Sitting of 27 July 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords].
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.
Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified),
Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Metropolitan Water Board (New Works) Bill [Lords]
To be read a second time to-morrow.
Poplar Borough Council (Superannuation and Pensions) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill,
Bead the third time, and passed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Saint Mary, Radcliffe, Rectory Bill [Lords],
North Eastern Railway Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY (SUPERANNUATION FUND, ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords]. (By Order.)
Further considered.
Captain CRAIG: I object.
Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Gentleman objects he must give his reasons.
Captain CRAIG: There are 105 questions on the Paper, and I think the Government might withdraw these long Amendments in order to allow questions to proceed. If this business is gone on with it is obvious many important questions cannot be reached. I hope these Amendments will be withdrawn.
Bill to be further considered to-morrow (Friday).
Saint Mary, Radcliffe, Rectory Bill [Lords],
North Eastern Railway Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—
Public Health (Ireland) Bill, without Amendment,
Aberdeen Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 5) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 11) Bill,
Gloucester Corporation Bill,
Metropolitan Electric Tramways Bill,
Belfast Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to County Courts."—[County Courts Bill [Lords].
Aberdeen Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 5) Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 11) Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 325].

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE, 1911.
Copy presented, of Papers laid before the Conference: Naval and Military Defence [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

CALEDONIAN CANAL.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—
Copy of One Hundred and Sixth Report of the Commissioners of the Caledonian Canal [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 237.]

LAND VALUATION.
Copy ordered, "of Instructions issued by the Inland Revenue Department to Valuers, dated the 21st day of January, 1911."—[Mr. Hobhouse.]
PREVENTIVE DETENTION (POLICE ACTION).
Copy presented of Circular, dated 21st June, 1911, issued by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to Police Authorities, indicating the practice to be observed in presenting cases of habitual criminals to the Director of Public Prosecutions, under The Prevention of Crimes Act, 1908, in substitution for the Circular, dated 4th March, 1911, on the same subject [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Imprisonment of Miss Malecka in Russia.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what day representations were first made to the Russian Government asking that particulars of the charge against Miss Malecka might be furnished; and whether such particulars have yet been received?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): Representations on the particular point in question were first made on the
  1790
  11th instant. No reply on the subject has yet been received from the Russian-Government.

  Ex-Shah of Persia.
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table the Note received from the Persian Government on the occasion, of the landing in Persia of the ex-Shah, and the reply of the British Government to that Note?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Note in question reached me only on the 25th instant, and no reply has yet been returned to it. I do not propose to lay it on the Table at present.
  Mr. DILLONasked whether any communications have passed between the Russian Government and the British Government as to the landing in Persia of the ex-Shah; and, if so, whether he will lay these communications upon the Table?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second part is in the negative, but the attitude of both Governments will be one of non-intervention in internal affairs of Persia that do not affect their subjects.
  Mr. DILLONasked how many Russian troops were still stationed in Northern Persia; and whether His Majesty's Government will draw the attention of the Russian Government to the desirability of using these troops for the purpose of compelling the ex-Shah to return to Odessa.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have no recent information as to the exact numbers of Russian troops. Those from Kazvin, except eighty as a Consular guard, were withdrawn. I have not heard that those at Tabriz and Ardebil have been reduced. I am not prepared to ask the Russian Government to intervene actively in the internal affairs of Persia.
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the repeated protests, in reference to the intrigues of the ex-Shah and his agents, which have been addressed by the Government of Persia to the Russian Government during the last year; whether any explanation has reached the British Government how the ex-Shah has been allowed to leave Odessa, to travel freely about Europe, and finally to cross Russian territory and land in Persia from a Russian boat, in contraven-

  1791
  tion of the undertakings given by the Russian and British Governments to the Persian Government, and in spite of the repeated protests of the Persian Government?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not aware that the Persian Government addressed the Russian Government on this subject on more than one occasion last year, though they may in fact have done so; but I can inform the hon. Member that the Russian Government repeatedly warned the ex-Shah against intrigues, both last year and this. I have received no official explanation of the circumstances referred to in the second part of the question; the ex-Shah succeeded in eluding the Russian authorities, and there has been no contravention of the undertakings mentioned.
  Sir JOHN ROLLESTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he was aware that Mahomed Ali, the ex-Shah, had arrived in Persia with his entourage on a Russian boat; whether he can state if he had done so with the knowledge and help of the Russian Government, after the Persian Government had repeatedly called attention to the intrigues that were being carried on by the emissaries of the ex-Shah; whether the British Government will, in conjunction with the Russian Government, take steps to notify to Mahomed Ali that they will not recognise his pretensions to the throne of Persia, in accordance with the Anglo-Russian Agreement of 1909; whether he is aware that Russia has some 4,000 troops in Persia at the present time; and whether that was in accordance with the understanding between the two countries?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The reply to the first question is in the affirmative, and that to the second in the negative. As regards the third, I can make no statement as to what either Government may do in a contingency that has not yet arisen. The Agreement of 1909 is in no way concerned with such a situation as this question contemplates. As regards the fourth question, I beg to refer the hon. Member to the reply just returned to the hon. Member for East Mayo, which gives the information in my possession on the subject. As regards the fifth and last question, such Russian troops as remain in Northern Persia are there in the interests of order and for the protection of foreign
  1792
  lives and property, and their presence cannot under the circumstances be construed as a violation of the Anglo-Russian Agreement.
  Mr. GEORGE LLOYD: Is it not a fact that the protocol of 1909 to which Great Britain, Russia, and Persia were signatories, did refer to such contingency?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: We do not think it referred to the contingency raised in the question.

  Germany and Morocco.
  Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked what German warships have been in the port of Agadir since 15th July?
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked (1) whether the Secretary of State will advise the despatch of a British war vessel to Agadir for the protection of British interests at that port; (2) whether German sailors have recently been landed at or in the neighbourhood of Agadir; and, if so, on what dates, what were their numbers, and why were they landed?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: In view of the fact that a statement is to be made about Morocco, I must ask the hon. Members not to press their questions till they have heard what is to be said.

  Coronation (Sultan of Morocco).
  Mr. DILLONasked whether the special mission from the Sultan of Morocco was refused permission to take part in the Coronation celebrations; and, if so, on what ground this action was taken?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The King, on the advice of His Majesty's Government, refused to receive on the occasion of His Majesty's Coronation, any special mission from the Sultan of Morocco, on the ground of the cruelties perpetrated by the Moorish troops acting under his orders.
  Captain CRAIG: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the hon. Member for Mayo did not bring pressure to bear upon the Lord Mayor of Dublin to take part in the Coronation ceremonies?

  French Expedition to Fez.
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to give detailed information as to the alleged atrocities committed by the troops of the Sultan of Morocco on

  1793
  the inhabitants of the district of Lemta on the day on which the French troops entered Fez; and whether his attention has been called to the statement of the Sultan that the troops who committed these atrocities were commanded by European officers?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: There have been conflicting statements as to the details of what occurred. Cruelties were undoubtedly perpetrated. I am awaiting further reports from His Majesty's Consul at Fez. I am not aware that any European officers were with the troops at the actual time the cruelties were committed.
  Mr. DILLON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether if he receives further reports he will lay them upon the Table?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I cannot make an absolute pledge to that effect.
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table any reports from British consuls, or other information which had reached the British Government before the announcement of the proposed French expedition to Fez, and which was calculated to convey the impression that the lives of Europeans in Fez were in danger, or that it was not possible for Europeans to leave Fez and reach the coast in safety; and whether he can now state the total number of Europeans in Fez at the time the French expedition started?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I returned to his questions on the same subject on 30th May last, and to which I have nothing to add. An opportunity for discussing recent events in Morocco will arise on the Debate on the Foreign Office Estimates.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in what part of Ireland Morocco is situated?

  Albania.
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked whether His Majesty's Government have lately received, directly or indirectly, any communication from the King of Montenegro with regard to the situation in Albania; and whether he is in a position to make a statement as to the nature of any answer given or contemplated thereto?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The King of Montenegro on the 20th instant made certain proposals in regard to the situa-
  1794
  tion in Albania to the British, French, Russian, Austrian, and Italian representatives in Cettinje; but I am not in a position to make any statement in regard to these proposals, as they are under the consideration of the Powers concerned.

  Anglo-Japanese Treaty.
  Viscount WOLMERasked how, in the event of an attack upon either party to the Anglo-Japanese alliance by two or more allied Powers with whom one of the contrasting parties have concluded an arbitration treaty, the terms of the alliance would apply?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The terms of Article IV. of the Treaty clearly show that in no case is either of the contracting parties obliged to go to war with a third Power with whom either of them may have concluded a treaty of general arbitration.
  Viscount WOLMERasked whether Article V. of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty does not, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, permit the Japanese Government to inquire as to the availability of the Australian Fleet in the event of war; whether any such inquiry has been made; whether His Majesty's Government has replied or, in the event of inquiry, intends to reply that the action to be taken by the Dominions in the event of war is not a subject for discussion with any foreign Government; and whether such a reply would be in accordance with the full and free consultation stipulated for by the article in question?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I cannot reply to hypothetical questions; the terms of the Treaty are public.

  Arbitration Treaty (Great Britain and United States).
  Mr. HUNTasked whether the American Government has agreed to reduce the number of their warships on the Great Lakes so as to keep the terms of the existing treaty with this country before the new treaty of arbitration is signed between the United Kingdom and the United States?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The question of the Rush-Bagot Agreement has not been introduced into the negotiations for an Arbitration Treaty.
  Mr. HUNT: What is the use of making treaties with countries when it has been proved that they will not keep them when made?

  Irish Land Commission.
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked whether a special staff is employed in the Irish Land Commission for dealing with defaulting tenants under Section 35 of the Land Act, 1906, whose annuities were in arrear when the owners of the various estates were being paid the purchase money; what is the extent of the staff; and can he say in how many cases the proceedings taken were abortive for the years 1908, 1909 and 1910?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry): It is presumed that the hon. Member, in speaking of annuities in arrear when advances are being made, means interest in lieu of rent. Land Purchase Annuities only become payable when the advance has been made. No special staff is employed for the purpose of dealing with defaulters who are in arrear with the payment of interest in lieu of rent. In no case can it be said that proceedings for the recovery of interest in lieu of rent have been finally abortive. In some instances proceedings for the recovery of such interest have so far failed, but in these cases proceedings for the sale of the holdings have been, or will be, taken under Section 34 of the Act of 1909.
  Mr. KENNEDY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that several sales have been abortive, and yet the tenants go on paying the interest just as if nothing had happened?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I have given to the hon. Member the information supplied to me by the Estates Commissioners.
  Mr. KENNEDY: I am personally aware of the facts. The hon. Member further asked if the right hon. Gentleman will state in how many cases have Land Commission sales taken place for unpaid interest in lieu of rent which accrued prior to vesting holdings in the tenants under the 1903 and 1909 Land Acts; is it possible to deduct the arrears of interest from the purchase money payable to the owners; and, in view of the fact that in all such cases referred to the owners have so to speak stripped the tenants and the lands prior to sale, will he take steps to prevent such owners from profiting at the expense of the State for these methods?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The sale of holdings for non-payment of interest in lieu of rent was first provided for by Section 34 of the Irish Land Act, 1909. The number of holdings, which have since been so sold is fifteen. The answer to the second paragraph of the question is in the negative. Interest in lieu of rent is not paid to the landlord at the expense of the State. The purchase agreement signed by the tenant covenants for the payment of such interest, which is always considerably less than the rent previously payable, and the Land Commission is bound under statute to collect it pending the making of the advance.
  Mr. KENNEDY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state who pays the auctioneer when the sales are abortive, if it is not the State?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The answer is that the sales were not abortive.

  Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the action of two large farmers in the Boyle union in demanding the return to them of two acre plots of land which had been compulsorily acquired by the Boyle District Council for the erection of labourers' cottages, on the ground that these cottages were not built inside-two years from the date of the order authorising erection; whether he is aware that a number of cottages await erection in the Granard and Longford unions, respectively, because it is stated that contractors cannot be found to erect them at the price limit fixed by the Local Government Board; whether he is aware that, owing to increased cost of labour and materials, a house, according to the accepted plans, cannot now be erected for much less than £200, the present average being £170; and will he direct, in the interest of hastening the erection of cottages for which orders have been issued that the limit be left at the discretion of the local authority in each case in future?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Boyle Rural District Council failed to make arrangements for the erection of labourers' dwellings within two years after the confirmation of the Order, and the Council propose to reconvey the sites to the persons interested, under Section 15 of the Labourers Act of 1883. Fair progress has been made in the carrying out of the current schemes in the rural districts of

  1797
  Granard and Longford. Delay is not always attributable to the unwillingness of contractors to build at prices within the estimate. The number of contractors in a district is generally small, so that only a limited number of cottages can be erected at a time. In Longford the rural district council have been obliged to press contractors on account of their dilatoriness, whilst a number of tenders for the erection of cottages were recently accepted at slightly over £130 per cottage. In Granard the average amount of a tender has been about £134 per cottage. In the majority of rural districts it has been found that £170 is sufficient to cover the cost of acquiring and fencing land, erecting a cottage, and providing for all professional and other expenses. Rule 40 of the Labourers (Ireland) Order, 1906, makes provision for cases in which a council fails to obtain tenders at the sum estimated.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked whether any decision has yet been come to by the Estates Commissioners on the report of their inspector, Mr. Ryan, as regards the distribution of bog on the Douglas estate, at Kilnashee, Cloonmacart, and Bann, in county Longford; whether any step has since been taken to push through this sale without reference to the protest and the memorial of forty-nine of the tenants out of the ninety-six on the property; and whether he will take care that the fullest investigation takes place before this sale is sanctioned?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on this subject on 13th February last, to which I have nothing to add.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked if the right hon. Gentleman can say what progress the Estates Commissioners are making with the sale of the Mahony estate, situate at Mount Collins, Abbey-feale, in the county of Limerick; and whether it is their intention to include the sub-tenants in the sale?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the inspector has the matter in hand, and the case of the sub-tenants will be considered.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked if the right hon. Gentleman could say why the Estates Commissioners have not reinstated Nicholas Mulvihill in his farm at Asdee,
  1798
  Ballylongford, from which he was evicted fifteen years ago by the landlord, Mr. Creagh Hickie, of Kilelton, for non-payment of rent, but have given the holding to another who had no claim whatever to it; whether they have received Nicholas Mulvihill's statement setting out the full facts of his case; and whether they will now take into their consideration these facts and reinstate him, and accordingly carry out the provisions of the Land Acts dealing with evicted tenants?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Estates Commissioners received an application from Nicholas Mulvihill for reinstatement in a holding on the Creagh Hickie Estate, county Kerry, formerly occupied by him. He was in occupation of a holding for reinstatement in which an application had been received from his nephew, Edmond Mulvihill, and the Commissioners informed Nicholas Mulvihill that they would not take any action on his application unless he agreed to surrender the holding actually occupied by him for the purpose of reinstating Edmond Mulvihill. He refused to do this, and the Commissioners gave his former holding to Edmond Mulvihill, and they can take no action as regards Nicholas Mulvihill's application.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: On what grounds did the Commissioners give this farm to the nephew, who had no claim whatever to it and from which he had not been evicted?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I have already stated that the uncle had one farm, and was asked to surrender the holding occupied by him for the purpose of reinstating the other, but he refused to do this.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: May I ask, if Nicholas Mulvihill is willing to give up the farm which he is now in occupation of, will the Commissioners get another farm for him?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I must ask the hon. Member to give me notice of that question.
  Mr. HAYDENasked whether the Estates Commissioners inspected the townland of Derrycarbery, on the estate of Mrs. Grace Calhem Pakenham, Mahan, county Roscommon; and, if so, with what result; and what were the contents of the rulings of the Estates Commissioners

  1799
  issued to Messrs. Browne and Maunsell, the vendor's solicitors, on 10th March last; and will the Estates Commissioners, in view of the tenants of the townland of Derrycarbery being unable to agree with the vendor as to the price to be paid for the purchase of their holdings, fix the price of each holding and submit the same to the solicitors for vendor and tenants?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The reply to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. The Estates Commissioners have requested the solicitors for the vendor to lodge purchase agreements in the case of the tenants who have not yet agreed to purchase. In the case of the holding not subject to a judicial rent the Commissioners have intimated the sum they are prepared to advance having regard to security. They have not fixed any price in the case of the remaining holdings which are subject, to judicial rents. Under the law such holdings are security for suck prices as fall within the zone limits, and as the estate is being sold direct to the tenants the terms of sale is a matter for arrangement between the parties.
  Mr. HAYDENasked whether the Estates Commissioners, notwithstanding the want of land for the tenants on the Goodall estate who hold uneconomic holdings, agreed to exclude the Deer Park grazing farm, in the hands of Mr. James Ryan, from the sale, which farm Mr. Ryan took from the vendor in the year 1901, after another occupier who held it on the grazing system surrendered it; have the Estates Commissioners, after inspecting this estate and seeing the need of land to enlarge the tenants' holdings, and seeing that this farm was not offered for sale to them as untenanted land, made an offer to the vendor for the purchase of the remaining portion of this estate, to the detriment of the tenants; have the Estates Commissioners asked Mr. Goodall to offer this farm for sale as untenanted land; and, if so, with what result?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Estates Commissioners' offer to purchase in this matter has been accepted by the owner. It includes some 147 acres to be sold to (he Commissioners as untenanted land for distribution. The Commissioners are not prepared to make any advance to Ryan to purchase his holding. The Commissioners have no power to acquire the lands com-
  1800
  pulsorily, nor can they compel the owner to sell same to them as untenanted land, and it has not been included in the lands which the Commissioners propose to purchase.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the representatives of deceased farmers who have signed agreements to purchase their farms under the Land Purchase (Ireland) Acts, but who have not had their farms vested in them by the Estates Commissioners before their death, and who are debarred from receiving the benefits of Sub-section (2) of Section 61 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, are obliged by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in Ireland to pay Death Duties on the farms before they can obtain probate or administration instead of being allowed the benefits of Sub-section (3) of Section 61 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; and will he state what action he proposes to take?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The amount of the unpaid purchase money can be deducted, as explained in the reply to the previous question, in ascertaining the value chargeable with duty, and it is the practice to treat Sub-section (3) of Section 61 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, as sanctioning the payment by instalments of Estate Duty (other than the fixed duty) in respect of farms the subject of agreements to purchase under the Land Purchase (Ireland) Acts.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the non-vesting of farms where farmers have signed agreements to purchase their farms under the Land Purchase (Ireland) Acts, thereby depriving their representatives on their death of the benefits of Sub-section (3) of Section 61 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, is in many cases due to the Irish Land Act of 1909, as well as to the delay in providing funds for the completion of land purchase in Ireland; and, having regard to the fact that the representatives of the deceased farmers who have purchased their holdings are in no way to blame for the non-vesting of the holdings, will he undertake to introduce an Amendment to the present Finance Bill to provide that the benefits of Sub-section (3) of Section 61 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, shall apply to all land subject to the payment of interest to the Irish Land Commission in lieu of rent?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is the practice to treat the Sub-section in question as sanctioning the payment by instalments of Estate Duty (other than the fixed duty) in respect of land which is subject to the payment of interest to the Irish Land Commission in lieu of rent.

  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Mr. HORNERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that under Rule 105 (a) of the Rules of the Board of National Education in Ireland a teacher is entitled to an increase of salary from the date of promotion; if he can state how many national school teachers there are at present under the Board who have received promotion but not any increase of salary; what is the reason why their increased salaries have not been paid, having regard to the fact that the unexpended balance from the Vote for Public Education (Ireland) for the year ending 31st March last was about £25,000; and whether he will lake steps to have the arrears of Salary paid to these teachers?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: As my right hon. Friend stated in reply to the question of the hon. Member for South Donegal on the 19th July, this matter is receiving most careful consideration I have nothing to add to the information contained in that answer and the answer given to the question of the hon. Member for South Cork on the 16th May last.

