Commons Sitting of 28 April 1910

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with), Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Wimbledon and Sutton Railway Bill [Lords.]
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with), — Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
Llanelly Harbour [Lords.]
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—
Port of London (Registration of Craft) Provisional Order Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First
622
Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill.
Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill.
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.
Stratford-upon-Avon and Midland Junction Railway Bill [Lords],—
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Midland Railway Bill (by Order),—
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday, 30th May, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
London County Council (Money) Bill,—
Read a second time, and committed.
Crystal Palace Company Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday, 30th May.
South Lincolnshire Water Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to inquire whether the Promoters have made adequate provision by the Bill for the supply of water at reasonable rates to the agricultural community within the area of supply, and to any person or persons from whom any existing or natural supply is, or may be, withdrawn owing to the works or undertakings authorised by the Bill, and that they further have power to insert in the Bill such clause or clauses as they think necessary to impose upon the promoters the obligation to provide such supply.—[Mr. Stanier.]
Private Bills, etc.,—Ordered, That Standing Orders 39, 128, 204, and 230 be suspended, and that the time for depositing Petitions and Memorials against Private Bills, or against any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate, and for depositing duplicates of any Documents relating to any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate, also for depositing at the Private Bill Office all Documents relating to any Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the Recess.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley)moved, "That Standing Orders 39, 128, 204, and 230 be suspended, and that the time for depositing Petitions and Memorials against Private Bills, or against any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate, and for depositing duplicates of any documents relating to any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order or Provisional Certicate, also for depositing at the Private Bill Office all Documents relating to any Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, be extended to the first day of which the House shall sit after the Recess."
Mr. A. C. MORTON: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what is the meaning of this Motion?
Mr. WHITLEY: It is the usual Motion when the House is about to adjourn for a Recess, in order that the promoters or opponents of Private Bills should not lose the opportunities which they otherwise would have if the House were sitting.
Question put, and agreed to.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill—"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to King's County (four) and the Rural District of Larne," presented by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND; supported by Mr. Birrell; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill—"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Hanwell, Harpenden, Merthyr Tydvil, Pontypridd, and Scunthorpe," presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Burns; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills."
  Severn Fisheries Provisional Order Bill —"To confirm an Order under The Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1907, relating to the River Severn and other waters," presented by Sir EDWARD STRACHEY; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

LABOURERS (IRELAND).
Return ordered, "showing—

(a) The number of cottages and allotments provided under the Labourers Acts by each district council in Ireland;

(b) The rents reserved in letting under those Acts;

(c) The number of cottages or allotments unoccupied within each district council area;

(d) The number of cottages or allotments the rent whereof is in arrear, and the total amount of such arrears within said area;

(e) The number of cottages applied for in each rural district under the last completed scheme under the Labourers Acts, together with the number of applications for extra half-acres to cottages already built under the said scheme, the number of applications for cottages and extra half-acres sanctioned, the amount of the official, legal, engineering, clerical, and other expenses incurred in connection with the preparation and confirmation of every such scheme and the particulars thereof;

(f) The number of cases where advances have been made under Section 2 of The Irish Land Act, 1903, as amended by The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906, to agricultural labourers; and

(g) Return to be made up to the 31st day of March, 1910 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 232, of Session 1908)." —[Mr. Flavin.]

LABOURERS' COTTAGES (IRELAND).
Return ordered, in respect of Labourers' Cottages in Ireland, showing (1) County; (2) Rural District; (3) Valuation of Rural District; (4) Number of Labourers' Cottages (a) built, (b) in course of construction; (5) Amount of Loans (a) sanctioned, (b) received; (6) Amount required to be raised annually in repayment of Loans sanctioned; (7) Amount which would be raised by the maximum rate of one shilling in the pound allowed for purposes of Acts; (8) Amount which it has been proposed to raise in each Rural District under the provisions in Section 12 of the Act of 1906; (9) Rate per pound required to raise amount specified in Column 6; (10) Present poundage rate levied on Rural District for Labourers Acts purposes; (11) Amount of Exchequer Contribution for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1910; (12) Amount of rent received from

625
tenants of cottages and plots during year; (13) Unissued balance, if any, of County's share of Exchequer Contribution; (11) Totals per County and Province, and for all Ireland; (15) The Return to be made up to the 31st day of March, 1910 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 194, of Session 1906).— [Mr. Flavin.]

EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION.
Copy ordered "of Tables relating to Emigration and Immigration from and into the United Kingdom in the year 1909 (being a Statistical Account of the Passenger Movement between the United Kingdom and Places Abroad); together with Report to the Board of Trade thereon (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 195, of Session 1909)."—[Mr. Sydney Buxton.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Somaliland.
  Captain COOPERasked whether, in view of the possibility that our withdrawal in Somaliland might have an effect on our prestige and position in Egypt, the British Agent at Cairo was consulted before our retirement was decided upon?
  The UNDER SECRETARY Of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): His Majesty's Government gave the most careful consideration to the points raised in the hon. Gentleman's question before deciding on their policy.
  Mr. PEEL: Is it a fact that four or five years ago, when the question of an alteration in the administration of Somaliland was under consideration, Lord Cromer was consulted as to the effect it would have on our position in Egypt?
  Colonel SEELY: I understand that the whole question may be raised in the course of debate to-day, and I shall be very glad to state the views of His Majesty's late advisers on the question and the general attitude of the late Government.

