Commons Sitting of 31 July 1908

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill (by Order).—Read the third time, and passed.
PETITIONS.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against: From Marshfield; and Wiltshire Brewers' Association; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour: From Aberffraw; Alsager; Belan and Bryntwrog; Gaerwen (four); Haslingden; Kearsley; Liverpool; and Llanddensant; to lie upon the Table.

  NATAL (TRIAL OF DINIZULU).
  Petition from Edwin George Jellicoe, for inquiry; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  QUEEN'S COLLEGE, BELFAST.
  Copy presented, of Report of the President for the year 1907–8 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  OFFENCES (IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 9th July; Mr. Lonsdale]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 289.]
  PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES ACTS, 1879 AND 1884.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 30th July; Mr. Herbert Samuel] to lie upon the Table, and to be printed; [No. 290.]
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the County of the West Riding of Yorkshire, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for certain classes of Shops within the urban districts of Ravensthorpe, Soothill Nether, and Thornhill [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  TAXES AND IMPOSTS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 15th July; Sir Daniel Goddard]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  [No. 291.]

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Copy presented, of Agricultural Statistics, 1906. Vol. XLII. Part III. Prices and Supplies of Corn, Live Stock, and other Agricultural Produce [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 22, 1908).
  Copy presented, of Treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States of America providing: (1) For the Conveyance of Persons in Custody for Trial either in the Dominion of Canada or the United States through the Territory of the other; and (2) for Reciprocal Rights in Wrecking and Salvage in the Waters contiguous to the Boundary between the Dominion of Canada and the United States. Signed at Washington, 18th May, 1908. Ratifications exchanged at Washington, 30th June, 1908, [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Report, Annual Series, No. 4083 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  STATISTICAL ABSTRACT (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  Copy presented, of Statistical Abstract for the principal and other Foreign Countries in each year from 1896 to 1905–6 (Thirty-fourth Number) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE (FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND BRITISH POSSESSIONS).
  Copy presented, of Abstract and detailed Tables showing Countries of Consignment of Imports and Countries of Ultimate Destination of Exports (Supplement to Vols. I. and II.) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  DENMARK (NEW CUSTOMS TARIFF).
  Copy presented, of Translation of the Law etsablishing a New Customs Tariff for Denmark; together with comparison, as far as possible, of the Raes of Customs Duty contained in the New Tariff with the rates at present in force, and the English equivalents of both [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  GAS UNDERTAKINGS.
  Return ordered, "relating to all authorised Gas Undertakings in the United Kingdom, other than those of Local Authorities, for the year ended the 31st day of December, 1907, (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No.

  1945
  338, of Session, 1907)."—(Sir Hudson Kearley.)

  GAS UNDERTAKINGS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Return ordered, "relating to all, authorised Gas Undertakings in the United Kingdom belonging to Local Authorities for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1908, (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 339, of Session 1907)."—(Sir Hudson Kearley.)
  EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION.
  Copy ordered, ''of Statistical Tables relating to Emigration and Immigration from and into the United Kingdom in the year 1907, and Report to the Board of Trade thereon."—(Mr. Churchill.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Men Employed by Tramway Companies.
  MR. STEADMAN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state the number of men employed in connection with the traffic department of tramway undertakings in the United Kingdom.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have made inquiry, but I cannot find that there is any exact information on this subject. I understand, however, that the total number of the cars is 11,561, and that on an average the number of employees may be estimated at four men per car. This would give the estimated number of men employed as 46,244.

  Acquisition of Estate of Mrs. Charlotte E. Hynes.
  MR. MOORE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Estates Commissioners intend to compulsorily acquire from Mrs. Charlotte Elizabeth Hynes, in the County of Cavan, for the purposes of the Evicted Tenants Act, the lands of Deanfield and Rynn, amounting to 200 acres; if these are the only lands this lady has in her own
  1946
  occupation; if he is aware that she has never evicted a tenant; if the Estates Commissioners have already refused to sanction her sale to her tenants of tenanted land because she would not sell these lands to them at their own price; if it is the policy of the Government under the Act that one proprietor is to be dispossessed of his entire property to create three or four others; and if he will inquire into this case.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have gazetted notice of their intention to acquire, for the purposes of the Evicted Tenants Act, the lands referred to in the Question. The objections of the owner to the acquisition of the lands will be duly considered and judicially determined; and therefore, seeing that the matter is sub judice, it is not considered desirable to enter into details of the matters alleged in the Question.

  Acquisition of Untenanted Evicted Holdings on the Warren Estate.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners propose to acquire compulsorily the six untenanted evicted holdings on the unsold portion of the Warden estate at Sneem, County Kerry.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that there are only two evicted tenants on the Warden estate for whom they consider it necessary to provide holdings. They hope it will be possible to provide one of them with a holding on untenanted land on the Warden estate itself, and the other with a holding on untenanted land on another estate.

  Listowel Fair Rent Applications.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when will the decisions in the fair rent applications heard at the last Sub-land Commission Court held at Listowel be delivered.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Land Commission inform me that they anticipate that the decisions in the cases heard

  1947
  at the last sitting of the Sub-Commission Court at Listowel will be announced in September next.

  Scottish Firms and Post Office Contracts.
  MR. WATT: To ask the Postmaster-General what was the extent in money of the contracts placed in the year 1907 for waterproofs, boots, bicycles, and tools for the use of his Department, and how much of that sum was placed with Scottish firms having their premises in Scotland.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The figures for the financial year 1907–8 are as follows—

  Total value of Constracts.

  Amount placed with Scottish Firms.

  £

  £

  Waterproofs

  13,950

  1,980

  Boots

  14,595

  Nil

  Cycles and parts

  27,656

  8,860

  Tools

  3,985

  Nil

  In addition, a sum of about £11,600 was spent locally for the repair and hire of cycles, and over £900 of this was spent in Scotland. A Scottish firm also received orders from the cycle manufacturer for most of the tyres supplied on the new bicycles purchased during the year. The value of these orders for tyres is estimated at over £2,000. This sum of £2,000 is a part of the £27,656 shown above, but is not included in the £8,860.

  "The Iron and Coal Trades Review."
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the postage for an issue of the weekly Iron and Coal Trades Review weighing 1 lb. 15 oz., is only one halfpenny, while the postage on the monthly The Vulcan, weighing 6½ oz., is twopence; whether he will explain the principle upon which the postal authorities discriminate between two journals dealing with the same class of news and catering for the same class of readers, and advertisers; and whether he will consider the advisability of redressing this difference of treatment.
  1948
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Under the Post Office Act of 1870 the prilvilege of transmission by post at the newspaper rate is limited, among other restrictions, to publications issued at intervals of not more than seven days. The Iron and Coal Trades Review conforms to this condition and is registered at the Post Office as a newspaper. In view of the fact that the newspaper post is unremunerative I am not prepared to introduce a Bill to extend the privilege to monthly publications.

  Postmen's Duty at Port Talbot.
  MR. J. WILLIAMS: To ask the Postmaster-General whether postmen at Port Talbot have been compelled to perform duties proper to the class of sorting clerks and telegraphists against the recommendations of the Hobhouse Committee; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made in order to ascertain whether salaries proper to the duties are being paid at this office.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) So far as I am aware, the postmen at Port Talbot are only employed on duties proper to their class, but I am having inquiry made into the matter.

  Tenders for New Scottish Fishery Cruiser.
  MR. R. DUNCAN: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if firms will be excluded from tendering for the new cruiser for the Fishery Board unless they are both shipbuilders and engineers; and, if so, is there any reason why firms of approved standing in these lines of manufacture should not tender conjointly, as is the usual practice in the case of the mercantile marine.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I am informed that the Fishery Board's past experience leads them to the conclusion that for their special purpose tenders should be invited only from firms capable of themselves undertaking the whole work of construction.

  Irish Fisheries Grant Supplementary Estimate.
  MR. BARRIETo ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the omission of the words, "for

  1949
  the year ending 31st March, 1908," in the revised Supplementary Estimate of £114,000 for bonuses and capitation grants for Irish teachers, passed under Closure on the 28th instant (No. 255), and which were inserted in the Supplementary Estimate of 22nd June (No. 186), will prevent these allowances being paid immediately for the year ending 31st March last, in fulfilment of promises previously made.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I understand that the increased allowances are to be paid in respect of the financial year ended 31st March last, but of course it is not intended that Parliament shall provide more than one year's grant in any given financial year.

  The Jasdan Succession.
  MR. REES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the decision of the Government in the case of the Jasdan succession was arrived at prior to, or after, presentation of a memorial against change of the immemorial custom of succession by the sons and grandchildren of the late Chief of Jasdan; whether any memorial has been presented by the Kathi community generally praying the Government not to interfere with the immemorial customs of the tribe by enforcing the rule of primogeniture; and what reasons, if any, were given in the Government's reply to such memorial for the introduction of primogeniture.
  (Answered by Colonel Seely.) The memorial to the Secretary of State in Council of the sons and grandsons of the late Chief of Jasdan was not submitted till after the installation of the present chief. A number of memorials from Kathi chiefs and others against enforcement of the rule of primogeniture are now under the consideration of the Secretary of State in Council.

  Naval officers and Foreign Languages.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that none of the officers accredited to foreign capitals have passed for interpreter in any foreign language; and, in view of the utility of this knowledge, whether he can state how many
  1950
  executive officers there are in the Navy, of midshipman's rank and above, and how many of these have passed for interpreter in German, excluding officers of the Mercantile Marine belonging to the Royal Naval Reserve.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) It is true that none of the naval officers accredited to foreign courts have qualified as interpreter, but it must be remembered that until 1904 no executive officer above the rank of lieutenant could be appointed as an interpreter. There are 3,364 officers on the executive list, and of these ten have qualified as interpreters since 1905. There are a good many officers, however, who, without being able to pass the high standard required for an interpreter, are nevertheless possessed of a knowledge of the German language.

  Pay for Rough Carpentry Work in Government Workshops.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the work described as rough-carpentry, viz., the fixing and alteration of racks in storehouses, etc., is, when done by private firms, performed by skilled workmen, who are paid the standard rate of wage of the district; and whether he will take steps to place the workmen doing this class of work in Government yards and workshops on the same level, so far as wages and conditions of labour are concerned, as the workmen employed by private firms.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. The facts are as stated in reply to previous inquiry on this subject, and no reason is seen for departing from the present arrangements, which have been in existence for many years.

  Loss of H.M.S. "Whiting."
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty with reference to His Majesty's ship "Whiting," which has been blown ashore at Hong Kong and may become a total loss, whether he is aware that the ship has no officers according to the Navy List; and whether

  1951
  he can state what is the crew on board her, assuming no men are on leave, and where she was moored in the harbour.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) My hon. friend is well aware that the fact that no j officers are shown in this month's Navy List is no justification for assuming that there were none on board the ship at Hong Kong this week. The Admiralty have no information on the matter, which is entirely within the discretion of the Commander-in-chief on the station.

  Postal Delay at Waterville and Cahirdaniel.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the frequent delay in the delivery of the mails at Waterville and Cahirdaniel; and whether he will make representations on the subject to the railway company and others responsible for the delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have called for a Report on this subject and on its receipt I will send the hon. Member a reply.

  Bolton Postal Staff.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state how many postmen and how many persons in the other grades of the service there are employed in the Bolton postal district; and what is the volume of work, in units, in that district.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The following are approximately the figures:—Bolton: Number of postmen employed, 90; number of persons in; other grades of the Post Office service, 160; volume of work, 597 units.

  Manchester Postal Staff.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state how many postmen and how main-persons in the other grades of the service there are employed in the Manchester postal district; and what is the volume of work, in units, in that district.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The following are approximately the figures:—Manchester: Number of post-
  1952
  men employed, 900; number of persons in other grades of the Post Office service, 2,300; volume of work, 9,612 units.

  Postal Telegraphic Duties at Bournemouth.
  MR. A. ALLEN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, in Paragraph 286 of its Report, the Hobhouse Committee recommended that sorting clerks and telegraphists in Classes 1 and 2 should be divided between postal and telegraphic duties, and that Bournemouth is now in Class 2; and whether, in view of this specific recommendation not previously objected to by the Department, he will state the reason for withholding the application of the scheme to Bournemouth.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am aware of the recommendation in question. In answering the hon. Member's Question on 20th July I explained why the recommendation cannot properly be carried out in the case of all offices in Class 2.

  Post Office Accommodation at Ballymoney
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction that exists in Ballymoney with the Post Office accommodation; whether he is aware that premises for a new Post Office for the town were advertised for six years ago, and that central and commodious premises are at present available; and whether, in view of the effect of the present limited accommodation on the employees, and of the fact that the whole of the town has to be traversed to get from the railway station to the Post Office, he will consider the advisability of having the office transferred to more central and more suitable premises.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am not aware of the circumstances stated, but I will inquire and will acquaint the hon. Member with the result.

  Deaths under Anæsthetics—Suggested Royal Commission.
  MR. BRAMSDON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home

  1953
  Department whether his attention has been called to the recent deaths of three persons under anæsthetics in London hospitals, and which were the subject of coroners' inquiries on Saturday last the 25th instant, viz., Henry Walter Furlonger, aged fifty-two, an employee of the City of London Brewery, who died in the Central London Throat and Ear Hospital; Lydia Thompson, aged forty-five, who was given an anæsthetic at the Royal Free Hospital for an operation to remove a needle which had penetrated her hand, and in neither of which cases had the operation actually commenced; and Harold Cecil Buttram, aged sixteen, who died at the London Hospital in the middle of the removal of some dead bone from his jaw; and whether, having regard to the continued cases of deaths under anæsthetics, he can now see his way clear to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have seen newspaper reports of two of the cases referred to. I am in communication with the Lord President of the Council, and through him with the General Medical Council, on the question whether a course of instruction in the administration of anæthetics can be included in all cases in the course of study required for a medical qualification; and I think that the question of holding a formal inquiry by Royal Commission or Committee may with advantage be postponed, at any rate until I know what action the medical authorities are prepared to take in this matter.

  Cost of Reformatories and Industrial Schools.
  MR. LEIF JONES: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the total annual cost of the reformatories and industrial schools of England and Wales; and what proportion is borne by national and local funds.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The total cost for the year 1907 was £428,888. The Treasury contributed 42 per cent, and the local rates nearly 42 per cent., the rest coming from
  1954
  subscriptions and profit from labour. Taken separately, the Treasury contributed 56 per cent, and the rates 26 per cent, in the case of reformatories; while for industrial schools the proportions are: Treasury, 37 per cent.; rates, 47 per cent.

  Cost of Prisons.
  MR. LEIF JONES: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the total cost of the prisons of England and Wales, both county and national, including therein interest on capital expenditure, annual charges for maintenance and pensions, the expenses of the Prison Commissioners, and the proportion of this expenditure borne by local and national funds.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The total cost of the prisons of England and Wales, including State inebriate reformatories, for the year ended 31st March last, for salaries and maintenance, is £722,396 3s. 9d. There are no charges for interest on capital expenditure. The whole of this expenditure falls on Imperial funds. The annual charge on the Superannuation Vote on account of Prisons, England and Wales, was on the 30th instant, £83,736 1s. 10d. In addition to this, some £500 to £600 is paid each year in gratuities to retired prison officers who are ineligible for pension. These charges also fall on Imperial funds; but local funds bear a certain pension charge in respect of men who were in the prison service before 1878, and have since retired. It is, however, impossible to state exactly how much this charge is. It is now comparatively small.

  Cost of Inebriate Homes.
  MR. TOULMIN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the cost of inebriate homes for England and Wales for the last year for which Returns are available, including annual interest charges on capital expenditure, annual charges for maintenance, the amounts contributed by the State, and the amounts contributed by local authorities or private enterprise respectively.

  1955
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The cost of certified, inebriate reformatories in England and Wales in 1906 was £55,489. Of this amount the State contributed £27,644, and local authorities £27,845. Details of the expenditure will be found in the inspector's Report. The cost of the State inebriate reformatories, which is borne wholly by the State, is included in the figures relating to prisons given in the Answer to a Question by my hon. friend the Member for the Appleby Division, to-day. Particulars are given on page 104 of the Report of the Prison Commissioners, issued in 1907. Besides the reformatories, a number of inebriate retreats have been established by philanthropic bodies and private persons, but no contribution is made to these institutions from public funds.

  Cost of Lunatic Asylums.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the total cost of the care of lunatics in England and Wales for the last year for which Returns are available, whether borne by Imperial or local taxation, including therein the annual interest charges on capital indebtedness, the yearly cost of the maintenance of all asylums, the expenses of the Lunacy Commissioners, and the charges made for the Broodmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum, together with the proportion of money obtained from Imperial and local taxation.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) In the year 1905–6, the last for which complete figures are available, the total expenditure of the local authorities of England and Wales in respect of lunatics and lunatic asylums, as ascertained provisionally for the purposes of the summary of the Local Taxation Returns, was £3,551,955. This is made up as follows—

  £

  (1) Loan changes(other than those paid by the London Country Council

  642,686

  (2) Maintenance and other changes not met out of loans

  2,909,269

  3,551,955

  1956
  The total amounts received by the local authorities in that year in the shape of grants from the Exchequer and other receipts which can be definitely allocated as being in respect of lunatics and lunatic asylums were—

  £

  Grants

  878,193

  Miscellaneous receipts not derived from taxation

  421,664

  There is in addition to the above, the cost of the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum and of the Lunacy Commission which fall entirely on Imperial funds. The former of these, including expenses charged to other funds or votes, but allowing for appropriations in aid, was, in the same year (1905–6) £38,966, and the latter £18,764.

  Overworking of Children and Young Persons.
  MR. VERNEY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the Reports recently made by factory inspectors dealing with the disease and mortality caused by systematic overwork of children in conditions often detrimental to health, he will consider the advisability of introducing fresh legislation for the purpose of increasing the penalties for such offences under the Employment of Children Act, 1903, and in cases of repeated conviction for these offences for providing for the imprisonment of those who are responsible, without option of a fines instead of the fines now imposed by the Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The whole question will receive my careful consideration, and I will bear in mind the point which the hon. Member raises as to the adequacy of the existing penalties.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been drawn to the Report on pages 178 ff. of the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops for 1907, with respect to the employment of children in the North of Ireland; and whether, if such cases as that of L. M. described by the inspector are cognisable under the Acts relating to the Prevention of Cruelty to Children,

  1957
  he will instruct the inspectors to cause proceedings to be taken under those Acts in all similar cases.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I am aware of the Report in question. The circumstances do not seem to be such as would suffice to establish a charge of wilful neglect or ill-treatment under the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act; but the whole question raised by these Reports will receive my careful consideration.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the Chief Lady Inspector on pages 152 ff. of the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops for 1907, with regard to complaints relating to conditions of employment or supervision of the work of young women and girls which, directly or indirectly, affect conduct or morality injuriously, and to her Report on pages 184 ff. of the same Report with regard to employment after childbirth; and whether he will consider the introduction of legislation with respect to either or both of these matters.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Yes, Sir, the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector is a Report issued by my Department under my directions. The first of the questions referred to is a very far-reaching one, which arises in connection with all kinds of employment of women and not merely employment in factories and workshops. The second question is being made the subject at the present time of a comprehensive inquiry. Both will receive my full consideration, but I cannot make any statement as to the possibility of legislation.

  Cost of Police.
  MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state what is the total annual cost of the police in England and Wales (including the Metropolitan Police), and the proportion borne by national and local taxation, respectively.
  1958
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon. friend. If my hon. friend will refer to the last Report on Police (Counties and Boroughs, England and Wales) for the year ending 29th September, 1907, Table VI. c., pages 248–9, he will find that the total gross cost of the police was £5,864,151, and that of this amount £2,161,789 came from the Exchequer Contribution Account, and £3,145,457 from local rates. The balance consisted of sums received for services of additional constables and certain other receipts.

  Annual Cost of Poor Relief.
  MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the total annual cost of poor relief, and all purposes wholly connected therewith, in England and Wales for the last year for which Returns are available, and what proportion is borne by local and national taxation.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The total expenditure on these purposes in England and Wales during the year ended at Lady-Day, 1907, was £13,957,000. It is estimated that of this sum £790,500, or 5·6 per cent., was met by means of repayments by relatives and other receipts not derived from taxation, and that of the remainder £2,591,000, or 18·6 per cent, of the whole, was borne by national taxation, and £10,575,500, or 75·8 per cent., by local rates.

  Adjustment of Financial Relations between County and Borough Councils.
  MR. ADKINS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board what steps the Board are prepared to take in view of the varying practice of Parliamentary Committees with regard to the adjustment of financial relations between county boroughs and county councils when the rateable value and cost of administration of the county area are affected by the extension of a county borough; and whether the Government will appoint a Special Committee or a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the questions raised by the decisions of the House of Lords

  1959
  in Caterham Urban District Council v. Godstone Rural District Council and in Durham County Council v. West Hartlepool Corporation.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) This matter is receiving my attention; but I have not at present arrived at a decision with regard to it.

  Heating Lighting and Cleaning of Scottish Schools.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the circular issued by the Scottish Education Department relative to the cleansing and disinfecting of schools, and to the fact that totally inadequate sums have hitherto been provided for the fuel, lighting, and cleansing of the twelve schools in the parish of Lochs, Island of Lewis, will arrangements be made for such amounts to be provided as will admit of effect being given to the instructions contained in the circular.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The proper lighting, heating, and cleansing of the schools in any district is a duty which rests upon the school board of that district, and the necessary expenses must be met from the school fund of the district. No Exchequer grant is made specially for this purpose.

  Appeal Against Magistrates' Decision in the Cleave Case.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will direct an appeal against the decision of the Liverpool magistrates in the Cleave's case.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) My hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. The propriety of appealing against the decision in question has been, carefully considered; but the Board are advised that it is not likely that any useful purpose would be served thereby.

  War Office Accounting Officer.
  MR. BOWLES: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any and, if so, what official at the War Office has yet been appointed accounting officer of that Department
  1960
  in place of the Director-General of Army Finance whose office has been abolished.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Mr. Charles Harris, hitherto a principal clerk in the Department of the Finance Member of the Army Council, will be nominated to be accounting officer for Army Votes on his appointment as assistant financial secretary when the retirement of Sir Guy Fleetwood Wilson takes place.

  Increased Salaries for Excise Officers.
  MR. W. NICHOLSON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if, as the duties of the Excise officers will be more important under the Pensions Bill, due provision will be made for increasing their salaries.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) In my Answer of the 2nd ultimo to the hon. Member for Blackburn, I have already indicated my readiness to consider favourably a recommendation from the Board of Inland Revenue to award gratuities to those Excise officers who may be called on to undertake the new work this autumn in connection with old-age pensions. I am not in a position to add anything to that Answer.

