asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) if he will state by what method of procedure he proposes to make it a condition of the ratification of the Declaration of London that the general report of the drafting committee shall be treated by all the signatory Powers as an authoritative interpretation of the provisions of the Declaration; whether it is his intention to ask for the express assent of all the signatory Powers to such a condition; and, if not, by what, means he proposes to make such a condition binding on all the signatory Powers; (2) if he will state by what method of procedure he pro- poses to make it a condition of the ratification of the Declaration of London that the word enemy (1'ennemi) in Article 34 of the Declaration shall be taken by all the signatory Powers to mean the enemy government and not the enemy people; whether he intends to ask for the express assent of all the signatory Powers to such a condition; and, if not, by what means he proposes to make such a condition binding on the signatory Powers; (3) whether he can give any explanation or definition of the meaning of the words base of operations or of supply, which are used in the general report of the drafting committee in connection with the interpretation of Article 34 of the Declaration of London; whether he proposes to ask the signatory powers for any explanation or definition of these words; and whether he proposes to inform the signatory Powers of the meaning attached to these words by His Majesty's Government, and to ask them whether they agree with His Majesty's Government as to such meaning; and (4) whether, in order to illustrate the meaning of the words in Article 34 of the Declaration of London, a place serving as a base for the armed forces of the enemy, he will state what ports in Great Britain could not, in the view of His Majesty's Government, be regarded as places serving as bases for the armed forces of this country?

When the discussion on the Declaration of London takes place a statement will be made in which the separate points referred to in the questions can be dealt with in their proper place as parts of the whole. Meanwhile, I propose to defer any further statement about them.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will give us any indication of the nature of the statement he proposes to make before the Debate takes place?

I have given an indication in previous answers, but it is almost impossible to adequately deal with one or two of these points in answer to questions. I think it will be much better to do it when the matter is discussed.

Does the right hon. Gentleman still propose to take the discussion on the 26th? Will that be a suitable day?

I would ask the hon. Gentleman to put the question to the Prime Minister as to when the discussion will be taken. I understand it will be taken soon. I am not so sure that the Prime Minister has definitely fixed the time.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if he was aware that the Commissioners of National Education have refused to sanction the exhibition of the Union Jack in or on the national schools on Coronation Day; and if he would take steps to secure the withdrawal of the embargo?

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar question asked on the 18th May by the hon. Member for South Antrim.

asked whether assistant teachers in national schools in Ireland, in whose favour a drop of ten below the prescribed average attendance of pupils is now allowed before salary is stopped, includes junior assistant mistresses?

The details of this matter have not yet been finally arranged, but the proposals of the Commissioners of National Education which are now before the Treasury contemplate a drop of five units in the case of junior assistant mistresses.

asked the Under-Secretary for India whether he is aware that in what is known as the Howrah Gang trial at Calcutta the proceedings lasted for 176 days in all; that about forty accused persons were kept in custody for more than a year; that out of thirty-nine who appealed to the High Court thirty-three were acquitted; that one prisoner became insane while in custody, and another died on the morning of his acquittal; that the case for the prosecution was declared by the High Court to rest mainly upon the statements of two informers, whose evidence and character were utterly untrustworthy; whether he can state who was responsible for advising this prosecution; and whether it is proposed to leave the conduct of such prosecutions in the future in the same hands?

My hon. Friend's recital of the facts is substantially correct, if mention be added of the fact that the High Court found that a conspiracy did exist, and convicted six of the accused persons. As regards the last part of the question, a local government in such a case necessarily consults those officers who are its constituted legal advisers. In this case the Bengal Government also took the advice of a leading criminal counsel.

asked whether the Secretary of State has any official information that the charge brought against a number of the King's subjects in Bengal of tampering with the loyalty of the 10th Jats regiment completely broke down before the High Court of Calcutta, and that the whole of the accused were acquitted on the ground that the evidence against them rested upon the statements of informers already shown to be thoroughly untrustworthy in the Howrah Gang case; whether this prosecution was launched at a private inquiry; whether the accused were present and had any opportunity of cross-examining the informers; whether the evidence of the informers was submitted to the legal advisers of the Government of Bengal before the prosecution was sanctioned; and whether it is proposed to take any proceedings for perjury, or otherwise, against these informers?

In the case to which my hon. Friend refers the prosecution was withdrawn by the Public Prosecutor under Section 494 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the judges ordered an acquittal. The inquiry into the case was instituted under Act XIV. of 1908, and was in no sense a private one. It was held by the magistrate of the twenty-four Parganas, and the proceedings were conducted by a leading criminal counsel. In accordance with Section 4 of the Act, the accused were not present at the inquiry except for purposes of identification, and had no opportunity, at that stage, of cross-examining the witnesses. If the trial in the High Court had been proceeded with, full opportunity for cross-examination would have been afforded them there. The evidence of the informers was submitted to the Legal Remembrancer to the Government of Bengal, and was carefully considered before the prosecution was sanctioned. The High Court. have not suggested that the in- formers should be prosecuted for perjury, and it is not proposed to take any proceedings against them.

asked whether the Under-Secretary for India can make any statement as to the facts of a recent torture case at Shahdara, in the Punjab, in which a sub-inspector of police was sentenced to nine years' rigorous imprisonment by the additional district magistrate; what were the injuries inflicted by the police; whether there was an appeal against the sentence; and, if so, with what result?

The facts are that on 16th November, 1910, a man suspected of having stolen some cattle was beaten by a sub-inspector of police with a stick and by a village headman with a shoe, in order to extort a confession. The man died on the 26th November, and the postmortem examination showed his health to have been such that a beating of the nature indicated by the bruises on his body was sufficient, to cause death. The sub-inspector has been sentenced to five (not nine) years' rigorous imprisonment and the village headman to three. The prisoners have appealed to the Chief Court, but the result of the appeal is not yet known.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the man made a confession after he was beaten?

The hon. Member had better put a question clown. The man died after he was beaten.

asked the Under - Secretary of State for India whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the recent judgment, of the High Court of Calcutta in the Nattore murder case, in which the judges acquitted both the accused persons and declared that, owing to the unsatisfactory character of the witnesses and the methods of investigation employed by the prosecution, the gravest suspicion rested upon the conduct of the police, and urged the local authorities to make that conduct the subject of an inquiry; and whether he can say what steps the Government of Bengal have taken to institute such an inquiry, and with what results?