  Angola (Recruiting).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he had any official information to the effect that recruiting in Angola had again commenced; if he could state whether any precautions were being taken
  626
  to prevent the abuses which formerly existed being repeated; and if he would publish the latest reports from His Majesty's Consul at Loanda on the present conditions of recruiting.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): On 18th March last His Majesty's Consul at Loanda reported that recruiting had been sanctioned, but that no shipments were to take place for the present. With regard to the second part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Gravesend on 5th April, and I would add that in the despatch above referred to His Majesty's Consul at Loanda states that the Governor-General of Portuguese West Africa has been strictly enjoined to deal with any acts of irregularity which may occur in the working of the new regulations. With regard to the third part of the question, I do not propose to publish any papers at present on this subject, but when His Majesty's Consul is in a position to report on the manner in which the regulations are being enforced, I will consider whether papers can usefully be laid.

  Mexico (Slavery).
  Mr. GREENWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention had been called to the reports of slavery in Mexico; and whether he would instruct His Majesty's Minister in that country to make inquiry into this matter?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No reports on the subject have reached me. If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars, I will consider whether it is desirable to call for a report from His Majesty's Representative in Mexico.
  Mr. REES: Have His Majesty's Government any power of enforcing upon Mexico their views in this matter?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: They can make representations.

  Treaty of London (Conditional Contraband).
  Mr. GOLDMANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Article 24 of the Treaty of London, declaring docks and their component parts to be conditional contraband, applied to granite; and, if it did not, would he state what were the component parts of docks to which the article referred?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The first part of the hon. Member's question has already twice been answered, and I have nothing to add on this point to what I said in reply to his questions on 9th March and 7th April. As regards the second part or the present question, I may mention lock gates and the machinery for working them as constituting "parts of docks."
  Mr. GOLDMAN: Is it not a fact that the essential component parts of docks are timber, cement, granite, and granite in particular; and why should gates be the only component part subject to contraband?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That precise question has been twice answered in reply to questions by the hon. Gentleman.

  Award for Malicious Injury (Irishtown).
  Captain COOPERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to an award of £150 for malicious injury to property, awarded by Judge Murphy to Mr. M'Garry, Irishtown, on Tuesday, 12th April, at Ballinrobe quarter sessions; and whether any arrests have been made in connection with this offence?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The out-offices and property for which compensation was awarded were burnt by night in January last. No arrests have been made in connection with the case.

  Explosion at Sandyhill (Compensation Award).
  Captain COOPERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether any arrests have been made in connection with an explosion which occurred on 16th January last at Sandyhill, causing damage to the property of Mr. W. O'Brien, for which £15 compensation was awarded on Thursday, 14th April, by the Recorder of Cork; and what steps, if any, are being taken to discover the perpetrators of this offence?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The police are doing all they can to discover the persons who committed this offence, but they have not yet been able to make any arrests.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Mr. KERR-SMILEY (for Mr. Brunskill)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state the reason why the old age pension of Bernard O'Donnell, of Tyrcur, parish of Cappagh, county Tyrone, which
  628
  he received for twelve months, has been taken away from him; and if directions will be given to the Local Government Board to return to the said Bernard O'Donnell the original indenture of his apprenticeship, which he forwarded for their inspection, and which has not yet been returned, although repeatedly asked for?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Bernard O'Donnell's age was given as seven years in the Census Returns of 1851, and his name did not appear among his parents' family in the Returns of 1841. The Local Government Board decided that he had not yet attained the statutory age. The indenture referred to in the last paragraph of the question has been returned to the claimant.

  Tuthill Property, County Limerick (Sheriff's Decree).
  Dr. O'NEILL (for Mr. Lundon)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the sheriff has executed a decree against Garrett Barry, of Ballinaw, Herbertstown, county Limerick, tenant on the Tuthill property, because he refused to pay what is known as the dead half-gale, which is due for the past fifty years; whether he is aware that this action is due to the fact that Mr. Barry has refused to pay what he considers an exorbitant price for his land; and, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the fact that Barry has twelve children, he will ask the Commissioners to intervene and try to bring about an amicable settlement, and thus prevent the discontent and trouble which will arise if Captain Tuthill, Esker, Lucan, county Dublin, proceeds any further on these lines?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have nothing to add to my reply to the question on the same subject asked by the hon. Member on the 20th instant.

