asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if the British Vice-Consul in the Katanga region of the Congo has forwarded complaints of interference on the part of the Belgian authorities with the free trading rights of British or coloured British subjects with the native population of that district; and if reports of this character have been received from British officials in British protected territories bordering the Congo territory?

His Majesty's Vice-Consul in the Katanga district has reported that he has received from British subjects a certain number of complaints of the kind described in the question. One of these complaints has been forwarded to me as a typical example of their nature, but His Majesty's Vice-Consul seems to hope to be able to find a solution in conjunction with the local authorities of the Katanga district. I am informed by His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies that he has received no reports of this character from officials in British protected territories.

I assume that the Government has made representations on this subject to the Belgian Government?

The whole matter is really covered by the correspondence in general which is now proceeding with the Belgian Government. Until we have brought that to a definite issue we cannot very well take up a particular case.

asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the Belgian Government has yet given satisfactory assurances that the rights of the native population of the Congo to trade freely in the produce of the soil all over the Congo with merchants of all nationalities are being or will be respected?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk, which applies equally to this question.

asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if arrangements have yet been made to supply the British Consular staff on the Upper Congo with adequate means of conveyance; if the contemplated permanent Vice-Consulate has been established in the Kasai region, and, if so, in what locality; and if he will furnish the names and residences of the actual staff attached to His Majesty's Consulate on the Congo?

As soon as His Majesty's Consul at Boma furnishes the estimate of the annual cost of upkeep of a steamer on the Upper Congo, for which he has been asked, measures for providing a suitable vessel will be undertaken. A permanent Vice-Consulate for the Kasai region has been instituted, and Luebo is proposed for the Vice-Consul's residence. His Majesty's Consular Staff in the Congo consists of:—Consul, the Hon. W. G. Thesiger, D.S.O., residing at Boma; Vice-Consul, G. B. Beak, residing at Kambove, in the Katanga district; Vice-Consul, J. P. Armstrong, at Leopoldville; Vice-Consul, G. Campbell, at Stanleyville; and Vice-Consul, E. W. P. Thurston, who is about to take up his appointment in the Kasai district.

asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he has received any further reports from His Majesty's Consular staff on the Congo as to the state of affairs since the Belgian Government assumed control of the administration of that territory; and, if so, when the House can be informed of their contents?

I continue to receive re ports, in the regular course, from His Majesty's Consular Officers as to the state of affairs in the Congo; but I do not think it would serve any useful purpose to lay further Papers in the present stage of the discussions with the Belgian Government.

asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the quantities of rubber now being obtained from the Kasai region of the Congo are steadily increasing, notwithstanding the disclosures as to the illegal and cruel methods by which this rubber is obtained, as reported by the British Consul in the White Book, Africa, No. 1, 1909; and, if so, what action, if any, does he propose to take in the matter?

My attention has not been drawn to any special increase in the quantity of rubber now being obtained from the Kasai region, but I am asking for a report on the subject. The matter forms part of the general question of the treatment of the Congo natives, which is covered by the correspondence with the Belgian Government at present under consideration.

asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official intimation that permanent arbitration treaties have been quite recently concluded by the Empire of Brazil with the United States, France, Portugal, Spain, Mexico, or any of those countries?

I am informed by His Majesty's representative at Rio that Brazil has lately concluded an arbitration treaty with the United States, and that proposals have been made for similar treaties with a number of European Powers, France and Portugal, however, being excepted. I am not aware whether any such treaty has been concluded with Mexico. An arbitration treaty between Brazil and this country is also under negotiation.

Might not the example thus set be advantageously followed by this country?

The last sentence of my reply was that an arbitration treaty between Brazil and this country was also under negotiation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he could make any further statement as to the condition of affairs in Persia, particularly with regard to Tabriz; and whether British life and property were adequately safeguarded?

I have received no information respecting any change in the general situation in Persia since the date of the last reply which I returned to the hon. Member. With regard to Tabriz, His Majesty's Minister at Teheran has reported that the Shah has ordered the suspension of hostilities till further orders, and the opening of the roads for the admission of food into the town. A Russian force is being got ready to start to protect the Consulates and foreign subjects if need be. I have no information as to any fresh danger to British lives and property.

When may we reasonably hope that the food will arrive at Tabriz? The population is starving.

Everything has been done to secure the opening of the roads. I trust that, if they are not opened by the Shah's forces under his instructions, the starting of the Russian force will secure the opening.

When is the Russian relief force likely to arrive?

I understand the last intention was that it should start to-morrow from the Russian frontier.

Is there a clear understanding with the Russian Government that the Russian troops enter Tabriz only in order to guard the Consulates?

To guard the Consulates and protect foreigners. It will also make sure of the opening of the roads for the food supply.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he could make any further statement with regard to the present state of Turkish affairs in Europe and in Asia; and whether British life and property were adequately safeguarded?

I am still unable to say what is likely to happen in Turkey, but it is satisfactory to note that foreigners were efficiently protected during the recent fighting in Constantinople. With regard to the provinces, the situation still shows signs of unrest, but it is to be hoped that the authority which has gained full control in Constantinople may have a pacifying influence elsewhere. The disposition of His Majesty's ships in Turkish waters is, in the main, as described in my answer to the hon. Member's question of the 22nd instant. His Majesty's ship "Triumph" has proceeded from Alexandretta to Antioch Bay, to be as near as possible to Antioch, where disturbances have occurred.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the deposition of the Sultan, reported in the evening papers?

No, Sir; I have not.

asked whether anything had been recently done by the Egyptian Government to improve the condition of children working in the cotton factories of Egypt?

Full information on this subject will be found in Sir Eldon Gorst's Annual Report, which will be laid shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he could give the names and ages of the Dervish prisoners still incarcerated in Egypt, and state the present place of their detention; and whether there was yet any prospect of their being released?

The names of the Dervish prisoners still incarcerated are: Osman Digna, Yunes el Dekin, Abdul Bagi Abdel Wakil, Ibrahim Malik, Mohammed Ahmed el Helw, Ismail Ahmed, and Mohammed el Mahdi Ahmed. I do not know their ages. It was decided during the past year to transfer the Dervish prisoners from Damietta to the more congenial surround- ings of Wadi Haifa. On the 9th March, one Emir, with his family, was removed to these new quarters, and on the 5th April five others followed. Finally, on the 20th December, Osman Digna left Damietta to join his compatriots. The majority of the prisoners enjoy considerable liberty within the precincts of Wadi Halfa, but Osman Digna has not abandoned that fanatical spirit which might still render him a source of danger. I cannot add anything further to previous answers.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention had been called to Section 4 of the Payne Tariff Bill now before the Congress of the United States, which proposed to subject to the maximum tariff the products of any country or colony which discriminated against the United States; whether that section would subject Canadian goods to the maximum tariff of the United States unless Canada granted to the United States the intermediate rates and the special concessions granted to France under the Franco-Canadian Treaty; and what steps His Majesty's Government proposed to take in view of the importance of the question as affecting imperial interests and the relations of the United States and France to the British Empire?

The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. The matter does not seem to be one on which representations can properly be addressed to the United States Government. Section 4 has been withdrawn from the Bill as presented to the Senate.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Ceylon Government had postponed the closing of its licensed opium shops during the present year pending a reference to the Secretary of State; and whether a statement had been received by the Secretary of State from three non-official ex-members of the Ceylon Legislative Council protesting against further delay in carrying out the policy unanimously recommended by the local opium commissioners in their report at the end of 1907?

The facts are as stated in the first part of my hon. Friend's question, but I should explain that the reason for the delay is that a difficulty has arisen as to the regulation of the supply of opium for medicinal purposes to the Vederalas, or native doctors, of whom there is a large number in the Colony. This difficulty has led to a further reference to the Secretary of State, who is now in communication with the Governor as to the best means of surmounting it. As regards the second part of the question, the Secretary of State has received the statement referred to, but for the reason I have already given has been unable as yet to take action in the direction suggested by the signatories.

asked why the scheme for the Wyggeston School, Leicester, contained a clause requiring every head master, before taking office, to sign an agreement that he would, it removed from his office, acquiesce in such removal and relinquish all claim to the mastership, seeing that no clause to the same effect appears in the scheme for the Plymouth College and Mannamead School; and which of these schemes represented, in the matter referred to, the settled policy of the Board?

The scheme for Plymouth College and Mannamead School contains a general provision for contracts of service between the masters and Governors, and it is contemplated that acquiescence in removal would be one of the terms of the contract to be entered into by the head master. The scheme for the Wyggeston School, Leicester, contains the clause in question in order to avoid the possibility of litigation if a head master should refuse to relinquish office on dismissal.

asked how many fresh circulars had been framed and issued to local authorities and correspondents of training colleges, respectively, during each of the six years ended 31st March, 1909?

The number of circulars addressed to local education authorities during the six years referred to was 13, 18, 14, 9, 11, and 12 respectively. The number addressed to training colleges during the same period was 3, 4, 1, 1, 3, and 4. These figures do not include a cer- tain number of circulars addressed to other bodies, copies of which were sent to local education authorities and training colleges for their information only.

asked the President of the Board of Education, if he could state in how many elementary schools in the administrative county of the Parts of Lindsey increased cost would be entailed in the event of Circular 709 of the Board of Education becoming operative?

I have not received any estimate of the cost from the Lindsey County Council, and without such an estimate I am unable to give any exact figures as to the additional cost which the provisions of the Circular will necessarily entail.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State had had his attention called to a petition presented to the Government of India by the wife of Mr. Aswini Dutt, who had been for upwards of four months imprisoned without charge or trial; whether he was aware that the petition cited a number of testimonials given at various times by Anglo-Indian officials, including lieutenant-governors, to the high character and work of Mr. Dutt as an educationalist and social reformer; whether the Secretary of State had any reason to doubt the accuracy of those testimonials; and, if not, whether he would take them into consideration in determining how much longer Mr. Dutt was to be detained in prison without being given an opportunity of answering any charges that may have been made against him?

The Secretary of State has not seen the petition; but he is sufficiently informed as to Mr. Dutt's character and work, and he sees no reason to think that it is desirable for him to take into special consideration the testimonials referred to.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he was aware that the wife of Mr. Aswini Kumar Dutt, one of the British subjects in India who, in December last, was deported from his home without charge or trial, had presented a petition to the Viceroy asking to be made aware of the reasons of State which led to her husband's deportation, alleging his readiness to meet any charges that could be brought against him, and praying that, on the ground of his ill-health and the peace and quiet prevailing in the district, he might be released from prison; whether the Viceroy had made any reply to this petition, and, if so, whether the Secretary of State was aware what that reply was?

The Secretary of State is aware that Mr. Dutt's wife submitted a memorial, stating that he was suffering from diabetes and expressing apprehension as to the effects of imprisonment on his health; the Viceroy was able to inform her in reply that her husband's health had in fact improved since his arrival at Lucknow and continued good.

Has the Secretary of State taken into account the position and work of Mr. Aswini Dutt?

I have answered that question in reply to the hon. Member for Brentford.

asked whether persons deported by the Government of India, under Regulation III. of 1818, received regular medical attendance and were provided with everything which the Government medical officer, empowered in this behalf, certified to be necessary to their present comfort and speedy recovery from any illnesses from which any or all of such persons were suffering; and whether, if peace and quiet now prevailed in the districts in which such persons formerly resided, the Government of India would duly consider whether such peace and quiet were likely to continue to prevail in such districts if such persons were prematurely released?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as to the second part, the Government of India will no doubt consider the point mentioned, when the proper time comes.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether information had reached the Secretary of State that in a recent debate in the Viceroy's Legislative Council the Hon. Mr. Gokhale made an urgent appeal to the Government of India to restore to their homes the nine British subjects who were deported in December without charge or trial, on the grounds that the situation was rapidly improving; that it would give great satisfaction throughout the country, and that it would be a bare act of justice to men, some of whom he knew to be of the highest character; and whether he could state what reply was given to Mr. Gokhale's appeal?

The Secretary of State has seen a report of the speech referred to; the reply was to the effect that the Government, who had the fullest information, were the best judges as to the necessities of the case. The Government refused to admit either that they had acted on unreliable information or that there was any error at all in their action.

Has the Secretary of State any reason to doubt Mr. Gokhale's statement that the condition of things is rapidly improving?

I do not know; perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question on the point.

asked what was the total net revenue from excisable liquors and drugs in India in the years 1874–5, 1883–4, 1894–5, 1904–5, 1905–6, 1906–7, 1907–8, and 1908–9; and what was the estimated revenue for 1909–10?

As the answer includes a number of figures I will have it circulated with the Votes. [ See Written Answers this date. ]

asked why, in some cases, when unestablished civil servants were promoted to the establishment the whole of the unestablished service, and, in other cases, only half the unestablished service, was allowed to count as pensionable service; and what was the reason that, in the latter cases, half the unestablished service was rejected as not pensionable?

The Treasury have only power under section 3 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, to reckon unestablished service for pension "if, in their opinion, any special circumstances of the case warrant such a course." In exercising this power the Treasury have regard to the character and conditions of each class of employment; and it is not possible to lay down any rates of general application.

asked the Lord Advocate whether he was aware that, at the recent meeting of the Convention of the Royal Burghs of Scotland, a resolution was unanimously passed desiring that the Scottish office should be represented at future meetings of the Convention; and whether, in view of the mutual advantage to be anticipated therefrom, he would take steps to give effect to this resolution?

The proceedings of the Convention are always followed with attention by the Scottish Office, and its recommendations receive careful consideration. My Noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland is not satisfied that the course now suggested by the Convention would secure any further advantage, and he fears it might lead to some misconception as to the relations between the Scottish Office and the Convention, and possibly to similar claims being pressed by other non-official organisations.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Scottish Office has got out of touch with public opinion in Scotland? This proposal might be the means of bringing them together again.