  Salaries of Excise Officers.
  MR. W. NICHOLSON: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the present minimum and maximum salaries of a second-class and first-class-Excise officer respectively; and if only two officers out of nine can at present expect to receive a higher appointment which will entitle him to a salary exceeding £250 per annum.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The minimum salary of the first and second-class Excise officers is £180 and £115 per annum respectively, and the maximum salary £250 and £160 per annum respectively. As shown at pages 28 and 36 of the Estimates for the Revenue Departments, 1908–9, the present number of appointments with a salary exceeding £250 per annum for which Excise officers are eligible on promotion is 556, and the combined total of first and second-class officers and assistants of Excise is 2,975.

  Supplementary Estimates.
  SIR F. BANBURY: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total amount of money voted this session in Supplementary Estimates for which specific provision was not made in the Budget, with details of the heads under which such moneys were voted.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The total amount was £378,496, made up as follows—

  £

  Stationery and Printing

  5

  Public Education

  114,000

  House of Parliament Building

  5,000

  Repayments to the Civil Contingencise Fund

  41,491

  Expenses under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905

  200,000

  Relief of Distress(Ireland)

  13,000

  Government Hospitality

  5,000

  378,496

  Purchase of the Hort Estate.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants of the Hort estate, in the County of Kildare, signed proposals for the purchase of certain grass lands, portion of the said estate, in such parcels as the Estates Commissioners should think fit to allow to each tenant; that the Estates Commissioners offered to the Land Court a price for the said estate which was acceptable to Mr. Justice Ross, provided the offer was amended so as to exclude from its scope the lands in possession of one certain court tenant, and that the other tenants of the estate were willing to agree to this condition; that cattle-drives have taken place on this estate and that the Estates Commissioners have withdrawn their offer to purchase in consequence thereof; whether he is aware that Mr. Justice Ross has said that these cattle-drives had been improperly brought to his notice in order to prejudice his mind against the tenants, and that he subsequently admitted that such cattle-drives may have been done at the instance of a grazier; and will he say if the intending purchasers have been in any degree identified with
  1962
  the cattle-drives, and, if not, will the Estates Commissioners be informed that in the interest of the vendors and purchasers the offer should be renewed by them.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they made an offer for the purchase of the estate in question, which was for sale in the Land Judge's Court, but they subsequently withdrew their offer because it had been brought to their notice: (1) That the cattle of the grazing tenants had on four occasions been driven off the lands, and that men with blackened faces and turned coats had cleared the lands and assaulted the police; and (2) that the tenants on the estate had signed undertakings to purchase only on the condition that the entire of the grass lands should be sold to them. The Estates Commissioners add, however, that they are prepared to consider any application which may be made to them by any of the parties concerned. So far as the proceedings in the Land Judge's Court are concerned the registrar of that Court has furnished me with the following statement: The offer for purchase of Hort's estate by the Estates Commissioners has been before the Land Judge on two occasions. The first occasion was 18th May, 1908, when counsel appeared for two persons claiming to be tenants on the lands, and directed the judge's attention to the fact that one of the conditions of the offer was that their tenancies should be determined before the sale, and possession of the lands should be given to the Estates Commissioners. The Land Judge decided that one of these claimants held under a regular tenancy to the Court, and that he would not and could not in justice determine his tenancy. In the other case the Land Judge disregarded the claim, on the ground that the claimant held merely under an agistment contract, and that he could not interfere in the matter. When the matter was under discussion mention was made of cattle-driving having taken place on the estate, and the Land Judge said that this topic should not have been introduced into an argument on a question of law, and could only have been introduced with the view of prejudicing the mind of the Court. The Land Judge did not say

  1963
  that these cattle-drives might have been done at the instance of the grazier; he refused to enter at all into the question who was responsible for them. The second occasion on which the matter was before the Land Judge was on 22nd July, 1908, when the Estates Commissioners' letter intimating their intention to withdraw their offer was under his consideration. On this occasion it was again attempted to introduce the subject of cattle-driving, but the Land Judge absolutely refused to allow the matter to be discussed before him, stating that the reasons which influenced the Estates Commissioners to withdraw their offer were not for him to consider, but if it were the fact that the Estates Commissioners refused to apply public moneys in purchasing estates in respect of which intimidation had been used, and cattle-driving had taken place, he thoroughly approved their conduct.

  Unpaid Mess Debts Contracted by Staff-Sergeant Scully, Dublin Metropolitan Police.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it came to the knowledge of Inspector Dunne of the Dublin Metropolitan Police some time back that Staff-Sergeant Scully, who has since absconded, had contracted large debts with butchers for meat supplied to the mess; if the superintendent arranged with the sergeant before he went away that the latter should pay the debt by instalments; how many payments were made in this way, and what amount remains unpaid; whether this system of discharging debts incurred for the benefit of the mess is in accordance with the rules of the force; if these circumstances were brought under the notice of the Chief Commissioner of Police before he made his Report, upon the recommendation of which the Treasury refunded Inspector Dunne a considerable sum of money, and, if not, will the Chief Commissioner institute an inquiry into the methods introduced by Inspector Dunne, who has also recently denied to the men under his control the privilege so long enjoyed of electing the man they thought best qualified to take charge of the mess, and appointed a man of his own selection; whether, in consequence,
  1964
  the cost to the men has considerably increased without any corresponding advantage in the fare; and whether any of the increased expenditure is levied to pay off the old debt by instalments as agreed upon with the sanction of Inspector Dunne.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Chief Commissioner informs me, on the authority of Superintendent Dunne, that there is no foundation for the suggestions contained in the first part of the Question. An allegation was made to the superintendent that ex-Staff Sergeant Scully was not paying his mess accounts regularly, but on examination the superintendent found that all accounts had been paid and vouched for. There was, therefore, no occasion for the superintendent making arrangements that any debt should be paid by instalments and there were no irregularities to bring, under the notice of the Chief Commissioner. The superintendent has not interfered with the selection by the men of one of their own number to take charge of the mess. The cost of the mess has considerably decreased since the appointment of a new messman on 1st instant.

  Evicted Tenants—Reinstatement of Mr. James Sisk.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners can now see their way to reconsider their decision to take no action in the matter of the reinstatement of Mr. James Sisk in his former holding on the Fleury estate, Glenwood, County Cork, seeing that the planter, Mr. Michael Walsh, has surrendered the holding and the landlord is willing to reinstate the evicted tenant.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they are not aware of any change in the circumstances of this case since I answered the hon. Member's Question of 13th instant. The Commissioners will, however, communicate with the owner on the subject.

  Treatment of Irish School Inspectors.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that

  1965
  for some years the two chief inspectors of the Natioal Board of Education have been acting in an arbitrary manner towards many of the subordinate inspectors under their jurisdiction, and at the same time threatening them that, if they intended to have any Questions asked in Parliament as to their treatment, the Commissioners would visit those who so complained with the severest punishment within their power to inflict; and whether he will state when and in what manner the Commissioners authorised the chief inspectors to adopt intimidating methods of this kind towards subordinates for merely complaining of their treatment.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that their chief inspectors have for many years been duly authorised to impress upon the inspectors generally that to endeavour to influence the action of the Board by procuring Questions in Parliament in reference to their personal or official concerns was contrary to the regulations of the public service and of the Commissioners. So long ago as 2nd May, 1867, a special Treasury Minute on the subject of private solicitation of Members of Parliament, was issued. Inspectors can always appeal to the Commissioners against arbitrary acts on the part of the chief inspectors, but no such appeals have been made nor, so far as the Commissioners are aware, have any such arbitrary acts taken place.

  Royal Irish Constabulary Bill.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when he intends to proceed with the Royal Irish Constabulary Bill.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) It is intended to introduce and proceed with the Bill in the coming Autumn Session. Before the Bill can be introduced the necessary Financial Resolution must be passed, and the Committee dealing with the subject has, through pressure of business, been deferred until 12th October.

  Irish Education Grants.
  MR. BARRIE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been directed
  1966
  to the circumstance that, under the revised Supplementary Estimate, Class 4, Vote 10, Public Education (Ireland), issued on 24th July, and voted under the Closure on 28th July, convent schools will get augmentation grants much in excess of those to other schools; for instance, a convent school with a roll of 220 will get £55 augmentation, while an ordinary school with a like roll would get only £38, viz., £10 to principal and £7 each to four assistants; and is it intended to pay conventual teachers on a higher scale, out of public funds, than ordinary teachers.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that in the case supposed in the Question the figures are as stated, but that in respect of the whole Vote for National Education, including the sums provided upon the revised Supplementary Estimate, convent schools are not paid on a higher scale than ordinary national schools.
  MR. BUTCHER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that a fresh Estimate has been presented in connection with the grant of £114,000 to Irish primary education, those interested in the preservation of schools with attendance under fifteen may assume that the National Board is not bound by the former condition to the effect that schools under fifteen must be suppressed, and that it is open to the National Board to represent to the Treasury the ugrent need of maintaining many of these schools.
  (Answered b Mr. Birrell.) In my opinion the Answer is in the affirmative.

  Welsh Disestablishment.
  MR. REES: To ask the Prime Minister whether the receipt and consideration of the Report of the Welsh Church Commission is a necessary preliminary to the introduction of a measure dealing with the disestablishment of the Church in Wales.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The Government hope that this Report may soon be in their hands, but they could not bind themselves to postpone making their proposals until after the Report is received.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  The Jasdan Successor.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the decision of the Government in the case of the Jasdan succession was arrived at prior to, or after, presentation of a memorial against change of the immemorial custom of succession by the sons and grandchildren of the late Chief of Jasdan; whether any memorial has been presented by the Kathi community generally praying the Government not to interfere with the immemorial customs of the tribe by enforcing the rule of primogeniture; and what reasons, if any, were given in the Government's reply to such memorial for the introduction of primogeniture.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,): The memorial to the Secretary of State in Council of the sons and grandsons of the late Chief of Jasdan was not submitted till after the installation of the present Chief. A number of memorials from Kathi Chiefs and others against enforcement of the rule of primogeniture are now under the consideration of the Secretary of State in Council.

  Unemployment in Gateshead.
  MR. J. JOHNSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the personnel of the public bodies dealing with the distress in Gateshead; and what is the scope of their operations.
  I beg also to ask the President of the Local Government Board how many unemployed workmen there are in Gateshead; and what amount has been spent in relief during the present year.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I will answer together these two Questions. The public bodies referred to are the distress committee, the board of guardians, and the town council. The names of the members of them cannot conveniently be set out in answer to a Question, but I will send a list to my hon. friend, if he desires it These bodies act within the sphere of their several functions. The clerk to the
  1968
  distress committee informs me that he cannot give an accurate estimate of the total number of unemployed workmen at Gateshead. He, however, states that 187 applications for employment were registered by the committee during the year ended at March last, and that 125 men have since made application to them. The total expenditure on poor relief in the Gateshead Union for the year to 25th March last was £46,600.

  Friday Sittings in the Autumn.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of meeting the convenience of Members by arranging that the House shall not sit on Fridays during the proposed autumn session except and until it is found that the full day sittings of Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays are not likely to afford sufficient time for the completion of the business of the House before the date for ending the session.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,)I regret that I cannot see my way to adopt this suggestion.

POLLING DISTRICTS AND REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Lords' Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
Resolved, That this House do meet To-morrow, at Ten of the. Clock.—(Mr. J. Pease.)

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
*THE CHAIRMAN: As regards Schedule B, there is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, but I do not think that it is in order. He seeks to put in certain words which I do not think can be raised on the schedule.
LORD R. CECILsaid the words which he proposed to

1969
put in were only explanatory of the words already in the schedule. They did not in any way interfere with the meaning of the schedule beyond emphasising what were the points therein contained. He submitted that so long as they did not go outside of the Resolution, there could be no objection to any verbal alteration, provided that they did not in any way increase or diminish the charge. He submitted this Amendment in order to raise a question which ought to be a little more discussed by the Committee.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid he did not think, in the first place, that there was any precedent for such an Amendment at this stage; and, in the second place, unless there was something in the nature of a discrepancy between the resolutions in Committee of Supply and the schedule to which the noble Lord could point in this matter, he certainly did not think that he could raise his Amendment.
LORD R. CECILsaid he could point out that in this case the Public Accounts Committee had reported to the House that words of the kind he suggested, namely, after "grants" to insert "to meet a temporary emergency," ought to be inserted in the Appropriation Bill, and it was only with a view to carrying out that recommendation that he asked the House to assent to these words. With regard to precedent, he agreed there was none, and there was none for the particular procedure adopted, except last year.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that after the explanation of the noble Lord all he could say was that the point ought to be taken on the discussion of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee.
MR. JAMES HOPEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether it was his ruling that it was impossible to insert in the Appropriation Bill any Amendment coming within the terms of the original Resolution on which the Appropriation Bill was based.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid he was not ruling absolutely that, but he must
1970
point out that if they could raise Amendments of the kind now proposed, they could discuss again altogether the terms on which these grants were made. He thought that would be undesirable.
LORD R. CECILsaid that this was virtually a matter of first-rate constitutional importance on which there ought to be a definite and clear ruling. The Amendment did not in any way affect to raise the question of the policy of making these grants; he merely proposed to insert the words in order to make it clear why these grants were made. He respectfully submitted that a discussion on the Report, of the Public Accounts Committee would not really have met the case. They knew that the Public Accounts Committee had reported that certain words should be inserted in the Appropriation Bill.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that according to previous rulings on the Appropriation Bill the Amendment was out of order.
Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow.

OLD-AGE PENSIONS BILL.
Lords Amendments considered.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 1, line 5, after '(1),' to insert the words until the thirty-first day of December one thousand nine hundred and fifteen.' "
*MR. SPEAKER: With regard to this Amendment and the next, I have to say that in my opinion they are what are called "privilege" Amendments, and I say so on the ground that they vary the grant of the old-age pension as determined by this House, and, if no further legislation takes place, they would make the grant to end after a certain period of time. In my opinion these two Amendments are privilege Amendments.
Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendments," put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 1, line 21, at end, to insert the words 'as verified wherever practicable by certificates of birth or baptism or in the absence of such certificates by census returns or other official documents, or where no such certificates or documents are attainable in such other manner as may seem sufficient to the pension authorities.' "
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,)THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs) moved, "That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment." In the first place, this was obviously a matter which ought to be dealt with by regulation. No Amendment of this kind could possibly cover all contingencies that would arise and have to he provided for. As a matter of fact, the regulations which had been framed were much more elaborate than anything contained in these words. It was perfectly clear if they accepted the Amendment that the man over seventy years of age, when required, would have to prove it in the way it proposed, and they would thus impose upon the person applying a charge of half-a-crown or three shillings and sixpence, though it was known to everybody in the locality that the man had reached the age of seventy, and the pension officer had satisfied himself by other means that the applicant was seventy years of age. Why should a man in a case of that kind be compelled to provide official documents, the getting of which would involve a great deal of trouble, and make it really difficult for him to get his pension? In fact, in the case of a deserving old person, they wanted to make it easy for him to get his pension. There were cases where it would be necessary to have some sort of evidence, and these were the cases which would be carried up to the pension officer. There might be some cases of difficulty, but for these there were elaborate regulations, and therefore on these grounds he moved to disagree with the Lords Amendment.
Motion, made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the object which the Lords had in
1972
view, so far as he could judge, was to make good a plain defect in the original Bill. The amount of charge thrown upon the taxpayers, or as he should rather say the accuracy of the estimate of the charge, would really depend upon the success attending the efforts to prevent the receipt of pensions by persons not entitled to them because of their being under the age of seventy. He thought the scheme in respect to that age would have to be modified in the future, but as all financial estimates, all the prophecies of the Government, of the charges on the public depended upon the accuracy and success with which they were able to prevent persons getting pensions, it war quite clear the machinery of the Bill and its loose wording might be somehow or other greatly improved. This could not be denied. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that he had already had regulations drawn up of a more elaborate character than this Amendment, or any that could be introduced into the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had not shown the House these regulations, but he was quite ready to accept the statement.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it was obvious that he could not lay the regulations before the House until he knew what were the decisions to which they came, because these regulations might be affected very seriously one way or the other by these very vital Amendments.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid there was force and substance in this objection, and if the right hon. Gentleman was far advanced with his regulations——
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the right hon. Gentleman considered that the regulations, would be more effective for attaining the object of the Lords Amendment, then he did not quarrel with the decision at which the right hon. Gentleman had arrived.
LORD R. CECILdid not think the right hon. Gentleman had really done justice to the Amendment. It did not require the production of official documents in every case, nor at the cost of the pensioner; it merely said that where it was practicable a certificate should be

1973
provided, but the committee had the alternative of doing without it; it was merely an indication of the method to be pursued. He did not envy the position of a pension officer in certain parts of the United Kingdom who, in doubt as to the age of the applicant, demanded the certificate. That was a much less workable arrangement than to indicate on the face of the Bill that official evidence when required should be procured, not at the expense of the applicant, but at the expense of the pension committee, who should themselves say the particular instances into which the pension officer was to be entitled to inquire. The right hon. Gentleman said the regulations were in draft, but that he could not present them until he knew the final form of the Bill.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he had them all ready.
LORD R. CECILsaid that if they had seen them, in draft Members would know what they were doing. So much was left to regulation that practically all that the House had done was to tell the Government to draw up a scheme for old-age pensions. It would have been better had the Government presented the draft regulations at the earliest stage for discussion, and afterwards amended them if necessary. He did not propose to divide the House on this Amendment after what the right hon. Gentleman had said.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 1, line 22, after the word 'must' to insert the words 'satisfy the pension authorities that.' "
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that this was really a drafting Amendment, and he did not think that it really mattered much. If the Lords thought they were better than the words of the Bill he was not disposed to quarrel with them; it was a pure matter of drafting. Then in line 24 they would have to put in the word "has" instead of "have."
Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendments—
"In page 2, line 24, to leave out the first 'have,' and to insert, the words 'he has,' and to leave out the second 'have,' and to insert the word 'has.' "
"In page 2, line 1, to leave out the words 'means of the,' and after the word 'person,' to insert the words 'must satisfy the pension authorities that his yearly means.' "
"In page 2, line 2, to leave out the word ' must,' and to insert the word 'do.' "
Agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 7, to leave out from the word 'until' to the word 'Parliament' in line 9.' "
*MR. SPEAKER: It appears to me that this is also a privilege Amendment, and the effect of it might be to vary the period of disqualification. The Bill says the period of disqualification shall be determined on 31st December, 1910; but if these words were struck out the period would be indeterminate; it might be a shorter or a longer time; they would, at all events, vary the period the House has fixed. I therefore consider this a privilege Amendment.
Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendments,"—(Mr. Lloyd-George,)—put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 2, line 34, to leave out the word 'for,' and to insert the words 'during the last.' "
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that this was very largely a question of drafting. They had had a discussion about it, on the initiative, he thought, of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, and they had then decided to stand by the words of their own draftsman. He moved to disagree.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
MR. BOWLESsaid he did not quite understand the ground on which the right hon. Gentleman refused the Amendment. He had informed them quite clearly that the Government intended the words to

1975
mean that a person should not be disqualified if he had continuously for the last ten years up to attaining the age of sixty made certain payments, and it seemed desirable that that should be made as clear as words could make it. This Amendment would leave no doubt in anybody's mind, and they clearly carried out the expressed intentions of the Government. In the interests of clearness and of the avoidance of litigation the House would be well-advised to consider whether it would not do well to accept the Amendment.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he quite agreed that this was not a very important point, but he could not agree as at present advised that it was merely one of drafting, and he was very anxious to know exactly what the policy of the Government was as expressed by these words. Judging by what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer it appeared that in the opinion of the Government there was no question of substance involved. He was not sure that that was so. Was it not the case that if the Lords Amendment were accepted the mere omission of one month in the last ten years would disqualify? On the other hand, if the Government form were taken was it not also the fact that any ten years since the man was seventeen or eighteen and began to earn wages, would enable the pension to be given? He was not quite satisfied with the Lords' drafting or with the Government's drafting either. He took it that the Government were reluctant to make the mere omission of a month or two months in the last ten years a disqualification. There he agreed with them, and he thought the Lords Amendment was too stringent. On the other hand the Government form was far too lax. He wondered whether the Government could not arrange, perhaps not then, but before the Bill was finally settled, some form of words which would meet the general view of the Government, the rest of the House, and the House of Lords.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEthought they had made the policy of the Government abundantly clear on the Report
1976
stage; that policy had been stated very fairly by the right hon. Gentleman, and he thought the words they had inserted, and which they proposed to stand by, quite adequately expressed that intention. He agreed that the Lords Amendment would, be too severe; he preferred the words as they were inserted originally, more especially as the House had accepted them at the time, with the exception of a few dissentients. It was the expression of the general sense of the House, and he was not disposed to depart from it.
LORD R. CECILsaid he was left in complete doubt as to what the real intention of the Government was. In the Report stage the Government said that what they intended was that a man should have been a subscriber to a friendly society for the ten years immediately preceding attaining the age of sixty. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his charming manner that he quite agreed with his right hon. friend as to what the House ought to do. But he understood that his right hon. friend put two alternatives before the Government and did not express agreement with either, but really expressed a wish to have a different solution of the question.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEthought the Leader of the Opposition put to him the specific case of rural societies which had become insolvent, and appealed to him to take that into account. That was why on the whole he preferred words which were not too absolutely stringent, and he thought the words of the Commons were better for that very reason, that it would enable them to take into account cases of that kind. If that society became bankrupt, through no fault of the person who had paid subscriptions all his life, just a year or two before he attained sixty, it was a case which they ought to take into account, and he responded to the appeal of the Leader of the Opposition. He preferred the words as they stood.
LORD R. CECILsaid the right hon. Gentleman now deliberately said that he preferred vague words which left the matter in dispute to words which were precise and defined what the meaning