  Hillas Estate, County Sligo.
  Mr. SCANLANasked the Chief Secretary if he will explain why the Estates Commissioners have excluded Peter Finnan, of Dunoula, Templeboy, county Sligo, from the number of purchasing tenants on the Hillas estate; whether all the other tenants have purchased through the Estates Commissioners; and whether his case will be dealt with by the Estates Commissioners or the Congested Districts Board?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have not excluded this man from the sale. They have made an advance of £40 to him for the purchase of his holding.

  Conway Estate, County Leitrim.
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether he is aware that the tenants on the late Conway estate, Mullies, county Leitrim, have petitioned the Congested Districts Board to purchase that estate; and whether, having regard to the fact that the estate is in court, and a number of decrees for arrears of rent and for possession are now pending, the Congested Districts Board would intervene with a view of purchasing the estate, and thus keeping the tenants in their homes and enlarging their holdings?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have received the petition referred to, but it must be clearly understood that they have no power to intervene to stay proceedings for the recovery of rent due.

  Tubbercurry Union (Supply of Medicines).
  Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Boyers, chemist, of Sligo, has for the past ten years held the contract for the supply of medicines, etc., to the Tubbercurry Union, county Sligo; whether, owing to the satisfaction given by Mr. Boyers during that period, the guardians have unanimously accepted his tender for the current year, though a shade higher than that of another strange firm; and, if so, whether he can explain why the Local Government Board refuses its sanction to the action of the guardians in this matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that Mr. Boyers, of Sligo, has been medicine contractor to the Tubbercurry Union for several years, and was given the contract for the present year by the guardians on the grounds stated in the question, although more favourable terms were offered by a Dublin firm. The latter firm holds drug contracts throughout Ireland, and carries them out with general satisfaction, and, as its tender was the lowest, the Local Government Board considered it should be accepted. The Dublin firm's tender for medical and surgical appliances was also the lowest, and was accepted by the board of guardians.
  Mr. O'DOWD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, according to a recent judgment of the Lord Chief Baron in the case of the Richmond Asylum, the guardians are entitled to exercise discretion in regard to these matters?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As part of the money for these drugs is paid for by the public, it is very desirable that the Local Government Board should exercise control over the contracts that are accepted, and although preference is always given to drugs manufactured in Ireland, in this case the hon. Gentleman will note that the chief competition was between Dublin and the local firm.
  Mr. O'DOWD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what influenced the guardians in this particular matter was that in cases of emergency medicines can be got in Sligo in two hours that it would take two days to bring from Dublin? The guardians acted for the convenience of the sick poor in the institution. Under these circumstances, may I inquire whether the right hon. Gentleman can see that the Local Government Board cannot give the guardians discretion in matters of this kind, and whether he will see that the present matter is reconsidered?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am quite willing to consider this or any other case. But the Local Government Board have found it most necessary to exercise a very strict revision over contracts that have been accepted when the money is paid out of the public purse. They really have to exercise some control over the acceptance of contracts in matters of this sort, but I will look into it.
  Mr. O'DOWD: This tender was only a shade higher than the other.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Local Government Board in Ireland to the fact that a decision was given in the English Law Courts a few months ago in the case of the Westminster Corporation to the effect that they are entitled to give preference to a local firm even at higher prices?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am quite aware that that is so. But that does not relieve the Local Government Board from protecting public money as far as they possibly can.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Why not apply the same to England?

  Town Tenants Act (Ireland).
  Mr. KERR-SMILEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that defects exist in the Town Tenants Act, and whether he will introduce a Bill this Session for the purpose of removing them?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have received resolutions from time to time in reference to the Town Tenants Act, but I am not aware of any general demand for its amendment, and I do not contemplate further legislation on the subject.

  Indian Penal Code (Arabindo Ghose).
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to state under what law a warrant has been issued against Arabindo Ghose; whether proceedings are to be taken against the printer of his paper as well as against himself; and whether copies of the offending article can be placed in the Library for the information of Members?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I have already informed the hon. Member that proceedings are being taken against Mr. Ghose by the Government of Bengal, under Section 124 (a) of the Indian Penal Code. We have no knowledge of any proceedings against the printer of his paper. The full text of the subject-matter of the prosecution has not yet reached the Secretary of State. To act on my hon. Friend's suggestion would not only mean a departure from the practice of avoiding the advertisement of literature alleged to be seditious, but would almost inevitably lead to a result which, I am sure, my hon. Friend would be the first to deprecate—the prejudging, one way or the other, of a case that must be decided in an Indian court of law.

  North British Locomotive Combine of Glasgow (Fair Wages Clause).
  Mr. BARNESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the North British Locomotive Combine of Glasgow, who are contractors to the Government of India, do not observe the Fair Wages Clause in the payment of the fitters, blacksmiths, boiler-makers, and other skilled workmen in their employ; and whether he will have the matter investigated?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State is not aware of the fact alleged by my hon. Friend. He will have the matter investigated through the Fair Wages Advisory Committee.