  Midleton Board of Guardians (Ireland).
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been drawn to the proceedings at the last meeting of the Midleton Board of Guardians and District Council when Mr. C. J. Engledew, J.P., elected as an All-for-Ireland candidate for the district of Rostellan at the late elections, claimed the right to take his seat; whether he is aware that Mr. Bransfield objected to Mr. Engledew being heard, and by a majority of eleven to ten it was decided to refuse him a hearing; whether Mr. Engledew was informed that it was the chairman of the district council, who is father of Timon Murphy, an absconding official of the Board, who disqualified Mr. Engledew and Miss Mira Riordan, both of whom had been elected at the late elections, on the ground that they had not signed declarations of office within ten days after their election; whether the Local Government Board wrote a letter to the district council
  1802
  warning them that no disqualification arose unless the elected members received official notice of their election; that Mr. Engledew denied that he received any such notice; whether, notwithstanding the warning from the Local Government Board, the district council proceeded to co-opt in the room of the elected members, Mr. Engledew and Miss Riordan, two members of the Molly Maguire organisation; and whether any steps will be taken by the Local Government Board to enforce the law?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Local Government Board inform me that the facts are generally as stated in the first two paragraphs of the question, but the Board do not know in which interest Mr. Engledew was a candidate at the election, or by whom the objection referred to in the question was made. The Board have no knowledge of the allegations made regarding the chairman of the council, but they understand that the ground of objection taken is correctly given by the hon. Gentleman. The Board did write a letter to the council substantially to the effect indicated. Mr. Engledew stated to the Board that the notice of election, although dated 2nd June, did not reach him till 6th July. On the 15th instant the co-option mentioned took place, and in the circumstances the Board consider it is for Mr. Engledew and Miss Riordan to take such steps as they may be advised to establish their claim to act as members.
  Mr. W. O'BRIENasked if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the house of Mrs. Riordan, mother of Miss Mira Riordan, who was elected a member of the Midleton rural district council for the district of Cloyne at the late elections, has been wrecked by persons belonging to an organisation styling themselves Molly Maguires; that an old woman who looked out while the outrage was going on had her windows broken and her life threatened if she told the names of the perpetrators; and that it was proved at the late East Cork election petition trial that in the same neighbourhood the house of two unprotected ladies named O'Neill was attacked by a mob headed by a Poor Law officer named Timon Murphy, was was reported by the election judges for treating and corrupt practices, and who subsequently decamped as a swindler of public funds, and that an effigy of one of the ladies was burned under peculiar circumstances, which were denounced by the court as unmanly and revolting; whether

  1803
  anybody has been prosecuted in connection with these outrages; and whether instructions will be given to the police to take steps to put an end to this war upon women and to the condition of terror which prevails in the district?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Inspector-General informs me that on the night of the 27th June the windows of an unoccupied house, the property of Mrs. Riordan, were broken, apparently by a stick. The people in the adjoining houses heard the glass being broken about 2 or 3 a.m., but they deny having seen any person about at the time. On the same night two panes were broken in a window of a tenement house belonging to Mrs. Riordan and occupied by an old woman, who states that she does not know who broke them, and it does not appear that her life was threatened in any way. The amount of damage done was about £2, and no claim for compensation has been made. In December last the local band, headed by Timon Murphy, who was then relieving officer, paraded the streets and burnt an effigy of one of the Misses O'Neill. Timon Murphy has since left Cloyne. The Misses O'Neill have not been interfered with in any way since. The police are making every effort to procure evidence in connection with the injury to Mrs. Riordan's property, but so far without success. Apart from some little local political feeling the district is exceedingly well ordered and peaceable.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman's informant contradict the following statement of the lady guardian, Miss Riordan, as to the attack made upon her mother's house which appears to be so insignificant in the eyes of the right hon. Gentleman's informant:—
  "They did not leave a single pane of glass unbroken in the back or front of the house. They broke the window panes, tore the slates off the roof, and all this within a stone's throw of the police barracks."
  May I ask how, under these circumstances, he can account for the fact that the police have taken no action whatever to bring the perpetrators of this outrage on a woman to justice?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The answer I have just made is an exact reproduction of the report of the police authorities upon the matter.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I will ask the Chief Secretary if he will be kind enough to examine the recent promotions in the
  1804
  police, and to inquire for himself whether extensive promotions and rewards have not been granted to policemen who took part in prosecutions of "All-for-Irelanders"? [Interruption.] This is not a Molly Maguire convention. And if he will inquire, whether on the other side or not, policemen who have come into collision with the Molly Maguires—[Interruption.] —Hero are the Molly Maguires in full cry—have got any chance whatever of promotion?
  Mr. LUNDON: Arising out of the answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that all this controversy has been caused by the descendant of Pierce Nagle, who is now the Member for the City of Cork?
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Under ordinary circumstances I should desire to avoid any discreditable scene, but I beg to ask you, Sir, as a question of order, whether, when a Member puts a legitimate question in this House, it is open to a Member behind to utter an insult of the most atrocious character, prompted by more considerable persons, and with the deliberate object of provoking discreditable scenes in this House?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member will know I have done my best during the time I have occupied the Chair to discourage any of these questions which involve some personal reflection upon hon. Members. Hon. Members ought to be entitled to do their duty and to ask such questions and make such speeches as they think right without observations of a personal nature being made.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: I quite realise your difficulty in dealing with these matters, but I must ask you, having reference to the fact that this hon. Gentleman—I really do not know his name or his constituency —has repeated that this infamous insult is true, whether or not you will deem it your duty to call upon the hon. Gentleman to withdraw?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot do anything further than I have done. I deprecate any of these questions and references as strongly as I can.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: May I ask you, Sir, whether you understood the import of the question? It may not have caught your ears. I beg, Sir, to tell you what it was. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork asked a question with regard to the police,

  1805
  whereupon an hon. Gentleman behind him, whom I do not know, asked if the Government were aware that the Member for Cork was the descendant of one of the most blackguardly informers ever known in Ireland. He had nothing whatever to say of a Parliamentary character. It was purely an insult. Therefore, as it was intended purely as an insult, and had not even a pretence of reference to any Parliamentary proceeding, I wish to ask if that kind of thing is to be tolerated, because, if it is to be tolerated by the Speaker, we will not tolerate it?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I had not quite caught the purport of the question of the hon. Member. Perhaps now it has been made clear the hon. Member will see it is not a proper question to put?
  Mr. LUNDON: I am satisfied every word I uttered is absolutely true, and I have nothing to withdraw or to retract.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Then you are an infamous liar and scoundrel.

  Royal Visit to India.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he could now state what will be the total cost of the Royal visit to India; whether the sum of £1,000,000 voted by the Legislative Council will be fully expended; and what sums have been voted by local councils in addition to this?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I gave this information to the House in my Budget speech yesterday.

  Plague in India.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the statement that in the first week of July there were 1,848 deaths from plague in India; whether this rate of mortality is unusually high for the time of year; and whether the Government are taking exceptional measures for dealing with this outbreak?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Having regard to the fact that plague, unhappily, has been very prevalent this year, the mortality reported for the first week in July cannot be regarded as exceptionally high from a seasonal point of view. It marks a great decrease on the June figures, and is much below the mortality in the corresponding
  1806
  week of 1907, a year in which plague was similarly prevalent. As I informed the House yesterday, the local governments are fully alive to the responsibilities resting upon them in the matter, and are endeavouring to arrest the disease by the use of all means within their power.

  Scotch Settlers in Canada (Forest Fires).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the anxiety prevailing in Scotland among relatives of Canadian settlers, he would obtain and publish as soon as possible an accurate list of the districts and townships affected by, and of the deaths resulting from, the recent forest fires in Canada?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I understand from the High Commissioner for Canada that he has already telegraphed to his Government for this information, which will be published when received.

  Northern Nigeria (Conditions of Labour on Railways).
  Mr. WATTasked (1) whether the Northern Nigerian Government insist on their foreman engineers on the Lagos Railway Northern Extension working on Sundays; whether the weekly hours of work have recently been increased from 48 to 56½, the 8½ hours additional being Sunday labour; whether any extra pay is allowed these men for Sunday work; if so, is it calculated as if working on Sundays is paid for in the annual salary; and (2) whether the Northern Nigerian Government, in computing the rates of wages of the railway engineers from their annual salaries, do so on the basis of 365 working days in the year; and whether it is expressly stipulated that any overtime paid for Sunday labour must be taken as a bonus liable to be withheld on any pretext; and, if so, will he explain to the House why this system has been adopted?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I do not possess the detailed information necessary to enable me to reply to the two questions of my hon. Friend, but I will address an inquiry on the subject to the Acting Governors of Northern and Southern Nigeria. I may explain that the Lagos Northern Extension is being constructed by Southern, not Northern, Nigeria.

  Australia (Working of Referendum).
  Mr. NEWMANasked whether the despatch recently received from the Governor-General of the Commonwealth dealing with the working of the referendum in Australia has been printed; and when the same will be available for distribution?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Papers are now being printed, and I hope will be available for distribution about Thursday next.

  Gunnery Practice (German Fleet).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has information that the gunnery practice carried out by the German Fleet is more frequent and more generous as to duration than similar practice in the British Navy?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): We have no official information regarding this question.

  Fishery of Lough Neagh.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the decision of the House of Lords on Friday, 14th July, whereby the fishery of Lough Neagh, which supports 900 families, has been declared to belong exclusively to Lord Shaftesbury and his lessees under a patent of Charles II.; will he ascertain whether at the trial it was conceded that the public had always fished in Lough Neagh with nets and lines without hindrance since before the English Conquest, and that a previous attempt to restrain free fishing on the lake had failed by the judgment of the House of Lords in 1876; whether he would circulate as a State paper its recent judgment, with the evidence and arguments on both sides; whether the Law Lords were divided four to three, and on what lines did this division proceed; will he instruct the Law Officers to inquire into the validity of the patent of Charles II. as against the Crown, and into the reality of the consideration alleged to Charles II. for making the grant, or introduce legislation analogous to that necessitated by previous decisions of the Lords in the Scottish Free Church and the Taff Vale cases, with a view to enabling the fishermen of Lough Neagh to earn their livelihood as heretofore?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): My attention has been called to the decision in question, but I have not yet had an opportunity of going into the matter.

  Government Measures (Order of Precedence).
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to facilitate friendly pairing among Members who may be desirous, of a short holiday in the month of September, he will be able to indicate early next month the order of precedence that will be given by Government to those measures of secondary importance, namely, Trades Union (No. 2) Bill, Shops Bill, Copyright Bill, Coal Mines Bill, and Finance Bill of 1911, which it is intended are to become law during the course of the present Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I hope shortly to be able to make a statement as to the business of the Session.
  Mr. NEWMAN: May I ask what "shortly" means? Does it mean this month, next month, or September?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It means shortly.

  Standing Committee Procedure.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Prime Minister whether the Government Motion to allow a Grand Committee to continue its labours indefinitely after four o'clock, and which passed the House sub silentio, creates an entirely novel precedent; whether it obliges a section of the House to be absent from duty either in the House or in Committee; and whether he will undertake that such a dilemma, depriving the constituencies of the service of their representatives, shall not be again proposed?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Motion made last Wednesday was in accordance with the Standing Orders. It was proposed to ensure the completion of the consideration of the Shops Bill in Committee. As a matter of fact, the Committee rose before four o'clock.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the reason was for the motion of the Home-Secretary on that day?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I imagine it was to secure the completion of the Committee stage of the Shops Bill.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has refreshed his memory of the Long Parliament when several chairmen of committees died of exhaustion?

  Agricultural Credit and Insurance Societies Bill.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether, in view of the importance to the poorer agriculturists of the extension of agricultural credit banks in Great Britain and the delay which has occurred in initiating legislation on this subject since it was first promised by the President of the Board of Agriculture, the Government propose to afford facilities for the passing into law this Session of the Agricultural Credit and Insurance Societies Bill recently introduced into the House of Lords?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot hold out any great hope of this Bill, the importance of which I fully recognise, being passed into law during the present Session.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the continued postponement of legislation on this subject has been standing in the way of voluntary effort with the same desirable object?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I quite agree as to the importance of the matter?
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked what is the total amount now standing to the credit of the small holdings account, and what proportion of this it is proposed to devote to the purposes of the Agricultural Credit and Insurance Societies Bill?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir E. Strachey): The amount now standing to the credit of the account is £49,597 2s. 5d. It is not possible to make any estimate of the amount which will be required for the purposes of the Credit and Insurance Societies Bill.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is it proposed altogether to divert this fund from the original purpose for which it is intended under the Act?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: As far as I am aware there will be no power to divert it for any purpose for which it is not intended to be applied.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is it not possible under this proposed Bill that the whole of it will be diverted to a purpose for which it was not originally intended?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: If the hon. Member is not satisfied with my answer he must give me notice of another question.

  Local Government Board Estimates.
  Mr. STAVELEY-HILLasked when the Local Government Board Estimates are to be taken?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that communications are taking place on this subject through the usual channels.

  Imperial Conference.
  Viscount WOLMERasked the Prime Minister whether he had taken note of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's declaration at the Imperial Conference that they had taken the position in Canada that they did not think they were bound to take part in every war, and that their fleet might not be called upon in all cases; whether this doctrine is held by any of the other dominions; whether it is accepted by the British Government; whether its converse also applies; whether he has obtained or will endeavour to obtain from the Canadian Government some definition of the wars and cases referred to; and whether wars originating under Article 2 of the Japanese alliance are among them?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The matters referred to are too grave and delicate to be dealt with by way of question and answer. Nor could I without a breach of confidence disclose the discussions and decisions of the secret sessions of the Imperial Conference.

  Payment of Members.
  Mr. OLIVER LOCKER -LAMPSONasked whether it is intended to pay Members of Parliament their salaries before the close of the present Session, or whether the whole matter has been indefinitely postponed?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Notice will be given very shortly of the Motion.

  Royal Navy (Rewards for Marksmanship).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a premium, in the nature of higher pay or additional emoluments, is placed on efficiency in marksmanship in the German navy; and, if so, whether he will consider the direct and tangible recognition of such proficiency in our own ships?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In our own ships efficiency in marksmanship with ships' guns has received direct and tangible recognition for some years. The marksmen receive permanent addi-

  1811
  tional pay whilst efficient. In addition to this, considerable amounts are given in annual prizes, for which the marksmen compete.

  Battleship Nomenclature.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked what name it is proposed to give to the battleship of the "King Edward VII." class, at present called the "New Zealand"?
  Mr. McKENNA: The matter is now under consideration.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the suggestion that the name should be the "Caledonian"?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, I have not.

  Naval Character and Ability Records.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the terms used in the assessment of character and ability of men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines are to be altered; and, if so, will he state to the House in what manner?
  Mr. McKENNA: No alteration has been made in the terms used for the assessment of the characters of seamen and marines. The same terms were used also for assessing their ability, but they were found to be unsuitable for the latter purpose, and the system of assessment of ability was revised in May last. It would take too long to give the changes and the reasons for them in an answer to a question, but I have forwarded to the Noble Lord a copy of a circular letter to the Fleet which gives all particulars.

  Royal Dockyard Discharges.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked how many men of all grades have been discharged from His Majesty's dockyards since the 1st April, 1911; and whether further reductions are contemplated before the 1st November, 1911?
  Mr. McKENNA: The total number of men of all grades discharged from the dockyards since the 1st April, 1911, is 1,503, of which 876 were entered for temporary service and were discharged on completion of the work. In addition, there were 593 discharges due to natural wastage. As regards the second part of the question, further reductions are contemplated at Portsmouth before November next.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: In what class or Department will the reductions take place?
  Mr. McKENNA: I cannot say without notice. I shall be happy to answer any question by the Noble Lord on the point.

  Trawler Reserve.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked how many officers and men have joined the Trawler Reserve up to the present date?
  Mr. McKENNA: The numbers asked for are: forty-three officers and 296 men.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Are they trawling fishermen, or men from the Royal Navy or Reserve?
  Mr. McKENNA: They are fishermen who have joined.

  Old Metal Dealers Act (Amendment) Bill.
  Mr. BOOTHasked the hon. Member for the Eccleshall Division if he intends to proceed with the Old Metal Dealers Act (Amendment) Bill set down for this day; and, if so, will he order it to be printed?
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I regret that I have been unable to have this Bill printed, as negotiations have been proceeding between the parties interested in and affected by it. I propose, therefore, to withdraw the Bill, and hope that this course will ease the present congested state of business, and enable hon. Members to get away for their holidays at a somewhat earlier date than they otherwise would.

  County Justices (Swearing-in Fees).
  Mr. RENDALLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what fees are demandable from county justices on being sworn in at quarter sessions; to whom such fees are paid; whether they differ in amount in each county; what Government Department approves the scale before it is legalised; and whether, as it is desirable that such fees should be uniform, he will direct his attention to this matter?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): A complete return of the fees chargeable is given in a Paper laid before this House and published in the Session of 1907 (H.C. 314). The amount varies in different counties: the fee is ordinarily paid into the county fund, but in some cases, as will be

  1813
  seen, from the Return, it forms part of the remuneration of the clerk of the peace. Any alteration in an existing table of fees chargeable by a clerk of the peace is subject to the Secretary of State's approval; but in most counties very old tables are in force, and new tables are rarely submitted for approval. I have therefore no power to secure uniformity, and I do not at present see my way to introduce legislation for the purpose.
  Mr. RENDALLasked the Home Secretary whether the fees payable by a county justice on being sworn in at quarter sessions in the county of Dorset amount to £5 5s.; whether £3 3s. of this amount is claimed for payment of lunches; under what statute this latter sum is demanded; and whether, seeing that the Report of the Commission on the Appointment of Justices of the Peace recommended that working men should be appointed magistrates, he will take steps to abolish these fees?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that in Dorset in addition to a charge of £2 to cover the fees payable on appointment, every new justice of the peace pays a sum of £3 3s. to cover the cost of luncheons supplied to him for the rest of his life when attending quarter sessions. There may be some difficulty about putting an end to this practice, but I will make further inquiry.

  Dangerous Gun Practice (Swanley, Kent).
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that while practice was going on at Messrs. Vickers and Maxim's butts at Swanley, Kent, on the 18th July, a dummy shell was shot into a field near Dartford Heath; whether similar cases have been previously brought under his notice; and whether he can take any action to safeguard the public?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It appears that the accident occurred in connection with the range at Dartford. I am assured by Messrs. Vickers, Sons and Maxim that steps have been taken to render a recurrence of such a very serious mishap impossible.

  Metropolitan Police (Labour Disputes).
  Mr. HOAREasked how many Metropolitan police have been drafted since October last to South Wales, Hull, Manchester, Salford, and Cardiff; what proportion of the expenses has been demanded from each of the particular local
  1814
  authorities; how much each has paid; and what amount has fallen upon the local rates, the Imperial Exchequer, and the London rates?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Nine hundred and two members of the Metropolitan Police were sent to South Wales last November, 500 to Hull in June, 253 to Salford at the beginning of this month, and 320 are now in Cardiff. In the case of South Wales, the extra allowances granted to the men were paid from Imperial funds, a sum of £15,000 being voted by Parliament for this purpose; the other expenses were charged to the County Authority, but have not yet been paid. At Hull, Salford and Cardiff, all expenses will be paid by the local authority. In no case will any extra charge be allowed to fall on the London ratepayer.
  Mr. HOARE: Does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate being able to recover any money from South Wales?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly, the Bill before the House provides for that.
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW: Is there any reason why a difference should be made between the cases of Hull and Salford and that of South Wales? Why should not the same consideration be shown to Hull, Salford, and Cardiff as to South Wales?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The three places named agreed to pay the whole expense and I have no doubt that such important municipalities will do so of their own free will.
  Mr. HOARE: Did Hull agree to pay the full amount?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, they agreed to pay the whole amount.
  Mr. REMNANT: Does the right hon. Gentleman, as far as possible, use the same men for these special services? When their services are dispensed with in South Wales are they sent on to be used in Hull or Cardiff or are the men chosen indiscriminately?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, all the men take their chance of being sent.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Is the London force so large that there are always men available for this extra service?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. The Metropolitan police is a large force, but all police forces are liable to be called

  1815
  upon. London, however, is the only place where at very short notice 200 or 250 men can be obtained. On the whole, the calls upon London in this respect are less than on other forces.

  Scottish Inspectors of Mines.
  Mr. WATTasked the Home Secretary what action he proposes to take to ensure a fair proportion of Scotsmen being appointed as mines inspectors in Scotland?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a question by him on the same subject on the 8th April last. I may say that in the examination which was recently held to fill six vacancies for junior inspectors of mines two of the successful candidates were Scotsmen. A regulation which would restrict these appointments to natives of the country in which they are to act would not operate favourably to Scotsmen.
  Mr. WATT: Will the examinations and interviews with these men take place in Scotland instead of in London?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.

  Vivisection.
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the total number of experiments on living animals, as set forth in the Return for the year 1910, has increased from 86,277 in 1909 to 95,731 in 1910, showing an increase of 9,454; how many inspectors there now are under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876; and whether he can say how many of these 95,731 experiments were actually seen by such inspectors?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir; but to prevent misapprehension it may be well to point out that of the increase of 9,454 8,403 were experiments of the nature of simple inoculations, hypodermic injections and similar proceedings. There are two inspectors under the Act; 129 experiments were actually seen by them, and a very large number of animals under observation after experiment were examined.
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODalso asked whether the statement that the irregularities mentioned on page 6 of the Return of Experiments on Living Animals during the year 1910 are the only irregularities that have occurred during that year is based on unchecked information supplied by licensed vivisectors themselves; or whether any and, if so, what
  1816
  means are taken to check such information and to detect and report any irregularities which may not be reported voluntarily by the persons guilty of them?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The statement that only two irregularities occurred in 1910 was intended to mean that these were the only ones which are known to have occurred. This statement is not founded only on the returns and other information which licensees are required to furnish, but also on numerous inspections, on examination of laboratory books by the inspectors, and on information given to them by the heads of laboratories and others.
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOOD: Is it the case, then, that these irregularities were discovered by inspection of 129 experiments out of a total of 95,000?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Inspections of this, kind are by sample.