I am not aware of that.

asked the Lord Advocate whether anyone with authority to represent the interests of the Government has been sent to the island of Vatersay since it was acquired by purchase from Lady Gordon Cathcart; what is the present position of the settlers there; whether any steps have been taken to provide a suitable water supply; and what generally are the prospects of satisfactorily creating crofting settlements on the island?

The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. Steps are now being taken with a view to the settlement of the island, by improvement of the water supply and otherwise, and applications for land from persons desiring to be settlers have been invited and are being received. It is believed that the action taken gives a reasonable prospect of a satisfactory settlement.

Is the right hon. Gentleman getting a water supply on the island, or is he getting it from the mainland, and what is the expense?

From the island, I believe; but I am not in a position to say at what expense.

asked the Lord Advocate when papers with reference to the purchase of and proposed crofting settlements on the island of Vatersay will be presented to the House; and whether the recent correspondence with Mr. Duncan Campbell will be included?

These papers have been presented in another place. The recent correspondence referred to is not included; but if the hon. Member desires to see it I will furnish him with a copy.

Would not the better way be to put down an unstarred question, so that the correspondence might be printed for everybody to see it?

I will consider that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the sentence of 18 months' hard labour passed on a man named John Smith for breaking a window in Oxford-street on 16th February of this year; and whether, having regard to the time Smith has already spent in prison and that his action was the result of being out of employment, any steps will be taken to mitigate the original sentence or release the man in question?

The prisoner's offence was inciting others to steal. In view of the character of the offence and the bad antecedents of the offender, the Secretary of State regrets that he can see no ground for advising any reduction of the sentence. The prisoner has availed himself of his rights under the Criminal Appeal Act, but the Court refused his application.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the practice of certain parents, since the coming into operation of the Children Act, of taking their children to the doors of public-houses, where liquor is handed to the parents by their friends; and whether, seeing that, when such practices take place in the late hours of the evening and in the vicinity of such parents' homes, cruelty is inflicted upon the children so exposed, he will circularise the authorities controlling the police exhorting them to prosecute in such cases?

The Secretary of State's attention has been called to this matter. Merely to keep a young child at the door of a public-house would not in itself amount to cruelty, but it might be done under circumstances and conditions which would cause unnecessary suffering, and thus constitute an offence. If facts come to the knowledge of the police which justify them in proceeding against a parent, the Secretary of State has no doubt that they will be prepared to take action; and he does not think it necessary to issue a circular on the subject.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the police reports show that a large number of children of very tender age are seen very often outside public-houses between 11 and 12 o'clock at night, and does not this fact show cruelty to the children?

It necessarily depends upon the circumstances of each particular case. It is impossible to lay down a general rule.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state the names of the British battleships, cruisers, and scouts which, while in commission and at sea, have used Northumberland steam coal during the last six months; and what was the quantity of such coal used in each ship during the period named?

The ships to which supplies of Northumberland steam coal were made during the six months ended 31st March, 1909, were the "Cæsar," "Hannibal," and "Majestic"; the "Jupiter" and "Prince George" also had bituminous coal in their bunkers. It is not considered to be in the public interest to furnish details of the actual consumption in ships.

May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will state, without giving the quantities, whether these coals were used for a short experimental run, or for a cruise?

I could not answer that question without notice.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the statement by the Commander-in-Chief of the Atlantic Fleet on 29th March last that under the new scheme of naval distribution each group or fleet in Home waters was a self-contained naval force, he will give the House the names of the fleet scouts, torpedo craft, and auxiliary vessels belonging or attached to the Atlantic Fleet, or in any way under the orders of the Commander-in-Chief of that fleet?

No flotilla of torpedo craft with accompanying scouts and auxiliary vessels is at present permanently associated with the Atlantic Fleet.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, when the reserve destroyer flotilla at the Nore leaves Sheerness for its cruise, he will give instructions for the vessel to proceed at full speed to their destination in order that their degree of reliability may be ascertained?

The reply to the hon. Member's question is in the negative.

May I ask whether these vessels can proceed at full speed, and whether they have received orders not to proceed at full speed?

Yes, Sir, they can proceed at full speed.

What is the full speed?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Prime Minister has laid it down that every ship that we build should be in accordance with all the developments and the most advanced naval architecture; and whether these conditions will be fulfilled in the case of the four battleships which the Government is about to commence?

The reply to the hon. Member is in the affirmative.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the delay in the construction of the second four ships of this year's programme has been officially ascribed to the necessity for waiting for the working out of designs which shall embody the latest improvements, and whether in view of that fact he will now give the House some more correct explanation of the reasons for delay?

The hon. Gentleman's question referred to the first four ships, not the second portion. As regards the second portion, if he will put down a supplementary question as to the precise information he desires, I shall endeavour to oblige him.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Government has reason to suppose that the four battleships which it has definitely decided to build this year are inferor in fighting capacity to the latest foreign designs; and, if not, what justification there is for not proceeding at the earliest possible moment with the full number necessary to secure an adequate margin of superiority in this class of ship in 1911–12?

The Government will proceed at the earliest possible moment with the construction of the full number necessary to secure an adequate margin of superiority in battleships in 1911–12. The four ships of the new programme to be laid down in 1909 will be of no inferiority in fighting capacity to the latest foreign designs.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the armament of these four ships of 1909–10 to be laid down?

No, Sir; I think it would be highly undesirable.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the event of the Great Northern, Great Central, and Great Eastern working union Bill not being proceeded with, he still intends to appoint a Committee to inquire into the question of amalgamation and working agreements with respect to the railways of the country?

A similar question stood on the paper in the name of Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH.

I will answer both questions together. I am now considering the best form and scope of a Parliamentary inquiry into the questions referred to, and hope to be in a position to make an announcement shortly.

also asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has had an offer from the manager of the Provincial Homes Investment Company, Limited, for the Board of Trade to inspect the books and documents of the said company; and, if so, whether he intends to avail himself of the offer?

Last December one of the directors of the Provincial Homes Investment Company inquired whether the Board of Trade would be willing to hold an investigation into the business and financial position of the company, with the object of advising what alterations should be made in the methods of the business. After very careful consideration I came to the conclusion that the giving of any such advice would be entirely outside the province of the Board of Trade, and accordingly declined to make the investigation suggested.

Do we understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that there was an offer to see the books?

Certainly, and I was at first inclined to accept it; but after conversation with many of the authorities and officials, and considering the consequences that would be drawn from such an inquiry by the Board of Trade, and remembering, too, that it would be largely covering cases which had been dealt with, I came to the conclusion that it would be in the general interest not to make the inquiry.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state the amount of money paid by an employé of the Irish Government to the leading pawnbroker in Ireland in 1907 for the redemption of Major Lambert's badges of the Order of St. Patrick, manufactured in 1895 by Messrs. West and Son, the Dublin jewellers, and stolen from the room in Dublin Castle from which the Crown jewels were stolen later in the same year; who supplied that redemption money; at whose instance and with what object were the police compelled to withhold from the public, from inquirers, and from the Vice-regal Crown Jewels Commission, the fact of the earlier theft of the Lambert ornaments from the same place in the same year, the names of the thief and pawner, and the other information in their possession relating to that crime, and to permit the guilty to leave the country; and whether the Irish Government have the same or similar reasons for resisting a public sworn inquiry into the theft of the Lambert ornaments as into that of the Crown jewels?

The badges referred to were Major Lambert's personal property. They were stolen in 1905 by a servant, not from the room from which the Crown jewels were subsequently stolen, but from the private house in Dublin Castle occupied by Major Lambert as Chamberlain to the Lord Lieutenant of the day. The badges were pawned for £2. The theft was not discovered till 1907, when the pawnbroker, who was arranging for a sale of forfeited pledges, having ascertained the name of the owner, communicated with the police, and through them restored the badges to Major Lambert, who refunded the amount lent on them. The servant who stole the badges had then left the country, and the man who pawned them was in prison. The stealing of the badges was an ordinary case of larceny, and had no connection with the theft of the Crown jewels. No information with regard to it has been withheld, and there is no need for any inquiry.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House, why in this particular case the Irish Government have shown as much anxiety as the criminals to withhold information to prevent effective inquiry?

The hon. Member should submit a question of that character to me before he asks it. It hardly seems to arise out of the answer. Perhaps he will ask his next question?

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has read all the reports made by the police appointed to investigate the thefts of valuable property committed in Dublin Castle in 1907; whether they disclose, in addition to the thefts of Crown jewels, other thefts and other indictable offences and connect named persons with those offences; and whether he will allow crime committed at the centre of Irish Government to escape Criminal investigation?

The police reports referred to do not disclose any thefts or indictable offences in addition to the theft of the Crown jewels.

Arising out of both of these questions, is not the right hon. Gen- tleman aware of the existence of reports—if he has not read them—implicating, as principal and accomplices in theft, and also as principals in sodomy and other beastly crimes, of F. R. Shackleton and Captain Gorges—

The hon. Member has really no right to bring in the names of gentlemen in connection with matters of that sort without submitting his question to me. I will say whether it is a proper one to ask.

On a point of order, I am not allowed to put this question on the paper, and I am not to challenge inquiry in the Press. Am I allowed to inquire in this House?

No.

asked the Chief Secretary if he will explain why the crimes found by the police to have been committed in Dublin Castle in 1907 are not included in the statistics of Irish crime for that year; and if he will take steps to have included in future criminal statistics all the crimes that come to the knowledge of the police, irrespective of person and place?

No crimes known to the police were omitted from the statistics for 1907.

I would like to ask why is the crime of sodomy not included in the statistics in question?

Because there was no allegation of any such crime, and no such crime could possibly be included.

Is it not a fact that the only practical steps taken by the Irish Government to recover the stolen jewels and to get others in their stead was to shower honours by way of bribes upon a Belfast millionaire?

No, Sir.

I beg to give notice that I will take further action, and ask further questions—

The hon. Member is not required to give notice of the fact that he is going to ask questions. All that is required is to hand them in.

asked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that two men named Stratford, in the employment of Harris Martin, of Lismore, county Longford, deliberately fired three revolver shots at the five sons of Henry Burke, Fiogues, Killashee, where they were working in their garden, wounding one of them; will he say what action the authorities are taking in this case; what report did the police make; will he take precautions to prevent such a class of men using revolvers in such a reckless manner in the future; and has he any official information showing that these men are paid by a society in Belfast?

The two men referred to in the question have been proceeded against, and are now awaiting trial at next assizes. The case is therefore sub judice, and I cannot make any statement with regard to it, beyond saying that I am informed that none of the shots took effect.

asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the statement made by County Court Judge Bodkin, K.C., at the Quarter Sessions sitting at Kilrush last week, to the effect that there were no criminal cases to be investigated, and that this was a most satisfactory state of affairs, and was more or less of an answer to the many aspersions which had lately been made against the condition of the county; and whether, in view of this judicial expression of opinion as to the satisfactory state of the county, he will now order the withdrawal of the extra police from this district?

My attention has been called to the learned Judge's remarks to the effect stated in the question. The fact that there were no criminal cases for hearing at Quarter Sessions in one division of the county cannot be taken as a representation of the state of the county as a whole. There has recently been some improvement, but there are not yet sufficient grounds for reducing the police.

asked the Prime Minister, whether it is the policy of the Government to take into consideration the Navy of the United States of America when estimating the number of ships necessary to maintain the two-Power standard? I must protest respectfully that the right hon. Gentleman, having asked me to postpone this question on two ocoasions to suit his convenience, is not here to-day to answer it himself.

My right hon. Friend is extremely sorry, but he is detained on other business, and he has asked me to answer for him. This is an academic question, as, under existing conditions, the Navy of the United States of America, for the practical purposes of the two-Power standard as defined in my right hon. Friend's speech on the Navy Estimates, would not enter into the account.

Is it a fact that the United States are not brought into account because they have no "Dreadnoughts"?

No.

Arising out of that, as I consider unsatisfactory reply—

Order, order. The hon. Member is not entitled to reflect upon the answer.

I withdraw. I beg to give notice that at an early date I will call the attention of the House to the conflicting expressions of opinion of various Members of the Government on this vital question of naval defence.

If the United States is one of the two next strongest navies in the world will it be included under these conditions?

That is a hypothetical question to be answered when the circumstances arise.

Is it not a matter of dispute as to whether the United States is not the second Navy in the world at this moment?

For the purposes set out in my right hon. Friend's statement on the Navy Estimates the United States would not be regarded as the second Power.

Was it not specifically stated in this House on 12th and 23rd November, and again on 17th December, that the two-Power standard applies to the next two strongest Powers, and is not this statement a violation of that pledge?

My right hon. Friend has defined explicitly, in his speech upon the Navy Estimates, how we constitute the two-Power standard.

asked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agricul- ture, whether a communication, dated 12th March, has been received from the secretary of the Royal Gardens, Kew, Employés' Union, in relation to a number of sub-foremen and gardeners employed at the Royal Gardens, Kew, who are under notice of dismissal; and, if so, will he say whether the Department intends to allow the precedent mentioned therein to stand.

The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The sub-foremen and gardeners, to whom my hon. Friend refers, were not dismissed; their period of service terminated in ordinary course under the regulations applicable to the gardening service at Kew. It is not proposed to make a practice of extending the normal period of service, as was done in certain cases under exceptional circumstances last year.

Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that when these men were appointed at Kew there was a time stipulated when they should cease to be employed?