1977
of the House actually was. That was what it came to. That was a most extraordinary conclusion and was entirely different from the position taken up on Report, when the right hon. Gentleman said, with all the authority of the Government draughtsman behind him, that they meant exactly what they said they meant, that a man must have subscribed for the ten years up to attaining the age of sixty, and that they insisted on the words because they were so clear. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin made an appeal to him in an especially hard case, and he said he would introduce words to deal with the case if he could. Now he said the words were not clear, and because they were not clear he hoped they would be able to get round the difficulties mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin. Surely that was a most admirable instance of the absurdity to which they had been put in the discussion of this Bill. He hoped the Government, if they could not accept the Lords Amendment, would draft an Amendment which really carried out their wishes. It seemed perfectly clear that the words contained in the Bill were doubtful. The Leader of the Opposition spoke without favour to the Lords Amendment, or to the policy of continuous payment for ten years, or discontinuous payment, and what he regarded as perfectly plain was that the words meant that any ten years before attaining sixty would do. Surely it was absurd for the Government to say that the words were perfectly clear. It was plain beyond the shadow of a doubt that they were not clear, but did they carry out what the Government said was their original intention? If they now said that was not their meaning, it was quite open to them to move to amend the Lords Amendment or to say they would introduce in the other House words which would make their meaning plain.
MR. CROOKShoped the House would disagree with the Lords Amendment. The noble Lord was very particular about thrifty persons not being handicapped, but let him put a simple case, that of a man who had made
1978
a bit of money up to forty-five or fifty, went into business, and at sixty entirely failed, through no fault of his own. There were many in the unions who had failed in that way. Because in the last ten years of his life he had been away from his friendly society and come into poverty he was to be shut out, and the Lords had put in this cast-iron rule.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he had taken a somewhat active part in the original discussion on the Report stage, and he did not quite agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that an agreement was arrived at, because, as far as he was concerned, he said he was not satisfied with the language as it stood in the Bill, and he hoped the Government would find it possible to amend it. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had given one hard case; but he thought he had entirely lost sight of the second class of case which was raised at an earlier stage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred only to one class of case where a society lapsed through bad management, and a man suffered through no fault of his own. There were plenty of cases where a man having failed to maintain his subscription and his membership having lapsed, the society reinstated him into his former position. The words of the Bill would would exclude such a case. He considered the Amendment restrictive and unfair, and he could not vote for it. Still, he felt strongly that what the Leader of the Opposition had said ought to be listened to. He believed that when the Bill came to be translated into action, words such as those in question would lead to difficulty and in some cases to the greatest possible injustice. Perhaps the point might be cleared up by the regulations. There must of necessity be difficulties in the phraseology of such a Bill which could only be cleared up by means of regulations. The House had not seen the regulations, and would be proceeding in the dark. But the fault for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was arraigned was one which had also been committed by others He himself had declined to produce regulations when Bills were in progress, because it was impossible for the permanent

1979
officials to prepare the regulations till they had the whole Bill before them. All they could do was to frame part of the regulations governed by the main principle of the Bill. Difficult points of this kind could not be dealt with by regulation till the Bill was complete.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): Everybody appears to agree that it would be undesirable to accept the Lords Amendment, which, so far from bettering the position, would make it worse by imposing greater stringency than this House intended and than right hon. Gentlemen opposite contemplated. We have only power to accept the Lords Amendment, to reject it, or to amend it. I do not see any means by which it could be amended which would make it adequate to the requirements of the case. I think the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is the right one. The Chancellor of the Exchequer concurs, and it appears to us that, under the very wide language of the regulation section, a regulation might be made which would adequately deal with this particular case. If so, that would be better than adopting hard and fast words in the Bill.
MR. LUPTONsaid the words of the Bill were "if he has continuously for ten years up to attaining the age of sixty." He was inclined to think that a Court of Justice might construe that as meaning continuously during the last ten years. He suggested that the words "if he has continuously during a considerable part of the last ten years" would be better.
LORD R. CECILasked if it was competent for the House to amend the Lords Amendment, and then make any necessary consequential Amendment.
*MR. SPEAKER: If the Lords Amendment is agreed to, it is competent for this House to make any consequential Amendment.
Lords Amendment disagreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 3, line 17, after the word 'and' to insert the words 'if the term of imprisonment
1980
to which he is sentenced exceeds one month he shall be disqualified.' "
*MR. SPEAKER: I am of opinion that this is a privilege Amendment. It extends very largely the benefits of the Bill. The effect of it is to remove the ten years disqualification from persons sentenced to imprisonment of less than one month—that is, it limits disqualification for ten years to persons who are sentenced to more than one month. The effect of this will probably be to exclude a smaller number of persons; in other words, to add a certain number. Accordingly, it varies the charge. I may point out, however, to the House that the door is always open to the House not to insist on its privilege, if it desires to accept an Amendment.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should like to know whether the Government propose to insist upon their privilege.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes; I move that the House disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that the Amendment removes what is a manifest hardship in the Bill, and I should have thought the Government would have seized the opportunity of asking the House to waive its right and accept the Amendment. I am the more surprised that they have not taken the opportunity which the Lords have given them of modifying the Bill in favour of the pensioner, seeing that, as I understand, the Amendment was either moved or accepted by their representative. As to the action which the Government are now taking—action for which they have given no reason whatever—it appears that in their desire not to accept an Amendment of the Lords they deliberately refuse what is admitted to be an improvement in the Bill.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked if they were to understand that the Lords Amendment extended the number of those who would be applicants for old-age pensions.
*MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid that the terms of the Amendment tended to modify this clause very considerably and removed possibilities of very great injustice. He regretted the decision of the Government, but would vote with them.
EARL WINTERTONhoped that after that debate the assertion would no longer be made in the constituencies that the Liberal Government were the only people who were in favour of old-age pensions.
LORD R. CECILdesired to move that the House should not insist on its privileges m the ease of this Amendment. In the absence of some such Amendment serious injustice might be inflicted. If n carter was convicted of not having his cart lighted, or of being asleep in his cart, and the magistrates imposed a sentence of imprisonment without the option of a fine, he might find himself absolutely disqualified for a pension. That was a perfectly outrageous proposal.
MR. ASQUITH: I do not think, so far as I can form a judgment, that the effect of the insertion of these words would be anything like so great in extent as seems to be supposed. But we are here dealing with a question which in my opinion is of the greatest importance to the procedure and privileges of this
House. If the House, whatever may be its opinion on the merits or demerits of a comparatively small change in the Bill, were to allow the precedent—it would be a precedent—to be set of accepting an Amendment of this kind, in my opinion we should very greatly impair the rights and privileges we have always hitherto asserted, and we should be doing so for a price which is not worth exacting. On that ground I ask the House to refuse to agree with the Amendment.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I put the point of order, are there not countless precedents for this House waiving its privileges in these matters and accepting an Amendment from the Lords which technically violates its privileges?
*MR. SPEAKER: I think almost every year, certainly very frequently, this House does not insist upon its privilege. It accepts Amendments, and in sending a message to the other House the statement is made that this House does not insist upon its privilege.
MR. LUPTONexpressed the hope that the Government would accept the Amendment.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 145; Noes, 33. (Division List No. 239.)

AYES

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cooper, G. J.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Barnard, E. B.

Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Barnes, G. N.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hall, Frederick

Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

Cowan, W. H.

Harcourt, Rt Hn. L. (Rossendale)

Beck, A. Cecil

Crooks, William

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Bell, Richard

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthry Tydvil)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Bowerman, C. W.

Dewar, Sir J. A.(Inverness-sh.)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Brooke, Stopford

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Dobson, Thomas W.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Duckworth, James

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Byles, William Pollard

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Causton, Rt Hn. Richard Knight

Essex, R. W.

Hudson, Walter

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Everett, R. Lacey

Illingworth, Percy H.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Jenkins, J.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Ferens, T. R.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Cleland, J. W.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Clough, William

Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

Jowett, F. W.

Clynes, J. R.

Glendinning, R. G.

Kekewich, Sir George

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Laidlaw, Robert

Nolan, Joseph

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Lambert, George

Norman, Sir Henry

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Lewis, John Herbert

Norton, Capt, Cecil William

Tomkinson, James

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wadsworth, J.

Lupton, Arnold

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Walsh, Stephen

Lyell, Charles Henry

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Walters, John Tudor

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Wardle, George J.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Roberts, Charles H.(Lincoln)

Waring, Walter

Maclean, Donald

Robson, Sir William (Snowden)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E.(Clackmannan)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Macpherson, J. T.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Weir, James Galloway

M'Callum, John M.

Rowlands, J.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

M'Laren, H. D. (Staflord, W.)

Runciman, Rt. Hon Walter

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Mallet, Charles E.

Samuel, Herbert L (Cleveland)

Wilkie, Alexander

Manfield, Hurry (Northants)

Sehwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Seaverns, J. H.

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Marnham, F. J.

Seddon, J.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Mason, A. E. W.(Coventry)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton).

Massie, J.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Winfrey, E.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Stanger, H. Y.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Middlebrook, William

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Mond, A.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Strachey, Sir Edward

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Collings, Rt. Hn J. (Birmingh'm)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Guinness, Walter Edward

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Halpin, J.

Thornton, Percy M.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hamilton, Marquess of

Winterton, Earl

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Heaton, John Henniker

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Viscount Valentia and Lord Edmund Talbot.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.)

Question put; and agreed to.

Lords Amendment—
"In page 4, line 2, after the word 'him,' to insert the words 'as to produce the largest income that can be reasonably obtained from it.' "
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I want to submit to you, Sir, that this is an infringement of the privileges of this House. The effect of it would undoubtedly be to diminish the number of those who could claim a pension. The effect of the Lords Amendment is this. The pension officer would be obliged to recognise the income of a man, not in accordance with what it actually is, but in accordance with what it ought to be if he invested his money in a different way. For instance, if he invested it in Consols, the pension officer might say: "You are only getting 2½ per cent, for your money, and you should invest it at 5 per cent.," or, if he
1984
had £200 in the Post Office Savings Bank, he might say: "You ought not to invest it in the Post Office Savings Bank. If you were to invest it in some industrial security which you might acquire you would get 5½ per cent." That would have the effect of diminishing the number of those who could claim a pension, apart altogether from the merits, and consequently I submit on the question of privilege that it is an interference with the privileges of the Commons, because it is quite clear that under the words as they stood originally the pension officer would have no right at all to tell a man who claims a pension to invest his money at 4, or 4½, or 5½ per cent, instead of putting it in the Post Office Savings Bank or in Consols.
*MR. SPEAKER: I have considered this question, and I think the Lords

1985
Amendment is really an explanation of the words: "profitably used." Who is to say whether a man has properly or improperly used his money? What is intended by the words, "profitably used"? These are vague general words, and it seems to me that the explanation of the words is that the money is so invested "as to produce the largest income that can be reasonably obtained from it." An investment in Consols would not in many instances, but might in others, be the largest income that could be reasonably obtained. That is a matter of argument. I think that it would be the doctrine of privilege run mad to insist upon this as a breach of privilege. The House may or may not accept the Amendment, as it pleases.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that in that case he moved that the House disagree with the Lords Amendment on the ground that it practically directed a man to invest his money in something that would produce more than the 2½ or 2¾ per cent. which it would produce if invested in Government securities. It was not desirable that the House of Commons should practically drive a man away from investing in Government securities.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it was clear that the right hon. Gentleman had never considered the merits of this question. The Government had sent up to the House of Lords a most slovenly piece of work, and the House of Lords had dealt with a plain and obvious blot in the Bill. A man had a choice between investing his money in some permanent security, like Consols, or of putting it in a building society, in a trade union, or in buying an annuity. If such an investor remained content with a small return only, he was able to preserve the corpus of his property for his children and, at the same time, to get a pension for himself from the State. The House ought to make up its mind how it meant to deal with the case. If a man possessed the money they ought not to encourage him to secure a provision for his old-age out of the taxpayers' money while leaving the corpus of his property to his children. If, on the other hand, they said it was desirable that people should leave their
1986
money to their children, and that they should be encouraged to invest their property in Consols or a similar security, rather than in a trade union or benefit society, then, at all events, let them say that that was their policy. He did not think it was a justifiable policy, but the Government had not, throughout the whole course of the debates, given one single word of explanation of what it was they meant. The case, which was really one of substance, might be put plainly and simply in this form. A man had £200 invested in Consols or some mortgage. This brought him in, say, £6 or £7 a year. If he had only this £6 or £7, he had a right, when he was seventy, to come down on the State and say: "Give me 5s. a week." But he had the £200 to leave to his children. Was that what they wanted to encourage? Let them make up their minds. If the man, instead of accumulating these few hundred pounds, had spent his money in contributions to a benefit society or to a trade union or in the purchase of a life annuity, he would have a larger income, he would have a smaller claim on the State, and he would not have the corpus of his property to leave to his children. He thought the Government should say under which of these two plans they meant to take their stand. It would make all the difference in the working of any scheme of old-age pensions. The language of the Bill should be made perfectly clear. Which of there two things did the Government mean? He submitted that the Lords were perfectly justified in trying to make the language and policy of the Bill perfectly clear. Whether their solution was the light one was another question, but that the House of Commons had never been allowed to argue.
MR. LLOYD-GEOEGEsaid the right hon. Gentleman had asked him a question and, with the leave of the House, he would answer it by putting to him the specific case of a man who had £200 saved up and who had a family dependent on him—let them say an unmarried daughter.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is not my case.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he did not say it was the case of the right hon. Gentleman. But the case the right hon. Gentleman put to the House was of a man with £200 saved up, which he could leave to his children. His case was: Suppose the man had an unmarried daughter living with him. What the right hon. Gentleman said was that in that case they ought to force——
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he must interrupt. The right hon. Gentleman was putting into his mouth, as an illustration, a case which he had not put. Let them suppose that the owner of the £200 wanted to leave his money, not to an unmarried daughter living at home, but to a nephew who was extremely well-off in America.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEdid not think the man with £200 would take the same trouble to save his money for a rich nephew in America that he would if he had some one dependent upon him in his own house. He would take an illustration which was a more practical and a more usual one, that of an old man who had an unmarried daughter, or it might be a widowed daughter, looking after him. He was seventy-two or seventy-three, and the right hon. Gentleman said he must buy an annuity with his £200. He bought an annuity. He might live six months, and then, at his death, he left those dependent on him absolutely penniless. The right hon. Gentleman called upon them to decide what the Government were going to do in such a case. His reply was that they stood by the Bill, which would not impose upon such a man the necessity of buying an annuity, which he might only enjoy for two or three months and then leave those dependent on him penniless.
MR. BOWLESsaid he did not know what the Government really intended by this part of the Bill. Did they mean that the means of a person for the purposes of the Act should be "the yearly income which might be expected to be derived from any property belonging to that person which, though capable of investment or profitable use, is not so invested or profitably used
1988
by him." Did that or did it not mean that account should be taken of the income which might reasonably be obtained from the property? Unless the words meant that, they had no administrative or practical meaning at all; and the sole effect of the Amendment was to make that apparent. The right hon. Gentleman gave an instance of an old man with an unmarried daughter looking after him, and said that it would be very unfair indeed for him to have to buy an annuity and leave his unmarried daughter who was dependent upon him penniless. But was it quite clear that under the clause as it stood without the Lords Amendment the man might not be forced to do so? Could the right hon. Gentleman point to the words which would enable the old man to say to the pension officer: "I am not bound to do it; I resist your demand, and I will not buy an annuity, and nevertheless, you will have to give me a pension." As the Bill stood, as it left this House, it was perfectly open to the pension officer to suggest—he was not at all sure that it would not be the duty of the pension officer to say: "No; you have £200; so long as you have that £200 invested in Consols, I cannot grant you a pension, and that on the ground that you are not profitably using your £200 within the meaning of subsection (3) of Clause 4 of the Act." That was the point. The sole effect of this Amendment was to make it clear that they were to take into account the property of the man, the use which he made of it, and whether that was the largest income he could reasonably obtain from it. The Amendment would remove all doubt upon that point.
MR. GOULDINGsaid that this was another of the clauses which, owing to the operation of the guillotine, the House had had no opportunity whatever of discussing.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: This was discussed.
MR. GOULDING: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. This particular provision was not discussed at all.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It was discussed. The Leader of the Opposition,

1989
certainly, and the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, put this dilemma in the debate. Whether the answer was satisfactory or not is another matter, but it certainly was debated.
MR. GOULDINGsaid the right hon. Gentleman forgot that it was put to him as the guillotine was falling, and there was no opportunity whatever of any further discussion of the matter. He could not for the life of him see why the right hon. Gentleman could not accept the very reasonable Amendment inserted by the Lords. Surely it was not desirable to encourage the poor to hoard their money, to hide it in a stocking. They should rather encourage them to invest it. The Amendment gave a distinct guide and direction to those who were to estimate the yearly income to see that reasonable precautions were taken to invest the money instead of hoarding it.
MR. HAROLD COXasked the Government to explain what they meant by the words the Yearly income which might be expected to be derived from any property "if profitably used by him." Take the case of a man with an unmarried daughter, owning a piece of land which he was holding up. He was getting no income out of it, but he was holding it up for the benefit of his unmarried daughter, because he knew that at the time of his death this land would have ripened and would be worth more. What was the pension officer to do in a case of that kind? Was he to say that this man was entitled to a pension or not?
MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid that, to his mind, the Lords Amendment would increase the hardship in rural districts to a considerable extent. Many cottagers had household gods such as old clocks, old brass candlesticks, warming-pans, and china which had been in their families for a hundred years or more and which they valued for themselves. There were collectors who would be quite ready and willing to give £50 or £100 for the contents of these cottages, because there was an immense demand for these articles, and under the Bill that value would have to be capitalised and the interest reckoned as part of the income of the cottager,
1990
although he had no doubt the pension officer would take a very lenient view of such cases. He hoped the House would resist the Lords Amendment. The clause itself, for the reasons he had stated, was an unjust one. Such property as these people might have which from the point of view of sentiment they would not sell, but which a collector would value at anything from £25 to £100, should not be regarded as property from which an income could be derived.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR,by leave of the House, asked the Attorney-General whether, in his view of the clause, a man who sold the remainder of a life annuity and invested the proceeds in some permanent investment would or would not be "directly or indirectly depriving himself of any income or property in order to qualify himself for the receipt of an old-age pension" under subsection 3.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON, South Shields)said he certainly would say, so far as his own opinion was concerned, that a bona fide act of the kind described by the tight hon. Gentleman would not be an attempt within the meaning of the section which forbids a man to deprive himself of his income. It would be a perfectly reasonable and legitimate change of investment. The clause was directed against the person who obviously intended to bring himself within the scope of the Bill by lessening his income for that purpose. A reasonable change by a man in the use of his money, still retaining it in profitable use, would not bring him within the penalties laid down in the clause. As the Bill stood it sought to prevent hoarding, and it said that any man possessed of property must put it to a profitable use. The inquiry of the pension officer went to that extent only. But the Lords Amendment would push the inquiry very much further, and the pension officer would have to go, not merely into the broad general question as to whether a man was profitably using his money, but into the question of how he had exercised his judgment in the use of that money, whether he had done it reasonably or unreasonably. He had rather gathered that the Opposition objected to the great scope already given to the inquiry by the

1991
pension officer; they were seeking now to push that inquiry into a sphere of a very dangerous character. They would make a mistake if, under cover of preventing fraud, they proceeded to stimulate reckless and improvident investment.
SIR H. NORMANsaid the case which might arise was even stronger than had been stated by the Leader of the Opposition. A man of seventy otherwise qualified might have £739 invested in Consols. With £266 he could purchase himself a Post Office annuity of 13s. a week and still have £470 of his original capital invested in Consols. There was an even stronger case. An old couple of seventy living together might have £2,218 invested in Consols, and still, if they chose, draw from the State a pension of 2s. a week. He was perfectly aware that not many cases of that sort would arise, but, at the same time, the point could hardly be dismissed by a humorous observation.
MR. BUTCHERasked whether old furniture, an old clock or ornaments and things of that sort, in the possession of these persons would come under (b) or (c). If it fell under (b) there would be no danger, but if it fell under (c) it was another matter.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he did not think that under the Bill, as it stood, the old clock would be taken into account at all by the pension officer. But if Lords Amendment were inserted it would undoubtedly be taken into account.
MR. CROOKSsaid it appeared to him that some people wanted to turn the pension agent into a touting agent for speculative builders. He thought this was legislation for poor people. Could anyone imagine a man who had toiled for a daily wage for seventy years developing into a speculator? They would never find a working man who had put by £2,200. He had a better opinion of the Englishman than to believe that he would descend to subterfuges of the kind suggested in order to obtain a pension. That might be the view of the noble Lord and other hon. Gentlemen who had an
1992
intimate knowledge of the criminal classes, but after all, the majority of the people were not of the criminal class. The whole opposition to this declaration was frivolous. Those supporting it did not know what they were talking about. He had never come across these working men with hundreds of pounds. He wished he had. He did not believe they existed save in the imagination of those who were opposing this declaration.
LORD R. CECILsaid the last speech rather confirmed a doubt which he had felt as to whether those who called themselves Labour Members really knew anything about the subject. The hon. Member had suggested that it was impossible to find a working man who had saved any money.
MR. CROOKS: Nothing of the sort.
LORD R. CECIL: Of course, the man who had saved £2,000 would be an extreme case. The point of the discussion was a perfectly simple one, and it had not been met by the Government. At present subsection (c) of the clause was absolutely vague, it might mean one thing in one case and another thing in another, and the result would be that in some districts pensions would be given under one set of terms, in others under another set of terms. That could not be desirable. All the Lords did was to make a guess at what the House meant and to try to put it into clear language. If they meant, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that people were not to be forced to buy an annuity, but could invest their money in any way they liked, then let them say so in the Bill. The point was that the Bill teemed with instances where the meaning was left absolutely vague and unclear, which must lead to injustice. He confessed that the Attorney-General's speech seemed to him, if he might say so, not really to deal with the point. He said they could not put on the pension officer the duty of inquiring whether the investment had been made profitably or not; but the subsection itself said—
"The yearly income which might be expected to be derived from any property belonging to

