose the taxes in their own way and in the order which they consider would suit the House of Commons, and I do not think that it is natural or would suit the House of Commons to take them in that way.
5.0 P.M.
It is not merely the Income Tax. There is the Tea Duty, and there are other duties, and I think the House of Commons is perfectly entitled to say it is not going to put a duty on tea which is paid by the poor people of this country unless the land values of this country bear their share of taxation. What the Noble Lord wishes is that the taxes which he approves of shall go through, but that the taxes which he does not approve of shall be suspended until some indefinite time. We cannot assent to dictation of that kind. At any rate, it is only a question of a few weeks one way or the other. Before 24th March we could not spare a moment to discuss these taxes, and after Easter it is purely a question of a few weeks one way or the other.
Sir F. BANBURY: You may be out.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If we are out, then the hon. Baronet will be responsible for the taxes of the country, and of course he knows it will then be all right. That is the position. The confusion which has been created is not going to be aggravated to that extent, anyway, owing to the fact that there is a difference of a fortnight or three weeks between the submission and the carrying of certain Resolutions, and for that reason the Government are standing by the order of business which, I think, meets not merely the views of the House of Commons, but the general convenience of the public.
Lord HUGH CECIL: I only rise to offer the Government a little instruction since they seem not to be able to follow how very easily they might have got out of the financial difficulties which press so heavily upon them. There is no greater financial inconvenience arising from the rejection of the Budget in the House of Lords than from the rejection of the Budget in the House of Commons, which has often happened. The financial effect, of course, is
772
exactly the same. It is true that in this particular case the Budget only reached the House of Lords very late in the year, and, consequently, we came much nearer the new financial year, which is a special cause of inconvenience. That, of course, was due to the Government management of the business during the last Session and to the circumstance of this being an unprecedentedly controversial Budget. Whatever may have been the cause in the last Session, now they are faced with the financial situation as it is. I threw out the interjection that they might very easily pass before Easter the less controversial Resolutions on which their Budget is founded. They could suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule if necessary. There would not be the smallest difficulty about that. The right hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that we are rather reluctant to see them produce their controversial Resolutions, but no one would be better pleased than I if they could find time to bring in the most controversial parts of their Budget. The reason they do not is perfectly well known. It is because they would not pass those Resolutions. The right hon. Gentleman has the assurance to suggest that it is we who are shrinking from this controversy, which we are only too anxious to provoke in order that the unstable equilibrium on which the Government depends may be finally overthrown. The non-controversial parts of the Budget may perfectly well pass, but it is not consistent with the dignity of the Government or the House of Commons, and yet in this very Bill there is a financial provision taken from last year's Budget, namely, the suspension of £3,500,000 of the Sinking Fund, with which they are going to deal. The susceptibilities of the Government and the House of Commons are not in the least ruffled by taking out of the Budget of last year the provision for suspending the Sinking Fund, but are ruffled by proposing the Income Tax Resolution. We ought to have a new manual of etiquette for the Government: "Manners for the House of Lords; Manners for the House of Commons, and Manners for the Cabinet," compiled by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. To the plain man, it will be apparent that the Government are needlessly and vexatiously increasing the financial embarrassments of the country in order to subserve the purposes of the party game.
Mr. JOHN DILLON: The speeches to which we have just listened from the Noble

773
Lord and from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) are exceedingly instructive as to the real character of the present situation. They are both extremely solicitous that the present Government should clear up the financial muddle. To use the words of the leading article in "The Times" to-day, they want this Government to clear up the financial muddle and set the finances in order, and provide the incoming Government with a good revenue. The Noble Lord is a man of extraordinary innocence. We heard from him in the old days many speeches full of eloquence and full of simplicity. He asked us what is the difference between the defeat of the Budget in the House of Commons and the defeat of the Budget in the House of Lords. That is a very significant question. The defeat of the Budget in the House of Commons means the resignation of the Government. The Noble Lord thinks the defeat of a Budget in the House of Lords ought to have the same effect.
Lord HUGH CECIL: It makes no financial difference.
Mr. DILLON: I will tell the Noble Lord the financial difference. When the House of Commons defeats a Budget it calls in another set of Ministers to clear up the muddle, and the Noble Lord thinks there is no difference. I think there is still some difference. I have no doubt that if the Noble Lord was in office for some time there would be no difference, because it is part of the doctrine of Lord Milner, and I daresay of the Noble Lord, that the House of Lords ought to have co-ordinate authority in all respects with the House of Commons, and that if the Government is defeated in the House of Lords it ought to walk the plank just as much as if it was defeated in the House of Commons, and that is really the doctrine that underlies the whole of the speeches of Members of the Opposition. Why, said the late Chancellor of Exchequer, does not the Government pass the non-controversial taxes—in other words, why does not this House hand over to the House of Lords the duty of levying the taxes on the people, because that is what it amounts to? The House of Commons is to settle the taxes and the House of Lords is to strike out certain of the taxes, and then the obedient and chastened House of Commons is to pass the non-controversial taxes which the House of Lords is pleased to allow. But, says the late Chancellor of
774
Exchequer, the Government ought, when they were defeated last winter, as true patriots, to have hurried on the election and brought on their Budget at the earliest possible moment this year in order to save the country from loss. No, I do not think they ought. But I think the great mistake they made was dissolving Parliament at all. They ought to have denied the right of the House of Lords to force the dissolution, and they ought to have brought in their Budget again in February and sent it up to the House of Lords again, and let the House of Lords reject it if they dared, and they would not have dared.
Lord HUGH CECIL: Would you have voted for it? [OPPOSITION laughter.]
Mr. DILLON: The laugh is premature. I am perfectly prepared to answer that question. We should have done exactly what we did last December. We should have abstained. [OPPOSITION laughter.] Is not that a perfectly fair answer? We would not have assisted the House of Lords in killing the Budget. We have never concealed our position towards that Budget, and I, personally, have never had the slightest difficulty in stating what my feelings towards it are. I think it is an excellent Budget for England. [OPPOSITION laughter.] Hon. Members who laugh at that must be new Members, because we said that at every stage of the Budget—that the social circumstances of our country are so different that what is a very good Budget for England is a bad Budget for Ireland. That may seem exceedingly funny, but it is none the less true. We should have abstained, and the Government would have had a majority, as they had last December, of 200 or 220. Suppose that had been done, what would the House of Lords have done? Would they have taken the responsibility of rejecting the Budget again, and, if they did, what would have been the condition of this country? That would have been, in my opinion, the true policy instead of hastening an election and cleaning up the financial muddle for the convenience of the House of Lords and relieving the House of Lords from the disgrace which they have brought upon themselves by all the loss they have inflicted upon this country.
Then comes the extraordinary position taken up by hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench. They want the Government to bring on the Budget and to pass the non-controversial taxes. This question has never been asked or answered. What

775
real security has the Government that if they were to pass the Budget to-morrow the Lords would not reject it again? There is nobody qualified to answer for the backwoodsmen in the House of Lords, and if the Government were, in my opinion, foolish enough, and weak enough, to get the Budget through the House with the approval of hon. Members above the Gangway and sent it up to the House of Lords, if it suited the leaders or the backwoodsmen in the House of Lords to reject the Budget again, there is no security whatever that they would not do it. They would do whatever they thought best in the interests of their party. In my opinion the Government are pledged never to subject themselves again to such a rebuff and such a humiliation. I think one of the most instructive features of the present situation is the extraordinary anxiety, the paternal anxiety, exhibited by the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench for the financial reputation of the Ministers who are now in office, and for the good of the country. You will all be in office now in about four months, and you can attend to the good of the country much more than hon. Members opposite. Would it not be a great deal better to leave the future financial arrangements of the country in the hands of capable men like the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury)? I appeal now to any reasonable men in any quarter of the House, the question of two or three months more or less weighs not as a feather in the balance compared with the financial genius which will be brought to bear on this question after the next General Election; and if these men are really actuated only by a patriotic desire for the benefit of the country, they would rather leave the financial muddle till they could apply their great intellects to clearing it up. There is another thought that puzzles me throughout all these Debates more than anything has ever puzzled me, though I have been a long time listening to the Debates of this House. For months and months last year we heard these benches ringing with denunciations of the Budget. We were told it was Socialism. We were told by that great authority on finance, Lord Rosebery, that it was the beginning of the end of all things—country, home, the sanctity of home life, everything was gone if the Budget was passed into law. But now, although they did, in their judgment, so well at the election, these Gentlemen appear to be intensely anxious to get the Budget passed into law.
Lord HUGH CECIL: We are anxious to have it discussed, and the hon. Gentleman is afraid to have it discussed.
Mr. DILLON: But I thought you were anxious, in the interests of the country, to clear up the financial muddle and provide revenue. How can the revenue be provided unless the Budget is passed? Is it for the purpose of defeating the Budget that you want to talk on it, or for the purpose of passing it? That is a plain question. If it is for the purpose of defeating the Budget, where do the interests of the country come in? Why are hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches silent now? That is a plain question which could be easily answered, but all their patriotism evaporates when that question is asked, and their great anxiety to save the country and clear up the finances of the country disappears. I know what is in the minds of hon. Members perfectly well. They imagine that they are going to win at next election. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Yes, they do, and they would very much like to get rid of the deficit before coming into office. I would rather see these hon. Gentlemen, who are such great financiers, face to face with a deficit of £20,000,000, and see how they would deal with it. If they have such faith in Tariff Reform, what greater opportunity could be provided for their policy than that they should have to provide £20,000,000 at one swoop by Tariff Reform? Those Gentlemen who are burning with anxiety to put Tariff Reform into operation could not, I think, have a more splendid opportunity. Do not, I pray you, be in a hurry about the Budget, because it would be possibly better for the country and better for you that it should be postponed, and that you should have an early opportunity, a really good chance, of putting into operation what I should call the experimentum crucis—the great principle of Tariff Reform, because you would be obliged to raise the deficit of £20,000,000 and commence your own career by adding that amount to the taxation of the country.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: In one respect it is fortunate that a purely financial question should be complicated by a political and party question. Finance is a dull subject, and when finance alone is being treated it empties the House, but since you began to attach to the fringe of this great Imperial question questions as to who are to be upon this bench and who are to be upon that bench the House fills, and