Yes, sir.

asked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that the Duke of Northumberland imposes a £5 licence-fee upon every fishing boat fishing within three miles of the coast throughout the length of that county; and whether he is prepared to propose a time limit, say of 14 years, after which this monopoly shall be recovered for the fishing industry concerned, or for the State?

We have no official information on this subject. There is no intention of proposing legislation respecting it.

asked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he can now make any statement as to the result of his consideration of the offer which he recently received, with a view to the encouragement of horse-breeding in the United Kingdom?

I am not in a position to make any statement on this matter at present.

May I ask the Secretary of State for War, as representing the Prime Minister, whether it is intended to take the consideration of the Lords' Amendments to the Army (Annual) Bill after eleven o'clock to-night?

Not to-night; to-morrow some time.

asked the Prime Minister if he can yet state what will be the scope of the inquiry to be made by the Sub-Committee of the Committee of National Defence; and if, in view of comparatively recent changes, that inquiry will include the present organisation of the Board of Admiralty and the distribution of business amongst its members.

The answer to the first paragraph is that the inquiry will cover all the points as to the readiness for war during the last two years of the fleets in home waters raised by Lord Charles Beresford in his letter to the Prime Minister. It would not conduce to the objects of the inquiry or be in the public interest to announce at this stage the precise terms of the reference. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative.

asked the Prime Minister if he will give the names of the members of the present Committee of National Defence?

I will circulate the names with the Votes and Proceedings.

Will that be done today?

It will be done without delay. [ See Written Answers this date. ]

Although a somewhat short notice has been given in regard to this Vote, I think I may take it that hon. Members are prepared to discuss it, and I observe from the Order Paper that several hon. Members are desirous of reducing my salary. I venture, in accordance with custom, to detain the House with certain observations before I actually come to the real business. I am sorry to say that for the first time for some years the revenue of the Post Office has not shown that elasticity which has marked it of late years, and during the last year there has been not indeed a falling off, but a want of elasticity in regard to the business of the Post Office. Whilst the actual revenue of the past year is practically the same as the previous year, it must be remembered that there was a loss of £160,000 for various postal reforms which were brought into force last year, and there has also been a loss of two days' revenue, which makes up the amount to about £300,000. Therefore, although the actual revenue does not look so satisfactory, as a matter of fact the revenue this year, as compared with the previous year, shows a growth of something like £300,000.

The Committee will remember that last year I ventured, in view of the falling off of the revenue, to suggest that I should be very glad to hear of any suggestions or proposals for increasing the revenue of the Post Office. I have had a good many suggestions, but I am sorry to say that they are not of very great practical value. Some have said that they will wait to hear what payment I will make before they allow me to know what their proposals are. At present the Treasury are so conservative that they are not prepared to enter into speculations, and therefore I had to negative many suggestions. Other proposals seem to run very largely on matrimony or branches of that institution. One lady suggested that all offers of marriage should be made through the Postmaster-General by telephone at a special fee; and on the other hand I had a suggestion made from a gentleman that in the case of an action for breach of promise of marriage the plaintiff should not win his or her case unless he or she could show a written promise of marriage to which should be attached half-a-crown's worth of penny stamps. It appears to me that that lady and gentleman seemed to be suffering from much the same evil in different ways. I have had suggestions made that I should utilise the many thousand telephone and telegraph poles for advertising purposes, more especially for advertisements for soap and pills which seem at the present moment to be the two requisites of human nature. I think there is something to be said for them, but I do not think we have actually come to that at the present time, and I am afraid the æsthetic sense of hon. Members of this House would pronounce against those advertisements. I am afraid, therefore, that I must pronounce as a failure the sources of revenue suggested for my advantage.

Turning from that, and taking the individual branches of revenue, I will take first what I have described as the sheet anchor of the postal revenue, namely, the penny stamp, which I am sorry to say has not been very satisfactory this year. In these days of cheapness the halfpenny post has largely superseded the penny post. In addition a very large part of the correspondence which used to be carried on by the penny post is now carried on by telephone, and the telephone has not only interfered with the penny postage, but it has largely cut into the telegraph service as well, and has thus affected the only profitable class of this service, namely, short messages. The telegraphs from their inception have never been a real source of profit to the State. The telephone service shows a very fair increase of revenue, and I have been anxious to distinguish definitely between the telegraphs and the telephone revenue. Whilst the telegraphs unfortunately are past praying for, the telephone system, I think, can be put and kept upon a paying basis. I have had correspondence with the chambers of commerce and others, and I am glad to have had the opportunity in the last two or three years of getting into intimate touch with chambers of commerce, borough councils, and other aggregations of public interest in postal matters. They have, of course, represented to me that the present rate is too high and ought to be reduced; but my answer to that has been—and I think in this I shall have the support of the House—that it is too early yet to consider any question of a reduction of telephone rates, and we must wait until we have taken over the Telephone Company and then see how matters stand. I think that will be the proper time to have an inquiry to see whether the charges ought to be reduced or increased.

A very large expansion has taken place in the telephone service this year. We have opened no less than 102 new exchanges, no doubt many of them small ones; we have opened 55 call offices in connection with trunk wires, and perhaps it will interest county Members of this House to know that we have opened no less than 230 new rural call offices, many of them in the fruit or hop districts, and I think these have been a real advantage to the industries in the particular areas. I am bound to say that these small exchanges and call offices are not, as a rule, whilst in the initial stages, worked on a profitable basis, but we look to their gradual expansion, and we are prepared to provide them in all suitable places, because we think that before very long they will expand in the ordinary way and will become profitable sources of revenue to the Post Office.

Perhaps it will be well in this connection, as a good deal of interest has been aroused both in this House and outside, that I should say a word or two in reference to the relations between the Post Office and the National Telephone Company. I am very anxious—as, indeed, it must be obvious I should be—to see if possible that the construction work of the National Telephone Company shall be continued uninterruptedly until the end of their lease. I say this upon two grounds. It is clear that that is the only way in which the telephone system when we take it over can be placed upon an efficient basis. The second ground is that I an extremely anxious that the telephone construction staff under the company shall not be dispersed, and shall not be placed at the disadvantage of being dismissed from the service of the company even if they are afterwards taken on by the Post Office. I should like to say that for some time past we have been preparing the way for the handing over of the company to the Post Office, and we have done a good deal in that direction. We have done a very large amount of underground work for the National Telephone Company, and we have done a very large amount of overhead wire construction, amounting to £1,000,000 already. We have in many cases where smaller exchanges were being brought into operation provided that they should be placed at once on Post Office Premises. In all these matters we are preparing for the future. In addition we have of late had a Committee—a very powerful Departmental Committee—surveying, as specimens, certain towns in which the National Telephone Company are carrying on their work, with the view to the more rapid valuation of the plant and, if necessary, antedating the time at which the purchase may be effected. In addition we have had negotiations with the company in order to come to an agreement as far as possible with regard to construction work, and, I am glad to believe, with regard to a proportion of that work, such work as does not involve replacement, that we have come to a substantial agreement. We have not been able to come to agreement with regard to other work which does involve replacement, but I hope, with reasonable suggestions on both sides, we may come to an agreement with regard to that also.

There is a great deal of exaggeration and anxiety in the minds of many hon. Members and people outside in regard to rumours of a large number of dismissals by the company, whether we come to an agreement or not. I have inquired, and I understand from the company that they are not refusing the ordinary everyday offers of new lines, and so on, and that they have, of course, very naturally, a considerable amount of work. Their maintenance and construction staffs are interchangeable. Of course, there are vacancies on the maintenance staff, and they are filled by the construction staff. I was rather relieved a day or two ago on this matter. There was a meeting to be held in Manchester with reference to this-subject. I made inquiries as to how far there had been dismissals, and I found that only one man had been given notice of dismissal, and that was probably on some personal ground. I wish to allay the natural feeling of anxiety in this matter—The Telephone Company must carry out a large amount of work during the next three years, and so far as possible we are endeavouring to meet the future by present arrangements for continuing on proper lines the construction work. I would venture to say to the Committee that the best solution of the question would be an earlier purchase of the company's undertaking. I have already ventured to raise the case to the company, but I think it ought to be understood that any purchase by the Postmaster-General ought to be carried out on the lines of the agreement of 1905. That is to say, that in the event of a difference at the price the question should be put to arbitration. Of course, we should be prepared to meet the company with regard to profits and goodwill for the intervening period. I must say a big operation of that sort antedating a statutory Parliamentary agreement could not possibly be carried through unless with the general approval of hon. Members, but I believe that support would be forthcoming from hon. Members.

I will say only one word with reference to the question of wireless telegraphy. That is an enterprise which is making considerable strides. I ventured to prophecy when the Berlin Conference was held, and the Convention come to and largely approved, owing to the policy of our delegates, that so far from being harmful to the extension of wireless telegraphy it would really be to the benefit of the Marconi Company. I am glad to think that since that Convention came into operation they have co-operated with the Postmaster-General, and that instead of their operations being diminished they have been largely increased. My hon. Friends will remember that they said it would be destructive of all their business, and that the Germans' system would go ahead of them if the Convention was carried through. It is rather interesting to know that while the Marconi Company had only 18 stations on German ships at that time, they have no less now than 36 stations on German ships. So far from having less, they have now double the number on German ships. Taking warning by the telegraph system and the telephone system under which the State allowed monopoly to grow up which it subsequently had to buy, we do not intend with reference to wireless telegraphy to allow anything to grow up in the nature of monopoly as against the State. We have already had experimental stations. I opened a little time ago a commercial station at Bolt Head, and in 1912, when the period for which we have promised various licences comes to an end, it will be for the Postmaster-General and the Government of the day to say whether it will be an advantage to take the whole system over into their hands, or whether they should continue to license the various companies. I say to the Committee as regards the question of the future of wireless telegraphy we shall certainly keep the decision in our hands, so that no question of a monopoly can possibly arise.

Turning from revenue I come to expenditure. The expenditure has increased during the past two years. That is due to three causes—the ordinary natural automatic increase, a considerable increase in the staff, and a very considerable improvement in the pay and conditions of the postal servants. Those causes and the various postal improvements which I have carried through have resulted, I am sorry to say, in this: that the balance at the disposal and handed over to the Treasury as compared with two years ago, is one million pounds less than it was then.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what proportion of money has gone since the right hon. Gentleman came into office to the benefit of the servants of the Post Office, and what proportion to the public in concessions to them?

In round figures the concessions due to the Hobhouse Report during the last financial year cost about half a million, rather more this year, and gradually increasing to £650,000, or £700,000. Under Lord Derby's revision there was something like £300,000 to be added to that. So that one way or another in the end those sums will amount to an addition of about a million of money.

An HON. MEMBER: Is that in four years?

When the changes have their full effect. Against that the sum which the Treasury has given me for the benefit of the public amounts to half a million in the last three years. What I was going to say is this: I consider the Treasury in both of these matters have treated me very liberally, and with the unfortunate necessity for increasing taxation during the coming year I cannot press for any postal reforms during the coming year which would involve the expenditure of any very large sums of money. Otherwise there are various reforms which I and the House of Commons would like to see carried out. But in these matters we must to a certain extent cut our coat according to our cloth.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea as to how the half million is coming to the public?