1993
that person which, though capable of investment or profitable use, is not so invested or profitably used."
That was to say, if there was property which was not profitably used so as to produce the income expected to be derived from that property, then the property was not being dealt with in the way directed by the Bill. That was a view which it was possible for any pension committee to take, and if the House were to deal with thing fairly they should make their meaning clear. It was farcical to say that they had discussed this matter, which he thought was interrupted by the fall of the guillotine. It had never been discussed by the House, and despite the humorous observations of the hon. Member for Woolwich he thought this was a proper opportunity to discuss the matter. He thought the right course would be to agree to the Lords Amendment, and then subsequently to amend that so as to carry out the true intention of the House.
MR. MONDsaid they had only one lot of money to go round, and the more they gave to the people who did not want it the less they would have for the people who did want it. As far as he could see, the case of capital was provided for in the Australian and New Zealand schemes, and if persons owned more than a certain amount of money they were not entitled to a pension. He had always been surprised that no provision of that kind was made in the Bill. He did not think the Lords Amendment met that point, but he suggested that it might be possible to draft the regulations so as to meet it.
MR. JAMES HOPEthought the Amendment as it stood was open to the objections of his right hon. friend, and he therefore hoped it would not be agreed to. There was another point which he did not think had been touched upon. What was to become of the case of a man who had put money into the reversion of a small cottage property? Would it be treated as if that property had to be sold and an income taken from it or not? For the time being there would be no income from it. Would any income be taken into account?
Lords Amendment—
"In page 5, line 20, at end, to insert the words (d) If any person is aggrieved by the refusal or neglect of a local pension committee to consider a claim for a pension, or to determine any question referred to them, that person may apply in the prescribed manner to the central pension authority, and that authority may, if they consider that the local pension committee have refused or neglected to consider and determine the claim or question within a reasonable time, themselves consider and determine the claim or question in the same manner as on an appeal from the decision of the local pension committee.' "
Lords Amendment—
"In page 5, after subsection (d) to insert the words '(e) The expression "party aggrieved" shall include a member of the said committee who has taken part in the consideration of the report and has dissented from the decision.' "
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE MR. LLOYD-GEORGE moved that the House should disagree with the Amendment. The proposal was that any member of the pension committee should have the right of appeal. He thought that was very undesirable. It would add enormously to the expense, and the moment anyone had got any political or other reason against a party to whom a pension was granted, he could pester the Local Government Board, and enter into the whole matter again.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid there was no definition in the Act. The right hon. Gentleman had criticised the definition given by the Lords of the person aggrieved and there might be substance in his criticism, but was he going to substitute any other definition? The term "person aggrieved" might be so easily interpreted that a definition was not required, and in that case it was only the would-be pensioner who had the right of appeal.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: And the pension officer.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then that will be all right.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 5, line 30, at end, to insert the words for the purposes of this subsection the expression "borough" includes a metropolitan borough and the city of London, and the expression "council of a borough" includes the council of a metropolitan borough, and as respects the city of London, the mayor, aldermen, and commons of the city of London in Common council assembled.' "
*MR. SPEAKER: This appears to be a privilege Amendment which alters the constitution of the body appointed by this House to carry the Act into execution, and in whom is vested the expenditure of the money to be granted.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE MR. LLOYD-GEORGE moved that the House should disagree with the Amendment.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 5, after line 40, to insert as a new subsection '(3) The Local Government Board may appoint any person or any persons not exceeding three in number to be a member or members of any local pensions committee, or of any sub-committee appointed by the latter, who shall, when appointed, have all the rights of ordinary members of such committees.' "
*MR. SPEAKER: This gives to the Local Government Board the power of varying the constitution of the body to whom the House has entrusted the expenditure of the money, and therefore I think this also ought to be considered a privilege Amendment.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE MR. LLOYD-GEORGE moved that the House should disagree with the Amendment.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 6, after line 6, to insert as a new subsection: '(6) Any reference in this Act to pension authorities shall be construed as a reference to the pension officer, the local pension committee, and the central pension authority, or to any one of them, as the case requires.' "
"In page 6, line 7, after the word obtaining, to insert the words 'or containing.' "
Agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 6, line 8, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'either for himself or for any other person, or for the purpose of obtaining or continuing an old-age pension under this Act for himself or for any other person at a higher rate than that appropriate to the case.' "
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE MR. LLOYD-GEORGE moved that the House should agree to the Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was glad the Government were doing all they could to strengthen this clause, because fears which were expressed at an earlier stage of the debate, that political organisations would be dragged into this matter, had already begun, unfortunately, to be fulfilled. He had just had put into his hands the copy of a letter from the Downend and Soundwell Liberal Association in these terms—
"Dear Sir or Madam,—As you are probably aware, the present Liberal and free trade Government is making provision for an old-age pension. The above association is compiling a register for the district of persons who are seventy years of age or will attain that age this year. The committee of the association desire to place their services at the disposal of any person who is eligible, and will assist such to obtain the pension."
If that kind of practice was to prevail, and if the experiment of obtaining old-age pensions was to fall into the hands of political organisations, on whatever side they might be, they would produce one of the gravest political scandals possible. This letter he believed to be authentic, and it had been put into his hands by an hon. Member who, at any rate, believed it to be authentic. He

1997
regarded it as absolutely scandalous, and he hoped the Government would by every means in their power prevent such a state of affairs.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he agreed that it would be a grave misfortune and might easily become a disaster if a Bill of this sort was to be worked for the purposes of corruption, and therefore he strongly deprecated any attempt of that sort.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 6, line 9, after the word 'representation,' to insert the words 'or if any person directly or indirectly deprives himself of any income or property in order to qualify himself for the receipt of an old-age pension, or for the receipt of an old-age pension at a higher rate than that to which he would otherwise be entitled under this Act.' "
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he had very grave doubts with regard to this Amendment. He had come to the conclusion that on the whole it was undesirable to insert the words. He thought the penalty much too severe. Supposing a man rearranged his pension with his employer with a view of getting a little more, whatever view they took as to the desirability or undesirability of it he thought they must admit that to make it a penal offence was rather severe. The subsection might be capable of that interpretation, and he therefore on the whole thought it undesirable to insert the words and moved that they should disagree with the Lords in this Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
LORD R. CECILsaid he largely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, but he did not know whether his intention had been drawn to subsection (3) of Section 4 of the Bill. The subsection proposed by the Lords was really only carrying that out.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he had given his attention to subsection (3) of
1998
Section 4. He wanted to draw the distinction. A person who acted in the manner suggested ought to be disqualified, but it would be rather severe to make his conduct a penal offence.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 6, after line 11, to insert as a new subsection: '(2) The pension officer may at any time, without the matter having been referred to him, call upon and require a person in receipt of an old-age pension to establish that he has not since the same was granted to him become disqualified to receive it, and the pension officer shall inquire into the matter of the pensioner's disqualification and report on the same to the pension committee, who shall receive and, as far as applicable, act upon the said report as if it were a report received under the provisions of Section 7, subsection (c) of this Act.' "
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he did not object to the substance of the new subsection, but to its insertion in the Bill. It was really a matter for regulations, and there was an advantage in dealing with it in that way. Regulations could be altered and adapted according to circumstances as they arose, and he had no doubt that in practice they would discover a good many things which they could not at present foresee. It would be very undesirable if they had to introduce a Bill to amend matters of procedure in every particular because they had inserted in an Act of Parliament what ought to be left to regulations. Matters of this kind, therefore, really ought to be dealt with in regulations, and for that reason, and not because he disagreed with the substance of the subsection, he moved that they should disagree with the Lords' Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
MR. BOWLESsaid he could quite understand the reluctance of the right hon. Gentleman to incorporate a provision of this sort in the Bill, because they must all agree that the duty upon the pension offices would be very disagreeable. The right hon. Gentleman, however, must feel

1999
and know that, however disagreeable the system was, it would have to be carried out unless the taxpayers were to be completely overwhelmed. He preferred that it should be provided for by regulation. Unless, however, the regulation was clear and stringent and was observed throughout the country, the Exchequer would be little less than overwhelmed. If the duty was made obligatory upon the pension officers, that no doubt would meet the case, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would assure them that that would be so.
MB. BARNESsaid he was rather sorry to hear the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he did not think it was necessary to have this Amendment either on the face of the Bill or in regulations. He hoped nothing would be done by the issue of regulations after the passing of the Bill to require the pension officer or anybody else to go touting round ascertaining whether a man had ceased to be qualified for a pension. The Bill already provided a penalty for a man who was found to be in receipt of an old-age pension when he did not fulfil the statutory conditions or when he was not qualified, and he thought that was sufficient.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the cases were altogether different. This was a case of a person who, though qualified at the time the pension was granted, had since become disqualified, having possibly received a legacy. He thought in such a case the pension officer should be entitled to go and ask for information.
MR. BARNESsaid he quite agreed that in a case of that character it would be the duty of the pension officer to go and inquire into the matter, and, if necessary, have the name of the person removed from the register; but he did not want anything put in the Bill or any instructions given which would make it the duty of the pension officer to go touting round to discover such cases. It would, make it rather awkward for the old people if they were to be continually liable to inquiry as to any alteration in their circumstances. He therefore regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
2000
indicated his intention of considering the matter in connection with the regulations, and he hoped he would not carry it out.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 7, after line 17, to insert as a new subsection: '(3) Every regulation under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House had sat next after tiny such regulation is laid before it, praying that the regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.' "
Agreed to.
Committee of seven Members appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of the Amendments made by the Lords to the Bill.
Committee nominated of,—Mr. Asquith, Mr. Balfour. Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Harcourt, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Patrick O'Brien, and Mr. Eugene Wason.
Three to be the quorum.
Committee to withdraw immediately.—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

IRISH UNIVERSITIES BILL.
Lords Amendments considered.
Lords Amendments—
"In Clause 3, after the word 'divinity,' to insert the words Provided that no test of religious belief shall be imposed by the governing body of either of the two new Universities or any constituent college on any such professor or lecturer as a condition of his appointment or recognition by the governing body as such professor or lecturer.' "
"In page 3, after line 35, to insert the following new subsections '(3) The governing body of a University or constituent college to which the statute relates, or any other person, corporation, or body directly affected by the statute may, within three months from the notification thereof in the Dublin Gazette, petition the Lord-Lieutenant in Council to disallow the

2001
whole or any part thereof. (4) The Lord-Lieutenant in Council may refer any such petition to the Irish Universities Committee with a direction that the committee hear the petitioner personally or by counsel, and report specially to the Lord-Lieutenant in Council on the matter of the petition. (5) If the committee report in favour of the disallowance of the statute or any part thereof, the Lord-Lieutenant may, by Order in Council, disallow the whole or part thereof accordingly, but any such disallowance shall be without prejudice to the making of a new statute.' "
"In page 4, lines 1 to 3, to leave out Subsection (2) and to insert as a new subsection '(2) The Dublin Commissioners shall be the Right Hon. Christopher Palles, Alexander Anderson, John Pius Boland, Sir William Francis Butler, Denis Joseph Coffey, Stephen Gwynn, Henry Jackson, Sir John Rhys, The Most Rev. William Walsh, Bertram Coghill Alan Windle; and the Belfast Commissioners shall be His Honour James Johnston Shaw, Samuel Dill, the Rev. Thomas Hamilton, Donald Macalister, Robert T. Martin, Sir Arthur William Rücker, Johnson Symington.' "
Agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 5, line 39, after the word 'funds,' to insert the words 'and the professor or lecturer is not eligible for membership of the General Board of Studies, or of any faculty other than the faculty of theology; or (b) the erection of any church, chapel, or place of religious worship or observance by means of private benefaction within or without the precincts of the University or college.' "
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,)said that this Amendment of the Lords hid in one way and another got the Bill into rather a state of confusion, and he proposed to deal with the matter in another way. The Amendment divided itself into two parts, and with the first part down to the word "theology" he proposed to agree. But then the Amendment went on to reinsert certain words which were inserted for the first time in Committee upstairs, and when the Bill returned to the House on Report the words were excised. They were reinserted in another place by a majority of one. He believed that for a considerable time the Government had looked forward to the unique experience of having a majority of their own, but by the influence of the Episcopal bench the Amendment was carried by one, and the hopes of his noble friend were dashed to the ground. Owing to what had passed in the House on the Report stage it was not possible now to
2002
accept the Amendment in reference to the erection of chapels. To make good sense of the entire clause he proposed to disagree with the Amendment, and then at the end of line 41 to insert the words "and no professor of, or lecturer in, theology shall be eligible for membership of the General Board of Studies, or of any faculty other than the faculty of theology." He moved in the first instance to disagree with the Lords Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment"—(Mr. Birrell.)
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that as the Chief Secretary was aware, at an early stage of the proceedings he had disagreed with his action with regard to the chapel clause, and he had described it then, as he believed it now, as an attempt at the last moment to conciliate Nonconformist opinion on the other side of the House, which had been so remarkably quiescent in the earlier stages and was prepared to allow its own Government to do what it would have vigorously resented if it had come from a Conservative Government. This was an attempt to placate them, and to send them away for the holidays with a pleasanter taste in their mouths. Far be it from him to deprive them of that pleasant addition to their holidays. They would find a satisfaction he should not share. He would like to take that opportunity of saying that in the discussion of the Amendment he had apparently fallen into a strange error, because he was reported to have said that he "hoped" this would be a denominational University. What lie obviously meant to say, and bethought did say, was that he 'believed" it would be a denominational University; and holding that belief, he had said that not only must there be active participation in the work of the Roma Catholic hierachy if it was to be a success, but he had gone on to point out that, being a denominational University in his judgment it was not only a hardship but altogether illogical and unjust to draw these particular distinctions with regard to places of worship. He had thought it necessary

2003
to make that correction, because his remarks had been criticised in some portion of the Press, and had naturally led to some controversy amongst those who might happen to know that he held views of a different kind, although he did not know whether they attached any interest to what his views were on this subject. He did not propose to offer any opposition to the action of the Chief Secretary; so far as he was concerned, he accepted the decision arrived at on the Report stage as final, and he would not trouble to divide the House against a proposal which, although he did not like it, formed part of the Bill for which the Government was responsible. He had no doubt it might be advanced as an expression, in milk-and-water fashion, of those old principles of undenominationalism which at one time formed the staple argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but which, in these later days, they had not only abandoned, but in the abandonment took credit to themselves for the establishment of this University, which they would eventually find to be nothing but a denominational institution. That being so, he thought it would have been fairer if, instead of cutting off a small portion of it, they had given a denominational University right out, and allowed the chapels to be built.
MR. KETTLEsaid the Chief Secretary would not be surprised at finding the Irish Members as a matter of principle going into the division lobby against him on this question. Personally, he did not much like agreeing with the Lords on anything, but he had no constitutional objection to them. This Amendment represented the views of Irish Members in Committee, which they afterwards supported on the Report stage. He did not propose to join with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin in attempting to make party capital at the expense of the Nonconformists on this matter. Of course the right hon. Gentleman would go away much happier on his holidays if he thought he had made a little party capital. The right hon. Gentleman's view was that the University was going to be an entirely denominational University. The view of the
2004
Nationalist Members from Ireland was that these Universities were going to be free Universities. Clause 3 thoroughly secured that. Hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House who were opposed to protective tariffs and to artificially keeping foreign goods out of the country, ought to join with the Irish Members in keeping in the Bill a clause that would have the effect of not artificially keeping religious teaching out of the University. The House ought clearly to understand the position. The effect of the Amendment inserted by the Lords would be this. There were to be no tests for teachers or students; no compulsion for students to attend religious instruction or religious worship; but it would be open to any denomination by private enterprise, and out of private funds, to erect a chapel for the purpose of religious worship, whether it was in Belfast or in Dublin. The question of the site, which in the first instance would be secured by public, money, was dealt with by his hon. friend the Member for Waterford on the Report stage of the Bill. The University was to be a free University; no one was excluded from it on the ground of any particular religion; but the Bill as it now came down from the Lords left it open to any denomination, by their enterprise and their enthusiasm for their religion, to erect a chapel at which the students of that particular denomination, under no compulsion except the compulsion of conscientious belief in their religion, might attend their religious worship. He thought that with regard to this Bill the Nonconformists had behaved admirably, and that, notwithstanding any taunt that might be levelled against them from the front Opposition bench, they might go to their constituencies with the consciousness and satisfaction of having done more in a few years of liberal administration to settle this great question, than the Unionist Party had been able to accomplish in twenty years. The opposition to this Amendment was some what narrow. The Amendment if allowed to stand would have the effect of conferring freedom upon the University. The Nationalist Members, in making this protest, were by no means indifferent to the action of the right hon.

2005
Gentleman the Chief Secretary. On the contrary, they were extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and to those hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House who had principles as logical and pressed them as logically to a conclusion as did they who sat on the Irish benches; but he simply wished to say that Nationalist Members would feel it their duty to vote in favour of the Lords Amendment and against the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid the hon. Member who had just sat down had spoken in a very unjust manner towards what he was pleased to call the Tory Party. He presumed he meant the Unionist Party. If a Bill to endow a Roman Catholic University in Ireland out of public funds had been proposed from that side of the House every Member of the Nonconformist Party opposite would have raised such an agitation against it that no Unionist Party could have carried it.
MR. KETTLEsaid he might not have conveyed his meaning precisely. He was perfectly willing to recognise the frank and generous way in which the Tory or Unionist Party had behaved, but it did not come very well from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin to make rather cheap party capital at the expense of the Nonconformists in view of the fact that his Party had been in office for nearly twenty years and did not face the problem which the Chief Secretary had solved.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSdid not think it could be said that his right hon. friend had attempted to make, party capital. They had to congratulate the Chief Secretary on the successful way in which he had given this University, a denominational one—no other kind would have satisfied the people of Ireland—and it was more hypocrisy not to acknowledge and describe it as an endowed Roman Catholic University supported out of public money. The other question on which his right hon. friend had to be congratulated was the very cheap price at which he had secured Nonconformist support, viz., the refusal to allow any place of worship to be erected by private funds.
2006
They had swallowed the camel and strained at the little goat.
MR. BUTCHERexpressed deep regret that the Government had found it necessary to take up the position which they had adopted. The whole object of their labours for many weeks past had been to give the Roman Catholics the kind of University which they would like, and on this point, where the religious feelings of the nation were deeply touched, they proposed to refuse a little parcel of ground on which a chapel might be built by private benefaction. It seemed a most narrow, technical, and lamentable ground to take up. What to hon. Gentlemen opposite was a more matter of the maintenance of the undenominational formula was to those for whom the University was designed a matter which touched them in their daily life. At present there was no proposal, because there was no money, to build a residential college. But one of the very first objects of private benefaction, and he hoped also of some State help, would be the erection of a proper residential college within the grounds of the University, and when it came to a residential college it would be a matter of extreme pain to the members of the college that that which had been associated with college life from time immemorial in all the great Universities, should by the fiat of that House be denied to them in Ireland. Even though they insisted, probably rightly, on having a technically undenominational University, was it necessary that they also should have an irreligious University? That was the light in which it would present itself to the people of Ireland, and he deeply regretted that that great gift, long delayed, but at last conferred upon the Irish people, should be marred by this graceless act.
LORD EDMUND TALBOTsaid the Government could hardly be congratulated on their consistency in regard to this particular Amendment. The Chief Secretary accepted it in Committee, but gave way in the House, and if he was to be consistent in his inconsistency he might have accepted the decision come to by the

2007
other House. He found it difficult to use harsh words against the Chief Secretary because he felt indebted to him for the measure as a whole, but he felt that the action the Government were now taking was a sign of great weakness. It was simply giving way to the most extraordinary exhibition of narrow-minded bigotry. He should certainly give a hearty vote for the Amendment.
MR. HAY MORGANsaid there had been a considerable amount of cheap and vulgar sneering at the position taken up by the Nonconformists, and remarks of a similar nature to those of the noble Lord had been made in another place. The position taken up by the Nonconformists was represented as very narrow and bigoted, and when it was proposed to leave out this Amendment from the Lords there was at once an insistance that it was of the greatest importance. He respected the good feeling of hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to it, but, at the same time, Nonconformists had their feelings too, and their position was this: they had recognised from the start that the University in the South of Ireland and the University in the North of Ireland would become denominational Universities, from the very fact that in the South there was a large preponderance of Catholics and in the North a large preponderance of Protestants. They as Nonconformists and Liberals could no more object to that than they could object to a county council, or a local authority, in Wales being Nonconformist from the simple fact that most of the electors were Nonconformist. Their position had been quite consistent. They had endeavoured to say that when they were passing a Bill, although it created two Universities which would inevitably become denominational, the Bill itself should not be a denominational Bill. If the Amendment were permitted to go into the Bill, and they allowed a chapel to be built either in the North or in the South, from the very nature of the case that chapel would be a sectarian one. It must belong to some particular denomination, and whatever the denomination was the University would
2008
be stamped with that denominational mark. They thought it far better that the private benefactors who were ready to erect a chapel should erect it outside the precincts of the University, and by so doing their religious faith and aspirations would be completely satisfied.
MR. HAVILAND BURKEexpressed the deepest regret that the Government had not seen their way to concede this point. In Trinity College there was an ancient chapel, the symbol of the Protestant religion, and services were held there. It was, after all, a poor thing to provide a University presumably for Irish Catholics with a proviso that there should be no chapel within its precincts for the celebration of divine worship according to the Catholic religion. They were committing a great mistake. While respecting the Government for the way in which they had dealt with a very thorny question, he should be compelled to go into the division lobby against them.
SIR PHILIP MAGNUSalso desired to express his regret that the Chief Secretary had been unable to accept the Amendment. All the circumstances connected with the establishment of the University must be regarded as exceptional. They were called for by the fact that the Roman Catholics in Ireland were unable to accept the facilities for higher education which were provided in the present University of Dublin. When this Bill became an Act, Dublin would enjoy the exceptional privilege of being, he believed, the only city in Europe except one in which there were two Universities. In making this gift to the Irish Roman Catholics, he very much regretted that Parliament, by refusing to accept this Amendment, should accompany the gift by what would always be regarded as a grievance by the Roman Catholics of Ireland. He could not conceive any reason why the University, which would be governed almost, if not quite, exclusively by Roman Catholics, the professors of which would be mainly Roman Catholics, and in which the students themselves would be of one religion, should be refused the privilege of possessing a chapel in which the students

2009
might worship according to their religion. It was to him of the essence of the gift that it should be acceptable to the recipients and be welcomed by them. It was such gifts that equally blessed givers and receivers. He had felt considerable interest in the Bill, and he appealed to hon. Members opposite to show a generous spirit in dealing with the matter.
MR. MASSIEsaid the hon. Member for Cambridge University had spoken of the graceless refusal of the demand. This chapel was never demanded at all either by politicians or bishops. The hon. Member himself in his good nature gratuitously proposed the chapel and so started the whole difficulty. It was precisely because they regarded them as free Universities that they desired that they should not be handicapped by a very prominent sign of exclusiveness. It was precisely because they regarded them as in theory undenominational that they desired to preclude as much denominationalism as possible, and especially that which would peculiarly stamp the University as denominational. But it was not at all surprising that those who desired to make out that these Universities were entirely denominational should seek to add a chapel in order that they might be as denominational as possible.
MR. WALSHsaid he was very much surprised at the changed attitude of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. He remembered, when they were debating the point in Committee as to whether there should be power given whereby a site for the erection of a chapel might be provided even out of the funds of the University, the right hon. Gentleman himself protested at what he described as the rather narrow spirit that some Members were manifesting. The right hon. Gentleman thought then that inasmuch as no chapel was to be paid for out of the funds of the University, and no Chair of theology and no professor of theology would receive a penny of public money, it was only proper that at least a site within the grounds of the University might be provided. At a later stage that power of providing a
2010
site was taken away, and now they found the right hon. Gentleman had completely veered round. He certainly thought hon. Members were taking a rather ungenerous and narrow view of the matter. It was admitted by hon. Members below the gangway that the Universities would be denominational from the very fact that a large preponderance of Roman Catholics resided in one portion of the country, and a great preponderance of Protestants in the other. The fact was incapable of contradiction. Why not meet it in as fair and generous a manner as possible?
AN HON. MEMBER: What about minorities?
MR. WALSHsaid there would be two minorities. Minorities were always right it was said, and he remembered the right hon. Gentleman saying that suffering was the badge of all their tribe. He would not like to retort that the minority would have to suffer, but he could not conceive any minority actuated by such a spirit that they thought themselves compelled to suffer if some other people were given an opportunity of following their worship in accordance with the dictates of their conscience. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken as to certain old and famous Universities having chapels within their precincts. It seemed to him a very narrow view they were taking in not allowing a pious donor to hand over a few thousand pounds wherewith to erect a chapel. After all, the Bill made it impossible that a penny of public funds should go to any faculty of theology. There was no theologian to be endowed out of the funds of the University and there was to be no religious or denominational test. There was no compulsory attendance at Divine worship. The Bill was a splendid Bill framed on most generous and democratic lines, and he certainly thought it was rather an unhappy ending that this tinge of narrowness and exclusion should come into what was otherwise a very desirable measure.
MR. BYLESsaid that he had voted for the chapel at an earlier stage and he would support it again. It would be ungracious to spoil the Bill

2011
by refusing the power to erect a chapel; it was straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel.
*MR. VERNEYsaid that everybody understood what a chapel meant. Every other part of this University was liable to change according to the requirements that arose in the course of time, but he understood a Roman Catholic chapel was a consecrated building whose purpose could not be changed. That made the whole difference, and he thought that that consideration might have made some difference in the minds of Roman Catholics. That was an argument which cut two ways. In the case of an ardent Roman Catholic he could quite understand the desire that the building consecrated to that use should never by any possibility be devoted to any other use. On what terms was this University going to be made denominational?
Surely on the terms that it was to be democratic. It was intended to serve the uses of the people, and those who used it in one place might be Roman Catholics and in the other Protestants. In dealing with a University as a place of education to last for centuries subject to the necessary changes of times and circumstances it was better to set apart a separate site and a building to be devoted to religious uses, consecrated to that purpose only. In this way those who belonged to one particular religion would have all the advantages they desired, and all the opportunities of attending religious services in a place devoted to that one purpose. In this respect he agreed with the latest form in which the Bill appeared.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 142; Noes, 40. (Division List No. 240.)

