speaking on behalf of the Donegal County Council and the urban and rural districts, protested against the way in which the line, as originally proposed by the promoters, had been cut short by the Committee of the House of Lords.

expressed the hope, on the principle that half a loaf was better than no bread, that objection would not be taken at this stage to the Lords Amendments. At the same time, speaking on behalf of the Irish Government, he regretted that the Bill did not authorise the construction of the railway to Letterkenny, which would, undoubtedly, have been of enormous benefit to the fish industry of Donegal, and would have helped to give proper effect to the large sums of public money which had been spent at Burtonport and other places. But he hoped the promoters of the Bill, having so good a case, would resume their efforts on a future occasion.

concurred in the views expressed by Mr. O'Doherty and the Chief Secretary.

And it being after a quarter past Two of the Clock, the proceedings on consideration of the Lords Amendments were postponed, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, till this Evening's Sitting.

May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he intends to proceed with the Poor Prisoners' Defence Bill?

The Poor Prisoners' Defence Bill is in an exceptional position, having passed the Report stage. I hope, in the circumstances, it will be possible to pass it into law, but I cannot derogate from the position I have laid down, that unless it is treated as uncontroversial it cannot be proceeded with.

I understand it is intended to take the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill on Friday.

Yes.

I see on the Orders three Bills which I understood the right hon. Gentleman to indicate would be dropped. Has anything occurred to change that decision?

No. The Prevention of Corruption Bill; the Bills of Exchange Acts Amendment Bill, and the Light Railways Bill cannot be proceeded with. I propose, of course, to carry over the Port of London Bill.

Would it not be well that at the beginning of next session the House should meet at a somewhat later hour than two o'clock, seeing that there is a general feeling in favour of such an alteration of the rule. Would it not be possible to agree to the necessary alteration of the rule this session.

I am quite ready to meet at a later hour provided that public business be begun at three o'clock as at present. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford, however, is quite ready to meet at a later hour, but is not ready to begin public business at the same hour as at present, and therefore there is not that common agreement on the matter which the right hon. Gentleman appears to suppose.

^* : What will be the business on Thursday?

The Indians Budget will be taken on Thursday.

^* : There is likely to be a prolonged debate on the Indian Budget this session?

I recognise that is so.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the inquiry into the conduct of the South African War is going on, and when we shall have the printed Report in our hands?

That is a Question of which I should have notice, for we have no control whatever over the proceedings of the Commission.

Light Load Line

Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to this House a copy of the Report from the Select Committee appointed by their Lordships on the Light Load Line, with the Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence, etc.—( Mr. Gerald Balfour. )

said he gathered from information given to the House that a substantial number of the servants of the State were engaged in collecting statistics for the ostensible purpose of enabling the Government to make up its mind as to what was to be its future fiscal policy. The collection of statistics for such a purpose must be conducted on a very elaborate and costly scale, at the expense of the State, and in fact out of funds appropriated by this Bill. The House was entitled and even bound to discuss that expenditure. Hitherto the House had not been asked to authorise the expenditure which they were informed had been incurred.

I have given no information to that effect, and I do not know that any other Minister has. I do not think there has been any such expenditure incurred.

thought the right hon. Gentleman could scarcely have reflected on what was involved in the information he had already given. They had been informed that this inquiry was being conducted by the servants of the State. The servants of the State were paid by that House. Therefore this inquiry must be additional to their ordinary work of administration.

No, Sir, that is a mistake. The collection of statistical information is part of their ordinary duties.

was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. In that ease, the collection of statistics for a general inquiry into the fiscal policy was part of the ordinary duty of the servants of the State. Prior to that answer, there might have been some doubt as to whether the expenditure on these inquiries ought not to be left over for discussion on the Supplementary Estimates. But the hesitancy and uncertainty that had existed in the in the minds of hon. Members of the House as to how far this debate would be allowed to proceed on these lines must now he thought disappear.

^* : It must not be taken by the hon. Member that I have any doubt in my mind that it is not competent to discuss on this Bill the future fiscal policy of the Government, or the merits of the inquiry which is to be gone into. They are not relevant to anything in this Bill. If it were otherwise, it would be possible on a statement, or even a suggestion, by a Minister, that in the next session the Government proposed to bring in a particular Bill, to discuss that Bill, or the policy of that Bill, on the Appropriation Bill, of the preceding session. Nothing of that character is permissible.

On the point of order, was sure the Speaker would acquit him either of contesting his ruling or unduly arguing it; but one might, in a matter of such interest and importance, submit some considerations which did not appear to enter into the observations just made from the Chair. He submitted that this was a matter relating to the ordinary expenditure of the year, and, although its ultimate issue in legislation might not be discussed, the expenditure for the present was an administrative act, and, like every other administrative act it would be in order to refer to it in a discussion in regard to the salary of any particular Minister concerned. That consideration alone might be conclusive as regarded the practice of the House. But he submitted another. According to the invariable practice of the House, the Appropriation Bill had been adopted as the means of a general discussion of not merely the acts of this or that particular Minister, but of the acts of all the Ministers and their Departments taken together. The Leader of the Opposition had always seized the occasion presented by this Bill to discuss at large not merely the past conduct of the Ministry, but the conduct of the Ministry in relation to its future general administrative policy. Lord Hartington did this year after year. Mr. Disraeli did it year after year when Leader of the Opposition; and if that privilege was lost one of the most essential and vital privileges of the House would be gone. This, that, or the other matter might be discussed on a vote of censure, but for a discussion of the whole policy of the Administration they had only the Appropriation Bill or nothing. He had every confidence that the Speaker desired to interpret the traditions of the House in a sense conformable to its general practice, but surely there could be very little doubt that they were entitled to raise the whole policy of the Ministry and its administrative acts on that occasion. That the direction of this inquiry was an administrative act was clear from the statement just made by the First Lord of the Treasury. If they had not the power to discuss that act, then they had not got the power possessed by every other legislative Assembly in the world of discussing on some occasion the whole policy of the Ministry. It could not surely be said that their power to raise the discussion depended entirely on the will of the Leader of the Opposition with regard to a vote of censure. It should be a part of their regular procedure. He submitted it had always been a part of their procedure, and if they were not allowed now to adopt it the House would lose a privilege and right which was essential to the proper performance of its duties to its constituents.

asked whether it would not be in order on the Appropriation Bill to bring in an Amendment censuring a particular Minister; whether, if that were in order, it would not also be in order to comment on the conduct of a particular Minister; and whether that would not only apply to the conduct and administration of a particular Department, but also to so much of his political conduct as was reasonably relevant, and to the confidence the House felt in a Minister or any body of Ministers.

^* : My answer to the noble Lord would partly depend on the meaning to be attached to the words "reasonably relevant." With reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for South Shields, if I thought that—if there was the slightest doubt in my mind as to whether or not—by any ruling of mine I was taking away any privilege of the House, the House will believe that I would not run any risk of doing so; but I am confident that, whenever the question has been raised, it has always been ruled that the Appropriation Bill stands exactly in the same position as other Bills. Whatever is debated must be relevant to the clauses of the Bill. The hon. Member justly says this Bill includes the salaries of the Ministers of the Grown, and therefore, their administrative conduct may be discussed on the Appropriation Bill. But the right goes no further. The hon. Member's proposal, as I understand it, is to go further than that, and to discuss the collection of information with a view to a policy which can only be carried out by legislation in a future session. I do not think anything the hon. Member has said is an answer to what I have said as to such a proceeding. If it were proposed to bring in a Redistribution Bill in a future session, and somebody asked a question in answer to which he learned that clerks in the Board of Trade and other offices were being employed in getting up statistics with regard to population and so forth, you cannot, on that answer, claim to discuss the proposed legislation of the future session. That is the ground on which I am of opinion that the hon. Member is not in order.

On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I gather from your ruling that it would be in order on the Appropriation Bill to discuss the administrative action or inaction of any particular Minister. May I not also submit to you that it is clearly in order on the Appropriation Bill to discuss the action or inaction of the Government, as a whole, in their administrative capacity? If, for the sake of hypothesis, the Govern- ment as a whole propose in their administrative capacity to undertake a particular inquiry into a particular subject matter, and if, for the purposes of that inquiry, the services of persons in the employment of the State, whose salaries and expenses are paid by this House, are admitted to be necessary, is it not within the competence of the House, on the Appropriation Bill, to discuss the circumstances out of which the inquiry has arisen, the manner in which it is being conducted, and the results which it is likely to produce, entirely without reference to any legislative proposal which may hereafter be produced?

^* : I do not think it is possible to debate the question entirely without reference to legislative action. A debate on the inquiry as to the future policy is a debate on the policy itself. I am therefore of opinion the debate is not in order.

DO I understand you to rule it is not open to us on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill to discuss whether or not there is any necessity for such an inquiry to take place?

^* : Yes, exactly in the same way in which it is not open to the House on the Appropriation Bill to discuss whether or not there is any necessity for collecting information for a Redistribution Bill.

said he was not contesting the ruling of the Chair, but he had a new point.

^* : I hope it is a new point. I hope there will be an end to this discussion after the ruling I have given.

said he should like to ask whether they could discuss the inquiry itself without any reference at all to its object or method.

^* said that if any hon. Member could discuss the question without reference to future legislation he should hear him, and he would intervene when he thought it right.

said he had a Question to ask with reference to the action of the Treasury officials.