  Tropical Diseases (Grant by the King of Belgians).
  Mr. REESasked whether the Secretary of State has information to the effect that the King of the Belgians has made a large grant of money for the investigation of sleeping sickness and other tropical diseases?
  Colonel SEELY: I understand that the King of the Belgians has granted one million francs for the Service de l'Hygiène in the Congo, to be specially devoted to combating sleeping sickness, and half a million francs for the construction of native hospitals.
  Mr. REES: May I express the hope that in future discussions in this House this will be counted unto the King and his people for righteousness?

  Ceylon Government Railways (Men Employed).
  Mr. HUDSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the number of men employed in each department on the Ceylon Government Railways for the year ending 31st December, 1909; the number of cases where men have been fined; the date and nature of the offence; the amount of fine imposed; the name of the person fined, and the department and grade then serving in; the number of cases in each department where the stipulated annual increment has been stopped or withheld for any period and the reason for so doing; and whether he can grant a Return giving those particulars?
  Colonel SEELY: I will ascertain and communicate to my hon. Friend the number of men employed in the various departments of the railway. The figures are not at present available. The Secretary of State will inquire whether information on the other points can be readily supplied.

  British Merchant Service (Ships' Stores).
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that condensed milk manufactured by the Wilts United Dairies Company, diploma brand, which is habitually refused by the Board

  633
  of Trade inspectors when tendered for victualling British merchant service ships, has been placed by the Canadian Government as first among nineteen brands of condensed milk tested from casual samples purchased by Government inspectors in Canada, including Nestlé's, which on analysis comes tenth on the list; and whether, in view of this, he will institute an impartial inquiry into the relative merits of the condensed milk manufactured by the Wilts United Dairies Company and Messrs. Nestlé, the Anglo-Swiss, and other foreign makers, both as manufactured and after undergoing the test of a long tropical voyage?
  The PRESIDENT Of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The Board of Trade received in September last an advertisement from the Wilts United Dairies Company containing an extract from the report to which the question refers; but I am advised that the tests in question have no bearing upon the supply of milk for ships' stores in this country. The inspectors of the Board of Trade are instructed to require all stores submitted to them to attain a certain standard; they are not concerned with the relative merits of different brands.
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the difficulties and disadvantages imposed on the milk industry carried on by the Wilts United Dairies Company owing to the refusal of the Board's inspectors to pass their product, namely, condensed milk, diploma brand, for use on ships of the merchant service; and, as the action of the Board of Trade officials prevents the Wilts Dairies Company from doing any shipping trade and also prejudices their trade in the home market, and the condensed milk of the foreign combine, which includes Messrs. Nestlé and the Anglo-Swiss Companies, is passed simply on label, and a test of the comparative keeping qualities of the milk produced by the Wilts United Dairies Company and the foreign combine under fair and equal conditions has been refused, and as in effect the victualling of the British merchantmen, so far as milk is concerned, is thereby left entirely in the hands of the above-mentioned combine, whether he will issue such instructions as are necessary to his Department to secure fair and equal opportunities for British produce?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am aware that the condensed milk submitted by the company
  634
  named has on more than one occasion failed to reach the standard required by the Board of Trade for ships' stores. A test of that milk under practical conditions at sea has been proposed by the Board, but declined by the company, except on conditions which it was impossible to accept. The Board of Trade inspectors are instructed to judge all stores submitted to them by their quality at the time of inspection, and not by their brand or origin.
  Mr. PETO: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will make special inquiries in order to satisfy himself that there is no bias, prejudice, or any other motive on the part of any Board of Trade inspectors which would operate to the disadvantage of the company I have named?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am fully satisfied on that. No outside interest is served in regard to these matters. The best possible consideration is given with a desire to be fair between these various companies. In this case samples of milk that have to be tested were not up to the standard.
  Mr. J. KING: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the precautions in this matter are directed entirely to the well-being of the sailors on the ship, and not for any traders' benefit?
  Mr. BUXTON: Certainly.

  Fiscal Blue Books.
  Viscount DUNCANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the first and second Fiscal Blue Books were signed by the Comptroller-General of the Statistical Department, and countersigned by the Secretary and President of the Board of Trade; whether this is the usual practice of the Board of Trade in connection with documents of this character; and whether the abandonment of this practice in the third Fiscal Blue Book (Cd. 4954) is to be regarded as indicating that these officials have not assumed the same personal responsibility for its contents as for its predecessors?
  Mr. BUXTON: The signatures attached to the earlier volumes mentioned in the question are not correctly specified, but the point is immaterial. There is absolutely no foundation for the suggestion conveyed in the last part of the question. There has been hitherto no fixed practice in the Board of Trade as regards the signatures attached to documents presented

  635
  by them to Parliament, but, generally speaking, Blue Books containing reports and memoranda, have been more fully signed than those merely consisting of tabular matter, and it has been not uncommon to publish the latter kind of Return without any signature, especially if issued in continuation of previous publications. The Board of Trade take full responsibility for the publication of their official documents.