  Birmingham Postman's Conviction.
  Mr. POINTERasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of a Post Office servant named Harry Holmes, who was recently sentenced to six months' hard labour at the Birmingham Assizes for stealing a postal packet; whether, as a consequence of a serious cycling accident, it has been necessary for the postal authorities to inquire on two occasions into his mental fitness; whether since his arrest his wife has committed suicide, after killing her child; and, if so, whether he will recommend that the sentence should be reduced?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have had this case under my notice. It appears that the judge had before him the fact that the prisoner's wife had killed her child and committed suicide, and reduced by one-half the sentence he would otherwise have passed; and I do not find any sufficient ground for recommending a further reduction of sentence. The prisoner is reported to be in good health: he describes himself as feeling well and says that since the accident referred to, which occurred three years ago, he has not been off duty on account of illness except on one occasion in February last.
  Mr. POINTER: May I ask whether, in view of the conflicting evidence at the trial as to the mental fitness of this man, the right hon. Gentleman will order a

  1817
  special inquiry in order to ascertain whether or not, and how far, he was responsible for his acts?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: All such cases as these are watched from day to day. In this case the reports are good both as to the man's mental and his general physical health.

  Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908.
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, seeing that only two applications have been received from county councils under Section 49 (2) of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, he will urge county councils to make full use of their powers under the Act for the purpose of assisting credit banking, cooperative, and other societies?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: A scheme for the promotion of co-operation in connection with the Agricultural Organisation Society is being prepared, and it is proposed that county councils should be represented on the district committees administrating the scheme. When the scheme is settled, I will draw the attention of county councils to its advantages.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: Will the scheme soon be published?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I hope so.

  Sea Fisheries (Annual Reports).
  Major WHITEasked when the Annual Reports of Proceedings under Acts relating to Sea Fisheries for the years 1909 and 1910 will be presented to Parliament; and what reason can be given for the delay in the preparation of these Reports?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The 1909 Report is now with the printers, and the 1910 Report will, it is hoped, be completed before the end of this year. Delay has arisen in consequence of the pressure of work arising out of the preparation of special reports, four of which have been issued during the past three years.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. HARRY HOPEasked if, considering the repeated outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, the Board of Agriculture will now take steps to prohibit the importation of hay and straw from those countries in which the disease is known to be rampant?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The importation of hay and straw for fodder or litter from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is known to exist is prohibited by Order of the Board of 1908.

  Huntingdonshire County Council (Small Holdings).
  Mr. OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Huntingdonshire County Council contemplate making a compulsory order for the purchase of Park Farm, in the parish of Farcet, for small holdings; and whether he will use his influence to prevent this, in view of the fact that the farm in question is virtually a small holding already?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The matter is still under consideration by the county council.

  Training College Regulations.
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the President of the Board of Education when the training college regulations for the year will be issued?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): The revised regulations for the training of teachers for elementary schools were issued on 20th July last.

  Secondary Schools (Preparatory Departments).
  Mr. GOLDSTONEasked how many secondary schools in receipt of grants from the Board have preparatory departments for children under the normal age of admission to secondary schools; and whether it is the policy of the Board to encourage the establishment of preparatory departments for children of about the age of nine years?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: It would be difficult to name any precise age as being, at present in England, the normal age of admission to secondary schools. The younger children at a secondary school are in some schools organised as a preparatory department under that name, and in others not. It is, therefore, not possible to give any exact answer to the first paragraph of the question. As my right hon. Friend stated in his speech on the Education Estimates on 13th July, the best educational opinion holds that elementary scholars who are proceeding to secondary schools should, if they are to receive the fullest benefit, come in at the age of nine or ten.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: Is it the policy of the Board to encourage that type of preparatory school in connection with existing secondary schools?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: Yes.

  Soldiers' Daughters' Home (Hampstead).
  Mr. RICHARD LAMBERTasked whether inspectors of the Board have visited the school of the Royal Soldiers' Daughters' Home at Hampstead; and, if so, will their reports be published?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Reports of such inspections are communicated only to those responsible for the schools.

  Boy Scouts' Review (Windsor).
  Mr. HAMBROasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can reconsider his decision that the time taken by scholars who attended the recent Boy Scouts' Review at Windsor should not be counted as equivalent to attendance at a public elementary school for the purpose of Article 44 (b) of the Code?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: The answer is in the negative.

  S.S. "Skerries" (Chinese Crew).
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information regarding the mutinous behaviour of the Chinese crew of the British steamer "Skerries" on a voyage from New York to Australia, necessitating the steamer putting back to Mauritius, some 820 miles, where the Chinese were paid off and a fresh crew of Creoles shipped to enable the steamer to proceed on her voyage; whether he can state at what port these Chinese were shipped, the period of engagement, and the rate of wages; and whether, in view of the danger to British lives and property, he will issue a notice to British shipowners warning them of the danger of employing Chinese on board their vessels?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Tennant): I have seen reports in the Press of the behaviour of the Chinese crew of the s.s. "Skerries," but I have as yet no further information as to the circumstances. This vessel engaged her crew at North Shields on the 9th September, 1910, for a voyage not exceeding three years' duration. The
  1820
  wages paid to the Chinese seamen were as follows:—

  Per month.

  Ship's cook, No. 1 fireman, and boatswain

  £5

  0

  0

  No. 2 fireman

  £4

  0

  0

  Some of the deck hands and donkeyman

  £3

  15

  0

  Remainder

  £3

  10

  0

  Further inquiry will be made into the whole matter as soon as possible.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire whether a language test was applied before the crew was shipped?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, I will make that inquiry.

  Development Fund Grants.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether, if all grants from the Development Fund are to be conditional upon proportional local contributions to the objects for which such grants are made, private benefactions will be reckoned as fulfilling the conditions of such grants equally with the rate-provided expenditure of local authorities; and, (2), whether it is the intention of the Development Commissioners to recommend grants from the Development Fund for the various purposes specified in the Development and Roads Improvement Act only on condition that a proportion of the cost of approved schemes is thrown upon the local ratepayers, however national in character such schemes may be; and, if so, how it is proposed in the poorer agricultural counties where development schemes are most necessary, and the burden of the present high rates most sorely felt, to promote effectively the objects of the above Act?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Commissioners have not laid down any general condition of the kind referred to, nor, so far as I am aware, do they propose to do so. As they have explained on page 10 of their annual report, recently published, they are of opinion that in certain cases it is right and proper that assistance from the Development Fund should be conditional on corresponding contributions from local or other sources, unless it can be shown that those sources have been previously exhausted. The decision in any particular case will naturally depend on the extent, if any, to which local as disdinct from national interests are involved.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise, as I have en-

  1821
  deavoured to point out, that the poorer counties are about to suffer if local contributions are going to be made a condition of every Grant out of the Development Fund?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I realise that the hon. Member has pointed it out, but I am afraid I cannot agree with him.

  Motor Car Tax.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, since in the case of high-powered cars many owners have already paid in taxes more than their market value, he will consider a graduation of the Motor Car Tax according to age, fixing a period at which the vehicle, owing to age and lack of market value, shall be entirely exempt?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend is appointing a Committee to advise as to any changes which should be made in the Treasury Regulations respecting horse-power, and they will no doubt consider whether any concession is called for in respect of a car the effective horsepower of which is diminished through age.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

    ORDER OF PROCEDURE IN COMMITTEE.
    Sir RANDOLF BAKERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to take the Schedules of the Insurance Bill relating to invalidity before the unemployment portion of the Bill or after it?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Schedules would in the ordinary course be taken after the portions of the Bill dealing with unemployment and with general matters.
    Sir R. BAKER: Would it not be extremely inconvenient if, when the Bill is in the House, after discussing invalidity for some weeks we should turn our attention to unemployment, leaving big questions in the Schedule till a later date, and then come back to the unemployment portion?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: If the hon. Member will put a question down I will consider the matter again.

    MANCHESTER FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
    Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a communication from the secretary of the Sincere Sick and Burial Society and the Humane Perseverance Sick and Burial Society, of Manchester,
    1822
    dated 1st July, asking for fair and equitable consideration in regard to the above societies; whether he received a second communication, dated 11th July, from the secretary to the same effect; whether he is aware that neither of these communications has been replied to; and, seeing that these two societies have accumulated capital of £27,000 and £23,000 respectively, and 19,000 and 17,000 members respectively, of whom 11,500 and 9,000 are on the joint sick and funeral section, will he state what steps he proposes to take to see that they are not injured by the National Insurance Bill?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The gentleman named wrote on 27th May, making some inquiries as to the position of his societies under the Bill, and a reply giving the desired explanations was sent to him on 30th May. The letters referred to in the question asked for an interview with my right hon. Friend, who regrets that it has been impossible to spare the time for this. A week ago, however, an invitation was sent inviting the secretary of the two-societies to call and see an official at the Treasury, who would be able to give him all the information he desires, and I have no doubt the secretary will reply at his convenience to this invitation.

    DISPENSARIES.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked whether it is intended under the National Insurance Bill to allow friendly societies to open dispensaries; and whether all dispensing will be done by qualified pharmacists?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is desirable to secure the best system for the supply of medicines. Consequently no one method of supply should be expressly excluded. All dispensing will be done by qualified persons.

    AFFILIATION OF SOCIETIES.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that there is a friendly society in Portsmouth called the Royal Naval Firemen's Sick Benefit and Burial Society; whether he is aware that the members of this society, numbering 2,000, contribute from 2s. to 2s. 8d. per month according to age; whether he is aware that members of this society receive the following amounts of sick pay, namely, 2s. a week if members under three months, 4s. a week if members for three months, 8s. a week if members for six months, and 14s. a week

    1823
    if members for twelve months; whether he is aware that the interest on the investment of the funds of this society averages 5 per cent. per annum; that the funds amounted to £11,782 in December, 1910; and whether it would be permissible for this society to affiliate itself with another at Portsmouth in order to receive the benefits under the National Insurance Bill?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have no doubt the Noble Lord is well informed as to the various particulars which he gives respecting this society. I know of no obstacle to prevent the society affiliating itself in the manner suggested.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Will it be necessary that these societies should be amalgamated for this purpose?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: As at present ad-advised, I think they must amalgamate, but I would rather that the Noble Lord would put down a definite question.

    MODEL RULES.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view to the guidance of those societies which will become approved societies under the National Insurance Bill, he will cause to be prepared and issued for publication at a low-price model or sample rules to be made under Clause 13 (2) of the Bill?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: This will be a question for the consideration of the Insurance Commissioners, who will have the assistance of an Advisory Committee, after the Bill becomes law.

  Income Tax Assessment (Mr. J. Woodward, Warrington).
  Viscount WOLMERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. J. Woodward, of Penketh, Warrington, who was distrained upon for Income Tax for the year 1909–10 merely because, not having received any notice to that effect, he did not appeal in time against his assessment; whether he is aware that Mr. Woodward then protested, and has since proved to the satisfaction of the District Commissioners of Taxes, that having an income of only £89 7s. 9d. he was in no way liable to pay Income Tax; and whether, in view of these facts, and seeing that working men who are unable to afford legal advice are entirely at the mercy of the Govern-
  1824
  ment in such matters, he will direct that the money taken from Mr. Woodward should be repaid to him?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend's attention was drawn to this case by the Noble Lord on the 17th instant, and I have nothing to add to the answer which was then given.
  Viscount WOLMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have said I have nothing to add to the answer previously given, which, I think, covered that point.
  Viscount WOLMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the previous question had nothing whatever to do with that point?

  Finance (1909–10) Act.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked if the benefits of Sub-section (2) of Section 61 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, only apply to the property of a deceased person where a fixed duty is payable and where the gross assets do not exceed £500?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer is in the affirmative, for the reason that in other than fixed-duty cases, the duty, under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1894, is only chargeable upon the net value of the property, after deduction of the charges or liabilities referred to in the Sub-section in question.

  Pauper Statistics.
  Mr. ROBERT THOMPSONasked what are the pauper populations confined in workhouses in the chief cities and towns of England, Scotland, and Ireland for the month of June last, calculated on a basis of each 10,000 of the respective populations in each case?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): Returns relating to pauperism in England and Wales on 1st July, 1911, are now being received, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board will be happy to furnish the hon. Member as soon as those returns are complete with a statement such as he desires with regard to places in England and Wales. As regards. Scotland and Ireland, I may refer the hon. Member to the Secretary for Scotland and the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland respectively.

  Army Pensions.
  Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether anything is done by his department in the way of bonus or financial assistance to soldiers of good character discharged from the Service on account of any ailment developing while in the Service, about which it is a matter of opinion as to whether it has arisen out of the service and is pensionable; and, if so, will he say what assistance his department renders in such circumstances?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): All soldiers discharged for disability with fourteen years' service and upwards are pensioned. Soldiers with less than fourteen years' service discharged for disability due to service or climate receive pensions: if their disabilities are not so caused they may be granted temporary pensions. The question whether the disability arises from the Service is decided by the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital, assisted, if necessary, by the opinion of the Army Medical Department. The rates of pension are laid down in the Royal Warrant for pay, etc. They vary according to rank and other conditions of service.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Are we to take it for granted that the regulations make it impossible for a man to get a pension unless he has done fourteen years' service, and that no man who develops any ailment in the service within that period is entitled to a pension?
  Colonel SEELY: I have explained that if a man retires owing to illness due to service or climate he does get a pension.
  Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is an appeal, or whether this depends on one man's decision?
  Colonel SEELY: There are several cases, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a question in regard to the particular case on which he desires information.

PARLIAMENT BILL.
Mr. HUNT: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he will suspend the Eleven o'clock rule on the day on which the Division on the
1826
House of Lords Amendments to the Parliament Bill takes place, in order that Members on the back benches may have an opportunity of expressing their views?
The PRIME MINISTER: It would be premature at present to give any answer to that question.
Mr. HUNT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, seeing that the Eleven o'clock Rule is suspended on every little twopenny-halfpenny question, he will do the same on a great question of this sort?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BALFOUR: Can the Prime Minister give the House an indication of the business proposed to be taken next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: We propose to take the Committee stage on the National Insurance Bill on the early days of next week. It is possible that we may ask the House to give one of these days for the consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Parliament Bill. Due notice of that will be given. On Thursday we will take Supply.
Mr. BOOTH: May I ask whether it is intended to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule on the days on which the Insurance Bill is taken?
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May we take it for certain that the Insurance Bill will be taken on Monday?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir.
Ordered, "That two additional days be allotted to the Business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]

BILL PRESENTED.
  RESIDENT MAGISTRATES (BELFAST) BILL.
  "To amend the law with respect to the salaries, superannuation, appointment, and powers of resident magistrates for the city of Belfast," presented by Mr. BIRRELL; supported by the Attorney-General for Ireland; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.

SUPPLY [19th Allotted Day].
Considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]

SUPPLY [19th Allotted Day].
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1911–12.

    FOREIGN OFFICE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £37,225, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
    NOTE.—Thirty thousand pounds has been voted on account.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think I said two days ago, in answer to an inquiry by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Balfour), that I thought it would be more convenient, instead of answering a question across the floor of the House, that we should take the occasion of this Vote to make a statement as to a question which very largely and generally, if it does not absorb, at any rate excites public attention. I mean the question which has arisen in the international sphere in regard to Morocco, and I think it will be of general interest, as well as for the convenience of the House, that I should make that statement at once before any debate or discussion has arisen. It is obvious that this Moroccan question has reached a point at which it will become increasingly difficult, embarrassing, and anxious unless a solution is found. Too close an analysis at the present moment of causes and antecedents might provoke in more than one quarter recrimination and retorts, which it is on every ground desirable to avoid. I propose, therefore, simply to state to the House what is the actual situation today. Conversations are proceeding between France and Germany. We are not a party to those conversations. The subject matter of them may not affect British interests. On that point, until we know the ultimate result, we cannot express a final opinion. But it is our desire that these conversations should issue in a settlement honourable and satisfactory to both the parties, and of which His Majesty's Government can cordially say that it in no way prejudices British interests. We believe that to be
    1828
    quite possible; we earnestly and sincerely desire to see it accomplished. The question of Morocco itself bristles with difficulties, but outside Morocco, in other parts of West Africa, we should not think of attempting to interfere with territorial arrangements considered reasonable by those who are more directly interested. Any statements that we have so interfered to prejudice negotiations between France and Germany are mischievous inventions, without the faintest foundation in fact. But we have thought it right from the beginning to make it quite clear that, failing a settlement such as I have indicated, we must become an active party to discussion of the situation. That would be our right as a signatory to the Treaty of Algeciras; it might be our obligation under the terms of our Agreement of 1904 with France; it might be our duty in defence of British interests directly affected by further developments. There have been times, when we were not sure how far this was fully understood. I am glad to say we are now quite satisfied that that is not the case. The statement which I made here at this Table more than three weeks ago, and the speech since made elsewhere by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have, I hope and believe, made it perfectly clear that we claim not any predominant or pre-eminent position, but that of one party interested in possible developments and in seeing a solution of the present difficulties. Sir, in our judgment, it would have been a grave mistake to let such a situation drift till an assertion of our interest in it might, owing to previous silence, cause surprise and resentment at the moment when this assertion became most necessary. That, I trust, we have sufficiently guarded against by the statements already made. I repeat that we earnestly desire a successful issue of the conversations now in progress, and I would venture, in the general interest, to make a strong appeal to the House, not on the present occasion to enter into further details or open up controversial ground.
    Mr. BALFOUR: The careful and guarded statement made by the Prime Minister requires little or nothing from me in the way of comment, and nothing whatever in the way of criticism. He has, with a full knowledge of the difficulties of the case, and of the responsibilities attaching to the conduct of foreign affairs in a crisis like this, made an appeal to the House not to drag in irritating matter, not

    1829
    to raise unnecessary controversies, and not to go back over the past with criticism which, as they are directed towards the past, can do no good now, whilst it is possible that, unless couched in the most cautious terms, they may act as an irritating cause rather than as a pacific cause, in the present critical situation in which Europe, not only this country, but Europe finds itself. So far as my friends and myself are concerned, that request of the Prime Minister will, I feel quite certain, be regarded in the spirit as well as in the letter; and, perhaps, I need only add this one further remark; we have often said on both sides of the House that we do not allow our party differences, however acute, to interfere with our common agreement where the interests of the country as a whole, are at stake. I suppose there never was a moment at which that doctrine, if a genuine one, as it is, is more difficult to carry into effect than at this moment when, I suppose, party differences are more profound and more acute with regard to domestic issues, than they have been in the memory of any man now present. Sir, so far as we are concerned those statements in the past were no mere fair weather enunciations of an easy morality; they were not merely doctrines stated at a time when the temperature of the party differences was low, and when the political horizon abroad was free from cloud. They were genuinely meant, and they will be faithfully carried out; and, if there be any observers or critics outside these walls, who have counted upon our differences and our absorption in the bitter home disputes of the moment, in the hope that they will make easy a policy which they under other circumstances thought this country might object to, if there are any who suppose that we are wiped out from the map of Europe because we have our own differences at home, it may be worth while saying, for the benefit of those whom it may concern, that they have utterly mistaken the temper of the British people and the patriotism of the Opposition, whether the Opposition be drawn from one side of the House or from the other side of the House.
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I am sure whoever addresses the House, following the statements made by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, must do so with an overwhelming sense of responsibility. The gravity of the Prime Minister's statement will not delude anyone in spite of the very careful phrasing in which it has been couched. This
    1830
    House, on all sides, knows, perfectly well what the opinions of my hon. Friends are; the House also knows perfectly well the forces, the organisations, the movements in Europe with which we are associated. The House knows perfectly well that so long as there is a Labour party in Germany, in France, or in England, those parties will co-operate together to the very last moment to seek peace, and pursue it earnestly. My hon. Friend the Member for Glamorgan has just told me that this morning, in an International conference of miners, in which every European country has been represented as well as our own, a very earnestly worded resolution, supported by the earnest speeches of representatives—of the miners at any rate— from all those countries, has been unanimously passed. I am not going to say anything further than I have said. If the path of peace is going to be wrecked at the present moment, we shall stand by it even when it has been wrecked. I hope the House will believe me that in stating that I am in no way going against the spirit either of the statement that has been made by the Prime Minister or that made by the Leader of the Opposition. We know the gravity of the situation. We know that those who work with us upon the Continent cannot control continental national policies. But we also know this that it may be very useful for rulers of all the countries to know that there is a strong organisation that will stand for peace through fair weather and through foul weather. May I say this further word, and I say it with profound regret: I am exceedingly sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the statement he did in another place. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I will tell you why. It is far better that we should discuss these things quite candidly and in a calm frame of mind.
    If the statement had to be made, it was precisely the statement that ought to have been made through the ordinary private channels. I do not know that I agree—I do not agree—with those private negotiations which settle the lines of national policy, the results of which are only made known to the public when the public are absolutely powerless to influence the direction in which the Nation is going. But so long as that is the policy, so long as that is the method of carrying on international diplomacy, it was surely a statement which ought to have been made in that way; and