^* : Order, order. The hon. Member for South Shields is in possession of the House.

said he did not propose to proceed, having regard to the limited scope to which the ruling of the Speaker confined the discussion.

asked whether any report had been received from any Treasury official in response to the inquiry by the Government for such a Return, and if it had been received what was its character, and would it be made public. He wished to point out that the permanent officials were the servants of the House, paid by the House, and the House therefore had a right to inquire as to how they discharged their duties. If Returns had been made with regard to the fiscal policy of this country they were of an important character, and it was desirable that the House should know the purport of them. He would ask further if any Returns had been received from the Board of Trade and would they be published.

said that the Board of Trade had published a good deal of information with regard to the hours of labour, wages, and the conditions of employment in particular trades of particular districts at home, and also some invaluable documents with regard to trade abroad. He wished to know whether the Board, in the course of the inquiry it was now conducting, could extend that information with respect to all trades in France and Germany; and also give particulars as to the cost of living abroad. It was very difficult to discover from the official documents of the Board of Trade what the real condition of the trade of the country was. He had been told that the method of obtaining these statistics was not reliable. Information with regard to the shipping, engineering and textile trades was obtained only from particular districts, but now that so much importance attached to the subject the information should be obtained from the whole country and not from particular districts. It was very desirable to let the public know what was the aggregate amount of wages earned in this country, also as to the cost of living abroad and the hours of labour. He should like to know, further, how the figures with regard to exports and imports were arrived at. There ought to be no difficulty in getting accurate official information as to the condition of our trade. On the face of it, the position seemed to be that we were losing something like £150,000,000. It was very desirable to have a balance-sheet. He was told that this country was earning between £70,000,000 and £80,000,000 in respect of shipping. The trade Returns showed nothing of that. Then, as to our investments abroad. He was told we had invested abroad some £200,000,000. [A VOICE: More.] Very well then, let the House and the country be informed. All this information ought to be published year after year so that the nation might be able at any moment to see what its commercial position was. That was the most effective way to stop these foolish panics about our trade. We heard a good deal about our trade abroad, but we got little information about our trade at home. The Board of Trade ought to make it its business to get statistics with regard to the value of our industries at home. In the case of Canada and the United States the fullest information was collected by the Government and issued in Parliamentary Papers. Why could not the same be done in this country? I think that with regard to "dumping" we could get a lot of information. This is a sort of thing which is very misleading unless you get accurate information. I think we should get this information in our official books. We hear a great deal about Germany sending steel bars and how that affects certain industries. We want information as to how it acts for the benefit of another industry. This is the sort of in ormation which the President of the Board of Trade knows can be obtained and ought to be obtained and published. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit that it is important that these books should be brought up to date and made more complete. Take for instance steel bars which we call "dumped" from Germany. You will not get in the Board of Trade books the fact that these steel bars dumped here have been keeping the tin plate trade in this country alive. That is the kind of information we want, and which I hope will be published. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that this has no reference whatever to fiscal inquiry, but I am simply asking that these books should be brought up-to-date, because this is one way of exploding the mad theories which are in the air now.

The Prime Minister has been taking soundings for the last few months, and I should like to know if he has yet discovered where he is and when he is going to publish all this information. I understand that he is going to publish certain figures with regard to our trade. I think I am entitled to ask when that information is going to be published and whether it will be published by the Board of Trade or by the Cabinet as a whole. What steps are the Board of Trade taking to obtain a full knowledge with regard to the position of our industries? Are they obtaining full information with regard to shipbuilding? I should like to know whether our shipbuilding industry will come within the scope of the inquiry, and what condition it is in and whether its prosperity is not very largely due to the fact that we are importing cheap steel bars from abroad. The House and the country ought to be in possession of these facts. Nobody is afraid of inquiry and all we want is a bonâ fide inquiry and not one which is conducted within sealed doors. We are quite willing to take the information given to us by the Government, and we want all these facts and figures; we do not, however, want them given partially, or with any bias, but we want information that extends all round and gives the condition of wages in this country. I see that the statistics of the wages of the stonemasons are published this year. But you cannot produce figures for a fair comparison unless they are complete, and that is the sort of information we want. I trust the right hon. gentleman will not get information which is sufficient for him to make up his own mind because we want complete information. I believe the Cabinet are collecting lots of information' and I should like to know when he is going to publish it. I heard something stated about September. Is the Cabinet going to consider what they are going to publish, and are they going to decide what information will be useful and what is not? I believe there is going to be a Cabinet Council held, and it is going to be opened at Sheffield at the beginning of October. No doubt the Prime Minister will call upon the Colonial Secretary to open the matter, and we should have somebody replying upon the whole thing. We ought to get the information ourselves, and I hope the Prime Minister will give it as soon as he possibly can and get evidence, not depending upon anonymous letters in The Times by Revenue officials which carry no weight—and which are written by persons who are probably not Revenue officials at all—but something that will be given upon the responsibility of a responsible Department like the Board of Trade or the Treasury. That is the sort of information we want, and if we get that I do not think we need fear the result.

It is perfectly true, as I have told the House over and over again, and even this afternoon, that the Board of Trade are supplementing the not inconsiderable body of information they already publish annually; and I have also told the House on previous occasions that we trust a considerable instalment of the Papers will be in the hands of Members at no distant date. But it must be remembered that it is not only the collection of figures and the preparation of statistical tables that is involved, but the verification of the figures, after the proofs have been prepared, is itself a very long and very responsible duty. It would be very unfortunate if the Board of Trade were to issue figures which might be inaccurate, when by waiting a few weeks longer they could be revised.

Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to ask him to be a little more specific. What does he mean by the phrase "at no distant date?"

I do not follow the right hon. Gentleman. I am at the beginning of my speech, not at the end of it, and I hope he will allow me to reply. I hope that certainly in the course of the next four weeks—I will not pledge myself to the date—there will be a very large and very important instalment of information in addition to the information which the Board of Trade already publish. This will not necessarily conclude the investigation. I have no doubt whatever that when this instalment, this body of Papers, is published, there will be other subjects, and they will themselves probably suggest other subjects on which the Board of Trade may very properly exercise themselves. I daresay such other subjects will suggest themselves to the Government, and I daresay they will suggest subjects to Members on both sides and to independent critics in the country. We have no desire whatever except to give all the information in our power to the House and the country, in order to enable them to make up their minds, so far as statistics will give the desired knowledge, upon any important problem that may have been raised or may be hereafter raised. On some of those points the hon. Member who has just sat down will obtain great enlightenment from the volume about to be published. But it must be remembered that it is most desirable, when dealing with Government Departments, that you should not allow the region of conjecture to play too great a part. There are some statistical works which must have conjecture in them, and, if that is clearly set out as an element of doubt, there may be great advantage in introducing a certain amount of the conjectural element. But it ought to be done cautiously—and for this reason. There is a great deal of very violent feeling existing at the present moment. How long it will last I do not know. I see it reflected in the agitated minds of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. As soon as you get public opinion into a heated and excited condition it is all important that you should keep the permanent Civil Service of this country outside the vortex. For my part, and I think I can speak for all my colleagues, we are clearly of opinion that that is our first duty. If you are going to ask the Departments to prepare Papers into which very large conjectural, theoretical, and controversial elements enter, I do not see how they can do it without introducing the personal equa- tion, or how it is possible to ask them to deal with the subject in that way without endangering that absolutely non-Party and impartial attitude of mind which is the safety of our permanent Civil Service. Therefore I would never think of asking a public Department to provide the public with information for a theoretical discussion on questions that have been raised or anything which contained too much of the theoretical element. I believe hon. Members opposite, if they can consider this subject apart from the rather heated atmosphere in which it has been started, will agree that the rules I have laid down are the right ones. It is a limited consideration when we are dealing with some of the information which is constantly asked for, but subject to that, and to the inherent difficulties which necessarily attach to a great deal of the statistical work, we are only too glad within the physical capacity of the Department that the information which the House and the country desire should be supplied. I do not think that I can add anything useful to these observations. A considerable amount of information asked for is in the Papers published, and I am sure that if the hon. Member will communicate with the head of the Department his inquiry will receive that consideration which it undoubtedly deserves. I understand that this question has been raised on the salary of the President of the Board of Trade. I have seen something of the work of that Department, and I can assure the House that there is not a more hard-working and more absolutely impartial body of men. At all events, I have not the smallest idea what the opinion of any single official is in the Board of Trade on any of these controversial questions. I have never asked them, never put a leading question to them, and they have never proffered an opinion. That is the proper way to deal with a public Department, and I hope we shall be supported in that policy.

^* : There were two remarks that fell from the Prime Minister which I think justify the closeness of the inquiry addressed to him, and justify my hon. friends who have raised this very limited debate. The Prime Minister said that the results of this inquiry will be published at no distant date, and in reply to the interruption across the Table of my right hon. friend, he was precise and said that within the next four weeks a considerable portion of this inquiry, if not the whole, would be in the hands of Members. Now the Leader of the other House said he had every hope that before the end of the session the greater portion of the information would be furnished.

I can assure the right hon. Baronet that the Board of Trade has been working as hard as it is physically possible for men to do, and the thing could not be done.

^* : We are not responsible for the way in which this inquiry has been forced upon the Board of Trade, nor for the suddenness with which the issue has been raised. The other remark of the Prime Minister was where he spoke of the part played by the conjectural element. He said the element of conjecture should be used cautiously. Our complaint is that the element of conjecture has not been used cautiously.