The Secretary of State has seen a copy of the judgment to which my hon. Friend refers. A report of the circumstances of the case has been called for by the local government in order to facilitate an enquiry. I may add that the Secretary of State is in communication with the Government of India with regard to the procedure in such cases.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India, whether the Secretary of State has had his attention called to a recent judgment of the High Court of Allahabad, in the Budaun dacoity case, in which twenty-one persons, who had been sentenced by the additional Sessions Judge to terms varying from transportation for life to six years' rigorous imprisonment on a charge of committing robberies, were all acquitted; whether he is aware that the principal evidence against them was that of a convict alleged to have given information to a policeman of the Criminal Investigation Department, and that the chief justice and his colleague held the evidence of this informer, as well as the supposed corroborative evidence, to be quite untrustworthy; and what steps the Government propose to take in view of the frequent failure of prosecutions depending upon such informers, the injury caused to the accused, and the cost to the public?

It is the case that twenty-one persons who had been sentenced by the Sessions Court to transportation or imprisonment were acquitted on appeal to the High Court, and that the principal evidence against them was that of a convict informer which the High Court did not accept as trustworthy although the Sessions Judge had believed it to be substantially correct. The procedure in gang dacoity cases, and the use to be made of the evidence of informers are receiving careful consideration of the local government, which it is expected will shortly issue orders. The Government of India will then consider the subject in its connection with the procedure in other provinces.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the increasing frequency with which these and similar cases are reported is due to an increase in the evil or to an increase in vigilance on the part of the authorities?

It is precisely the increasing frequency which has come to the notice of the Government which has led the local government to consider the point in connection with the procedure, and we intend to give orders for reforms.

I do not know whether it arises out of the question, but, may I ask whether it is proposed to make any large amnesty of political offenders in connection with the Coronation?

I do not think that that arises out of the question.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India, whether he will consider the necessity of special assistance being given to those smaller Native States whose revenues are being seriously crippled by the curtailment of the opium traffic?

The reduction in the annual export in accordance with the 1908 agreement has been made almost wholly in respect of Bengal opium. The permissible export of Malwa opium for the three years 1911–12–13 has been fixed at an average amount which is within sixty chests of the average export in the three years immediately preceding the agreement, while the higher prices prevailing in China have enabled the Native Chiefs to enhance the dues levied by them on exported opium. There is, therefore, no necessity to consider a condition of affairs which does not exist.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the total amount of revenue received by the Indian Government from -the collection of Excise Duty on cotton textile goods since the imposition of that duty; and if he will state whether an Excise Duty is levied in India on any other class of textile goods?

The gross sum received by the Indian Government from the existing cotton Excise Duty, from date of its introduction in 1896 to 31st March, 1911, was £2,326,605. The answer to the second question is in the negative.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the case of Lieut.-Colonel A. Pressy, of the 10th Jats; whether this officer was forced to resign out of the Army because he said there were only two microscopic cases of sedition in his regiment, and thereon differed from the opinion of the Criminal Investigation Department officials; whether any sedition has been proved against the regiment; and, if not, will he see that Colonel Pressy is reinstated in his command?

Lieut.-Colonel Pressy was offered by the Commander-in-Chief the option of taking leave immediately with a view to retiring voluntarily on completion of twenty-nine years' service, or of having the question of his compulsory retirement submitted for the orders of the Secretary of State. He chose the former alternative. Disciplinary action against Colonel Pressy and other officers was rendered necessary by the condition of the regiment, and was not taken, I can assure my hon. Friend, without the most careful consideration of all the circumstances of a case which the Secretary of State does not propose to reopen.

May I ask whether this colonel sacrificed £150 per year out of his pension by having to accept this compulsory retirement, and whether under the circumstances of the case the Government will consider his evidence in contra-distinction to the evidence of the head of the Criminal Investigation Department?

It was open to the officer concerned to be dealt with by the Commander-in-Chief or to have his case submitted to the Secretary of State. He chose the former alternative and retired voluntarily. Under those circumstances no farther action can he taken.

Has the hon. Gentleman any knowledge of the particular breaches of discipline which were preferred in the charge?

I do not think it would be in the public interest to discuss the discipline of this regiment. I cannot say anything further than the answer in regard to this question of discipline further than that the unsatisfactory condition of the regiment was the matter which led us to take action.

Am Ito take it that the colonel himself was not cashiered or squeezed out of the regiment because he happened to report the two cases mentioned in the question, and that there was no sedition in the regiment?

The action which it was necessary to take against the colonel of the regiment was due to the unsatisfactory position of the regiment.

But there was no sedition.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the concessions to the Werompi (Ashanti) Rubber and Gold Concessions, Limited, have been made valid by the courts?

The answer is in the negative.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will say, according to the method of calculation whereby the majority of British members of the Financial Relations Commission found the net excessive taxes imposed upon Ireland in the financial year 1893–4 to have exceeded £2,500,000, what is the amount of excessive taxes taken from Ireland in the whole period from the Act of Union to the latest completed financial year?

I have no information as to the methods of calculation adopted by the members of the Financial Relations Commission with regard to the comparative taxable capacity of Great Britain and Ireland beyond what is contained in the Reports of the Commission and their accompanying documents; nor have I been able to trace any "finding" in the terms suggested in the question. In the absence of any satisfactory criterion of comparative taxable capacity any estimate of the kind indicated in the latter part of the question would be pure conjecture.

asked the Prime Minister, in view of the refusal of State Departments to furnish information regarding such economic effects of the Union as the drain of people, industries, rents, and purchase-money out of Ireland, if he will say how and when the Government propose to have estimated the amount of advantage to Great Britain and loss to Ireland under heads like these, not comprised in the reference to the Financial Relations Commission, with a view to compensating provisions in the promised measure of full self-government?

Due weight will be attached to such considerations in framing the proposals which the Government will lay before Parliament. I doubt, however, whether any inquiry of a statistical nature could produce results sufficiently precise to form the basis of an exact arithmetical calculation.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that out of the ten Chinese firemen who recently signed on the British steamer "Persiana," at Barry, six gave their birthplace as Hong Kong and a German vessel as their last ship; if he is aware that one of the Chinamen, Ah Sang, gave as his last ship the s.s. "English Monarch"; if he is aware that Ah Sang has not served on the s.s. "English Monarch"; if he is aware that none of the ten Chinese in question produced a discharge certificate at the time of signing on; if he can state what evidence was produced by the six men who gave a German ship as their last ship to prove Hong Kong as their birthplace; if he can state if the six men who gave a German ship as their last ship were discharged from that German ship in this country, and if not discharged in this country how they arrived here; what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter; and whether the Board of Trade propose to take any action against Ah Sang for having given false particulars at the time he signed articles on the s.s. "Persiana"?