    1831
    I will tell you why again. That statement has been the basis of a Press campaign which everybody must regret. I am sorry that the Prime Minister confined his good advice to this House. This House has never hampered him. This House has not hampered the Foreign Secretary. Whatever has happened which is unfortunate, has happened because the Press has not risen to the responsibility of its position as a peacemaker and a war maker between nations. I offer that protest, and I will say no more now. I have spoken with a great deal of feeling, with much reluctance, and with a grave sense of responsibility; but I do hope and I do pray that the negotiations which are going on will result in peace. I do hope and I do pray that no European nation will assume for a single moment that party divisions in this country will weaken the national spirit or national union. But that does not mean that there will not be sections in the country who will strive, ceaselessly strive night and day, in season and out of season, whether it is popular or unpopular, to make it impossible first of all and to make it difficult after that, for two civilised countries, two professedly Christian countries, to resort to the arbitrament of the sword in order to settle a difficulty that could easily be settled by The Hague Court.
    Mr. GEORGE LLOYD: I would be the last to enter upon any discussion on what is gone by, but we have so few opportunities of discussing foreign questions that I desire on this occasion to call attention to affairs in Persia. I would first of all ask the attention of the House to some of the developments that have taken place in Persia within the last few weeks. I do not propose in this respect to offer any criticism as regards the Government's policy: I merely ask for an explanation. We all know that quite recently the ex-Shah of Persia landed on Persian territory from Russian soil. We also know that in 1909 the Government was one of the signatories with Russia to certain agreements by which Russia, in the second part, pledged herself in very clear terms to take effective measures against any political agitation on the part of the ex-Shah in his former dominion. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, the Foreign Secretary, whether it is a fact, or it is not a fact, that we were aware by any channels whatever, either through Russia or any other channel, that it was very probable
    1832
    that the ex-Shah would attempt the unfortunate step he has just taken, and, if so, does the right hon. Gentleman really think that the attitude of Russia is in conformity with the taking of effective measures which, we understand, from the protocol of 1909, she had undertaken with regard to any further political agitation in Persia. We think really that it is time we were informed exactly what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government with regard to Persia at the present time. I think the right hon. Gentleman himself will not deny that, following upon the Russian Convention we did extend to the Parliamentary party in Persia a considerable measure of sympathy. At the present time we seem to have reversed our attitude; or, at any rate, we cannot take an absolutely neutral attitude. Not to make any statement of any kind whatever, in order to preserve Persia from renewed political agitation on the part of the ex-Shah, might cause the greatest doubt in the Nationalist party of Persia, as to whether we might not be acting with Russia in this matter. I for one scout any such suggestion. But I do think it is a very timely moment for the Government to make some statement as to their attitude and feeling in reference to the landing of the ex-Shah in Persia.
    The Persian trade routes are another matter about which I should be glad of further information. There have recently been some specially interesting articles appearing in the columns of "The Times," by one who has had very long experience in the Persian Gulf. Everybody I have met recently who knows the situation of Southern Persia, and the condition of the trade routes there, knows that all the facilities and channels by which our trade may go up to the centre of Persia are in such a hopeless state of anarchy and confusion that our trade is being seriously jeopardised. There were many, and I was amongst them, who were critics of the Anglo-Russian Convention—at any rate from the local point of view, because of the great concessions we made from the trade point of view with Central Persia. I remember reading a speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary, on the occasion when he was justifying his policy in reference to the Convention, and in that speech he laid stress on the fact that our trade in South Persia was so small—I do not think that I misrepresent him—that the attitude he had taken was largely from the strategical point of view in connection with the

    1833
    Anglo-Russian Convention. I think it is a very dangerous line of argument to allow our trade to shrink and become smaller, and then later on say it is so small that there is no need for further safeguards. Five years ago, on the Bushire-Shiraz route, there were 7,000 muleteers employed almost exclusively in carrying British goods. Last year the number sank to something less than 3,000. I had occasion only a few months ago to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to the fact of the negotiations with regard to the northern trade route which, at any rate at one time, was a very good and valuable route. That northern route was allowed completely to lapse, and nothing would persuade Turkey to put it in proper order or do anything that would be effective.
    It seems to me that the Government are pursuing the same policy with regard to our southern Persian trade as they did with regard to the northern trade route. What was the result in the north of Persia? Eventually Russia got more and more hold of the northern trade routes into Persia, and all we could say was, "Very well, our trade must have a different inlet to Persia." I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what he now proposes to do with regard to the southern Persian trade routes. I for one would be the last to disagree with him in not wishing to press further the terms of the British Note which the Government sent last October in reference to this matter. We were told later on that the condition of affairs had so far improved that it was unnecessary to take the steps which were hinted at in that Note. What is the Government going to do to protect our trade? Something has got to be done, and done rapidly, in connection with the trade of southern Persia. I would like to have some assurances from the right hon. Gentleman that he is not going to leave the matter where it is at the present time, and that he will do all in his power by some methods to assist the trade in the Persian Gulf, which has suffered so great a decrease in the last forty years. I wish to say a few words with regard to the situation in Albania. First of all I would like to say how very glad I am, as probably are most of my hon. Friends on this side of the House who take an interest' in the affairs of Persia, that the suggestions which have been made in some quarters with regard to intervention in Albania have remained unnoticed, so far as I am aware, by His Majesty's Government.
    1834
    I should like to say at once that I am sure that any attempt at intervention in Albania at the present time would be a very serious step, and a very regrettable one, for us to take. That does not mean that many of us do not think that the Albanian campaign, or rather some aspects of it, and the methods of the last few weeks have not been regrettable and do not demand a considerable amount of fair criticism from this country; but I think, sooner than add to the difficulties of Turkey at the present time in criticising the details of their methods, that we should do much better to try and, in our criticisms, to point out that it is only another example of the futility of the Ottomanising policy which the Committee of Union and Progress adopted some two or three years ago. There were a good many sympathisers with it in this House, and rather florid kind of talk which went on at that time with regard to liberty, equality, and fraternity, and the outer trappings and promises of the Committee of Union and Progress. We sympathised with the demands of the Committee party in Turkey because we honestly believe that they meant a greater period of tranquillity and liberty for Turkey. But I have no doubt that, however that might prove to be, the policy of trying to Ottomanise absolutely different races and creeds all throughout the country was doomed to failure, and in this case this policy with regard to Albania is proving a signal failure. Until the Committee party chose to change their attitude in this matter, and deal with it rather more on national autonomous lines I am perfectly convinced that their efforts will be doomed to failure. At the same time I would like to repeat that any attempt at intervention on our part would be very regrettable and one which I hope we may have an assurance from His Majesty's Government that they do not contemplate.
    There is only one other matter I am going to ask for information about and with regard to which I wish to offer no remark. This, I think, is rather a fortunate opportunity when the Foreign Secretary might tell us a little more about what passed, or the results of the conversation that went on during the Imperial Conference with regard to the Dominions in foreign affairs. We were told, and we were very glad to see that the Dominion Premiers were highly pleased with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and with the confidence into which he took

    1835
    them with regard to the foreign affairs of the Empire. We also understood that in future the Dominions were going to be kept fully informed of all the more important steps we were likely to take in our foreign affairs. I would like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on that fact, but I think it is time we knew a little about how the Foreign Office proposed to deal with this matter. I should like to ask, if it is not an unwise question at this momen, and if so the right hon. Gentleman will know it, whether in a case of this kind when we have grave international troubles it is possible, or if he thinks it possible, to keep the Dominions thoroughly informed with regard to all that is going on. That is a matter as to which we are naturally anxious to know a good deal more, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will deal with it as fully as he can and tell us how he means, and how far he means, to keep the Dominions informed, and by what methods, and that should a very great crisis arise, whoever may be the parties in power in Canada or Australia, however much disposed they are to resent any wars that may arise, how they may be kept fully informed of every detail, not only when the event has occurred, but some time before, of what the negotiations may mean. There were several other matters with regard to the Japanese Treaty which I had intended to raise this afternoon, but in view of what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, with regard to the Moroccan situation I would merely ask him to give me such information as he can on the points I have raised, and I leave the remainder for discussion on a future occasion.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I desire, in my remarks, to follow very much on the lines of my hon. Friend (Mr. G. Lloyd). I heartily agree with what he said with regard to the policy in Turkey. I quite agree with him that any unconsidered single-handed intervention on our part in the present state of things in Albania would be deplorable, but the danger is that if the situation is not carefully watched it may drift of itself to a point in which the intervention of somebody may become absolutely imperative, and we may then be compelled to take a hand in a very dangerous game which timely action might have averted. I am the very last to wish to put pressure, especially on the Foreign Secretary, but I do think that a word of warning is necessary on the posi-
    1836
    tion which now exists in Montenegro and Albania. I have no special interest in the matter, except that from travelling in those parts I have acquired some local knowledge and certain sympathies, and I have information which has come straight from the spot, and it is to this effect. There are now some ten to twelve thousand Albanian refugees in Montenegro, who are being supported by the people there; the people have met them very generously, but the resources of the Government and of the country, from a Western standpoint, are ludicrously inadequate. Efforts are about to be made in this country to do what is possible for those poor people, and I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has generously promised that everything in the way of those efforts that is possible shall be done. But it is doubtful whether the real problem can be sufficiently tackled by any private means. The refugees keep coming in, and the situation is becoming increasingly embittered; they are being fed at present by maize which is brought from Bulgaria and Southern Russia, and transported with infinite difficulty to the refugee camps.
    The situation cannot go on indefinitely; it is quite impossible for Montenegro indefinitely to support week after week these many thousands of refugees, but it is equally impossible that they can be dismissed and sent to their homes. It would be impossible for the King of Montenegro, and for his reputation with his neigbhours in the Balkans, that he should suffer that to be done, unless there were some assurances of the safety of those people. In consequence of this economic pressure and the impossibility of those people, who are increasing in numbers in Montenegro, going home without guarantees, the position in Montenegro may become so intolerable that war may be the least bad of two alternatives before their country. I need not dwell on the complications which would ensue there, because all Balkan policy is more or less interdependent. What happens in Montenegro cannot be indifferent to Servia; what happens in Turkey cannot be indifferent to Bulgaria. Any special action in Bulgaria must, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, be subject for discussion, and perhaps for action, in Roumania, and so the whole of the Balkans may be involved, and, if the whole of them are involved, the great Powers cannot at any rate stand aside. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend as to the risk of any isolated or hasty interven-

    1837
    tion, but I do ask that this matter should not be allowed to drift, because it might become a dangerous question. Some timely action now might toe the means of avoiding much greater complications in the very near future, and the dangerous period, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, in those parts is at the end of the harvest. I am talking of the Balkans generally. I have information as to very much graver difficulties in those parts, but I trust that those difficulties may perhaps be averted by wise steps taken in time.
    Mr. NOEL BUXTON: In the fewest possible words I wish to associate myself with the desire of hon. Members opposite to call attention to the Turkish question, and to a great extent I wish to associate myself with the views they have expressed. The Turkish question is likely to be with us for a long time to come. At the moment it is largely obscured by other topics which appear more weighty, but I think in regard to those the Turkish proverb may prove to be true which says, "The dogs bark, but the caravan passes on." The caravan of the general welfare of Europe will long be bound up and inter-penetrated by the problem of what is to become of the Near East, and I think I agree with hon. Members opposite that, so far as events have developed themselves, the best hope, inadequate though it may be for the future, still appears to lie in the prospect which remains of the regeneration of Turkey. Turkey has been the scene of a struggle between two political parties. There is in this country a, disposition to revert to the attitude which a few years ago was general here, and to feel that the new Turk is, as it is crudely put, the old Turk in other clothes. I desire to urge that when we speak of Turks, as when we speak of any other people, we must discriminate between one party and the other. There was at the first period of the Turkish parliamentary epoch a natural inclination for all parties in. Turkey to stand together, but there is in every country two main types of mind, and there are developing already in Turkey divisions and cleavages between the two types which exist in every country, the conciliatory and the aggressive type, to put it roughly. Recent changes in Turkish government have shown to the satisfaction of advanced reformers in Turkey that there is a better chance than appeared a few months ago for the more reforming section to get the upper hand. Those two parties are repre-
    1838
    sented by two very prominent men in whom many people in this country take a great interest. One is now in London, the leader of the older reform section of the Committee of Union and Progress, Dr. Riza Tewfik, a well-known writer of political history and philosophy. It is significant indeed that be, who a few months ago was violently hostile to the so-called Committee of Progress and seceded from it, is now satisfied with the changes that have taken place and is a convinced supporter of the Government as at present composed.
    There is another section, which, I think, we may fairly call the Chauvinist section, the avowedly Chauvinist section, which is represented by a type well known to some of us in this House, and conspicuously by a man who has been one of the most self-sacrificing leaders of the original committee', Dr. Nazim Bey, who still presides over the fortunes of the Committee at Salonika. He is an avowed Jingo, who believes in the steam-roller policy. He thinks that the only chance of Turkey lies in centralisation of the most extreme kind. He believes that local interests, local privileges, and local autonomy of any kind would be absolutely fatal to the future of Turkey. These two men just serve to personify the two elements which are struggling for mastery. As there are two elements in Turkey, there are also two policies which may be pursued by this country, or by any great Power which has relations with Turkey. During the reign of Abdul Hamid we more or less set aside for several years the old policy, and we threw our weight upon the side of intervention. What line we should take during the new regime has obviously been a question of very great difficulty, and I desire to urge upon the Government that the need of using our influence with Turkey is very great, and that our policy should be actively friendly, so long as it is not hostile. We must choose between a policy of hostility and a policy which believes that the best chance of success lies in a strong and progressive Turkey, and, therefore, we should show great activity on the side of lending a hand to the elements which we think are progressive and hopeful. As to other practical sides of the matter, as affected by the question of what policy we should pursue, may I ask the Foreign Secretary to give his close attention to the condition of things in Macedonia. There is no doubt a very great improvement in the crude figures of mortality, and of violent death,

    1839
    of what used to be called in the common parlance of the Chancelleries of the Near East, "The butcher's bill of Macedonia." There was, four years ago, a number of murders almost incredible, month by month; an average of about 200 per month for several years. In recent times by the best statistics I have been able to see, those supplied to the Turks by the Exarch, the head of the Bulgarian Church, there were fifty murders in four and a-half months committed by Turkish bands, and to some extent it is assumed under the patronage of the Union Committees. That is very regrettable, but we must admit there is some improvement.
    I would like to urge that, if possible, the Consuls should keep the Foreign Secretary supplied with fuller information on this point by more systematic travel in the Turkish provinces. When the revolution took place it became a question what should be done with the European officers who had been acting to some extent as inspectors and to some extent as controllers of the gendarmerie, after a time some were allowed to be withdrawn, and others have gone to the Asiatic parts of the Turkish Empire. I think it would have been wiser for the Turkish Government to have kept these officers in Europe. The most dangerous thing for the new Turkish Government was that criticism should fall upon them with regard to the Macedonian question and the Albanian questions, and it would have been a great security to them in reply to that criticism if they had been able to say to the Powers of Europe: "We have voluntarily retained your European officers at their posts and you have full information from them. "That would be a reply to such criticism. At the present day the villagers who were formerly able to resort to these officers or to resort to the Consuls of the Powers, are now ordered by the Turkish authorities to keep clear of foreigners, and it is doubtful how far our present information can be relied upon as absolutely accurate. So far as we can we should make it more complete, and I hope our Consuls will be instructed to complete the information by fuller inquiry. Then there is the Albanian question. That is the most urgent matter before us. I should like to ask the Foreign Secretary to give all the help he can to the schemes for sending relief, to which hon. Members have referred already, to those unfortunate refugees who have gone across the Montenegrin frontier and
    1840
    are now in Montenegro. Some very good authorities, and notably the chief Balkan correspondent of "The Times," take a very gloomy view of the near future with regard to Albania. They are convinced that within the next eight weeks or so, if the Montenegrin Government is not relieved of the intolerable burden of these 15,000 or more refugees it will be an urgent question for King Nicholas whether it is not a good deal cheaper for him, and less disastrous for his country, to declare war. That is undoubtedly a possibility, and no one knows what motives, as yet hidden from the public eye, may contribute to bring about that result. We do not want to bring that result about, and I wish only to submit this point, that if relief work is successful and the distribution is assisted, as it can be, by the British Legation, and perhaps also by the consular system on the Turkish side, the strain upon the resources of Montenegro will, to that extent, be relieved and the danger of war will be diminished.
    With regard to the subject of intervention, I think that is not a subject which we private persons, who are outside the knowledge which diplomatists have, can pronounce an opinion upon. But I think everyone will want the Foreign Secretary to associate himself with these remonstrances which are undoubtedly being made to the Turkish Government as to the methods by which their warlike policy towards the Albanians has been carried out. There are two other suggestions in regard to the carrying out of this friendly critical policy which we should like to see adopted at Constantinople, two ways of showing to the Turks that we are not unconditional enemies of the new regime but that we are conditionally most active friends. One is in regard to education. We must show that we want to encourage association in that field of Turks and English, and an obvious way to do that would be to subscribe rather more than appears to have been subscribed to the British. School in Constantinople. I hope the Foreign Secretary may soon gain the information which he undertook lately to obtain from the Ambassador with regard to the prospects of a larger subsidy to the British school at Constantinople. There is another point on which those who would like to see a self-respecting Turkey would like to express an opinion. Turkey is raising the question of the reorganisation of taxation, and particularly in Constantinople they are now unable to make

    1841
    their system just and fair because of the excessive immunity which foreigners enjoy under the privileges of the Capitulations. I think none of us want to insist upon any conditions which diminish the self-respect which an independent nation is entitled to. Indeed, we should desire to support them in a real and radical reform of the taxation system, so far as we have power to interfere under the rights arising from the Capitulations. Upon these points I would like to associate myself with hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in asking for further information, and I would urge, with any force I can, that our policy should be more active than it is in Constantinople, and it should be friendly because it should also be critical. If we could sincerely show the Turks our desire to help them on in the path of reform we should be able to exercise much greater influence than in the past towards the liberal and conciliatory side of their politics, and increase to a great extent the chance of their success.
    Mr. MORRELL: I desire to take this opportunity to call attention to the case which has been already raised in this House not many weeks ago of Miss Kate Malecka, who for the past sixteen weeks has been imprisoned without trial and without any particulars of the charge against her in a Russian fortress at Warsaw. If this case primarily affects only a single individual I am certain my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs will recognise that it raises a most important question as to the treatment of those whom we, at any rate, claim to be British subjects in foreign countries, and that he will recognise also that this case has roused a very deep and wide-spread feeling among all classes in all parts of this country. Three weeks ago we raised this question on the adjournment of the House. Unfortunately the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was unable to be in his place at that time. It would have been possible for the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs to have shown a sympathy which certainly he did not show on that occasion, and to have done something to allay the anxiety which is felt by the lady's friends and by all who care for the good name of this country among foreign Governments. He did not succeed in doing so. No doubt he was tinder a disadvantage in the short time which was left to him to speak, and I do not desire to make any accusation against him as to the in-
    1842
    tention of his speech, but I think I am speaking what all of those who were present felt when I say that his speech on that occasion satisfied no one as to the attitude of the Foreign Office. What he told us was that the Foreign Office had no reason whatever to complain of the action of the Russian Government towards this lady, and that the Russian Government had not acted harshly in any way. As to our own Government it had asked that the trial should come on in a reasonable time. What more could we do? Even if she were a British subject we could not ask for her release. That was the effect of his words, but if I thought that really was the last word of the Foreign Office on this subject I should think the Foreign Office was open to a considerable amount of criticism. I am glad to say that since then the answers which have been given by the Foreign Secretary have done a good deal to allay the anxiety which was felt. I hope that this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some better assurance than we have yet had as to the attitude of the Foreign Office on this question.
    We all know that there are difficulties. There are great complications in connection with the question of nationality, but even those I believe have been greatly exaggerated. It would be very difficult, indeed, for the Russian Government to substantiate by clear evidence their claim that this lady is not a British subject. Their case rests on evidence which is necessarily obscure and remote. It rests, as I understand, on a doctrine which has never yet been applied to the Polish subjects of Russia—the doctrine that a Russian subject cannot naturalise himself abroad without the consent of the Russian Government. I understand from inquiries I have made that hitherto that doctrine has never been pressed against Polish subjects. This lady's father was a Polish subject. He came to this country, naturalised himself as an Englishman, and married an English wife. His daughter was born at Folkestone, and lived all her life in this country. As regards her claim to British nationality, that, at any rate, is perfectly definite, and, so far as our law is concerned, is absolutely indisputable. If Mr. Malecka, when he tried to give up his Polish nationality and become naturalised in England, had taken the precaution to alter his name to an English name I do not believe for a moment that any