In which Return of the Board of Trade has it not been used cautiously?

^* : I am in the hands of the House, and I deplore the action of the Government in forcing this question upon the country. In my opinion it is a matter we should have been able to discuss. The Prime Minister says that the element of conjecture should be used cautiously.

In the Board of Trade and Government Official Returns.

^* : The right hon. Gentleman says he speaks for all his colleagues in this direction, and yet when it is being attempted to show that the suddenness with which the matter has been forced upon the country, and that the disturbance to trade the raising of the issue has produced, has been the act of a single Minister, other Ministers are going round the country saying that it is for this reason that they support the Colonial Secretary in the wise declarations he has made. I think the House will see that the element of conjecture has not been used with that caution which the Prime Minister promised for all his colleagues. We hold the Government responsible for having disturbed the trade of the country, by the manner in which they have forced this question on the country.

I understand that we are entitled to refer to the salaries of ministers. The Bill includes the salary of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who has been officially declared to have given a general approval to the issue of a very large number of leaflets, which certainly import into the inquiry a very large amount of the conjectural element. We are reasonably entitled to complain that a Minister of the Crown should approve of private utterances on a public question when the Government of the day are supposed to be conducting an inquiry. I am quite unable to under stand why it is that the Board of Trade and the Treasury are confined rigidly to official utterances and official documents, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies is allowed larger discretion, and is allowed to publish on a scale of almost legendary magnitude, leaflets, alleged by those who act with him to be no less numerous than 50,000,000,.and to distribute them broadcast over the whole country, as a contribution, I suppose, to the inquiry. I really think hon. Members of this House are very closely concerned with the assumption by a Minister of the right at once to use the prestige of a Minister of the Crown and the liberty of a private Member of Parliament. I do not believe there is any precedent in the whole of our constitutional history for such a proceeding, and it creates an aspect of the matter about which we are entitled to comment this afternoon, and which evidently affects the confidence we are able to feel in that Minister. The position in which we are placed——

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand it would be in order for any Member of the House to discuss the salary of the Colonial Secretary?

Oh; muzzle the House of Commons.

The question I am putting is whether it is in order for the House to discuss the salary of a Secretary of State on the ground of the distribution of pamphlets by an association of which that Secretary of State happens to be the president.

And which his colleagues say are issued with his general approval.

^* : I do not know what the facts are. They seem to he be in dispute; but what I have said is that it is not competent to discuss a policy which is, I presume, set forth in those leaflets.

May I further ask whether it is competent for the House to discuss this alleged action, not undertaken by the Colonial Secretary as an administrative act, on his salary?

^* : I do not think, so far, the noble Lord is out of order.

My right hon. friend's repugnance to discussion carries him now almost to the point of extravagance. The mere approach to any criticism of the policy of his colleague, the mere suggestion that a finger-tip should be laid upon so fragile a subject, leads my light hon. friend to seek by every means in his power to restrict and limit within the closest dimensions the deliberative powers of the House. His is the policy of silence; let his also be the discredit of it. It is not we who are afraid of discussing this matter to the bottom. I will not enter in any length upon the issue of these leaflets, but I think that this debate ought not to close without a protest against the extraordinary use which the Secretary of State for the Colonies has made of his official position. The right hon. Gentleman is combining together all the resources which are not his own, find which are given to him by the House and by many hon. Members who strongly disapprove of the policy he is pursuing—combining the prestige of a Minister of the Crown with the liberty stretched to its utmost limits which an ordinary politician may exercise in the discussion of political matters. It is a constitutional scandal scarcely less than the attitude which my right hon. friend the Prime Minister takes up in respect of all proposals to discuss the policy which has been thrust upon the country.

This discussion is so unreal in many of its aspects that I do not think it need be prolonged, but I rise merely to take note of one or two observations of the Prime Minister. I am glad to hear that this information, which the right hon. Gentleman has promised to us on the highest authority, and in the most explicit terms, before Parliament was prorogued, is to see the light within the next four weeks. Let us all take note of that. In the second place, I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that the information, when it is furnished on the authority of the Departments, will be information confined to facts and not conjectures or hypotheses or theoretical inferences.

What I said was that we desired to have as little conjecture or hypothesis lying at the root of these matters as possible. We cannot avoid conjecture altogether.

I must confess that this inquiry now assumes gigantic and interminable proportions, because we are told that, if the information given is not satisfactory, it will be open to anyone to ask for further information and develop further sources of supply, to increase the quantity of facts and inferences given to the public. It appears to me, that the position of the Government in this matter is going very much to resemble that, of persons puffing a great work of reference. The more questions you ask the more gratified they will be, the more copies they will be prepared to supply, and the larger the body of information they will be enabled to supply to the country. But there is a question to which we should like to have some definite answer. When is the inquiry to be concluded? I am not asking for a date, but for a logical term to this process of what appears to be an interminable investigation, because it is of the utmost importance, having regard to the vast issues raised, that we should have some indication as to when the information which the Government has vouchsafed will be completed, and when the country will be asked to come to a final decision with reference to this matter I am afraid we cannot carry the question any further to-day, and that we must be grateful for the promise we have received.

I am sorry that the Colonial Secretary himself is not here to take part in the discussion. Why does he keep hiding himself behind what are called "Rules of Order?"

Why should he be here?

Inasmuch as the discussion on the fiscal question appears to be over, I want to direct attention to some Irish interests. Within the last few days a petition was presented to the Irish Government to establish Registration Revision Courts at Dalkey and Killiney, in the County of Dublin, and although that request had been supported by the two local councils elected by the people, the answer of the Government has been in the negative. I think, for my own part, that had a similar request been made by any local body in England there would have been no hesitation whatever in granting it. This refusal casts a flood of light upon the manner and spirit in which the government of Ireland is carried on. The fact is that this same Dublin constituency is one of two or three in Ireland in which there is a balance of Parties on the electoral lists, and if either side is able to buy the Government of the day, it is possible, by manipulation of one kind or another, to secure the victory in the Revision Court, and therefore at the polls. In South Dublin the Unionist party is in the majority, but they refused to re-elect a member of the present Government, Mr. Horace Plunkett, so extreme are these gentlemen in their views. That party have made up their mind to capture that constituency per fas et nefas, and the Government, instead of standing impartially between the contending parties, have deliberately taken sides with one of them. I say that deliberately, and that that party is the Orange party. As I have said, two of the local councils have petitioned for a Revision Court; and why should not facilities be given to the people to record their votes? Is there any treason in making a request of that kind? Would there be anything against the Constitution in granting it without a moment's hesitation? I defy the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General to mention a single instance in which the request of the elected councils would not be granted without more ado! These councils are of great account when loyal addresses are to be presented to the King when he comes over to Ireland, or to the Lord Lieutenant when he comes in to the district. When they resolve to present these addresses they are lauded to the skies and told that they are great and important bodies; but when they ask for the establishment of a Revision Court for the registration of voters in their own district, they are kicked downstairs by Dublin Castle as if they were rebels. Possibly, if they had been more rebellious than they are, a different answer would have been returned to them. As I have stated, the Government are in league with the officials of the Unionist Registration Association of South Dublin. I state that deliberately; and I say that it is within the knowledge, at any rate, of one of the two Law Officers of the Crown; and I further say that it is because they are in league with them that they are bound to refuse a Registration Revision Court at Dalkey, unless leave is given to them from the headquarters in Dublin. Is not that a scandal? Is that the way in which the battle of the Union is going to be fought in Ireland? We are told that we have a Constitution and that we should play the game according to the rules of the Constitution; but when we play the game according to the Constitution we find the other party playing with loaded dice, and that they are indulging in practices in which they would not dare to indulge in England. I do not expect that my remarks will have much effect on the Orange party in the Government, but I make them for the purpose of bringing into view the manner and spirit in which Ireland is governed. No matter what is said here; no matter what reception is given to the King and Queen in Ireland; Ireland is governed in the same way it has been ruled for the last 100 years.