AYES

Acland, Francis Dyke

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Fuller, John Michael F.

Maddison, Frederick

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Mallet, Charles E.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Glendinning, R. G.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Barnes, G. N.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Beck, A. Cecil

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Marnham, F. J.

Bell, Richard

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Massie, J.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Hall, Frederick

Masterman, C. F. G.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Bowerman, C. W.

Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

Middlebrook, William

Bright, J. A.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Mond, A.

Brooke, Stopford

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Bryce, J. Annan

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Morrell, Philip

Buxton, Rt.Hn. Sydney Charles

Haworth, Arthur A.

Norman, Sir Henry

Causton, Rt Hn. Richard Knight

Henry, Charles S.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Houston, Robert Paterson

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Cherry, Rt. Hon, R. R.

Howard, Hon Geoffrey

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Cleland, J. W.

Hudson, Walter

Radford, G. H.

Clough, William

Idris, T. H. W.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Clynes, J. R.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Jowett, F. W.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Cooper, G. J.

Kekewich, Sir George

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Laidlaw, Robert

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Lambert, George

Roe, Sir Thomas

Crooks, William

Lewis, John Herbert

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Dalziel, James Henry

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

Lupton, Arnold

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Seely, Colonel

Duckworth, James

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Maclean, Donald

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Essex, R. W.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Snowden, P.

Everett, R. Lacey,

M'Callum, John M.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Ferens, T. R.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Stanger, H. Y.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Wadsworth, J.

Williams, Llewelyn (Garm'rth'n)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Wardle, George J.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Waring, Walter

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Straus, E. A. (Abingdon)

Wason, Rt Hn. E. (Clackmannan)

Winfrey, R.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Watt, Henry A.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Tomkinson, James

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Verney, F. W.

Wilkie, Alexander

Vivian, Henry

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

NOES

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Heaton, John Henniker

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Balcarres, Lord

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Seddon, J.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Dublin, S)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Byles, William Pollard

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Macpherson, J. T.

Thornton, Percy M.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone,E.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Valentia, Viscount

Collings, Rt. Hn J.(Birmingh'm)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Walsh, Stephen

Cowan, W. H.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Mooney, J. J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Mr. Haviland-Burke.

Forster, Henry William

Nolan, Joseph

Goulding, Edward Alfred

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment—
"In page 5, line 41, after the word 'teaching' to insert the word 'or' and leave out the words 'or religious worship.' "
Agreed to.
An Amendment made to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment—
"In page 5, line 39, which was disagreed to, by inserting in page 5, line 41, at the end thereof, the words 'and no professor of or lecturer in theology or divinity shall be eligible for membership of the General Board of Studies or of any faculty other than the faculty of theology.' "—(Mr. Birrell).
Remaining Lords' Amendments agreed to.
Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of the Amendments made by the Lords to the Bill.
Committee nominated of, Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. Birrell, Mr. Bright, Mr. Walter Long, and Mr. Herbert Samuel.
Three to be the quorum.
To withdraw immediately.—(Mr. Birrell.)

WHALE FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Lords Amendment to omit subsection (1) of Clause 5 considered.
MR. MOONEYobjected to the omission of the subsection which, he contended did not interfere with the general scope of the Bill, and he did not know why it should be left out.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,)said that this subsection had originally been inserted with the object of exempting bottle-nosed whales from the provisions of this measure. It had, however, been pointed out that the bottle-nosed whale was a Royal fish, and that the insertion of the subsection would interfere with the Royal prerogative in a substantial degree. For that reason the subsection had been omitted. He could not tell what distinguished bottle-nosed whales from any other kind.

ADJOURNMENT (AUTUMN SITTINGS).
MR. ASQUITH,in moving "That this House, at its rising to-morrow, do adjourn

2015
until Monday, the 12th October next; that for the remainder of the session Government business have precedence at every sitting; that at the conclusion of Government business on each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put; and that on Fridays the House, unless it otherwise resolves, shall at its rising stand adjourned until the following Monday," said that this Motion completed the sessional arrangements foreshadowed about a fortnight ago. The substance of the Motion was that the House at its rising to-morrow should adjourn till 12th October, and for the remainder of the session should give precedence to Government business. This was directly in accordance with precedents which had been followed for many years in respect to autumn sessions, and any other arrangement would involve an intolerable strain on the time and attention of hon. Members. The only innovation was the last clause which provided that on Fridays the House should stand adjourned until the following Monday. That was a convenient arrangement, because if it was not put in the Resolution the Speaker might be compelled to take the adjournment until Saturday. It was, however, only a very formal matter. On 12th and 13th October they would take the Children Bill, the Prevention of Crimes Bill, and other small Home Office Bills if time permitted. On Wednesday, October 14th they would take the next of the allotted days for the Licensing Bill and dispose of Clause 2, and on 15th and 16th October they would proceed with Clause 3.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked whether it was proposed to proceed with the Committee stage of the Bill de die in diem.
MR. ASQUITH: Not necessarily He would not like to commit himself on the point, but he thought that substantially they would proceed without interruption. There might be an interval of a day here and there. On the first day of the sitting the President of the Board of Trade would move his instruction on the London Electric Power Bills, and if it was not disposed of at that sitting they would ask the House to take
2016
it after Eleven o'clock on one of the allotted days. He begged to move.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House at its rising to-morrow do adjourn until Monday, 12th October, next; that for the remainder of the session Government business have precedence at every sitting; that at the conclusion of Government business on each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put; and that on Fridays the House, unless it otherwise resolves, shall at its rising stand adjourned until the following Monday."—(Mr. Asquith.)
*SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid the Prime Minister had suggested that this Motion was in accordance with precedents for many years. There were two precedents but they were not the same. This Motion had the effect of overriding the 4th Standing Order under which the House carried on its business. When that Standing Order was first moved it stood in a form in which it was open to the same objection that this Motion was open to, and the argument was so strong on that occasion that the Government gave way. That was in April, 1902, and it was pointed out that an autumn session had lasted on one occasion, well remembered by many hon. Members, until nearly the middle of March, and the following session began a few days after. There was almost no recess at all. It was obvious that it would have been absurd to suspend the rights of private members, to give no opportunity for the discussion of public affairs, and to confine themselves to Government business for so long a period. That argument was pressed with very much force, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite offered a large concession to meet that particular case by promising to insert "until December," but the House was not content with that Amendment, and insisted on putting in "until Michaelmas," and those words row stood in the Resolution. No one would desire to revive, in an autumn sitting of the House, the whole rights of private Members as enjoyed in the earlier part of the session, but there should be some opportunity

2017
for discussing public affairs. The autumn sitting should not be absolutely confined to Government business, but should include debates on matters that seemed to be of first-class importance. He would not extend his remarks by pointing out what the subjects were; they had been mentioned in the course of the debates during the past two or three days. There were matters pending which might call for the sudden attention of the House of Commons, and it was not sufficient to rely on the ordinary practice of giving the regular Opposition a day for debating a Vote of Censure. These were matters on which the House of Commons should be free to express an opinion apart from the action of the Opposition expressed in a formal Vote of Censure. It seemed to him the case was so strong that some attempt ought to be made by the Government to meet it. At all events they should now, on this the last day but one of the present part of the session, decide it for themselves. This power ought not to be given to the Government until October came. Why should they tie their hands now as to what they should do when they met again in October? In 1902 the right hon. Gentleman opposite gave notice in August of the Motion which he intended to move in October, if the circumstances remained the same. They were separating at an earlier date this year than w s the case on the two former occasions. In 1902, when the House met in October, the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who was then Leader of the House, made a Motion somewhat similar to that which they were now discussing, though not so drastic, and it was accompanied by a pledge that the House would not sit past Christmas, and he named a date in December when probably the House would rise. Though in 1902 the House did not meet till 16th October—rather later than the date at which it was proposed they should meet this year—they had full opportunity when the right hon. Gentleman brought forward his Motion of properly debating the question whether all the time should be given to the Government. The only precedent for the Motion now before the House was one which was set in the present Parliament by the late Prime Minister in 1906 on
2018
the last day of the sitting in August. Most of the Members of the House had gone away without knowing the terms of the Motion which was to be submitted. On that occasion Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman gave a private assurance that the House would not sit past Christmas. He (Sir C. Dilke) moved to leave out all the words after "12th October next." That would enable the House when it met in October to raise the whole question in exactly the same way.
MR. BOWLESseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'next,' to the end of the Question."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. ASQUITHsaid the sole question was whether this Resolution should be put as a whole or whether it should be put in two instalments. Personally, he did not see why the House should not decide at once both matters raised by the Resolution. He did not believe that anybody would suggest—he gathered his right hon. friend did not suggest—that they should keep alive the whole of the rights of private Members during the autumn session, but as regarded the opportunities given to private Members to raise matters of importance, he would point out that the Resolution scrupulously preserved the right of moving the adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance on all other than allotted days. He would be prepared to insert in the Resolution words limiting the length of the autumn session, say, to a date before Christmas, but he could not accept his right hon. friend's Amendment.
MR. A. J. BALFOURthought this suggestion would meet some part of the complaint of the right hon. Baronet opposite. He had two objections to the course the Government had pursued. The first was that he thought it very unfortunate that they should propose a Resolution of this kind without any notice. That was quite new and quite

2019
unnecessary. The Government had long known that they were going to have an autumn session, and that they were going to meet in October, and it was rather a violation of the practice of the House that they should only know what was going to be done in a matter of this importance to the general conduct of business on the very morning when the question had to be decided. It was too late to put that matter right now, but he earnestly hoped that the Government Whips, or whoever was responsible, would see that there were no more of these unnecessary breaches of precedent. The other objection related to the liberty of the House to deal with other than Government business during the autumn session. As he pointed out yesterday, this was the very first time in Parliamentary history that Parliament was asked to meet in the middle of October without any liberty at all to discuss matters of public importance. He did not deny that on the first and second nights of the session, when the Children Bill and some other non-controversial Bills were on the Order Paper, it would be possible for any Member to move the adjournment of the House. But when those were over, they were going to have a great block of public business. Twenty-three days were to be entirely concerned with one Bill, and whenever that Bill was put down, then the whole of the rights and privileges of the House as regarded the discussion of matters other than Government business were absolutely suspended. The House had never made any conditions of that kind. It was quite abnormal, quite improper. And he did not know whether it was going to end there. He was confident, knowing the ways of the Government, that they would try to pass more Bills, and would move another Closure Resolution, and the whole of the rights of the House in respect of business other than Government business would be taken away. He hoped the Government would even now consider whether they could not give some relaxation to the rigidity of this rule.
SIR FRANCIS CHANNINGsaid he wished to ask the Prime Minister a question in regard
2020
to some Orders still on the Paper. The Government had taken away a good deal of the time of private Members, but they had atoned for so doing in the last few weeks by giving facilities for certain non-contentious Bills being passed through all their stages with the general consent of the House. He thought the same procedure should be maintained in the autumn sitting. He had had the honour of presiding over a Committee which had dealt with a number of Bills which, he believed, all sections of the House would be willing to have passed into law. There were five or six practically non-contentious Bills on the Order Book, and it seemed to him that it would be a great scandal if, after hon. Members had taken the trouble of balloting on these Bills, and after the Bills had passed through the Standing Committee and through the Report stage in the House, they were not to be allowed to pass in the same way as several Bills which had been passed during the last fortnight. He would point out that if these derelicts were left on the sea of legislation they would remain blocking the way, and occupying time which might otherwise be given to other useful measures introduced by private Members, or occupying time which might be given to Government business. He thought it would be good tactics to pass these Bills.
MR. RAMSAY MACDONALDjoined in the appeal to the Prime Minister to consider whether he could not, consistently with the well-known objects of the Government, give private Members a little more liberty in the autumn session. The Motion said: "That at the conclusion of Government business on each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put." That practically deleted from the Order Paper all private Members' Bills. He thought they were all agreed that it was not only desirable but absolutely necessary that some words should be devised to preserve to private Members the right of raising any pressing question on the Motion for the adjournment of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman could accept that suggestion, he would go far to meet the objection

2021
to the Motion in its present form. There were questions which were not of sufficient public importance to justify Mr. Speaker in granting leave to move the adjournment of the House, but which might very properly be raised on the Motion for the adjournment of the House at the close of business.
LORD R. CECILsuggested that the last clause of the Motion, "and that on Fridays the House, unless it otherwise resolves, shall at its rising stand adjourned until the following Monday," should be omitted. That would give an opportunity once a week of raising questions of the kind to which the hon. Member for Leicester had referred. On a former occasion the Prime Minister was asked whether private Members were to have any lights in the autumn session, and the right hon. Gentleman replied that that would be a matter to be decided in the autumn session. They might have misunderstood what the right hon. Gentleman said, but if that was so, it emphasised sill the more the necessity of having this Motion in a form which would enable them to raise these matters in the autumn session.
MR. J. MACVEAGHsupported the appeal to the Prime Minister to consider (luring the recess whether the latter part of the Motion should not be amended so as to preserve some of the rights of private Members. So far as the Irish Party were concerned, they had always contended for the rights of private Members. There was no doubt that the whole tendency nowadays was for Parliament to become more and more merely a record of the wishes of the Executive Government for the time being. He found himself for once in his life in hearty accord with the Leader of the Opposition. He was glad to find the right hon. Gentleman at last standing up for the rights of private Members. It was not often that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the front benches were found showing anxiety and tenderness for those rights. The two front benches always made common cause in that matter, because ex-leaders who were in opposition thought that some day they would be back on the Treasury bench. What he quarrelled
2022
particularly about with the Leader of the Opposition was that he was the means of destroying one of the most valuable rights private Members ever possessed, namely, the right to interrupt public business at any time. The right hon. Gentleman practically abolished that right. He gave instead the right to move the adjournment of the House at nine o'clock at night when few Members were present, and when speeches on most important questions might be addressed to empty benches. A division might be taken when hon. Gentlemen found it convenient to return from a dinner party, and then they went into the lobbies without having heard a word of the debate. He hoped that a protest would be made against this deprivation of the rights of private Members, and that some measures would be taken for the restoration to them of that most valuable privilege. As the hon. Member for East Northampton had said, several important Bills had passed through Grand Committee, and now awaited the Report stage, and some only the Third Reading; but under this Motion as proposed by the Prime Minister all chance of passing them would be absolutely destroyed. His hon. friend behind him had introduced an important Bill for the repeal of the Coercion Act in Ireland. It passed through Grand Committee upstairs without any opposition in something like two minutes and a half. The Bill met with general acceptance in the House, but under the Prime Minister's Motion it would be massacred in the autumn session. Among other Bills was one which would specially appeal to the Prime Minister, viz., the Bill to give votes to women. The Second Reading of that Bill had been passed at an early period of the session, but it had been hung up waiting for an opportune time for its further progress. The strong and deep interest which the Prime Minister and his colleagues had taken in this measure should make them the last men in the world to deny the House the right of deciding the question in the autumn session. On the general question he appealed to private Members to shake themselves free of the malign influence of the front benches and to record their votes in favour of the

2023
preservation of some at least of the rights and privileges of private Members.
*MR. JOWETTsaid he interpreted the friendly nod of the Prime Minister in answer to the appeal of his hon. friend the Member for Leicester, to mean that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to make a concession in the Resolution under consideration. He had no wish in any way to add to what the hon. Member for Leicester had said in support of the contention of the Leader of the Opposition; but he would make this further appeal to the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman had given a promise to the Leader of the Opposition that in the event of the responsible Leaders of the Opposition wishing to move a vote of censure on the Government, he would provide an opportunity for the discussion of such a Motion. The unfortunate circumstances under which they, in that part of the House, were placed was that some of the subjects they thought most important and most fitting to be made the subject of a Vote of Censure on the Government, the Leader of the Opposition was not concerned with, because he did not share their views, or wish to support a Vote of Censure which they might move. For example, they might take the subject of the unemployed. On those benches there was an overwhelming desire to discuss the issue of unemployment, but they had no reasonable opportunity for doing so. The other evening discussion dodged round motor cars, tuberculosis, unemployed, and a great number of other subjects; but there was no possibility of getting a direct vote on unemployment. He maintained that the Labour Party had a right to put that issue before the House and the country from their own point of view. The Leader of the Opposition did not feel at one with them on that matter; the right hon. Gentleman had a perfect right to his opinion, but the Labour Party claimed the right to have their opinion also. What he had just said, he was convinced, had the full support of a large mass of the population of the country, and he appealed to the Prime Minister in the full knowledge of that to give their Party the same privilege of moving a vote of censure on
2024
the Government when they asked it as the regular Opposition had.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSappealed to the Prime Minister for some consideration being given to the Local Authorities (Education) Bill which would provide for the teaching of agriculture in schools. That Bill passed unanimously its Second Reading some time ago; it was non-contentious; and he asked the right hon. Gentleman to allow it to be starred. There was another Bill which he thought had been hardly treated. He meant the Small Holdings Amendment Bill, which he held should be starred so as to be considered in the autumn session.
*MR. ASQUITHsaid he was anxious to make this Resolution as practically consistent with the general convenience of the House as was possible to carry out its main object. The terms of the Resolution followed verbatim a similar Motion proposed a few years ago by the Leader of the Opposition. The points raised divided themselves into two groups. First, in reference to private Members' Bills, he thought the Government had shown every consideration to those which had secured anything like general assent, and he was prepared to do the same with other Bills standing on a similar footing—that was to say, if they had a general measure of acceptance and the same absence of serious controversy. He was afraid that could not be said of the Bill mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley, nor could he include the repeal of the Crimes Act for Ireland in the description; he would be glad if it could receive universal assent; but it certainly could not be said to be non-controversial. As regarded Bills that did fall within that category, the Government would extend similar facilities to those they had extended to others in the earlier part of the session. As to the point raised by the right hon. Baronet, the right to raise important matters on a Motion for adjournment, he would be prepared without changing the phraseology of the Resolution, to undertake that, when it was represented to the Government that there was, on the part of any body of Members, a serious demand of the kind with sub-

2025
stantial support, the adjournment should be moved before the remaining Government Orders were reached at half-past Eleven, so that the time might be occupied with the discussion of that Motion.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid that so far as he was concerned that would meet his point.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that it might stand as a promise.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEbegged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. A. E. W. MASONsaid he would like to call the attention of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies and of the House generally, to a Paper which had perhaps been overlooked in their discussions, but of the value and importance of which there could be no doubt whatever. He referred to the report of Mr. W. L. Mackenzie King, Deputy-Minister of Labour in the Government of the Dominion of Canada, on his mission to this country in connection with Asiatic labour. He need not refer in particular to the details of the mission. Mr. Mackenzie King came over here in March, on the initiative of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, to consult with the British authorities on the great and important subject of Asiatic immigration; and owing to the co-operation between the India Office and the Colonial Office, and the Colony represented by Mr. Mackenzie King, a settlement was arrived at. That Report was of great value, if only for the extreme cordiality of its tone and frank recognition by Canada of obligations of citizenship within the Empire. But the Report was still more valuable, not only as a settlement of a particular incident, but as a statement of a great problem which would have to be faced in the years to come, and which, if not treated with the greatest discretion and sagacity, would undoubtedly become a very great and constant danger and even a menace to the integrity of the Empire at large. In this Paper he was inclined to believe the principle and policy of Asiatic immigration was laid down for the first time, and was capable
2026
of a much wider application than in the particular instance of Canada. The hon. Members for Leeds and York rather swept the problem out of the way by stating that we must take it as a sure thing that the Colonies would not accept Asiatic immigration. That was only stating half of the problem; in this Paper they found the whole problem stated by Mr. Mackenzie King as follows—
"The variegated character of the British Empire is in no particular, perhaps, more fully exemplified than in the circumstance that within its confines are to be found all the features which the problem of Oriental immigration presents,"
Thus, they had two sides to the question; they had the Colonial side and the Asiatic side, and he believed that the Paper to which he had referred would be often quoted in the House as the beginning of a settlement of the problem. They were quite clear on one side of the problem. The Colonies had the right, universally recognised nowadays, to restrict Asiatic immigration according to their own wishes and desires. The Colonial restriction was the result of their economic policy; the entry of Asiatics into their territory was liable to lower the standard of living; while, on the other hand, there was a growing disinclination in this country to interfere at all with internal Colonial Government. But we had to consider not merely the question of the Colonies restricting Asiatic immigration, but also the problem of Asiatics trying to find their way into those countries and being treated under circumstances which involved suffering, and, as they conceived, humiliation and degradation on their part. He would like to urge particularly in dealing with this question of Asiatic immigration that our policy in England should be to teach the native Indians that they had a right arising from British citizenship. It was essential that the native Indian should be aware that the Imperial policy in so far as he was concerned, was a policy of great solicitude for his welfare, and that that should be brought home to him by his contact with the Indian Administration. That was a question to which the most serious thought and consideration must