777
there is an attentive audience for hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. I would rather keep finance separate from party politics if that were possible. Certainly on this occasion I think it is possible, and I very much regret that party politics should have been introduced into it. I admit that all these questions which have been raised—the question of the House of Lords, and the question of the merits of the present Government, and of the incoming Government, whichever it may be—are important, but they will keep. It is 700 years since the House of Lords got Magna Charta signed. Surely you can give them seven weeks before you abolish them. I hope that hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House will have some little patience and enable the Government to free themselves from the difficult and embarrassing position in which they find themselves. Some hon. Members insist that they should first of all proceed to throw the Constitution into a new form. The question of finance is more pressing and most important not only in respect of the taxes that are not being levied and which ought to be levied, but also on account of the taxes which are being levied illegally. I saw from an afternoon paper that the Bank of England, the virtuous old lady of Threadneedle Street, is going, without the semblance of authority under any Act of Parliament or Resolution of this House, to deduct from every £100 she pays in dividends on Consols 1s. 2d. in the £. There is no 1s. 2d. tax in existence. The figure is to be found in no Act of Parliament or Resolution carried in this House, but the Bank of England is going to deduct it, and it says it is going to do so on the suggestion of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, acting under the authority of the Treasury. I do not know whether the situation could be met by sending the directors of the Bank of England to the Tower or by imposing the penalties of præmunire. I would remind the House that the Bank of England gets a commission from the Government on every halfpenny of Income Tax it deducts, and therefore it is not entirely disinterested in making what I consider to be a scandalous breach of the law, or, in acting in this way, without law. What I consider to be the most pressing necessity of all is to cover with some semblance of authority the action of the Empsom of the Inland Revenue and the Dudley of the Customs. I think they should be withdrawn from their perilous position,
778
and that their action should be covered by legal sanction.
What we are asked to do is not to make provision for revenue, but to make provision for debt to tide over a difficulty. Debt is a confession of your inability to pay for what you are yet determined to have. The National Debt is the same as private debt. The Sinking Fund is the expression of a pious opinion that you desire to pay off your debt. You can only pay off your debt when your income exceeds your expenditure. That is the purpose of the old Sinking Fund, and that is the only true Sinking Fund. The new Sinking Fund was set up by Sir Stafford Northcote, no doubt as a sort of temple in which he hoped the Sinking Fund would be found. It consists, as the House knows, of a fixed sum of £28,000,000, out of which you are to pay, first of all, the interest on the National Debt, the unfunded debt, and the terminable annuities, and for the management of the debt, and whatever remains over after these charges are paid constitutes the new Sinking Fund. In reality the new Sinking Fund never has been, and never can be, more than the balance of the pious opinion of Sir Stafford Northcote, who is long since gone and deceased. It has been raided constantly, and nobody raided it more than hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the front Opposition Bench. They raided the old and the new Sinking Funds, and even put their hands on the terminable annuities which are the very Ark of the Covenant. It is not for them to complain of a similar proceeding in a greater emergency, and indeed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, who was lately Chancellor of the Exchequer, has the great grace and modesty not to complain of this Government for stopping the Sinking Fund, for he had a fellow-feeling about it. But he asked whether this raid upon the Sinking Fund was to be permanent, or whether when the Government have got this £6,000,000, or whatever it may be, and spent it, they are going to return it to the Sinking Fund. Has he forgotten his experience as Chancellor of the Exchequer? Surely he must know that when from the permanent charge of £28,000,000 you have taken that balance, it can never again go back to the Fund. The year is ended, and the charge is concluded. It is impossible, physically and financially, to restore it, and I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman, with his experience and great financial wisdom, should ask such a question as that.

779
Once you have taken away that balance from the permanent fixed charge which includes the new Sinking Fund, it can never again go back to that or to any other Sinking Fund.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Of course it can, if you like to put it back.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Really, Sir, it cannot. The new Sinking Fund is the balance of the permanent fixed charge. When you have taken away that and spent it, never again can you put it back there. The year is ended.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The year has nothing to do with it.
Mr. BOWLES: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; it has everything to do with it.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINmade a remark which was inaudible in the Press Gallery.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman asked whether it would be put back into the Sinking Fund, and I reply that it is absolutely impossible to do such a thing. The right hon. Gentleman ought to know it if he does not. We have had some learned finance spoken by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir Frederick Banbury). I thought he made a mistake about Mr. Pitt's Sinking Fund. Mr. Pitt's method was to borrow money to pay off debt and thus to create an illusory Sinking Fund. I thought every one knew that that was a disastrous failure, and I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire acknowledged that that was not the way to reduce debt. I do certainly regret the necessity that the Government find themselves in of asking that the Sinking Fund should be suspended, or that any part of it should be applied in the way they propose. But why is it that they have to do that? It is because the Budget has been suspended. It is because the House of Lords has really for the first time stopped the whole finance of the year. In my opinion, the House of Lords, had they attempted to amend the Budget would have been within their rights, and at all events they would have been attempting to perform the natural duty of a Second Chamber, but their sentence was that of the Jacobins concerning Louis XVI., "La mort sans phrase." They rejected the Budget, and hence all the difficulties we are in. It would be absurd to borrow money with one hand and to pay off debt with the other. The operation
780
would come to the same thing in the end. I regret the necessity the Government find themselves in, but it is a necessity, and I think this House should look upon it tenderly. I am not prepared to resist the Motion or to diminish the amount which the Government propose to take from the Sinking Fund. We private Members are in great difficulty. We have not, like the hon. Member for the City of London, full information. Such information as we have is extracted from official documents or from officials themselves, by a process resembling the drawing of back teeth, and still we cannot get all the information we ought to have. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Treasury alone can know the whole of the financial situation. What we do know is that it is very bad, and that it approaches something like desperation. Under these circumstances, I think this House cannot refuse its assent to devoting part of the new Sinking Fund, not to the payment of debt, but to the expenditure of the year.
Mr. THOMAS LOUGH: The precise question before us is the Amendment proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. That Amendment seems to me part of the tactics which we have had from the Opposition ever since this Parliament assembled. Everything said and done on that side seems to have the same object in view. That object is simply to induce the Government to restore the normal state of things in this House at the present time. The whole argument of the hon. Baronet was that it would be quite easy to avoid this borrowing and avoid suspension of the Sinking Fund if only the Chancellor of the Exchequer would commence to collect the taxes. This is what we have heard in a variety of speeches. "Put through your Budget, pass your Resolutions, collect your taxes," is what we have heard ever since the House met. The question is how far it is practicable to do this. I think it ought to be perfectly clear to the Government that such a course, whatever my hon. Friend below me (Mr. Gibson Bowles) may say, is totally impracticable in the unique position in which we have now been placed in this long-standing quarrel with the House of Lords. They have thrown out the Finance Bill. Whatever its faults or merits, I maintain it should have been passed as it was sent by this House to that Second Chamber. In saying this I would like to admit that I have a most exaggerated

781
sense of the inconvenience in which the country is being placed by the action of the Government, which is quite inevitable. A great deal is being said, for instance, about the Income Tax; but all the other duties are in a far more precarious position than even the Income Tax is.I noticed that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he was alluding to the other taxes and duties, said that these duties were being paid. That word has been used on both Front Benches several times. This is a mistake. The duties are not being paid.
Every man who has advanced any of these duties since 3rd December holds a little document which the Government have circulated stating that the amounts of the duties are only deposits. It is a very remarkable document, and I think perhaps should have received a little more consideration from this House than it has received. The document declared that the Government had no right to levy the duties, and that anybody can proceed to remove goods from the care of the Customs without paying any duty upon them. We do not know at this moment how much goods, spirits, tobacco, tea or beer has been removed without this duty being paid. The inconvenience is much greater, perhaps, than Members of this House may think. The document goes on to state that if the trader taking out the goods cares to deposit with the Government the amount that should have been levied in the ordinary course, the Government will receive it and give a pledge that if Resolutions are not passed by this House, or if the Budget is not passed into law, all the moneys which have been so paid will be returned to the people who have advanced them. There is no collection of taxes at all. They are only being deposited and they are hung up in this extraordinary way. I mention that to show that I am as fully seized with the difficulties of the financial situation as either the hon. Bart, or my hon. Friend who sits below me. But for all that, I entirely disagree with the advice which both of them have given to the House. I do not think that this situation can be regularised apart from the consideration of other matters. We have had to submit to too much of this contemptuous treatment by the House of Lords in this House. I notice now that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) appealed to the Government on this point. He said: "Do not stand upon your dignity. What is the dignity of a Government?"
782
It is not a question of the dignity of the Government; it is the question of the Dignity of the House of Commons that is at stake. I do not wish to say that the Finance Bill, even in its final shape, may not be capable of improvement.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon Gentleman started very well by stating what the Amendment was before the House. He is not discussing it now. The Amendment is simply as to what extent the Sinking Fund is to be suspended. That is really the only matter before the House.
Mr. LOUGH: I quite see that perhaps I did digress a little more than I should have done, but I had in mind the arguments which the Mover of the Amendment and other speakers have advanced. However excellent these apparently simple expedients may be to get over the difficulty, the difficulty is too great to be bridged in that way. I do not believe that the Government would be able to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member or any of the expedients recommended from the opposite side of the House. They would not have a party behind them to enable them to do it. A great issue has been raised, and that issue must be fought out to the finish.
Question put, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in.

TREASURY (TEMPORARY BORROWING).
  TREASURY (TEMPORARY BORROWING) BILL.
  Presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Attorney-General, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and read the first time. [To be read a second time to-morrow.]