There is another topic which was discussed, unfortunately in my absence, last night, because I represent the county which is concerned most in it. The Government have taken lately to refuse to pay a sum of about £700 in respect of rates for Phœnix Park, Dublin. That is justified on the ground that, in England, a similar park had been treated in the same way. I am not sure that the statement is correct that any park in England has been treated in the same way as Phœnix Park. I know the case of Brockwell Park, for I have taken care to read up the law reports upon it. I do not pretend to be a legal authority, but, still, I maintain that there is the widest possible distinction between the two cases. I invite the attention of the Attorney-General to this matter. I do not think that, as an Irishman, he can complacently look on the abstraction of £700 a year from the County of Dublin, and the ratepayers of the city of Dublin. I have been honoured on two or three occasions by my colleagues by being asked to introduce into this House the question of the financial relations between Ireland and Great Britain, but have declined. However, I have been thinking over the matter since and have come to the conclusion that the hon. Member for the County of Dublin is the proper person, because that county has been the subject of special ill-treatment in financial matters at the hands of the Government of the day. What did the Government actually do? They revalued the county of Dublin in anticipation of a certain valuation Bill which was to be introduced into Parliament; and they compelled the ratepayers of the County of Dublin to pay the costs! The operation was entirely illegal; and although it was so, the money which was extracted from the ratepayers of the county of Dublin has never been refunded to them. The pretence of the Secretary to the Treasury last night, as it has been the pretence of some of his predecessors, was that the Phœnix Park would not pay rates in England; and that, therefore, it ought to be regarded as a sort of property in respect to which the Government should make a grant in lieu of rates. The Brockwell Park case was that that park was entirely and exclusively devoted to public purposes; whereas in the case of the Phœnix Park, what has been done year after year? Encroachments have been made on the domain of the park; public buildings have been erected on it for the public service; and the Government has made an income out of it from grazing rents. Would any man pretend that a park like that should not be liable to rates? Of course it would be liable to rates in England; and I contend that the County Council of Dublin ought to receive a bounty in lieu of rates given in every other case. It is a shabby and mean attempt to make ends meet by indulging in small economies, when the Government have been spending millions on war abroad and thousands on objects in Ireland itself which will never bring them in. an adequate return. Seven hundred pounds is a very considerable sum to throw on the rates of the county of Dublin; but it is a very little sum indeed so far as the Government are concerned. The Government are grasping at a shadow in order to indulge in this meanness although Ministers know very well that the English case is different from the Irish case. I do not suppose that my remarks will have any weight; but I would not be doing my duty to my constituents if I did not join in the protest which was made last night, and if I did not inform the Secretary to the Treasury that he has by no means heard the last of this matter, and that it will be introduced session after session until the injustice is remedied.

said that on the previous evening he had brought certain matters to the notice of the Prime Minister, notably, the important question of trawling, the administration of Egypt, and certain affairs connected with China. He did not expect that the right hon. Gentleman would be in a position to give him information with reference to the administration of Egypt or on affairs connected with China. But as the Lord Advocate was now present he wished to direct his attention to the question of trawling in the Moray Firth. Some few years ago a conference was held at Christiana at which this country was represented, and a resolution was carried to the effect that certain areas such as the Moray Firth should be closed against all trawlers. He had endeavoured to ascertain by means of Questions whether any action had been taken on that resolution; but he was unable to get any information. He would now ask the Lord Advocate whether anything had been done with reference to it. The matter was getting worse from day to day. The Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland showed that in 1886 the number of steam trawlers was 109, where as in 1892 they numbered 275. Meantime, there was no increase in the number of protecting cruisers. There was a great want of cruisers around the coast of Scotland; and he could not understand when such a number of ships were lying idle at Portsmouth, Chatham and elsewhere, why they should not be commissioned to protect the fishing industry off the coast of Scotland, It seemed to him that torpedo boats and cruisers now lying idle might well be utilised when the fishing industry was being devastated and ruined, and when a fine race of men were, in consequence, obliged to have recourse to the large towns. It should be the duty of any Government to protect such men, as far as possible, on such an industry, as, in the event of a naval war, they would be found invaluable. He hoped the Lord Advocate would be able to give him some information on the subject, and that he would place the matter before Lord Balfour of Burleigh, the Secretary for Scotland, with a view to his approaching the Admiralty in order that a sufficient number of protecting cruisers might be secured. The Colonial Office and the War Office seemed to be able to get all they required, but the Scottish Office was not so successful.

With reference to Port Ness harbour, he had been told that the matter was still under consideration; but unless the work were undertaken within the next month or two it would have to stand over for another year, because it could not be carried on during the winter months in such an exposed part of the country. With regard to the Congested Districts Board, it had now been established for five years, and half its income had been hoarded up. He thought that the House of Commons should be told what was to be done with it. He wanted to see land secured for the people. Land had been purchased on lease by the Congested Districts Board; but he contended that such land should be freehold, as otherwise, in course of time, the people would be no better off than they were at present. He thought it was time that the present policy of the Congested Districts Board was stopped, and that the income of the Board should be expended for purposes which were contemplated by Parliament. Not a single shilling had been expended in the purchase of land in his own county. In the Island of Lewis, where there was more distress, suffering, and misery than in any other part of His Majesty's Dominions, very little action had been taken by the Congested Districts Board. He would invite the Lord Advocate to visit the Island of Lewis and see the state of affairs with his own eyes. If the Lord Advocate did that he would then know what he was talking about, and, if he had any heart at all, he would set to work to remedy the evils which existed. The Congested Districts Board was working most unsatisfactorily, and he would urge on the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of making the conditions of life of the crofters more satisfactory than they were at present.

With reference to the Local Government Board for Scotland, they did very well in the Lowlands but, in regard to the Highlands, they did their work very badly indeed. Whenever an outbreak of fever occurred they never sent a medical officer of their own to inquire into it, but left local medical men to report on it. When an outbreak occurred in the Island of Lewis he was informed that it was typhoid fever; but afterwards he was informed on high medical authority that it was typhus fever. That was the kind of information that was supplied to Parliament. The local school had to be closed for six months, and what chance had a Highland boy or girl of getting on in the world unless they were well educated? The Government should do their very best to educate to the highest possible degree boys and girls in the Highlands, through technical schools, workshops, and by other means. They should not be sent out into the world to always remain hewers of wood and drawers of water. Further, he thought the medical officers in Scotland should be treated as regarded holidays in the same way as medical officers in Ireland were treated. In Scotland a medical officer could only have a holiday if he provided a substitute out of his own small salary. In Ireland the locum tenens was provided by the Local Government Board. He thought a similar system should be introduced in Scotland, and that medical officers should be given an opportunity to visit hospitals and learn something further of their profession, because it was a profession in which something fresh was always to be learned.

He could not for the life of him understand why there was no vaccine station provided for Scotland. The Royal Commission which considered the question strongly recommended that vaccination from arm to arm should cease; but the Scottish Office apparently overruled that. There was no conscience clause in Scotland, and if the Government compelled people to be vaccinated it was their duty to supply proper lymph. At present a system of arm to arm vaccination went on, a little lymph being supplied here and there. Last year the Local Government Board for Scotland paid the Local Government Board for England £120 for lymph, although the Local Government Board for England said they never received it. He did not know whether they did or not, but certainly that was a very unsatisfactory way of conducting business. Then, Dr. Blaxall, who was a paid officer of the Local Government Board in London, and who had the use of Government calves and Government apparatus in the preparation of lymph, was paid £105 by the Local Government Board for Scotland for lymph. Surely a Government official should not be allowed to use Government property to earn money for his own benefit.

There was one question connected with the Colonial Office to which he desired to refer, and it was a matter of great importance to the people of Hong-Kong. In Chinese houses there were sometimes as many as 200 inmates, and when plague broke out the authorities instead of segregating the victims told them to remain at home. Seeing that there were so many people in the houses it was no wonder the plague spread. Medical experts, who had been sent out, had made certain recommendations, all of which were ignored by the Hong-Kong Government. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give his attention to this matter. His last point was with regard to Ceylon. On the tea plantations there were 100,000 Tamil children, of whom only 1,000 could read or write. The school accommodation was most inadequate, and as the British Government were responsible for these people, he thought that necessary accommodation ought to be provided.

^* : I am afraid I cannot satisfy the hon. Member's appetite for information by going through the whole scope of his observations——

I expect the Lord Advocate to reply only about Scotland.

I will reply so far as my Department is concerned. The hon. Member asked me, first of all, whether I could tell him anything about the progress of the negotiations concerning the North Sea fisheries. The hon. Member has asked many Questions on that subject, and the answers he has received show that the question of the policing or shutting up of areas such as the Moray Firth was mooted at the conference. But it is perfectly obvious that no action in the direction suggested could possibly be taken by the foreign Powers until they had arrived at some conclusion upon the question primarily submitted to the conference, viz., of the depletion or otherwise of fish in the North Sea. The hon. Member must surely see that what his, or our views, may be as to the desirability of keeping areas like the Moray Firth as a ground wherein the line fishermen may exercise their vocation undisturbed by foreigners, that course is not at all likely to commend itself to foreign Powers who by international law have as much right in the Moray Firth as we have, unless we can show that it is in the interests of the foreign Powers themselves that such an arrangement should be made. That depends not upon the view of line fishermen versus trawlers, but upon the much larger question of the food supply of the North Sea. The hon. Member must be aware that there is unfortunately no consensus of opinion as to the actual state of affairs in the North Sea. Undoubtedly until you have an answer from the scientific experts of whom the conference is composed it is useless to expect any effective action on the part of foreign Powers, and without such action it is obvious that, whatever your views may be, you cannot close an area which is at present open under international law. As to patrolling, the Scotch office, so far from being supine in the matter, have always pressed admirably for the maximum of service obtainable, and Irishmen at any rate hold the view that Scotland is much better treated in this matter than Ireland has ever been. With regard to Ness, that is a matter of great difficulty, in connection with which I am afraid the hon. Member must exercise the virtue of patience a little longer.

The last point with which I am concerned is the Congested Districts Board. First, let me say that the hon. Member puts his own gloss entirely on the Act when he says it was passed mainly for the migration of crofters. The Act is for the purpose of administering sums available for the improvement of the congested districts, and when you come to the various powers which are to be exercised for improvement of the congested districts, the migration of crofters is only one among many, and it is not even first on the list. The hon. Member's remarks therefore are altogether beside the mark when he tries to force upon the Secretary for Scotland the policy of spending the whole of the money at his disposal on the migration of crofters and nothing else. The Secretary for Scotland has explained his policy; it is well set forth in the Reports of the Congested Districts Board, and he is not to be forced from it. He believes, and the Government agree, that it would be no boon at all to the Highlands to migrate persons who are not in a proper position to be migrated; that is to say, who have no chance, by what they are possessed of themselves, of using with advantage any holding they might get. On the other hand, there are many ways in which the money might be spent. I will do the hon. Member the compliment of saying that so far as he is concerned we should have got the Congested Districts Board (Scotland) Bill, No. 2. That Bill would have given power to the Board to spend money in the very way the Report of the Commission says it ought to be spent, but through the action of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, the Bill was sacrificed.

said that if the Lord Advocate was going into the question of the sacrifice of the Bill he was quite prepared to justify his opposition to it.

