asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can furnish any information as to the present state of affairs in Persia; whether he is satisfied as to the present safety of British life and property in that country; and what steps he intends to take to secure it for the future?

His Majesty's Minister at Tehran has reported that the Fedai and Bakhtiaris have entered Tehran. The latest news is that the Royalist resistance in Tehran was practically at an end last night, and negotiations were in progress with the leaders of the Fedai and Bakhtiaris for the surrender of the Persian Cossacks. Except for one case of alleged looting of a British house by roughs, and unimportant damage to a few houses from artillery fire, the persons and property of foreigners have not so far as His Majesty's Minister is aware suffered. Some apprehension has been felt by foreigners in Tehran, but hitherto neither the British nor the Russian representative has come to the conclusion that any special measures for protection are necessary, and no Russian troops have been ordered to advance to Tehran, though they are in readiness at Kazvin. The situation at Shiraz is disquieting, and arrangements are being made to hold in readiness at Bushire a small British force to increase the Consular guard at Shiraz in case of need, to protect His Majesty's Consulate and foreign lives and property. The general situation is, of course, one of great disturbance and uncertainty; where there is danger to British or foreign lives and property at places which are within our reach, we shall of course do what is possible to protect them. But it is urgently to be hoped that the rival factions in Persia will now work out some settlement, which will render special measures of protection unnecessary.

asked the Postmaster-General whether the payment of £5 out of the Rowland Hill Benevolent Fund to the widow of the late John Egan, postman, at Clonaslee, Queen's County, is to relieve the Department from all obligation to make a grant to Mrs. Egan, more particularly as she has a family of five small children wholly unprovided for, and that her late husband served the Post Office faithfully and with an unblemished record for 26 years; and, under these circumstances, will he reconsider her case?

The Superannuation Acts at present make no provision for the widows of Civil servants. The Bill now before the House will, however, make such provision. There is, I regret to say, no fund at my disposal out of which an official grant could be made to Mrs. Egan. Grants made by the trustees of the Rowland Hill Benevolent Fund do not prejudice the claims of Post Office servants to grants from official funds.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will state the number of land purchase annuitants or payers of interest in lieu of rent who were in arrears with their instalments on 1st December, 1908, and have not yet paid up their arrears; what steps have been taken to enforce payment in such cases; and whether he will state the number of annuitants or tenant purchasers paying interest in lieu of rent who have been deprived of their holdings in consequence of the non-payment of arrears since the passing of the Irish Land Act of 1903?

Out of £734,412 collectable from 60,549 purchasers under the Irish Land Act, 1903, in respect of half-yearly instalments which fell due on 1st December last, £3,601 remained unpaid by 463 purchasers on the 1st instant. As regards interest in lieu of rent, £1,590,447 was collectable in the year ending 31st March last from 165,991 persons who had signed purchase agreements. Of this sum £17,446 remained unpaid by 2,203 persons on the 1st instant. Legal proceedings are pending for the recovery of these arrears. Thirty-three holdings have been sold since the passing of the Act of 1903 for non-payment of annuities, and the Land Commission have recovered possession of six other holdings on the same ground.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have acquired the lands of Kilbreedy, Stubber estate, parish of Aghaboe, Queen's County; if so, can he state to what persons the Commissioners purpose allocating the same; have they received resolutions passed by the Aghaboe branch of the United Irish League requesting that the lands be distributed amongst the evicted tenants and uneconomic holders in the locality; and can he say what course the Commissioners propose adopting?

The Estates Commissioners have not yet acquired these lands, but proceedings for their acquisition are pending under the Evicted Tenants Act. The Commissioners have received the resolutions referred to, but are not in a position at present to make any allotment of the lands.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will consider the desirability of granting the whole amount of the Dog Tax in Ireland to the local county councils, and by that means make it a more popular tax, and not have it so often evaded as at present?

It would not be possible to grant the whole of the Dog Tax to county councils without dislocating the petty sessions system in Ireland. It may, however, be observed that the amount of the Dog Tax and of the surplus paid over to local authorities has greatly increased within the last 20 years. There is, therefore, no reason to suppose that the tax, as at present collected, is unpopular or that it is often evaded.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, will he cause the Geological Survey Department for Ireland to make a thorough and practical inspection of the country in the parish of Dromard, county Longford, for the purpose of finding out the nearest place the coal beds in the district come to the surface in order that the coal may be utilised; and a similar survey and inspection of Sleive Galry, in the parish of Ardagh, county Longford, in view of the belief that a coal measure lies under the mountain and juts out near the surface south-west of the village of Ardagh?

The Department of Agriculture will make arrangements to have the districts in question visited with the object of ascertaining whether there is a possibility of coal being found.

asked whether the Tipperary (No. 2) District Council have applied to the Local Government Board for the services of an arbitrator for Part II. of the scheme formulated by the Tipperary (No. 2) District Council in connection with the Labourers Act; and, if they have, what is the cause of the delay in appointing him, and how soon may it be expected the appointment will be made?

The Order appointing the arbitrator in this case was signed on Monday last.

asked whether the loan for Part I. of the scheme formulated by the Tipperary (Mo. 2) District Council in connection with the Labourers Act has been applied for; and, if so, what is the cause of the delay in forwarding the first instalment to the council so that the building of the cottages may be put in hand before winter sets in?

There has been no delay on the part of the Local Government Board in this case. The council's application for sanction to the loan was received by the Board on the 3rd instant; the loan was sanctioned by the Board on the 5th instant, and the council so informed on the 6th instant. The Land Commission was recommended to advance the first instalment on the 8th instant, and, in accordance with their practice, it will be issued to-day.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that Sergeant Long, of Patrickswell, county Limerick, assaulted Mr. P. J. Kearney, vice-chairman of the Tralee Board of Guardians, at the recent eviction by the police of Mr. Walsh, of Kilmurry, Castleisland, county Kerry; whether he is aware that Mr. Kearney, being the guardian for the district, was permitted to be present by Commandant Ball so as to look after the life of old Mrs. Walsh, who was lying ill in the house, and that the police sergeant nevertheless prevented Mr. Kearney being present, and, though not denying the assault, refused his name until Inspector Barrington had to be specially brought to compel him to disclose his identity; and whether he proposes to have inquiry made into this conduct on the part of his police officers?

My right hon. Friend has received from the hon. Member a complaint as to an assault said to have been committed by Sergeant Long, and is making inquiry with regard to it.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will take proceedings to protect the innocent ratepayers for the future from the punishment imposed upon them by extra police taxation for crimes that they not only take no part in, but detest and abhor, namely, cattle-driving, the acts of a few irresponsible parties and thoughtless young boys?

Additional police have been appointed to certain counties under the Constabulary Act of 1836 in consequence of their unsatisfactory condition. There is no alternative under the existing law, but to charge for the men so sent. There has, I am happy to say, been a very considerable decrease in cattle-driving, but the responsible police authorities are not yet prepared to recommend the withdrawal of the extra police. I trust that the ratepayers will show their detestation of the crimes which have been committed by assisting the Government in every way to prevent their recurrence. In this way they will also be assisting themselves by hastening the time when the extra police will be removed.

Is not the use of the word "crimes" rather a misuse in this case?

The word is used in the question.

Is there any other civilised country in which a whole district is thus made to pay for the misconduct of a few?

It exists in England, where the district pays the whole cost of the police. In Ireland the district only pays for the extra police.

But are people punished for crimes which they have not committed?

Nobody is punished for a crime which he has not committed.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland why persons, fully protected by police escort, are allowed to carry arms and show them publicly in town and country, to the danger of the public peace; and will he give directions that the constables in charge of such persons get orders to prevent them from showing or drawing out revolvers without necessity?