    1843
    claim would ever have been raised by the Russian Government with regard to his daughter's nationality. I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree that it would be extremely difficult at this length of time—fifty years after the late Mr. Malecka naturalised himself in England— for the Russian Government to bring any proof in support of their claim. Therefore, I submit that we are entitled, at any rate until we have proof to the contrary, to assume that this lady, who was born and brought up in England and lived here until two years ago, when she went to Russia to earn her living by teaching English and music, is a British subject, and the Foreign Office should do all that they would do for any other British subject to protect her against injustice and wrong in a foreign country.
    Even if the question of nationality were more doubtful than it is, the action of the Russian Government could not be justified. I think the Foreign Office is open to criticism for not having taken action sooner than they did in support of this lady's claim for fair treatment. What are the facts? She was arrested without warning on 5th April—that is sixteen weeks ago yesterday; her rooms were ransacked, her papers were seized, and she was carried off to Warsaw gaol, where she has since been kept in strict solitary confinement without the right of anyone, except the British Consul to visit her. Even as regards the visit of the British Consul, I would call attention to the unsatisfactory attitude of the Russian Government. Here was a lady who came into Russia under a British passport. She was known to consider herself a British subject. She often said, in conversation amongst her friends, "At any rate, I can speak freely of political matters, because I am a British subject." She was arrested on 5th April, and the British Consul at Warsaw at once claimed the right to visit her. On 26th April the claim of the British Consul was reinforced by a request of the British Ambassador. At first the request was granted by the Russian Government, but immediately afterwards the permission was withdrawn. It was not until the lady had been in prison eighty days that the British Consul was at last allowed to pay her a visit. Even then it was only to be an unofficial visit, and the conversation had to be carried on in German. That is not a very satisfactory attitude for the Russian Government to have taken up.
    1844
    We have asked again and again for particulars of the charge against this lady. How is she said to have conspired? Anybody may be said to have conspired against the Russian Government. The charge will cover almost any political activity. Conspired with whom? And on what date? We have asked these questions again and again. On 11th July a request for particulars was made by the British Ambassador. To this day, sixteen weeks after the arrest, the lady is still absolutely ignorant of the particulars of the charge against her. It is impossible to apply for bail, because the application cannot be recognised until the acte d'accusation has been framed; until then it is impossible for her lawyer to see her or consult with her. For sixteen weeks she has been kept in prison without knowing the details of the offence with which she is charged. That again is an unsatisfactory attitude on the part of the Russian Government, who the Under-Secretary told us had behaved so admirably in this matter. I have heard to-day from private sources that the British Consul has written to say that the trial is not likely to take place for some little time—October is the month stated. Until the acte d'accusation is served on the prisoner no lawyer has any locus standi, and he is not permitted by law to visit his client. Even now we have no assurance from the Russian Government that there will be a trial or when the trial will take place. The lady is kept in prison without bail; her health, at any rate a short time ago—I am told the conditions of the prison have lately been improved—was unsatisfactory. She was subject to all this anxiety, and except for permission to write a letter once a week she was kept absolutely without communication with other human beings.
    We were asked the other day, "What more could the Foreign Office do than they have already done in this matter?" I suggested then that, considering the failure to furnish particulars of the charge, it is now reasonable to assume that there is no definite charge at all. We know that political charges in Russia often rest entirely on the evidence of the secret police, those agents provocateurs who are paid by the police. If no charge is forthcoming after sixteen weeks, it is not too much for the Foreign Office to say firmly, "Unless particulars are supplied we ask for this lady's release and for her deportation to this country." As long ago as 26th April, the Foreign Secretary stated

    1845
    that according to the Consul's information. Miss Malecka would be conducted across the frontier when the matter had been Investigated and forbidden to re-enter the country. That seems to me a reasonable attitude on the part of the authorities. Why is it that that has not been followed up? Why has not a precise request been made to the Russian Government that, failing the production of particulars of the charge against this lady, she should be released, conducted across the frontier, and forbidden to re-enter the country. I do not want to import any heat into this matter, but I say deliberately that if this lady had been a distinguished person, bearing a famous name in this country, I do not believe the Russian Government would have dared to arrest her as they did. They never arrested their own distinguished subject Leo Tolstoi, who did a great deal more than Miss Malecka has ever done. I am confident that if Miss Malecka had been a more distinguished person instead of merely a teacher of music the Foreign Office and public opinion in this country would never have allowed this matter to drag on as it has done. I do not mean to suggest that my right hon. Friend would have been less active in the one case than in the other; but we claim the rights of British Nationality to have exactly the same weight in the case of the humblest as in the case of the most distinguished people.
    5.0 P.M.
    It is sometimes suggested that, after all, British subjects must take their luck in the country to which they go; that they are entitled only to the law of the country, and no more; that Miss Malecka is not suffering worse than other Russian subjects. I do not believe that my right hon. Friend would consent to a doctrine of that kind. It has been claimed over and over again— it was claimed by Lord Palmerston in the famous case of Don Pacifico in 1850— that we endeavoured to obtain for British subjects something more than the bare justice of the laws of the country to which they go, and that they should be secure in whatever land they might be against injustice and wrong. One of the first claims of a British subject is that he shall not be imprisoned or kept in prison in a foreign country without proper particulars of the charge against him being produced, or without having a right to a trial within a reasonable time. That is what we are entitled to ask in this case. It seems to me, considering the time that has elapsed, the Foreign Office might now reasonably
    1846
    ask for this lady's unconditional release. If my right hon. Friend does not see his way to do that, the least he can do is, first of all, to demand the immediate production of particulars of the charge against her; secondly, to demand that she shall be released upon bail pending the trial that cannot now take place, as I understand, before October; thirdly, that the trial should take place at a date to be communicated to the British Government, and that the date of the trial should be made known to Miss Malecka and her friends; fourthly —and to this I should attach very great importance—the Government themselves should be represented by English counsel at the trial, so as to see it is conducted in a fair and proper manner. We know, unfortunately, that in political trials in Russia this fairness is not always evident; all sorts of evidence is taken, and sometimes these trials are conducted in a way which would not for a moment be suffered in this country. At any rate, I think it is fair to ask that the Government should themselves be represented, should be able to give counsel a watching brief, so that we may have full particulars of the trial when it takes place.
    I remember the speech which was made by the right hon. Gentleman some years ago when the Czar of Russia was about to visit this country. I remember the appeal which the right hon. Gentleman made then to these Benches to consider the progress which was being made by the Russian Government towards more liberal ideas, and to give a good welcome to the Czar; to do what we could to increase the friendship between the two peoples. I am only too delighted to help on the friendship of this and any other civilised country, but the only grounds upon which the friendship between Russia and this country will remain stable is that in their dealings with British subjects the Russian Government should respect the rights of individuals. I do sincerely trust that my right hon. Friend will use his great influence with the Russian Government—and I am certain, he has great influence—to try to obtain for this lady some fairer treatment than she has hitherto had; to try and obtain, if possible, her immediate release: at any rate to let it be known that the condition of friendship between Russia and England is that when an English woman goes abroad she should be entitled to fair and just treatment from the Russian or any other foreign Government.
    Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: It would seem not improper on the occasion of this Vote, "when we are in the habit of bringing criticisms to bear upon foreign Governments in matters for which they are responsible, that a word or two should be said in a matter where the responsibility lies with us; where we may take the analogy from the case discussed in the House yesterday, that it is the business of all good citizens in this country to realise the responsibility that exists. Indeed, apart from any other consideration, I think it would not be unfitting to-day that those of us who take an interest in Egyptian matters should say something by way of sympathetic tribute to the work of the late Sir Eldon Gorst. More than a year ago when Egyptian matters were being discussed in the House, when he was being made the subject of a very hostile campaign in the Press and outside, there was a disposition in some quarters to assume that his management of affairs in Egypt had been open to censure, that his policy had been misdirected, and that its course should be changed. I believe that before his death, and certainly since his death, there has been a recognition in many quarters of the essential injustice of the campaign that was then conducted against him and a recognition that his policy was substantially good, wise and cautious; that, in the words of a leading journal in an article written after his death, Sir Eldon Gorst's policy
    "Had in the main been a success."
    I should like to say that with a good deal of emphasis, and perhaps the more emphasis because on certain points of detail I would have been among his critics.
    The fact is that Sir Eldon Gorst was the instrument of carrying into effect almost the only display of really progressive policy that we have made in Egypt for a number of years. I do not mean to say that under the distinguished regime of Lord Cromer progressive steps were not taken. I should put it that on the whole under Lord Cromer's management there was no very clear disposition shown to carry out the reiterated promises of series of statesmen belonging to both parties that our policy in Egypt should be directed to the preparing of the people for ultimate self-government. That was always the declaration under Lord Cromer, whose able and skilful management was more directed to the development of English interests in Egypt than to any progressive preparing of the people for any species; for even the simplest form, or the beginnings of self-
    1848
    government. It is in the regime of Sir Eldon Gorst that we see the recognition that such a policy is really entertained, and that we see the first beginnings in the carrying of it out. Perhaps even the phrase "first beginnings" is apt to give too large a notion of what has been achieved. The burden of complaint last year—and it received a most unfortunate endorsement from a distinguished American politician—was that we had been doing too much in Egypt. No evidence had ever been given that we were doing anything at all beyond the simple establishment of provincial councils. I think it is to-day recognised that provincial councils stand alone, and are no great innovation in Egyptian life. Their powers are extremely limited. Such as they are, they are being exercised in quite a satisfactory way. The councils are, above all things, bent, so far as the evidence goes, on furthering education in Egypt.
    One again connects the name of Sir Eldon Gorst with that step, as with the various measures for amelioration. Though they make a very little figure, even in his own reports, when they are studied they are seen to be something substantial. It should be recognised, I think, with gratitude, that under his control there has been for the first time for many years an actual diminution of crime in Egypt, a thing that never could be claimed even under the powerful government of Lord Cromer. In other respects, Sir Eldon's name should be associated with educational reforms, with real reform of the Moslem University and with certain measures of progress in the work of the new University, which, however, has not gone very far; and the extension of Government effort in both primary and secondary schools. In paying that tribute I think we are doing no less than justice to a distinguished and industrious public servant. The occasion, however, is one for the expression of hopes and aspirations with regard to future policy on the part of those of us who take a permanent interest in Egyptian matters. On the appointment of Lord Kitchener as Sir Eldon Gorst's successor I will say nothing whatever beyond expressing the very warm hope that Lord Kitchener's instructions will allow him to prosecute the policy which had been entrusted to Sir Eldon Gorst. There has been a tendency in some quarters to make the assumption that Lord Kitchener will carry through a policy of force, oppression, and coercion. In some quarters the chance of such a policy is almost welcomed. I need not

    1849
    say that, from my own point of view, such an assumption would be utterly unwarrantable. I should rather take it for granted that the Foreign Secretary will tell us that Lord Kitchener's instructions are to continue the policy of gradual, cautious progress that Sir Eldon Gorst was carrying out.
    In that very connection I may be permitted to lay more stress on the greatness of the need for further measures of real reform in Egypt. Sir Eldon Gorst, in his last report, made a reference to which I suppose everybody will assent: "That a country in which only some 6 per cent." —600,000 out of 11,000,000 are, I think, the figures—"are 'literates' is obviously quite unfitted for self-government." Everyone, I suppose, will assent to that proposition; but the next comment, of course, would be that when such a country is under the effectual control of the British Government; when the agent of the British Government has in his hands the educational and other facilities; when he had in his power to forward or retard the educational machinery of the country, it is the plainest duty of the British Government to see to it that that very small number of "literates" shall not long continue to be the figure of the educated population. Yet, in the very face of that declaration of Sir Eldon Gorst, that the smallness of the number of literates in Egypt is a decisive argument against giving them self-government—which I say nobody disputes—you have a declaration from a journal like the "Egyptian Gazette," "that education is not for the Egyptian peasant," and that in fact it ought to be the policy of this country to keep the Egyptian peasantry ignorant. I think any foreign observer who puts the two doctrines together, who took Sir Eldon Gorst's report, and this sort of corollary that you get in the "Egyptian Gazette," that such a foreign observer might come to the conclusion that it is the plainest policy of the British Government to keep the Egyptian ignorant in the knowledge that ignorant people will never be able to claim anything like self-government. I repeat, I do not for a moment impute any such act, or intention of policy to the Government, but I think the Government will admit that if you have a very small number of literates in Egypt, if you have a wealthy nation, that the provision that is there being made for primary education is still disgracefully small.
    1850
    When we began to look into these matters about the year 1906 we found that the total provision made for a people of 11,000,000 was about £200,000 a year. This was promptly increased when an outcry was made, but it is still a lamentably small figure, in view, that is, of the constant protestations of Members of both parties in this country that the education of the masses of the people is one of the most vital interests of the nation. That cannot be one of the things of which it may be said that "That which is true for the West is not true for the East. "The principle is universal. I do not think I am going beyond the obvious and proper course of an adherent of the Government when I press upon them the great necessity for increasing the provision for, as well as raising the quality of, education in Egypt. The whole of our experience of the world shows that in these days every progressive country is increasingly conscious of the need for a continual increase in measures of reform of all kinds. Healthy, non-stagnant, and continuous life means a constant attention to the needs of the people in all directions, and cautious provision for these needs by means of further legislative measures. The very fact that Egypt is in certain regards a backward country makes it more necessary that the people should be provided for in the way of reforms more even than the peoples of more advanced countries. The ordinary condition of Egyptian people in the matter of sanitation is still so bad that there is the greatest need for improvement. The infant death rate is simply frightful. The advance that has been made in the material condition of the people since the British control began does not in the least work out in that real mixture of moral and physical improvement that is taken as evidence of progress in a civilised country. The position of the fellaheen in many parts is the same as fifty years ago.
    Mr. BAIRD: As it was four thousand years ago.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I daresay that would not be wrong either. The position of the fellaheen was stagnant for a thousand years. Let him know that under British control, primarily established for the purpose of securing the interest on money lent to the Egyptians by European creditors, that that is all the more reason why our Government, while it exercised something like

    1851
    absolutely autocracy, should play a paternal part in promoting the betterment of the people. Despite the truth that under our occupation there has been some vague and general progress—I am not disputing the progress of matters as regards security and the general administration of justice, and there is room for criticism in detail in the promotion of the general resources of the country—from the moral side we are happy to be able to chronicle some progress; but there is no advancement commensurate with that made upon the other side. Now at a time when the new Consul-General is appointed, a man of the distinction of Lord Kitchener, and in view of the declaration made by the Foreign Secretary in. a Debate in this House last year, I think it would not be unfitting that the right hon. Gentleman should give us some assurance of the direction in which our policy is consciously to take in the future.
    Last year, speaking some time after the lamentable murder of Boutros Pasha, and taking account of the very unrestful state of the Egyptian politics, and the language used by a number of Extremists who themselves frequently cried out that our occupations should cease at once, the Foreign Secretary declared that in future no political progress could be made until the state of unrest had passed away and there was practical quiet in the situation. Since the right hon. Gentleman made that declaration the state of unrest has passed away, and so far as I can gather the moral and political situation in Egypt is peaceful to-day; the Extremists have been silenced or have of their own accord given up their propaganda. If the Foreign Office declared that it could not make any progress so long as these disturbances existed, they are morally committed now, when the disturbances have ceased and a prolonged state of quiet exists in the country, to resume something in the nature of political progress. I do not for a moment, in a Debate such as this, ask to have outlined the lines upon which progress should take place. I am merely drawing the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to his references last year, and expressing the hope that he will once more give us and the world to know that under British control Egypt is not to be supervised or ruled with a view to fulfilling the hopes of those Britons who occasionally express the desire that she should merely become but part of the British Empire, but that Egypt is to be governed for the
    1852
    good of her people, and that as we realise the good of any people is not attained until that people has something like contentment, the policy of the new Consul General will aim as before, with due caution and careful consideration in all the steps taken, to fitting that people for the control of their own affairs.
    The outcry against Sir Eldon Gorst was largely inspired by a small faction that aimed at having an Egyptian bureaucracy and desired to see the Civil Service more and more filled with Englishmen, and who resented the introduction of Egyptians into that Civil Service. Sir Eldon Gorst, following the plain duty of a British Consul-General, wherever he found a competent Egyptian sought to give him any appointment suitable for a competent native, and it was resentment of that policy that inspired much of the campaign against Sir Eldon Gorst. Some pretended that there was no general resentment to his policy, but took objection to the appointment of some one or two incompetent men. The appointment of incompetent men may take place in any country, but should not be made the basis of an organised Press campaign, such as was got up last year, and before that against Sir Eldon Gorst. The resentment was very much against giving Egyptian positions to competent Egyptians; that is one of the test questions of the situation, and we should welcome the declaration of the Foreign Secretary as much as the conditions he laid down, that if peace and quiet once more reigned in Egypt there would be no departure, under Lord Kitchener, from the course that in large measure was followed by Sir Eldon Gorst. The right hon. Gentleman has already assured us that Lord Kitchener's position was civil, and that there is to be no vital alteration in the relationship we hold towards Egypt. I think it would contribute to the tranquilisation of public opinion in Egypt and other countries, if it was made known that to Lord Kitchener Egypt might look with confidence for a sympathetic policy towards the natives, and that he will really carry out the aspirations we have been accustomed to associate with the liberal conception of our occupation of Egypt in a better policy towards a subject race under our control.
    Mr. BAIRD: I had the privilege of serving as a colleague with the late Sir Eldon Gorst, and it may not be considered out of place that I should be allowed to pay a tribute to his great merits. Indeed, I think nothing shows more the courage

    1853
    and loyalty with which Sir Eldon Gorst carried out the orders of his superiors than the opposition which was stirred up against him in Egypt. Nothing would be easier for anybody than to have refused to carry out a policy which was manifestly unpopular. He stuck to his orders, and no Civil servant ever served his superior with greater loyalty or single-mindedness than Sir Eldon Gorst. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, who referred to the criticism of the policy of Sir Eldon Gorst was not quite hitting the right nail on the head; the policy of Sir Eldon Gorst was the policy of the Foreign Office in this country. The Foreign Office must accept the whole responsibility for it, and I am quite certain the Foreign Secretary has accepted full responsibility, and any criticism levelled against Sir Eldon Gorst was not personally against him, but was levelled against the policy propounded by the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary.
    Last year we had a declaration from the Foreign Secretary with regard to Egypt, and I think the Opposition in this House are entitled to congratulate themselves upon that declaration. I happened to be in Egypt at Christmas time, and I noticed there was a very great difference between the general condition of the country then and what it was six or seven years ago when I was serving there. But I was told on all sides that matters were very much better than they had been six months before. I asked my late colleagues in the Government, both native and British, to what they attributed the improvement, and they all stated they attributed it entirely to the declaration of the Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons. There is not the slightest doubt that that declaration was badly wanted. What I do think is surprising is that the Foreign Secretary should have stated as he did, when he made that declaration that had the Debate taken place as was originally intended some weeks before, he would have made that same declaration. The Egyptians realised that they would have to alter their proceedings; that lawlessness and disorder must cease, and that they must become law-abiding citizens once more; and I maintain that if that declaration had been made six months earlier, as it might have been made if the right hon. Gentleman realised the importance of it, there would have been far less trouble in Egypt. However, there is no use going back, but this was an instance of the justification of the Opposition in-
    1854
    tervening in a very delicate matter, such as the government of Egypt always must be, with a view to obtaining a strong declaration from the Foreign Secretary.
    I hope the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down will not think it impertinent of me if I remind him that I believe his personal acquaintance with Egypt is small. I trust he will allow me also to say that in dealing with Orientals a long and close acquaintance is a sine qua non for understanding them. The longer one lives in the East the more difficult one realises it is to understand the Orientals, and the broad assertion which the hon. Gentleman made with regard to the advantages of education are largely misconceptions. He said that the condition of the fellaheen did not materially improve during the period in which we were in Egypt. I ventured to interrupt him, and say it was the same as it had been 4,000 years ago. There are certain things in the East which do not change, and will not change, and which, I believe, the people do not want to change. Once, when I was being pulled out of a tomb by some natives near Cairo, as they were hauling the rope up they called on the god Immon, and it is perfectly certain they were singing the very same song that was sung 4,000 years ago. That is characteristic. It is impossible that you can from one day to the next introduce into the Oriental mind notions of living and of government such as we have in this country. I venture to think that the criticism of the hon. Gentleman opposite as regards the material interest of the country since we came into occupation of it are by no means well founded, and cannot be justified by examination on the spot. If the hon. Gentleman had been in a position to compare the state of the villages in Egypt to-day with ten or fifteen years ago, it would be impossible for him to make the remarks which he has made. There has been an incredible advance which has no parallel in this country at all. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is familiar with Egypt. I do not know how long ago it is since he first went to Egypt, but if he was familiar with Egypt for twenty years he will remember if he ever went beyond Cairo that the conditions were appalling. There were pools of water outside the villages which were nothing but festering sources of infection. They have been dried up in many cases. The improvements such as whitewashing in the villages is something extraordinary, and, as to the material prosperity of the country, I wish we could see in our