WAR LOAN (REDEMPTION).
Resolution reported—
"That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury to raise by means of the issue of Exchequer bonds any sums not exceeding twenty-one million pounds which may be required for the redemption of War Stock and War Bonds created under the War Loan Act, 1900.
"That any expenses incurred in connection with raising any such sums, or in connection with the redemption of the said War Stock and War Bonds and the principal of and interest on any such sums be charged on the Consolidated Fund, and,

783
as to the interest, be paid as part of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt."
Sir F. BANBURY: The Government propose to deal with the War Loan by the issue of Exchequer bonds. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman informed the House as to the length of currency of the Exchequer bonds which he proposed to issue. Does he propose to issue year bonds or five-year bonds? If he proposes to issue short bonds, what does he propose to do when they become due? This practically is a permanent addition to the funded debt, and the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to redeem it is by transforming part of the funded debt into part of the unfunded debt. Everybody knows that there is nothing more dangerous to the finances of the country than to have a large floating debt. I believe that in the case of the Argentine Republic, when its finances were in a bad way—and I am not sure that the same thing did not occur in the time of Ismael Pasha in Egypt—the first thing which the experts called in to advise recommended was to fund the floating debt. We are doing exactly the reverse. We are endeavouring to increase the floating debt at the expense of the funded debt. I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman is going to get out of that unless he holds that the War Loan was not funded debt. I think it was, but at any rate it was debt that could not be repaid for ten years. Personally, I think it should have been longer. Still, ten years is a considerable time. What I wish to know is how the light hon. Gentleman proposes to deal with the situation when the Exchequer bonds become due and what the life of these Exchequer bonds will be?
Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London has said that this Loan, as it was originally created and as it will exist up to 5th April next, was funded debt.
Sir F. BANBURY: I said it was for ten years.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: If he will turn to the finance accounts of the United Kingdom he will see that this debt has always been described as unfunded debt, and therefore there is no change in the description of the debt, which has long stood as a portion not of the funded but of the unfunded debt. Therefore I beg him to disabuse his mind
784
of the idea that there is any addition to the unfunded debt of the country if the loan takes the form proposed by this Resolution. He asked me what period it was proposed that these loans should cover. He will remember very well that by, I think, 66 Vict, the currency of all Exchequer Bonds cannot be a longer period than six years without special legislation. That is why I deprecated discussion taking place before the Bill was actually seen by the House. I think it would be a pity to make a definite announcement as to the length of time for which these bonds would be current so far in advance of the actual issue, and I think that on reflection the hon. Baronet will agree with me that they will be Comparatively short-term bonds.
Sir F. BANBURY: What is it proposed to do at the expiration of these bonds?
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I would remind the hon. Baronet that when this War Loan was originally arranged there was a discussion upon the Bill, in the course of which Sir William Harcourt, who was then the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, twice asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, as to what provision was going to be made for the reduction of debt, and it was clear from the fact that in the original Act there was no provision made for the renewal of the loan that it was in contemplation at that time to extinguish the debt within the course of the ten years for which it was current. But no such provision was made at any time that I can trace, nor was there any declaration by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, nor can I find in any paper that any actual extinction of the debt within the period of ten years was provided for. In the course of the ten years it is quite true that nine millions of that debt disappeared, being purchased and cancelled. I do not intend in the Bill to make any provision for the extinction of the debt other than that which has been followed in the last ten years.
Sir F. BANBURY: Abolishing the Sinking Fund.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is only abolished for one year. The operation of the Sinking Fund will then be resumed, not again to be interrupted in the manner in which it has been interrupted this year. With that assurance I hope that the hon Baronet will rest content.
Resolution agreed to. Bill ordered to be brought in.

WAR LOAN (REDEMPTION) BILL.
Presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Attorney-General, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and read the first time. (To be read a second time to-morrow.)

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1909–10.

  DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION, IRELAND.—(CLASS II.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £32,684, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March, 1910, for the 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."
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I should like to explain the Supplementary Estimate for this Department of £38,134, which is the additional sum required (after allowing for anticipated savings). It arises in this way. Under Section 49 of the Trish Land Act of last year, the annual sum of £163,750 was to be provided out of moneys provided by Parliament, from and after the appointed day, and of this sum £19,000 was to be paid to the Department of Agriculture for the performance of certain transferred duties, and the residue of £144,750 was to be paid to the Congested Districts Board. By an Order of 5th January this year the Lord Lieutenant, in pursuance of Section 56 of the Act, appointed 6th January, 1910, as the appointed day. Between 6th January and 31st March, 1910, there are eighty-five days, and I am told that eighty-five 365ths work out as follows: For the Congested Districts Board, £33,709, being their share from the appointed day down to 31st March, and for the Department of Agriculture, in respect of the transferred duties, £4,425. I have put it down this year under the Vote of the Department of Agriculture, the Congested Districts Board having no Vote at present, although, of course, it gets a much larger part of the annual income provided. I
  786
  think, in future, it would be desirable to have a Vote for the Congested Districts Board, but this year, for the purpose of the Supplementary Estimate, it was necessary to put the whole Vote down under the head of the Department. The Committee will understand that the whole sum of £38,134 is the division between the two Departments of their share of the new annual income down to 31st March from the appointed day.
  Mr. MOORE: On a point of Order as to the limits of discussion on the Supplementary Vote. Will hon. Members be entitled to discuss this in relation to the whole work of the Department, and inasmuch as this is a grant going to the Congested Districts Board, will they also be able to discuss the purposes to which that Board will apply the money?
  Mr. BIRRELL: So far as the Department is concerned the £4,425–allotted to it in respect of transferred duties which are specified in the Act—has nothing to do with general purposes.
  Mr. MOORE: According to the Motion on the White Paper it is in respect to the expenses of the Department and the service administered by the Department. I take it that would include sundry grants in aid, applying to the whole scope and purview of the Department's work?
  The CHAIRMAN: The Supplementary Estimate does not open up the whole scope of the Department's work. The only subject that can be discussed on the Departmental work are those which pertain to the Estimate itself. With regard to the second sum for the Congested Districts Board I think that the questions opened up by this new grant are those to which the money applies.
  Mr. MOORE: Without quarelling in any way with your decision, Sir, may I call attention to the form in which this is brought in? I quite acquiesce in your ruling, which comes under the ordinary ruling about Supplementary Estimates; but this is brought in generally to defray the expenses of the Board of Agriculture, and is not limited in any way as to what those expenses are to go upon. Being general expenses it is not a Supplementary Estimate of a particular Estimate, or a particular branch, it is brought in by the Government to defray the expenses generally of the whole Department, and, therefore, I submit to you that this takes it out of the plane of the ordinary ruling as to Supplementary Estimates.
  The CHAIRMAN: The circumstances in this case are very peculiar. We are really granting for a second time in another way money that has been received from other sources hitherto, and would, but for that Act of 1909, have been spent without coming under the further consideration of Parliament this year. But, as I understand this question, the money is to be granted in this form now, and it must inevitably raise any questions in regard to the subjects on which this money is spent. I think that that must be the case this year on account of the peculiar circumstances.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I do not rise to offer any opposition to this Supplementary Vote, but only for the purpose of asking some information from the Chief Secretary. The question is a little more involved than appears at first sight. Although this does undoubtedly seem to raise the expenditure in this connection of certain money which would have been voted in any case, and which now has to be transferred under the Act of 1908, this Vote also proposes to deal with the new money which had to be voted under the Act which was passed last Session—that is the Land Act of 1909. I think, Sir, under your ruling I am entitled to ask the Chief Secretary one or two questions with regard to the purposes on which this money is to be spent, or is being spent at the present time. The Act of 1909 made it incumbent upon the Irish Government to fix an appointed day for the change of form of the Congested Districts Board coming into existence, at which time there is to be a certain transfer of duties. It was not apparent at the time—I have no doubt the Chief Secretary will be able to give us good reasons to-day—why it was necessary to fix the appointed day so early. It was fixed during the time the election was going on, and owing to its having been fixed at so early a period, it is necessary to provide money which would not otherwise have been required till the end of the current year, when, with the Act in force, the money would have been provided in the ordinary way, and there would have been no necessity for a Supplementary Estimate at all. May I ask for some information about the arrangement, the cost of which is included in this Estimate? What steps have been taken to arrange for the transfer of duties as between the two Departments? The Act of 1909 provided that certain duties connected with technical education and with fisheries were to be transferred from the Department to the
  788
  new Congested Districts Board. Are we to understand that the transfer has actually taken place, and that the necessary arrangements have been made for the performance by the Congested Districts Board of those duties? Then I would ask the right hon. Gentleman further what general arrangement has been made for the performance of their new duties by the Congested Districts Board? He is aware I think, that there has been some little correspondence in the papers in Ireland about the anticipated action of the new Congested Districts Board. Are we to understand that they are now newly constituted, that full arrangements are made not only for the transfer of duties, but that officials have been appointed to do the new work, and that, therefore, this money is actually required in order to put the new Congested Districts Board in a position to perform their duties?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The first question of the right hon. Gentleman was as to why I proceeded to appoint the day so quickly. In that matter I was governed entirely by a desire to get possession of the revenue at the earliest possible moment. Connected as I have been for some years with the Congested Districts Board, I knew what their great want was. I knew their impecuniosity, and the need of their obtaining funds. After having undergone the trouble of securing a handsome revenue for them, I was exceedingly anxious—I had no other motive, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman—to get the cash for them as speedily as possible, in order that they might proceed quickly with their duties. With regard to the other question, I believe that the information is necessary for which the right hon. Gentleman asks. We have had a joint conference of the Congested Districts Board and the Board of Agriculture with regard to this transfer of duties. They have met and made friendly arrangements, both being desirous of working in the best way and in the common interest. They have come to an agreement with regard to the agricultural work in the congested districts; they have also come to an agreement with regard to marine works, fishery works, and other subjects. They have gone in detail into those matters, and they have made high treaties between the two contracting parties. No difficulty arose between those two bodies as to the transfer of duties. With regard to the Congested Districts Board, it is fully established and now set going. Its new members have met, and their