  Labour Exchanges (Ireland).
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he would state the number of appointments made by the Board of Trade in connection with Labour Exchanges in Ireland, the number of applicants and appointments of residents in the province of Connaught, and the number of vacancies still existing?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to answer this question. Thirty-three appointments have been made in connection with the Labour Exchanges in Ireland, and up to the present time none of these Exchanges are in the province of Connaught. I am not in a position to state how many of the applicants for posts were resident in Connaught. Three minor clerical appointments are still vacant in the Exchanges open at the present time in Ireland.

  Emigration to Canada (Amended Regulations).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH - COOKEasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the recent amendment in the regulations governing the emigration of assisted persons to Canada; whether he is aware that the effect of the amendment will practically nullify the emigration operations of the Central (Unemployed) Body for London, so far as Canada is concerned, entail hardship on intending emigrants to the Dominion who have accepted assistance from public funds, prevent any assisted emigrant from landing in Canada not certified as suited for, willing to accept, and for whom positions at farm work have been guaranteed from Canada, and, in cases where the emigrant is assisted, make it extremely difficult for a wife to join her husband, a brother or sister a brother, a father or a mother a son or daughter, unless the persons emigrating come within the special category,
  636
  and are going to join relatives already on a Canadian farm; and whether, in the circumstances, he will consider the advisability of approaching the Dominion authorities with a view to obtain some modification in the new regulations, and advise His Majesty's Government to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the subject of emigration from the United Kingdom to the oversea dominions and the restrictions placed thereon?
  Colonel SEELY: My attention has been called to the regulation in question. I am sure that its effect on the operations of emigration societies and similar bodies will be considerable. The question of what classes of immigrants are to be permitted to enter Canada is primarily one for the Canadian Government, and the Secretary of State will forward to that Government for their friendly consideration any representations which may be made to him as to the effect of the new regulations, but as at present advised he is not prepared to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission on emigration.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the new Regulations will be applied to emigrants now upon the high seas, and whether, seeing that intending emigrants have made their preparations to the extent in some cases of selling up their homes for the purpose of settling in Canada, he does not consider some notice ought to have been given by the Dominion Government, and whether he does not think the time has arrived for taking advantage of the words of the Resolution passed at the last Imperial Conference for holding a subsidiary Conference on Emigration and Immigration among the representatives of the Governments concerned?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think I could be asked to reply to a matter of such very great importance and delicacy as between this country and the Dominion of Canada without notice. I have no doubt the Dominion Government will endeavour to act with humanity, and in the meantime we will make such representation as seems proper to the Canadian Government on the subject.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Is there any guarantee from the Canadian Government that continuous employment will be given to the emigrants?
  Colonel SEELY: That raises quite a different question.
  Mr. LAWSON: Do the new regulations affect those that are on the seas now?
  Colonel SEELY: I presume they would apply from inquiries I have been able to make, but I would not commit myself. It was in connection with that that I said I was sure the Canadian Government would act with every humanity.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Denis Keaney, Meehil, of Kiltyclagher, county Leitrim, was deprived of his old age pension; and whether, having regard to the fact that his name was found in the Census of 1841, being then over one year old, and being now a poor man, he would recommend that his pension be restored?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The Local Government Board decided on the 11th instant on appeal to them on a question of age of Denis Keaney that he attained the age of seventy on the 1st instant. The amount of pension drawn prior to his attaining the statutory age is a debt to the Crown under Section 9 (2) of the Old Age Pensions Act, and in the absence of direct repayment the debt is being liquidated by suspension of the current pension until the account is adjusted.
  Mr. SCANLAN: Is the House to understand that the Treasury maintain the right to retain the amount due to the pensioners in order to recoup themselves for money already advanced?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, Sir, that is so.
  Mr. SCANLAN: Under what Section of the Act?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Under the general law.
  Mr. SCANLANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the arrears of pension from 1st January, 1909, to 1st July, 1909, at the rate of 5s. per week, will be paid to Mrs. Rouse, of Carus, county Sligo?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have not yet got the figures. If the hon. Member will put an unstarred question I could perhaps send him the answer during the Recess.

  Welsh Church Commission.
  Mr. LLEWELYNasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the approximate cost to date of the Welsh Church Commission; and when the publication of the evidence and of the Report of the Commission may be expected?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The cost of this Commission to date, excluding expenditure by the Stationery Office, details of which are not yet available, amounts to approximately £7,600. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the hon. Member for Oswestry, in which he stated that he was in communication with the Chairman of the Commission on this point.
  Mr. LLEWELYN: Is it the intention of the Government to communicate with the Commission on this subject? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."]
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: As I have said already, the Home Secretary is in communication with the Chairman of the Commission upon the point.

  Official Report (Scottish Affairs).
  Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will provide in the Library a volume of the OFFICIAL REPORT for each Session dealing with the affairs of Scotland, in view of the fact that such a volume is already provided dealing respectively with the affairs of Ireland, of the Navy, and of the Army?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I will consider the suggestion, in consultation with the Secretary for Scotland.
  Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me when he will be able to deal with it?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: When the Secretary for Scotland gives me an answer.