    1855
    own country districts the amount of prosperity we see among the peasants in Egypt. There never was a country where such an improvement has taken place in so short a time, and the general well-being is progressing and advancing very rapidly at the present time.
    Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: Would the hon. Member mind telling me since what date there has been a general drying up of those insanitary pools, because when I was there less than five years ago I know they were there then?
    Mr. BAIRD: My association with Egypt began in 1896 and ended in 1904, and what I speak of was going on during the whole of that time, the amount of good which was done being something phenomenal. Of course, if people will insist upon feeding babies with water melons babies will die, but to talk about Egypt being in a desperate state in this connection is entirely exaggerating the position of affairs. The hon. Member seemed to indicate that no progress had been made, and he said that in the main he failed to see that there had been any progress with regard to giving the people a greater hand in their own government.
    Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: I specified the progress which has been made in the provincial councils, and I said that whatever progress or advance has been made was of a very cautious and moderate character, whereas the allegation was that a very rapid and dangerous advance had been made in giving the people of Egypt self-government.
    Mr. BAIRD: It is evident from the last report of the Consul-General that he considered the progress was too rapid to be successful. On page 3 of Sir Eldon Gorst's report he refers to the Legislative Council and the General Assembly, and after stating that there has been an improvement in the capacity of the people to govern themselves, he says:—
    "Nevertheless it cannot be denied that the recent experiment so far as the Legislative Council and the General Assembly are concerned proved a failure, and that the results derived from it has not been in accordance with our intentions or our hopes."
    Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: What does the hon. Member suggest that stands for?
    Mr. BAIRD: When existing institutions connected with self-government do not work that is hardly the time to set up new one. When such rudimentary means
    1856
    of expressing their views as they possess are not satisfactory it seems to me unwise to inflict further means of self-government upon them. The hon. Member opposite was very anxious as regards the policy which is to be pursued in the future, and hoped that there would be no return to any sort of arbitrary rule. May I refer to a significant incident which occurred when I was out in Egypt last winter. I happened to be there when Lord Kitchener came to that country. His visit was entirely a private one and there was no ulterior object whatever about it. Nevertheless the Egyptians would not believe it, and scurrilous articles ceased in the press. It was feared that Lord Kitchener might be sent to Egypt, and as hon. Members know in the East a strong man is always what the natives fear. That is what we have got in Lord Kitchener. After the death of Sir Eldon Gorst no man could have succeeded him with greater satisfaction to Egypt and to this country than Lord Kitchener.
    What is the view of the hon. Member opposite on this point? I think it would be a great advantage if we could have a clear statement as to what the hon. Member's real aspirations fire. There is no more sensitive spot in the world for the Government of which we are responsible than Egypt. This makes it all the more difficult for us to discuss the matter in this House. The first thing we have to do there is to maintain order. I gather from what the hon. Member opposite said in referring to the statement of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs last year he seemed to think that although there had been an interruption in the development of self-government in Egypt in consequence of that statement, as peace and order had now been restored he thought it was time to resume activity in that direction. I sincerely hope nothing of the sort will occur. We must not forget that the activity shown in that direction led to the death of the Prime Minister and general disorder and discomfort, and when we are asked to return to that state of affairs, I think it is a most unfortunate thing, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not act upon that suggestion.
    Anyone who has had any connection with Egypt knows what our object is. It is not primarily as the hon. Gentleman opposite said, to advance the interests of financiers who have invested their money there. We are there for the purpose of ruling the country better than the people

    1857
    can rule it themselves. We have shown that we are able to do this. If you compare the condition of Egypt now with the condition of any other country in a similar position such as Morocco or Abyssinia under a native governor, you are bound to admit that the amount of prosperity and peace enjoyed by the natives of Egypt cannot be equalled in any of those countries. If the work is carried on gradually and wisely, as it has been in the past, there is not the slightest doubt that the great object we all have in view of eventually fitting the Egyptians to take a greater part in the government of their country will be achieved. It is no use trying to run before you can walk in Oriental affairs any more than in other affairs, and that is the tendency of people in this country who do not possess any real knowledge of the affairs of Oriental countries. They are generally impatient at the slow progress which is made in those countries, but really the progress is miraculously fast if you realise the type of individual you have to deal with, and the thousands of centuries of ignorance and slavery you have to contend with.
    I think the state of prosperity and the degree of education the Egyptians have now reached is a very great tribute indeed to the success of the Government of this country during the time we have been on the shores of the Nile. The credit for that prosperity is shared by all the people who have had a hand in the government of the country. I desire to protest against the unfair aspersions contained in the speeches of those hon. Members who have criticised the Egyptian Civil Service. There never was a body of men in a more difficult position than the Egyptian Civil servants. Those officials are there under the Khedive, and they draw their salaries from Mm. Their position is undefined, and it is simply by force of character and prestige that they are able to persuade their native colleagues to carry out what they consider to be the wisest policy. There never was a more difficult position to occupy, and for hon. Members to come here and criticise the work of those men who are now employed all over the country doing their level best for the prosperity of Egypt and the honour of their own country, and who have taken on a. heavy portion of the white man's burden, shows a complete lack of appreciation of the problems with which we are faced. That is a line of argument
    1858
    which is very frequently taken up, not only in the Press, but in public speeches of those who take an interest in Egypt, and it is based upon inexperience and lack of knowledge. I think the people who make such statements ought to take advantage of the cheap fares to Egypt in order to study what is going on there, because I believe that if they come into touch more with the natives and the British officials out there they will realise that there is no part of the world where we have assumed the duties of government with the object of spreading happiness, prosperity and justice where that task has been discharged more successfully than it has in Egypt.
    Mr. DILLON; The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Baird) has made a very interesting speech, and he claims to know a great deal more of Egyptian affairs than most hon. Members of this House. Really his claim is well justified, but I would remind the House that he speaks altogether from the official point of view. Those of us who have been here for many years are accustomed to listen to officials who have served a long term of years in foreign lands coming to this House and claiming to know all about those countries in which they have served, and we have generally found them impatient of criticism from those who know less. I think, however, that that impatience is an unwise one. We cannot take as final the judgment of any official no matter how energetic he may be, or what his experience may be as to the policy to be pursued in the government of those countries for which we are responsible. Two remarkable statements were made by the hon. Member. In the first place, he said that the present state of peace and prosperity was due entirely to the statement made by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in this House last Session as to the future policy of this country.
    I think that was a most unfortunate statement. What I wish to direct the hon. Member's attention is that that statement was a definite declaration on the part of the English Government that they were going to drop the policy which Sir Eldon Gorst had been asked to carry out, and that they were going to abandon that policy until some distant and doubtful time, until they had received from the leaders of the National party in Egypt a declaration that they acquiesced in the unlimited occupation of their country by Great Britain, before they were

    1859
    granted self-government. I think that was a most unfortunate statement, all the more unfortunate, because it followed upon a remarkable statement by ex-President Roosevelt, in which he undertook to lecture this country as to the way Egypt should be governed. Ex-President Roosevelt is a man whose acquaintance I have the honour to enjoy, and for whom I entertain a great respect, but I consider that he went entirely outside his proper sphere when he undertook to lecture this country as to how subject nations should be ruled. American statesmen are the least fitted in the civilised world to pose as authorities on the government of subject peoples; because, to their great credit be, it said, they have hardly any experience in that class of work. The statement of ex-President Roosevelt in my opinion was most ill-judged and unfair. Why should Englishmen demand from the people of Egypt that they should acquiesce in the unlimited occupation of their country by Great Britain as a condition to a policy of self-government being granted to them? I think it is an intolerable condition to lay down. These are questions of policy which ought not to be considered solely from the official point of view. I wish to join in the expression of regret at the untimely death of Sir Eldon Gorst, a man undoubtedly of exceeding ability and of a kindly nature, who, I know, entered into this policy of conciliation in Egypt with all his heart. That policy was cut short by the statement which the right hon. Gentleman made to the House last year, and I confess I was amazed when an hon. Member stood up the other cay on the occasion of the appointment of Lord Kitchener and expressed the hope that the policy of conciliation and extension of self-government in Egypt would be continued by Lord Kitchener as it had been carried out by Sir Eldon Gorst in the last few years. It was carried on in a most insufficient and halting manner up to twelve months ago. There was then a rude break, and since then no policy of conciliation has been carried on. That policy has been absolutely abandoned for the present and a totally different policy instituted. One of the chief grounds of justification given for this change of policy is the extraordinary ground that the representative body in Egypt had discussed the Suez Canal Convention in a spirit of unreasonable hostility to the terms of that Convention. Anybody who reads carefully the Report of the Committee appointed to consider
    1860
    that Convention will admit the Egyptian Assembly considered it most carefully and prepared an admirable report. I do not think anyone who reads the Report of the Committee will deny that the reasons given for rejecting the Convention were exceedingly strong, whether they were conclusive or not.
    There was another extraordinary proposition which the hon. Member laid down. It was one of those general propositions frequently laid down in the course of these Debates, particularly by officials who have returned after long experience in the East, and by them they think they will completely close the mouths of all those in this House who have not had their long experience of Eastern people. I am sorry to say I have been in this House for nearly thirty years, and I have heard it repeatedly said by officials, as conclusive and as calculated to put an end to the whole of the discussion, that the East never changes. "You cannot," said the hon. Member, "expect the East to take up Western methods or to change." The same language is used, and there are the same incantations to the gods as were used thousands of years ago. He based on that the argument that the East did not change. That is a strange assertion to make nowadays.
    Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: He also said it was changing miraculously.
    Mr. DILLON: Yes, I know, but that progress of course was due to the English officials. Could there be a more untrue or a more dangerous proposition than that he laid down that the East never changes? I say that the East is changing more than the West. A mighty wave of change has passed over the East, not only the Near East but the Far East. These nations, which we were told so confidently would never change are changing much more rapidly than the Western nations. Does the hon. Member include the Japanese? The Japanese never changed for 3,000 or 4,000 years, but they then changed more rapidly than any other nation on record. The Chinese are changing with extraordinary rapidity, and, when they have effected their change in the course of another ten or twelve years, the eyes of the world will be considerably opened. The Persians and Turks are changing. Islam is changing, and the Egyptians are changing too. The statesmen who wraps himself up in the well-worn maxim that "the East never changes," is pursuing a policy

    1861
    which will land him very quickly in disaster. The fact is the East is changing and changing rapidly. What I appeal for in my comparative ignorance of the East, which I admit, is that England in this great change should be careful she is ranged with the course of progress and liberty and is not found, owing to this old idea of the East being changeless, on the side of tyranny and reaction.
    Let me say a few words on the appointment of Lord Kitchener. It is a remarkable appointment. When it was first spoken of in this House last year it was repudiated by the Liberal Press of this country as impossible. That is the word I recollect which was used in article after article in the leading Liberal newspapers of this country. We have seen impossible things done without any great protest. I myself have never taken so extreme a view about the appointment of Lord Kitchener. I have not the slightest idea what policy Lord Kitchener proposes to carry out, and we have not had the slightest hint or glimmer of light from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I think it would be a very interesting thing, and a very right thing, that he should tell us tonight what is the policy Lord Kitchener is to carry out. I do not in the least know what Lord Kitchener will do in Egypt. I always remember on the one hand his operations in the Sudan, and on the other hand his operations in South Africa, and I am bound to say that, according to the leaders of the Boer people, Lord Kitchener contrasted very favourably with both Lord Roberts and Lord Milner. Therefore it is quite unknown what policy he will carry out.
    He is the servant of the Foreign Office of this country, and I have no doubt he will do his duty, and do it firmly. What we want to know is what is the policy of the Foreign Office? Are they going to carry on a policy such as has been carried on during the last year, and as was carried on four or five years ago, or are they going to carry on the policy for which Sir Eldon Gorst was so cruelly and basely assailed by the Press of this country? I was very pleased to hear the hon. Member get up and defend Sir Eldon Gorst. I have never in my experience known an official engaged in a great and responsible duty such as that of the Consul-General of Egypt more cruelly and basely assailed than Sir Eldon Gorst was assailed last year in a section of the Press of this country, showing how little reality there is in the cry we so often hear on
    1862
    these benches of "Support the man on the spot." Yes, "Support the man on the spot" so long as he carries out your policy, but, if they have any fault to find with him, there is no part of the Press which is more unscrupulous, more cruel, and more shocking as to the weapons to which they have recourse than the Conservative Press.
    Let me say a few words on the situation in Persia. It is very serious. I asked the Under-Secretary to-day how it came about that the ex-Shah of Persia was permitted, in. spite of repeated protests from the Persian Government, in spite of questions in this House, and in spite of the fact that the Russian Government and the English Government, when they rescued him from his insurgent subjects on the occasion of the Insurrection two years ago, gave an undertaking they would prevent him entering into any intrigues against the Government of Persia, to travel about Europe freely, visiting Vienna, Paris, and other cities, including, I think, Berlin. How could they pretend to carry out the undertaking when this gentleman was allowed to travel freely over Europe and leave Odessa, where he was supposed to be a kind of honourable prisoner. We get no satisfaction in answer to questions in. this House, nor do the Persian Government get any satisfaction in response to their remonstrances. This gentleman, whose appearance is very well known in Vienna, announces he is going to Carlsbad to take the cure, and he travels across Russia and takes a Russian steamer across the Caspian Sea and lands on the shores of Persia. It is not so easy to cross Russia even if you are unknown if the Russian Government is on your track. Here is a man who ought to be closely watched by the Russian police, and who, to judge from his photographs—I do not want to say anything disrespectful to him—has a very marked appearance, and he travels across Russian territory without being recognised, and across the Caspian Sea without arousing any suspicion, and lands in Persia.
    6.0 P.M.
    I am assured on the highest authority that four weeks before he landed in Persia the Persian Government repeatedly appealed both to the representatives of the English Government and to the representatives of the Russian Government, saying his agents had already come into Persia and were stirring up sedition and importing arms for the purpose of rebellion, and they had reason to suppose the ex-Shah was continually breaking the undertakings

    1863
    given by the Russian Government. Now be is in Persia, this unhappy country, which has been hampered and obstructed systematically and unrelentlessly by the Russian Government ever since the revolution succeeded, and he is stirring up civil war. I asked to-day why the Russian Government could not be asked to use the troops which they persist in maintaining in northern Persia for no reason, because there has been no intense disorder or any danger there for more than two years, to take the Shah and request him to retire to Odessa again, and thereby save this wretched country from civil war and all the horrors which are sure to ensue. The answer given was that the Russian troops were there for the purpose of maintaining order and protecting the rights of foreigners, and would not interfere in the internal affairs of Persia. Observe the extraordinary principle involved in that statement. Whereas, the two Governments are pledged by a written instrument to protect the Persian Government from the intrigues of the Shah, they are, because the Shah has evaded the Russian police, or, as I believe, because the Russian police have shut their eyes to his crossing Russia, to be absolved from their undertaking the moment he crosses the frontier. It then becomes an internal affair of Persia and the Russian troops say they have no right to interfere. I wish the Russian troops would depart. I have never been able to extract from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs any real reason for the Russian troops remaining there. But I would point out that they ought to carry out their undertaking in regard to this man. He is really their prisoner. He was taken from his own Government by the Russian Government, and I wish they would take him to Odessa, treating him with all due respect, but still keeping him there. I think it deplorable, too, that the British Government has not done its duty to the Persian people in this matter. It is all the more deplorable that this should have been allowed to occur, in view of the possible danger of the stirring up of civil war in Persia, especially at a time when everyone interested in the fate of that country had good ground for hoping that a better day was dawning for it. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs might be a little more forbearing of his criticism of scenes in the Persian Parliament after what we have witnessed in this Assembly. I very much doubt if
    1864
    those scenes have exceeded in bad taste those which have occurred in this House of Commons.
    While making allowance for the inexperience of the members of the Turkish Parliament one cannot but realise that they are making a serious attempt to govern their country on the lines of progress. Substantial hopes have been aroused in the minds of friends of Persia by certain recent occurrences. For instance, the Persians called in a gentleman —an American—a man of great experience in the field of finance, and handed over to him the whole control of their finances. That in itself caused great hopes for the future. Furthermore, I am informed, and I read a telegram to that effect in the newspapers, that they applied to the British Government for permission to put the British Attaché in the Persian Embassy at Teheran in control of the gendarmerie. Could any act show a greater desire to avoid in an even more than rational way any trouble, and to meet the complaints made by the British Government with regard to the treatment of Persian subjects. Yet, just at this very crisis, when they have placed a leading American at the head of their finances and have invited the British Attaché to take charge of their gendarmerie, this ex-Shah is let loose on the country to stir up civil war. All I can say is I really do not understand how the Government of this country, if civil war should break out, can wash its hands of responsibility for that misfortune.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): I will deal, first of all, with the question raised by the hon. Member for West Staffordshire—that of Albania. It is quite natural that the hon. Member should have raised the question and that other hon. Members should have spoken on it. It is quite true to say, of course, that the insurrection in Albania is an internal Turkish affair, but it would be going too far to say that, because it was, from a strictly international point of view, an internal Turkish affair, therefore it is one which had no political interest for other nations, and especially for those nations whose territories border on the Turkish Empire. The insurrection in Albania has given rise to great disturbances. There has been a natural fear that it might spread, and that the consequences would be felt, not only along the borders of Turkey itself, but by neighbouring countries. As long as that danger remains, the state of affairs in Albania must

    1865
    give cause for political anxiety, and the Turkish Government must not be surprised if other Powers, and especially those Powers whose territories are nearest to the scene of the disturbance, should show considerable sensitiveness about it from a political point of view. Any steps which could be taken to limit the area of disturbance and prevent it from spreading cannot be initiated by us, but can only have our support if they are adopted by other Powers. I am talking of steps not taken inside Albania itself, but steps taken supposing the consequences should spread beyond the borders of the Turkish dominions in the area of disturbance.
    There have been, as the public knows from what has appeared in the Press and from the statements of independent eyewitnesses of what occurred, some grievous excesses in the course of the struggle in Albania. Of course, we deplore these on the ground of humanity. But I deplore them also because we are sincere friends of the new regime in Turkey, and we know very well how much the credit, reputation, and stability of that new regime is due to the favourable support it received from public opinion when it first established itself. We want to see that support continued. We know perfectly well, and the authorities at Constantinople know perfectly well, that that support must depend on their power to produce order in their own country and to realise those hopes with which the establishment of a new regime was originally attended. Therefore it has been our earnest desire, not merely on the ground of humanity, but because we believe the hopes of Turkey are centred in the success and progress of the new regime and because we wish to see its stability and reputation strengthened and increased—to see these troubles in Albania settled on liberal and generous terms.
    As to intervention, we cannot contemplate that sort of intervention which took place under the old regime in Macedonia. There there was a regular international organisation, composed of officers selected among the Powers, in the service of the Turkish Government, extending the system of European influence in the hope of creating a better Government in Macedonia. That was what occurred under the old regime. It was at best a cumbrous arrangement. I do not wish to say that it did not achieve some good results, as that would be very unfair to the many officers who have worked so hard under it. But you can never expect
    1866
    really satisfactory results from any organisation working in another country which has not the good will of the central Government and of the authorities of the country itself. Whatever may happen in the future I do not suppose that the great Powers of Europe will be anxious to undergo all the labour and trouble of trying to get Turkey to accept something of the same kind again, knowing perfectly well that the results never realised the hopes, and were not in proportion to the labour entailed in urging it upon the Turkish Government. I am quite sure that the great Powers of Europe at the present moment have no desire to be drawn into intervention in Turkey. I do not say that the united forces of the great Powers, if the emergency were serious enough, could not intervene to effect whatever object they might have in view. But such intervention would mean the destruction of the new regime and of all the hopes founded on it, and it would also mean that Europe had made up its mind that Turkey was going to relapse into the state it had been under the old regime, and that there would be a recurrence of the same unsatisfactory relations between Turkey and the other Powers. It would further mean that the hopes for the future of Turkey had been destroyed. That is not the point of view from which we, or, I believe, the other great Powers are approaching this problem.
    I do not find fault with the views put forward by the hon. Member who said we ought to be frank and candid in expressing our regret at the excesses which have occurred, and at the unsatisfactory state of things either in Albania or Macedonia and that we should do that from the point of view of those who wish to see the Government of Turkey improved, and who desire also to see it reform itself from inside. That is the point of view from which we approach the Albanian question. I do not for a moment wish to conceal the facts or palliate or excuse them, but I do say, on the other hand, that intervention would mean a complete change of policy; it would mean that we had given up the hopes founded on the new regime. I desire to express my anxiety as to the development of the situation in the future, and my regret at many of the things that have occurred, in a way which, I trust, will make the Turkish Government feel that it comes from those who have no political object, and have no desire other than to see the success of the Turkish Government, because they feel that the chances

    1867
    of Turkey's future depend upon their being able to repress and put an end for ever to the sort of abuses which happened under the old regime, and to realise the hopes which were founded on the creation of the new regime.
    Now I come to Persia. I am not surprised, of course, at the regret which has been expressed, or indeed at the criticisms which have been made on the return of the ex-Shah to Persia. I regard his re-entry into that country as a most untoward event. I was asked by the hon. Member (Mr. Lloyd) whether we were aware that it was probable, and the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon), I think, said we have had repeated warnings from the Persian Government. I have inquired how many warnings we have actually had, and I am told we have only had two.
    Mr. DILLON: What I said was that the Russian Government had been repeatedly warned.
    Sir E. GREY: We have had only two, one in the autumn of 1910 and one quite recently, and when we received that last warning we suggested to the Russian Government that a joint warning should be addressed to the late Shah against intriguing in Europe against the Persian Government. He was supposed then to be in Austria, but before that suggestion of ours was acted upon news came that he was not in Austria at all, and he had as a matter of fact re-entered Persia. The hon. Member says that could only have been done by the connivance of the Russian officials, because it is so easy to recognise the late Shah. I do not know him by sight, and I do not know by what means he got back into Persia. The accounts which have appeared are that he had so little confidence of the help of Russia that he took considerable pains to disguise himself, but the Russian Government have, I believe, repeatedly warned the late Shah against intriguing for a return to Persia, warning him that his pension would be forfeited if he did intrigue, and they promised earlier in the year, when there was an idea that he might be intriguing, to redouble the vigilance of their authorities when he returned to Russia. The plain fact of the matter, I believe, is simply that the late Shah, having taken considerable pains to do so, has succeeded in evading the vigilance of the authorities and has got back into Persia. The hon. Member has given his views as to what our
    1868
    attitude was. We certainly cannot intervene in the North of Persia ourselves. We would rather intervene as little as we possibly can in Persian internal affairs, even in the South where we have special trade interests. Nor does it lie with us to press intervention upon the Russian Government. You cannot press intervention upon the Russian Government at one moment and deprecate it at another. If they choose to adopt a policy of non-intervention you cannot say that is an unreasonable policy, nor does it lie with us to press intervention upon them. We did, if I remember right, at the time of the revolution against this Shah, when he was still Shah, express our own view very strongly that the policy should be one of non-intervention, and that at Teheran, though there were Persian Cossacks in the service of the Shah, as he still was, commanded by Russian officers, though these Russian officers by lifting a finger could have stopped the revolution against the Shah and prevented his deposition, we urged strongly upon Russia that in our view the policy we intended to pursue, and what we thought the proper policy, was one of non-intervention, that was strictly observed by the Russian Government. If there had been the lest intervention on the part of Russian troops or Russian officers in the service of the Shah intervening politically, the deposition of the Shah would never have taken place.
    Russian intervention in Persia on the occasion of the original dispatch of troops to Tabriz took place at a time when there was great disorder and when it might reasonably have been supposed that life and property were in danger, but it was not intended to have political consequences, though it did have political consequences. At that time the centre and sole hope of the Nationalist movement, Tabriz, was surrounded by Royalists and reactionaries, and was then at its last gasp. The Russians came in and relieved Tabriz, and the leaders of the Nationalist movement, instead of being overwhelmed, went from Tabriz to Teheran. The Russian troops took no part in the political movements. The fact of their having come in was merely incidental, but it is perfectly arguable that unless Russian troops had been sent to Tabriz at that particular moment, the Nationalist party would have received such a blow from the reactionary party that it would never have recovered head and the Shah would have never been deposed. You cannot press