  789
  operations are fully commenced. They have also had formal meetings with the Estates Commission, and arrangements have been made, not finally as regards all the estates, but they have practically settled already those estates of which the Estates Commissioner have now seisin, and which will be handed over to the Congested Districts Board, so that, I think, as regards that work, agreement has actually been come to.
  Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: May I ask whether the landlords and tenants in this case have had any voice in the matter?
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The matter is between the two, and in many cases they have had communication with the parties. I do not say that the parties in every case have given their consent, but, generally speaking, the attitude of the parties has been totally indifferent as to which body it was, their only hope being that whichever it was it would be able to go a little quicker than its predecessor. In regard to the staff, no work has yet been done in respect of organisation, but two permanent members of the Congested Districts Board are busily engaged in the preparation of a report, which they will make to the whole Board, as to the reorganisation of the staff. Undoubtedly the reorganisation of the staff is absolutely essential, and I have no doubt that both efficiency and economy will result from the new arrangement, which will be come to at the earliest possible moment. All I can say is that at present no difficulty has arisen. The three bodies, the Congested Districts Board, the Estates Commission, and the Board of Agriculture have worked together without any manifestation of amour propre or departmental feeling, which so often interfere with the general conduct of the country's business. I do not anticipate there will be any difficulty between these three bodies, but they will work together for the common good. I think therefore that anybody who comes into our place will find the Congested Districts Board a very useful and very businesslike and well-constituted body, well supplied with funds, which, although I am sure they will never be considered adequate, will, at all events, enable the Board to do a great deal more good work than hitherto. With regard to the last question put by the right hon. Gentleman, let him take it from me that the bargain has been struck between the Congested
  790
  Districts Board and the Department of Agriculture as to the transferred duties.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: We are precluded by your ruling from dealing with, the question of the policy of the Department of Agriculture itself. I hope your ruling will not preclude us from saying a word or two, or from asking a question, on the subject of the policy of the Government itself with reference to the Department of Agriculture. The question which I wish to put to the Chief Secretary is, What is the policy of the Government with reference to the appointment of a new Vice-President of that Department? The right hon Gentleman the Chief Secretary, I understand, holds the honorary position of President of the Department of Agriculture. It will be within the memory of all those Members in the House now who were in the last Parliament that a Debate took place in this particular question in the second year of the last Parliament. At that time Sir Horace Plunkett was Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture. Then the Government felt themselves compelled, owing, I believe, or, at least, they said it was owing to—
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not know exactly what this has to do with the sum of £4,425 to be granted.
  Mr. BIRRELL: No portion of this money finds its way into the pockets of the Vice-President.
  Mr. C. CRAIG: On a point of Order. At the head of page 9 of the White Paper in our hands it is stated that this is a Supplementary Estimate of the amount required to 31st March, 1910, to defray the expenses of the Department of Agriculture and of the services of Ministers and so on. I submit that that clearly includes the expenses-of the Department just as well as those other expenses, which the Chief Secretary has pointed out are in reality expenses of the Congested Districts Board. It seems to me, therefore, that under the earlier part we are entitled to discuss the policy of the Department of Agriculture, seeing that it is not stated on the Paper what that £4,250 is actually to be applied to.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: On the point of Order. May I ask whether it is not the case that this Supplementary Estimate is to cover excessive expenditure incurred on behalf of the Board of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, and whether that

  791
  sum as set out in the Estimate of the Government is not specially apportioned to any part of the expenditure of the Department, but that it goes into the common puree out of which comes the salary of the Vice-President.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think it is necessary to say any more on the point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has assured me that no part of this money goes into the salary of the Vice-President, and, that being the case, it excludes this matter from our discussion.
  Mr. MOORE: I wish to complain about the manner in which the Government meet us in this matter. The one official who ought to know all about the expenditure of the Department is the Vice-President. The Government have made no arrangements for having the proper Minister here to answer criticisms on the expenditure of the Department. The present Vice-President is unable to be here, having failed at the last election to obtain a seat in this House. Surely it is quite competent for us to complain that the Chief Secretary, who has so many other things to do in Ireland in regard to the whole administration of the country, should not have taken steps to have this Department specially represented by the special Minister who, the Chief Secretary has told us, again and again, should have a seat in this House in order to answer those criticisms.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not see what this has got to do with the Vote we are considering.
  Mr. MOORE: If I am not allowed to pursue the matter and draw attention to the unsatisfactory position in the Debates when we have not got the special Minister responsible to answer in this House, I should like to go further and ask the Chief Secretary to give us the names of the Members of this new Congested Districts Board of whose proceedings he expressed himself as so very satisfied. This matter came up during the last Session, and in those days the Chief Secretary had locked up in his bosom as a State secret the names of the Members whom he intended to appoint to act on this new Board. The House has never yet been put in possession of who those gentlemen are. Wild horses could not drag it from the Chief Secretary last Session. It was to be settled in consultation
  792
  with hon. Members below the Gangway during the Christmas recess, and up to the present, although the Chief Secretary now tells us of this perfect unanimity between the three Boards, the House is not yet officially in posession of the names of the Members who are going to spend a million per year in Connaught. I think we ought to have this information, because I think the House and my hon. Friends on this side are entitled to see what member is there on the new Board who will command public confidence in respect to the very large transactions which they are about to begin in dispossessing people compulsorily of land which has been in their possession and in the possession of their fathers and grandfathers for hundreds of years.
  I notice that the Chief Secretary is exceedingly pleased that these three Departments—the Board of Agriculture, the Estates Commissioners, and the new Congested Districts Board—are working in such unanimity. If a man was going along a road and met three highwaymen who were in complete accord, it would be very little satisfaction to him, if he was about to be despoiled, to know that they were on most excellent terms. That is really all the statement of the Chief Secretary amounts to as to these Boards. I want to know is there any representative of the law-abiding minority in Connaught who are going to be evicted from their lands for these political philanthropic purposes of the Government—is there anyone to look after their interests and defend them on this Board? I quite understand the delicacy and the reticence of the Chief Secretary in not giving us the names in the last Parliament, although challenged again and again to do so, or in this Debate when we are asked to vote money to them. I think we ought to know the names. I think every step ought to be taken if public money is to be expended under compulsory powers, and I think we ought to see that at least there will be one Member of the thirteen, if not two or three, who will see that justice and fair play is done by the new tribunal, from whom there practically is no appeal. I want to ask another question. Connaught has been the spoilt child of all Radical Governments. It has been especially the spoilt child of the late Government, because there was more trouble, more cattle-driving, more outrage, more intimidation, more boycotting, and more breaches of the law there than in any part of the country, and how does this Radical Government

  793
  invariably deal with them? It does not put it down. It gets hold of one ringleader now and again, and asks him to confess to be bound to keep the peace.
  The CHAIRMAN: This has really nothing to do with this Vote.
  Mr. MOORE: I am sorry if I have transgressed, but the Chief Secretary stated that these three bodies of whom he spoke so highly had agreed to what estates were to be taken for purchasing in Connaught, and that they had arranged how many acres. I want to know how many acres and what is included in this tripartite agreement? How much does it mean in the way of advances under public funds? We want to know if this part of the country operated on by the Congested Districts Board is getting an undue advantage over the more law-abiding parts. I think we are entitled to have particulars from the Chief Secretary. Now that It has been definitely arranged what estates are to be taken I think the sooner it is announced—publicly announced—what land is to be taken the better. It may make the operations of the Congested Districts Board easier in future for people to realise that nothing is to be gained from the Congested Districts Board by a special agitation to acquire further lands. Also with regard to the working of the Congested Districts Board we ought to know the amount, because even though this Government have only got a limited amount to spend on land purchase every year, how much will be required to carry out these purchase transactions, and, in other words, how long will it take the Congested Districts Board to perform this part of their duty? If the Chief Secretary will let us know how much, then we will see how far the Government is dealing fairly with the rest of Ireland.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. and learned Gentleman is very anxious to be in possession of information, while, of course, he knows perfectly well who the present members of the new Congested Districts Board are.
  Mr. MOORE: I beg to say I do not.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am rather surprised at that. They have appeared in all the Irish newspapers more than once. But I quite agree that this is a very admirable time to give him the information that he seeks, and I propose to do so now. The newly constituted Congested Districts Board consists of the Chief Secretary, whom I
  794
  need not describe, the Under-Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, Sir James Dougherty, and the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland).
  Mr. MOORE: You might describe him?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I thought the hon. Member was asking for information, and I am now endeavouring as best I can to impart to him, although, as I told him before, he probably knew it already.
  Mr. MOORE: I have said already I did not.
  Mr. BIRRELL: One or two probably. There are nine members appointed by His Majesty under the recommendation of his advisers. They are Sir Horace Plunkett, Father O'Hara, Lord Shaftesbury, Bishop O'Donnell, and Sir David Harrel; they were all old members of the Board, and have been reappointed by the King. The new members are Mr. John FitzGibbon, Bishop Mangan of Kerry, Father Glynn, and Mr. W. D. Walker, who was an admirable official of the old Congested Districts Board, whose services were recognised by everybody. He was so admirable a man of business that he received a very tempting offer to become head of a great industrial undertaking in Ireland, and although he was most reluctant to leave the service of the Congested Districts Board, still his interests demanded that he should accept this very well-paid and important office. He was very glad indeed to have the opportunity of returning to his old Board, as of course, an unpaid member of it. Those are the members, with the addition of the two permanent members, Mr. Doran and Mr. W. L. Micks. It as not for me to say anything either in its praise or in its dispraise. It has met several times; there has been a full attendance of both the old and the new members. I have had the privilege of presiding over the meetings, the members amalgamated uncommonly well, and I have every reason to believe that they will continue to work well together. But that the Board should give undoubted satisfaction to everybody has never entered my head as a possibility. I am sorry that some counties, particularly Galway, have not the representation on the Board that I should like to have seen. That is one reason why I am exceedingly sorry that in another place the county councils were prevented from doing what I very reluctantly had to do, namely, nominate these persons. I have no doubt that if the county councils had done it each county