It is a little awkward, if I may say so, to answer these questions in the course of one's speech. I shall be very glad to answer any questions afterwards. What I am going to say will perhaps lead up to the information which the hon. Member desires. The principal portion, or a large portion, of this was due to the improvement in foreign postage. That amounts to about £190,000 a year, giving the weight of an ounce instead of half an ounce, and reducing the second charge that used to be 2½d. for a second ½oz. to l½d., so that whereas before a 2oz. letter cost 10d. to send abroad it now only costs 4d. Then there is the American penny postage—that will cost between £130,000 and £140,000 a year. I have never anticipated a very sudden increase of 100 per cent. or anything of that sort. What I do look for is a satisfactory and steady increase in the postal traffic of the two countries, and that I am glad to think has come about. There is a substantial increase in the number of letters written to America, and from America here. There is an old saying of Lowell's that "this bread cast on these waters comes back before many days and buttered, too, for certain." That is the case with postal improvements, I hope. What I think in these matters is that we want to place our postal reforms on such a basis that in the end they will prove profitable to the State. Then there is the question of Canadian magazine postage, and I am happy to state that that is really growing by leaps and bounds, and that for the last 12 months, as far as we can estimate, no less than 8¼ millions of British magazines have gone to Canada. It was once said that "a man who made two blades of grass grow where only one was grown before" was a benefactor to mankind. I, however, shall be quite content to base my claim on a much lower standard, shall be quite willing—quite content—to go down to posterity as the man who caused two British magazines to be read in Canada instead of one American magazine. Then there is the insured box post, under which jewellery and gold and silver articles can be sent to various Continental countries. We have extended and improved the parcels post to the United States, to Egypt, and to the Argentine, and in regard to a new experiment made a few months ago, there is cash on delivery to various Colonies. Cash on delivery here gives rise to a great deal of alarm on the part of certain sections, and I have no intention, under the circumstances, of introducing or proposing it here. But this is a different matter altogether. This is cash on delivery between certain of our Colonies and England, and I am glad to say it is spreading, although it has only been in operation a few months. The last Return shows that 4,200 parcels were sent from Great Britain to these various Colonies concerned, as against 435 parcels received from them. Therefore, I think it may be said that this cash on delivery is introducing an outlet for British goods of small descriptions amongst our Colonies. On the other hand, there are certain matters in relation to which the Post Office have had to intervene by way of restriction. It was brought to my attention a short time ago that, in consequence of the increasing size of ladies' hats, the parcels post (although the limits were pretty liberal, because we allowed six feet for length and girth) was being infringed. We could not allow this infringement to continue, but I am glad to hear that since then—I do not say it is entirely in consequence—the size of ladies' hats has diminished. Therefore, I hope those who attend matinees and such-like resorts will at all events bless me in their prayers. One other matter: We have always endeavoured to do what we could to restrict the operations of those who send lottery circulars and letters of that character through the post. A Joint Committee was appointed last year, but it was unfortunate, in my opinion, that they did not recommend that greater powers should be given to the Post Office in this connection. However I am glad to think that, in spite of our limitations and restrictions, I made a good haul the other day, when something like 150,000 circulars of a particular description were stamped for postage, representing to the Post Office something like £600, and I was able to confiscate every one of those 150,000 letters, to get £600 for postage, and to see that the morals of the community were protected. I am not going to say how I was able to bring that about. In the first place, I hope it will be a warning to those gentry; and, in the second place, if it is not, I hope to get some more hauls of the same kind. We have always our postal reformers, our postal Oliver Twists, who are always asking for more, and I think the postal reformers, if the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway will allow me to say so, are somewhat too much inclined to pose as hardworking and unappreciated individuals who have to encounter red tape, obscurantism, and general Departmental obstruction. I can assure them that it is not so. The Department is always willing to consider proposals for postal reform if they are of a practical character, but there is an old saying which runs1 to the effect that "anybody can find Genesis, but it takes an able-bodied man to turn up Hosea." Nothing is easier than to suggest reform, but it is much more difficult to carry it out. In the first place, it has to be worked out in detail, and, in the second, and this is a very important element, it has to be seen that it does not conflict with or injuriously affect the unity and simplicity which, after all, are at the bottom of our postal service, and by which alone you can give that regularity, efficiency, and rapidity, which I am glad to think we have got in our postal system. Then also—and this is somewhat important—we have to provide the cash, and I notice that the postal reformers are seldom daunted by considerations of cost or hampered by rules of arithmetic. I had the other day from a postal reformer a proposal suggesting that I could get a quarter of a million of additional revenue by the introduction of a service de luxe in regard to express delivery carried out on the same conditions as express deliveries are carried on now. That would be a very good suggestion if it was practicable, because I am always very glad of either a large or a small sum; but I worked it out, and found that while we have seventeen thousand messengers at present, and deliver somewhat under two million messages in order to make a profit of a quarter of a million, the public would have to send a thousand million express messages in the course of the year, and we should have to employ a hundred thousand additional messengers. I am rather against boy messengers where I can avoid them, and I regretted that I could not accept that proposal. But, on the whole, we do welcome proposals of a practical character, and endeavour as far as we can, subject always to the Treasury—and most Members of the House know what the Treasury is, though I am bound to say they have been very liberal to me—but subject to the Treasury we are open to consider reforms, and I do think, if I may say so, as representing the Department, that the Department really has the confidence of the country both in regard to the question of reform and in regard to the way in which its duties are carried out.

I had a letter the other day, which I will venture to read to the House. It was written to me, but it was really intended as a compliment for the Department which I represent, but it is of a nature which any head of a Department likes to see, and it certainly gave me gratification for the time being. This letter is from a lady who writes from Liverpool, which is always a very intelligent place. ["Hear, hear."] I notice that the hon. Members for Liverpool cheer that assertion. This lady lost a parcel at Christmas time, and she writes:— I thoroughly appreciate the absolutely tremendous trouble you have, and especially at this time of the year. It is proverbial that the Post Office will simply do anything to please even beyond all reason, and wishes which are not executed are absolutely impossible. If the parcel cannot be recovered I am sure it will be an impossibility. I am glad to say the parcel was recovered, and that letter shows, I think, a thorough appreciation of the work of the Department. I think also the fact that the other day the House of Commons threw upon the Post Office very large additional work in connection with old age pensions shows the confidence of the public in the impartiality and efficiency of the Post Office. We had six hundred thousand pensions and more to pay a week, £150,000 to provide in silver, and an addition suddenly fell upon the Post Office of something like thirty million transactions in the year, and I am glad to think that that in no sense interfered in any way with the ordinary operations of the Department and the ordinary regularity and efficiency of the service, and so far as I am able to ascertain there have been no complaints made with regard to the matter at all. Then I should like to say, as I said the other day, when it was stated that some of the sub-postmasters had objected to the work, that that is really not the case. Indeed, I have had many letters from sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses who are most intimately connected with the work expressing the real gratification that they have themselves shared in bringing some brightness and happiness into the lives and homes of these aged people. It is interesting, I think, also, as showing how public Departments are coming more and more to be utilised, and quite rightly utilised, for public purposes. In the Debate we have had in reference to the Board of Trade, we have seen a great increase of the various and multifarious duties, such as arbitration, conciliation, Labour questions, and so on, which have been thrown upon that Department; and, as regards the Post Office, that also is obviously expanding from time to time. We have had not only such large questions as the whole of the telephone system thrown upon us, but wireless telegraphy and insurance business. These are within the legitimate ordinary sphere of Post Office operations, but outside that sphere we have such matters as old age pensions transferred. Also, among other matters, we have the carrying on of the operations of local licences, and in connection with other matters, such as Labour Bureaux and other questions of social reform, certain duties will be imposed upon us; and, from a national point of view, I think it is an advantage that they should be carried out by the Post Office.

It is an advantage that the State should have selected such an institution as the means of carrying these matters through, so long as the primary duties of that institution are not interfered with, and that these public functions should be placed under its control and carried out by it. Of course, it thus becomes in a sense something of a monopolist institution, but I do not think that is a real disadvantage from a national point of view. It does, however, seem to affect a certain number of persons in the State, for I myself had a letter—I must quote one other letter—from an irate correspondent the other day, in which he spoke of me as a "bloated, irresponsible monopolist," and when I came to think of it, omitting one of the adjectives as superfluous, I am an irresponsible monopolist; because as Postmaster-General no one can bring an action against me, and I am liable in damages to no single human being. That is the only disadvantage that I can see of what I think otherwise is the immense advantage of throwing these public duties on a public Department such as the Post Office. Let me also add one appeal. In saying that while we are doing what we can for the public, I have ventured of late on more than one occasion to appeal to them to assist me in improving the conditions of service of our postal servants in regard to such matters as earlier posting and earlier closing and later opening. I intend to appeal as regards the reduction of the time of opening for telegraph purposes on Sunday, by which the public would in no way be in danger of losing any of the advantages of the postal system, but they could do a good deal to improve the conditions of service of the Department.

I now want to turn to another aspect of the Question. I have dealt so far with the Postmaster-General as he deals with the public, but he is also a very large employer of labour—the largest in the country, and the Post Office cannot fail to have an influence for good or for bad on the labour market generally and the rate of wages, and I for one say that that influence ought to be for good and not for bad. There are two classes of servants, those under contractors and those directly employed by the Post Office. As regards contractors, so far as I have had any difficulties with them—and I am glad to say they have been comparatively few—the improved Fair Wages Clause will enable us to deal with them in a satisfactory way and to see that proper wages are paid. But I think I may just add this. There is another class in what are called the sweated industries in which there is, unfortunately, no fair rate of wage. I had last year to institute an experiment in regard to the clothing trade and in regard to the female labour in that trade by fixing a minimum wage, under which I do not allow any of them to be paid. I only introduced it, I frankly say, as an experiment. It is a very difficult problem to solve. It is very difficult to know what rate ought to be fixed. It was done after great consultation with the Board of Trade. I have been blamed for not putting that rate higher. I should like to put that rate higher, but it was admitted that the difficulty in a case of this sort is that you do not want to upset and disorganise the trade, and I think it better to go step by step and gradually improve the rate of pay in those trades, and I am glad to know that the rates of wages received by the women working in those trades are very much larger, in some cases double, than they were receiving before. I really now feel that my effort is somewhat unnecessary, because of the House agreeing to the introduction of these Wages Boards in sweated trades, and it will be unnecessary to deal with this question by Government action. But I venture to say that I have to a certain extent anticipated their action, and the evidence and experience I shall be able to lay before these Wages Boards when they are instituted will be of value to them in arriving at a decision. Then as to the Report of the Royal Commission in regard to spreading the work over the year, I am glad to think that those proposals have been largely anticipated in the Post Office, and that at all events we shall endeavour to carry them out to the fullest possible extent.

Coming to the postal officials themselves, I have not very much to add to what I have said on at least two occasions. My right hon. Friend opposite asks the amount of advantage to the men from the Parliamentary Commission, and I have already stated that, taking the two Commissions together, about a million a year; but I think it ought to be remembered in this connection that it is not only a question of wages, but it is also to a large extent a question of improved conditions of service, which cannot be measured in money terms, but which in many cases are really more important than the money concerned. Last year we had considerable debate upon the question of classification, and I somewhat regret that I have to bring my Estimates on at the present moment, because I promised last year that I would look into special cases in which special hardship had arisen from the classification which had been proposed, and at an early date I am making a few alterations, especially in regard to some of those places where, under the system of classification proposed by the Committee, and adopted by myself, the result has been a reduction of 3s. These cases, at all events, should be favourably considered. Hon. Members have shown me circulars which they have received in regard to classification, and I have no doubt I shall hear something about it in the course of the evening, and I may have an opportunity, if necessary, of saying a few words in reply. But I have endeavoured to carry out the recommendations of the Committee in regard to this and other matters. To judge by those communications which have been shown to me, it is implied that existing officers have been reduced in their salary. But that is not so. There is no reduction in the maximum of any existing officer. It only applies to a very limited number, and it is due to the particular classifications which had to be carried out, and it only applies to new entrants in the future, and of course all existing and future benefit from the various improvements in conditions to which I have referred already.

I have had during the past year a good deal of communication with the various associations of postal servants, and I am glad to think that with one exception my relations have been of the most friendly description, and further, the associations, have not only discussed various questions affecting conditions of service with myself, but they have discussed these matters also with what is sometimes called the secretariat, and sometimes the permanent officials, to the advantage of both, and in some matters, such, for instance, as telegraphist cramp, we have co-operated, the associations and the Department, in placing the matter before the Home Office, and I am glad to think we have had telegraphist cramp scheduled as a disease of occupation. I am glad to think, also, again in co-operation, we have had inquiries into such matters as cycling duties, the carrying of loads, stair-climbing, and so on, all of which are matters affecting some section of the service, and which are, in my opinion, far better settled by joint agreement and discussion rather than that there should be any antagonism between the Department and the association. One question which I have placed before the associations is the question whether they think it would be an advantage or a disadvantage to them if the Daylight Bill was put into force. That information I hope I shall get soon. I had a little Daylight Bill of my own in the Secretary's Department, because we asked the staff there whether they would like, instead of having their hours from ten to five, to have them from nine to four. It is interesting to know that out of 843 men on that staff 661 voted for earlier hours, and only 148 against, and 34 were indifferent. So far as we are concerned, though I do not very much approve of the Bill as a Statutory measure, we have put a daylight bill into force ourselves in the summer months.

The Post Office of course is a business concern. It has a turnover of 22 or 23 millions, representing no less than 5,000 million transactions annually. We have our 40 million inhabitants, and, as I know, I have to deal with 670 Members who have constituencies. I think on the whole the public and the Members are satisfied with the way in which the work is carried out. I have, of course, complaints from time to time, some of them correct and some incorrect. I had a complaint the other day from someone who said he had telegraphed to Grimsby for one live lobster and he had received five. Of course I expressed my great regret. What became of the other four I have not been able to discover. Further than that, I wish to thank hon. Members for the great consideration which they have always given to me personally in regard to the various matters which they bring before me. I am glad to think they appreciate that the Post Office does endeavour to deal with their matters as promptly and efficiently as possible. I was recently told by an hon. Member that the Post Office more promptly acknowledge, sooner answer, and give fuller information than any other Department.

I am not always, unfortunately, able to meet hon. Members and do everything they desire. The system of the Post Office is very like a puzzle, and you cannot always deal with one part without disorganising or imperilling another, and sometimes I have somewhat difficult questions to solve. The other day I received two letters by the same post from a Member, in which he recommended two men for the same post with the full weight of his authority. That put me in rather a difficult position in regard to the choice as between them. Occasionally hon. Members consider that the Postmaster-General is not only a sort of walking encyclopædia of postal knowledge, but is also a sort of Daniel. I have had Members more than once come to me and say, "About that postal matter, have you been able to do anything about it?" I have said, "Will you just tell me where it was?" He has replied, "I forget the name of the place, and I forget the name of the man, but no doubt you will do what you can." In addition to that there is always a difficulty in regard to local matters, which hon. Mem- bers themselves know full well give rise to so much agitation locally. There are always little questions affecting Little Pedlington, in which there are very large storms in very small teacups, which give rise to great difficulties, and I again desire to thank hon. Members for the great consideration they show in regard to them. I shall like to think if I may that in the time I have had the very great honour and pleasure of being Postmaster-General I have done something to improve the comfort and convenience of the public and the conditions of service of a large number of Government employés, and to bring about more cordial relations between them. I have taken some trouble in going up and down the country and looking into matters as the head of this great Department, and after three and a half years of careful experience I can say emphatically it is as a public Department a credit to the State, and a testimony to the efficiency and loyalty of the public service.