  Lobster Culture.
  Mr. KNOTTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the attention of his Department has been called to the advance recently made in the United States and in Canada as regards lobster culture; whether any actual trial has been made under his Department of the methods used on the other

  639
  side of the Atlantic with conspicuous success; whether the Government will make inquiry by Royal Commission or otherwise into the depletion of this industry on the British and Irish coasts; and whether such Commission, if appointed, will take evidence in the United States and Canada?
  Mr. E. J. SOARES (Lord of the Treasury): The Board are aware of the fact that the lobster industry in England and Wales is not in a satisfactory condition, and investigations in the matter are being made with the co-operation of local fisheries committees. A full Report on the subject will be issued. The experiments now being carried out in America are being carefully watched, but no further action can be taken until full information of the results obtained is available.

  Dutch Cheese (Alleged Fraudulent Sale as Cheshire).
  Mr. BARNSTONasked if the attention of the Board of Agriculture has been drawn to the fraudulent sale of Dutch cheese as Cheshire; and what action, if any, the Board propose to take to stop this fraud?
  Mr. SOARES: The Board have received reports, but they have not hitherto obtained any evidence of the fraudulent sale of Dutch cheese as Cheshire. The matter will be kept in view, and any information which is likely to be of assistance will be welcomed.
  Mr. STANIER: Was not the right hon. Gentleman's attention called about this time last year to the fact that prosecutions had taken place?
  Mr. SOARES: I have no recollection of that.

  Coroners' Inquests (Departmental Committee's Report).
  Sir DAVID BRYNMOR JONESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet considered the Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the law relating to coroners and coroners' inquests, and into the practice in coroners' courts; and whether he proposes to take any action thereon?
  The SECRETARY Of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): I would refer my hon. Friend to the
  640
  answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for St. Pancras (West), and which is printed with to-day's Votes.

  Liquor Licences (Compensation).
  Mr. BIRDasked the Prime Minister what compensation the Government propose to give those holders of licences whose houses will be closed owing to the imposition of the new Licensing Duties of the Budget, and who consequently will be deprived of the means of livelihood for themselves and their families?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I do not believe that any houses will be closed in consequence of the new Licence Duties, except those which, in the interests both of the public and of the licensee, should have been closed long ago and have been kept alive solely for purposes of obtaining compensation.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Are we to understand that the members of the licensed trade are to be treated worse than the slave-owners were in 1837?
  Mr. BIRD: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the case of those holders of licences who have been compelled to pay to the Compensation Fund since 1904, and who, in the event of their houses being closed in consequence of the enormous increase of the Licence Duties, will lose the entire amount they contributed to the Compensation Fund?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a question which the hon. Member might put down. I do not think any house will be closed except houses which are kept open —and there are many of them—purely for the purposes of obtaining compensation, but which ought to have been closed long ago.
  Mr. GRETTON: If such cases as those mentioned in the question are brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, will he give them consideration?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As the hon. Member knows, I am ready to give consideration to any cases brought to my notice, and if such cases are brought before me I will give attention to them.
  Mr. BIRD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the opinion expressed by the Postmaster-General on this subject, in which he said: "I do not deny—"
  Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow one Minister to be quoted against another.

  Hamstead Colliery.
  Viscount LEWISHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state on what date did the Government inspectors last visit the Hamstead colliery; and will he state what was the nature of their Report?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The mine was visited by an inspector on the 22nd instant in connection with an accident from fall of coal; on the 21st January for the special purpose of obtaining certain information required by the Department in regard to temperature; and on 6th December and 15th November for purposes of general inspection. Reports made by the inspectors are treated as confidential, but I may say the condition of the mine was found to be satisfactory.

  Motor Regulations (Emission of Smoke).
  Mr. WATTasked whether the regulations for motors in the Metropolitan area include penalties for the emission of thick smoke from the exhaust; and, if so, whether the police have instructions to carry out this regulation rigorously, or to neglect it altogether?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Outside the Royal parks, there is no power under existing statutes to make regulations imposing penalties in such a case. The Metropolitan police can and do take disciplinary action in the case of motor cabs and motor omnibuses discharging smoke from the exhaust, since a condition of their licensing is that "the lubrication of the engine or the carburation of the working mixture must be so controlled that smoke it not projected with the exhaust, or from any other part." But, in the present state of the law, legal proceedings cannot successfully be taken against drivers of motor vehicles, where the emission of smoke is due to any temporary or accidental cause, which I understand is practically always the case.
  Mr. WATT: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the case is ripe for legislation?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: There are many cases ripe for legislation, but I do not think I am in a position to promise any.