  795
  would have had a representative; but that was not possible, and therefore the responsibility devolved upon the Irish Government. It was a very difficult business, but I believe we have discharged it in a manner which time will show to have been by no means reckless, and as well as we could with the materials at our disposal.
  Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the circumstances under which the Inspector of Fisheries, Mr. Green, ceased to be a member of the Board?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know that I can answer that question. First of all, the whole of the old Board was swept away. I was under no obligation, if it is put to me in that way, to re-appoint a single old member of the Board. Mr. Green personally is most agreeable, and to part with him, so far as I had anything to do with it, was a matter of considerable sorrow. At the same time I am perfectly certain that in not offering him a seat on the Board I was consulting the best interests of the Board itself as a permanent body, if it was to go on under its new conditions. Hon. Members can easily understand that it sometimes happens that people do not like reconstituted Boards or permanent members, and they may not like changes in the constitution of a body with which they have been connected. I should be the last man in the world to say anything disrespectful of Mr. Green, whose services on the Board I was sorry to lose, but I had a responsibility in the matter, and one has to discharge such responsibilities, although they may be most disagreeable. The reason why Mr. Green was not put on the Board was that I believed it would not conduce to the best interests of the Board for him, retaining the opinions he did, to have a place upon it. It is really a delicate matter asking questions of this sort. There were reasons why, in my judgment, at all events, it was undesirable for Mr. Green to be on the Board. He was not removed from the Board. The Act of Parliament removed all the members. I had the task of reconstituting the Board, and it was difficult to do it in such a way that from the very beginning it should work together to the best advantage. The hon. Member (Mr. Moore) misunderstood my previous statement. What I said was that the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board had come to an
  796
  arrangement with regard to those estates within their areas, for the purchase of which the Estates Commissioners were negotiating. It was as to which of those estates should be transferred from the Estates Commissioners to the Congested Districts Board that I referred. I never supposed for a moment—it has not been and cannot be done—that the Congested Districts Board was in a position to say what estates they meant to buy, how many thousand acres, the price they would give, or anything of the sort. They must work as best they can with comparatively slender means. What was most important was that inasmuch as the Estates Commissioners were negotiating for and had practically agreed to buy certain estates within the exclusive jurisdiction of the new Board, arrangements should be made as to which of those estates should remain under the control of and be carried out by the Estates Commissioners, and which should be transferred as soon as may be to the Congested Districts Board. It was simply and solely in relation to that point that I used the language referred to.
  Mr. MOORE: Does that involve delay in the payment of the purchase money?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: It was not the intention of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell) to suggest that the Chief Secretary had been guilty of any improper action in omitting Mr. Green's name; but no one can be surprised that the matter should have been referred to from this side of the House. It is not a political question. All who have followed the work of the Congested Districts Board during recent years know that there is no man in Ireland who has done better work for that branch of Irish government than Mr. Green. For many years he performed the difficult and laborious duties of inspector, travelling all over Ireland in connection with fisheries, for nothing except the love of the work, for which work I understand somebody has now to be paid. When that is remembered no one will wonder that we should seek to render our small tribute for the work Mr. Green did, and to express our regret that room was not found for him on the new Board. At the same time, I frankly admit that the Chief Secretary was fully entitled to make his own selections, and I have not the slightest doubt that he had in view the future harmony and smooth working of the Department. I am, however, surprised that there should have

  797
  been any anticipation that Mr. Green's presence on the Board would have in any way interfered with that object.
  I did not quite follow the Chief Secretary's reference to the action of another place in regard to the Act. He expressed his regret that it had not been possible for him to appoint representatives of the various counties, and he said that had the selection been left to the counties, each county would probably have sent one of its own representatives. The fact that the present members are not chosen as representatives of the counties is in no way due to the action of another place. The Chief Secretary was perfectly free under the powers of the Statute to select his representatives where he pleased. He could have adopted the plan—which I think would have been a good one—of appointing representatives geographically. But he had other objects to serve. He took a different view as to the best way of selecting these gentlemen, and he selected them in order to meet the wishes of some people in Ireland. I do not blame him; no doubt that was the easiest and smothest way for him. I do not wish to suggest that the new Board will not work well, but I do claim that the responsibility of the Board rests with the Chief Secretary, and not with any action taken in another place.
  Mr. BIRRELL: That is not so. I quite agree that I could have appointed members in the way suggested if, instead of appointing any of the old members, I had appointed fresh members entirely.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: All I am saying is that, so far as the action of another place is concerned, the Chief Secretary was given full discretion, and he could have adopted the geographical plan. I only hope the new Board will do their work as energetically and as well as the old Board did theirs, and that there will be as much harmony among the members as there was on the Board during the time I was associated with it. There were differences of opinion, but they were generally disposed of; and the work was, on the whole, I believe, satisfactory. The new Board will have a much wider sphere of action. I hope they will be prudent in embarking upon their new enterprises, remembering how much the future of Ireland depends upon the wisdom of their action.
  Mr. S. H. BUTCHER: Who on the Board now represents expert knowledge of fisheries? Is it Mr. Walker? We have
  798
  this peculiar position. Fisheries were transferred from the Department of Agriculture to the Congested Districts Board. There was on the Board one man who knew more about fisheries than all other men in Ireland put together, namely, Mr. Green. It seems very peculiar that when the actual work of the fisheries is transferred to the Board, Mr. Green should be the only person who is not reappointed. It certainly seems to demand some explanation.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am sorry that this matter should have been raised, because I do not want to say a single word against Mr. Green, who is a personal friend of mine, and for whom I have great respect and admiration. If I had felt myself at liberty to appoint the whole of the thirteen members afresh, disregarding the claims of everybody who had been on the Board, I could have adopted the geographical plan. I daresay I should have had difficulties even then in regard to some of the counties. It is much easier for a county council to take upon itself the responsibility of appointing a person than it is for an individual like myself. But I had to take up that duty, and a very difficult one it proved to be. Some of the most businesslike people on the spot had contracts with the Congested Districts Board, and that appeared to me to be an insuperable objection to their appointment—by me, at all events. They were not in a position to give up their contracts, and yet in a country where you want businesslike people it is a little hard to find yourself excluded from nominating persons simply because by virtue of their businesslike qualities they have these pecuniary relations with the Board. It was undoubtedly desirable that there should be as large a new element introduced as possible. I do not want to refer to private matters. I had various interviews with Mr. Green, and I think—although perhaps I ought not to say this—that in not putting him upon the Board I was consulting his wishes—at all events, as he expressed them to me—having regard to the new constitution. I should hate to say a single word which would seem to reflect upon Mr. Green's great reputation, his perfect devotion to the work, and his undoubtedly great technical knowledge of the whole subject of fisheries. But I really must ask the House in that matter to repose that amount of confidence in me as to think I am unwilling to do anything reflecting on the service of this

  799
  gentleman. I sincerely believe that if you asked him at this moment if he wished to remain on the Board or not, he would say "No." I know that was his feeling. Certain views he expressed with very strong feeling. I had to undertake the painful task of passing over two. One gentleman did not make any great trouble about it. When I wrote to him telling him that I did not intend to reappoint him, he was very kind in regard to the matter. Had I not taken this course, I could not have got the degree of local representation which I have got. I had to get rid of somebody. With regard to Mr. Green, I can assure the House that I thought I was doing on the whole what he wanted. Mr. Walker is not a technical fishing man at all. His work was inspection of quite a different sort. Therefore, we are at a disadvantage in that sense. But Mr. Green is still connected with the Department of Agriculture and we shall not have any difficulty in getting such evidence as we want. What we want in the fishing industry is not so much knowledge of fish as business knowledge to help to make the thing pay, and I hope we shall not be deficient in that respect.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I only rise to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there was not an intention of giving a territorial representation on the new Board? Of course, to some extent the right hon. Gentleman has met that case, and I think on the whole the appointments have given general satisfaction. But I understood there was an intention that every part of the area was to have some direct representation on the Board. Now take the county of Cork. There is a large section which partakes of the character of a new district and requires specially to be looked after. Now the effect of the appointments is this, that you appoint a man of Mayo, Donegal or Sligo. He will be supposed to look after his own neighbourhood. I would only ask to whose hands the care of the interest of the western district of Cork are to be entrusted. Everyone must recognise that the northern area has in the past received special treatment, and therefore the more southern area, or a portion of it, might be expected to make up for lost time. That cannot be done unless somebody on the Board is charged with that special function of looking after that end of the county. If there is no special representation, I think there should be somebody to fight for that end of the county.
  Mr. BIRRELL: There is no doubt that if the original scheme had been carried out of allowing the county councils in the whole area to nominate their own men, and if there had been the whole Board to operate upon, the territorial system would have prevailed. But I had so few vacancies at my disposal that it was impossible for me to carry out such a system. The representatives would not go all round, and therefore, although I did my best to get representatives and for Kerry and Clare to be represented, I do not think now that you can look upon the Board under its present arrangement as having constituents. There is a good number of gentlemen on the Board who cannot be said territorially to be connected with any part of the congested districts area. Lord Shaftesbury, for example, and Sir Horace Plunkett—they are not territorially connected with any portion, and then, of course, there is Sir David Harrel and Mr. Walker and a number of other persons, and so long as I am a member of the Board I shall consider myself a representative of those portions of the congested area which do not get a local representative. I do not think it would be a wise thing for me—indeed, I have no constitutional rights so to do—to appoint anybody who should have a watching brief for any particular portion. But I hope, now it is so obvious that the territorial system has broken down, that all those members of the Board who are not intimately connected with the congested districts area will consider themselves particularly bound to look after the interests of the unrepresented parts. I do not really think the members of the Board require a homily from me on the subject, but nobody is any the worse for being reminded that it is his duty to look after those portions of the area not represented from the locality. That is all I can say.
  Captain BRYAN COOPER: I must ask the Committee to accord me the indulgence which I understand is always granted to Members of this House who seek to address it for the first time, particularly as I am one of the youngest Members of the House and the youngest from Ireland at the present time. I gathered from the Chief Secretary that the larger sum is to be at the disposal of the Congested Districts Board for the new duties imposed upon it last year, and undoubtedly the most important of the new duties is the redistribution and the resettlement of the grass lands of Connaught. I do not