    1869
    non-intervention at one time and intervention at another, and if the Russian Government take up, as I believe they do, the attitude that, having repeatedly warned the Shah when he was outside Persian territory that he would lose his pension if he intrigued, now that he has succeeded in making a secret entry without their good-will into Persia, they must Adhere to a policy of non-intervention in Persia itself, it is not a policy which we can deprecate. I think, of course, that the present Persian Government are absolutely within their right in declaring that the late Shah's pension has been forfeited. There can be no question of our putting in any plea again on his behalf. If they succeed in capturing him or turning him out of the country there can be no question of our joining in any representation in his favour, but the policy of non-intervention is one which it will not be in our power to depart from, and one which I do not think it would be desirable or wise or reasonable that we should urge the Russian Government to depart from.
    As to the southern trade routes in Persia, of course, this state of things which exists may have a considerable setback upon any improvement which there has been before. It is quite true, as the hon. Member (Mr. Lloyd) said, though he said it uncritically, that we did not follow up the policy which appeared to be indicated by our Note last winter of intervening in southern Persia. We never wished to intervene if we could possibly help it, and not long after that it seemed to me that the hopes of the Persian Government were improved by the statesmanlike attitude assumed and the statesmanlike advice which was publicly given by the Regent. We hoped, under his wise government and advice, that matters would improve, and we desired to do nothing whatever which would impair the chance of the Persian Government themselves strengthening their position and their hold on the southern trade routes. When they stated that they would prefer instead of British officers to employ Swedish officers, drawing them from a nation which could not give rise to political suspicion in any quarter of Persia, we acquiesced. All we desired was that whatever they did should be effective, and provided the European officers employed were officers who could not give rise to any political prejudice to either the British or Russian position in Persia we were quite willing that they should be drawn from any nationality. Of course, I can say nothing on the matter
    1870
    now. This struggle which has begun in Persia makes it impossible for us to do more for the moment than watch the course of events. If the consequences of the struggle should spread and become more alarming as the days go on we might have to take measures for the protection of life and property in such places as are within our reach; but at present we have not heard of danger to foreigners. The trade routes, of course, must be impeded by the state of things which exists, and we can but hope that the troubles that have now broken out in Persia will not be too prolonged, because, after all, when people dwell upon the importance of trade in southern Persia, the power of trade to grow must depend on the amount of order in the country. We may intervene temporarily where there is actual danger to life and property, but unless you are prepared to commit yourself to political responsibilities which we are not prepared to commit ourselves to in this case, and which we desire to avoid, you can only really further the interests of trade by seeing the government of the country itself become stronger. Any measures short of that will be temporary expedients, and their effect will be temporary.
    Then I would pass to the personal point raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Morrell) respecting Miss Malecka. The hon. Member said this was a question of principle. I do not dispute it being a question of principle, but it is not quite the same case as if it were that of a British subject of British origin, undoubtedly a British subject, over whom no other country can have any claim or can ever have had any claim, who had gone from here to reside in a foreign country, and who has no connection whatever with the politics of that country. Miss Malecka is undoubtedly from the point of view of British law a British subject. She was born in England, and her father was naturalised in England, he having been a Russian subject, and in any part of the world where she went she was entitled to a British passport and to British protection. But considering her origin, going back to the country of her father's origin, if that country can show that by its laws her father has never forfeited his Russian nationality when in Russia, according to international law that would be the nationality which would prevail in the country of original origin. We give, as everyone knows, open asylum to people who come from other countries, and we make naturalisation here very easy. On that we have always

    1871
    taken pride, because it is the outcome of our free institutions. But you cannot extend that principle to cover people who come from another country to this, who come naturalised here and then return to the country from which they originally came and mix themselves up in the politics of that country. I do not say that Miss Malecka's is a case of that kind, but it is not really a simple case of a British subject of British origin having no connection with the politics of the foreign country to which she goes. Miss Malecka went to Russia, and I find that before I ever heard of her presence in Russia the Consul had had occasion to warn her more than once that she was talking very indiscreetly about Russian politics. I have nothing to do with those warnings. I had not heard of Miss Malecka at the time. That had all taken place before the case came before me at all. Subsequently she was arrested by the Russian Government. Then, of course, the case did come before me on the ground that she was a British subject. When I came to look into that I found that there was no doubt whatever that under British law she was a British subject, that in this country we were bound by law to afford her the rights of a British subject, and that we were entitled, wherever she went in the world, to give her the protection of a British subject, to which she was entitled unless she in Russia could be shown to be a Russian subject; because it is said that her father's nationality had never been forfeited, and that she, according to the law of that country, would be a Russian subject. Most complicated points were involved in that, and it took a long time to examine these points. It required expert legal opinion—expert Russian legal opinion. Those points have been considered, and we have put forward before the Russian Government our claim that she had lost her Russian nationality. The Russian Government have not admitted that our claim is good under Russian law, and there the case remains as regards nationality at the present moment.
    I have put forward our case for claiming that in law she is not a Russian subject, and I have urged upon the Russian Government that, even if they are not prepared to admit at once our case for claiming that she is not of Russian nationality in Russia, yet as we have put forward a primâ facie case that that is so, they should let us know why there is so much delay in furnishing particulars
    1872
    of the charges brought against her, they should agree that she will be defended by counsel when she is brought to trial, and they should allow the British Consul, at any rate unofficially, to visit her. That is how the case stands at the present moment. I have got no answer from the Russian Government as to why particulars have not been furnished, but I understand from indirect sources that a large number of documents were seized at her house. These documents have to be examined, and until that is done particulars of the charges cannot be forthcoming.
    Mr. MORRELL: Will the right hon Gentleman press for bail?
    Sir E. GREY: I cannot press for bail until the question of nationality is actually settled and particulars actually furnished. But what I have asked is why there has been so much delay in furnishing particulars. I have said that those particulars should be forthcoming, that she should be defended by counsel, that the Consul should be allowed to visit her, and that, if a British subject, this country should be represented at the trial. That is how the case stands. Now I come to another question, and here let me say how deeply I sympathise, and how entirely I endorse the tribute which has been paid to Sir Eldon Gorst. I shall never forget the great courage with which he went to Egypt to take up Lord Cromer's work—a courage which never faltered—while we of all people knew how difficult the task must be of taking the position in Egypt when Lord Cromer retired. Sir Eldon Gorst has not only left a reputation for courage, but also for ability, for energy, and for devotion in his work. He was a real friend of Egypt, really interested in the country, interested in its people, and interested in its development. That was work which he himself specially loved, and it was a work which until a few months ago we hoped: that he would have continued. We shrank from even the thought, when we heard of his serious illness, that he might be unable to return to Egypt, because we knew how difficult that work was and how unfortunate it would be if it had to be interrupted: and if any change had to be made. It is not only Egypt that has lost, but our public service has lost. His ability and capacity for public work was such that, whether in Egypt or elsewhere, he would have remained to the end of his life one of our most valuable public servants, and it is a

    1873
    real loss to our public service that his life should have been so cut short. I agree with the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. John Dillon) in resenting the attacks made upon him at one time of his administration. I said, I think, last year that those attacks ought never to have been made upon him. They ought to have been made upon the Government on whose instructions he acted, if they were to be made at all. But I am sure that, whoever went to Egypt after Lord Cromer, it was certain that there would be a difficult time for him. It was certain that storms would break. Storms did break, and Sir Eldon Grorat weathered these storms, and had he been able to return to Egypt he would have done so with credit and with the increased reputation of one who had shown courage and who had not flinched when times were difficult, and to him the credit would have been due of having gone through those difficult times and brought about peace and order in that country.
    As to policy in Egypt, of course, the hon. Member for Tyneside (Mr. J. M. Robert-son) is perfectly right in saying that a deliberate policy to keep the Egyptians back would be entirely wrong. I regard it as an unthinkable policy. An hon. Member opposite found fault with my hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside for the policy he advocated in Egypt. My hon. Friend advocated no doubt a progressive policy, but so far as he went into details it was a policy to which no one could take exception, not even the man who founds small hopes on the progressive policy. What did my hon. Friend advocate? He advocated the spending of more money on education. There can be no objection to a progressive policy of that kind. The difficulty, of course, is the question of money, because there are so many competing claims for the expenditure of the public money which is available. The first policy of Lord Cromer was to restore the material development of the country, and after that to secure that an increasing amount of money should be spent on education, which might be called the political problem. I quite recognise, too, that Egypt is quiet at the present moment, and that this is a good time for considering what can be done in the direction of progress generally, whether material progress or political progress. But as regards any suggestions made they must be tested by the opinion of men on the spot. I do not for a moment say that the opinion of men on the spot is necessarily infallible, but
    1874
    it is folly to go on with projects of reform without having heard what those on the spot have to say.
    At the present moment there is a new Consul-General appointed for Egypt. Of course, there will be discussions with him as to what he thinks reasonable to be done, and it is for him when ho gets to Egypt to survey the situation before definite proposals and projects are pressed upon us. I do not mean to say that they should not be discussed, but that he should have definite instructions to do this, that, and the other, before he has had time to survey the situation on the spot would, I think, not be reasonable. I have stated already in the House that Lord Kitchener's appointment is a Civil appointment. It does not mean a change of policy from a, policy of Civil administration and reform to a military policy. It does not mean a reactionary policy. He goes there to continue our work in Egypt, and to promote progress as far as it is reasonable and practicable to do it. I think people will bear in mind about Lord Kitchener that he goes with exceptional knowledge of Egypt, and not only so, but I believe it is' an appointment which commands confidence not only in this country, but among the Egyptians themselves, who knew him. He goes with a reputation for impartiality, and he goes with the reputation of a man who does not stir up difficulties or strife, but smooths them over. He does not make difficulties, but he overcomes them, and he overcomes them whenever it is possible to do it, and by his manner in smoothing them over he has shown considerable diplomatic power. I think the time he goes to Egypt is probably a more favourable one than there has been for some little time. After Lord Cromer retired, having been there so long, and considering the great personality which he had, there was bound to be unrest in Egypt, whoever went there. We had what was called a progressive policy, though it was a very moderate progressive policy, and not the sort of revolutionary policy which might be supposed from some of the criticisms that were made upon it.
    Steps were taken which we thought perfectly reasonable to take. They were exceedingly moderate, and I do not think they were dangerous. If they did not succeed better, I think it was because our attitude was misunderstood, and I think it was misunderstood because there was probably a feeling in Egyptian circles

    1875
    that when Lord Cromer retired, and after the withdrawal of his personality which had been there so long, there would be unrest, and a belief that there was not to be a continuation of Lord Cromer's policy but some complete change; and therefore some of those progressive steps which we took were misinterpreted as if they were intended to be not a continuation of the policy of the occupation, but a weakening of the policy of the occupation. I trust that all that has passed, and with it the danger of any moderate steps which may be taken in the future being so misunderstood again. It is quite futile to propose measures of reform, or progressive measures, if even the most moderate attempts in that direction are to give rise, not to a desire and enthusiasm on the part of the people in Egypt itself to take advantage of those measures and make the best of them, but to an agitation against the occupation, which is a danger to political peace and material prosperity. The fact that progressive measures do not mean any change in the policy of the occupation must be fairly understood if those measures are to advance. The present time is one when we have a man with a brilliant record in Egypt, whose appointment, I believe, is as welcome in Egypt as it is here. I believe that with him as Consul-General in Egypt the material progress of the country will continue, and we shall do our best in consultation with him to ensure that in the future of the British Government in Egypt we shall regard ourselves as trustees, not merely for the material prosperity, but for the moral and political life of the people.
    Colonel WILLIAMS: I wish to address one word to the Foreign Secretary in reference to a matter which arose when Lord Cromer was in Egypt. It is concerned with the administration of Mahomedan countries, where, although we are administering for the Mahomedan people, we must remember that, not only is there a considerable number of English people in Egypt, but that there is also that ancient Christian Church of the Copts, which has suffered, and is suffering, from what its members feel to be a grievance. In view of the appointment of Lord Kitchener, I trust that this will no longer be so. Lord Cromer started with the idea that Friday was the Mahomedan Sunday, and that Egypt, being a Mahomedan country, Friday was to be observed by Christian people as the weekly rest day, and not the Christian Sunday. Of course, anybody
    1876
    who knows anything about Mahomedans know that Friday is the day on which Mahomedans go to the mosque. But he also knows that it is not a day on which the Mahomedan leaves any bit of business he has in hand or makes any alteration in his secular life such as the Sunday imposes upon Christian people. The result has been, that Christian officers and Englishmen, who are Christian, of course, who are employed in Egypt, are obliged to work the whole of the Sunday. The same is the case with the Copts who wish to observe the Sunday for themselves, but are often deprived of the opportunity of attending their own places of worship, because Sunday is not a dies non in the Egyptian offices, as it would be in England among our own people, and they are positively unable to observe the holiday as a day of rest and religious obligation, while they are obliged to observe Friday, whether they like it or not. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will take this matter into consideration and will discuss with Lord Kitchener if it is possible to make some change which would meet the position of a very large section of the people who belong to the very ancient Christian church, the Copts, and also of the many other Christian people who live in Egypt. There is no reason that we should forget the obligations of our own religion.
    Mr. KING: I really think that it is in some way to be deprecated that this Debate should not be continued at any rate until a respectable hour in the evening. We do not often get an opportunity of discussing the whole field of foreign affairs. Though I recognise that the present moment is very peculiar, yet I do think that we ought to continue this subject a little longer. The tendency that there is on all sides of the House to place implicit confidence in the Foreign Secretary is, of course, a very delightful feature of this Debate. I am sure that if any Minister deserves the complete confidence of the House the Foreign Secretary does, and certainly he has nothing but confidence from me. And, by the way, I should just like to say a word or two of those Gentlemen who on the platform are so fond of telling us that the very safety of the country is being imperilled by the Liberal party. I would like them to observe that in the House of Commons at any rate there is absolute and complete confidence in the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government. One question that has not been touched on in this Debate is our treatment of native races. At the present time there

    1877
    is a feeling all over the world of the great and vital importance of the treatment of native races by the higher civilised and white races. At the present moment there is a great conference of representatives from all parts of the world assembled in this city discussing this great question. I believe that our Ministers fully realise the importance of it, and are entirely right-minded in the attitude which they take up with reference to it. If any words of mine have weight I want to say that they should be firm and courageous and instant in pressing on every possible occasion for the proper treatment of all races all over the world.
    That is perhaps a large order, but it is not a larger order than that which Cromwell set himself when he was Foreign Secretary of this land, or than Lord Palmerston set himself when he constituted this country the supporter of liberty and freedom and constitutional government in two continents. Nothing will give to the democracy of this country and other countries a greater feeling of loyalty and admiration for our Government than the steadfast pursuit of this policy. As an instance of what I mean, I may refer to the horrible treatment that has been meted out to the natives of the Putamia district. The Government sent out Sir Roger Casement, a most admirable and able investigator, who has sent in a report which we are told largely justifies the accusations that have been made against the employers of labour there, but they have have not felt justified in publishing that report. I believe that a strong open policy on matters like this only gains more force and more confidence from the people at large. I do not refer to the matter of the Congo because that I know, especially at the present moment, is a very complicated and difficult matter. In general terms, I say, that if our Government can be more insistent and more instant in their pressing everywhere all over the world the rights of native races, they will attain an even higher level of confidence and admiration than they have yet reached.
    7.0 P.M.
    I am sorry that I was called elsewhere partly by duty and partly, I must admit, by pleasure, and that I did not hear the whole of this very interesting Debate, but I am informed by those who have been here that nothing has been said about Portugal and the recognition by this country of the Portuguese Government. There is no reason whatever why the
    1878
    Portuguese Government should not be recognised at once. The Foreign Secretary was asked the other day why we did not recognise the Republic of Portugal, and his answer was that a constitution must be firmly established before it can be recognised. I have been out in Portugal since the revolution, and have had the pleasure of going about the country and of calling upon different classes of the inhabitants, and, as far as I could make out, they were living under quite as firm a constitution as we do, and I dare say some people would say that their constitution is a great deal more fixed than ours is. A sudden but not unexpected revolution occurred about nine months ago. A provisional Government was established, and one of the very first acts it undertook was to disestablish the Church. The Government that can disestablish an old-established Church which is not the church of one-half, but is nominally the church of the whole population, I think you may say is a firmly established Government. I do not know whether the Foreign Secretary is laughing at what I say or not, but he ought to be listening. It is really a very serious matter. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the view of the average Englishman—and such I claim to be—who closely follows foreign affairs in this country—and such I certainly am—is that there is no reason whatever at the present moment why he should not go across to the Foreign Office and give orders for the Portuguese Government to be recognised. I daresay the Foreign Secretary has been. so engaged with other matters that he has not been able to do justice to the Portuguese in this matter; but I would inform him that after the general election the Government majority in the Portuguese House of Parliament at this moment is far greater than the majority which supports hon. and right hon. Members on the Treasury Bench. They have an absolutely overwhelming majority in favour of the Republic. Why not recognise the Constitution of that country in view of the facts I have stated, and which I am perfectly certain would be confirmed by His Majesty's Minister at Lisbon. Why not recognise the Portuguese Government? There is really very important ground for doing so as soon as possible. First of all, we are the traditional allies of Portugal, and the sentiment in that country of trust in the British people is very great. Moreover, our trade relations with Portugal

    1879
    are far greater than with any other country; our trade relations with her colonies are also very great. Further, there is the question of the treatment of the native races in the Portuguese colonies, in regard to which we have been endeavouring as far as we can to strengthen the hands of those who are seeking just treatment and fair conditions of labour for those natives. If you recognise the Portuguese Republic you will afford a far greater motive for this country being listened to, and you will be all the more able to alleviate the lot of thousands and thousands of struggling labourers at the present time. I do want to make a very earnest appeal to the Foreign Secretary to recognise as soon as possible the Government of Portugal.
    I should like to refer to one other question. In spite of what has been said in regard to Morocco, which I in the main endorse, I would point out that at this critical time neither our Ministers, nor our publicists, nor the Press, nor the people, I hope, will be led away from the real grounds for friendship between us and Germany, by any extravagance of language or extravagance of claims that may be put forward. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not overlook the fact that at the present time they are on the eve of the general election in Germany.
    As to that general election, the political prophets foretell that Conservatives and Protectionist party are going to suffer a huge defeat, a defeat which probably will be as great as that of the Conservative and Protectionist party in this country in 1906. The only hope that the Conservative and Protectionist party have in regard to the general election in Germany is to raise a huge red herring, and that is what they are trying to do. Conservatives and Protectionists in this country have tried to do that time after time, but, of course, the English people are too sensible to be drawn from the path of wisdom by any red herring. The German people may not be gifted with such political wisdom and sagacity as are the English people. It may be that in some quarters the raising of the Jingo scare, the beating of the military drum, the sound of appeals to imperialistic sentiment, may lead the German people to vote for the Conservatives and Protectionist party at the coming general election. I firmly believe, as one who has studied closely German affairs, that the fact of this general election has a
    1880
    great deal to do with what we see in the German newspapers in regard to German policy at the present time. I should like to continue my remarks on various other subjects relating to the field of foreign policy, which is a very great one, but I understand that it is desired not to continue this Debate to an undue length. I am glad to say that the right hon. Gentleman is in many respects a model Foreign Secretary, and deservedly has an immense amount of confidence on both sides of this House, and not only in this country but in other countries of the world. Yet there are some things he may learn from the people. It is not only what is said in the Chancelleries that is important; it is not only what is written in despatches, in notes, in memoranda, and in protocols, but it is what the people say, it is what the Press of different countries say, and it is, above all, what is the opinion of the great mass of the people. It is really with the idea that the people's wishes, feelings, and aims should be more and more studied in foreign politics that I have ventured to address the Committee this afternoon.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution reported; Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next, 31st July.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Master of Elibank.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Eleven minutes after Seven o'clock.