Eleven Chinese seamen were engaged on the steamship "Persiana" at Barry on 16th May, comprising nine firemen, one donkeyman, and a firemen's cook. Ten of those gave their birthplace as Hong Kong, but none produced any evidence in support, and the language test was applied to all before they were allowed to be engaged. One of the Chinese produced a discharge book; but I may remind my hon. Friend that the Merchant Shipping Acts do not require the production of any certificates of discharge by seamen serving on British ships. Ah Sang, who was engaged on the steamship "Persiana," did not state that his last ship was the steamship "English Monarch"; this statement was made by "Chum Yow," whom I have reason to believe to be the same as "Chang Yow," who served on the steamship "English Monarch" from 17th August, 1909, to 15th April, 1911. I have no information as to the manner in which Chinese seamen who may have last served in a German ship have come to this country. In the circumstances the case does not appear to be one in which the Board of Trade can take any useful action.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give any reason for the increase in the amount of steel in the form of ingots, blooms, billets, slabs, sheet bars, and tinplate bars imported into this country during the first four months of this year; and if he has any official information showing that such steel is being dumped here in consequence of over-production in Germany?

I understand that the imported steel is being offered to consumers in this country at lower prices than those charged by British steel makers, but it is not possible to say definitely how far this phenomenon is due to temporary overproduction abroad, and how far to lowered cost of production arising from improved equipment. As between this year and last the increase in the imports from Germany, though considerable, has not been nearly so great as the increase in the imports from the United States of America.

May I ask if there have been any reports received by the Board of Trade from South Wales as to how this is affecting the steel industry there?

No, Sir, we have received no reports.

asked how many skilled men, fitters, turners, etc., in the engineering trade have obtained situations through the Oldham Labour Exchange since its opening in February, 1910?

The total number of vacancies for men in the engineering and machine making group of trades filled through the Oldham Labour Exchange from 1st February, 1910, to 26th May, 1911, was 274. No distinction between labourers and skilled men was made in the Returns relating to 1910, but all of the vacancies filled in the first five months of 1911 appear to have been for skilled men.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a large quantity of goods made abroad enter this country without any mark of origin, and are subsequently marked with the names of British importing houses; and whether seeing that this practice is a practical evasion of the Merchandise Marks Act, he will take steps to render obscurity of origin impossible?

I am aware of the practice referred to, but there is nothing in the Merchandise Marks Act which prevents a trader or dealer so marking his name on foreign made goods, and so long as the goods are not made to bear a false indication of the country where they were produced or a false trade description, I do not see how the practice can be regarded as an evasion of the Act.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on the Central London Railway there are two-car trains running on Sundays with only one man in the car, and that, in the event of any failure occurring and this man, who is an emergency man as well as a guard, having to take charge of the train, there is danger to the travelling public; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with this matter?

I have asked the railway company for their observations on this matter, and will communicate with my hon. Friend on receipt of their reply.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the grievance complained of at the recent conference of the United Kingdom Commercial Travellers' Association concerning the effect upon all commercial travellers from the United Kingdom by the taxation they have to pay before they are allowed to offer for sale articles of British or Irish manufacture; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

This matter is one which has on various occasions been before my Department, and representations with regard to it have been made from time to time by His Majesty's Government to the principal foreign Governments concerned. I regret to say that the success which has attended these representations has not hitherto been great, but I will bear the matter in mind with a view of reverting to it on the occurrence of a favourable opportunity. I may add, how- ever, that during the last few years a series of reciprocal arrangements have been concluded with the chief commercial countries with a view to facilitate the operations of British commercial travellers abroad by avoiding needless delay and formalities in clearing their samples through the Customs Houses.

Are we to understand that the Government is practically, as usual, helpless on account of being tied down by the Free Trade system?

On the contrary, as I have just informed the hon. Member, we have been able to remove certain restrictions and formalities.

May I ask did not the Government give the American Government something for the concession they gained?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any definite reports as to the projected seamen's strike; and whether, seeing that any shortage of the supplies will cause distress to the poorest of the people, he can state what steps he is taking to prevent such a calamity?

The Board of Trade are keeping in touch with the progress of events.

Is it not the fact that the seamen's representatives approached the Shipping Federation with a view to some conciliatory measures being adopted and were met with a blank refusal?

Correspondence appears in the papers to-day including a letter from myself, as President of the Board of Trade, with reference to representations made to me by the seamen's and firemen's representatives and a large number of Members of Parliament asking the representatives of the shipowners whether they would be willing to assist in the creation of a conciliation board, but they did not see their way to do that for the moment, and that question remains in abeyance. That is the information in my possession; how far the Seamen's Union will make direct representations I am not aware, but I will do any thing. I can.

Will the right hon. Gentleman continue to urge his good advice upon the employers that they should accept arbitration?

I will do my best in regard to the matter, but I think you should not urge advice unless at a moment when you think it will be taken. I shall be very glad at any time to give the services of the Board of Trade, if I can see any way in which I can further the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is intended that the provisions of the Expenses of Aid to Police Bill are to apply to aid given by His Majesty's naval and military forces or an outside police force on ceremonial occasions such as the forthcoming Coronation and other Royal processions; and, if not, whether, when the Bill is in Committee, he will propose amendments to make this matter clear?

The Bill is expressly limited to emergencies, and would not therefore apply to Royal processions and other ceremonial events for which the necessary provision can be made beforehand.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what recent occasions of State additional pay for the extra work thrown on the members of the Metropolitan Police Force has been paid them, and if he can see his way to make such payment on the occasion of His Majesty's Coronation?

During the last five years extra pay has been given to the Metropolitan Police on three occasions—the visit of the King of Denmark, the visit of the President of the French Republic, and the funeral of King Edward. The last part of the question is superfluous—every member of the Metropolitan Police knows that on such an occasion as the Coronation the extra work demanded of them will be liberally recognised by the allowance of extra pay and by what they value even more—the grant of a special decoration.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he can now state whether the Board propose to carry oat any, and, if any, which, of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on swine fever?

The Report is under consideration.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture what are the reasons for the appointment by the President of the Board of a new assistant secretary of its land department; what will be his duties; whether he will have any, and, if any, what control over the work of the newly-appointed Small Holdings Commissioners; and what will be his salary?

A new assistant secretary has been appointed to advise and assist the Board generally in the conduct of the work of their land division, which is steadily increasing and is likely still further to increase in the near future. He will be in immediate charge of that work and will also deal with business relating to agricultural co-operation, credit and insurance. The Board themselves will control the work of the Small Holdings Commissioners in conformity with the statutory provisions to that effect. The salary of the new officer will be a personal one of £1,200.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he would state whether Mr. Fred Horne has been appointed a small holdings commissioner; and, if so, at what salary?

Yes, Sir; at a salary of £800 a year.