  Armoured Ships (Cost of Construction).
  Mr. PETOasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been
  642
  called to the reasons given by Rear-Admiral Francis T. Bowles, United States Navy, retired, in a letter to Senator Frye, of Maine, for the cost of constructing armoured ships in the United States of America being lower than in this country; whether the "Dreadnought," 1905, cost 447 dols. per ton and the "Michigan," two ships, 1905–6, cost 344.5 dols. per ton in both cases, exclusive of guns, torpedoes, and ordinary outfit; and, if so, to what he attributes the cost of the construction of armoured ships in recent years being from 13 per cent. to 23 per cent. lower in the United States of America, a protected country, than in England under Free Trade?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): There is no official information as to the cost per ton of the "Michigan" class as completed. For a correct comparison it would be necessary to have detailed information as to the exact portions of the vessels and their equipment that are included in the computation. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that in the comparison of the cost of battleships there is no uniform standard of quality; on the other hand, with regard to the open competition between nations for the building of mercantile ships in which presumably a certain standard of excellence would be demanded, the United States officer in the letter quoted by the hon. Gentleman remarked that the United States firms cannot compete with British and German firms in the construction of commercial vessels.
  Mr. PETO: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the standard of finish and equipment in the United States Navy represents 25 per cent. less efficiency than our own?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. I have no knowledge of the standard of finish in the United States Navy, and I am not able to make any comparison as to the quality of their ships with ours.
  Mr. FLAVIN: As America is a Protectionist country, may we take it that the wages paid there are lower than we pay in this country?
  Mr. McKENNA: I know the cost of construction of mercantile ships is higher in the United States than in this country; but in relation to battleships I am not able to make any comparison.

  Rosyth Dockyard (Granite).
  Mr. GOLDMANasked what information, drawings, and dock plans are supplied to the foreign contractor supplying granite for Rosyth; and, if so, what steps are taken to prevent private information about the Admiralty docks from disclosure to foreigners?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Admiralty have not supplied any information, drawings, or dock plans to the foreign contractor supplying the granite for Rosyth. He has to obtain all the information required from the contractor for the works, who in this case has supplied him with a rough key plan, showing where certain blocks or stones have to be placed, but no Admiralty drawings have been sent by the contractor for the works to the granite merchant.
  Mr. GOLDMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider this is an infringement of the whole policy of secrecy as far as the Admiralty is concerned?
  Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member had listened to my reply he would have known that there has been no divulgence of any Admiralty plans or any secret matter.

  Justices of the Peace (Scotland).
  Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether clerks to the justices of the peace in Scotland are instructed by his Department to adopt any system in forming a rota of the justices; are they called alphabetically to occupy the bench, or in rotation, or as seemeth good unto the clerks themselves?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend on the 4th May, 1909, to the effect that the regulation of justice of the peace courts is in the hands of the justices themselves, and that no complaints have been received.

  Deer Forests (Sutherlandshire).
  Mr. MORTONasked the right hon. Gentleman whether land in Sutherlandshire is being cleared of sheep for the purpose of adding the ground to deer forests; and, if so, whether the Government will promote legislation this Session to put a stop to land, which is capable of producing food for the people, being used for mere sporting purposes?
  Mr. URE: I have no information on the subject referred to by my hon. Friend. The Government is not in a position to deal with such questions by way of legislation at present.
  Mr. MORTON: Will my right hon. Friend make inquiries as to what is going on in the direction referred to at a place called Gordonbush Farm, Borrobol, Kinbrace.
  Mr. URE: Yes, I will.
  Mr. REES: In view of the extravagant misstatements on this subject made last night, will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to publish something like the facts for the information of the public before any legislation is undertaken?
  Mr. URE: The report gives an accurate statement of the facts.

  Stirling County Licensing Court.
  Dr. CHAPPLEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Stirling county licensing court failed to hold its statutory meeting owing to the absence of a quorum, notwithstanding that a large amount of licensing business required to be transacted; and, if so, seeing that there is no provision in the Licensing Act to meet such a contingency, whether he will take into consideration the advisability of taking such steps as he may deem necessary to provide that in large and populous counties more justices of the peace should be called to the licensing court and made more representative of the different parishes?
  Mr. URE: I understand that the number of members who attended on the occasion referred to was insufficient to form a quorum, in accordance with the provisions of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903. The licensing court is constituted of an equal number of county councillors and justices of the peace, fixed on a scale prescribed by the Act, and no change is possible without legislation, which is not at present contemplated.

  Female Telephone Operators.
  Mr. WILKIE (for Mr. Jowett)asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that in awarding gratuities to the retiring female members of the staff who were transferred prior to 1908 from the service of the National Telephone Company un-established service between 1896 and 1901

  645
  is reckoned in calculating the amount of the award, whilst in the case of the members of the staff who entered the service of the Post Office as female telephone operators in 1896 unestablished service between 1896 and 1901 is disregarded; if he will say why those members of the staff who have served in the Post Office from the first establishment of the Telephone Department are penalised in this respect for having done so; and whether he can see his way to treat those who entered the service as female telephone operators prior to 1901 on the same terms as new entrants who will be awarded gratuities calculated on the whole term of their service except the first two years?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): I am aware of the different treatment of the two classes to which the hon. Member refers. It was explicitly recommended by a Select Committee of this House for the reasons stated in paragraph 323 of their Report; and although I do not at present see my way to depart from the recommendation of the Committee, I am making further inquiries into the matter.