"That Item A (Chief Offices) be reduced by £500." It may seem rather churlish and ungracious to move the reduction which stands in my name, but the points which I wish to raise are obviously matter of public interest with regard to which I have had the privilege of receiving an overwhelming amount of support from both sections of the House, and from people representing various branches of the national activity. I am not animated by any sort of hostility to the right hon. Gentleman personally, nor to his Department, which has been able to achieve the impossible in so many instances. The right hon. Gentleman made some passing reference to the reduction effected under the Hobhouse Committee. That reduction has caused a considerable amount of discontent and dissatisfaction, not so much on financial grounds, but rather, as it is alleged—I do not put it higher than that—that the recommendation of that scheme has been carried out somewhat capriciously and arbitrarily. In my own Constituency I hear now and again distant rumblings of discontent. I cannot bring before the Committee any specific or concrete instances of grievances, but I understand that the hon. Members for Haggerston and Shoreditch are both well primed, and I hope and believe the Postmaster-General will be able to expose, if he can, the hollowness of the grievances which I understand exist very materially, not so much in the South or the North as in the Metropolis, and that he will be able to express his intention of remedying those grievances if they really exist.

The second point I should like to draw his attention to very strongly and strenuously is the inability to do anything to reduce the 25 centime rate between us and France. A rate of 2½d. 200 miles from this country, when you can send a letter for a 1d. 11,000 miles to New Zealand, and when you have only recently reduced the rate to the United States to a 1d., seems an absolute anachronism, more especially as the Postmaster-General must know that the Chambers in Paris are burning with a desire to be met in this respect, and they certainly will reduce the rate the very day the British Government express their intention to do likewise. But the Postmaster-General and the Government say, "We agree that it would be a good thing to do," but they put their objection on the financial ground. I ask whether our national finances under our wonderful fiscal system have been brought to such a low pitch that for the sake of a comparatively exceeding trivial initial loss of something like £70,000 or £80,000 a year the Postmaster-General says he cannot give us this reform because it will cost the Treasury probably for a couple of years that paltry sum. I brought a deputation in June last year before the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One of the arguments used by the Prime Minister then was this—a more jejune or a more unconvincing argument was hardly ever employed by a responsible British statesman in connection with an important matter of this description. He said:— We are perfectly willing to give this concession to France, but what about Holland, Belgium and Germany? If they all ask for similar concessions we cannot refuse. Surely if a small nation like Belgium or Holland is able to confront an initial loss of this description a great country like Great Britain, for the sake of consolidating international relations and goodwill, ought to be able to afford the comparatively trumpery figure of £70,000 or £80,000. I should, therefore, urge the Government to again consider this matter, and I urge on the Treasury the necessity of doing something so that the good disposition which is manifested to-day may not by that time have evaporated, and that both this country and France may have the advantage of a cheaper and cheapening postal system. The third point, which I am still more interested in, is the establishment of an Atlantic cable and a State owned and controlled line. I am aware that personally the Postmaster-General is desirous of proceeding with the scheme as soon as he can. My object in pressing this matter upon him is not so much for the purpose of enabling the commercial community to obtain cheap facilities, but because I believe, and I think both sections of the House believe, that it would induce and conduce to the establishment of greater Imperial solidarity between the Mother Country and the Colonies. Of course, the question of cheaper cable communication is not a matter to be despised, but the principal reason why the Committee with which I have the honour to act are desirous to see this scheme carried out is that it will furnish a link in the system of the Pacific cable. The Pacific cable, as the Committee are aware, is an Imperial enterprise. It is due to the patriotic instincts both in Canada and Australia. The Committee would perhaps like to know whether that scheme has been financially a success So far, it has not altogether been a financial success, but I shall presently refer to that point. What I want to impress upon the Committee at the present moment is that if the State—the Imperial concern altogether—if the Empire went in for this Atlantic cable it would involve practically no risk to the ratepayers of the Empire. I will tell the Committee why: Because the price of cables is very much cheaper than it used to be owing to improvements, scientific methods, and so on. The second thing is that the cable would have enough, and more than enough, to do, so that I cannot conceive that a State cable between here and Canada can possibly be said to represent any risk, either to the British or to the Colonial ratepayer. But so far from representing a risk, I think it would be a benefit to the two classes of taxpayers. Although the Pacific cable shows a certain loss in its working, it does not show quite the loss which is apparent on the face of the accounts. If you link up the Pacific cable by starting the cable from Canada, which was the original idea, you will not only give the Pacific cable system a chance of showing what it is able to do on proper commercial lines, but you will give an impetus to the idea of an "allied" cable route which will be of enormous advantage.

I wish to refer to the financial prospects of the Pacific cable scheme. The present accounts nominally show a loss of between £60,000 and £65,000 a year, but in that item is included no only interest at a substantial rate, but interest on a very substantial sum for the amortisation and sinking fund. I had a calculation made out, which shows that really and truly not more than a loss of £30,000 accrues upon the working of the Pacific cable. But you have to consider the enormous advantage which the co-partnery of this Empire have to gain in the establishment of this Imperial concern. Do the Committee know how much money is saved to the Colonies in the payment of subsidies to cable companies or to what extent the comparatively low rate of cableage has been brought about by the establishment of the Pacific cable. I would, therefore, urge as strongly as I can on the Prime Minister to meet in the promptest possible manner the advances made by the Canadian Postmaster-General. The Government are aware of the very important meeting that was held not very long ago at the Mansion House to which every self-governing Colony sent representatives, and which expressed the earnest desire that this Atlantic cable might be undertaken. Every single Colony is burning with the desire to be allowed to participate in the obligations and responsibilities, and to share in the privileges and advantages of this Imperial cable enterprise. I hope the Committee will not be terrified by the idea that I am suggesting that the State should go into a scheme for taking away the rights of the cable companies. No such thing as that is in my view. What I wish the State to do is, when in future granting landing rights to cable companies, to make such stipulations and provisions as will enable the State to gather into its hands, gradually, of course, the cables which are now managed by private enterprise. Can the Committee conceive of the Post Office handing over the carrying of letters to private companies? I think there is nobody who would suggest for a moment that it would be a good thing to hand over the administration of the Post Office to the hands of private companies. Then why should the question of cables, which are, after all, the nerves and sinews of Imperial consolidation, and after the magnificent response we had from the Colonies a few months ago, not only in regard to Imperial consolidation, but national defence—why should the matter of cables be allowed indefinitely or permanently to remain in the hands of private companies? That is a thing which no House of Commons should contemplate with equanimity, I was very glad to see that the Postmaster-General is alive to the fact that unless he and his Department take steps in good time to safeguard the interests of the State he and his successors will find themselves in the same plight and sorry predicament which existed when the State bought up the telegraph lines of this country. It is a matter of common knowledge that the State had to pay two or three times what the telegraph lines cost because in the drawing up of the agreements by which these lines were allowed to be extended provision was not made with respect to the terms on which the State might ultimately acquire them.

I want to refer to the question of Indian deferred cable rates. An Interdepartmental Committee which inquired into this matter a few years ago strongly suggested a system of deferred cable rates between India and England. I understand that the India Office have communicated with the companies and made certain proposals on this matter. It will be my duty when a favourable opportunity occurs to ventilate the subject again in this House. I hope that the Postmaster-General, who has shown great energy in the administration of his Department, will signalise the occupancy of his office by enabling not only British magazines to be more largely read in Canada than at present, but that he will enable many humble homes in this country to send cable messages to their relatives abroad who may be their bread-winners, and to whom cabling at present is absolutely a matter of impossibility. I will only mention to the Committee that neither Germany nor France have shown any slackness in the making of provision for cheap cable rates. A cable message can be sent from France to the uttermost confines of Algiers at ½d. per word. Germany has done the same thing with respect to her colonies, as far as South Africa is concerned. I therefore beg the Committee to remember that the population of America is increasing every year by leaps and bounds. We in this country have to contemplate, unfortunately, no such accretion of economic wealth to the resources of our country. You send away every year some of the best of your raw materials—some of the most vigorous of the manhood and womanhood of the country. I wish you to make it worth their while to keep in touch with the Old Country by enabling them to have cheaper and more regular means of communication, and when you have done so you will have builded better than you knew. I beg to move.

Amendment proposed: "That Item A be reduced by £500."—[ Sir Edward Sassoon. ]

I wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the very interesting statement which he has made to-day, and on the information which he has given as to prospective reforms. We all agree that he is certainly in charge of one of the finest and most important Departments of State, which is by far the largest employer of labour, and I think you will agree that, so far as the staff of the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presides is concerned, from an intellectual standpoint they are a staff worthy of every consideration. He has indicated here that the Postal Department is still handing over to the taxpayers of this country a very handsome profit in spite of the great depression. Though the Postmaster-General is able to indicate that for a period of something like six years the employés will have received an increase of pay equal to about £1,000,000 and the public will have received concessions equal to about £500,000—a matter at which we all rejoice—yet I hope neither the right hon. Gentleman nor this House will put forward the idea that the maximum has been reached so far as the employés in the postal service are concerned. When we have a man starting with a minimum of about 17s. a week with a prospect of attaining a maximum of 25s. I do not think anyone will be prepared to assert that it is an ideal likely to encourage the best young men of this country to enter the postal service.

It was in reference to the decision of the Parliamentary Committee I stated so much this year, and the maximum would be so much. I was referring solely to that and not to the general question of maximum.

I quite concede the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. He stated the ultimate result would be a million conceded to the employés. What I was saying was that I hoped this House would not arrive at a conclusion that, although that concession has been made, the ideal had been reached, and that as long as you had young men starting at 17s. a week in the postal service with a maximum of 25s. per week, we in this House could not consider such a state of things at all satisfactory. A very large profit is made every year. We have no right to pay these low wages, and to declare this profit as we are doing at the present moment. In regard to classification, I was very pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman state to-day that he had intended, but time would not permit him, to make a statement to this House in regard to many of the post offices down in the country that had been subject to very severe reduction due to the Report of the Committee a year ago, but that in a short time he intended to make a statement to the House on the subject.

It will be published in the ordinary way.

I take it then I shall have the opportunity of discussing it, and I proceed now with my remarks in anticipation as to one or two items which I have got in my mind, and which will be at all events dealt with I hope when the right hon. Gentleman makes his statement to the House. The findings of the Committee I consider are most unsatisfactory. The Committee have decided in regard to, the payment of wages according to the volume of work on the unit system and the cost of living. These are the two grounds on which they decide what are the wages that are to be paid. I find that since the Committee's report was made, according to very reliable information, something like 900 post offices down in the country have suffered a reduction of wages. I do not know whether I am right or not. At all events there are a large number of Members in this House, and also many people outside the House I think, who, when the Committee made their recommendations, fully anticipated that instead of there being reduction there would practically be an increase all along the line. Whether that be right or not, we do know that something like 900 post offices have suffered reduction. Supposing you take the question of cost of living. The right hon. Gentleman in reply to a communication last year stated:— I may say yon cannot get an absolute denomination. You cannot reduce it possibly to an absolutely common denominator. We have gone on the system of putting up where the cost of living is specially high, and putting down where it is specially low. In regard to this cost of living they have taken the Board of Trade Report up and down the country. I am prepared to assert here to-day that so far as that Report is concerned it is inaccurate in many cases, and easily proved to be so. The position is this. My own town is a case in point, and I can prove it to be inaccurate in reference to that town, especially in regard to the question of rent, which is one of the most important matters in the cost of living, and if I can prove it to be inaccurate in one particular it is fair to assume that it will be inaccurate in many other particulars. This Report, on which the wages are fixed by the Postal Department, I consider unfair in the extreme. Personally I think that before finally agreeing to the reduction of the wages of postal employés based upon this Report further investigation ought to take place. I asked that it should take place some time ago, but up to the present no satisfactory results have ensued.

There is one case in point which I may give so far as this particular question is concerned. In that Report it is stated that in the ordinary residential quarters of the town I represent two-roomed tenements can be got from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. a week, and three-roomed tenements from 3s. 6d. to 5s. per week. Yet in the same Report reference is made to the slum area in which our corporation has carried out a housing scheme, and it is stated that the rents there are for two-roomed tenements 3s. 9d. to 4s., and three-roomed tenements 4s. 9d. to 5s. per week, an increase in both cases. These tenements are carried on at a considerable debit balance every year. Yet these tenements, which are stated at a higher price than what it is said you can get tenements for in the residential parts of the town, are not paying their way, so that on the face of it these other rents must be absolutely inaccurate which they are. This is the Report of the Postal Department as to the cost of living, as a result of which many of the postal employés up and down the country have suffered a most unfair reduction of wages. I know that the Postmaster-General lays great stress on the limitation of the employés to whom it applies, but in such a big system as the postal system you have got fresh employés every week since this Report was issued, and you have large numbers of employés who have suffered large reductions.

The unit system is a system that I cannot possibly comprehend, and I cannot understand why the Committee made such a recommendation to this House. So far as that is concerned, I may say that the right hon. Gentleman has got my fullest sympathy for having such a recommendation placed around his neck, and having to put it into operation. The unit system or volume of work is, after the cost of living, the second guide in regard to wages that should be paid. A money order counts 10 units, as against one unit for a letter. Anyone can readily see that if you go to a naval or garrison town or port you will find probably in the Post Office in that particular town a large volume of work appertaining to money orders, and these count for 10 units as against one unit for a letter. Go to another town where money orders are few, and yet the clerk behind the counter is occupied as much every day as the clerk in the town where money orders are plentiful, and he works the same number of hours. Yet according to the unit system the one man's wages have gone up and the other man's wages have gone down. It is an unfair system altogether, and ought to be changed at the earliest possible moment. I cannot see why the men should be governed by such a system. I cannot see why the ordinary rules should not prevail, and men be paid for their work the same as in practically all walks of life.