Can the hon. Baronet say whether this gentleman is the same gentleman who was a candidate for the Barkston Ash Division of Yorkshire in the last two elections?

May I ask the hon. Baronet if he can tell me whether there was any official connected with the Board of Agriculture who could have taken this appointment?

That does not arise out of the question.

Is this the gentleman who was in fact evicted by Colonel Kenyon-Slaney?

Can the hon. Baronet tell us if it is a fact that this gentleman asked to be relieved of his appointment?

Do I understand the hon. Baronet to say that there was no suitable or acceptable official for this post in the Board of Agriculture?

If hon. Members have any further questions, they had better put them down.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, when the importation of Foreign straw for packing purposes was prohibited; whether the reason for this prohibition still continues to be as imperative as then; whether he is aware that the pottery trade is suffering from the high price of packing straw due to this prohibition; and whether he would make arrangements to exempt from the prohibition all straw to be used for packing purposes?

Restrictions were imposed by the Foreign Hay and Straw Order of 1908. The reasons for the Order continue to exist, and on the information before them the Board are not prepared to modify the restrictions. Two complaints have been received by the Board.

Is it not a fact that there have been repeated complaints from the Potteries with reference to this prohibition, and would the hon. Baronet say whether he could not snake an exception in the case of packing straw which comes in cases and is not intended to be used for fodder, or of such merchandise as would not come into the keeping of cattle.

There is no general complaint. There have been two complaints. At present the Board of Agriculture is looking into these complaints.

Is the hon. Baronet aware that in spite of this prohibition straw comes into this country packed around goods that compete with the goods made in this country which require to be packed in cheap straw? Is he aware that this comes at present, and that it could be used for fodder? Will he not consider the possibility of allowing straw to come into this country to be used solely for packing purposes?

The question is being considered.

I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter in the Debate to-day.

asked the President of the Board of Education if he would state whether the Surrey by-laws are correct in stating that the three reasonable excuses allowed for non-attendance at schools under the Education Act are the only ones to be recognised, whereas the courts held that the excuses were only illustrative and not exhaustive; and whether he will explain why such by-laws were sanctioned by the Board after Mr. Justice Stephen's judgment as to non-attendance on certain occasions by girls required at home by their mothers?

I do not find any such statement in the Surrey School Attendance Bylaws. In accordance with well-established usage, the by-laws set out the three statutory excuses, but there is nothing in them to suggest that the list is exhaustive.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that a meeting of about 2,000 teachers was held in Manchester on 26th May last to protest against the Holmes-Morant circular, and that a resolution was unanimously passed appealing to the Prime Minister to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the whole question of appointment and promotion in the inspectorate of the Board of Education; and what steps he proposes to take, if any, with a view to securing the appointment of such a Committee?

I must refer the hon. Member to the answers given to questions on this subject by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 10th April and 8th May.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether officers in command of destroyers have been for- bidden to invite guests on board for the Coronation review; and, if so, what is the reason for this order?

After full consideration it was decided to adhere to the precedent which has obtained at all previous Naval reviews.

asked the Postmaster-General whether, in the event of more home safes being required than are already contracted for, he will arrange that new tenders should be opened?

On the termination of the present contract, which is subject to twelve months' notice by either party, new tenders will be invited.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he received a bid for 100,000 home safes at 1s. 8d. from another firm before he had signed the contract with Fiscus, Limited, at the price of 1s. 11½d.

One of the firms which had tendered for the supply of home safes in July, 1910, at 2s. 6d. made a reduced offer in March last. But as the tender upon which the contract is based had been formally accepted in the previous October, and as the contract was just about to be signed, it was obviously impossible to entertain this offer.

May I ask whether there is a Labour Clause attached to these contracts?

I do not think that arises out of the question on the Paper.

asked the Postmaster-General, in view of the defective information given in the Postal Guide and in the instructions to post offices regarding foreign mails and parcels service, resulting in varied interpretations by different officials, involving loss and annoyance to the public, whether he will have the information revised and so simplified as to be susceptible of one interpretation only, and a map of the world attached with the mail and parcel routes plainly shown to each principal city in order to obviate the present confusion?

I should be obliged if the hon. Member will give me particulars of the defective information to which he refers, in order that any improvements which are necessary and practicable may be made. Any map showing the mail and parcel routes to the cities of the world which could be attached to the Post Office Guide could not be on a scale large enough to be of service.

asked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether he can state the grounds on which the election for petty sessions clerk at Caherciveen was not held at the hour publicly notified; whether the presiding magistrate was entitled to delay proceedings for twenty-five minutes in order to secure a majority for one of the candidates; whether he is aware that a candidate was duly proposed and seconded as soon as the appointed hour was reached; and whether, instead of having a new election, steps will be taken to ratify the appointment of the candidate first duly proposed and seconded?

The train from Valencia, by which it was either known or supposed that one or more of the justices were travelling in order to take part in the election, was unusually late, and if, was proposed that there should be a short postponement to await its arrival. Three of the magistrates present, supporters of the candidate, Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald, opposed the motion; three other magistrates, supporters of Mr. Boyd, voted for it. There being an equality of votes, the chairman considered, erroneously, I think, strictly speaking, that in point of law the election could not then proceed; whereupon the three supporters of Mr. Fitzgerald, one of them being his father, proceeded to elect him. There were present at the moment three qualified justices who were opposed to Mr. Fitzgerald, but owing to the legal view taken they did not participate in the voting. A short time afterwards, within twenty-five minutes, the Valencia train arrived, and an election was held, in which four magistrates voted for Mr Boyd. Mr. Fitzgerald's supporters, three in number, did not vote. In these circumstances I do not think either poll was satisfactory or should be acted on, and there will be a fresh election.

asked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether any official directions were sent to Mr. John Mannix, J.P., directing him not to take part in the election of petty sessions clerk for Caherciveen; if so, by whom; and by what authority was such action governed?

No directions of the nature indicated were sent to Mr. John Mannix. On the contrary, I am informed that the clerk of the peace, in each of the three recent elections, gave Mr. Mannix notice of the elections, so that he was perfectly free to attend and vote. He will get notice again at the impending election.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a list of the names of the Members of the House of Lords who are in receipt of salaries or pensions out of public funds and the consideration for which such salaries or pensions are received?

I fear the compilation of a complete return would involve a considerable expenditure of time and labour, but I will circulate a return to-day or to-morrow which will very nearly comprise the information asked for.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the cost of collecting the information—which is so great owing to the length of it—will be well compensated for by the facts that would be given to this House as to the Members of the other House who are receiving pensions?

:I doubt it. The Return will give the hon. Member substantially the whole of the information at our disposal. There may be a few that will have escaped through the meshes. It would take some time to discover these.