The police have no power to prevent any person, whether protected or not, from carrying arms or from showing them publicly, but they can and do take action when arms are used or exhibited to the danger of the public or the disturbance of the public peace.

asked whether agricultural labourers residing in urban districts are entitled to the benefits of the Labourers Act, 1906; and whether urban district councils have any power to acquire tracts of land in the neighbourhood to be divided amongst agricultural labourers living in their districts?

The Labourers (Ireland) Acts apply only to rural districts. Urban district councils have no power to acquire land for division amongst agricultural labourers living in their districts.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners have refused the claims of James Hayes and John Crowley to be reinstated as evicted tenants; whether satisfactory proof has been given that they were evicted from their holdings on the Stawell estate, Kilbrittain, county Cork; and, if so, whether their cases will foe reconsidered with the object of granting them other holdings or compensation if land cannot be provided for them?

The Estates Commissioners have decided after inquiry to take no action in these cases, and they are not prepared to depart from such decision.

Is there any reason for it? Are they not genuine evicted tenants?

No reasons have been given.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the two new floating docks will be fitted with self-propelling machinery, to enable them to be transported from one port to another; and whether there is any precedent for similar craft having been sent to sea during the winter months on the East Coasts of England or Scotland?

The reply to both parts of the question is in the negative. With regard to the last part, however, it is, of course, well known that floating docks have frequently encountered very bad weather when being towed to their destination.

Am I correct in assuming that one of the docks will be in Portsmouth Harbour with a view to being transferred to other ports on the coast?

I should like to have notice of that.

Have the responsible advisers for the construction of these docks looked into the question of pumping machinery for propelling the docks?

The hon. Member may be sure that all these questions have been considered.

asked how many completed submarines are there in the British, German, French, and United States navies?

British numbers are 52, including C11. The numbers for the other countries are as given in the Dilke return, except that three have been added in the United States.

asked whether the Government, whilst calling two years the actual period of construction for armoured ships, is still unprepared to anticipate the date of commencement as in Germany, and thus forestall almost certain delays?

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to excuse me from anticipating the discussion on the Vote which is to take place this month.

Will the Admiralty cease to be a party to the hoax on the public that these ships take two years to build, whereas they can be finished in much less time?

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the date when Vote 8 will be taken?

That question should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will grant a Return showing the coal capacity of British and German torpedo-boat destroyers, built and building, arranged in tabular form to show the number of vessels in the respective fleets with a capacity for more than 160 tons, 159–140 tons, 139–120 tons, 119–100 tons, 99–80 tons, 79–50 tons, and less than 50 tons?

We have not the official information with regard to foreign ships which would enable us to give the Return asked for.

asked what purpose is served by the assembling of the Fleet in the Thames?

The Lord Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of London, invited a visit from the fleet on its return from the manœuvres, and the invitation was cordially accepted by the Admiralty. The visit affords an opportunity for an unusually large number of the public to see the fleet.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state what is the reason for making the deputy-adjutant-general of the Royal Marines a supernumerary major-general, considering that he is the only officer of the rank who is employed by the Admiralty?

The practice is in accordance with Orders in Council dating back to 1837, and is calculated to ensure an even flow of promotion in the upper ranks of both branches of the corps.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury why men promoted to the establishment in His Majesty's Customs are allowed to count for pension only half their unestablished service, seeing that their unestablished service is exactly similar in character to their established service following; that the practice of the Treasury is to count unestablished service for pension in such circumstances; and whether he can see his way to act in their case on the ordinary practice of the Treasury?

The cases referred to have been dealt with strictly in accordance with the principles explained in the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on 28th June and 27th April last.

asked whether, if any of the education authorities children's care committees decide to feed the children during the holidays, they will be surcharged for the amount of money spent?

If a local education authority incurred expense in respect of the provision of meals for children attending a school during the time when the school was closed for the holidays, it would rest with the auditor to-determine, in the first instance, whether the expenditure was legal or not. If he considered it illegal, it would be his duty to disallow it. I may add that, as at present advised, I am not aware that the education authority would be legally empowered to defray any such expenditure as that referred to.

asked the President of the Board of Education if he can state the education authorities that have up to the present established open-air or forest schools; and whether he can see his way to recommend that the education committees of the large cities and towns make similar experiments?

Open-air schools were established during the year 1908 by the local education authorities for London, Halifax, Bradford, and Norwich. The Board are always ready to entertain applications for the recognition of schools of this character under Article 44 (g) of the Code.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether any, and, if so, what, steps have been taken by the promoters of the new Church of England school at Brymbo, Denbighshire, to provide suitable permanent school buildings; whether he is aware-that the present position involves unnecessary public expenditure and is inimical to the interests of education in the district; and whether he can give an assurance that the Board will deal with the points at issue with the view of securing an early termination of this protracted educational conflict?

I have communicated with the managers as to the condition of the buildings of this school, and they have informed me that the matter shall be brought under their consideration at an early date.

What is meant by "new" Church of England school?

I am responsible for the answer to the question, and not for the question itself.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether on the Departmental Committee recently appointed by him to consider matters relating to railway agreements and amalgamation there is any representative of the Irish railway employés and Irish traders; is it intended to examine witnesses from Ireland; and will the Irish interests mentioned have his consideration?

The Departmental Committee, as I have already stated, is intended to be authoritative rather than representative, but, apart from this, a Vice-Regal Commission is now sitting to inquire into the present working of Irish railways and by what methods it can be improved. In view of these circumstances, special representation of Irish interests on the Departmental Committee would hardly seem necessary, but they will not be precluded by their terms of reference from taking evidence with regard to Ireland should they so desire on any particular point.

asked the Lord Advocate whether he will grant the Return asked for with reference to dismissals of Poor Law medical officers in Scotland, and the trouble thereby entailed on the poor?

If my hon. Friend will move for a Return showing in how many and what parishes during the past three years Poor Law medical officers in Scotland have vacated office, and what period in each case has elapsed before the appointments have been permanently refilled, the Government will offer me no opposition.

asked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that the owners of Skeyne's farm, Edenbridge, have offered the Kent County Council the option of purchasing the said farm for the purposes of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act; whether if he can state if the council is negotiating for its acquisition; if so, how far has the matter proceeded; and whether he is aware that applications for the land have been made by members of the Edenbridge Land Club, Limited, who are fully capable of guaranteeing three years' rent as required?

The Kent County Council were unable to entertain the offer to purchase Skeyne's farm, inasmuch as the owners wished to include in the sale a large house adjoining the farm which is not suitable for small holdings. Nor could the council acquire the farm on lease, as it had been already let for ten years. We understand that application was made on the 9th inst. for the land by the secretary of the Edenbridge Land Club, and we would suggest that full information as to the financial resources of the club should be sent to the county council.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a contract for the supply of brooms and brushes to a London gas-company has been entered into recently by the Prisons Commissioners; and whether, seeing that such brooms and brushes are made by prison labour, and in view of the effect of such competition upon artisans in the brushmaking trade, steps will be taken by His Majesty's Government to stop such competition by prison-made goods in future?

The contract in question is in accordance with the principles laid down in 1895 by the Committee on Prisons with the assent of representatives of the Trades Union Congress, and I see no reason for any departure from the conclusions then arrived at. The greatest possible care is taken not to sell goods made in prison below the market price, or to interfere in any way with wages or the employment of free labour.

Can the prison authorities dispose of all the brushes and mats made?

That is a very wide question. Naturally, they seek orders. Perhaps the hon. Member will let me know more definitely what he wishes to ascertain?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state whether £325,133 was the cost of valuing all rateable property in Ireland under the Act of 1852, or whether to obtain the cost of valuing the whole country some, and, if so, what, sum should be added for property previously valued under the Act of 1846 and not revalued under the subsequent Act; does this sum apply to Treasury expenditure alone; and, if so, what was the cost to local authorities in addition; and what was the total value of Ireland as shown by the valuation under the Acts of 1846 and 1852?