^* : I thought it only right to pay the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty that tribute. I say quite plainly that progress upon those lines is the object of the policy of the Secretary for Scotland, that we do not admit that the migration of crofters is the only or even the main object of the establishment of the Board, and that it is far better to accumulate the money until there is an opportunity of spending it properly.

desired to associate himself with the action taken by the hon. Member for North Dublin. In his opinion the Irish Office had been guilty of a gross breach of faith, because, when on a former occasion he addressed an inquiry on the matter to the Chief Secretary, he was told that no recommendation had been made to the Lord Lieutenant, and that if such a recommendation were made, the matter would be inquired into, and, if found necessary, it would be granted. The representatives of the two districts concerned passed unanimous resolutions in favour of this Court, and they were sent to the proper authorities, but nothing further was heard about the matter for some time. Afterwards, in reply to a question, the Attorney-General said there was no reason for granting this Court at all, and a letter was sent in which it was stated that the Lord Lieutenant had made inquiries, and that there was no reason whatever for granting the Court which was asked for. He wished to know upon whose advice the Lord Lieutenant came to that conclusion, more especially when the people in the districts concerned had declared that sufficient facilities were not provided to enable them to conveniently exercise the franchise. The local authorities were informed in the first instance that they would get this Court if they applied for it, and they did so by a unanimous vote of their elected representatives. They were afterwards told that inquiry had been made, and that there was no reason for granting this Court. He believed that the only inquiry which was made was from a representative of the political Party opposite, and in this way the views of the people were overruled. No explanation would convince him that the Government in this matter had not been influenced by political motives.

said he quite agreed with the hon. Member that no explanation he could give would remove from his mind the opinion that the Government had been actuated by base motives in this matter. He denied that there had been any breach of faith in regard to this Court at Dalkey.

said the reason why a Court was asked for in Dalkey was to secure for the Dalkey and Killiney districts proper facilities for voting.

said that both Dalkey and Killiney were within easy reach of Dublin both by railway and by tramways.

asked from whom the inquiries were made.

said there was not the slightest foundation for saying that inquiries were actuated by political motives.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say who were consulted upon this matter?

said he did not know.

said if the right hon Gentleman did not know by whom the inquiry was conducted how could he deny his statement.

said that the permanent revising barrister was asked his opinion, and his reply was that the change suggested was entirely unnecessary, and that no complaint had ever been made by the local people in regard to getting their votes registered. No complaint had been made to him that there was no separate Revision Court for Dalkey. The Lord Lieutenant did not know whether a Revision Court at Dalkey would be beneficial to either Nationalists or to the opposite Party. An arrangement was made last year which was found to suit all parties. Hitherto the custom had been to have certain days for the revision of the Dalkey lists, and certain days for Kingstown. Arrangements were made for the Dalkey lists to be kept open so that a voter from Dalkey could come in either during the afternoon or evening and have his vote registered. The Dalkey list was kept open till the last so that during the whole time no voter had any difficulty whatever in getting his vote registered. Special arrangements were made to suit the convenience of all parts of that district, and the Government had no interest whatever in the matter. When complaint was made they referred the matter to the revising barrister, who was the person best acquainted with the facts, who was disinterested, and who had no partisan purposes to serve. The Government acted upon his advice, and not from any unworthy motives such as hon. Members opposite were so ready to impute to the Government.

Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the revising barrister is a better authority upon this question than the elected representatives of Dalkey?

said he thought the revising barrister's opinion was quite as good as the opinion of either of those two bodies.

said the reply of the Attorney-General was singularly unconvincing, because it was quite evident that the right hon. Gentleman was not willing to give the full facts to the House. It was inconceivable that the chief Law Officer of the Crown for Ireland should not know the facts of this case. It was a well-known fact that the permanent revising barrister was regarded as prejudiced upon these matters. He had risen for the purpose of calling attention to the action of Major Eccles, who had recently been appointed auditor to the Local Government Board. He wished to call particular attention to the case of an unfortunate collector who had been surcharged by this auditor. The salary of this collector was only about £14 a year. It seemed to him to be as difficult to alter the rules of the Government auditor as it was to alter the laws of the Medes and Persians. Major Eccles went down to the Belturbet district and found that for a long period of years a number of houses had been lying idle in respect of which at some time rates were collected. They still stood on the books of the district, and in respect of the collector's failure to do an impossible thing, namely, to collect rates on these houses, the collector was surcharged £216 14s. 0d. When he went into the presence of Major Eccles it would seem that he was not deferential enough. The auditor instead of receiving him with courtesy and civility, ordered him forthwith to retire from his august presence, and not to come again until he was accompanied by a solicitor. When he returned with a solicitor he was informed that in consequence of the default to collect rates on these houses he had decided to surcharge him in the amount stated. This collector had been thirty years in the service of the district and there was no charge of dishonesty against him. He appealed against the auditor's decision to the Local Government Board, and they after some inquiry confirmed the decision of the auditor. He was then served with a notice to appear before two magistrates of the Petty Sessions of the district, who decided that he must either pay the amount of the surcharge or go to gaol. If this man had fraudently got the money and converted it to his own use, he could understand this procedure, but this was a case of a faithful servant who, because a mere technicality of the law was not complied with, was treated in this way by a comparatively new officer, on the principle, he supposed, that "a new broom sweeps clean." He himself had appealed to the Government to take some steps in the interest of justice in this case, and he had received the usual stereotyped official reply, that the matter was decided and must remain so. In other words this unfortunate man, or his friends, must get the money which he was not legally or morally responsible for, otherwise his liberty was in peril and he might at any moment be committed to prison. This was a monstrously unjust state of things, and it was illegal. Some of the man's friends had thought of taking proceedings in the King's Bench to get the decision quashed, but so far nothing had been done in that direction, as they could not face the costs which the appeal would involve. He asked the Attorney General to give some explanation of the matter other than that given in the official reply the other day. Major Eccles in this case from the beginning had not treated the man fairly. If the right hon. Gentleman discharged the duties of his office, he would see that there was another inquiry into the matter, by an independent auditor if necessary. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to direct the Local Government Board to reconsider this matter.

said he thought it would be satisfactory if he made a short reply at this stage to the hon. Member for North Dublin, though he had little to add to what he had already said on previous occasions within the last week. What happened in regard to the Phœnix Park was this. Formerly the Crown paid the rates in respect of the Phœnix Park. The principle on which the Crown acted was, that though they were not legally bound to pay rates at all, they did out of grace and favour contribute voluntarily to the rates, on property which was subject to lawful rating when in other hands. Where the Crown was the owner and occupier of property which in other hands would not be rated, the Crown did not consider it expedient and wise to come forward and pay rates in respect of that property. The Phœnix Park, Dublin, stood formerly in the same position as Hyde Park, St. James's Park and other London Parks. In regard to these parks it was the custom, previously, for the Crown to pay rates in aid of the local ratepayers, but the House of Lords had given a decision in regard to a particular park in South London, known as Brock-well Park, which had been dedicated to the public by statute for recreation for ever, the Trustees being the London County Council. The House of Lords decided that that park was not rateable, and that the County Council owed no rates whatever in respect of it. In consequence of that it became the duty of the Treasury to consider whether, under those circumstances, they ought to go on paying rates on other London parks, and they came to the conclusion that they must be guided by the principle that, inasmuch as the House of Lords had decided that Brockwell Park was not rateable, the Crown ought not to pay rates in respect of Hyde Park, St. James's Park, or the Phœnix Park That was the whole case, as the hon. member would see if he read the judgment in the case of Brock well Park. In Hyde Park, as in the Phœnix Park, some revenue was made from the grazing of sheep. Therefore, the case for the Treasury was that the decision of the House of Lords bound them, and if they were not to depart from the old principle, namely, that they must consider whether the character of the property was such that it would be rateable in other hands, then the Crown must proceed in the way they had proceeded. With regard to the decision of the House of Lords, it was not for them to reason why. The Hon. Member might think, and possibly others might agree with him, that property of that kind should be liable to pay rates. That was not the question before the House at present. The Treasury had to follow the law as laid down by the House of Lords, and the general principle on which for many years the Crown had acted.

said the hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that the circumstances of those parks differed. They were not the same in any case. What he and his friends contended was that the circumstances of the Phœnix Park were not at all identical with those of Brockwell Park. He asked whether the hon. gentleman would give a pledge, now, that he would facilitate the discussion and determination of this question in a Court of law in Ireland.

said that as far as he was concerned he did not see how the question could be raised as against the Crown, because it was quite clear, as a matter of constitutional law, that the Crown was not rateable at all in respect of any of those properties.

Supposing it can be raised, will the hon. Gentleman consent to have it discussed?

said he should hardly like to say what he would do in circumstances which he thought could not arise. But if the hon. Member could suggest any method by which the question could be raised he did not see any objection to having it tested.