I desire to raise certain matters in connection with the Board of Trade, but, first of all, I should like to say with regard to the general administration of the Board, that so far as it applies to the hours of railway men, we have very little or no complaint to make on this particular occasion. Indeed, I think we may compliment the Board of Trade upon the fact that, since they have prosecuted a more vigorous policy in this direction, there has been a great improvement. There is one point, however, I should like to make with regard to this question. We feel that, instead as previously of a standard of twelve hours being taken, the time has now come when all hours over ten per day should be considered excessive. When we consider that the intensity of work has increased, and that the bigger engines and longer trains have added to the work of the men, it is surely time when ten hours should be considered a long enough day upon the railways, and when any period above that should be called excessive. It is impossible to pay the same compliment to the Board of Trade with regard to accidents. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this question of accidents upon railways is still a very serious one, especially so far as the servants are concerned. During the last ten years no less than 4,659 servants have been killed and 182,750 have been injured. That is a terrible state of affairs, and it is time the House of Commons took further note of this grave question. It will be remembered that in 1900 a Bill was passed through this House with regard to the prevention of railway accidents, and the carrying out of that Bill was put into the hands of the Board of Trade. Certain powers, not in our opinion sufficient, but still certain powers were conferred upon the Board of Trade, and I am glad to say there has been some improvement so far as fatal accidents are concerned, but it is a serious thing indeed to see the non-fatal accidents mounting up as they are doing year by year.

4.0 P.M.

In 1901, the year after the Bill to which I have referred was passed, the fatal accidents were 565 and the non-fatal 14,740. In 1910 there was a reduction in the fatal accidents to 420, but the non-fatal accidents had mounted up to the very serious total of 25,137. That is an enormous increase, and one for which there seems no adequate explanation. When I say that, to-day one out of every 470 employés upon the railways is killed and one in every twenty-four injured, I think it will be realised it is time this House took further notice of the matter and that the Board of Trade put their powers into more effective operation. The Board of Trade do not seem to me to realise what their powers are, or they are very slow in putting them into effect. There are on the whole of the railways only ten inspectors. There is the chief inspector, three inspecting officers, two assistant inspectors, and four sub-inspectors. When we compare the number of inspectors employed under the Home Office to deal with factories and with mines, we find an enormous difference. Yet there are in this country over 600,000 railway servants and the number of miners is probably not much in excess of 1,000,000. There are 165 factory inspectors and forty inspectors of mines. It is impossible for these inspecting officers of railways, however they may desire to do so, to carry out the number of inquiries which ought to be carried out. I have already pointed out that the number of fatal accidents was 420 so far as railway servants were concerned, while the number of non-fatal accidents was 25,000. If we take the year 1909 we find there were 24,095 non-fatal accidents and 372 fatal accidents. Yet in that year, according to the latest return I have been able to get hold of there were only 857 inquiries held in regard to a total of nearly 25,000 accidents. It seems to us that this is not sufficient; it seems to show that there is great need for further inspection of the railways. Again, under the Act of 1900 it is our opinion that the Board of Trade are not carrying out the full provisions of that Act. There is the greatest possible difficulty in getting the Board to realise that it has the power to inspect dangerous places on railways before an accident occurs. They seem either to think that they have not got power or they minimise the importance of it. In connection with the society with which I am associated we have been in correspondence with the Board in regard to a proposal to move a signal-box on the Midland Railway near St. Pancras. We asked the Board to inspect that place as a possibly dangerous spot, which might give rise to accidents to men. The answer was that no accident had occurred, and therefore they saw no reason to make an inspection. Our point is this, that prevention in these matters is much better than cure, and we hold that the Board of Trade should take the opportunity of inspecting all dangerous places on railways before accidents do occur.

Again, as showing the need for some further efforts on the part of the Board of Trade to deal with this question of railway accidents, may I draw attention to certain anomalies which appear in the latest report on these accidents. The report deals with the accidents in the year 1910, and from it we learn—and this shows the necessity for some more effective action on the part of the Board of Trade—that out of 2,174 accidents which are said to be due to the failure of coupling apparatus no fewer than 620 occurred on one railway alone. That was on the North-Eastern Railway. There were only 137 accidents attributable to a like cause on such a large railway as the North Western, and therefore there does seem need for action on the part of the Beard of Trade in regard to this particular matter. Let me take another instance. Let me take the case of accidents attributable to the moving of trains. Under this heading there were 296 killed and 4,104 injured, and out of that total no fewer than forty-three were killed and 813 injured on one railway alone. That was the North Western Railway; and it shows that the Board of Trade should have its attention fixed upon this matter. If it is going to do its duty in regard to railway men, it ought to see that the railway is inspected and the attention of the company should be drawn to the fact that the accidents attributable to this cause on this system are out of all proportion to those on other railway systems. I might cite many other examples. For instance, on the North Eastern there were 239 accidents during the year 1910 due to broken rails. Surely that is a very serious question. A broken rail may cause an accident not only to railway people but to scores of passengers. There were no less than sixty-six cases in one year on the North Eastern in which broken rails caused accidents. Therefore there is every reason why we should attempt to take this question into more minute consideration with a view to the powers of the Board of Trade being exercised not merely on behalf of the general public but also in the interests of railway servants. I have many more examples, but I do not propose to weary the House with them, as I intend to draw the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to them in another way very shortly.

We believe that the Act of 1900 gave the Board of Trade powers which they are allowing to slumber. These powers, in our opinion, ought to be put into effect at once, and we are of opinion that thereby the accident list might be greatly reduced. For instance, the Board of Trade have the power to appoint more inspectors. They have the power to inspect railways before accidents occur. We believe, at any rate, that the Act of 1900 confers on them that power. I do not say that we are satisfied with that Act entirely, but we do think that the Board of Trade should take advantage of the powers conferred upon it and should put them in full force, and if they will do that we are satisfied there will be a greater reduction in the number of accidents on railways compared with what has occurred during the last five or six years. This especially applies to the case of non-fatal accidents. There is another aspect of the question to which I will make allusion. We who belong to the trade union movement are concerned with the protection of men, and we want inquiries to be held by the Board of Trade into all accidents which have occurred. The Board of Trade can send inspectors, without holding formal inquiries. When these inquiries take place we want to have a trade union representative present. But it is too often the case that when such a suggestion is made the railway company insist that the inquiry shall not take place on their premises because they will not have a trade union representative thereon. There have been cases where, in the interests of the injured men, it has been desirable to view the scene of the accident, and the company has refused to permit it. We know, however, that on the whole the Board of Trade representatives are fairly reasonable men, and do desire that the trade union representatives should not be prevented from attending these inquiries. We do not see for a single moment why a railway man, because the railways belong to great corporations, should be treated as the pariah of industry and should be dealt with on totally different lines from men engaged in any other industry. Therefore, we submit to the Board of Trade that they should, when such an inquiry is about to be held, advise the trade unions of the fact and ask that a representative of the union shall be sent to attend it.