£325,133 was the cost of valuing all rateable property in Ireland under the Acts of 1846 and 1852. To ascertain the cost of the valuation made under the latter Act a considerable deduction would have to be made from the sum named. This total cost was met by the Treasury in the first instance and afterwards refunded to them by the local authorities. The total rateable value of Ireland was roughly £13,000,000.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can see his way to allow British subjects resident in the Isle of Man to claim abatement of Income Tax on small incomes under the Finance Bill now before the House of Commons in the same way that they do at present?

British subjects resident in the Isle of Man are in precisely the same position in regard to taxation levied in the United Kingdom as are British subjects resident in the other parts of the Empire outside the limits of the United Kingdom. There would, therefore, be grave objections to adopting my hon. Friend's suggestion, the effect of which would be to discriminate unfavourably against residents in other British possessions.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can see his way to extend the exemption he has promised to the small occupying owner to the numerous class of small property owners in towns who let the cottage they own and rent one for their own occupation?

I regret that I cannot see my way to accept my hon. Friend's suggestion.

On what principle does the right hon. Gentleman distinguish between the two categories of small owners?

One is a case of the occupying owner, and the other is a case of a person who owns.

Is occupation the sole claim to exemption?

No, Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the claim for exemption?

There are a great many exemptions under the Finance Act.

Will he tell us what is the reason for a claim for exemption?

I have already stated that.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has made any calculation as to the total area of land which will be subject to the duty on undeveloped land?

I am unable to say what will be the total area of land subject to Undeveloped Land Duty.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has estimated the amount a; between two and three million acres?

No; I am not aware of that.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state what proportion of the revenue of £350,000 anticipated from the duty of id. in the £ on capital value of undeveloped land and ungotten minerals will be derived from the tax on undeveloped land?

I am unable to give a precise estimate as to the proportion of the total revenue which will fall under each head.

How does the right hon. Gentleman arrive at the figure of £350,000?

The estimate was made in the usual way.

In order to arrive at any estimate, was it not necessary to make an estimate of the undeveloped land and of the ungotten minerals? Is there any reason why we should not have these estimates?

The estimate was taken in these two cases together, and amounted to the total sum of £350,000.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that the Ungotten Mineral Duty will produce as an estimate £175,000.

No; I am not aware of that fact.

Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the Chancellor before answering these questions?

I have done so.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in valuing the site value of land used solely for sporting purposes, the value of such rights is to be taken into consideration?

The answer is in the affirmative.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the hay at first supplied to the horses of the Worcestershire Yeomanry during their recent training was quite uneatable; and whether he will caution the contractors concerned?

The General Officer Commanding reports that with regard to the hay which was at first supplied to the Worcestershire Yeomanry during this year's training, some trusses were rejected, not because they were uneatable, but because they consisted of hard hay, and the regiment preferred soft hay. All trusses rejected were willingly exchanged by the contractor. No further action is considered necessary.

Will the right hon. Gentleman allow the county associations to do their own contracting?

No; that cannot be done. The question is founded on a total misunderstanding. In camp these things are supplied by the Commander-in-Chief and the staff under him. The change has been made from the old system in order to ensure complete preparation for war.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to draw a distinction between hay which is uneatable and the hay which the horses refuse to eat?

If the hon. Member will inquire of any officer of experience in regard to the matter he will find the answer is not unreasonable.

I have had a good deal of experience myself in buying hay at the time of the South African War—

The hon. Member must reserve his remarks until a proper opportunity.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make general inquiry into the subject, because it is obvious that there are general complaints as to the supply of oats and hay to Yeomanry regiments?

I am quite aware that there have been a good many complaints, and there will be until the system is established.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the horse rugs supplied to the Worcestershire Yeomanry during their recent training were of very inferior quality; and whether he will take steps to see that the Yeomanry are supplied with as good rugs as are supplied to the Regular Cavalry?

No complaint has been received in the War Office concerning these horse rugs. There is no reason to suppose that they were of inferior quality, as they were new and of the latest pattern introduced for the service, no distinction being made between the Yeomanry and Regular Cavalry in this respect.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Michael Bourke, late private in the Leinster Regiment, enlisted in 1897, discharged February, 1908, length. of service 10 years and 166 days, cause of discharge medically unfit for service through tuberculosis, war service in South Africa, two medals, character very good, pension 8d. per day, application made for increase, 1909, not granted; and whether, owing to the state of this man's health and his inability to do any work, and that the pension is unable to keep him, this case will be further considered, with the view to grant such increase in the pension as will enable him to live outside the work-house?

The Medical Board, by whom this man was invalided, reported that the tuberculosis which caused his discharge was the result of exposure while on manœuvres at Aldershot in August, 1907. His medical history sheet in no way supports the statement that the disease was due to war service in South Africa. In these circumstances his present pension of 8d. a day is the highest rate which can be awarded him under the regulations.

Am I to understand that this man who gave more than 10 years, the best years of his life, in your service, is now going to be allowed to starve?

This man has got a pension of 8d. a day, which the Regulations lay down as the amount of pension to be given to a man who has been invalided under such conditions.

May I ask whether you charge him Income Tax on that 8d. a day?

asked the Prime Minister whether the inquiry of the Subcommittee of Imperial Defence into the state of the Navy has extended to an investigation on the spot into the efficiency or sufficiency or otherwise of stores, war munitions, and coal; and whether any decision has been arrived at as to the communication of the results of the investigation to the public?

The results of the investigation will in due course be made public, and the exact scope of the inquiry will then become apparent.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a meeting on Sunday last, in Trafalgar Square, attended by hundreds of blind persons who demand better facilities for the technical training of the sightless and workshops for their employment; whether he is aware that of over 20,000 blind adults in the country not 3,000 are provided for in existing workshops; and whether he can promise an early opportunity for the passage of the Bill which has been introduced to afford the assistance required by the blind?

I am aware of the demand that has been made from time to time for the provision of better facilities for the technical training of the blind. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware the Royal Commission of 1889 reported against State aid in this connection, and recommended that the care and training of the blind should be left to private benevolence. I can only repeat the assurance given by my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, to a recent deputation from the Trades Congress, that the Government regard this question with sympathy, and that they will give their consideration to any representations in support of State aid for the industrial training of the blind that may be made to them. I am afraid I cannot hold out any expectation of facilities for the Bill mentioned in the last paragraph of the hon. Member's question.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the very severe handicap under which sightless persons labour in regard to any opportunity of earning their living, and whether, inasmuch as he is unable to afford any facilities for the further progress of the Bill, and in view of the proved insufficiency of means for providing for them by charitable effort, he can suggest that some action should be taken to assist these blind persons through the State Departments?

I have answered that already, and said that the Government "will give their consideration to any representations in support of State aid for the industrial training of the blind that may be made to them."

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the inquest on Mrs. Wilson, aged 68, of Water-street, Manchester, which shows that her death was accelerated by starvation; and whether, in view of the distressed circumstances of many old people below 70 years, he can promise any special provision for grants or pensions to prevent any such case recurring?

:I have not been able to obtain any official information as to the case to which the hon. Member refers, and I am afraid that at the present moment I can give no such pledge as he suggests as to the extension of old age pensions to persons below 70 years of age.

Will the Prime Minister say when the promised Bill to amend the Old Age Pensions Act is likely to be introduced?

I cannot say at this moment. Will the hon. Member put down a question?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in several cases old people of nearly 70 have died from starvation from the fear that if they went to the guardians they would be deprived of their old age pensions?