  801
  think the right hon. Gentleman told us where the Board met—whether they are going to meet in Dublin—
  Mr. BIRRELL: They meet in Rutland Square.
  Captain COOPER: I did not know if any met in Connaught. I think it is only reasonable to suppose that since they have met they have decided on their policy in regard to the portion of the money which is going to be spent on the resettlement of the lands they are going to buy. The House is entitled to know what their policy is going to be. What steps are going to be taken to render the men who get the land efficient cultivators of it—for that is an important matter—and what portion is going towards construction? But there is a more important matter. The crucial matter is, Who is the land to go to? I think most people are agreed that this is not the time nor the place to discuss the policy of dividing up grass lands, but most people will agree with me that a man with an uneconomic holding in the neighbourhood of grass lands should have first claim. Who are going to have the next claim? Are you going to provide for the congests living in Connemara, or are you going to get the neighbouring landless men who have been driving cattle? You will have a more bitter hornet's nest than you have had in the past if you pass over the landless men. Are you going to give it to the landless men? The people of Connaught say they are not going to have the congests there, and the people of Roscommon have no doubt as to the policy that ought to guide the Board. They are passing resolutions every week stating that they are not going to have any congests there. I prepared an elaboration on that subject with quotations from the Irish papers and the right hon. Gentleman's speeches, but I was told that the Vote was not coming on to-night, and I left it on my dressing table. The point at issue is quite clear. If you do not move the landless men you stereotype congestion. A recommendation from the Dudley Commission was in favour of the migrants, and if they do not get this land and landless men are provided for the congestion would be stereotyped for ever. I believe that one member of the new Board has been trying in Roscommon to smooth matters down in order to get landless men in, and he has propounded a theory that counties in Ireland are the
  802
  imagination of the British enemy. While I cannot agree with that gentleman's history, I hope his efforts will be more successful than they appear to be at present, because there is no sign of this feeling dying down. People concerned must be careful not to add another chapter to the long list of chapters of concessions to agitation. Every concession makes the next worse, and teaches the people who are naturally decent, honest, law-abiding men that the only way to get a thing is to break the law. That is the lesson which they have been taught by the right hon. Gentleman's Administration, and they have proved apt pupils. If you admit the principle that the landless men, the sons of farmers, have a right to have a farm provided for them by the State I maintain it is an absolutely unsound principle. If there was any amount of land and any amount of money we might perhaps be glad to see it. But there is not enough land and there is not enough money, and if the Tight hon. Gentleman has ample money I think it should be spent in other ways, as, for instance, on drainage. You will be losing the confidence of the people if certain methods of help are applied. Why should a farmer be set up in a farm? Why not a shopkeeper set up in his shop, or why should not a doctor in his practice? It seems to me to be rather an extended application of the principle of the right-to-work. Hon. Members sitting on the Labour Benches would, I am sure, be glad to see that principle adopted in England, but this is literally what is proposed by this recent Act. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland once made a pronouncement, in which he said that, in providing for the congests, you could never deal with the problem unless you let in the landless man. That appears to be a principle of buying off the agitator, and saying to him, "I will let you in if you will let the congests in." That is a bad policy, because for every one that is bought off you will have ten more applicants. It is not a dignified policy, either This is not a question that affects me in the least or that affects my Constituency directly, but it is a question that vitally affects the future peace and prosperity of Ireland. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some indication that this new Board have made up their minds to take a strong line, and to say to the landless men, "Until these congests are provided for, you cannot be

  803
  provided for," and, finally, I hope that when these congests are provided for the right hon. Gentleman will protect them.
  Mr. D. D. SHEEHAN: I rise to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the question of the relationship of the Department to the Irish Creamery Managers. The right hon. Gentleman knows the relation between the Department and this organisation have been of the most straightened character in the last few years, originating in the appointment of an instructor named Mr. Caroll. Various efforts have been made to smooth matters—
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: On a point of Order. I desire to ask whether it is in Order to discuss a question of creameries which are generally administered by the Board of Agriculture, as several of my friends and myself have been ruled out of Order for trying to discuss other branches of the policy of the same Department.
  The CHAIRMAN: I should like to ask the Chief Secretary—because I cannot carry all these matters in my head—whether the question of creameries has any relation to this Vote.
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir.
  The CHAIRMAN: In that case it is out of Order.
  Mr. E. H. CARLILE: I merely want to ask the question from the point of view of the British tax payer with regard to the excess of the amount over the original Estimate. The original estimate was £25,000, whereas the revised Estimate was £33,000 in excess of the original one, making now £58,000 in all. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why there is this discrepancy between the two items?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I explained that in my opening observations. The whole is new money provided by the Act in 1909. Of that new money, £19,000, was to go to the Department of Agriculture in respect of certain duties which were to be transferred to it from the Congested Districts Board. There was a large grant of £163,750 given to the Board, new money. Out of that, £19,000 was to go to the Board of Agriculture in respect of the duties transferred.
  Mr. CARLILE: What is to happen to the other £14,000?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member was not in his place when I explained this Estimate.
  804
  If he had been he would have understood the whole nature of the case. I do not think I should be obliged now to go into it again. The whole thing is, as I say, new money.
  Mr CARLILE: Although I was not in my place when the right hon. Gentleman made his opening statement, I made careful inquiries and was informed that no statement was made upon that point by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: With reference to the question put by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I think a more satisfactory course would be for him to wait until to-morrow when the OFFICIAL REPORT is published, and he can then carefully study the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. I rise for the purpose of congratulating the Government upon the excellent appointment they made to the Congested Districts Board when they selected the Rev. Father Glynn. I think it is rather a pity, although I presume it could not be helped that direct representation could not have been instituted in the Board from all the districts which are newly included. Obviously it is a difficult matter to do that, and, as the original scheme of representation was not acceded to by the House of Lords, I suppose the Government did, in the circumstances, the best they could do. At any rate, although it does not often happen, it is a pleasing thing for one to be in a position to assure the right hon. Gentleman that the appointment to the Congested Districts Board of this Reverend Gentleman from the county of Clare, as far as one can see, has given genuine and universal satisfaction, because it is evidently felt that, being a resident in the county for many years and having wide experience of the people, he will be a most efficient and capable representative of the county on the Board. It only remains for me to say that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will use all his influence with the Board to point out the necessity for dealing promptly with the added areas under the new Act. The work is essential in every part of the congested districts, no doubt; but it is, if possible, more pressing in those districts which have been recently added; and I ask the Chief Secretary to see that the work in these districts of the county of Clare is taken up by the Board without loss of time, and that it is thoroughly gone into, and that the people should receive the benefits of

  805
  the Act as soon as possible. I am sure that the Chief Secretary is quite alive to the necessity for seeing that this is done. But at the same time I think it is only proper to remind hon. Members that the utmost anxiety exists throughout the length and breadth of the county. The people have had their hopes aroused in the matter, and it would be a deplorable thing if for any reason the work was not speedily commenced. I beg of the right hon. Gentleman to see that no time is lost.
  Captain CRAIG: I do not think the hon. Member who has just sat down can complain of the constitution of the Board. He certainly cannot complain about its representative character so far as his Church is concerned, at all events. On this small Board no fewer than four of the priests belonging to his Church are members of it, while not a single Presbyterian clergyman has a seat upon the Board. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary also complains about not having had a free hand in the matter of selecting proper representatives from the various parts of the congested districts, but if he had left off these four reverend gentlemen he would have an opportunity of putting on four representative men from other parts of the congested areas. Then, again, the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, who is a member of the Board, is not able to be here at this House to answer questions, so that we are doubly handicapped in discussing the Supplementary Estimates, whether they relate to the Board of Agriculture or to the Congested Districts Board. I think that is unfair to the House, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will take early steps to see that some Member of the House does represent these two Departments.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have already said that question does not arise.
  Captain CRAIG: I was not going to pursue it, and only intended to add a word to what had been said by my hon. and learned Friend and colleague the Member for North Armagh. The Chief Secretary in his statement did not mention the expenses in any detail whatever, and I am anxious to know what have become of the supplementary sums mentioned here. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say what real value we have got for this actual expenditure of £38,000.
  806
  What class of assistance was given in the congested districts? Has the bulk of this money gone towards the fishery industries, or towards relief, or towards assistance in these congested districts, or to the purchase of seed potatoes? The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Act of 1909, but so far as the actual work which has been performed by the newly constituted Board the right hon. Gentleman has not given us one single word of explanation. I do not for a moment suggest that he should give us in actual pounds, shillings, and pence every item of this enormous sum of money. If, this sum of money had been added to the old age pensions of the people living in the congested districts, would it not have been better spent than the way in which it has been? How many persons have benefited from this expenditure, and on what class of work has the money been spent? In many cases in Ireland we know that the expense of carrying on Departments are out of all proportion to the benefits which they confer upon the people, and I think it is necessary for any Minister of the Crown to justify the vast sum of money spent in this way in some fuller manner than the Chief Secretary has so far done.
  7.0 P.M.
  I would like to raise another question with regard to the constitution of this Board. The right hon. Gentleman has taken away a great fishing expert, and he has not replaced him. In Ireland a large amount of congestion occurs in districts where fishing is the chief industry, and many of the questions referred to the Board will necessitate and require a most intimate knowledge of the whole fishing industry in Ireland to decide them. If the Government had asked Mr. Green to remain on the Board they could have retained his services instead of allowing him to slip off. Under present circumstances I do not think we can look forward to this Board carrying out its duties as it ought to do. I would suggest the right hon. Gentleman should clear off the Board one of the clerical representatives and put back Mr. Green in his place. I think Mr. Green's services should be secured in the interests of the fishing industry. That is the point which particularly struck me during the remarks made by my right hon. Friend on the Front Opposition Bench. Now we have had the names brought out in the House of Commons, but I am not satisfied with the way the appointments have been made, and I shall watch very