I should like to ask the Board of Trade what is their intention with regard to the report which has just been issued respecting working agreements between railway companies. We have, in my opinion, come to a very serious crisis in the history of the relations of our railway companies with the Board of Trade. The question of agreements between companies has been reported upon—we do not say in a satisfactory manner, but we do think that the result must be that new legislation must eventually be brought in in order to bring about changes in the railway system. We should like to know what is the intention of the Board of Trade with regard to that aspect of the matter. I have one other complaint to make, and that is that we think the Board of Trade has been a good deal too lenient with these great corporations in regard to the question of conciliation. The Board in a sort of compulsory manner brought about the establishment of conciliation boards. We are very dissatisfied with the position as it stands today. We are dissatisfied because the Board Of Trade has failed to assume sufficient responsibility for what they have done, seeing that in 1907 they brought pressure to bear on these great railway companies to establish these Boards. I desire the right hon. Gentleman to look into this matter which concerns a very large body of the working classes of this country and see if he cannot do something to bring about an improved state of affairs.

I desire to associate myself with the appeal Made by my hon. Friend to the President of the Board of Trade to seriously consider the points he has raised. There was a question whether the Board of Trade would help the seamen and firemen in the establishment of conciliation boards. I can only say that, much as I welcome conciliation, and keenly as I have supported the principle of conciliation and arbitration, I have no hesitation in asserting the general experience of railway men in this country has been such that to-day they would abolish the present system. When you remember that some of us have had considerable difficulty in fighting for this principle I think this House ought to seriously recognise the gravity of the situation and encourage the Board of Trade, if they think they have not the power to compel railway companies to recognise their side of the bargain, to come to this House and ask for additional powers. It is perfectly true that working agreements are becoming a danger. Last year the railway companies of this country carried millions of tons more merchandise and millions more passengers and added over £1,000,000 to their revenues as compared with the year before.

Last year there were thousands less railway men employed in handling the traffic than were employed twelve months before. As a matter of fact, from the returns that we have obtained it appears that in the railway service to-day there are nearly 10,000 less men employed than were em- ployed ten years ago. That is exclusively brought about by the working agreements and amalgamations between railways which have taken place, and which, in our opinion, are contrary to public policy. Therefore we say that if we are to be face to face with one huge monopoly run in the interests of dividend earning exclusively, then we stand for the complete State ownership of railways.

I want to ask the House to notice the difference of treatment that railway men receive as compared with any other class of worker. As was pointed out just now there was an accident on the Metropolitan Railway some three or four months ago. The driver was burned to death, and with that same engine within five years three other men also were burned to death, and two were maimed for life. That was all with that one class of engine on one railway. We felt that there must be something seriously wrong in this matter. We felt that here was a position that was dangerous to these unfortunate men who have to work that engine. The result was that we asked the Board of Trade to hold an inquiry. One was sanctioned and I myself attended to represent the interests of the men. But immediately I got to the premises there was a notice from the general manager to the local superintendent to say that I was not to be allowed on them to examine that engine although I was a practical man. It is the practice, however, in the case of an accident in a mine, for the Government mines inspector to allow all representatives of miners the privilege of attending the scene of the accident. In another case, in which twenty-two passengers lost their lives, I attended the inquest and the Board of Trade inquiry, but although serious issues were involved in that inquiry, not only to the men but to the travelling public, I was not allowed to go and see exactly what took place, and I had to get there in the night in order to be in a position to defend the interests of the men at the Board of Trade inquiry. I submit that that is something which this House should not tolerate. Can hon. Members conceive for a moment the position of the engine driver or signalman or guard who is involved in an accident? The man may lose his job, because it invariably happens that he will get the sack, but notwithstanding the fact that he is to be punished in this manner and that, further, a question of manslaughter may be involved, yet someone to represent hint is not allowed to be present.

We claim to be in attendance as representing the men, and being practical men ourselves we are then in a position to put questions and bring out evidence that materially assists the interests of those whom we represent. The Board of Trade are powerless in this matter, although they are repeatedly called upon to give privileges and powers to railway companies; and the attitude which some of the companies take up is that even when the Board of Trade inspector arrives and he finds us there the railway company object to our presence, and they immediately ask the inspector to engage a room at a hotel in order to conduct an inquiry. I urge upon the Board of Trade, if it is not possible to bring the railway companies to realise the seriousness of the position and the strength of our case, then legislation should be introduced which would give the Department power to interfere in a question of this kind. My hon. Friend has pointed out that there were 420 railway men killed last year, and if there were only half that number of passengers killed neither the Board of Trade nor any other Department would hesitate to take action, and surely because it happens to be a humble worker, a signalman or a guard who happens to be mowed down, it is not right that no particular notice should be taken of these accidents. But I come to a far more important question than either of those to which I referred. Up to 1907 I think it was recognised that the railways of this country were practically the safest places to be on. Railway accidents, so far as passengers were concerned, were practically at a minimum, and the general assumption was that this was due to the efficiency of the railway servants, and I entirely agree with that. But following 1907 we have had three or four very serious railway accidents. There was the terrible Ormskirk disaster, the Hawes Junction disaster of last year, and we had the Pontypridd disaster.

The remarkable thing is that, although there was a large number of people killed in those railway accidents the Government inspector who inquired into their causes without exception attributed them to the failure of a particular rule. He said the cause of those accidents is the result of the railway men themselves failing to observe what is known as rule 55. I am going to submit that whilst it is true that the strict observance of this rule 55 might have averted these accidents still it is impossible under modern conditions of railway life to give effect to that particular rule, I am going to submit that that rule is not only obsolete but is absolutely impracticable, and the result is that following these accidents the railway companies have so harassed and intimidated the railwaymen that the men themselves do not know what to do in order to save their own positions, and it is a most remarkable thing that the Government inspectors themselves are not very clear on the point. Major Pringle, who investigated the Hawes Junction disaster, said that in his opinion the rule required further elaboration, although he condemned the men for not observing it. Then again at Ormskirk, where a large number of people were killed, what happened? Colonel Drew there said that as far as he is concerned he is satisfied that the rule is perfectly clear and well understood. But when you find two inspecting officers appointed by a Department paid out of public funds to investigate and inquire into accidents of this description, and such a serious difference of opinion exists between them, then I do submit that it is too much to expect the humble railwayman to understand what even the Government inspectors are not agreed upon.