I am not aware of that. I am very sorry to hear if it is the case. I am very sorry to hear that there are such cases.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the protracted opposition to the Budget Bill delays the progress of all useful legislation?

asked the Prime Minister if he can state the result of the investigations of the Naval Committee of Inquiry?

The Committee has not yet finished its deliberations.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea when those deliberations will be complete, and whether we shall ever get a Report?

The deliberations have not been unduly prolonged. The taking of evidence only concluded ten days ago, and if the Committee's judgment is to be of any value they must have some time to consider the very important points which have been raised.

Will there be any Report?

have already stated there will.

May I ask the Home Secretary if he is aware that some police constables engaged in the House were on duty for 18 hours yesterday and this morning, and had to return to duty after only a short absence this morning; and whether the right hon. Gentleman will make inquiries with a view to having arrangements made whereby constables on duty in the House shall be relieved at a reasonable time?

I am aware of the facts. I have been myself on duty for 24 hours. It is quite clear that relief arrangements cannot be organised to meet the exceptional conditions of very long sittings. When such occur, the practice is for the constables to get time off. They have short rest intervals during the sitting and get Is. a day extra.

Is it not a fact that during the sitting last night certain constables were relieved, whereas others were kept on duty the whole of the 18 hours, and did not get the relief because they were back here on duty at 12 o'clock this morning?

That is a question of which I have no knowledge. If the hon. Member will speak to me about it, I will look into it. The disadvantage of these long sittings has to be considered relatively to other privileges enjoyed by the police.

Can the First Lord of the Admiralty give any information with regard to the lamentable accident to two submarines of His Majesty's fleet?

I will give the House the latest information I have in regard to this deplorable accident. Submarine C 11 was in collision with the merchant ship "Eddystone" last night, and was sunk. The wreck has been located by sweeping 4½ miles north-west of the Haisborough lightship, off Cromer, in 15 fathoms of water. The Commander-in-Chief at the Nore, who had previously dispatched assistance on receipt of the news, has been directed to undertake salvage operations. Two battleships and two salvage lighters and several torpedo-boat destroyers are on their way to the scene of the wreck. C 17, another submarine, which was also in collision with another submarine at the same time in trying to avoid the steamer, has been badly damaged, and is being towed to Sheerness. No lives were lost in C 17, but I regret to have to inform the House that, in C 11, 11 men weredrowned, and only three were saved—Lieutenant Brodie, Lieutenant Watkins, and able-seaman Stripes.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these vessels are supplied with safety apparatus?

I should have to inquire into the circumstances of the particular case. I presume they were.

I desire to ask your ruling and your advice on a matter of procedure arising out of an unfortunate incident in last night's proceedings, as a result of which I submit that one of my colleagues, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne), has suffered an injustice. I will just state the facts.

I have nothing to do with the facts. I cannot listen to ex parte statements from the hon. Member. Whatever took place took place with the Chairman of Ways and Means in the Chair, and, of course, he is the sole judge of the proceedings. I understood the hon. Member was going to ask my advice as to what subsequent proceedings he could take. I could give him that.

Then I desire to ask your advice as to the form in which I can raise this matter, with a view of getting the minute recording the proceedings, that is, the suspension of the hon. Member for West Ham, expunged from the Journals of the House. How much notice should I have to give of it, and in what form could I raise it?

The hon. Member can put down notice of a Motion to expunge that part of the Journal to which he objects. Of course, he would have to find his own time to bring it on, or he would have to ask the Government to find time for him to do so. That is one course open to him. Another course is that where hon. Members do not approve the decision of the Chair, whether I happen to be in the Chair or the Chairman of Ways and Means, they can give notice of a Motion to censure the Chair for the particular decision.

I have no desire or intention of resorting to the last method, but might I ask the Prime Minister if he would be disposed to grant time to discuss a Motion in accordance with the first method?

The hon. Member had better first put his Motion down, and give the Prime Minister an opportunity of seeing it.

Is there any procedure in the House for the protection of hon. Members beyond the mere withdrawal of any statement made by an hon. Member? In the event of a serious accusation being made against an hon. Member of the House beyond the withdrawal of the accusation is there any procedure whereby hon. Members can be further protected? Several of the public have expressed their views this morning, and the impression on their minds is that, although the accusation is withdrawn, there is still a charge to the detriment of an hon. Member of the House, and I should like to know, in case of any future occurrences, whether there is any procedure whereby the House itself can do justice to an hon. Member?

I have no knowledge of what occurred. The Official Report is not yet published, and the reports in the papers may or may not be reliable. My mind is not affected in the least by anything which I have seen. The hon. Gentleman asks me whether the hon. Member can receive any protection beyond calling for a false charge to be withdrawn. I am not aware of any. Anyhow, whatever is done should be done at the moment. An appeal should be made to the Chair instanter, and the matter decided then and there. It is impossible to reopen these questions after they are once decided.

Might I ask—there have already been embellishments of the incident in the gutter Press—has the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne) any redress in a legal sense?

I should want a considerable fee for advising the hon. Member on a point of law.