NATIONAL INSUEANCE BILL.
  MEDICAL TREATMENT.
  MEDICAL TREATMENT.
  SHOPS CLUBS ACT, 1902.
  SHOPS CLUBS ACT, 1902.
  Accountant and Comptroller General.
  Accountant and Comptroller General.
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Parteen National School.
  Parteen National School.
  Pier Accommodation (Ireland).
  Pier Accommodation (Ireland).
  Scholarship Examinations.
  Scholarship Examinations.
  Millstreet District Council (Labourers Act).
  Millstreet District Council (Labourers Act).
  Reinstatement Application.
  Reinstatement Application.
  Dowlais Works (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Dowlais Works (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Territorial Units (Railway Travelling).
  Territorial Units (Railway Travelling).
  Birds' Plumage.
  Birds' Plumage.
  Jamaica Legislature.
  Jamaica Legislature.
  Assaulting Police Constable (Salford).
  Assaulting Police Constable (Salford).
  Copyright Bill.
  Copyright Bill.
  Supply of Seamen (Leeds Prosecution).
  Supply of Seamen (Leeds Prosecution).
  Fruit-Growing.
  Fruit-Growing.
  Norfolk and Suffolk Fisheries.
  Norfolk and Suffolk Fisheries.
  House of Commons (Refreshment Department).
  House of Commons (Refreshment Department).
PORT OF LONDON (FIRST ELECTION OF MEMBERS) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment.
METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: A further Amendment made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
BELFAST CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
PUBLIC ROADS (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to make further provision with respect to the exercise by the House of Lords and the Privy Council of their Appellate Jurisdiction—Was presented by the Viscount Haldane; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next. (No. 148.)

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Saye and Sele.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Offences of Cruelty.
1.—(1) If any person—

(a) shall cruelly beat, kick, ill-treat, over-ride, over-drive, over-load, torture, infuriate, or terrify any animal, or shall cause or procure, or, being the owner, permit any animal to be so used, or shall by doing or omitting to do any act, or by causing or procuring the commission or omission of any act, cause any unnecessary suffering, or, being the owner, permit any unnecessary suffering to be so caused to any animal; or

(b) shall convey or carry, or cause or procure, or, being the owner, permit to be conveyed or carried, any animal in such manner or position as to cause that animal any unnecessary suffering; or

(c) shall cause, procure, or be a party to, the fighting or baiting of any animal; or shall keep, use, manage, or act or assist in the management of, any premises or place for the purpose, or partly for the purpose, of fighting or baiting any animal, or shall permit any premises or place to be so kept, managed, or used, or shall receive, or cause or procure any person to receive, money for the admission of any person to such premises or place; or

(d) shall wilfully, without any reasonable cause or excuse, administer, or cause or procure, or being the owner permit, such administration of, any poisonous or injurious drug or substance to any animal, or shall wilfully, without any reasonable cause or excuse, cause any such substance to be taken by any animal; or

(e) shall subject, or cause or procure, or being the owner permit, to be subjected, any animal to any operation which is performed without due care and humanity;

such person shall be guilty of an offence of cruelty within the meaning of this Act, and shall be liable upon summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds, or alternatively, or in addition thereto, to be imprisoned, with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding six months.
(2) For the purposes of this section an owner shall be deemed to have permitted cruelty within the meaning of this Act if he shall have failed to

713
exercise reasonable care and supervision in respect of the protection of the animal therefrom:
Provided that where an owner is convicted of permitting cruelty within the meaning of this Act by reason only of his having failed to exercise such care and supervision, he shall not be liable to imprisonment without the option of a fine.
(3) Nothing in this section shall render illegal any act lawfully done under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, or shall apply—

(a) to the commission or omission of any act in the course of the destruction, or the preparation for destruction, of any animal as food for mankind, unless such destruction or such preparation was accompanied by the infliction of unnecessary suffering; or

(b) to the coursing or hunting of any captive animal, unless such animal is liberated in an injured, mutilated, or exhausted condition; but a captive animal shall not for the purposes of this section be deemed to be coursed or hunted before it is liberated for the purpose of being coursed or hunted, or after it has been re-captured, or if it is under control.

THE EARL OF CROMER: I do not rise in any way to oppose this Clause., but merely to remove any possible misapprehension that might arise as to the probable application of paragraph (e). It might be thought at first sight that physiologists who engaged in experiments on living animals would be liable to prosecution to a greater extent than the present law admits. That view, however, would be erroneous, for this subsection must be taken in connection with subsection (3) of this clause which expressly exempts from the operation of the Bill all operations conducted under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876. That Act admits of experiments being conducted on living animals under certain conditions. In these circumstances I should like to say, as President of the Research Defence Society, that that society is generally in entire accord with the objects which the Bill seeks to attain. Indeed, many of the members of that society are also members of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and welcome any attempts made to stop wanton cruelty. I may say I think that the promoters of this Bill have exercised a very wise discretion in leaving the vivisection question alone. Your Lordships are probably aware that a Commission has been sitting for some four or five years on that subject, and it would be manifestly undesirable to deal with a highly controversial matter of this sort until that Commission has sent in its Report. I should here like to express my earnest hope that that Report will not be very
714
much longer delayed. A year ago I asked the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, a question on the subject, and he told me that he would do his best to hasten the publication of the Report. No doubt he has done so, but we are still waiting for the Report, and it is very desirable, if possible, that it should be published without further delay.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
LORD LEIGH LORD LEIGH had given notice to move after Clause 2, to insert the following new clause—
".If any person being the owner of any animal shall, by cruelty, within the meaning of this Act, do, or cause to be done, any damage or injury to the animal, the Court, upon his conviction for the cruelty under this Act may, in addition to any other punishment, deprive such person of the ownership of the animal, and may make such order as to the disposition of the animal as they think fit under the circumstances."
The noble Lord said: It has been suggested that my Amendment is too severe, inasmuch as it would inflict a double penalty. I therefore do not propose to move the Amendment in its present shape, but I hope to bring it forward on the Report stage in an altered form.
Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Poisoned grain and flesh, &c.
6. If any person—

(a) shall sell, or offer or expose for sale, or give away, or cause or procure any person to sell or offer or expose for sale or give away, or knowingly be a party to the sale or offering or exposing for sale or giving away of any grain or seed which has been rendered poisonous except for bonâ fide use in agriculture; or

(b) shall knowingly put or place or cause procure any person to put or place, or knowingly be a party to the putting or placing, in or upon any land or building any poison or any fluid or edible matter (not being sown seed or grain) which has been rendered poisonous, except for the purpose of destroying rats, mice, or other small vermin, and fail to take reasonable precautions to prevent access thereto of dogs, cats, fowls, or other domestic animals,

such person shall upon summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
LORD SAYE AND SELE: I move to omit from paragraph (b) the words "or any fluid or edible matter (not being sown seed or grain) which has been rendered poisonous, except for the purpose of destroying rats, mice, or other small vermin, and fail to take reasonable precautions to prevent access thereto of dogs, cats, fowls, or other domestic animals," and to insert at the end of the clause the proviso standing in my name on the Paper. This is an Amendment simply with the object of clearly explaining the wording. The provision as it stands when submitted to several experts ill legal terms was declared not to be clear.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 40, leave out front ("poison") to the end of paragraph (b).
Page 5, line 7, after ("pounds") insert ("Provided that in any proceedings under paragraph (b) of this section it shall be a defence that the poison was placed by the accused for the purpose of destroying rats, mice, or other small vermin, and that he took all reasonable precautions to prevent access thereto of dogs, cats, fowls, or other domestic animals").—(Lord Saye and Sele.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Would the noble Lord kindly tell us what he includes under the expression "or other small vermin"? As I read his new proviso, it would prevent poison being put down for the purpose of destroying ravens and other animals which prey on flocks and herds. I am told that the matter is one which is regarded as of some importance in Ireland, and the Bill, as your Lordships know, applies to Ireland.
LORD SAYE AND SELE: There is an Amendment to be moved later on with regard to Ireland.
THE EARL OF DERBY: But is the noble Lord going to accept that Amendment?
LORD SAYE AND SELE: Yes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Extension of powers of Board of Agriculture and Fisheries with respect to the making of Orders.
8.The powers oil the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries under section twenty-two (which relates to power for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to make orders for prevention or checking of disease and other purposes) of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, to make orders for the purposes of the protection of animals from unnecessary suffering and of the proper supply to them of food, water, and ventilation are hereby extended to the making of such orders with respect to fowls.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): I move to leave out Clause 8. This clause is unnecessary, as it is covered by the Poultry Bill which has passed both Houses and is now waiting for the Royal Assent. I am sure your Lordships will agree that we do not want any duplication.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, leave out Clause 8.—(Earl Carrington.)
LORD SAYE AND SELE: I accept the Amendment.
On Question Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9:
Inspection of traps.
9. Any person who sets, or causes or procures to be set, any spring trap, shall inspect, or cause some competent person to inspect, the trap at least once in every twelve hours, and if any person shall fail to comply with the provisions of this section he shall be liable upon summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
THE EARL OF DERBY: Surely the term "spring trap" is rather too vague. It would include a mouse trap, and I do not think that the noble Lord would consider it a crime to leave a mouse trap unattended for twelve hours. I think we should have a clearer definition of what is a spring trap.
LORD SAYE AND SELE: I am not an expert in this matter, but I dare say that at the next stage that point may be met.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Such traps as gin traps are those that are referred to.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I agree, but the term "spring trap" is much more comprehensive. I therefore think it would be better to omit the clause now, and the

717
noble Lord in charge of the Bill could bring up a new clause at the Report stage defining the traps to which the clause is intened to apply.
Amendment moved—
To leave out Clause 9.—(The Earl of Derby.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I would ask the noble Lord to consider whether this clause is worth keeping in the Bill. The object is one with which we all sympathise. It is evidently to prevent some wretched animal which has been caught in a trap remaining in that trap and suffering misery for a number of hours; but is it possible to provide any machinery by which you can ensure that all spring traps will be visited at intervals of less than 12 hours? A man is to be liable to be fined £5 if he has not inspected his traps within that interval. Is this not a well-meant clause which it would be difficult to enforce in practice?
LORD SAYE AND SELE: It is considered that this provision would act as a considerable deterrent.
THE EARL OF DERBY: "Spring trap" is such a wide expression that a mole trap as well as a mouse trap would come under it. Surely it is not desired to fine a man £5 if lie does not visit such traps every 12 hours.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
Application to Ireland.
16. This Act in its application to Ireland shall be subject to the following modifications, namely:—

(a) A reference to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland shall be substituted for a reference to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries;

(b) Section twenty-three of (he Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Act, 1851 (which gives a light of appeal), shall apply as respects any conviction or order under this Act (other than an order for the destruction of an animal), notwithstanding that the fine imposed does not exceed twenty shillings or that the term of imprisonment imposed I does not exceed one month;

(c) A reference to section twenty-four of the I Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, shall be substituted for the reference to subsection (3) of section thirty-one of the Summary Jurisdiction act 1879

LORD HERSCHELL: I have a small consequential Amendment to move in this clause. As the Amendment of the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture has been accepted, paragraph (a) in this clause is no longer needed. I there fore move to delete it.
Amendment moved—
Clause 16, delete paragraph (a).—(Lord Herschell).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLONBROCK*LORD CLONBROCK moved to add at the end of the clause the following new subsection—
"(2) Nothing in section six, which relates to poisoned grain and flesh, &c., of this Act shall prevent owners or occupiers of land in Ireland from laying or causing to be laid any poisonous matter as therein described, after a notice has been posted in a conspicuous place, and notice in writing has been given to the nearest constabulary station."
The noble Lord said: This subsection was in the Bill as originally introduced in he House of Commons, but was struck out on the Motion of an English Member, here happening to be no Irish Members present. It is almost word for word the same as the proviso in Clause 2 f the Poisoned Flesh Prohibition Act of 1864, 27 and 28 Vic., c. 115. That Act is repealed by this Bill, and therefore it is necessary to insert this subsection to give Irish farmers the same over of protecting their stock as they had under the previous Act. The proposed withdrawal of this power has been received with absolute consternation in Ireland, and any one who knows that country is not surprised at it. The country is infested with wandering dogs of one description or another. Every occupier, even the smallest cottager, keeps a dog, with what object nobody can ascertain, hey are of no use whatever, but the dog tax being only 2s. 6d. in Ireland they continue to be kept. These dogs fill up their time in the day by barking after every one who is driving or riding on the roads, and at night by roaming over the country for miles seeking what icy can devour. They are never tied up except when the owners know that land in the locality is poisoned.
To show the feeling that exists in Ireland on the subject I will read a resolution passed by the Agricultural Committee

719
of the Armagh County Council and also by the Armagh Board of Guardians. There would have been, I have no doubt, many similar resolutions adopted by other bodies: if time had permitted it. The resolution to which I have referred runs as follows—
"That the attention of all Irish Members o Parliament lie drawn to the Protection of Animals Bill which has been read a third time in the House of Commons, and to the Amendment inserted at the instance of Mr. Ashley, which will prevent owners and occupiers of land in Ireland from laying down poisonous matter after a warning notice has been posted and the local constabulary informed. There are few Irish farmers who have not suffered through having their sheep and lamb worried at night, by dogs, and if they are prohibited from protecting themselves by laying down poison, not only will the loss be much greater, but farmers in many districts will be obliged to cease keeping sheep. We therefore appeal to all Irish Members of Parliament to use their influence to prevent the Amendment, in question from becoming law."
I have also received the following letter from the Secretary of the Dublin Farmers' Association—
"My Lord, I understand that it is your Lordship's kind intention to move an Amendment in Committee to that clause of the Animals Protection Bill which aims at depriving Irish farmers of the liberty to poison their lands, which is the principal means at their disposal to protect their flocks from the depredations of straying dogs. My Committee and I feel sure all Irish farmers will feel grateful for your Lordship's sympathetic interest in getting this threatened grievance averted. The heavy Losses annually inflicted by canine marauders constitute one of the most serious disabilities under which the sheep breeding industry suffers, and should your Lordship desire to be furnished with some specific information as to the extent of these losses I shall be quite ready to supply same."
Unfortunately as the Committee stage of this Bill was originally put down for last Tuesday, I had not sufficient time to obtain this specific information; but a letter which appeared in the Irish Times a few days ago gives an instance of what takes place. The writer says—
"Would you allow me space to enter a protest against the law being changed, which allows farmers in Ireland to put out poison on their lands after proper notices have been posted on the lands and served on the police? Not long ago I had a valuable flock of brood ewes, which were attacked by dogs at night, and two of them killed. I complained to the police, who I found were unable to help me. On the other hand, I was informed that if I shot these dogs I would be liable to prosecution or an action for damages. I watched at night, but though the dogs came and rushed the sheep out of my fields I was unable to identify them, and to catch them was quite impossible. Next night they came again and hunted one of the sheep into some bushes, in which it was held by the head. The dogs ate off all the hind quarters and part of the back while it was alive, and what was left by the dogs was alive the following morning when I found
720
it. I then cut up and poisoned the pieces of this sheep, and next day I had two immense brutes dead in the field. Nobody about this district could identify them, and the owner has never been known. I lost a good many of these ewes during THE lambing season from the result of the hunting, and their sufferings were very great."
Apart from the serious loss suffered by farmers, the question of humanity also comes in. This Bill is for the protection of animals, and surely the unfortunate sheep are quite as much entitled to protection as the dogs which worry them. I therefore beg to move; the insertion of the new subsection standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 11, after ("1879") insert the following new subsection—
"(2) Nothing in section six, which relates to poisoned grain and flesh, &c., of this Act shall prevent owners or occupiers of land in Ireland from laying or causing to be laid any poisonous after as therein described, after a notice has been posted in a conspicuous place, and notice in writing has been given to the nearest constabulary station."—(Lord Clonbrock.)
LORD HERSCHELL: This is an Amendment which is entirely in accordance with the views of the Irish Department of Agriculture, and I feel sure that practically all the Irish Members and the Government would be very glad to see it inserted in the Bill. I am glad to know that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill is willing to accept it. I have, however, one small verbal Amendment to suggest—namely, to cut out the. words "which relates to poisoned grain and flesh, &c," and to insert a little further on the words "poison or." The subsection auld then read,"Nothing in Section 6 of this Act shall prevent owners or occupiers land in Ireland from laying or causing to be laid any poison or poisonous matter as therein described …"
THE EARL OF MAYO: May I ask whether at increases the power which existed under the old Act?
LORD HERSCHELL: Not in any way. I believe it is exactly the same.
LORD CLONBROCK LORD CLONBROCK accepted Lord Herschell's verbal Amendments to the proposed new subsection.
THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: The country Council of my county—Tyrone—have lately passed an order that every dog in the county should wear a collar with the

721
name of the owner thereon. I think that if that could be extended to every district in Ireland it would have a very good effect. It would then be possible to find out to whom the dogs which do this serious damage belong.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: I merely rise to say that I am absolutely in favour of the inclusion of this proposed new subsection in the Bill, and I see no objection to the slight verbal alterations proposed by the noble Lord opposite.
LORD ASHTOWN: I can say, from my own personal experience, that my noble friend's Amendment is absolutely necessary. These dogs are never fed, and they are left out at night and roam for miles killing chickens and lambs wherever they find them. The new subsection would be no hardship on the owners of these dogs, for if they chose to tie them up the dogs would not be poisoned.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 150.)

SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know whether this is a suitable moment to do so, but I should like to ask the noble Earl in charge of this Bill to explain the exact reason why he draws a line between the cultivator and the owner of the small holding. Under the recent Act all small holdings were protected from compulsory acquisition—that is to say, where a landowner or his predecessors had established small holdings upon the estate the county council could not come down upon that property and say that they wished to compulsorily acquire those small holdings. Now the noble Earl has brought in an amending Bill which, after certain experiences in Committee to which I shall not refer, has emerged in this form—that only
722
the interest of the cultivator in the small holdings is to be protected. So far the noble Earl has modified his original proposal. But the interest of the owner in the small holdings is not to be protected. I do not ay that it is very likely, on the face of it, that a county council would wish compulsorily to acquire a small holding from which they could not disturb the occupier, but they might wish to do it having regard to the general policy which they were carrying out in the district. I do not think that your Lordships would desire to encourage the interference of county councils in the ownership of small holdings any more than in the occupation of small holdings. It may be a good plan, but we have had no argument from the noble Earl why this distinction should be made. The facts upon which the noble Earl has gone, are, we know, extremely exiguous. Indeed, there was only one particular instance which he was able to give us. What he has now to establish is the distinction between ownership and occupation. If he is willing to protect the occupier, why is he not willing to protect the owner as well?
EARL CARRINGTON: The question put to me by the noble Marquess shows he great difficulty there is in understanding he language of the country in which you live. I was under the impression—I suppose I am wrong—that as the greater includes the less so cultivator included owner.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The cultivator is not greater than the owner.
EARL CARRINGTON: That is a matter of opinion; but I am perfectly willing to put in any word that will include both. There is no desire on our part to exclude he owner of 50 acres. We want to make him as safe in the holding as the man who cultivates it, and if the noble Marquess will assist me in finding some word in the English language which would include both I should be under an obligation to him.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the point would be met if we struck out the words "cultivated by him."
EARL CARRINGTON: Would it do to put in "owner or cultivator"?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No. I move to strike out the words "cultivated by him"; and if it is necessary to make any further drafting Amendments they can be made on Third Reading.
Amendment moved—
In Clause 1, line 13, to leave out ("and cultivated by him"), and in line 14 to leave out ("cultivated by him").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Will the noble Earl state when he proposes to put down this Bill for Third Reading, because on that occasion I shall move that it be read a third time that day six months.
EARL CARRINGTON: Any day that will suit the convenience of the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: It is not my Bill. I am not at all surprised that the noble Earl is ashamed of the paternity of the Bill. I asked him on what day he proposed to put down the Third Reading.
EARL CARRINGTON: The House, I understand, will not be sitting on Monday next. Therefore I will put the Third Reading down for Tuesday.
Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 149)

COUNTY COURTS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): I move to amend Clause 18 (Appointment of assistant Judges) by adding words enabling the appointments to be made in Lancaster by the Chancellor of the Duchy. In the County of Lancaster the appointments are made by the Chancellor of the Duchy, but it is for the Lord Chancellor to decide whether the state of business requires additional assistance.
724
The clause as printed in the Bill already contains the words, but they have been inserted in error. Therefore the proper course is now for me to move them formally in order that they may lawfully form part of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Clause 18, page 11, line 14, after ("requires") insert ("and in the County of Lancaster the Chancellor of the Duchy if the Lord Chancellor is so satisfied may").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

PUBLIC ROADS (IRELAND) BILL.
Read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 151.)
CORPORATION OF LONDON (BRIDGES) BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection that the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Greater London Railway Bill do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Corporation of London (Bridges) Bill; read, and agreed to: All petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, there is no business on the Paper for Monday, and therefore, with the concurrence of noble Lords opposite, I move that the House do adjourn until Tuesday next.
Moved, That the House do adjourn until Tuesday next.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at Five o'clock, to Tuesday next, Three o'clock.