  807
  anxiously to see how this Board conducts its business in future. I think £1,000,000 is to be placed in the hands of these men for the purpose of buying estates in order to help to settle the problem of congestion ill Ireland, and in view of this fact surely we should have assurances from the Chief Secretary that this committee will be the strongest that can possibly be obtained and the most representative. We ought to see also that no undue pressure has been brought to bear in order to influence the Chief Secretary in his selection of the members of this Board. I hope we shall have a satisfactory answer as to what has become of this money and what he proposes to do in order to keep us right as far as this large spending Department is concerned.
  Mr. THOMAS SCANLAN: I have no intention of expressing any difference of opinion with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken as to the merits of the Rev. Mr. Green, but if the hon. and gallant Member had made himself acquainted with certain legislative changes he would have known that the duties of the Fisheries Board had been transferred entirely to the Board of Agriculture, and that the Rev. Mr. Green is still in charge.
  Captain CRAIG: I was referring entirely to the Congested Districts Board.
  Mr. SCANLAN: I represent a Division of the County of Sligo, which is a congested centre, and Sligo is not provided with any direct representation on this Board. I would, therefore, like to impress upon the Chief Secretary the desirability of urging on the Board to enter immediately upon its heavy duties, and so far as the great bulk of the people in the congested areas are concerned the work of the Board will be rendered as smooth as possible. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents a Division of the County of Dublin is a Constituent of mine, and I was amazed to hear him express the opinion that the beneficent work of the Act of Parliament passed last year would have the effect of sapping the independence of the people from whom he and his relatives derived a very large influence. The people in that district are at present dispirited and downhearted. The hon. Member asked who was going to advocate the removal of the cottar cultivating
  808
  land on a barren hill-side and planting him on the ancestral estates of the hon. and gallant Member for South Dublin and his friends and relatives on the plains of Boyle. I am amazed to hear from a man with a reputation for intelligence like the hon. and gallant Member that it would sap the spirit of independence of an Irish peasant on the hill-side to transplant him to a fertile farm of economic proportions, where he would have an opportunity of making a living for himself and his family and providing them with the decencies, comforts, and necessaries of life, a position which he cannot take up so long as he is forced to live on the barren hill-sides of Ireland, where such people have been driven by the ancestors of the hon. and gallant Member.
  Captain COOPER: The hon. Member has completely misunderstood me. What I referred to was providing farms at the Government expense. I made it perfectly clear that I was in favour of the policy of migration from the congested districts.
  Mr. SCANLAN: I am satisfied that the difficulty with regard to the landless people has been entirely exaggerated and misrepresented by people speaking on Unionist platforms and the representatives of the landlord party in this House This is a difficulty created not by the farmer, but it is a bogey set up by the representatives of the landlord who wish to oppose the transfer of the land from the landlords to the people. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Friends are really and sincerely anxious to promote the smooth and efficient working of the Congested Districts Board, as they represent the landlords, they have the power in their own hands. All we want is that the landlords shall deal reasonably with the Congested Districts Board, and in a short time you will then be able to transplant the people from uneconomic holdings to holdings on which they can maintain themselves in decency and comfort. I suggest to the Chief Secretary that in districts such as those in the county of Sligo, which have not a local representative on the Board, he should at once send down officials to make investigations in regard to the land which is available for purchase by the Board for the purpose either of providing economic holdings or extending holdings which are uneconomic, and thus make provision for the landless people, who are so much attached to the land.
  Mr. MOORE: My hon. and gallant Friend has already pointed out that this Board has been constituted not territorially, but ecclesiastically, with four leading members of the Roman Catholic Church upon it. I pass that by, and I wish to say a word or two with reference to the internal matters with which this Board will have to deal. I think its principal work should be to improve the breed of cattle. When the Chief Secretary gets up here to speak, he seems to think that his duties are confined to the question of acquiring land and dispossessing some persons, but this Board really has a more useful work to proceed with in developing the breed of cattle and horses. Although the hon. Member who has just spoken may sneer at the lack of knowledge possessed by hon. Members representing the North of Ireland, may I remind him that those hon. Members live a great deal nearer to the congested areas than Glasgow, where the hon. Member for North Sligo carries on his being.
  Mr. SCANLAN: In answer to the hon. Member, I may say that I do not live in Glasgow.
  Mr. MOORE: Probably the hon. Member has changed his venue to London, but that is also a long way from Ireland. With regard to the breed of cattle in the West of Ireland, we all know how valuable the black crosses are and how they find a ready sale. I notice that the Congested Districts Board of late years have been importing Galloway cattle. I know these are most excellent beasts and they thrive in the Lowlands of Scotland, and I do not want to say anything against any particular breed; but my point is that they mature much more slowly than the Aberdeen Angus. I should like to have an explicit answer from the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Redmond Barry) as to whether the Congested Districts Board will abandon to a great extent this system of importing Galloway bulls, and will make the black crosses by bringing in Aberdeen Angus bulls. There is another matter to which I wish to refer. A most unfortunate experiment has been recently made in Ireland in importing Normandy sires, and the greatest dissatisfaction has been expressed about them in all parts of the country. What Connaught can produce is really a hardy, all-round, small-sized horse, good for the poor roads and the small carts, and if you want to make a horse really a farmer's horse he must be a tough, wiry, small,
  810
  hardy beast. You do not want shires; you want a really good, hardy, native horse. Are the Congested Districts Board in the congested area going to follow the wishes of the Vice-President, and introduce into Ireland, to the ruin of every breed, these great lumbering, soft French horses? It has roused a great deal of feeling in the country, and I want to know how far the Congested Districts Board, under ecclesiastical supervision, are going to import these Normandy sires into these rather backward parts of the country, for which I am assured they are absolutely unfitted. This is a very important matter for the well-being of the country which the Board administer; and I think we should have satisfactory assurances that both Galloway bulls and Normandy sires will not be brought into the congested districts.
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCH: I rise to say a word, because the Constituency I have the honour to represent is also a district of the Congested Districts Board. I am very glad to pay my tribute to the Rev. Mr. Green. The Chief Secretary has been twitted by several Members who have just spoken with having over-represented the clerical element on the Board, but anyone who knows the circumstances is perfectly aware that these gentlemen were not selected for any ecclesiastical reason, but simply because they happened to be the best men available for these very important functions. That is emphatically the case with the Rev. Father Glynn. I am very glad to be able to pay this testimony to Father Glynn, and I may say it is an opinion held by every elector in my Constituency. I daresay that none of these appointments have been made from the point of view of whether a man be a Protestant or a Catholic. They have simply been made on the one standard which governs the whole case, and that is the question of efficiency.
  With respect to the landless men, I would venture to say that there are no men in Ireland more worthy of consideration, and the whole object and trend of this kind of legislation is to put the best men on the soil of Ireland. The objection has been taken that these men have gained their influence through breaking the laws. They may possibly now and again have broken the laws. Irishmen have in times past broken the law, but I think they have always done so with regret that those laws should exist which for their own salvation it has been necessary to break. If you take

  811
  a retrospective view, you will find that this law breaking, which has been condemned, has been invariably endorsed, perhaps a decade afterwards, by the Government, whether Conservative or Liberal, which has happened to be in power. I remember having a conversation with a very notable man who also broke laws in his days (Mr. John O'Leary), who said Englishmen were always sympathetic to Ireland in a retrospective way. He said that he would meet well intentioned Englishmen who said Ireland had suffered disabilities in the past—
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not quite see what this has got to do with the Supplementary Estimate.
  Mr. LYNCH: I was trying to bring it round to that, but I will bow to your ruling and conclude by saying that, so far from the Government deserving any censure for the action they have taken in regard to this legislation, it is one of those pieces of legislation which within its scope has really brought into the areas it affects the promise of peace and prosperity to Ireland, and is one of the best ameliorative measures passed for Ireland.
  Mr. J. R. P. NEWMAN: As a Member representing an English Division, but as an Irishman who has lived all his life in the South of Ireland, I have been watching this Debate with a great deal of interest. An hon. Member on the Bench behind me sneered to a certain extent at men from the North of Ireland as men who did not understand the South of Ireland. I am, at any rate, a Southerner. A Member on the Bench behind me said the Unionist Members for Ireland were always in the habit of exaggerating the difficulties which the Congested Districts Board and other Boards experienced in getting men on to the land. I am sure the Congested Districts Board are doing good work in getting men now on small bad holdings on to good land, although financed by English money, but there are difficulties in the way. I remember only two or three years ago a plot of good land was acquired in Tipperary. It was divided up, and certain men from other districts were given that land. When they came on to the land they had a very bad time of it. They were rigorously boycotted. The people round them thought they ought to have had the land, and not strangers.
  A great deal has been spoken about Mr. Green, and why he has not been appointed
  812
  to a certain position. Under the Land Act of 1909 (Section 48) a committee was appointed of six members, three nominated by the Department and three by the Congested Districts Board, and to that committee was entrusted the duty of looking after the fisheries of Ireland. If that Is so, surely as regards Mr. Green the difficulty falls to the ground. Then, with regard to the Normandy sires, some years ago a tenant on my estate in the South of Ireland introduced a Normandy sire in our district with most unhappy effects. I can remember I had the pleasant privilege of trying to teach a daughter of that sire—half Normandy, half Irish—to jump, and I could not do it. She jumped on me and rolled on me. My hon. Friend said they were not introduced for the purpose of making good hunters but for making good farm horses, but even there I say without hesitation that they are useless. They run away to nothing and are absolutely useless. I would earnestly beg the Board of Agriculture not to continue the experiment of bringing in these Normandy sires. Let us keep to Irish horses. We do not want these Normandy sires to spoil our breed.
  Mr. J. P. BOLAND: I am sure a great number of Members are quite at a loss to know why the name of the Rev. Mr. Green has been introduced into this Debate by the hon. and learned Member for East Down (Captain Craig). The Rev. Mr. Green, whom I know very well, has been a member not merely of the Congested Districts Board but also superintendent of the Fisheries Department, of the Irish Department of Agriculture. I understand that under the provisions of last year's Act practically all the Fishery Department of the Irish Government was handed over to the Department of Agriculture, and that Mr. Green, in his Department, is now in practical control of the fisheries of Ireland. I am quite at a loss to understand why the hon. and gallant Member for East Down should make out that injustice of an ecclesiastical nature was meted out to Mr. Green because he ceases to be a member of the Board. As far as the Irish fisheries are concerned, I understand he is now in a position of still greater responsibility than he was before. If there is anyone who should have some reason to complain of Mr. Green ceasing to be a member of the Congested Districts Board it is myself, because he is a resident in my Constituency of South Kerry. Ever since he has been a member of the Congested Districts Board we have always found him extremely