I desire to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day three months." The Bill is of an omnibus character, and gives very-wide and far-reaching powers to the North-Eastern Railway Company. In the Memorandum which they have issued they state that the principal works embodied in the Bill are a railway at West Dunston, in the county of Durham, with staiths, shipping places, quays, wharves or works for the shipment of coal. It is in regard to the erection of these staiths for shipment at Dunstan, Hull, and other places that I desire to say a few words. I find that in Clause 46 they take powers to levy certain charges for shipments which may take place at these places. The clause says:—"The company may demand, receive, and take from the master or owner of any vessel using any staiths, shipping places, quays, wharves, or works made by them in connection with railway No. 3 by this Act authorised a sum not exceeding one halfpenny per ton registered and when and so soon as such staiths, shipping places, quays, wharves, or works shall have been brought into use the company may also demand, receive, and take a like sum per registered ton from the master or owner of any vessel using any staiths, shipping places, quays, wharves, or works made by the company in connection with railway No. 1 authorised by the North-Eastern Railway Act 1887 and railway No. 4, authorised by the North-Eastern Railway Act 1898. "The clause leaves such charges optional, and my contention is we ought not to give a railway company power to make these particular charges at their will, but that they ought to be somewhat compulsory. I want to take the clearest case I can in order to illustrate my argument. This company owns the Hartlepool Docks and also the Tyne Dock, and the borough I have the honour to represent (Sunderland) lies between those two places. I have tried to get to know from the Board of Trade and also from the company how the charges for coal are levied at these particular places for the use of staiths and other means of shipment, but up to the present I have not been able to get any information whatever to enable me to withhold the statement I now make, that in some cases at Tyne Dock they do not make the charges they are seeking the power to levy in this Bill. What applies to this company I think applies to all companies owning docks and shipping. Their accounts are made up in such a way that no one inside or outside this House can tell what is railway and what is shipping revenue, nor can we make sure that the revenue appertaining to railway purposes is used for railway purposes only, or that the revenue derived from the docks is used for dock purposes only. If any gentleman wanted to ship coal at the Tyne Dock he would find he would be able to do it at something like l¼d. per registered ton, against 2½d. per registered ton at Sunderland. This, I think hon. Members will readily concede, leads to unfair competition by railway companies owning docks against harbour authorities, who are bound to levy dues in order to get the necessary revenue to pay the expenses of their ports. I contend that before any additional powers of this character are conceded to railway companies the Board of Trade ought to be in a position to be able to indicate that there is going to be a method of keeping railway accounts which shall show the revenue and expenditure of their docks separately. I put a question a short time ago to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. H. J. Tennant), and I have received a reply saying that the revenue and expenditure from docks is not shown separately in railway companies' accounts as now rendered, but the Departmental Committee which has recently reported on railway companies' accounts and statistics recommend a form of account which will give this information. This form of account giving this information is, I submit, essential in the interests of fairness, and the House ought to withhold any additional powers from railway companies until such time as this recommendation has been put into operation. I contend that when this House conceded a monopoly to a company in the shape of a railway, it never intended that the railway, when owning docks, should take railway revenue and utilise it for their docks. If they ship coal at the Tyne Dock at l¼d. per registered ton less than at Sunderland, then revenue must be obtained from some other source in order to enable them to do so, and I am here to-night to appeal to the House in all sincerity that the time has arrived when it should say that a railway company must not use revenue derived from its railway in order to compete with its docks against the docks of harbour authorities, I appeal to the busi- ness spirit of the Members of the House, who are always very keen to protect the industries up and down the country, and especially anything which appertains toll municipality, against unfair competition. It is estimated that this unfair competition of this company, with regard to the Tyne Docks as against the River Wear, means something like £50,000 or £60,000 per annum in the shape of a gift to the coal owners, and no port in the world which is governed toy a harbour commission bound to levy dues can withstand competition of that character. We ought to be able to understand what amount this company receives in dock dues as distinct from railway dues, and if it is proved that they are taking railway revenue in order to help these privileged coal owners, then we have a right to come to this House and demand it shall stop that practice at once and so put an end to such unfair methods of competition. This Bill is of a far-reaching character, and the company have supplied me with a tabulated statement of their charges, but I would like to point out that that statement stops at the very point at which it ought to begin. There is nothing in this statement with regard to the shipping of coal, and that is the point of my principal contention. I hope that hon. Members who speak on behalf of the company will be able to prove that railway revenue has not been taken in order to bolster up these docks. But even if they do prove that, it does not interfere with my contention that the Board of Trade should step in and see that the company keep their accounts in a manner which can be understood by anyone who desires to see them. Another point I have to raise is in connection with their attitude towards their clerks. Pressure is being brought to bear upon the clerks to leave their association. It is alleged in the statement issued by the company that there are only about three hundred clerks affected by this. But my information is that no fewer than 3,000 are affected by this pressure being brought to bear upon them. This House has always been in favour of fair play in regard to men joining associations which they think fit and proper. These men have joined the Clerks' Association, and, in view of the decision of this House, particularly in regard to the Post Office Department, where the right of men to combine in trades unions has been acknowledged, it surely cannot be allowed that this company should bring pressure to bear upon 3,000 out of 6,000 of their clerks to leave their association. Some of them have already been forced from their positions because of their refusal, and I think it is the duty of this House to bring pressure to bear upon the company to stop this practice. Inasmuch as they are now seeking increased powers and asking the House to grant them increased facilities in regard to the docks, I do suggest that this matter should be particularly forced upon their attention. It is necessary this company should not have the option to make charges, but that they should be compelled to impose them, and thus be prevented from unfairly competing with ports which are governed by Harbour Commissions, who necessarily have to make these charges.

:I rise to second the Motion, and for this reason. Whether inside or outside the House of Commons, I am a trades unionist first and a politician afterwards, and when any company or individual asks this House for certain powers and seeks to get my support for their proposals I am not going to vote for them unless they are prepared to treat their employés in a proper manner. I do not wish to use hard words about the manager of this company. I have spoken to him, and I should say he is anything but a martinet. I may say at once I think that, in the interests of the company itself, the manager is adopting a very unwise policy, so far as the clerks employed by his company are concerned. I have given the best years of my life to the trades union movement. I was a secretary to my own trade society for 28 years. During the whole of that period I never dictated to the employer what men he should or should not employ. The policy I pursued was, if we disagreed with a man, it was better to leave it to the union to settle with him. That policy always worked very well. I was for 15 years a member of the London County Council. There we had an enormous staff of clerks, but I venture to assert that the London County Council, even with its present Moderate majority, would not dare to interfere with the right of combination of the chief clerk, with his £2,000 a year, down to the humblest road sweeper employed on the Thames Embankment. The reason I mention that is that the manager as an excuse says that a certain number of these clerks are confidential servants. We all realise that. It does not matter whether it is in the workshop, the factory, in the service of a railway company, or in the service of a municipality, we realise, as sensible men, that a certain number of men are confidential servants, but I say that the policy adopted by this particular company is one of persecution. I do not know any railway company, in England at least, adopting towards its employés the course which they adopt, and I guarantee that if the door was made open to-morrow the confidential servants would not join the union. Why do I say that? I am a mechanic myself, and I have seen men rise from the ranks of the journeymen and become foremen, and the moment a man rises to a position above his fellow men in that direction, what does he do? He does not become the friend of his fellow workmen; certainly not. The very fact of his being put in a position by his employer means that if there is going to be a fight he must be the servant of his employer, and not of his fellow men. Therefore the unions are better without that type of men, and I know a union today that, the moment one of their members is put in a position over his fellow men, they strike his name off the books. You might just as well say that because certain clerks are confidential clerks at Spring Gardens they should not be allowed to join a union, but there is no embargo placed upon them, and they do not join the union, and there the door is open. Here, however, every clerk accuses this company of persecution, which has been going on for years past, and I can prove this from the facts at my disposal. I say, moreover, that the representatives of the union and of these men, the railway clerks, have done every possible thing they could do to settle this in a satisfactory manner before bringing it to the floor of this House, and they failed. I wonder what employer would get up in this House, whatever his politics may be, and tell us that 50 per cent. of his workpeople are confidential men.

The House must be struck with the fact that neither of the two hon. Members who have spoken have attacked the principle of the Bill. I rise for the purpose of supporting the Motion for the second reading on the merits of the Bill. I am quite aware that there is a large question looming in the future, which will have to be settled one way or another, in regard to keeping separate accounts in regard to docks, shipping, and other undertakings, but this is not the occasion on which an important question of that description can be threshed out. I am also aware that there are grievances, some, no doubt, real, others probably more or less-imaginary, on the part of clerks in connection with railway companies, and the question whether or not they ought to join unions; but this is not a time when that question can be threshed out. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion referred to 3,000 clerks of this company who were affected in the way he called attention to. Then he acknowledged that it was alleged on the part of the railway company that there were only 300. That shows how impossible it is that we can deal with that important question to-night.

I did not acknowledge it. I said the allegation was made, and I refuted it.

That just shows the difference of opinion that there is in regard to this matter. But the question we have to consider to-night is whether we are, or are not, going to consent to the second reading. The hon. Member (Mr. Steadman) appealed to the House to throw out the Bill in the interest of the clerks, but the House has to consider if it throws out this Bill, if it is not going to inflict a still greater injustice upon a very much larger number of people. This is an omnibus Bill to carry out various works in Northumberland, Durham, and Yorkshire. The first point they ask is for extended time in which to carry out an important railway already authorised in the new Doncaster coal district. If the Bill is thrown out, that railway will be abandoned, and large numbers of the working classes will be without the work which they are so anxious to get. The next important point is to ask for powers to increase the coal shipping accommodation on the Tyne. The trading community on the Tyne, especially those connected with the shipping and coal trade, have been clamouring for some time for the railway company to increase facilities for coal shipping on the Tyne. Here is an opportunity offered by the railway company to give increased facilities and they propose to spend £212,000 for the purpose and it is very significant that when the Bill was introduced there was certain opposition on the part of chambers of commerce and other trading authorities in. regard to the charge for dues, but the railway company fairly met the trading community, with the result that that opposition was withdrawn. That fact of itself is significant. It shows that the trading community on the Tyne require the extra facilities which this Bill would afford. Pretty much the same thing can be said in the case of Hull, where the railway company are going to spend £112,000 in providing new jetties and quays. I believe I am correct in saying that there also is a general desire that these great works should be carried out. I cannot imagine how the delay of these great works is in any way going to help the clerks, whatever their grievances may be. Does anyone believe that outside questions of this description are to be compared with important issues raised by the Bill? I sincerely trust that the House will give the Bill a second reading. May I appeal to the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Steadman) from another point of view? He tells us he is a trade unionist. He tells us also that certain clerks remain in the employ of the railway company because they are afraid they may lose their situations if they disobey the orders of the company. He said that it is a matter of life and death and bread and butter to these men. I would reply that it is a matter of life and death to a far greater number of men in the northern counties of England in the coming winter that they should have the employment which they will receive in carrying out these great works if this Bill is passed. It is for that reason that I appeal particularly to the Members of the Labour party to withdraw their opposition to the Bill. I cannot believe that they will succeed in throwing out the measure, but if they did, men who are anxious and ready for work which will be given by the Bill will in the coming winter, instead of being employed in honourable, productive industry, have to make appeals to the Government to give them doles to enable them to tide over the winter. No doubt there is a desire that the grievance of the clerks should be inquired into, but I maintain that it is not on the second reading of this Bill that the House can do anything effective in dealing with such questions. For these reasons I have the greatest pleasure in supporting the second reading.