2027
be given. The problem was bound to grow, as the desire of emigration on the part of Asiatics, especially in India, was bound to grow. Take the over-crowded frontier towns on the North-West of India. Within the year 1906, 48,000 Afghans migrated into the frontier districts, which were already over-populated. When he was out there not long ago on a frontier trip, he found that not a man was at home; all had gone to Bombay seeking work in the mills, or serving on board ship, and sending their earnings home. That was certain to be more and more the case as long as the British power remained in India; and he was one of those who believed that the British power in India was the one safeguard against rebellion and war. What was true of the North-West frontier was also true of other parts of India where the desire to spread abroad was getting greater and greater. We could not shut our eyes to this problem. We could not say to the Colonists that we had solved the whole problem; but he believed that in this Paper by Mr. Mackenzie King there was the germ—much more, the principle—of a definite policy which was capable of great extension, and which, if extended, might save us from great danger. Here was to be found an arrangement arrived at by means of co-operation between the India Office, the Colonial Office, and the Indian Government. There were men in India who were deluded as to the prosperity that awaited them if they emigrated, and the whole affair had been settled with the cooperation of the British and Canadian Governments. But if that co-operation had taken place before the emigration had begun, the whole trouble, and a rather dangerous subject, would have been avoided. He thought they should get some co-operation between the Government and the India Office, in which case a great step would be taken towards the solution of this very difficult question. He believed that in the new machinery which had been set up by the Government they had a means by which this co-operation could be obtained. What was required was some sort of Imperial Intelligence Department. What was called the Conference Secretariat might be used and extended for this purpose. He believed that
2028
if that office could be enlarged so that it should form a sort of clearing house for information, an intelligence department through which information might be disseminated throughout the Empire, the dangers which had arisen in the past and which awaited us in the future, unless this matter was grappled with, would be avoided. We had, as he had said, the machinery, and he urged the Under-Secretary to take into his consideration the necessity of insuring that in a short time all the necessary information should be sent to the Governments concerned, so that these troubles might be put an end to. He thought this was a most important question, and well worthy of a few moments' attention on the part of the Government. In the Conference Department they had the opportunity and would be able to tell whether in any part there was or was not any opportunity for Asiatic labour. There was also another consideration, and that was the terms on which Asiatic labour should go to any Colony. If the Department could arrange those terms, they would arrive at a certain harmony between the various British Dependencies and others parts of the Empire which did not exist at present, but which certainly must be insured if this vast Empire of ours was to be kept flourishing.
THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY, Liverpool, Abercromby)said he was sure no Member of the House would quarrel with his hon. friend for having brought this matter forward, and that the House would not wish a matter of such overwhelming importance to be left where it was without some statement from the Government; for it was true that the whole future of the Empire depended on the steps now taken, and that it was quite easy to shatter the Empire by taking a false step. The matter was brought to a stage of acute difficulty only a few months ago, and, in consequence, they had this Report, which the hon. Gentleman had referred. He wished to say at once on behalf of the Government that they appreciated most warmly the manner in which the Canadian Government had met them in this most difficult matter. They also appreciated

2029
warmly the manner in which Mr. Mackenzie King had conducted the negotiations; for he had shown that, however difficult a matter might be, when a man of attainments, sincerely desirous of preserving the unity of the Empire, was concerned in its discussion, a common agreement for the common good might result. That was the justification for the hon. Member's bringing this matter forward. Although Mr. Mackenzie Kings Report showed that he himself realised that the diplomatic considerations involved were so delicate that one must speak with restraint, it was, nevertheless, important that there should be the fullest discussion on the matter and that it should be looked fairly in the face, and his right hon. friend the Prime Minister shared that view. The difficulties arose in consequence of the immigration into Canada, not only of Indians, but other Asiatics, and especially Japanese and Chinese. He would not dwell on the Japanese immigration, because the Japanese Government had agreed to restrict emigration as far as possible, and had shown the most friendly desire to co-operate with the Canadian Government and our own Government. But, on the general question, might he appeal to the House not to adopt any superior attitude in this matter—not to say, as people were tempted to say, "Surely all men in the Empire are equal," and not to hold too closely to the principle of "Civis Romanus Sum, and say: "Being a citizen of the Empire, I can go where I please," and that any attempt to exclude a citizen of the Empire was unjust and must be resented by the Imperial Government. It was easy to utter those very proper sentiments, because we had no corresponding dangers menacing us in this country. Not only had we no menace of the kind, but objections were raised at the slightest symptom of Asiatic immigration. He had heard a statement from his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade that he was proposing to take action in regard to the increase of Chinese seamen in British ships in the coasting trade of this country. He did not say we ought not to take these objections, but he said we ought, and therefore we
2030
ought not to take up a superior attitude against the Colonies who found themselves confronted with a far more urgent danger. His hon. friend was quite right. He had told them what happened on the frontiers of India, where happily owing to British rule the people were turning to peaceful pursuits and the population was increasing. The outward extension of Asiatics was not likely to diminish, but there were indications in the Colonial Office and, he understood, also in the India Office, that there was plenty of work in India for able-bodied men to do, and that the tendency towards extension was confined only to certain areas. Having given that word of caution or comfort, whichever hon. Members might think it to be, he must admit that the matter was of urgent importance. The burden of the cry of those who said that we must take a stronger attitude to induce our Colonies to accept the immigration of any of our fellow-subjects was Civis Romanus sum. A citizen of the British Empire, it was said, ought to be able to go where he pleased. Of course a difficulty was caused. When we had some great function here, and a citizen of the Empire from India shook our statesmen by the hand, immediately afterwards citizens of the Empire from Australia and Canada went through the same ceremony. On the other hand, Euclid's statement that things which were equal to the same thing are equal to one another was not always capable of application to political matters, and could not be carried to its logical conclusion, because there were reasons, racial and economic, which made people of a particular race determined not to admit persons of another race or another and lower stage of civilisation. Notwithstanding the temporary abandonment of the doctrine of Civis Romanus sum, there was reason why they need not regard it as a complete disaster. He would remind the House of a better Latin saying: Homo sum; humani nihil a me alienum puto. In English he would say: "God made all men in his own image; and therefore all men are my kith and kin." That was a wider doctrine than the doctrine that in matters of civil liberty the citizens of the Empire should have a privilege over the citizens of the world.

2031
Even that wider doctrine could not be applied, first of all because of climatic conditions. Mr. Mackenzie King's Report was conclusive on that point. He said—
"It was clearly recognised in regard to emigration from India to Canada that the native of India is not a person suited to this country; that, accustomed as many of them are to the conditions of a tropical climate, and possessing manners and customs so unlike those of our own people, their inability to adapt themselves readily to surroundings entirely different could not but entail an amount of privation and suffering which renders the discontinuance of such emigration most desirable in the interests of the Indians themselves."
He believed that to be absolutely true. The immigration into Canada that took place resulted in great suffering to the Indian immigrants. They were not suited to the places they settled in, and this also applied to those who went to British Columbia. He had seen all the papers, confidential and other, and he could assure the House that Indian immigration into Canada had been a failure from the point of view of the immigrants themselves. Then there was the economic difficulty—the trade union difficulty—caused by the determination of the men in the country not to have their wages cut or a race introduced which could work for less because on account of its physique it could live on less, and because on account of its habits it did not require such a high development of comfort. That was a point which must never be lost sight of. Great white communities could not be expected to allow their economic standard to be lowered in this way by a vast immigration of those who could live on next to nothing, work longer hours, and who required none of those accessories of life to which the white population had been used for centuries. But the most important difficulty was racial antipathy. It was all very well to say that all men were equal and brothers; there were many people who would not assent to that doctrine. It was the duty of philosophers and Christians to remove racial antipathy before statesmen and politicians introduced an alien element. To take the opposite course and enforce the principle that a citizen of the Empire should be able to go all over the British Empire before a favourable state of feeling had
2032
been created could only cause infinite suffering to both the races concerned. A striking, almost tragic, illustration of this fact was to be found in the present situation in the Southern States of America, where the presence of an alien race had caused acute suffering to both black and white races. What policy ought they to pursue? He spoke on behalf of the Government and could not be expected to speak with that precision which one could do if one was speaking at large without reference to views which must have relation to all parts of the world as well as those which they were now discussing. The first principle was that while they trusted that the self-governing colonies would realise to the full the immense difficulties that must be brought upon the Empire by a policy of cruel exclusion against the 300,000,000 of Asiatics who formed an integral part of the Empire, they must agree to the demand that those colonies might exclude whom they pleased. They admitted that if a self-governing colony decided that they must exclude a certain class of persons, the Home Government could not interfere. Why was there anything contrary to the best doctrines in that assumption? He would ask those who considered it a cruel doctrine to reflect on the words of Herbert Spencer. Herbert Spencer said—
"I am entirely in favour of the policy of excluding Asiatics from America or restricting them within the narrowest limits, and for this reason—if they come in large numbers either they will mix with the population or they will not. In the latter event they will ultimately become, if not slaves, practically in the position of slaves. If they do mix they will form a bad hybrid. In either event difficulties must arise, and in the long run immense social disorganisation."
Though the Government had no wish or intention of interfering with our self-governing Colonies in regard to the policy of exclusion, certain principles could be laid down to which he thought the whole Empire would agree. If persons were admitted they must be given civil rights. "Free" or "not at all" seemed to him the sound principle for the British Empire. He would not trench on controversial ground. Some people might say that this raised the whole problem of Asiatic immigration

2033
into the Transvaal. He thought not, for those who were in favour of that course always stated that it was a temporary expedient to overcome an emergency caused by the war. If a people were admitted at all, there should be a common standard of liberty and all should be potential citizens. There was the other plan of making the best of both worlds—admitting people and then sending them back after using their labour, but nobody agreed with that. He therefore thought that they must agree to the principle that if anybody was admitted under the British flag, he must be admitted as a potential citizen. The third principle they might lay down was that those who were already there must be treated well, fairly, and generously. He had before him two great Blue-books dealing with the situation of the Indians in the Transvaal. He did not pretend that the Government viewed without concern what might happen to those Indians if the policy of exclusion was carried to the length of the dismissal of those who were there. It was a strong thing to ask that any subject of the King should be deprived of his living through no fault of his own. It was undesirable to make a mystery of a matter, but he might say that on this matter negotiations were proceeding and telegrams passing probably even as he spoke, so that he could not make a statement on that portion of it, but he thought they might agree that if the self-governing Colonies asked that they might exclude the fellow-subjects of the King because certain reasons made it imperative that wages should not be cut down, because the climatic conditions would make them unhappy, or because racial antipathy might cause riots, at least we might say that they should treat with the utmost generosity those subjects of the King who were there already. From that Report it would be seen that in Canada they had met us in a friendly spirit, and he could only say that in all the conversations which took place there was one note only, and that was that Canada was determined to make things as easy as possible for the home country in dealing with that difficult problem. The Government had confidence that the Governments of Australia, Natal, the Transvaal, the Cape, and New
2034
Zealand would show the same spirit as Canada had shown, realising that ours was a great heritage, and that it could only be held together by mutual forbearance on all sides. His hon. friend had suggested that we might bring this mutual forbearance a little nearer and make it a little more real if we were to ask what he called the Conference Secretariat, which, he thought, was a better name than the Imperial Secretariat, to take up this matter. He thought it was necessary for us to make the Imperial Secretariat a reality, to make it, as it were, the great clearinghouse for the Empire, where all the different laws might come and be considered and reported upon to the other Colonies by the Secretariat, so that it might be possible for every part of the Empire to know what the other parts were doing. He thought that should be done, and he would represent to the Secretary of State the desirability of doing it. He could only say in conclusion that if this matter was difficult, he did not think it was unsolvable or that there was anything to prevent, before very long, complete co-operation.
SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that they must have listened to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman with great interest and pleasure, because the Under-Secretary had recognised the principle which, if this Empire was to hold together, must be maintained by the central Government here in London as well as by the Colonies themselves, and that was that the Colonies must have the fullest of control over their own immigration. He wanted to draw a distinction between the native question, the coloured labour question, as found in the native races resident in, say, South Africa, and those who came from different parts of the Empire. As the Under-Secretary very aptly said, when there came a question of lascars or the employment of Chinese on British ships running from here to the Southern Seas, there were protests in that House from all parts. We were extremely jealous not only of our standard of labour but of the standard of wages and of any invasion of the native rights in labour of the citizens of this country. The Under-Secretary had said there were

2035
three reasons why the Canadians objected to Indian immigration, but there was something deeper than either of those three things. It was a credit to the thought and the feeling of patriotism of the race. They did not want to incorporate into their country the effects of the old plantation life, which meant simply that the white man would not himself do the lowest forms of work so long as the black man did it. The real reason why the Australians and the Canadians objected to Asiatic immigration was this—the fear that it would produce the effects produced in the Southern. States, the West Indies, and everywhere where Polynesian and Oriental labour had been introduced. Unless the structure of their national life was built up from the lowest forms of labour performed by the white man from the beginning, they knew that that national life must be rotten in the end. If they were to have a national life at all the white citizen should do all the work, from the digging of the ditches and the trenches to the highest, or else the civilisation would be unsound. That lay behind the action of Australia and Canada. The Under-Secretary smiled, no doubt thinking of South Africa, because of course it might seem strange that he should make that statement, but his position regarding the importation of Oriental labour into South Africa had always been that it was only to tide over a very difficult time of reconstruction of finance and commerce there. He had felt that it was a bad thing for South Africa to-day to be obliged to import coloured labour from outside. It complicated her own great native question if she imported 45 per cent. to 48 per cent. He sympathised deeply with the position taken up by the Under-Secretary, and he believed that what he had said that day would have its echo in every corner of the Empire, because lie had recognised the constitutional position and the national position which our Colonies had taken up. If the Government had pursued the same policy regarding immigration in the New Hebrides a different result would have followed. He commended the Government on taking the view of appealing to the Colonies for mutual counsel, and asking that they should send
2036
representatives to confer with the Imperial Government. That was the real basis of a true Imperial Parliament, and from just such interchange would come the great solution of our Imperial questions. If this Government and future Governments and other Colonies did what Canada had done, we were on the highway to placing our Colonial policy on the ground where we had placed our foreign policy, where private Members would hesitate to intrude, and would trust the Government of the day, believing that its policy was continuous.
*MR. MACKARNESSasked if the Under-Secretary was in a position to make any statement with regard to the Imperial Government's paying the salary of Dinizulu, whether he had been committed for trial, and on what charge he would be tried. He put those questions because Dinizulu was a British subject for whom the Imperial Government had incurred special obligations, and Dinizulu had the right to have them fulfilled, even although self-government had been granted to the white people in Natal.
COLONEL SEELYsaid he would read a telegram which had just arrived, and which, concluding as it did an unfortunate misunderstanding between the Government of this country and Natal, he would very much like to give. The telegram began—
"Ministers have asked me to communicate the following minute: 'With reference to the concluding portion of the Secretary of State for the Colonies' telegram No. 2 of the 23rd inst., Ministers have this morning been advised by your Excellency that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to make payment to-morrow on account of Dinizulu's salary. Ministers understand from Secretary of State for the Colonies' telegram referred to that His Majesty's Government has been influenced in respect of payment of Dinizulu's salary by belief that his defence will be prejudiced by lack of funds. Ministers are equally anxious with His Majesty's Government to avoid such a contingency, and whilst maintaining that their contention is correct on question of suspension of salary they are prepared, if approached by Dinizulu, to provide sum of money to assist him in his defence.' "
He need hardly say that his noble friend proposed to telegraph back saying that he welcomed that telegram, and that he assumed that the sum they proposed

2037
to pay would be at least equal to the salary which we should have paid, the important thing being that money should be forthcoming for the defence of this native chief. The actual merits of the case remained as before, but they were a subject for friendly discussion later on. For the moment they were paying the money for the defence of Dinizulu, and the Government welcomed this conclusion to an unfortunate difficulty and trusted that no such difficulty would occur again. He regretted he had not got the other information asked for, but as soon as it came he would have it communicated to the Press.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid he wished to ask the Government to define the position they held in regard to the hop industry. At the beginning of the session the Prime Minister, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, promised to receive a deputation on the subject, and in reply to a speech which he made in connection with the Address to the Crown he suggested an inquiry instead of receiving a deputation. The inquiry was held, it had take the whole session to conduct that inquiry, and now they had the Committee's Report before them. Therefore he thought he had some claim to ask the Government to proceed in the autumn session with the legislation indicated in the conclusions arrived at by the inquiry, for if they had not had the inquiry they could have had the matter dealt with this session. He would like to refer to a speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few days ago, in which he seemed to have been led rather far by the conclusions which the Hop Commitee had arrived at. He personally very much regretted the decision of the Government to take no steps to deal with what he believed was the real root of the difficulty, viz., the competition from America. He did not think the Committee really dealt with that point, and the Government who had thought it necessary to support a Committee in reference to the Meat Trust might well have given more attention to the question of whether there was not a Hop Trust also trying to destroy this native industry in our midst. The right hon. Gentleman, in his speech the other day, seemed to have been influenced
2038
by the fact that there were 3,000,000 less barrels of beer drunk now than before, and that therefore there must be less hops used, but the whole argument of the hop growers was that the special difficulties under which they were suffering had arisen within very recent years, in the last two or three years. The statistics in the Report showed that in the last three Years there had been no diminution at all in the number of barrels consumed, the figures being 34,400,000, 34,000,000, and 34,300,000, The right hon. Gentleman had also laid stress on the fact that much less hops were used in each barrel of beer, but in the last three years that had remained practically the same, viz., 1·83 lb., 1·86 lb., and 1·85 lb., and therefore those arguments did not apply to the present condition of things, which was what the growers complained of. If they turned to the question of the relative supply of home hops to the foreign production, they would see that during the last three years the percentage of home production to the total supply had really got to the smallest figure except that of 1905, when there was a crop far in excess even of the total consumption. The figures for the last three years were 55·96 per cent., 52·59 per cent., and this year it had fallen very much below that figure, and yet the Committee suggested that 70 per cent. in their opinion was the actual relation which they might depend upon of home-grown to foreign hops. Therefore, all these statistics, if dealt with for the period to which the growers desired to call the attention of the Government, showed that the points on which the right hon. Gentleman relied, trusting to the Report, did not really apply to the present condition of things. The hop growers were most urgently asking the Government to find some remedy, and if they could not go so far as to carry out some remedy which would really deal with the question they must content themselves with something less. On the only occasion when the question of a duty was brought to a division before the Committee, only four of the eleven members of the Committee voted against the duty; three voted for it, and there were three absent, and those three who were absent were the hon. Member for Rye, who had already proposed a duty in his own Report, the

2039
hon. Member for Faversham, who, although intimately connected with the hop-growing district, did not attend the meetings in connection with the Report at all, and the hon. Member for Falmouth, who made a strong speech in favour of dealing with foreign competition in introducing a deputation to the right hon. Gentleman the other day; therefore every member absent was more or less in favour of dealing with this question. He could see that the Government were in a difficulty in dealing with the question. It was difficult to separate it from the general question of tariff reform. He had always urged that it should be dealt with separately, as a matter of dumping and unfair competition, but it was extremely difficult for the Government to deal with it, and he was not surprised that they were not willing to deal with it in that war; and if that was so, he thought they had some right to ask the Government to promise them that in the autumn they should have legislation dealing with two other main points of the Report. He was grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's sympathetic words the other day in answer to a deputation, and his object in raising the question now was to raise the hopes of the growers with the belief that they would have some relief for their difficulties in the autumn. On the question of hop substitutes, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would confirm the Answer he gave to a Question the other day and make it clear that the Government intended legislating seriously, and not merely to bring in a Bill which, if there was any opposition, would be dropped. He believed that in the main there would be no controversy raised on that subject. He knew the hon. Gentleman below him, who was connected with the brewery trade, might say there were some preservatives which had nothing to do with hops, but what they desired was that all substitutes or supplements which took the place of hops should be barred, for in the opinion of the Committee their use should be prohibited. In regard to the question of marking, he hoped the Government would assure them that that question also would be dealt with during the autumn session
2040
in the same Bill. As marking had always been a peculiar characteristic of the hop trade, there could be no very strong arguments for alleging that the foreign hops should be free front that which applied so strongly to the home production. They had been told that the American trade was now depressed, but when they remembered that the trade in Oregon increased from 304 acres in 1800 to 3,000 acres in 1890, and to 15,000 in 1900, they could see that the increase had been so enormous that the depression now in no way dealt with the difficulties they were contending against. They must remember that neither substitutes nor marking would satisfactorily deal with Oregon hops, and it still lay with the Government to find some measure for relieving the industry in that respect. He would like to ask the hon. Gentleman representing the Board of Agriculture whether he could give him an assurance that further information should be obtained for them, that in the foreign countries they should have agriculture experts who would give them the information the growers required, and that in the internal arrangements of the Board of Agriculture itself more attention would be paid to giving information as to the best qualities of hops and other details, such as were recommended by the Committee in the last paragraph of the Report. Something might be done administratively, and he thought more could be done legislatively, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would calm the minds of the hop growers throughout the country by enabling him to assure them that the Government appreciated their case, and that in the autumn session some legislation of a remedial character would be given them.
MR. ESSEXsaid the hon. Member for Ashford had pointed out that he had put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day asking him whether he could see his way to introducing a measure prohibiting the use of hop substitutes in the manufacture of beer in the United Kingdom, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his reply had declared himself to be highly favourable

2041
to the introduction of a Bill in the autumn on some such lines as that, if he could be sure that it would not be received in an antagonistic spirit by any considerable section of the House, and would meet with general support. He did not know what knowledge the hon. Member for Ashford might have, but he himself was inclined to believe that a proposition of that kind, if presented to the House in a certain form, might well meet with very strong and warm support. The other claims which were made were, he thought, wholly untenable. They could not possibly ask that this one industry should have preferential treatment by the imposition of a duty on foreign competitive supplies coming to this country. Every other industry, that of the barley grower, for instance, would want similar treatment, and the whole vicious programme would be opened up. There was no earthly reason why their friends in Kent, hard as their case might be, should come before that House and demand to be specially treated. He was not so much concerned about marking, but he was afraid that a mistake was being made by its Kentish advocates, for they had proof that this marking was in many cases an advertisement for the foreign growers. He would point out to the hon. Member for Ashford that the trouble complained of all over the two counties to which the hon. Gentleman referred was one of which we had not the sole enjoyment in this country. The Hop Report told them that this terrible business of grubbing, which sounded so awful in the ears of agriculturists, was not unknown in Oregon or Washington. In this voluminous Report he had not been able to put his finger on the exact figures, but he thought he was correct in saying that no less than 30 per cent. of the hop area of Oregon had been grubbed up within a recent period because they, like ourselves, were finding that the world's markets were for some reason or other not so eager to purchase their products as they had been. That had happened constantly; and if there was a depression in one great market, in all probability that depression would be felt in other countries and amongst other people. It was apparently so in this case, and in the Colonies those who grew hops were making com-
2042
plaint among their own people. As they had got the sympathetic ear of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, lie would like him to deal not only with hop substitutes but with substitutes for malt extracts. He did not propose that they should go on the lines of a pure beer Bill, but he had been told, in reply to a Question, that the right hon. Gentleman did not think that the matter of substitutes for malt extracts was on the same footing as substitutes for hops. How the Chancellor of the Exchequer arrived at that conclusion he did not know, but he was bound to say that he thought the right hon. Gentleman had some reason in his active mind which had not leaked out in the carefully considered printed Answer which he had given him the other day. If the right hon. Gentleman found it difficult to deal with the matter on the same lines as hop substitutes, might he suggest that the Bill, with regard to all hop substitutes, should take this form, namely, that as other articles, such as coffee and butter, were by law to be declared what they really were when they were mixed—the one with chicory, for example, and the other with some ingredient other than pure butter—so a man, when he bought a glass of beer, should have declared to him the composition of the liquor, where it consisted of substitutes, so that he might know when he was buying a product of the doctors shop or of the laboratory, instead of a product of the fields of his own or other countries. It seemed to him that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might well go on with such a Bill; it would not in the least interfere with the principle of free trade; for if the chemist brewed a better beer—and he was glad to see one of the great experts present—than the brewer placed on the market, at any rate he was sure that the farmers and agriculturists of the country generally, and of Kent and other counties, would be only too glad to welcome the placing of this particular product on the market under conditions not less severe than those to which many other traders had to submit in reference to other products.
MR. GRETTONsaid he so far agreed with the hon. Member's