^* : I wish to make a few remarks on the Report of the Select Committee on the ventilation and sanitation of the House of Commons, as there was positively no other occasion on which this subject could be discussed this session. When I mention the delay that has taken place in bringing forward the Report of that Committee, the necessity of my submitting this matter to the attention of the House at this late period of the session becomes more apparent. On the 14th March, 1902, I moved for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the matter, and in the meantime to carry out sanitary improvements the necessity for which was quite apparent, and the First Commissioner of Works very kindly consented that a Committee should be appointed immediately after Easter. He was as good as his word, and on the 16th April the Committee was appointed. I was sanguine enough to imagine that the Report would be presented before the end of last session, and by Questions in the House, by private interviews, and by again speaking on the subject last August, I endeavoured to accelerate matters. When the House reassembled on 24th February this year, I put a Question to the hon Member for North Hunts, as representing the First Commissioner of the Board of Works, asking when the Report of the Select Committee on the ventilation of the House of Commons buildings would be issued, and the answer was that— Committee, some of whom are men of great scientific attainments, for the time and attention which they have devoted to this prosaic subject. Their recommendations confirm what I had formerly stated both as to the in sanitary conditions of the House of Commons, and as to the best means that can be adopted for their removal. Their Report is very moderate in its language. As to the condition of the House itself they state that

As to the recommendations of the Committee they are very cautious and very moderate, and I would say very economical; but so far as they go they should be complied with immediately. I will only refer to two or three of the most important. One of them refers to the placing of the whole ventilation and cleaning arrangements Tinder one authority; and the appointment of a sanitary officer under the Office of Works to direct and superintend the ventilation of the House. The divided authority has been the source of very much inefficiency. I believe that three- fourths of the insanitary arrangements result from an absolute disregard of the most ordinary and well-understood principles of sanitation; and the sooner that a Hercules in sanitary work is appointed and set to work to cleanse the Again Stable where many more than a thousand are sometimes congregated together within a small space, and to keep it clean and pure, the better will it be for all concerned. Then I am glad of the suggested substitution of electric fans for the present ante-diluvium system of exhaust furnaces, and of a more powerful new improved intake fan for the present one. They recommend also the institution of an inquiry into the problems of ventilation still unsolved, with the view to introducing further improvements. This is a very necessary part of the inquiry, and the sooner it is undertaken the better, and no time should be lost in carrying out the present recommendations, for they are admirable so far as they go But I have been disappointed that the Committee have not made any recommendation on some points which I think very much needing improvement. I think it is a pity that they have made no recommendation for a change in the heating apparatus from steam pipes and radiating plates, which are a most unwholesome means of warming the air. I am sorry that they have not recommended that the system should be discontinued at once. I regret that they have not seen their way to give a better supply of air to the Strangers', the Reporters, and to the Ladies' Galleries. The Reporters, next to our selves, should be in a position to have their intellectual faculties unimpaired by bad air. But apart from the Reporters' Gallery in the House, anyone who has had an opportunity of going into their other accommodation premises must have been struck with the fact that their conditions are, from a sanitary point of view, most deplorable. I believe that when a sanitary inspector for the House is appointed, the first report he makes will be that the sanitation of some of the Reporting rooms and their accessories is not at all creditable to the House. Under present conditions I am certain that if this House were under the Factory Acts, the sanitary regulations of which have recently been made much more stringent, my hon. friend the Member for West Derby, as the representative of the Board of Works, would be immediately summoned and fined.

In this connection let me mention that a very large number of Civil servants, both in London and the provinces are compelled to work in the most in sanitary surroundings and conditions; and I would suggest to the Board of Works that when appointing a sanitary officer for the House they would also appoint one for the various Government offices throughout the country. The Government as an employer of labour should set an example to other employers. The vitiated atmosphere in which we spend so much of our time, especially under the unnatural conditions imposed by the suspension of the twelve o'clock rule, has been the cause of much of the dulness, depression, and even acerbity of temper which sometimes, though rarely, overshadows this generally cheerful and good-natured Assembly. It has caused a large amount of sickness and suffering to many hon. Members who would have been hale and well under ordinary sanitary conditions, and it has caused the loss of many noble lives which the Country and this House could ill afford to spare—the latest addition to this fatal roll being one of the most amiable and popular of our Scotch colleagues, whose devotion to duty caused him to give far too close and prolonged attendance here. On all these grounds I urge on the Board of Works, through its representative the Member for West Derby, to carry out. all the recommendations of the Select Committee before the House meets again, so that we shall then find the House and its precincts in a very much better sanitary condition.

said he had not the same amount of belief in the vitiated atmosphere of the Chamber itself as some hon. Members. He believed that the air in the Chamber was as good as the air in any other closed chamber in the United Kingdom. On one occasion, he was almost continually in the House for nearly forty days and nights but was never affected by the atmosphere. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the London University, who presided over the Committee, had the atmosphere tested; and the result showed that it was better than atmosphere elsewhere under similar conditions. Although he did not agree entirely with the speech of the hon. Gentleman, he thought that his suggestion with reference to the appointment of a permanent sanitary officer should be carried out. The ventilation outside the Chamber was exceeding defective, and that was due, until recently, to windows not being opened. There was, however, an improvement in that respect; but he thought that the hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in stating that one of the most important recommendations in the Report of the Committee was that a permanent sanitary officer should be appointed to take charge of the entire building, which had a considerable resident population and a very large visiting population, and which would offer an opportunity for a considerable amount of work to a skilled sanitarian. In many respects the arrangements were defective; but they were being improved detail by detail, session after session. They did not, However, represent that standard of excellence which ought to belong to the building occupied by the Mother of Parliaments. He quite agreed with the remarks of the hon. Gentleman with reference to the Reporters' Gallery and the Ladies' Gallery. The atmosphere in. the Ladies' Gallery was excessively oppressive; and the ventilation in that part of the building was exceedingly defective. Some of the worst parts of the building were those connected with the accommodation given to the Reporters. Several of the rooms in which the Reporters had to work were not only dirty and undesirable but exceedingly bad from a sanitary point of view, and should receive the attention, at the earliest possible moment, of the responsible officials. In his opinion, various matters could be greatly improved. For instance, the present method of heating; might very well be improved, but, at the same time, he felt bound to enter a protest against anything approaching a wholesale condemnation of the atmosphere of the Chamber. That certainly should not be held responsible for the gaps which occurred in their ranks from time to time, as, for instance, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyll, to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, whose death they all deplored and who was one of the most estimable Members of the House of Commons. The mortality among hon. Members, however, should not be put down to the condition of the Chamber itself.

said he wished to refer to the electric fans in the lobbies. Members had no means of stopping them, although they might find the draught too great for their comfort. An electric fan had now been placed over each table, but there was no means by which it could be stopped if desired. He hoped his hon. friend would call the attention of the First Commissioner of Works to the matter. There was another matter to which he wished to refer, which was connected with the comfort of the visitors. He knew from his own experience that in foreign Legislatures facilities were provided for depositing coats and hats before entering the strangers' Galleries. A stranger entering the gallery in this House might have to pass with his coat and hat twenty or thirty other visitors to the general discomfort of all. It would be perfectly easy to provide accommodation for hats and coats under the charge of an attendant, and, if necessary, a small fee might be charged. Lord Windsor was very anxious to do everything in his power to promote the comfort of all sections of the House; and he was quite sure he would give attention to the matters he had mentioned.

Unfortunately there has been a delay in the presentation of the Committee's Report on ventilation, with the result that it was impossible to carry out the work before Parliament me. I had only the privilege of sitting on the Committee on two occasions; but, of course, I am prepared to take my full share of responsibility for the Report, though I believe everyone will fully recognize that the credit of the Report is due entirely to my hon. friend the Member for the London University, who devoted an immense amount of labors and trouble to the work of the Committee. With reference to the remarks of my hon. friend the Member for Dumbartonshire, as a matter of fact it was a surprise to many hon. Members when they found by experience and experiment that the atmosphere of the Chamber was so very satisfactory. Nevertheless, I do not wish to make things better than they are. Speaking for the Board of Works, I can only say we are only too glad that we have had the advantage of a strong Committee, which enabled us to have the service of their recommendations. The First Commissioner of Works has already approached the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, I understand, will allow us to bring in a Supplementary Estimate next year, which will enable us to deal more effectually with the first recommendations of the Committee, and I hope if those recommendations do not make the ventilation perfect they will go a long way towards it. It is a very difficult thing to ventilate this Chamber. I have heard that it is almost heartbreaking, and without considerable alteration, which would result in considerable disfigurement and comparatively little use, it would be almost impossible to ventilate it. So far as the appointment of a sanitary officer is concerned we have not had time to give that matter consideration. The Report was only issued on the 24th July, and a subject of that sort require considerable consideration, as is well known to those who take an interest in the matter. Our engineer, Mr. Rivers, is extremely well-qualified to carry out this business. He has not only a perfect knowledge of the House itself, but also of the Members, and he knows how-difficult it is to please everybody. One case in point is the ventilation of the division lobbies. Hon. Members always thought, and the First Commissioner always thought he had taken steps to considerably improve the ventilation of the division lobbies. It is now wished that some further alterations should be made. My hon. friend wishes hon. Members to have the power to regulate the fans. That would prove a most unsatisfactory system, and, with the attendance we have, any hon. Gentleman is able very rapidly to call attention to a matter of which he complains. So far as the other cases are concerned, I will see into the matter, and bring the facts to the Attention of the First Commissioner, especially with regard to the more frequent cleaning of the floor. We are bringing in a machine called the vacuum cleaner, which will, no doubt, have the best possible effect.

called attention to the case of Miss Blanc, the late assistant to the post office at. Portarlington, who, after twenty-eight and a half years true and faithful service, during the earlier portion of which she worked sixteen hours a day, was discharged on the 30th of April last without either pension or gratuity. He contended that, being discharged by the surveyor, she was a servant of the Postmaster-General, and as such was entitled either to a gratuity of £1 or one week's salary, whichever was the greater amount, for every year's service. Such a gratuity in her case would amount to £28 10s. That was all he claimed for her. If the law was so framed that it was possible for such an injustice to be done to persons who had rendered long and faithful service, it ought to be changed without delay.