Further than that there is considerable difference of opinion even amongst the railway officials themselves. I had drawn to my notice a case only a few days ago where on one of our Scotch railways, following this Pontypridd disaster, an inspector was sent round to the signal cabin to inform the signalman that any man who, as driver or fireman, failed to observe rule 55 was to be immediately reported. The signalman turned to the man who was giving these orders at once, and said, "Will you tell me how long a man is to stay at the signal before he sends his mate, to warn the signalman?" And the inspector said, "I do not know." To which the signalman replied, "No more do I." And that is really so, and it is the fact that neither railwaymen nor inspectors are unanimous on the point, and while this rule is supposed to govern the safety of the travelling public it is not really understood, although it is always held that the railwaymen have not observed it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Will the hon. Gentleman read the rule?"] It is rather long to read, but I will explain it. The rule was introduced following the Norton FitzWarren accident, which was a very terrible one, and it was attributed to the signalman forgetting for a moment that there was a train on his road. The result was that this rule 55 was introduced, which made it compulsory on the part of either the fireman or the guard, immediately their train ran up to a signal, to proceed to the signal-box at once, in order to act as a reminder to the signalman that they were there, the ostensible object being that the fireman or the guard should go into the box and say to the signalman, "My train is here," and this would prevent the signalman from letting another train through which might run into the rear of that train.

The object of the rule was to act purely as a reminder to the signalman in that way. In the Pontypridd disaster, which I have already mentioned, the Government inspector draws attention to the fact that there was in this signal-box just prior to the accident one of the railway inspectors, and this inspector was somewhat interfering with the signalman doing his duty, and the Government inspector, in his report, says, that he condemns the practice of the inspectors going to the signal-box at all, because, to use his own words, he says, "It is beyond human nature to expect that the signalman would not talk to the inspector, and therefore he would have his attention detracted from his work." That is what the Government inspector says. With regard to the carrying out of this rule, I had a letter less than an hour ago, and a signalman in one of the most responsible boxes on the Midland system says that only last week, between the hours of two and six there were over thirty men in his box carrying out this rule, and at one time there were ten in the box together. A Government inspector says it is dangerous for the signalman to be interfered with in his duty. He says it must detract from his work, and here we have a rule in operation which enables ten men at one given moment to be in the signal box interfering with the signalman in his work. I went to Pontypridd myself in order to conduct the case for the men, and here again this rule came up, and under cross-examination the signalman of one box admitted that it was possible for him to have nine men in his box at one moment, and the signalman at the other end admitted that it was possible for him to have seven men in his box at the same moment, all interfering with the signalman doing his work, and, therefore, I submit that while this rule was instituted for the purpose of aiding signalmen, under modern conditions, not only does it not aid them but it is a danger to them and to the travelling public.

I go further than that, and I say it is dangerous in another way. The very man who was burned to death on the Metropolitan Railway a few months ago last November was running a passenger train on the Metropolitan Railway loaded with passengers, and he told me he had a, young lad with him as fireman. It was a bad foggy day, and they ran up to a signal box and he had, according to this rule, to send this young lad to the signal box. In order to get to it he had to cross five sets of rails, three of them live rails, which if he had stepped on he would have been a dead man, and rather than carry out this rule and risk the life of this young lad he refused to allow him to go to the box, but ran the risk of punishment instead. I could mention hundreds of places on every railway in the country to-day where any fireman or guard who has to proceed to the signal box in foggy weather or in the night time, crossing dozens of metals to get there, risks his life, and any rule which compels a man to expose himself to that danger cannot be justified. But let me take the other point. On the Great Central Railway, near Barnsley, following one of these accidents which I have mentioned, the men decided strictly to give effect to this rule, although they knew it would cause delays and so on. One of the men arrived at a station, and he was ordered into a siding for the purpose of picking up some waggons. He said, "No, I must carry out Rule 55." He went to the stationmaster, and said, "I want you to carry out Rule 55, because I have to leave my train on the main line, and either I have to proceed to the signal-box myself or do the shunting. You tell me you will carry out Rule 55 and I will do the shunting." The stationmaster reported him, and he was punished for awkward working, simply because he knew perfectly well that he would cause delay. He had to run the risk of making himself objectionable to the stationmaster, and was punished because he was endeavouring to give literal effect to the rule. All this shows the absolute absurdity of the whole position, and I think it shows that it is for the Board of Trade to see that some alteration takes place.

One other point. Here we find a railway man who has to choose between breaking one or two rules. In the Pontypridd disaster the men by a rule in the rule-book were forbidden to do anything to their engine while the train was in motion. It meant that they simply had to do what work they had immediately the train stopped. They had to choose then between breaking the rule which says they must not do it while they are running in order to give effect to this Rule 55 when they stopped at a signal-box. All these things show that some alteration is necessary, and I am going to submit that the alteration that is necessary and what the Board of Trade ought to do is to immediately abolish this rule and compel railway companies to adopt one of the many mechanical appliances which are in operation to-day. It is no excuse to talk of the enormous cost. Cost in life is more important than cost in money. Since this particular disaster the men have been harassed and punished and dismissed, and they are in that state that they do not know what any day will bring forth; and in this state of mind, with this continual harassing and this pressure from all quarters, more accidents are likely to arise, and, therefore, again I say in the interests of the travelling public it is necessary for the Board of Trade to take action. I may have spoken very plainly on the matter, but I know the circumstances, I know how the men feel, I know how they suffer, and I believe there is a real danger, not only to the men but to the travelling public as well; therefore I ask that the Board of Trade in this matter shall not hesitate to press for fresh legislation. If railway companies will not do their duty in this matter, if they will not place the high value on human lives that they ought to do, it is for the Board of Trade to come to the House and get additional powers in order to compel them to do so.