2043
case in regard to hop substitutes that he believed he could brew better beer from malt and hops only than from any combination of substitutes. He did not know whether that was the view of other brewers, and he did not think he ought to pursue the subject without consulting them. As regarded the question of hops, he found himself in entire agreement with the views of the hon. Member who opened the debate. The hon. Member very properly brought before the House the very urgent condition of the hop industry. That was abundantly proved before the Select Committee by all the witnesses who represented the hop industry, whether as growers, importers or factors. There was no doubt that during the last two or three years the hop trade generally had been through a period of exceptional stress and difficulty, and he believed they had a very urgent case indeed for consideration. He was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from what he had said to deputations, would not take that step which they considered to be the only step which would really be effective in placing the English hop industry upon a sounder and more stable footing. Every grower and merchant, with very few exceptions, had urged on the Committee that the only remedy was a duty upon foreign imported hops. An import duty would undoubtedly place the English grower on a sounder and more stable footing in competition with hops which were grown abroad and imported into this country. It appeared to him that one of the main arguments in support of this view was the fact that hops in many cases abroad were grown in climates which enjoyed a great proportion of sunshine and were more regular than the climate at home. When we had a bad season, which was unfortunately not very seldom, it was certain that there would be foreign hops of higher quality grown under more favourable conditions. That appeared to he the strongest argument, and if the English grower was to continue to grow hops, as they all desired that he should—every brewer wanted as many good English hops as he could get—the English grower must have some assurance of stability in prices in order that he might not make great losses, which undoubtedly had occurred in the last season. That, however, was not a practical question at present, as the
2044
Government firmly turned their faces against suggestions in that direction. He entirely supported the proposal for the prohibition of hop substitutes, but the hop-growers, in resolutions which they had recently passed, had gone a little further than that, and had expressed the opinion that preservatives, which were necessarily used also, took the place of hops. That view was put before the Committee, but the witnesses who advanced it were not able to maintain it. They failed to produce any evidence to support it, and the expert witnesses expressed an opinion exactly contrary to theirs. This was a very much larger and wider question than the House realised. Preservatives were used in nearly every liquor sold in the country, and in jams and preserved fruits. With regard to the ma king of hops, he had not much expectation that it would afford any substantial relief. It had been rightly said by the hon. Member for Cirencester that it might very easily become a two-edged sword and it would undoubtedly in some cases give greater prestige and a greater guarantee of the market quality of foreign hops. But it would tend to put an end to the system which they had evidence existed in some cases of the mixing of foreign hops of an inferior kind with those of a rather better grade, and selling them as the growth of a particular district in this country. There was no evidence before the Committee, nor was it his experience, that this was a practice largely resorted to, but there was evidence that in some cases it did occur, and marking of hops would undoubtedly tend to do away with it. The marking of hops however, was a rather more complicated question than might appear. Foreign countries had their own system of marking hops. For instance, those most in demand on the Continent and in America were grown in small allotments. No one grower had a sufficient number of hops to send to the market, and they were taken into a town and there marked with an official seal. That was not on all fours with the system which prevailed in this country. He was in entire agreement with the hop-growers that on the whole it was desirable that foreign hops should be marked as far as possible in the same

2045
way as was now required by law in this country, and on these lines he was perfectly prepared to support a measure. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take early steps to deal with this question. The Board of Agriculture could undoubtedly do a great deal. The hon. Member for Ashford had urged upon the consideration of the Board of Agriculture the question of collecting statistical information. Then there was the question of carrying on upon an organised scale the growing of hops. The cultivation of hops was a scientific industry which they had not been able to go into as thoroughly as they should have done. The Board of Agriculture ought to undertake experiments and organise investigations into the question of which were the best soils for growing hops in England. If they established agricultural research institutions they could have those experiments carried out by experts. He made that suggestion because he was convinced from his own experience that a great deal might be done by obtaining fuller information and having carefully worked out experiments on practical as well as scientific lines in regard to hop-growing in this country.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEpointed out that this question had been brought before him recently by a deputation who put their case to him ably, lucidly, and temperately, and who fully realised the limits beyond which the Government could not be expected to go in dealing with the difficulties of the hop industry. He thought he might say that on the whole they were satisfied with the undertaking the Government had given. The hon. Member who introduced this subject had challenged one or two statements he had made to that deputation, and he wished to say a few words in reply to his criticism. He pointed out to that deputation that, as a result of ah careful investigation made by a Committee of the House which had been inquiring into the matter, so far from there being an increase in the importation of d foreign hops, there had been a considerable decrease in the last few years, and, therefore, the difficulty did not arise from the importation of foreign hops. The figures v of the importation of foreign hops showed
2046
a very considerable decline in the in the importation——
MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had before him the figures circulated in answer to a Question put to him in May last, because those figures showed that there had been an increase.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that if the hon. Member had taken a range of thirty years for his survey he would have found that the great evil was not in the increased importation of hops from foreign countries, which had, in fact, decreased and was a diminishing evil if it was an evil at all. The hon. Member said they should look at the figures for the last three years, but surely that was not sufficient. They were bound to have fluctuation in the market, and they might have a very good year in hops in one particular year followed by a bad year. The hop industry was bound to import more foreign hops in a bad year than when the hop industry in this country was in a flourishing state. Consequently a great deal depended upon fluctuations, and it was a fairer test to take twenty or thirty years, and taking a period of that kind showed a very considerable decline in the importation of foreign hops. Thirty years ago the average importation of hops into this country was 215,000 cwts., but the average for the last ten years was only 186,000 cwts., showing a decrease of nearly 30,000 cwts. Consequently if the hop industry was suffering it was not due to any increase in the importation of foreign hops. He pointed out to the deputation that it had been clearly established that the present condition of the industry was due to the fact that there had been a smaller consumption of beer, amounting to 3,000,000 barrels in the course of the last seven years.
MR. LAURENCE HARDY: Not in the last three years.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it was not the last three years that established the drift of any trade. They had to take a much wider view. The hon. Member had taken too narrow a view of beer, and he ought to look at it from a broader point of view. The difficulty was mainly due to a smaller consumption of beer. The hon.

2047
Member should approach the subject freer a freer and broader point of view. If they rushed into legislation on this subject they might make a mistake. The hon. Member was not conservative enough to his mind. He did not like the revolutionary tendency of the hon. Member. He was much too violent and extreme a man to his way of thinking. The hon. Member asked for sweeping legislation because in three years there had been changes in the trade. The changes were due to several causes. There had been a reduction in the production of beer to the extent of 3,000,000 barrels in the course of seven years. That was due to a change in the habits of the people, a change not to be deplored, and, if less beer was required, there must be less use of hops. Then again less hops had in recent years been used in brewing. But the people could not be compelled to drink more beer or brewers to use more hops. There was another factor which the hon. Member had ignored, the use of cold storage. In the old days when there was a good hop season all that were required by the brewers were used and the remainder destroyed, but now when there was a good season the brewer bought large quantities because the price was low, and he could lay up what he did not then require in cold stores and had a reserve upon which he could draw. This cold-storage system the hon. Member did not approve of; probably he would like to go back to the old days when these fantastic ideas were unknown. But he could not do it; these were progressive days, and we must adapt ourselves to them. It might be a comfort to our own producers to know that, if they suffered, foreign competitors suffered also. In Oregon things were so bad that it was resolved to grub up 30 per cent, of the hop plantations. The American cultivator was ready to do this, and he, finding one cultivation was not remunerative, used his land for another; he did not ask for the artificial manure of legislation. Of 16,000 acres under hops in Oregon 5,000 were converted to something else in a single year; and out of 5,000 in Washington, 2,000 had been converted to something else in a single year. That was due to the smartness
2048
of the American farmer. He would point out incidentally that hop land paid about £3 per acre, whereas the same land used for another purpose would only pay 30s. per acre. While in Kent the acreage of land under hops had decreased, in Worcestershire and Herefordshire the land under hops had increased in the last thirty years. Worcestershire and Herefordshire were formidable competitors of Kent for the time being, but the hon. Member for Kent did not want a 50s. duty on hops from the West of England. The hon. Member had made something out of the fact that the duty suggested in the Committee was only thrown out by a majority of one. There were three absentees, and he tried to suggest that they would have voted for a duty. The hon. Member for Rye would have voted in favour of a duty. It was not correct, however, to say that his hon. friend who introduced the deputation to him was in favour of a duty, for he had distinctly stated that he was against it. The hon. Member for Faversham went into the Committee with a predilection in favour of a duty on hops—a predilection to which no doubt he was assisted by representations made to him—and after listening to the overwhelming evidence against it he found it was absolutely impossible to support that proposition. He had already written to the papers to say that he approved thoroughly of the recommendations of the Committee. Now he came to the position in which the Government stood in the matter. The Committee had reported against hop substitutes. He was quite prepared to act on that recommendation. The hon. Member for Rutland himself acknowledged that deleterious substitutes were used in certain cases.
MR. GRETTON: In one case.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Very well; they did not want a matter of that sort to be imported when it had the incidental effect of being detrimental and injurious to a British industry. The Government were, therefore, prepared to act upon the recommendation of the Committee in that respect, and that the same obligation of marking hops should be imposed on the foreigner

2049
as was imposed by law on the British hop-grower. That was not at all inconsistent with the principles of free trade. At the same time his experience at the Board of Trade was that on the whole the British trader suffered who insisted on the marking of foreign goods. In many cases it had been merely an advertisement for the foreign goods.
MR. JOHN WARD: That is not the case when the marking is in general terms.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the suggestion was to mark the foreign hops absolutely with the producer's name, and the advertisement would be still greater in that case. He would seriously invite the hop-growers of Kent to reconsider the matter and see whether they would really benefit by it. They knew their own business best; and it was a business matter after all. It could not be an injustice if they were deliberately of opinion, after careful reflection, that it would be an advantage to their industry to impose the same obligation on the foreigner as on the British producer. He now came to the question as to whether the Government proposed to deal with the subject effectively. The other day in answer to a Question he stated that they certainly proposed to give effect to the unanimous recommendations of the Committee, but that that depended upon the opposition which the Bill would meet with. The hon. Member met his statement with the objection that if the passage of such a Bill was made conditional upon the absence of opposition they might get no Bill at all. He wanted to point out to the hon. Member that the Government could not devote much time in the autumn session to a Bill of this kind, although he did not see why the Bill should occupy much time. It was perfectly clear that the hop-growers were unanimous on the two points referred to, the Committee was unanimous, and the House was practically unanimous. He felt it was in the power of the Opposition to enable the Government to deal with this matter before the session was over, and with their assistance and approval he hoped to do so. He had
2050
already given instructions to have a Bill drafted. It would be necessary to bring in a general Revenue Bill, and whether the Bill he promised would be a separate Bill of two or three clauses, or would be incorporated in the Revenue Bill he had yet to consider, because he had to consult with his experts and with the authorities of the House. He had not wished to give merely a sympathetic answer to the hon. Member for Ashford, but a promise, and he meant to redeem that promise with the assistance of the Opposition.
*MR. MORRELLsaid he wished to draw attention to a matter of the utmost importance to the rural districts of the country, viz., the working of the Small Holdings Act. The Act had aroused the greatest possible interest, and the highest possible hope in the rural districts. In the course of a few months 20,000 applications had been made for land, most of them, perfectly substantial and sound. But they represented only a small part of the enormous number of people who were waiting to see how the Act worked before they put in applications. At present very little had been done except to inquire into the applications. The amount of land which had been actually granted was very insignificant, and the amount of land proposed to be dealt with under all the schemes that had been submitted came to a very small fraction of the total demand. He was not prepared to say that the delay could not be justified. He believed there were a great many reasons for it. He knew that the county council of Oxfordshire were doing a great deal of work under the Act, and that there was much to be said for the present policy of the Commissioners in not bringing pressure to bear on the county councils too soon because, obviously, they must wait and see how the Act was going to work before the Commissioners stepped in. But if the delay was justifiable it made the argument all the stronger for saying that they must make quite sure that sooner or later the Act was going to succeed. What he wanted to know was whether the Small Holdings Commissioners at the present time were really

2051
doing all that was necessary to guarantee success. Were they carrying out their present duties in such a way as to ensure that every suitable applicant would be able to get the land which he required? He did not mean the actual piece of land that a man asked for, but whether the Commissioners were carrying out their duties in such a way as to ensure that a man would get the amount of land he required. He thought not, and he would give his reasons for so thinking. Under, Clause 2 of this Act the Commissioners were required to ascertain for themselves the extent of the demand and the means by which that demand could be reasonably satisfied. That was the substance of the second section of the Act. If it had any meaning at all it meant that the Commissioners ought to know not merely the sum total of the applications, but the amount of land required by, and the name of each applicant. At the present time it was true to say that out of the 20,000 applications that had been sent in the Board of Agriculture had no detailed knowledge of more than 2,000; that so far as the remainder were concerned they had only the information supplied by the various county councils that 18,000 applications had been received. He did not think that with regard to any of the whole 20,000 application they could at the moment say what was the name of each applicant, the amount of land he required, or the date of his application. They certainly could not say so with regard to 18,000 of them, and yet that information ought to be in the possession of the Board of Agriculture, because until they had got a proper record of the applications it was impossible to tell what was the extent of the demand. They had been told that the county councils had this information and that they were always able and willing to give the information to the Board of Agriculture, if it was applied for. That might be so, but there was no real guarantee whatever that the county councils had got the information in the right form. He did not know whether the county councils preserved particulars of all the applications they received, including applications rejected by them, and the reasons for such rejections. He thought
2052
the Board of Agriculture would be in a far stronger position if they had in their own possession the actual record of the demand made. The Committee were told that that would entail a great amount of work and much duplication. Surely more Commissioners ought if necessary to be appointed to see that the Act was properly carried out. If there was a proper register of all the applications the delay at present occurring would not greatly matter, because they could say to each applicant: "Although there is at present a difficulty in getting the land you want, sooner or later it will be provided. Your application is on the books of the Board of Agriculture, and if your claim is good you will get the land." That in itself would do good, because many of these applicants had not much faith in county councils, and if they knew that their application was recorded in the books of the Board of Agriculture they would be more inclined to hold on. It would also be a check upon the county councils. After all, sooner or later, the Commissioners would have to take action. There would be many cases with which the county council would not be able to grapple. Therefore he wanted to see the Commissioners prepare the ground now so that there would be a proper Court of Appeal, and he did not think they could do that unless they started with a proper register. Then with regard to experimental holdings. Under Clause 16 the Commissioners had power to acquire land, divide it up into small holdings and demonstrate the fact that small holdings could be a success. Under Clause 39 they were empowered to initiate schemes of co-operation for the small holdings they had established in this way. It was a remarkable fact that nothing had been done to put those clauses into operation. The argument was that it was unnecessary to demonstrate the feasibility of the matter, but it was never superfluous to show any successful experiment, and if they could get colonies of small holdings established by the Board of Agriculture with a really good system of co-operation, with good credit banks under the direct supervision of the Board, so far from that being a discouragement to the county councils it would form a most instructive and

2053
valuable inducement to them to put the Act more fully into operation than they did at present. It was idle to argue that because experimental holdings were started in a county there would be difficulty in enforcing the other provisions of the Small Holdings Act. It seemed to him that it would put the Board of Agriculture in a much better position for saying to the county councils: "We require you to carry out schemes, and to start small holdings," if they themselves had shown the way. It was of the utmost importance that the Board of Agriculture should reconsider their policy on those two points if they really wished to make the Act a success.
*MR. MONTAGUsaid that no one who had listened to the debate could have failed to realise the importance of the subject to those who lived in agricultural districts, and the great misgivings they had on the subject, and all those interested in the Small Holdings Act ought to be grateful to his hon. friend who had played so large a part in directing Parliamentary attention to the working of the Act. He himself represented a part of a county where the Act was working, he thought, remarkably well. Ten thousand acres of land had been applied for. A large number of local inquiries had been held by a small committee, and even with the most energetic application of the provisions of the Act, there must inevitably be a very great delay in the working of it. In scattered districts the applications required a large amount of time and travelling, and a scheme had then to be put forward, and the committee had to get the county council to consent to put forward a scheme. Therefore, he did not feel despondent about Cambridgeshire, where three farms had already been bought, and where the county council was putting itself with great determination to satisfy the demands, although it realised that if the existing demand was to be satisfied before Michaelmas, 1910, it would be necessary to acquire land at the rate of 500 acres per month. He could not speak too highly of the patriotism of the committee which hid set an example to the whole country. The demand for small
2054
holdings was necessarily greatest where experiments showed that small holdings were a success, and the problem which the county council had to face was the application for nearly all the land in a parish where it was already farmed by small holders from whom they could not even if they would take land. He wished there had been a provision adequately to compensate sitting tenants, but that was "chose jugee." It showed that the way to get a demand for small holdings was to prove in particular parishes how well they worked, and it also showed the great need for not hesitating any longer to put into force those portions of the Act which entitled the Board of Agriculture to start experimental small holdings. As regards other counties he would remind the representative of the Board that one great obstacle in the way of the successful working of the Act was the timidity on the part of those for whom the Act was designed. The Board should make it obvious to possible applicants that even if they feared to make application to the county council, at any rate to the Board of Agriculture they might fearlessly make their applications and be greeted sympathetically. He would give an experience of his own with regard to a scheme for small holdings before the Act came into force. Certain of his friends desired to start a scheme. Public meetings were held, and applicants were asked to stay behind and give in their names if they would take small holdings, but no applicant ever stayed behind. A canvass from door to door of possible applicants was undertaken, by people interested in the scheme, but no applications were received. It locked almost honeless to start small holdings in that neighbourhood, but when, in enthusiasm, the gentlemen interested took the land and got it ready, in a very few weeks there were more applications for small holdings than could possibly be satisfied, and the explanation was that no man was going to mark himself as being discontented with his lot until the land he was going to till was there under his eyes. His object in quoting that was that these were exceptional cases. It was the case that there was distrust of small holdings in some districts,

2055
particularly where the people had not been shown their feasibility or utility. But everybody must acknowledge that in some districts there were great objections to small holdings. Many men dwelling in the country did not want to see them, and many speeches were made against them, and a large amount of the delay in the working of the Act was caused by the objection to the establishment of small holdings, and on the other hand, by fear on the part of possible applicants that a desire for small holdings might militate against them. Under those circumstances he would implore the Board of Agriculture to go out of its way to advertise throughout the country its earnest desire, which all knew the President of the Board of Agriculture had, to ensure the good working of this Act, and to demonstrate to the people who were going to apply for small holdings the best methods of cultivating the land. He further thanked the Government for consenting to pay half the expenses incurred, in inquiries, but hoped they would eventually pay the whole cost, for the rates must be carefully safeguarded if the Act was to be a success.
THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY, Somersetshire, S.)said he could assure the hon. Members for Henley and Cambridge that their fears were really groundless. If they had been able to make inquiries, as the Board of Agriculture had been making and were continuing to make into the working of the Act by the various county councils, they would be quite satisfied that in the great majority of cases the county councils were doing their very utmost to put the Act into force, and that they had done an immense amount of work and almost as much as could be expected of them in the short time which had been at their disposal since the passing of the Act. Reference had been made by his lion, friend to the number of applications. Some 19,000 applications had been received for somewhat over 300,000 acres of land. When the Report asked for by his hon. friend was printed and circulated, his hon. friend would know a great deal more of the details, and it would, he believed, make it clear that the Board had done very
2056
useful work. He regretted with his hon. friend that the Report was not in the hands of hon. Members at the present moment. But that was not any fault of the Board of Agriculture. They had brought up the Return to 30th June last, and the Report was now in the hands of the printers. It did not rest with the Board of Agriculture as to how soon it would be circulated, but with the Stationery Office, and he hoped there might be no great delay but that the Report would be shortly in the hands of hon. Members.
MR. ROWLANDS: Has there not been great delay in getting it from the printers?
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid not more than usual. Like the two hon. Members who had just spoken, he was an enthusiast in the matter of small holdings; and, like them, not only did he represent a county division, but he also lived in the county he represented, and took a great interest in the working of local administration. Taking into consideration the short time the Act had been in force, and other considerations, he contended that the county councils had done their very utmost and there was no doubt they were most anxious to put the Act into force. It was only a question of giving the county councils time. It would be seen in the Report when published that 2,000 acres of land had been either bought or leased by county councils up to 30th June, but his hon. friends would be interested to know that since then a further 1,000 acres or more had been applied for under schemes. Sooner or later every applicant would be able to get land, provided he was suitable and qualified to take a small holding, having the necessary capital, and ready, perhaps at some inconvenience to himself, to move out of his particular district, and not insist that he must have land provided for him at his back door or even within a mile or two of his home. Every applicant had, of course, a right of appeal to the Board of Agriculture. There were numerous applicants who were dissatisfied and had appealed to the Board of Agriculture, and in every case the Board had investigated the case and seen that justice was done. There was a