^* said that for some time past he had been pressing for the establishment of sea post offices on the Canard Line of steamers, and he congratulated the Postmaster-General on the fact that, under the fresh contract, new steamers were to have such offices provided. He desired to ask if anything had been done in regard to the steamers at present running across the Atlantic. The Postmaster-General at New York had urged that the British Postmaster-General should take up the matter energetically. On other lines of steamers on which sea post offices were provided he found that the space required was only small and the amount paid inconsiderable. It was of urgent importance that letters by the Canard Line should be delivered as quickly as letters by the Hamburg-American, North-German Lloyd or the American Lines, but under present arrangements they were some hours later. He thought that if pressure had been brought to bear before the new contract was signed, the Canard Line could not have refused to establish these sea post offices. There was no reason why they should not have been insisted upon, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would push the matter forward, as it was of great importance to business men and others.

said he had already informed the hon. Member that he had this matter under consideration and that communications were passing between himself and the other parties concerned. He was not able to give any more definite information. At the same time, there was in the new Canard contract a provision that, if at any time post office accommodation should be required, the company would, in terms to be arranged by arbitration, provide such accommodation on all steamers employed in the mail service. But the question whether he exercised his right under that provision must depend on what he found to be the attitude of the American postal administration, He was making informal and unofficial inquiries, and until they were concluded he could not say more on the subject, Except that the parallel the hon. Member drew with the German steamers was not a fair criterion of the value of such accommodation.

May I hope that we shall soon have these post offices?

said the hon. Member might hope, but he must not expect more than could be fairly drawn from what he had said. As to the case referred to by the hon. Member for Queen's County, the hon. Member was under some misapprehension as to the facts, and under a complete misapprehension as to the position of the Postmaster General. The Postmaster-General had no authority with regard to pensions or gratuities to any members of the staff; he could only make or refrain from making recommendations to the Treasury. The limit of his power was to refuse, in the case of a person whom he thought undeserving, to give the certificate required under the Superannuation Act that the person in question had served with diligence and fidelity and to the satisfaction of the head of his Department. The power to give a pension was expressly reserved by statute to the Treasury, whose decision was binding and final. The lady to whom the hon Member referred had never been in the direct Service of the Postmaster-General. The postmaster at Port Arlington received, in addition to his ordinary remuneration, a special allowance out of which he had to provide whatever assistants he required. Miss Blanc was one of the assistants so provided. She was not paid by the Postmaster-General out of monies placed at his disposal by Parliament; she was not his servant, but the servant of the postmaster. It was quite true that she was given notice of discharge by direction of the Postmaster-General, because, Although she was not his servant, she was employed for post office purposes, and it was necessary in the public interest to see that efficient assistants were provided. Miss Blanc was given three months' notice to retire because she was reported to be inefficient. The hon. Member had not attempted to disprove that statement; all he had done was to contend that because she was discharged by direction of the Postmaster-General she was his servant and not the servant of the postmaster.

pointed out that she was discharged under the age limit.

said she had reached the age of 60, but she was not discharged under the age-rule applicable to established servants. In the opinion of the Treasury, Assistants engaged by the postmaster, and paid by him out of the allowance which he received for the purpose, were not qualified under the Superannuation Act for pensions or gratuities. He would have been very glad had it been in his power to obtain a gratuity in this case, but in the opinion of the Treasury, whose discretion was absolute and decision final, the law did not permit any such grant to be made. It was suggested that if that was the case he ought to effect a change in the law. He doubted, However, whether any Minister would be in a hurry to re-open the question of superannuation. It was sufficiently difficult to deal with in the old days when discussions were briefer than to-day, but there would be little encouragement to take up so large a question at the present time. In any case it would not be for him as Postmaster-General to re-open the question. The rule was applicable to all branches of the Service, and any amending Bill would have to be introduced, defended, and carried through by the Treasury.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could not give a certificate for £1 for every year of service rendered by this lady.

said it was no use giving such a certificate, as the Treasury held that they had no power to make a grant.

pressed for a reply on the point he had previously raised.

said the complaint of the hon. Member was that a rate collector had been surcharged by one of the auditors appointed by the Local Government Board. In such a case the rate collector had two remedies. The first was to apply to the Local Government Board for a rehearing, and the Board had jurisdiction to hear the matter on any legal point or on its merits. This rate collector did appeal to the Local Government Board, who as he understood from the hon. Member's statement, confirmed the decision of the auditor. The second remedy was for the person who thought himself aggrieved, to enter the Kings Bench Division and apply either for a mandamus or for a certiorari according to the facts of the case. According to the hon. Member the rate collector threatened that remedy, but owing to his poverty his solicitor was not provided with the necessary funds, and the case was not proceeded with. From the hon. Member's statement he should draw the inference that the rate collector to whom he referred must have had a hopelessly bad case. He did not think there was much cause for complaint in this case because the rate collector had an appeal to the Local Government Board, and they decided the matter against him.

asked if the Solicitor-General would undertake to ask the Local Government Board to reconsider this matter.

said he doubted whether they had power to reconsider it because, once they had given their decision, he feared it was final. At the same time he would mention it.

Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

said he thought they ought to have some assurance that licenses would not be taken away except for serious offences. It might be right to take away a license for offences under Clause 1, but to deprive a man of his license for simply exceeding the speed limit was rather harsh, and an excessive punishment. If his right hon. friend could meet them upon this point, he should be very much obliged. His friends, generally, loyally accepted the decisions which the House had arrived at the other night, although they did not think the Bill was perfect, and their only object now was to amend the measure in such a way that it would be easily workable, and be a real benefit to the community. He begged to move his Amendment.

Amendment proposed—

"At the end of the proposed clause, to add the words 'A license shall not be taken away or suspended, or any person disqualified from taking a license under this Act, except in consequence of a conviction for an offence under Section 1 of this Act, or for drunkenness whilst in charge of a motor-car.'"—( Mr. Scott-Montagu. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there added"

said that it had been represented to him that so far as this provision applied to professional chauffeurs there might be some hardship involved in depriving a man, who depended on driving a motor-car for his livelihood, of his license for a first offence of exceeding the speed limit by even a small amount. He suggested the Amendment he had on the Paper which would avoid drivers being deprived of their license for the first offence but expose them to that penalty for the second offence.

^* said that did not exactly meet his point, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he could not put in the words "or second offence," and deal with the third offence as the one upon which the license would be taken away.

thought the right hon. Gentleman might accept this suggestion because an offence against the speed limit might be committed quite unconsciously.

also appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to agree to this suggestion, because a servant, driving his master out, had to go at the speed his master wished, and it would be rather hard if in consequence a driver lost his license, and thereby lost his means of livelihood.

said the Amendment in its present form would not carry out the object of the clause because the first sub-section dealt with this penalty and imposed it with regard to the first offence. It was a little difficult to alter the clause as it stood on the Paper in order to adopt the Amendment of his hon. friend. He did not wish to make the Bill unduly harsh, but he thought there ought to be a distinction between the first and second and subsequent offences, and he preferred the clause as it stood on the Paper. If, however, the House desired to suspend the license after the second offence he had no objection.

said he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not accept this Amendment. The public ought to be protected from reckless driving, and it was to the driver they must look for protection. The knowledge that a driver would suffer severely for breaking the law was a necessary protection in order to secure the safety of the public. Therefore he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would stand firm against this Amendment.

^* said that if any person drove a motor-car recklessly he would be dealt with severely under the 1st Section of the Act.

said it would be necessary to strike out the words "which consists" in the third line of his new clause, and insert after the word "first" the words "or second offence consisting solely of exceeding any limit of speed under this Act" That would not apply to reckless driving or other offences. If his hon. friend would withdraw his Amendment he would move those words.

^* asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed—

"In line 3 of proposed clause, after the word 'first,' to leave out the words 'offence which consists,' and insert the words 'or second offence consisting.'"—( Mr. Walter Long. )

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

Clause (Power to prohibit Motor-cars on special roads).

"In page 4, after Clause 6, to insert the following clause: 'The Local Government Board may, by regulations made under Section 6 of the principal Act, prohibit or restrict the driving of any motor cars, or of any special kind of motor-cars on any specified highway, or part of a highway, which does not exceed sixteen feet in width, or on which ordinary motor-car traffic would, in their opinion, be specially dangerous.'"—( Mr. Walter Long. )

Brought up, and read the first time

Motion made and Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

Clause (Regulations as to maximum weight of cars).