I am perfectly sure that everyone in this House will share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. Renwick) that it is necessarily with the greatest reluctance that this House interferes with the progress of works of public utility. It is only when the provocation, if I may use the word, is very serious that we feel on either side constrained to take that course. I have been a Member of this House for a great many years, and I have never thought it right on any previous occasion to take up the attitude I take now. With all respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. T. Summerbell), I do not think it is any business of this House to interfere with the natural flow of competition between railway companies and dock companies, and for my part I think the whole of this controversy must be decided upon the question of labour. I am bound to say that it seemed to me that the hon. Member who seconded the Motion for the rejection of this Bill placed the matter in the highest light possible when he said that, so far as the higher officers of the company are concerned, it would be highly improbable that those persons who are intimate with the general or secret policy of the company would become members of the union. It is not at all likely that persons in receipt of the large salaries paid by the railway company to the higher officers would find it conducive to their interests to become members of a trade union. But there are about 6,000 clerks in the employment of this company, and it is only an infinitesimal number of those clerks who would come within the category of confidential clerks, and we may quite well leave the interests of those gentlemen to the natural course of events in connection with the carrying on of a great concern like this: I do not know what action the Government intend to take. I believe the President of the Board of Trade, who is not here at present, is engaged on business of a public character where his services are required. I venture to suggest to my hon. Friend who represents the Board of Trade (Mr. H. J. Tennant) that he should not throw the weight of his opinion or that of the Government he represents to the coercing or restraining of the free and unfettered action of the House. The Board of Trade, through its present chief and its late chief, has rendered conspicuous service in the settling of labour disputes, and I think the chief officers of the North-Eastern Railway Company—managers and others—are competent and large-minded men. I think the representative of the Board of Trade might use his influence—and I believe it could be done successfully—to receive an assurance from those gentlemen that they will not insist upon this seeming, if not actual, interference with the clerks of the company and their freedom of action. One of the public Departments —namely, the Post Office—has given absolutely unfettered freedom of action to its employés, and I have been assured by the present Postmaster-General and his predecessor that this freedom of action has not in any way interfered with the discipline of that Department or the due discharge of the work. I speak as the Member for a Constituency served by the North-Eastern Railway system; I speak also as one who dislikes to use the machinery of this Bill as a sort of whip for interfering with the management of a railway company; but I think this action is an oppressive action, and under those circumstances I urge the Government to use all their influence to get some withdrawal from the railway company.

I enter into this discussion somewhat reluctantly, and I differ with my colleague the hon. Member for the city of Newcastle (Mr. Renwick) to this extent, that really this is the time and this is the place to have matters out so far as those misunderstandings are concerned. As an old North-Eastern man for over a quarter of a century, I cannot understand the attitude of the railway company in this particular matter. They are acting not only unfairly, but they are acting very unwisely. Why there should be further restrictions on combination I am at a loss to understand. I remember, about 16 years ago we had this matter threshed out before the then general manager, and it was left in this way, that the clerks should have the full right to combination up to the position of confidential clerk. They did set up the right to say that they should not join the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, but that point was waived. Until quite recently, in 1907, it was quite understood that there would be no interference with this class of employé. I have, to the best of my ability, attempted to get the railway company to at least go back to their original position, but the last words of the railway company, up to yesterday, was as follows—this is a letter to the Clerks' Association, and it defines the decision of the railway company with regard to the right of combination of clerks. It reads:—

"In reply to your letter of the 4th inst., the clerks I refer to are those in head offices or responsible positions, and generally those whose work is more or less of a confidential character as distinguished from a clerk whose work is largely routine."

That is a very proper point to raise in Committee, but it is not suitable for discussion on the second reading that a particular road should be made in a particular spot. The House really cannot consider that on the second reading.

I obey your ruling, Sir. I may say generally that matters have gone so far on this question that the trades and Labour Council consider that the interests involved have not yet been clearly defined, and that there should be an assurance given that they will be considered. On the question of the clerks and the right of combination, unless we receive an assurance that the full right of combination will be given to these men this House, on principle at least, should reject the Bill.

I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Finsbury, who I know, from personal ex- perience, has the truest interests of trade unionism at heart, and I believe he is a Member who would make no allegations in a debate of this nature unless he was satisfied himself that he could sustain them. I desire to lay before the House the position of the railway company, regretting very much that there is no direct representative of the management of the company in this House, because, unavoidably to a certain extent, the proceedings-here to-night have been somewhat in the nature of arraigning the party thought to be guilty, and bringing charges against that party who is not in a position to cross-examine the witnesses or to defend himself. I will confine my remarks to the question of the Railway Clerks' Association, and the relation of that association to the railway company at the present moment. There is one difficulty in the way of the claim that the Railway Clerks' Association makes in the circular which has been sent, I believe, to every Member of this House. The Association makes a claim that any clerk, no matter what his duties may be, should be free to join the association. There I think we come at once to the point where there must be a somewhat sharp division of opinion amongst us, quite independently of party politics. The man who is a whole-hearted trade unionist, like the Member for Fins-bury and other hon. Members who have spoken this evening, will, of course, agree with that claim. Though a claim of that nature may be a claim that can be justified in a Department like the Post Office, or in a municipal body, I do not think that any company of business men in this country, so long as our industry exists on its present competitive and capitalist basis, could agree with that. The point of view that the business man or the company takes, though they may be as friendly to trade unions as men can be, is this: The individual or the company will give to every man in his or their employ the fullest liberty to join whatsoever union that man thinks right, with the one exception that has been alluded to by the hon. Member for Finsbury, that is the man who is performing confidential work. On this term "of confidential work" the crux of our trouble arises. The House will bear with me for two or three minutes while I examine what comes under that head. I should like to remind the House that if my information is correct, the Amalgamated Society—and I hope the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Richard Bell) will correct me if I am wrong, for my first-hand knowledge of that society is very small—do not claim that every person connected with the working of a railroad shall become a member of that organisation. They rather claim that their society is for what we may call "the worker." It is not always easy to define the "workers" as distinct from anyone in a position of authority under a railway company. If I am correctly informed it is with the full consent of the Amalgamated Society, together with the railway companies, that men in such a position as that of a stationmaster are freely allowed to withdraw from the Union on attaining to that post. Following that analogy, I think anyone familiar with railway work would say that amongst clerks occupying positions where the management would think that it was undesirable that they should be connected with the Union, such positions as these—confidential clerks in such an office as the general manager's, or the solicitor's, or the secretary's office; staff clerks who have to deal with wage questions, and have to prepare the rates of wages and information generally used before the committees of arbitration that have recently been formed under the Act passed 18 months ago; and clerks, wherever you get them, and there are not so many of these who are in what you may call positions of command.