Take another case, that of a place like York, which is not a very large town but is a receiving centre. It receives letters from Darlington, Middlesbrough, Stockton, Hartlepool, and all the towns round about. It means nothing extra to the man in the street. He does not handle them at all. The letters are received and sent on. I am not aware that there is any greater volume of work there, yet according to this system these men in York get credit for all these things received from other towns. Such a system is totally unfair. I appeal to the Postmaster-General not to be content with this system which has been placed on his shoulders by this singular Committee. He has got my sympathy, and I hope he will realise that the whole thing is most unfair, and is not likely to bring about that state of contentment that we know the right hon. Gentleman would like to see prevail. I ask at all events that this system shall be changed at the earliest possible moment. There is one other matter that I wish to refer to. I wish to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to see whether it is within his province to deal with the question of the civil rights of the postal employés. I stated a short time ago that the right hon. Gentleman presided over what is the finest Department of the State. Certainly he has got in his service as fine a class of employés as any Department is in possession of at the present time. Many of them are underpaid; many of them work under unfair conditions; but to further penalise these men as they are penalised to-day in regard to their political freedom, I say is most unfair. I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and to this House to face this question, in order to give to the postal employés privileges similar to those enjoyed by those engaged in other walks of life, and that they shall have liberty to participate in municipal and political elections, and in reforms appertaining to their municipal or national welfare. I cannot see, and have never been able to see, why any Government should penalise men simply because they are employés of the Government, and that they should be denied what prevails among high officials, who do participate in local and national elections. I do not see why the humble workers should be penalised any more than those I have indicated. Then, in regard to the General Post Office messengers. I admit that there is not a large number of them, only something like 61, but their duties are somewhat varied and of a confidential character. Now, these men have had no change in their maximum pay for 40 years. They have made many appeals, but they have all been ignored. They have asked for an opportunity of stating their case before the right hon. Gentleman, and they petitioned in 1906, but there has been no response. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give the representatives of this section an opportunity of stating their case before him, and I feel assured, if he does so, much friction will be removed and that greater satisfaction will prevail. There is also the question of sub-postmasters. I understand that certain alterations have taken place with regard to a large number of these men, and to remedy their grievances they ask that the items "letters delivered and parcels delivered" ought to be inserted in the new scale of pay, and credited to those offices dealing with such work. Further, they ask that instead of triennial examinations there should be biennial examinations, just as prevails with offices in our London area. In regard to the case of Mr. Dick, about whom another hon. Member intends to speak, I shall simply observe that I understand this gentleman was not informed as to the allegations against him, and that he was not given a fair trial, or that, at all events, he was not allowed to state his case in defence. I would observe that if the statements given to me are correct—I am not prepared to assert that they are—then I hope the Postmaster-General will see to it that in all cases of a similar character where a man is being penalised, it should be seen that he is told the allegations made against him, that he should know the causes which have led to his being penalised, and that he should be given in every case an opportunity of making a statement in defence of himself. I will only conclude as I began, by expressing my appreciation of the very interesting statement of the Postmaster-General, and I only hope that the points which I have raised will receive his consideration.

I join with the hon. Member who has just sat down in the sympathetic terms with which he referred to the able and interesting statement of the Postmaster-General. There are one or two points to which I wish to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. They are connected with the staffs not only in Glasgow but in other large towns of the country. One point has reference to the maximum wages given to the staffs in some of the large towns. The complaint with reference to this is referred to in paragraph 214 of the Hobhouse Report. A general increase of 2s. was to be allowed to the London staff, and I have communications from six of the leading large towns of the country, and particularly Glasgow, pointing out that there has been no increase in their case from 1890, while, on the other hand, the cost of living is very considerably increased. While in London they agree that the cost of living is higher than in Glasgow by 6 per cent., yet there is a difference of about 16 per cent. in the wages which are allowed, and they ask, therefore, that the matter should at least be inquired into. I do not understand them to put it higher than that. They say that in the increase which has been given, not sufficient cognisance has been taken of the fact that there is a very considerable increase in the cost of living in the larger towns, and that, therefore, some increase should be given to the staffs in those towns, particularly to the staff in Glasgow. According to my information, there has been some increase given to the female employés, but no increase has been given to the male employés, and there is a sense of grievance in that respect, which seems to me to be justified, if the figures given here are correct. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to consider the matter if he has not already done so. I am quite certain that if he finds justification for complaint, a remedy will be given for it. May I also say that the question of civil rights, which the hon. Member below the Gangway referred to, seems not to be quite fully understood by members of the staff. I observe in the Hobhouse Report that paragraphs 10 to 14 state that the Post Office staff is treated in this respect just as are other Civil servants so far as interference in municipal or political elections is concerned. There is undoubtedly a feeling among the Post Office staff that in this respect they are treated more hardly than other members of the Civil Service, but, as I have pointed out, the Hobhouse Report shows that this is a misunderstanding on their part. Paragraph 11 of the Report states that the rules applicable to the Post Office service were exactly similar in this matter to those which apply to other Civil servants as far as municipal and national elections are concerned, and if that be so they have no ground of complaint. I have mentioned this point, because I do not think it is understood by certain members of the staff, who have made representations to me on the subject. Another point is this. There is a great deal of uneasiness on the part of clerical employés as to the arrangements which are likely to be made by the Telephone Company, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will do what he can in any arrangements made with the company to see that there are no serious dismissals of employés already on their staff.

What does the right hon. Gentleman mean?

I mean that there shall be no serious dismissals by the Telephone Company of members of their staff. I have had communications with the right hon. Gentleman on the subject, and all I desire is that so far as possible he will use his influence in the event of any changes that may be made to see that dismissals from employment of members of the staff of the company will, as far as far as possible, be avoided. I do not raise the matter in any controversial spirit at all, because I am quite satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman is desirous of meeting the wishes of the staff in every reasonable way, and I trust that the matters which I have brought before him will receive his favourable consideration.

In regard to the maximum wages in London and in Edinburgh in the telegraph department, I would point out that there is a very considerable difference in the maximum, the difference being £24 a year as against Edinburgh. It cannot be denied that the cost of living in Edinburgh is cheaper than in London, especially as to house rent, but the statistics of the Board of Trade show that living in London is only 2 per cent. higher than it is in Edinburgh. I think therefore, these facts do constitute a fair case for inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General stated that the chances of promotion had been worsened in the Central Telegraph Office, and this was the reason for granting an increase.

I stated the Committee said so.

I understand that in the Debate the Postmaster-General quoted that part of the Report which said that the increase was given for that reason.

I only stated that the Committee said so.

At any rate, I am told that in Edinburgh also the rate of promotion is very slow. There are about 50 men out of 153 with the maximum wage, and the number suitable for promotion annually is only two, which does not seem to be very fast progress in that department. I do not often bring up the question of remuneration of Civil servants in this House, and as regards the political treatment to which the hon. Gentleman opposite says they are subject, for my part I find that there is sufficient political freedom amongst Civil servants to enable them on all occasions to bring pressure to bear. In fact, I doubt whether any class of the community can exercise so much influence in a closely contested election as Civil servants. The ordinary working man is not in it with them. I remember that a former Postmaster-General said on one occasion that if his staff exercised so much pressure on candidates they would have to consider the question of disestablishing Civil servants. I think on that occasion I expressed my general approval of his remarks, and I do not know that since I have benefited much from the votes of postal servants in my Constituency. I doubt whether political freedom is one of the most pressing necessities of the Post Office staff in respect of obtaining full consideration for any just claims they may have to make. I doubt whether any class of the community has such able advocates in this House as the staff of the Post Office. I only brought up this point because it is a matter between one district and another which I think may fairly be brought to the notice of the Post Office.

I should also like to ask my right hon. Friend whether there is likely to be any development of the underground telegraph system of cables to Scotland. I believe the cable is now on the point of entering Edinburgh. There was some divergence of views between the Post Office and Edinburgh as to the proper route to take which has unfortunately delayed the introduction of the cable. I trust that that difficulty may soon be at an end, and that we shall have the underground cable in the city. It is manifest that in Scotland more particularly, owing to the climatic conditions, that this matter of underground cable communication is of the most supreme importance to the business of the country. I would urge that the system should be carried further north, and I would ask my right hon. Friend whether he contemplates any further extension of the cable system northwards. I should like to thank him for what he has done in promoting the telephone trunk lines north of Inverness through the Highlands, and all the more because the extension of those lines in the thinly populated districts is of very great importance to the development of the country, particularly during the busy tourist season. I thank him for what he has done, and I would most earnestly press upon him to consider the great need for the extension of the cable system further north than is contemplated by the initial scheme.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the very interesting statement he has made to the House. I wish to ask for some explanation of his proposal to reduce the wages of the postmen in 900 offices in Great Britain and Ireland. He made a passing allusion to the proposed reduction by saying that it would affect only future entrants to the positions. Future entrants will be coming on every day, and eventually they will number 8,000 men. I think it is a very serious proposal on the part of the Postmaster-General to reduce the wages of 8,000 men, although the reduction will not take place all at once. Judging from the office in Ireland which the Postmaster-General purposes to reduce, I think there is hardly any justification for so sweeping a reduction in the wages of men whose wages are already goodness knows low enough. I know in Greystones and Rathdrum, and several other portions of my Constituency the postmen cannot afford to lose even a 1s. a week, while in some cases the reduction would amount to about 3s. per week. I should like to know from the Postmaster-General on what authority he has made or proposes to make these reductions?

Is there anything in the Hobhouse Committee Report to justify him in reducing the wages of 8,000 prospective postmen? I think in the whole of the report there is not the slightest suggestion that any such reduction should be made. On the contrary, I believe, and I think it will be borne out by some Members who are on that Committee, that it was the clear intention of the Hobhouse Committee that an increase of wages should take place rather than any reduction in the case of postal servants. If there is nothing in the Hobhouse Report to justify the serious reduction in the wages of those poor men, because a 1s. to a postman is a great deal more than 5s. to other persons employed in the service, there must be some reason, and I should be very glad if the Postmaster-General would tell us. I presume before those reductions were decided upon the Postmaster-General instituted inquiries in every one of those 900 offices as to whether a reduction might or might not be made in those places. I would ask him did he make inquiries, is it a fact that there were 100 postmasters asked, and that the great majority who were applied to decided that increase ought to be made instead of reduction? That is an important point which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will address himself to when he comes to reply.

There is another matter I wish to bring before the House. For some time past complaints have been made about auxiliary work in Ireland. I myself last year or the year before brought under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the widespread grievance as to auxiliary labour that exists in Ireland. I think he promised to apply some remedy to it. I think he promised to reduce the amount of auxiliary labour, and I believe some feeble attempt has been made to place auxiliary postmen upon an established basis, but very little in that way has been done. I suggest that he ought at least to reduce auxiliary labour in Ireland by 25 per cent. I hope before the Estimates come up next year he will be able to say he has reduced auxiliary labour in Ireland by at least 25 per cent. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give his attention to the points which I have made. First of all, was there any authority in the Hobhouse Report that a postman's wages should be reduced, and, secondly, is it a fact that the postmasters who were applied to to give their view of the necessity for reducing wages that the majority reported in favour of an increase. I hope as well that he will take care to reduce the auxiliary labour in Ireland.

After all the kind things that have been said of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman I will endeavour to make my remarks as kindly as possible, as befits the speech. Before I deal with the case of Mr. Dicks I want to emphasise the point referred to by the right hon. Member for Central Glasgow in regard to the constructional staff of the National Telephone Company, and I want a little more satisfaction if I can get it in regard to the position of that constructional staff. The constructional staff in the National Telephone Company comprises nearly 6,000 men. I took the trouble to ascertain the nature of the employment of those men. A thousand of them are labourers, more or less skilled; 2,300 are linesmen, skilled hands; 700 firemen, 400 cable-joiners, 1,000 switchers and board staff, 400 electricians. Their wages range from 22s. to 50s. per week. They are a skilled staff and they are men who have been in the employment of the National Telephone Company for many years past. Their work has been formed for them, and they for the work. If they were thrown out of employment owing to the arrangement between the Post Office and the Telephone Company very great hardship would be inflicted on those men. I understand the late Postmaster-General, before I was in this House, when he made a statement relating to this agreement, distinctly laid it down he did not intend anybody should lose his employment in consequence of the taking over of the Telephone Company by the State.

Undoubtedly there was a certain number of dismissals last year. It is quite true, as the Postmaster-General told us a few months ago, referring to a meet- ing at Manchester, that no dismissals have taken place during the last few months. The reason for that is this: that when the dismissals began in autumn of last year an agitation, and, I think, a legitimate agitation, sprang up amongst those men. Representations were made to the Postmaster-General and to the National Telephone Company, and the National Telephone Company agreed and decided that no dismissals should take place during the winter months. That is why the Postmaster-General was able to tell us that only one dismissal had taken place in the Manchester district during the winter months. The agreement was that no dismissal took place during the winter months, a period supposed to expire on the 31st March. If those dismissals are to take place there will be very great hardships on the men, who will not be able to get other employment, because there is only one employer for telephone work; there is no rival company. Nobody is putting up constructional telephone work. There will be very great hardship on the men who were entitled to no pension and cannot turn very easily to any other kind of work, and who will not be able to get anything like the amount of wage of 30s., 40s., or 50s. in any other business. The reason for this difficulty, as I understand it, is that the National Telephone Company is not going to undertake any new constructional work which will not show a profit before the end of 1911.