  813
  anxious to look after the interests of South Kerry and to see that our claims are properly put forward. Since the Board have been constituted the Bishop of Kerry has been appointed to represent Kerry and the western part of Cork. I am sure there is not a man, certainly not in the south, who will say that the Rev. Mr. Green has been removed forcibly from the Congested Districts Board in order to give way for a Roman Catholic Bishop to be upon it. It is nothing of the kind, and certainly, so far as we are concerned in the southern part of Kerry, we know that now the fishery development of the country, particularly on the western coast, has been placed in the hands of Mr. Green, who is the head of the Irish Fishery Department, that our interests are well and thoroughly looked after. I entirely deprecate the introduction of this gentleman's name—he is known to us all in Kerry and is respected by everyone who has come in contact with him—in order to make out that the Chief Secretary and those who have the appointment of the Congested Districts Board and its new members were actuated in any degree by feelings of religious motives or any desire to remove a man because he happened to be a Protestant. I only introduce this matter because I am afraid, from what has been said, an opinion may arise that the Rev. Mr. Green has been removed in order to make way for another of my own religious persuasion. Mr. Green now occupies an important position at the head of the Irish Fisheries Department, and he will have to work in with the Congested Districts Board. There has been no religious animosity of any kind in connection with his appointment. I would like to say further with regard to the work of the Congested Districts Board and of the Department of Agriculture, I have been under the impression that practically the agricultural interests in the West of Ireland is under the control of the Department of Agriculture and not in the hands of the Congested Districts Board. This is a department of Irish life which the Board should look after. There is another division of the work of the Department of Agriculture to which I should like to allude for one moment. There has been a great change in this respect. In the old days of the development of Irish Fisheries the work was very much in the hands of the Congested Districts Board. I would like to get an assurance from the Attorney-General that in the policing of the West
  814
  Coast of Ireland the depredations of steam trawlers within the prohibited areas should be carefully watched. We know that in parts of Scotland Government vessels have been detached in order to watch these marauders, but on the West Coast of Ireland, owing to insufficient policing, steam trawlers from this country and abroad are able to break the law day after day and week after week.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not see how this matter arises on this Vote.
  Mr. BOLAND: I understand this Supplementary Estimate arises out of the Act of 1909, by which certain duties were handed over from the Congested Districts Board to the Department of Agriculture. I wish to point out that in consequence of this transfer the carrying out of these duties affects the development of the fishing industries. All I ask is that the steam trawlers engaged in illegal operations should be properly watched.
  The CHAIRMAN: Steam trawling does not arise under this Vote.
  Mr. BOLAND: Of course, I bow to your ruling. I thought it did come in. I only wish to say that, as far as we are concerned in my Division of Kerry, the constitution of the Congested Districts Board is satisfactory, and that in the Rev. Dr. Mangan we have a man more competent than anyone else in that district to represent the interests of the whole of Kerry. There has been no religious question introduced into this matter, except by the hon. and gallant Member for East Down; and I can only repeat that we have always looked on the Rev. Mr. Green as one of the most capable men engaged in the development of the fishing industry on the West Coast of Ireland.
  Vote put, and agreed to.

CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS OFFICE, IRELAND.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £50, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1910, for the Expenses of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland."
Question put, and agreed to.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, IRELAND.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £450, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1910, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Public Record Office in Ireland."
Question put, and agreed to.

UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES, IRELAND.—CLASS 4.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £12,850, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1910, for the general purposes of the Queen's University, Belfast, and the University Colleges at Cork and Gal way, under Section 7 (2) of the Irish Universities Act, 1908."
Question, put, and agreed to

STATIONERY AND PRINTING.—CLASS 2.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £42,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1910, for Stationery and Books for the Public Service; for the Expenses of the Stationery Office; and for the Cost of Reports of Parliamentary Debates."
Question agreed to.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE.—CLASS 3.
Motion made, and Resolution proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1910, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of Public Trustee."
Question agreed to.
Resolutions to be reported; Committee to sit again to-morrow (Wednesday, 2nd March).

BILL PRESENTED.
Mr. SIMON—Licensing Consolidation.—Bill to consolidate the Law relating to justices' licences for the sale by retail of in toxicating liquor—presented and read the first time. (To be read a second time upon Tuesday, 15th March.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
Lord HUGH CECIL: This Motion shows that the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at an early period of the afternoon's proceedings was quite unfounded. The statement was to the effect that we have no time for the House to deal with the Income Tax Resolutions. This Motion, made at this hour of the evening, shows that there is more than enough time to carry them, to regularise the collection of Income Tax, to prevent inconvenience to the public, and to do away with the mischief which must arise from the delay in getting in the Income Tax. It shows that that excuse is put forward solely as a party manoeuvre. It is a discreditable incident of party life, and the truth is that revenue is being sacrificed, not through lack of time, but merely in order that the mechanism of the rat-trap may work.
The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): I think the words "party manoeuvre," if applicable at all, can only be properly applied to the speech of the Noble Lord, who, although not recently a Member of this House, was in former years perfectly well acquainted with the usual practice of the House, and nobody knows better than the Noble Lord that if contentious business is placed on the Paper—[Lord HUGH CECIL: "The Income Tax Resolutions would not be contentious."] The Noble Lord is not the Leader of the Opposition. I repeat that nobody knows better than he does that when contentious business is placed on the Paper every opportunity is taken to delay the business which precedes it. I very well remember the Noble Lord himself occupying days of Parliamentary time in order to prevent the House reaching business which was lower down on the Order Paper. If, after that experience, the Noble Lord wishes it to go forth to the world that because they have no contentious business on the Paper, and because the Committee has been able to get through the financial work on the Paper fairly expeditiously, the same result

817
would have happened if such a contentious measure as the Budget had also been placed on the Order Paper, I must say I do not think that either the Members of this House or the public outside are to be caught by the Noble Lord's chaff.
Mr. H. W. FORSTER: I have no right to speak as Leader of the party to which the Noble Lord belongs, but I think the right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House would have spoken with greater justification if the Government had made any effort to pass the Resolutions dealing with Income Tax, instead of postponing them to a day in the dim and distant future. The right hon. Gentleman says the Noble Lord knows perfectly well that if contentious business were put down the Supplementary Estimates would not have been allowed to go through so quickly. Perhaps the Government will try; perhaps the Government will give this wicked Opposition an opportunity of showing whether it is really so public-spirited as it claims to be; perhaps the Government will put down the Income Tax Resolutions for Thursday next, and try their luck.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned at a Quarter before Eight o'clock.

  Secondary Schools (England and Wales).
  Secondary Schools (England and Wales).
  Royal Engineer Officers (India).
  Royal Engineer Officers (India).
  Territorial Forces (Establishment and Strength).
  Territorial Forces (Establishment and Strength).
  Civil Servants (Superannuation Act).
  Civil Servants (Superannuation Act).
  Soldiers on Pension.
  Soldiers on Pension.
  Old Age Pensions (County Clare).
  Old Age Pensions (County Clare).
  Estate at Cranleymore (Longford).
  Estate at Cranleymore (Longford).
  Evicted Tenant (Culleenmore).
  Evicted Tenant (Culleenmore).
  Maria Quirke's Estate (Kerry).
  Maria Quirke's Estate (Kerry).
  Eviction of Daniel O'Donoghue.
  Eviction of Daniel O'Donoghue.
  Secondary Education in Ireland.
  Secondary Education in Ireland.
  Old Age Pension Tests.
  Old Age Pension Tests.
  Subsidies to Irish Agricultural Shows.
  Subsidies to Irish Agricultural Shows.
  Sales of Irish Estates.
  Sales of Irish Estates.
  Evicted Farm at Dooks (County Kerry).
  Evicted Farm at Dooks (County Kerry).
  Colomb Estate (Kenmare).
  Colomb Estate (Kenmare).
  Training College Candidate.
  Training College Candidate.
  Earl's Park Estate (Loughrea).
  Earl's Park Estate (Loughrea).
  Secondary Education (Ireland).
  Secondary Education (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenant (Twiss Estate).
  Evicted Tenant (Twiss Estate).
  Untenanted Lands (Athlacca and Ballybricken).
  Untenanted Lands (Athlacca and Ballybricken).
  Lady H. Dyer's Estate, Scart, County Limerick.
  Lady H. Dyer's Estate, Scart, County Limerick.
  Weetman Estate, Tuam, County Galway.
  Weetman Estate, Tuam, County Galway.
  Routledge Estate, Barbersfort, County Galway.
  Routledge Estate, Barbersfort, County Galway.
  Browne Estate, Ballybanagher, County Galway.
  Browne Estate, Ballybanagher, County Galway.
  Rosyth Granite (Tests).
  Rosyth Granite (Tests).
  Railway Station at Borris-in-Ossory.
  Railway Station at Borris-in-Ossory.
  Report on Trade Unions,
  Report on Trade Unions,
  County Louth and Labour Exchanges.
  County Louth and Labour Exchanges.
  Oakham Postal Wages.
  Oakham Postal Wages.