I think the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Baldwin) must have convinced all Members that there is a very important principle involved in this matter, and one which comes very well within the cognisance of the House. The speech of the Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. Renwick), plausible as it was, is, I think, shown to be not quite an accurate statement of the case. He said that the House ought to confine itself to considering the merits of the Bill. The House never can consider the merits of Bills of this kind. It is not within the power of the House to know the details, or to enter into the consideration of them. When these Bills come up for second reading, all that the House can do is to see whether there is any general principle involved which may justify the House in taking a very strong step in the matter. The appeal ad misericordiam of the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Renwick), when he said that the House, if they refuse the second reading, would delay the expenditure of money and a large amount of work, is also, I venture to say, beside the question. If there is a principle involved, we ought to take the risk of that. I suppose these different public works, or these different extensions are going to pay, or otherwise, I suppose, the railway company would not be asking for them. I feel quite sure, as a business man, that if they have the knowledge that they are going to pay, they will go on whatever the House does in this matter. The House must not be led away by any kind of false tenderness, either that they ought to consider the details or that they would be delaying work and causing unemployment.

Whatever may be the opinions of some people in regard to some of my views, no one will question my attitude towards trade unionism. I have spent upwards of 30 years in building up trade unions, and I hope, by their aid, I have done something to improve the lot of railway men in this country. If there is anything that would stir my blood, or make me take up a fighting attitude, it is the undue, or unfair, interference with the liberty of employés to join a trade union. In regard to the complaints put forward by the Railway Clerks' Association, I felt that it was my duty, as one Member of this House, to do what I could to get that embargo, if it existed, removed. There are very few Members, if any, who represent as many railway clerks as I do, inasmuch as the headquarters of the Midland Railway Company, where between 2,500 and 3,000 clerks are employed, are situated in my Constituency. I have received complaints from the local branch of the Railway Clerks' Association, and if the charges made against the North - Eastern Railway Company were correct, I should think that this House was the very place to bring pressure upon that or any company which interfered to that extent with the liberty of its employés; and that caused me to (make some inquiries into the matter. It has been a little easier for me, perhaps, to approach the heads of this railway than it would have been to approach the heads of many others, since for the last 12 or 14 years negotiations on all matters affecting the interests of the staff have been carried on direct between the heads of the North-Eastern Railway Company and the head office of my own organisation. Consequently, I have frequently met the general manager and other heads of departments of that railway, and nothing surprised me more than the allegations made against the general manager. I felt that there was something wrong somewhere. Having occasion to see the general manager yesterday on another matter, I took the opportunity of raising this question, and he went into the whole subject as far as he knew it. I impressed upon him the necessity of something being done in the matter in order to clear it up, as no trade unionist could support a Bill promoted by any employer who took such action as was alleged against this company. The general manager told me practically what the hon. Member for Wor- cester (Mr. Baldwin) has just put before the House. I was not quite satisfied, and said that I ought to have something more definite in writing in order that the whole facts might be placed before the House, so that it might form its own judgment. Since I came to the House this afternoon I have received from the general manager a statement of the position so far as he is concerned, putting rather a different complexion upon the statement we have heard from the other side. Of course, I do not dispute the veracity of the Clerks' Association in putting their case forward; I am sure they have done so in good faith. The general manager has sent me a copy of the whole correspondence between himself and the secretary of the Railway Clerks' Association from September, 1907, to July 13th of this year. There is also included a list of names of men who, it is said, have been compelled to resign their membership of the Railway Clerks' Association or have been intimidated to such an extent that they were prevented from joining. The gist of the general manager's communication is that he never intended that any such number as 3,000 of the North - Eastern Railway Company's clerks should be debarred from joining the Railway Clerks' Association, and that so far as this list of names was concerned, he would make inquiries into the cases referred to. I had better read an extract from his letter. "I have already," he says, "decided to make full inquiries, and to take any necessary steps to ensure that the lines laid down in the instruction are not exceeded." The instruction he referred to is that given to the heads of departments. "And" (he continues) "that there is no persecution of clerks for joining the association." You may rest assured that this will be done. I know the general manager of the North-Eastern Railway Company, and have confidence in him to know that if he says he will do a thing he will do it. I have had dealings with him for years now, and have every confidence in him. But I think it right to-hold the general manager to what he has stated here. I do not think there will be very much difficulty in showing that he refers to the points raised by the Railway Clerks' Association; that the whole of the names, irrespective of what the position of the men may be, shall be allowed to join the Railway Clerks' Association. The second point is a matter of detail. The general manager says:—

"I am quite prepared to re-consider the contention contained in my letter of the 8th October, 1907, with a view to seeing whether a more precise definition can be adopted. It is certainly not my intention that 3,000 of my clerks, or anything like it, should be debarred from joining the association."

Why did he not say that to the officials of the men?

I am stating here what I have endeavoured to do as representing a constituency of clerks, and what I have had told to me and written to me I will rightly use here. An opportunity has opened here, and I have taken it; and if I were the secretary of the Clerks' Association I should certainly take advantage of it, and be here early in order to try to negotiate on these lines. I demur considerably to the Junior Member for Newcastle (Mr. Renwick) when he said that this is not the place to discuss matters of this kind. I maintain it is. We ought to take advantage of the opportunity, and, having placed these facts before the House, the question now is as to whether or not the Railway Clerks' Association will seek to have the embargo removed.

We all recognise the enormous work that the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Steadman) has done on behalf of trade unionism. It has been said that this Bill contains no material dealing with this question of joining or retaining membership of the Clerks' Association. That is so; but I quite realise that the railway clerks' question is the important question which has been raised in this Debate this evening. I am glad the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bell) stated that clerks when they arrived at the positions of superiority or when they had come to be overseers and so on, naturally left the union, and that if they did not go out of their own accord the union officials generally requested them to resign—that is to say, when men who get promoted do not wish any longer to belong to the union, nor do the union wish to retain them when they have reached these positions of re-sponsibility in the companies. The words of the letter of the general manager of the company have already been read to the House. Perhaps I may be permitted to summarise them once more. The general manager said that he thought that men in prominent positions of responsibility ought not to be allowed to remain members of the Railway Clerks' Association, and clerks in head offices in responsible positions, such as those who occupy positions of a more or less confidential character as distinguished from clerks whose work is largely routine. I do not say that is language of a very definite character in the use of the words, and I think the definition is too wide, and ought to be restricted. I also think it has been interpreted in a manner which was never intended by the general manager. I think too zealous officials have enforced it strictly.

We take all in.

Yes, but he would not welcome part of the management or overseers. There are employés who, although not actually managers, are so nearly managers as to be part of the executive. He would not like them to be members of his union. He would not expect them to join.

We take them all in.

Well, I am surprised the hon. Member for Derby said that as soon as members of his union become overseers and that like they ceased to be members. I have stated frankly and freely what my position is in regard to this matter. I think the company have blundered in the past, but I think we have got from them very considerable concessions. [Cries of "No, no."] I think we have got concessions from them as to their conduct in the future. Are we to decline to give a railway to a particular district because of certain blunders in the past? I am bound to say that would be rather hard on the district and I think that the passing of this Bill would be an advantage to the district. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I decline, because of blunders that have been made in the past, to penalise the company and the district in this manner.