I put this to the Postmaster-General, that he, on behalf of the State, is responsible for the welfare of those men. If the State had not agreed to take over the National Telephone Company those men would have gone on working. All constructional work would have been continued on the National Telephone Company, therefore the State, in its agreement with the National Telephone Company, ought to have made some arrangement for the future of those men. I want to call the Committee's attention to the fact that in all other cases the staffs have been properly looked after. We heard the other day from the President of the Board of Trade, when he was discussing with the railway company forms of amalgamation, one of the things he was most careful about was that no man should be dismissed, no man should suffer in his employment, because of the amalgamation and a possible reduction of the staff. When the Port of London Bill was before us last Session distinct arrangements were made that the men in the employ of the various dock companies should not suffer because of the amalgamation. Again, a few years ago, when the Water Board took over the work of the water companies, similar provisions were made. Whether it was an oversight or not I cannot say, but when the agreement between the Telephone Company and the Post Office was concluded no definite arrangements were made to take over the constructional staff of the Company. I venture to suggest that these men were worse treated than the plant itself, because arrangements were made for taking over the plant and machinery. The Postmaster-General has told us this afternoon that he desires to be a model employer. I agree that the State should be a model employer, but equally the State should be a model purchaser. We are all agreed now on the policy of the purchase of the Telephone Company by the State; but if the State is going to purchase, as it is, the works and establishment of the National Telephone Company, it should be a model purchaser, and make such arrangements as will safeguard the interests of these men.

May I also, as representing a commercial constituency, say a word in reference to the users of the telephone. If this constructional work between now and 1911 is to be modified—as we know it is, from the declarations of the chairman of the National Telephone Company—there must be a slackening off in the facilities afforded to the general public for the extension of the telephone system. That slackening has already begun, and it is bound to go on. A constituent of mine has communicated with me in regard to the difficulty of getting a telephone fixed to his house some distance outside Manchester. I wrote to the Postmaster - General—not personally, but to the Department—and, an inspector having been sent down, I had an official letter from the Post Office only ten days ago stating that nothing could be done for the extension of the telephone to this particular house until 1912, when the Post Office took over the constructional work of the Telephone Company. If that is the case in Manchester, I am certain that it is the case in a large number of other districts also. I have had the benefit of seeing some of the representatives of the National Telephone Company's Employés' Association. I asked them whether they would give me some instances (in order that I might put them before the Commit- tee) where constructional work was being delayed owing to this arrangement between the company and the Post Office, but they replied—and I think the Committee will agree that they replied rightly—that they were confidential servants, and could not divulge facts which came to their knowledge confidentially. I admire them for declining to give instances; but, at any rate, I have given the Postmaster-General one case, and on behalf of the commercial community and of the 6,000 men concerned I ask that he should effect some arrangement on the point. It has been suggested that he should, if possible, ante-date the period for the completion of the purchase. I believe that that would meet with the approval of all sections of the House, as the men would then be taken over and would come under the model employer whom I see before me. May I also ask that when he is taking them over he should make arrangements so that the period which they have served with the National Telephone Company—which, after all, is a semi-national service—should be counted to them for pension as if they had been employed by the State? They have been doing the same work and receiving certainly not higher wages than Civil servants, and it would be only fair, when the State for its own purposes and to improve the system is taking over the company, that the staff should be put upon the same basis in all respects as if they had been for years past under the model employer.

Now I come to the more difficult question of Mr. Dick. Mr. Dick is a young man who has been in the employment of the Post Office for some few years as a sorter at Glasgow. He lived with his parents, both of whom are over 70 years of age; he bears an absolutely unimpeachable reputation, and has a character from the minister of his parish. But unfortunately for his position in the Post Office he cast a favourable eye on a young lady in the telegraph department. The eye was a perfectly moral eye and a perfectly justifiable eye; the feeling ripened into an attachment which the Committee will be pleased to know will very soon result in the young lady becoming Mrs. Dick. I will not give the name of the lady, but throughout the correspondence she has been called Miss M. Unfortunately Mr. M., the father of the lady, did not appreciate Mr. Dick as a son-in-law, and he wrote to the Postmaster-General complaining of the attentions of this gentleman to his daughter. One day in October, 1906, Mr. Dick was called into his superior's office, when the following note was read to him:— The Postmaster-General views with displeasure Mr. Dick's actions to Miss M. and in writing two letters, one to her father, and one to her sister. He is to be transferred at his own cost to another office of similar scale as Glasgow on the first opportunity, Any further discreditable conduct will be dealt with severely. On that, he was transferred to Manchester, and thus the case came under my own personal knowledge. The transfer papers were headed For discreditable conduct to Miss M., learner, Stirling, and for writing two letters, one to her father, and one to her sister. That is the charge against this unfortunate young man, who bears an absolutely good character, and for that "discreditable conduct" he is transferred from his home, sent to Manchester, and placed at the bottom of the class. Anybody who knows Post Office régime will understand what that means to a man. It is not merely a transfer from the pleasure of living in Glasgow to the pleasure of living at Manchester, but it stops his promotion, and he has against him that statement of "discreditable conduct to Miss M." After he had been at Manchester for some time Mr. Dick sought an interview, and asked what the discreditable conduct was. Unfortunately, Mr. M. was not satisfied with the transfer, because Mr. Dick chose to go on writing letters to Miss M. But is there any reason—I want to ask this question of the model employer—why Mr. Dick should not write letters to Miss M.? They are perfectly proper letters. I believe the Postmaster-General has them, and if there is a single improper sentence in the letters let him produce them, and say what is wrong. I am quite prepared to admit that Mr. Dick wrote a very fiery letter to Miss M.'s father, but I am quite certain that I should, and in all probability the Postmaster-General himself would have done the same under similar circumstances. When I put a question in the House last autumn the Postmaster-General stated that the circumstances were so well known that it would be a mere form of formality to comply with the Tweedmouth rule.

Here I come to a much more important matter than Mr. Dick and his love affairs, and that is the breach by the Post Office of the Tweedmouth rule relating to punishments. Mr. Dick's is only a case which has enabled us to find out how the Post Office is carrying out its own rules and regulations. The Tweedmouth rule to which I refer is:— We understand that, before the punishment of an officer, the precise nature of the charges brought against him is explained to him in writing, and that he is allowed to make, on his own behalf, a written explanation. This rule, which secures officers from unjust treatment, should be strictly adhered to. In this case that rule was distinctly not adhered to. No statement of the charges brought against Mr. Dick was ever made in writing, nor was any opportunity ever given him to place before the Postmaster-General or the officials an answer in writing. He was simply called into his superior's office, when the note which I have quoted was read to him, and then he was transferred to Manchester. I need not weary the Committee with the correspondence between Mr. Dick and the Post Office, or between the Postal Clerks' Association, who took the matter up on his behalf, and the Department. But when I asked the Postmaster-General in October last whether he had complied with the recommendation of the Tweedmouth Committee, and whether he would give Mr. Dick a chance of answering these charges, even two-and-a-half years after his transfer, the right hon. Gentleman replied:— The rule referred to by the Tweedmouth Committee is still in force. The circumstances leading to Mr. Dick's transfer from Glasgow were of a kind so completely within his own knowledge that the application of the rule became a mere formality, which could not have affected the result. It should, nevertheless, have been complied with. The omission has since been repaired; and Mr. Dick has defended himself verbally and in writing without convincing me that he was treated unjustly. I hope that this evening we shall have an opportunity of ascertaining how the Postmaster-General was convinced that Mr. Dick was not treated unfairly. The reply continued:— Mr. Dick's conduct since his transfer has been satisfactory; and he was informed more than a year ago that I was prepared to sanction, under certain conditions, his re-transfer to Glasgow. That is rather curious, as Mr. and Miss M. are still living in the neighbourhood of Glasgow. What were the conditions on which the Postmaster-General was prepared to re-transfer Mr. Dick? First of all, he was to go back at his own expense; and, secondly, he was to have no more "discreditable conduct" with regard to Miss M. The "discreditable conduct," it must be remembered, means writing love letters. Therefore, apparently the Postmaster-General is going to establish a rule that postal clerks may not write love letters to the ladies of their choice. An hon. Friend suggests, except under the right hon. Gentleman's supervision. That would be imposing upon him, model employer as he is, a far greater responsibility than I should have thought he would have cared to undertake. Possibly that is the reason why he is asking for the appointment of an Under-Secretary to assist him in his work. Doubtless the young gentleman who is appointed will have the supervision of the amatory department of the Post Office. But seriously—because it is a serious matter—the whole question has arisen because the Post Office chose to take note of a letter written to them by an outside individual regarding the outside conduct of one of their postal servants. What right has the Post Office to intervene because the father of this young woman chooses to come forward and say, "I object to this man paying attention to my daughter. I object to his meeting her in the street. I object to the influence he has over her." If this is to go on we shall have mothers writing letters, and saying to the Postmaster-General, "Mr. So-and-So has been paying attentions to my daughter, but he is not now coming forward. Will you kindly intervene in regard to this negative young man, as you intervened in the case of the rather too positive young man?" I want the House to note how the Postmaster-General has placed himself entirely in the hands of Mr. M. While Mr. Dick was at Manchester, miles and miles away from the object of his affections, Mr. M. went on writing to Mr. Dick, and in 1907 he sent him a letter of warning, as follows:— The postal authorities fully expected, now that you had been removed to Manchester, that my daughter might regain her freedom from your evil influence. That is rather strong. But so long as she continued to go between Stirling and Dunblane and frequent your people almost daily— So that this unfortunate young lady is not allowed even to go and see the father and mother of Mr. Dick— …should this not cease at once I will certainly report the matter to the Postmaster-General as requested. P.S.—A copy of this letter will be sent to the Postmaster-General along with my letter of complaint. In April this young man was sent a further letter from the Post Office. I would like to draw the Postmaster-General's attention to this:— Mr. Dick can be informed that a further letter has been received from Mr. M. complaining of his conduct in relation to Miss M. since his transfer to Manchester, and he should be warned that unless he can arrange his private affairs in such a matter that the Department is not troubled with them in future, the consequences to him may be very serious. Well, but really, it is a case when the Postmaster-General chooses to listen to tittle-tattle of this kind emanating from this Miss M.'s father. This young man was doing his work to the satisfaction of his superiors in Manchester, and he is to be warned that if Mr. M. cannot be kept quiet, the consequences to himself will be very serious. Well, now, the Postmaster-General—and I want to be perfectly fair in this matter—handed the matter over to one of his senior officials to look into it. The young man was brought up to London in November, 1907, and he was interviewed by Mr. Norway, who, I believe, is one of the senior officials at the General Post Office. Mr. Dick was courteously treated. He was asked various questions. Immediately after that interview Mr. Dick wrote down, as far as he could from memory, what had taken place. Mr. Norway put certain questions to him. He was asked: "Was there no ground for Mr. M.'s complaint to the Department?" You will notice the inquisitorial character of these questions put by the officials to the young Post Office clerk brought up from Manchester to be interrogated. "Was there any police case in connection with the affair (at Stirling)?" There is absolutely no foundation for that question. What right had any official of the Post Office to put a question of this kind to this young man? There was no police case. There was, I quite admit, a disturbance in the street at Stirling, in which Mr. Dick took no part whatever. This young lady was walking with Mr. Dick's relations, and I think her father and mother came up and tried to get her away. Mr. Dick himself had nothing whatever to do with it Then the next question was almost an indecent question, and Mr. Dick was told that he need not answer it unless he liked. The interrogator was good enough to say that. The question was: "I would like to ask you are you going to marry Miss M.?" What had that to do with a model employer? The answer was perfectly straightforward: "I am engaged to her." Then this gentleman had the indecency to ask the young man: "Is it not a fact that you are now a married man?" There was absolutely no foundation for such a scandalous question. Surely it shows to what a pass Post Office officials have come when in order to bolster up the case they thought it necessary to allow one of their people to ask this young man against whom there had never been the slightest breath of scandal: "You tell us you are going to marry this lady. Is it not a fact that you are already married?" What do they mean by it? What is at the back of their heads? Are they confusing him with somebody else? This was the only opportunity that Mr. Dick had to put his case before the Postmaster-General, and this was the kind of question asked him. If there is any possible scandal that can be brought forward with regard to Mr. Dick let us have it out. The Postmaster-General stated in 1907 that the omission in the Tweedmouth Report had been repaired. I want to know how it has been repaired? The Tweedmouth rule is that a man should have a statement in writing of the charges urged against him. I should like to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Postmaster-General knows it should be in writing, and that within the last fortnight he has issued to his officials—I do not doubt it arose out of this matter—a circular distinctly pointing out the way in which the Tweedmouth Report is to be carried out. In this the Postmaster-General emphasises the fact that before an officer is punished for an offence, or an adverse entry is made in his record, the precise nature of the charge should be clearly stated in writing, and every opportunity ought to be afforded him to meet the charge. Further, if any adverse entry is made against any officer, the officer concerned is entitled to be given an extract from the record in which the exact form of the record made against him is shown. That is the Postmaster's rule, issued a fortnight ago. I shall ask him to apply that rule to Mr. Dick. I asked him in the House a week ago, and I put down this notice of Motion to reduce the Postmaster-General's salary; and I put down a further question asking him as to what were the exact charges against Mr. Dick. He has replied to my point in a very friendly way, but without, however, telling me what the exact charges were. I have left out a good deal of the case, but it is clear that the Postmaster-General knew, and has known the case. The reply of the Postmaster-General was that if Mr. Dick was not satisfied he was anxious, not only that justice should be done, but that any feeling should be removed, and he was reviewing the whole case at present. But that is a different question. I am not quite sure that that is what Mr. Dick is entitled to. Mr. Dick to-day is a condemned man—condemned, punished—an entry is made in his register without having had the right which the Tweedmouth Committee gives him, without having the right which the Postmaster-General has given him; and I am not sure that it is sufficient for the Postmaster-General to say that he will review the case again. It will not do until he has put Mr. Dick in a position that he has asked for all along, that he should have the statement in writing to which he is entitled of the charges brought against him of discreditable conduct. I venture to suggest that the Postmaster-General, after the Debate this afternoon, should openly come forward and admit that a system has ruled in the Post Office during the last few years with regard to this unfortunate man, and that this matter ought never to have been raised. I may further say that any ordinary employer of labour would never have taken any notice of any tittle-tattle letter sent by Mr. M. from the outside. Unless there is any real case of discreditable conduct—and we all know what that means—what I think the Postmaster-General ought to say is, "I decline to entertain in this case these charges against Mr. Dick, and I decline to allow my great office to be used as it has been for harrying this young man, because he chose to pay his addresses to Miss M." To a certain extent I owe an apology—

This is an Imperial question!