"In page 5, after Clause 9, to insert the following clause: '(1) The Local Government Board by regulations made under Section 6 of the principal Act may, as respects any class of vehicle mentioned in the regulations, increase the maximum weights of three tons and four tons mentioned in Section 1 of that Act subject to any conditions as to the use and construction of the vehicle which may be made by the regulations. (2) The power of the Local Government Board to make regulations under Section 6 of The Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, shall, as respects motorcars exceeding two tons in weight unlade, Include a power to make regulations as to speed.'"—( Mr. Walter Long. )

Brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill

The next Amendment on the Paper was a new clause standing in the name of Mr. T. M. HEALY, providing for the payment of compensation for accidents resulting in a child's death.

said his hon. and learned friend the Member for North Louth was not present, but as he had intended to put down a similar clause, he presumed he would be in order in moving that standing in the name of his hon. friend.

^* : I am afraid not. A new clause can only be moved by the hon. Member who puts it down.

Is it not then within my right to move a similar clause now?

^* : No, the hon. Member has not given the notice which must be given of a new clause.

at this point entered the House and moved the clause standing in his name. He said that the change in the law which he proposed would make the law in England and Ireland similar to that now existing in Scotland. There were dangers attaching to motor-car running, and when accidents resulted in the death of a child it was particularly desirable that the motorist should be liable to pay some amount at any rate. He did not think it was an unfair proposal, and the Government, at all events, Should not oppose it in principle. He begged to move.

Clause (Compensation for accidents resulting in child's death).

"From and after the passing of this Act, where the death of a minor is caused in England or Ireland by a light locomotive under circumstances which would amount to an offence against this Act, the father or mother of the child may recover damages against the owner of the light locomotive, although no direct pecuniary loss resulted from such death—( Mr. T. M. Healy. )

Brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

said he took great interest in this matter also. He thought it would be recognized by everybody that the clause dealt with what was undoubtedly a grievance. In the case of an accident where a child was seriously injured, damages could be recovered from the person responsible for the accident, but if a person caused an accident which resulted in the death of a child, there was absolutely no remedy in the way of compensation. Of course, if the child was dead, and there was no monetary loss to the parents, there was no action for damages as in the case of the death of a person upon whose labor his relatives might have to depend. In the case where there were a number of young children, one of whom was killed through the negligence of a motorcar driver, the father might reasonably and fairly ask to be compensated for the loss, and the sum of money received might be used for the education of the brothers and sisters of the child killed. It might be said that they should not limit compensation to accidents resulting from motor-cars, and that the same law should apply to four-in-hand carriages. They were dealing with motor-cars at the present time, and that was why the question came up. But he thought they were all agreed that the law ought to be altered.

said the proposal was to apply what was at present the law of Scotland to accidents occurring through motors in England and Ireland. He was not surprised that the hon. and learned Member had brought forward this matter. A most deplorable case of accident was brought under his notice by the hon. Member for East Clare. Of course he agreed with the hon. Member that there were many points in the law of Scotland which might be, with advantage, applied south of the Tweed. Though he was an English lawyer he was still a Scotchman. The law of England and Ireland was well settled on the matter that compensation could be given, under such circumstances, only where pecuniary loss was occasioned by the death. It might be a matter for consideration at some future time whether that principle might not be modified, and the giving of a solatium allowed, as it was allowed by the law of Scotland. But he thought everyone would agree that it would be a very extraordinary thing to have one law, in a matter of this kind, in the case of motors and another law in the case of carriages. This Bill dealing with the law of motors would render the law almost grotesque if one principle was applied in this case and another in all other cases. Under those circumstances, while he appreciated the motive which had led to the moving of the Amendment, and more particularly in view of the deplorable accident to which his attention had been called, he would suggest to the House that the Amendment ought not to be allowed.

said the clause only proposed to give effect to the volume of feeling in the country that the law should be altered in the direction indicated. One of the most competent County Councils in the country had passed a resolution exactly on the lines of the clause moved by the hon. Member. The argument as to the application of a different law to a motorcar from that applied to a coach was one which would not hold water. A coach or a carriage did not inflict the injury and the devastation, and was not guilty of the massacres of which motorcars had been guilty. He hoped the hon. Member would take the opinion of the House on this clause. It would considerably assist the Attorney-General in pressing on the Government the desirability of bringing the English and Irish law up to the high standard of that of Scotland.

said he did not think the objection made to this clause by the Attorney-General was altogether a valid objection. It was based merely upon the pedantry of the law as it existed. He did not see why a motorist who was responsible for an accident in England should not suffer, while in Scotland he would have to pay a considerable penalty. That was a condition of things which ought to be remedied.

said he admitted that there should be a general alteration of the law, and that there should not be one law for motorists and another for carriages.

said that was just what he ventured to describe as the pedantry of the legal view. He did not see why they should not modify the law whenever they had an opportunity. He thought they should modify it in this case and say that the killing of a child in England or Ireland would be followed by the same penalty as it would be in Scotland. He knew himself that there was a great deal of dread and fear on the part of the public with regard to motor-car driving, and every little provision they could put into this Bill which would reassure the public, would be to the advantage both of the motorists and of the public. He did not see any objection to this clause being inserted from the point of view of motorists themselves. They drove generally with great care, and skill and he had nothing to say against them. Of course there were exceptions, and the exceptions were those particular gentlemen who were described as "road hogs." These gentlemen did not receive any sympathy from any section of the House of Commons. But the motorists who drove their cars carefully though rapidly would be anxious to have everything put into this Bill that would reassure the public mind. The acceptance of this clause would have the additional advantage of improving the general law and placing it on the same high level as that of Scotland.

said he certainly thought that where a motorist broke the law and killed a child he ought to pay compensation.

said if his hon. and learned friend went to a division he would vote for this clause. It proposed to extend, to a particular class of cases, the obviously just and righteous law which prevailed in Scotland. Motor car traffic was a new feature on the highways, and these vehicles were much more likely to lead to loss of life than horse drawn vehicles. Therefore, when they had a Bill dealing with this new invention of science, they should apply the principles of equity, and not be hampered by any mere technicality or analogy with other laws. There was a precedent for what was proposed in the law of Scotland. What has happened would happen constantly. Nothing would operate as such a deterrent to drivers of motor-cars as to have the terror of this clause before them. It would touch them upon the most sensitive part; and there would be a dread that if a child was run over, the parent of that child would have compensation adjudicated to him by a jury. The clause only provided for compensation to a parent, but the child might be an orphan, and he suggested that the clause might be extended so as to include compensation to guardians.

^* said he did not oppose the clause, and he might say that he had never heard of a child who had been killed by being run over by a motor-car. He hoped, however, that if this clause were accepted, the principle would be extended so as to include every vehicle; otherwise they would have the anomaly of motor-vans being liable while horse-drawn vans were not, and that would be unjust.

said he would support the clause of his hon. and learned friend; but it was most annoying to hear the useless reiteration of certain hon. Members in their talk about massacres, as if every motor-car driver was a sort of a Herod who went out on to the road to murder children. He knew that the public mind had been alarmed unnecessarily about motor-cars, and that was largely due to the speeches and writing of prejudiced men, who had resolved that this industry should be knocked on the head if they could manage it. He asked hon. Members to vote for this clause and to realise that the people connected with the motor industry had every desire to see it conducted with safety.

^* said it did not seem to him to be necessary to have such a display of feeling on either side in regard to this clause. He thought that the proposal in the clause was only fair that where there had been a breach of the Act, either by reckless driving, or excessive speed and a fatal accident occurred, there should be a right of compensation. It should be remembered that parents had an accruing interest in the lives of their children.

^* said he would be sorry if all the support for this clause came from the other side of the House. He entirely approved of the principle, and if this were a Bill dealing with horse-drawn vehicles he should like to see it applied to them. If it was necessary to prove pecuniary loss before an action for damages could lie, surely the parents lost all they had spent on the child up to the time of its death, and all the support they might expect in their old age when the child grew into a man. He confessed that he would be naturally influenced by the legal or constitutional argument of the right hon. and learned Attorney-General, but if they waited till a general law were passed on such matters as that dealt with by the clause under discussion, they might have to wait till Doomsday. As the Attorney-General only objected to this clause on the ground of its being special legislation, and otherwise approved of the principle, he would make a suggestion which would relieve the situation and possibly induce the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) to withdraw the clause. Would the Attorney-General undertake to bring in a Bill next session to amend the general law in this respect? If not, he (the speaker) would vote for the clause.

said that this was a clause which he would be very glad to see applied to all traffic on the highways. It was very seldom that one noticed in the papers the death of a child by being run over by a motor-car, but very often they saw reports of children being killed by being run over by drays or vans. He supported the clause, but expressed the hope that at some future date the Attorney-General would apply the principle, by means of a general law, to all classes of traffic on the highways.

said that he should certainly, in conjunction with the Attorney-General for Ireland, and the Lord Advocate for Scotland, take the matter into consideration; but he was bound to say that it was surrounded with a great many difficulties which were not fully appreciated by the House, and he must not be understood to pledge the Government in any way to legislation.

said that as he understood the law at present, a master was not responsible for an accident caused by his coachman when act-ting outside the scope of his proper employment. Why should the owner of a motor-car be made responsible for the acts of his driver if he were acting outside his responsible duty? He therefore deprecated any alteration at this stage, and in the present Bill, of the well-established principles of the law relating to responsibility for accidents.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 69; Noes. 123. (Division List, No. 259.)