Before this Debate commenced, hearing that certain negotiations were going to take place between the railway company and the Board of Trade and certain Members of the House, I was hoping that we might be in a position to have allowed this Bill to go through its second reading without a Division, but I am bound to say the more the Debate has gone on the more unsatisfactory the position has become. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby—and I think he will recognise we differ from him in opinion in regard to this matter with very much pain—said that the Society of Railway Servants do not take in clerks as members of the Amalgamated Society now. I myself was a railway clerk when I joined the Amalgamated Society, and no objection was raised to my being a member of that society by the Midland Railway Company, which employed me at the time. Why has this discussion been brought about to-day? The North-Eastern Railway Company have a good record, but that does not alter the facts as we have had them put before us to-day. We should never have opposed this Bill but for the action which the company themselves took in the first instance. I may point out that all the facts have not yet been stated. What is the real position? The company have promised to-night to go into particular cases which have been referred to as being persecuted or victimised. The names of those men were supplied to the company some months ago, and they had an opportunity before coming to this House of putting the whole matter right. Therefore, so far as negotiations with this union are concerned, they have had every opportunity. Last October or November, in an interview with the general manager of the North-Eastern Railway Company, he was asked to meet the secretary of the Railway Clerks' Association, and he agreed to do so. It is because of the deadlock which has arisen in regard to these negotiations that we have been compelled to come to this House and ask hon. Members to register a decision upon the action of the company. Why have they not put this matter right before? Why do they come here at the eleventh' hour, writing letters to certain hon. Members of this House and negotiating with the Board of Trade, when they have had every opportunity of putting the matter right before? With regard to the question of these confidential clerks, there are very few of them, and it is simply nonsense to put any embargo upon them. Every railway clerk ought to have the opportunity to join the union if he likes. The certainty is that in the very few cases where there are confidential clerks of the nature spoken of they of their own free will will not join the union, and therefore the embargo will be natural and not artificial. Certain grades of railway clerks have been spoken of, and one in particular has been mentioned recently. In my opinion it is a reflection upon the honour of these railway clerks to suggest that they cannot occupy positions of confidence with the company without giving away secrets. If they did give away secrets there is not a single member of the Railway Clerks' Association or the Labour party who would say that the company were to blame if they dismissed a clerk guilty of such a breach of faith. Members of the railway staff who have to compile statements, wages, and statistics for arbitration and conciliation purposes, and various things of that kind, have been referred to in the Debate. Will it be believed that members of the Railway Clerks' Association have been compiling those statistics all along, and have never once betrayed the confidence reposed in them or given away anything to the men detrimental to the company? What excuse can be possibly offered by the North-Eastern Railway Company for the subterfuge and the sophistry that to them, and them alone, shall be given the right to decide who shall and who shall not be members of the union? In face of the very unsatisfactory assurances we have had both from the Board of Trade and from the representatives of the North-Eastern Railway Company, on behalf of the Labour party, we feel called upon to divide against the Second Reading of this Bill.

The hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Trade on this occasion seems to have great confidence in the promises that have been made by the company.

I have confidence that that they will be carried out.

I have received from the company a copy of the correspondence referred to, and I am bound to say that I think it is extremely unsatisfactory. The secretary of the Railway Clerks' Association expressed, in his last letter, his views, and that letter is a complete answer to the whole thing. He expressed a desire to see the general manager of this company, and stated that he should be in Yorkshire and was desirous of an interview The letter from the manager of the company refused that interview. That is a year and a half ago. If that was the attitude of this company only a year and a half ago, why are they making all these concessions at this moment? Whatever may be the result of the Division I do not know, but it is perfectly clear that something has caused the general manager of this company to take up a totally different attitude to that which he has hitherto adopted.

I had something to do with the organisation of clerks in general commerce, and I rise to protest against any particular company having the right to bring into operation this vicious principle of deciding who should belong to a trade union and who should not. As I listened to this Debate I was forcibly reminded of a well-known couplet:—

"The Devil was sick, the Devil a monk would be;

The Devil was well, the Devil a monk was he."

This Bill contains proposals for the construction of a line connecting the trunk system of the North-Eastern Railway with the coalfields in the Doncaster district now being developed, and from which coal will very soon be obtained. When we are told that the railway is intended to be such a boon to the public, we may take it for granted that it is also intended to be a boon to those who are exploiting that part of the country. We are entitled to consider whether those who are promoting this Bill are taking due care of the men who will be employed in constructing the works. About half a million sterling is to be expended on these works, and we may be sure that in certain localities where engineering works have to be performed men will be crowded as rapidly and as thickly as possible. Last Session, in a Debate raised by the hon. Member for Burnley, representatives of the Government gave a guarantee that in connection with great public works in the future clauses would be attached to the Bill ensuring that decent and proper provision should be made for the men to be employed on them. But there is not a 3ingle syllable in this Bill which provides this in the case of works on which thousands of men will be employed. I rise to protest against that omission, and I say that, even if the clerks had no grievance, the navvies are justified in asking for the delay of the Bill, seeing that it absolutely ignores the claims of the men who will be employed on this important undertaking. Take the district where the works and the jetties are going to be made on the Humber. There are two great docks being constructed now, one at Immingham, opposite to Hull, and the other on the other side of the river. As a matter of fact the great dock which is being constructed at Immingham is close to the site of some of the work to be done under this Bill, but not a single house has been provided by the contractors or by the dock company. Some private house jobber has dabbed down a few tin hutches on some piece of ground, without any kind of drainage preparation or sanitation. Some two or three thousand men and their families are being housed in these miserable hutches, which are a disgrace to this country, and unless someone speaks in this House, this sort of thing is going on for ever.

My general position towards railway companies is well known to the House, and has never been concealed. I hold no brief for the North-Eastern Railway, but one or two statements have been made which leave an impression which ought to be removed, so far as it can, by such information as has reached me in the last few minutes. The hon. Member (Mr. H. J. Wilson) said, on the face of the correspondence, there appeared a blank refusal on the part of the general manager to meet the secretary of the Clerks' Association. A request was made for an interview, to which the general manager replies by saying:—

"I do not think there is any object in your coming to see me here, at any rate, for the present."

The impression left on my mind from the Debate is this. There can be no doubt that, with all the good reputation of the North-Eastern, they have deviated from their usual fairness, and that these clerks have a real and a serious grievance. I have always voted against the Second Reading of a private Bill with a good deal of hesitation, because Committee is the proper place to thresh details out, but this is more than a detail. If ever there could be a great question of public policy it is the freedom of combination of workers. First of all it is the protection and preservation of individual liberty, but it is something more than that. It is the most sound and orderly method of securing law and order. There is everything in combination which goes to make up a strong state, and therefore the House of Commons could not discuss a more serious question than this. I want to be perfectly fair. We might as well divest our minds of cant in this as well as in other matters. It is a fact that some of the staunchest unionists I know—and I think my hon. Friends will agree with me in this—think that people in authority are relieved from the necessity of belonging to a union, even where the organisation is very strong. The professions of the company have not been materialised, but they profess to give full right of combination to their clerks, with the exception of confidential clerks, and certain other clerks who are named. It seems to me they ought to be very near a settlement. Unfortunately, on the Motion for second reading, we cannot go into elaborate details. These are matters for the Committee stage. Therefore, if it is in order, I should like to move the adjournment of the Debate. I do so with one object, and that is to give the general manager and the directors of the North-Eastern Railway Company, for whom I have a good deal of respect, an opportunity of stating their intentions. I share the view of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bell) in regard to the manager of the North-Eastern Railway. For my part, I am prepared to take his word for anything he says. We want to know what he has said, and in what way he said it. We have not had that stated to-night. I move the adjournment of the Debate for the purpose of giving the President of the Board of Trade an opportunity of consulting with the manager and other parties interested, so that on the next occasion, instead of having very wide definitions, it may be clearly stated what the company really mean. Hon. Members who take an interest in the question of unemployment must not treat delays in such matters as light or unimportant. They are very-serious.

I beg to second the Motion.