For having brought the case of one man before this House, but personally I am not in the slightest ashamed of having done so. This is the only opportunity which a member of the public service has of getting his wrongs righted. The High Court of Parliament is the only court to which this young man can appeal. Any man in the public service, the humblest person in the Army or Navy or the Civil Service—and I am quite sure the Postmaster-General will agree—has a right, if he is unable to obtain justice, to lay his case before the representatives of the people of this House. On his behalf, and on behalf of a very large number of people who sympathise with him, and feel that he has been hardly treated, I do ask the Postmaster-General to review it, not with the idea that the young man is guilty, but, ab initio, as if he were innocent. If he is wrong I will wash my hands of the whole affair. If he is right I ask the Postmaster-General to reinstate him.

Under the circumstances, seeing this is a personal question, I think I should follow the hon. Member at once, and say a few words in regard to it. I have no fault to find with him for bringing it on. Quite obviously, rightly or wrongly, the case has attracted considerable attention, apparently from the point of view that there has been a miscarriage of justice. That being so, it will be well for me to say nothing till there shall be some further inquiry, which shall take place at the earliest possible moment. But I wish to say at once, as regards this case, I take the fullest responsibility on myself. I also want to say that I do not profess to be infallible. I do not in any sense object —where there seems to have been some misunderstanding or some mistake—I have not the slightest objection to the hon. Member, or anybody else, bringing it forward and criticising my action or that of my subordinates. As to the merits of the case, as to whether Mr. Dick has had justice, I do not propose to go at present, having undertaken to review the whole case. I assure hon. Members that I shall do it with an open mind, and, I hope, with absolute impartiality, as if it were an entirely new case. That being so, it would not be proper on my part to follow the various observations of the hon. Member, because that, in a sense, would be prejudging the case from the point of view of himself and Mr. Dick. But I would like to mention two things: The first step in regard to this matter is to fully and frankly admit the mistake which has taken place. Any charges against Mr. Dick ought to have been put in writing. Let me say this in regard to this matter: That, no doubt, was the recommendation of the Tweedmouth Committee, but to the rule there have been certain exceptions under certain circumstances. This was accounted one of them. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say he would not drag the names in here, because it would be rather hard to do so. I agree. I understand that was the chief reason why this matter was not put in writing at the very beginning. The officers in charge believed that Mr. Dick understood the charges brought against him (and I desire to say that they were not entirely of the nature indicated by the hon. Member). The desire to avoid, if possible, bringing the name of this young lady into the matter more than necessary was the chief reason why, in the first instance, the accusation or allegation was not made fully in writing. I fully admit that it should have been done. I have endeavoured to repair that at all events, and in the future every case of any gravity in which anyone is accused of anything in the postal service the charge shall be given in writing to the person against whom it is made. It is only right and just. I say, in this particular mistake was made, and I take the fullest responsibility for that mistake, but the mistake will be repaired. I will repair it in this particular case, and I shall see that the charges in writing of the various allegations are given fully to Mr. Dick, so that he may give his explanation, and in every such case in future. That is the rule I have laid down. I think it is right that it should be done, and, of course, it will prevent such cases as this occurring in the future. That being so, I am sure the Committee would not desire me, under these circumstances, to go further into the matter. I made a further examination, and communicated with the association, who have taken the matter up, immediately after the holidays, and before I knew a discussion was to be raised in the House. After a review on my account of the whole case, I came to the conclusion, before I knew I was going to be asked about it in this House, or that there was going to be any criticism of this matter here, that the question should be reopened, and that being so, I think the Committee will not press me further in regard to the matter to-day. It is clearly a case that should be further investigated, and I, for one, am going to reopen it. But it is also clearly a case which the House itself is incompetent to try. At the same time, I have no complaint against the hon. Member for bringing it up. He is doing it, I presume, on behalf of Mr. Dick, who is entitled to ask his Member to bring the case forward after he had appealed to the Postmaster-General, and after the Postmaster-General had not met his appeal. I have no complaint to make, but I appeal to the House, after the explanation I ventured to give, and after taking the full responsibility upon myself, and after admitting that poor human nature is not always infallible, I ask them to accept my assurance that Mr. Dick shall have the fullest and most impartial inquiry at my own hands into all the circumstances of the case. I think that is necessary, and, what is of far greater importance, I think it is necessary that I should see that any miscarriage of justice, if any such took place, should be removed.

Whatever mistakes may have been made in the earlier treatment of the case which the Committee has just been discussing, I think every Member will agree that the course which the Postmaster-General is now taking is the right one. My hon. Friend quite as much as anyone else who took part in the discussion will, I think, recognise that the Postmaster-General, having taken the matter into his own hands, and being about to institute something in the nature of a judicial inquiry of his own, where he will exercise if not actually judicial, at any rate semi-judicial, functions, we must be content to leave it to him, and I would add my own opinion that it is at least as much in the interest of Mr. Dick if he is, as we hope he is, an ill-used and meritorious servant, that the matter should be left with the Postmaster-General instead of being left to this House to decide. Nobody can have listened to the discussion this afternoon, not merely to this particular part of it, without feeling that the House of Commons is attempting to deal with matters for which, in fact, it is altogether unfit. I think the statement of the case—and it was rather a difficult one to bring before the House of Commons—which was made by my hon. Friend, on the whole temperately, and certainly clearly, was treated with some levity which it did not deserve by some Members, and which it is shown not to have deserved having regard to the treatment which the Postmaster-General has himself found necessary to apply to the case. In the earlier part of the afternoon, apart from the large questions dealt with by the Postmaster-General, and by some hon. Members who have spoken, a good deal of our time was occupied with similar small personal grievances, not necessarily confined to single individuals, but arising in particular localities or among particular classes of the postal service. I do not rise to plead these particular grievances to the House, but if I do not do so it is not because they do not arise in the Constituency which I represent or in the district from which I come. Something has been said about the treatment of telegraphists in the six or eight senior provincial post offices—Birmingham is one of them, and Birmingham telegraphists are as dissatisfied with their treatment and with the Hobhouse Report as those of Glasgow or other great provincial cities. In my own Constituency I have more requests made to me to bring the grievances of indi- viduals of a particular class of servants before the Postmaster-General and the House of Commons on this occasion than ever I had before in the course of the 17 years I have had the honour to represent this particular Constituency.

Why, in the first place, do I not propose to do what my correspondents ask me to do, namely, to take these individual grievances one by one and argue them with the Postmaster-General across the floor? I propose not to do so because I recognise I have not got and cannot get information for the full statement of both sides of the case. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General has all the information which went before the Hobhouse Committee in interpreting their Report. I am perfectly satisfied that this House, constituted as it is this afternoon or at any other time, is not the proper tribunal or the possible tribunal to try whether the scales of pay be what they ought to be in King's Heath or Bromsgrove Post Offices, or whether they should be so much more or less. We all know we cannot judge a case as we hear it stated by a hon. Member on behalf of their constituent and replied to by the Postmaster-General. We all know we cannot form any reasonable judgment upon a particular case put before us, and when we are arguing cases of this kind in this House in reference to complicated details of classification and scales of pay we are simply paying the tribute which we pay to our sense of duty to our constituents, to the political opinions of our constituents, to the value of their votes, or to our desire to stand well with them. But we ourselves know there is nothing more than formality in the recommendation which we sometimes agree to give, which we know will have no effect upon the advancement of the gentleman on whose behalf it is given, but we know it is easier to give a recommendation than to explain to the person that applies for it that nothing of the kind is of any use. That being so, I want again to call the attention of the Committee to the inefficacy of these discussions, to their hollowness, as affected not merely by what I have said, but by what the Postmaster-General says. One Member heartily recommended to him two gentlemen for the same post and by the same post. Another Member, who was earnestly anxious to know whether his little matter was arranged, but could not remember what place it referred to or who was the person concerned. All this is a hollow sham, and if we can relieve the House of Commons of this hollow sham it would be a great service to the House of Commons and to the Civil Service concerned. We might perhaps put them face to face with something which would give them real redress for real grievance instead of something which only gives parade and show of grievances that may be real or imaginary, but which we, as a House, have no means of dealing with. I have brought this question before the Committee once or twice with regard to the Post Office, and I venture to call attention to it again to-day. Is it impossible for the Government with the general goodwill of the House to make some reform in this matter? I do not think it is possible to do any good unless you carry, I will not say everyone's assent, but I do say unless you have the general goodwill of the House and of all sections of opinion in the House. I have seen it suggested that you should have a kind of permanent Hobhouse Committee sitting in conjunction with the Postmaster-General to guide his hand and to countersign his minutes. I do not know where you would find the Members to serve in such a Committee, and I think you will not find a self-respecting Postmaster-General to take office or hold office on these conditions. It would be an intolerable position to the Postmaster-General, and scarcely a less intolerable position for the Committee, who were to be permanently sitting and to advise him. I talked to some Members of the Hobhouse Committee, Members not drawn from one side or another; I heard them speak here, I heard the hon. Member for Stoke, who represented the Labour party upon that Commission, saying from his place in this House that if he knew what the nature of the work of the Committee was to be he never would have accepted a seat upon it, and he would never sit upon a Committee of the kind again; and I do not believe there is a Member of that Committee, although they took great care and paid great attention to investigating the complicated questions laid before them, I do not think any Member of that Committee would claim that the scheme they produced was an ideal scheme, or anything like it. What are we to do for the future? Are we to have Debates of the kind which we have known year after year ever since I have been in the House of Commons in preparation for which all the political influence of the Civil servants is brought to bear at election times, and during the intervening periods, in order to secure that hon. Members shall not merely represent their case, but deliver the verdict which they wish to see delivered. Party pressure in this way is brought to bear in order to secure a majority in favour of this verdict without any real examination of the case. When that pressure is too great, and when many hon. Members have given pledges that they will support a Parliamentary inquiry, are we to have that tempered by a new Hobhouse Committee sitting for a Session or two Sessions producing a new Report, and then the same laborious circle will have to be trodden once again? That seems to be the fate which lies before us unless we can find some new way of dealing with these matters.

Perhaps the House will pardon me dealing with a personal recollection which is germane. So impressed was I with this matter when we were in office that I made a proposal across the floor of the House that if we could carry with us the general goodwill of the House we would be glad to appoint a Committee not to go into Post Office grievances, but to inquire whether a tribunal could not be formed which would relieve hon. Members from direct and immediate responsibility for these matters; a tribunal in which public opinion would have confidence, and to which the civil servants would give a moral adhesion. We were defeated in regard to that proposal, but we did not resign at once. I was not in a position to follow up the negotiations, and I cannot criticise the then Opposition for not responding to that proposal, but even now when I am in Opposition I am not less anxious than when I was a responsible Minister to take these matters out of our Parliamentary life and out of party consideration. Of all things that threaten the democracy to have your democratic franchise used to promote particular interests at the expense of others is one of the most demoralising and one of the most dangerous things that threaten public life, and I am willing in or out of office to support any movement which can avert that danger and which will take these questions out of our Parliamentary life.

What is the practical suggestion I make as to the way these questions should be dealt with? I take a precedent from the action of the Government themselves and the party opposite. Some time ago they had to deal with another great service, or rather a series of services, namely, the railway services of this country. The railways were not controlled by the Govern- ment, and yet the dispute which arose was of such importance to the life of this country that the Government could not treat it with indifference. The Government imposed upon the parties to that dispute—I do not use the word "imposed" offensively, because it was cordially accepted by both sides—at the instigation of the Government both sides accepted a proposal for conciliation boards, arranged with all the elasticity required by those widespread systems and diverse circumstances, and subject to the final decision of an impartial arbitrator if the boards of conciliation were unable to come to a unanimous decision. Why will that precedent not suit the public service? Why should we not have boards of conciliation within the Post Office for the wage-earning class of the Post Office and other great Civil Departments, with an impartial arbitrator, which would meet to discuss these things and advise the Postmaster-General what was right in regard to grievances as to wages and declare which were well-founded and which were illusory and ill-founded?

If you established a system of that kind for the Civil Service with the goodwill of the House generally, and not as a party measure, it might work with the same admirable results as it has worked in the case of the railways, and it might meet with the same general acceptance, thus securing for civil servants a tribunal in which they would have confidence. That would give to hon. Members of this House and the public at large what they require and need, namely, an assurance that there was a fair tribunal for the investigation of such grievances. This course would enable Members of Parliament to disclaim once and for all the claim that it is part of their duty to their Constituency to bring individual or class claims affecting a particular section of public service before this House, and to press them here without a full knowledge of the circumstances and without making, or attempting to make, a detailed comparison with other parts of the Civil Service in regard to the salaries paid for this particular class of work outside. Such a course would enable hon. Members to reply that a fair tribunal had been provided, and they could tell those who complained that if they had a real grievance they should take it to that tribunal and have it argued there. That would only be following a precedent created by the present Government. I submit this precedent in no party spirit, and I am sure I have not said a word on this matter which will offend hon. Members. I ask the consideration of the Government and the Postmaster-General for this suggestion. If they can improve it, by all means let them do so; but do let us have a real tribunal in order to take these Civil Service grievances away from the purview of this House, which is not fitted to deal with them, and which ought to be taken out of the range of our party system.