2057
case the other day which showed that county councils were not always to blame. In the county of Dorset a very good farm consisting of 1,100 acres was offered. It was inspected by one of the inspectors of the Board of Agriculture, and held to be entirely suitable. The council were prepared to take the farm at £450 a year. There were a good farmhouse and buildings and a good water supply. When the county council offered it to the applicants there were twenty-two in number, but when the inquiry was held only one of the applicants was willing to take one of the small holdings of thirty or forty acres, the farm being considered too far away from the place where they lived. He also assured his hon. friend that the Commissioners were doing their duty admirably, and there was no reason to complain of the way they were carrying out the Act. They were, indeed, most anxious to see that the Act should be carried out. He had already informed his hon. friend in answer to a Question that the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture did not think it was necessary to go to the expense and the trouble of having a separate register kept of every single applicant. His noble friend thought it was quite sufficient to leave the details in charge of the county council, who could get at any time the name and occupation of any man in the county. At the same time, his noble friend had reports giving a certain amount of details as to the applicants and their professions, but what, of course, the Board relied upon principally was that at any moment they could call upon the county council to give information as regarded not only the total number of applicants in any particular district, but any particular application. It was not necessary to appoint more Commissioners, because the county councils must carry out the obligations placed upon them in respect of the details of the Act. It was the essence of the Act that the county councils should carry out the whole of' the details, reserving power to act to the Pres dent of the Board of Agriculture. He could as sure the House that Lord Carrington would not be afraid to act if the county councils refused to carry out their duties; but at the present moment there was nothing to ead him to suppose that the county
2058
councils did not intend to carry out their duties or were not carrying them out at the present time. As regarded the question of putting Section 16 into force, there again it was perfectly clear to everyone that the President of the Board of Agriculture would be unable to put that section into force, because he would be only able to do so if the Board, after inquiry, thought it advisable to do so with a view to the establishment of small holdings in any county. But, up to the present, the President of the Board of Agriculture was quite satisfied, and did not think it necessary to put the section into force. With regard to what the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire had said in the matter of the Board setting up experimental farms showing the best means and modes of cultivation, he had great sympathy with the idea, not only as regarded small holdings but as regarded large holdings. It was, however, impossible for the Board to set up these experimental farms under the Act, and he could assure his hon. friend and the House generally that the Board, from the President down to the Commissioners, were doing everything in their power to facilitate the easy working of the Act and the acquisition of land by suitable applicants, and he was sure that if his hon. friends were only patient they would see in a very short time a very large number of men established in small holdings.
MR. SEDDONsaid he was sorry to intervene at that hour, especially when he knew that the thoughts of Ministers and Members were far from there; but the fault was not his. He intended on the Home Office Vote to raise one or two questions, but owing to the limited time given to that very important Department he was unable to raise the question, and because of that inability he was compelled to keep the Home Secretary there that afternoon. The first question he wished to raise was with reference to the Isle of Man. Some six months ago the right hon. Gentleman received a deputation from the island——
*MR. SPEAKER: I am very doubtful if the Isle of Man is under the jurisdiction of the Home Secretary.
MR. SEDDON: I have here the report of the deputation to the right hon. Gentleman.
*MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will develop his arguments.
MR. SEDDONsaid he only wanted an assurance from the Home Secretary. The deputation, the right hon. Gentleman would remember, waited upon him in February of this year. According to the report, the Home Secretary's attitude was sympathetic throughout, and the right hon. Gentleman intimated that he was convinced of the desirability of reform. The deputation asked that a more democratic state of affairs should be brought about that would approximate more to the democratic character of the Isle of Man, and that the Governor should be appointed for a term of years and not for life. They also asked that the Legislative Chamber should be partly elected and partly nominated.
*MR. SPEAKER: That would surely require legislation. That could not be done upon the ipse dixit of the Home Secretary, but must be done by a Bill.
MR. SEDDONsaid he was extremely sorry, but it was quite evident that the deputation thought the Home Secretary had the power of giving them the relief they sought. However, he would not pursue the subject further, except to ask whether it was true that the Island Authority had sent a secret document on the subject to the Home Secretary, as was freely rumoured in the Island. All he wanted was a statement from the right hon. Gentleman that no such document had been received, and that when the question was treated it would be treated on its merits. He turned to the other question, which was of great importance. It was the question of dock regulations. Two years ago when a certain Bill was before the House certain gentlemen interested in the shipping trade used their influence and made representations to certain Members, including himself, to remove their opposition to the Light Dues Bill. On that Bill he put down a blocking Motion, so that the shipowners should meet the representatives of the dockers in friendly conference with reference to a Memorandum sent out in 1904. On that occasion one or two of the shipowners met one or two representatives of the dock workers, and a friendly arrangement was understood to exist that the former at some time in
2060
the immediate future would meet the dock workers in conference with reference to putting these regulations into operation. The regulations he referred to were issued in 1904, and three years grace was given. The three years had elapsed, and last January the regulations were supposed to come into operation. The particular regulations to which he desired to call the attention of the Home Secretary were those referring to the loading and unloading of ships. In Paragraph 6 of the Memorandum it was stated quite clearly what were the functions and duties of shipowners. It was stated that either ladders should be attached to the hatchways, where they should be vertical, or there should be handrails. His complaint was that these regulations were honoured in the breach. He was informed that two shipping firms in Liverpool had tried to carry out the regulations, but none of the others had. The dock inspector reported and reported, but nothing further was done, and now, instead of the other shipowners carrying out the regulations, they were using their influence to compel the two shipping companies who were using ladders to take them away, because the Home Office was not concerned in carrying out the regulations in the Memorandum. His complaint was that the inspectors were helpless and hopeless. They reported and reported, and that was the end of their operations. There was no hope of bringing about a change unless the inspectors were instructed to prosecute the shipowners for not carrying out the regulations. He held that any regulation or law that was not put into operation destroyed the moral influence of that House and the public respectively, and when he read in the paper such a statement as that made by a leading shipowner in the North of England, and not distantly removed from one of the members of the Cabinet—he referred to Sir Walter Runciman—he was not at all surprised that the shipowners had not carried out the regulations laid down by the Home Office. Sir Walter Runciman, speaking the other day, said that whenever the Government introduced legislation into commercial affairs they always made a mess of it. He had a list of various accidents which had occurred at the various docks in the

2061
country. He could give the right hon. Gentleman the names of ships that had been lying in the docks at Liverpool which had no means of access at all so far as the holds were concerned. He would give one only. The vessel was owned by the Dublin Steamship Company, and was named the "Kilkenny." Some time ago one of the dockers was engaged trimming coal. There was no means of access or egress. This man went down to trim coal which began to move. The man was in danger of being smothered, and one of the other dockers had to straddle across the hatchway and pull him up by a rope. His life was saved, but he was considerably Bruised.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): Was that this year?
*MR. SEDDONthought it was last year, before the regulations came in force, but his complaint was that in the meantime no attempt had been made to secure greater safety for the dockers. He asked the right hon. Gentleman through his inspectors in Liverpool and other ports to get sufficient information to enable him to prosecute shipowners who were wilfully ignoring these regulations, which were in the interest of life and limb of those engaged in docking. If the right hon. Gentleman was unable to take that course, then let him call a conference of shipowners and dockers, or let him receive a deputation of dockers' representatives, and he would have such an unanswerable case presented that from humanitarian motives alone he would enforce the regulations and compel the shipowners to carry out their obligations in the interests of the dockers.
*MR. GLADSTONEsaid it was true that he received a deputation from the Isle of Man. He agreed generally with the case in favour of the reform of certain institutions and gave a generally sympathetic reply. If the matter had not proceeded further it was entirely on account of want of time. The constitution of the Isle of Man, which was interesting and historic, raised all sorts of difficult questions on a small scale, which were by no means easy to manage He could not say to what extent legis-
2062
lation would be necessary to make any alteration, but it was his impression that certain changes in the constitution could be made without reference to Parliament. With regard to the specific question, asked by the hon. Member, there was no foundation for the statement that any communication, had been made to the Home Office. With regard to the question of docks he thought he could show his hon. friend that the case was not so bad. The regulations had in fact been enforced in a great many cases, but there were great difficulties. He did not gather that the hon. Member made any complaint with regard to shore work but limited his remarks to ships. He gave the case of the steamship "Kilkenny," but so much of the regulations affecting the vessel as require structural alterations only came into force in January this year. He could not say, therefore, whether or no there was any failure to enforce the regulations in that particular case.
MR. SEDDON: I only gave the case because the ship at the present time is in the same position.
*MR. GLADSTONEagreed there was difficulty with regard to regulations so far as ships were concerned, and especially in the case of foreign ships. There had been two prosecutions in Liverpool this year, and during April the services of two inspectors were wholly devoted to the question of enforcing the regulations. They had a letter from Mr. Sexton not long ago making certain, allegations, and they asked him to supply them with particulars of the cases he had in mind, but no answer had yet been received from him. As soon as the particulars were received from him they would be closely examined. The superintending inspector for the division was ready to meet Mr. Sexton at an early date in Liverpool so that he might personally investigate the question of enforcing the regulations. He did not know that he could say anything more at the present moment except that their inspectors had found considerable difficulty from the lack of assistance given by the workers. There had also been a noticeable falling off in complaints. In 1905 there were sixty-eight complaints; in 1906, twenty-five; and in 1907, only sixteen, of which

2063
seven referred to foreign vessels. That was an indication that a great deal had been done. The inspectors would be greatly assisted if the dockers concerned gave them more direct and immediate information. He hoped his statement would be satisfactory.
*MR. CLELANDsaid he was loth to enter into the debate, but his intervention was justified by the importance of the question he had to lay before the Secretary for Scotland. He thought it was common knowledge that the state of trade at the present moment in this country was far from satisfactory, and he knew of no place which had suffered so acutely and where the industrial crisis was anything like so serious as it was at present in the West of Scotland. He desired particularly to point out that in the course of the next three or four weeks they would be face to face with a most serious state of affairs which, he ventured to hope, the Government would do something to relieve. He had lived in Glasgow for many years, but he knew of no time during the last twenty-five years, even in winter, when things were as bad as they were at present. The shipbuilding industry was practically at a standstill, and although they were fortunate in not having to depend entirely upon one industry, still all the industries were slack, and the extreme slackness in shipbuilding had hit every single industry on the Clyde and the western counties. If that was their problem in the summer time, what was it going to be in the winter? With regard to what had happened between the Scottish Local Government Board and the local distress committee, he pointed out that some months ago a local fund was opened for the alleviation of distress in order to aid the local committee in putting into operation the provisions of the Act of 1905. They raised locally £8,000, since which time they had contributed £4,000, which was more than the whole of the rest of the United Kingdom had raised. They had up to the present moment received in grants £9,600. In other words, they had raised locally almost £12,000, and received in grants under £10,000, compared with London, which raised £500, and received in grants £63,000, and Edinburgh, which
2064
raised £500 and received in grants £6,600. The Scottish Local Government Board on 1st February issued a circular letter to the distress committees in Scotland. In that letter it was pointed out very properly that the distress committees should not consider that their work was circumscribed and limited to the winter months. That was perfectly clear and fair, but what the circular did not state—and in this matter he did not wish to impute any blame to the Scottish Local Government Board—was that if the distress committees did not ask for the total sum they wanted before 31st March, no fresh grants could be given in the intervening months between 1st April and 1st August. Possibly all distress committees ought to know the provisions and rules under which the Treasury acted, but unfortunately the Glasgow Distress Committee were ignorant of the Treasury rules when they responded to the circular of the Scottish Local Government Board. They told the Board in clear and unambiguous language that they wished a certain sum to carry out their work up to 31st March and a little beyond. They did not ask for more, because they hoped the present collapse was temporary, and they did not desire to put forward a large lump sum until they were able to verify what the requirements would be in the next few months. He ventured to think that that was a reasonable and businesslike way of setting about the matter. Weeks passed, and some weeks after 31st March the distress committees appealed to the Scottish Local Government Board, and then they were told that not one penny piece further could be forthcoming before the end of August. He did not wish to enter into the matter of the somewhat strained relationship which then ensued between the committee and the Scottish Local Government Board. It was sufficient to say that eventually a very serious crisis was just averted. The Distress Committe threatened to resign, and that would have meant that 800 men would have been thrown on the streets of Glasgow. That crisis was, however, avoided because the Glasgow Corporation very generously came forward and provided funds in order to carry out the work and prevent those men being thrown on the streets. He knew that charges had been made against

2065
the Glasgow Distress Committee, but he fancied those charges had not been based on plain facts. They were told, for example, that they had been paying the men more wages than they received when in their regular employment. That was not the case. He had taken out the figures with considerable care, and he found that the average wages of these men in their previous employment were 21s. 7d. per week, whereas at the relief works at Palacerigg they were 13s. 2d. Then they were told that Palacerigg was attractive, and that it was a pleasant holiday for the men to go out there. Palacerigg was some 600 acres in extent, about fifteen miles from Glasgow, and was land which the distress committee had acquired for afforestation and reclamation. It was one of the bleakest and dreariest places in the whole of the West of Scotland, and after he had spent some hours there the other day he did not want to see the place again. Then they were told in addition that some of the men had been wastrels, that some of them had been seen going in and out of public-houses, and that some of them were shirkers. He had no doubt that was true to some extent, but in an aggregation of people out of work they were bound to find a certain proportion of men who were not proper recipients of this form of relief; but what he contended—and he had gone into the matter with some local knowledge and devoted some amount of time and care to the question—was that these men and the work they performed would bear favourable comparison with that of other distress committees. But they would be face to face again with the same crisis within the next fortnight or three weeks, when the additional contribution which the corporation had voted would be exhausted; and what they felt was that, having regard to the fact that they raised so much more money than any other place, it would be extremely difficult to get still further ocal subscriptions. They did not ask for favours; they only asked that they should be treated proportionately as other cities had been treated. He had always held the view that this system of giving doles and subscriptions in carrying out the Act of 1905 was a totally wrong system.
2066
It would be far better to place the whole thing on the rates, But they had to face accomplished facts, and he appealed to the Secretary for Scotland not to place them in the unfortunate position of either having to appeal for funds, which, he feared, would not be successful, or closing down those works and throwing 800 men on the streets of Glasgow to swell an already congested labour market. The Secretary for Scotland, if he exercised his influence over the Scottish Local Government Board, could help them much. He hoped he would exercise that influence, and do all he could for this great industrial community in the west, in order that this sad history of misconception and misunderstanding might not end in a local tragedy.
*MR. DUNDAS WHITEsupported the appeal of his hon. friend. In Glasgow and in many places round it there had been unemployment, but the local authorities and the people had done exceptionally well towards relieving it. It seemed rather hard in the circumstances that the distribution of the grants had boon conducted along lines which were technical rather than sympathetic. He hoped that in the distribution of the grant for the current year some more generous lines would be followed. He quite recognised that this was rather in the nature of a palliative, and whatever sum of money was distributed, and however it was distributed, it would not touch the root of the evil. There was the strange phenomenon that while their large centres were overcrowded people were still flocking in from the country districts. The problem of the town was the problem of the country too. They would never settle the problem of the centres until they had settled the problem of the outlying districts. They wanted to settle more people on the land, and that could never be done until unused land could be obtained at a fair price. That question would never be solved until they went on the principle of rating land at its market value. They wanted to improve their farming and industries in various ways. Over and over again, in the county he represented, people had complained that they had to pay too much for the land, and as soon as they began

2067
to improve it by useful work their assessment and rates went up, and thereby development was checked, opportunities for employment narrowed, and the labour market in the towns became overcrowded. They wanted, as far as they could, more direct employment on the land, and in order to get that they must have such land reform which would give the cultivators that abiding interest in the land which alone would keep them on it. It was only by legislation strenuously directed along these lines that they could hope to deal effectively with the evils which they deplored. These evils affected not only men and women, but in a still graver degree the children of to-day, who would be the men and women of to-morrow, because the homes were not what they might be, the nourishment was not what it might be, and children were forced into the labour market at far too early an age. These were the evils they wanted to check, and they wanted to deal with the, problem as a whole. Palliatives might be necessary for the time being, but they must deal with the causes of the evil. They all recognised that any Minister who had a grant to dispense was placed in exceptional difficulties, because all the applicants believed that their need was the greatest. These ministerial difficulties would continue until they went further than palliatives and dealt with the real root of the problem. When they did that he believed that they would find in many cases that these palliatives for unemployment would prove to be unnecessary.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,)said that anybody who had had experience of the work of distress committees or even voluntary agencies which had been dealing with this question must know that the distress committee of Glasgow had been carrying on their work during the past year with great anxiety and at the same time with great earnestness and diligence in the endeavour to cope with the evils with which they were appointed to deal. He was glad to take that opportunity of bearing his testimony to the way they had conducted their work. The hon. Member for the Bridgeton divison seemed to take a somewhat melancholy view of the public
2068
estimate of the work of that committee, and he had also spoken of the misunderstandings, misconceptions, and even charges made against their administration. It was not his (Mr. Sinclair's) duty that day to defend the work of that committee in detail, but he might say one word about the relations between the Local Government Board and that committee. He could not find in the transactions which had taken place in the last few months any substantial reason to think that as between these two authorities there was really any considerable measure of misunderstanding or misconception, or, indeed, ill-feeling of any kind. His hon. friend put the case in a nutshell when he mentioned that the prolonged distress, which had continued not only during last winter but down to the present time, had really taken everybody by surprise. It was never anticipated by the distress committee, and certainly not by the Local Government Board for Scotland and by the Government, that the depression of trade and want of employment which existed in the Clyde district was going to be so prolonged as it had been, and it was that fact which had added to the anxiety of all those concerned in this matter of administration—not only the distress committee, but also the Local Government Board. It was the fact that they had been taken more or less by surprise that had added considerably to the difficulties of the situation. It would not be the desire of his hon. friends that he should go into detail with regard to this subject now. It was a very simple story. The end of the financial year was 31st March, and no Government, unless it came to the House for authority, could expend money after the close of the financial year. The House had been very continuously occupied during the present session, and it was only two days ago that the House gave its sanction to the further grant included in the Supplementary Estimates—a further grant at the disposal of the Treasury for application to this purpose. His hon. friend and those interested in Glasgow would, therefore, be relieved to know that this fund was now with the Treasury, and the Government could now draw upon it. He could also tell the hon. Member that the application which had now

2069
been received from the Glasgow committee by the Local Government Board for Scotland had been forwarded by him to the Treasury for consideration—he hoped favourable consideration—in connection with this matter. He did not think he need add any more to the general discussion of the question, which was a very difficult one. The Unemployed Act, under which they were working, was not a permanent statute, and it was only a matter of time when its amendment must be considered by the House. When that time would come it was not for him to say, but statute or no statute, amended or un-amended, this was a question of great complexity, which must be looked at from two points of view—from the point of view of a melancholy depression of trade and also in the more favourable light of things when trade was more brisk. It was a question of great importance, but as there were many varying views, he thought he would be consulting the convenience of the House if he deferred his further remarks to some other time.
MR. DALZIELsaid he ought to apologise for intervening even for a moment with regard to a matter which was of some local interest. Unfortunately this was the only opportunity he had had this session of mentioning the matter, notwithstanding that it was of very considerable importance to his constituency. When Parliament sanctioned the Forth Bridge a statutory obligation was laid on the railway company to run a boat between Granton and Burntisland. The company concerned had failed to carry out to the fullest extent that statutory obligation, and great hardship was thus placed on an important portion of the community in the East of Scotland when people came to Granton with the intention of crossing the Forth and found that the boat did not run. He had brought the question on many occasions before the Board of Trade, and he only asked an assurance from a member of the Government that the railway company was to be compelled to carry out its statutory obligation.
MR. WHITLEYreplied that he was desired by the President of the Board of Trade, who was unavoidably called away, to say that this matter was
2070
under consideration. His right hon. friend had received some communications from the company concerned, and he had full hope he would be able to send to the hon. Member in a few days a detailed reply which would give satisfaction with regard to the complaint he had made.
*MR. REESsaid he wished to mention a case in regard to India. He had not even warned the Minister concerned, who had so many cases brought before him in this House which were not grievances and came from only one clamorous and not widely representative class. The grievance India had was that the grievances brought before the House were not her true grievances, but he was anxious that a grievance of loyal chiefs should be mentioned. He had no complaint to make of the action of the India Office in this matter; they gave him an answer that they were inquiring into it, and he was sure that they would do everything which was right. But it was of very great importance when those who were loyal to the British in India had anything to complain of that they should at least have their complaint mentioned in the House of Commons. The Kathi chiefs were afraid that the Government were interfering with their rules of succession, and were trying to enforce the rule of primogeniture, which they did not follow. He did not believe that that was the intention of the Government of India, and he was sure that the memorials which were under consideration would have every possible attention. But he wanted to mention the matter because, when he heard, as he did with the utmost indignation, sympathy expressed in the House with cowardly and seditious journalists who incited half-educated and ill-educated youths to crimes so foreign to the character of our admirable and amiable British-Indian fellow-subjects, he was anxious that at least in the case of friendly, loyal, and honourable chiefs, it should not be said that when they had anything of which to complain, it was not even mentioned in the House of Commons. He also desired to allude to a matter in which his constituents were greatly interested, and that was the question of the relations of the Board of Education with the Welsh Central Education Board. This time last year he questioned the late Education Minister,

2071
who did not stick to that desk but went to sea. His successor, he was glad to say, made a satisfactory announcement in the House concerning the point on which he then interrogated him, and satisfaction had been given, but only after a struggle. But there was still the question of the attitude towards the Welsh Central Board. Several speeches had been made on the subject, and everyone praised everyone else so profusely that it was astonishing why anybody thought it necessary to make any complaint at all. He had no objection to officials of any sore, he knew their merits and trusted them, but he knew their little ways, one of which was to be acquisitive, and to grasp everything that came within their reach. He wished to warn them, on behalf of the Welsh people, not to attempt to interfere with the Welsh Central Board, which did its work well, and was a body to the last degree democratic, and had given everybody satisfaction, even the Welsh people, who were as hungry for education as any Brahmin in India. He begged the Education Board to be exceedingly chary of giving the Welsh Central Board even any suspicion that they wished to interfere with them, to curtail their authority, or to boss them from Whitehall. He also expressed his satisfaction with the statement made by the Undersecretary for the Colonies that day. He regarded it as the grossest hypocrisy to attempt to force on any self-governing Colony any system, which we would not stand in this country, and which he was certain they would not stand in the Colony. No one would dare propose that in Britain Asiatic immigrants should be admitted to compete wholesale with British labour. Why then did we pretend that the Colonists were harsh, unsympathetic, and tyrannical, for acting in precisely the same way as we should act ourselves? He heard with great regret the tone in which in certain quarters the actions of our fellow country men in Africa were criticised, and his last word, in what looked likely to be the last speech of that section of the Session, was that such action and the spmpathy expressed, not with the relatives of our I innocent and foully murdered fellow countrywomen, not with a grossly misrepresented administration, not with a slandered public service, but with cowardly and seditious procurers of
2072
assassins, filled him with the deepest indignation.
Resolved, That this House, at its rising To-morrow, do adjourn until Monday, 12th October next; that for the remainder of the session Government Business have precedence at every Sitting; that at the conclusion of Government Business each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put; and that on Fridays the House, unless it otherwise resolves, shall at its rising stand adjourned until the following Monday.

OLD-AGE PENSIONS BILL.
Reasons for disagreeing to several of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.
To be communicated to the Lords.—(Mr. Lloyd George.)

IRISH UNIVERSITIES BILL.
Reasons for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.
To be communicated to the Lords.—(Mr. Birrell.)

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Expiring Laws Continuance Bill,
Public Works Loans Bill, without Amendment:—
Friendly Societies Bill, with Amendments:—
Amendments to—
Small Holdings and Allotments Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate The Companies Act, 1862, and the Acts amending it." [Companies Consolidation Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Lunacy Acts, 1890 and 1891." [Lunacy Bill [Lords.]

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
Lords' Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.

EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION.
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 31st July; Mr. Churchill]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 292.]
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 10th July, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at nine minutes after Seven o'clock.