I am obliged to my hon. Friends for the way in which they have spoken of the action of the Board of Trade. They have in some respects criticised the action of the Board of Trade, and in some cases what they are pleased to call its inaction, but generally I think they feel, and the first speaker appreciated, that in these matters the Board of Trade is endeavouring to bring about a better state of affairs and conditions of service under our great railway companies. My hon. Friend who spoke second seemed to think that the remarks of himself and other hon. Members representing the constituencies that he does would not bear great weight. I can assure him that that is an entire mistake, and I am quite sure, not only speaking as President of the Board of Trade, but as a Member of the House, that the House, and certainly the Government Department which I represent, attach very great weight to the observations and criticisms and remarks of hon. Gentlemen like the two who have just spoken, having an intimate knowledge as they have of the particular matters with which they are dealing. I can assure them that I welcome very much the observations that they have made, and that in this matter, as in all others, it is not only the duty of the Board of Trade, but it is certainly generally to the advantage of the country that we should give due and adequate weight to their representation. My hon. Friend (Mr. Wardle) raised the question of hours, but he did not dwell on it, because, as he said correctly, there has been and is still continuing, a gradual reduction in the hours of our railway servants. That is from every point of view a most satisfactory feature, and I agree with him that as the complexity of the working of the railway companies increases, so side by side with it there ought to be a gradual reduction of hours, because it is obvious that the more complicated the work, the greater the pressure during the hours of labour, therefore I am very glad there has been this reduction of hours and that it is proceeding. Both hon. Members dwelt on the question of accidents and pointed out the very serious position, and they quoted some figures, showing the number of fatal accidents and the number of non-fatal accidents. Though I do not wish in any sense to depreciate what they said or to minimise the importance of the question, I should like to point this out, and I think it will be satisfactory to the House, that, as regards fatal accidents, at all events, there has been of late years, especially in the last ten years, a very substantial reduction. I find that the average in the years from 1895 to 1904 was one fatal accident for every 665 railway servants employed. In 1909, the last year for which we have returns, the number was one in 1,093 persons. That is a substantial reduction. My hon. Friend said while there has been a reduction in the fatal accidents there has been an increase in the non-fatal accidents. I am afraid that is so to a certain extent, but the figures he quoted are not quite germane, because the basis on which these returns are made has been altered of late, and a larger number of smaller accidents are brought in now than before, and though I do not deny that there has been an increase, I do not think the proportional increase is quite so great as he represented. But I say emphati- cally this matter of accidents, and the large number of non-fatal accidents as well as fatal accidents, is one which requires the careful attention of the House and the careful watching and attention of the Board of Trade, and I am sure such representations as we make and such improvements as we suggest to the great railway companies will be adequately and sympathetically considered.

My hon. Friend made one or two suggestions. The first was that the number of inspectors should be increased, and he compared the number of inspectors in mines and factories. I do not think the position of mines and factories, regarding inspection, is quite the same. That is inspection quite as much from the point of view of seeing conditions carried out as from the point of view of the prevention of accidents. But so far as we are concerned at the present moment we have not found that our staff of inspectors, assistant inspectors, and sub-inspectors is insufficient to cope with the work.

We receive returns showing the number of accidents which take place, and in regard to many of the accidents reported to us inquiry is made and the circumstances are investigated. So far as our present position is concerned, we do not think that an increase in the staff would be justified. We do not think that there is really enough work for additional inspectors to do in the matter of examination into the accidents which occur. This is a matter which I shall bear in mind, for it is one which ought to be considered with the greatest care. If we should find that it is necessary to increase our staff of inspectors, I should not hesitate for a moment to ask the Treasury to sanction such an increase in the personnel. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) in his final remarks dwelt upon what is called Clause 55. I agree with him entirely with regard to the importance of that Clause. Roughly, as he explained to the House, it is this. Rule 55 is a general rule of the railway companies. It is not a rule made by the Board of Trade. It is a general rule agreed to by the various companies in consultation, and it is one which they enforce under their own regulations. The Board of Trade has no absolute control with respect to it. Under this rule it is the duty of the fireman or guard of a train against which there is a danger signal to remind the signalman of the position of the train, the object being that the signalman should not forget about it, and that he should send it on at the proper moment. The rule as it exists at present, broadly and roughly, lays down that in any such case either the fireman or guard of a train should go to the signal box and inform the signalman of the position of the train. Another point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby is one in regard to which I agree with him, namely, that the wording of the rule itself is somewhat obscure. Rules of that sort are drawn up, perhaps, by some legal person, and are not easy to understand, especially by persons who are not highly educated. My hon. Friend has said that the language of that rule is obscure. I have had the rule under careful consideration for some time past, and I have made representations to the railway companies on two points to which my hon. Friend referred.

In the first place there is the difficulty which was pointed out of observing the rule at crowded places and at places which are great distances from signal boxes. It has been pointed out that this might lead to endangering the fireman or guard who has to go from his train to the signal-box. Without professing to have technical knowledge of these matters, I would say further that I was also impressed with the statement that in many cases where you have a signal box at which there are a good many of these trains you may have a number of men in the signal box at a particular moment. It seems to me that that is not the best method of ensuring that the signalman is carrying out his duties and giving proper attention to the trains. Now, fortunately, there are great improvements in mechanical, telephonic, and electric communication, and it appeared to us that more might be done by the great railway companies to avoid the necessity of these firemen or guards going to the signal boxes. There ought to be, or might be, mechanical communication with the signal man instead of the fireman or guard having to go to the signal box. I am glad to say that some of our railway companies have already set a very good example in this matter and have done a great deal to get rid of the objections by themselves providing in various parts those mechanical appliances. But in some cases they have not done so, while in other cases they might have done more than they have done. Having considered the matter very carefully from the point of view of the safety of the public and also from the point of view of the safety of railway men and the great advantage which these improvements would give to the service, I communicated with all the great railway companies, pointing out two things. I will read two paragraphs in that communication which are really germane to this point:—

"I am directed to suggest that the companies would do well to consider whether there are not many places where, owing to the frequency of detention, or to the distance of the signals from the signal-box, it would add to the safety both of the travelling public and of the companies' employés, if mechanical or electrical appliances were introduced so as to render it unnecessary for the fireman or guard to proceed to the signal-box….It would also appear to be for consideration whether the wording of Rule 55 could not usefully be made more precise in certain particulars, so as to remove so far as possible all chances of misunderstanding."

We have had replies from some of the companies. I know from these communications that, having had their attention drawn to the matter in this way, they are anxious to meet us as far as they can, and I am sure that the communication sent to them by the Board will lead to satisfactory results. That communication was sent on the 12th April last. I would point out that in the case of the Board of Trade the actual letter sent is often a very small part of the actual communications which have taken place with the companies. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby said the Board of Trade ought to compel the companies to carry out this proposition. Of course he knows that we have not at present any power to do so. I hope it will not be necessary even to consider the question whether power should be asked for that purpose. So far as I am concerned, I am pretty confident that, attention having been drawn to the matter, something will be done. A debate of this sort is always useful in connection with these questions. I hope we shall be able to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. Reference has also been made to the position of the men's representatives at the various inquiries which take place. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby especially complained of what had occurred in one instance.

I only cited cases where our representatives were not allowed the facilities which we think they ought to have.

There is an opportunity for the men to make representations. I think my hon. Friend said that there was a particular class of engine which had been an exceptional cause of accidents, and he wished to have the opportunity of representing the men as an expert in this matter. He wished to have, an opportunity of seeing this engine, and he was refused that opportunity.