  First-class Telegraphists.
  Sir CHARLES SCHWANNasked the Postmaster-General whether he can see his way to grant to the first-class telegraphists in the six largest cities of the United Kingdom, excluding London, 59s. as maximum for their class, as is enjoyed by men of their class in the Metropolis, instead of merely 56s., as is the limit in that class at present, in view of the fact that there has been no rise in their maximum for twenty years, whilst rents and rates have increased, and the total amount involved is only about £4,000 per annum?
  Captain NORTON: The wages of sorting clerks and telegraphists in the cities referred to by the hon. Member have been fixed in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee on Post Office Servants in paragraphs 258 to 261 of their Report. I regret that I can see no sufficient reason for reopening the question.

  Telephone Service (Glasgow).
  Mr. WATTasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that where traders in the Glasgow district seek either extension of their telephone or erection of
  646
  a new wire they are told by the National Company that such business cannot be undertaken without the sanction of the officials in his Department, and that that sanction is not likely to be given; and will he adopt some method of dealing with offers of new telephone business which will not inconvenience traders?
  Captain NORTON: Probably the hon. hon. Member refers to the arrangement under which the extension of telephonic facilities is undertaken in some districts of Glasgow by the Post Office and in others by the National Telephone Company. The object is to avoid the duplication of the plant of the two systems in view of the impending transfer of the company's system to the Post Office. The company rightly refuse to provide facilities in districts served by the Post Office exchanges. If there are any cases in such districts in which the requirements of traders and others appear not to be met by the Post Office, I shall be glad to have particulars.
  Mr. WATT: Is it the case that in no district in Glasgow where business is offered to the National Telephone Company, and there is an appeal about this business, it will come under the right hon. Gentleman's Department?

  Post Office Employés (Walton).
  Captain PEELasked the Postmaster-General whether, after making further inquiries, he can now hold out any immediate prospect of the maximum rate of wages of the Post Office employés at Walton, which is in the same urban district as Felixstowe, and in which the cost of living is similar, being placed on a par, or at any rate more nearly on a par, with the maximum rate of wages received by the Felixstowe Post Office employés.
  Captain NORTON: I regret that I have not yet been able to complete my inquiries on this subject.

  Ballymoney New Post Office.
  Mr. KERR-SMILEYasked the Postmaster-General whether the site for the new post office at Ballymoney has yet been chosen; and, if so, when will the work of erecting the post office be commenced?
  Captain NORTON: The site has been chosen, but Treasury sanction has still to be obtained before the work can be begun.

  Schools Inspection (Huntingdonshire).
  Mr. OLIVER LOCKER - LAMPSONasked the President of the Board of Education whether an inspection of schools has been undertaken in Huntingdonshire similar to that recently made in Lancashire; and, if so, whether he will issue shortly a White Paper embodying the result of such investigation?
  Mr. PERCY ILLINGWORTH (Lord of the Treasury): The Board have adopted in Huntingdonshire a similar procedure to that adopted in Lancashire for bringing to the notice of the local education authority and managers improvements which are required in premises of public elementary schools in that area. My right hon. Friend will be happy to furnish copies of the letter and schedules for the information of Members.

  FINANCE BILL, 1909–10.

    VALUATION STAFF.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what addition has been made to the staff of the Inland Revenue for the valuation of estates since the introduction of the Finance Bill last year; how many valuers have been specially appointed for land valuation; and what is the total permanent charge on the revenue involved?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): In reply to the first and third parts of the question I may refer the hon. Member to pages 40, 46, and 52 of the published Revenue Department's Estimates for 1910–11. I may add that the professional valuation of real estate has already proved a salutary safeguard to the revenue from Death Duties. No appointments have yet been made in connection with Part I. of the Finance Bill.
    Mr. LAWSON: Could the right hon. Gentleman give the permanent charge involved?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid I could not do that now. Perhaps the hon. Member will put his point as an unstarred question.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is the right hon. Gentleman still of opinion that the valuation of the United Kingdom can be completed within four years?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

    EDUCATION GRANT (IRELAND).
    Mr. WATTasked the right hon. Gentleman if he can say what is the sum per child which the £230,000 granted in the last Vote on Account for education in Irleand represents; and what is the corresponding figure which the £200,000 granted to Scotland represents?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The sums taken in the Vote on Account have no direct reference to the number of children in Scotland and Ireland respectively, but are calculated with reference to the financial requirements of the Departments concerned in the period for which the Veto on Account is taken.
    Captain BRYAN COOPER: Is it not a fact that Scotland receives more in proportion for education than Ireland?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Yes, I can answer that.

    NEW LICENCE DUTIES.
    Mr. GRETTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the amount of the new Licence Duties as exacted under the Finance Bill will be deductible from profits, if any, assessed for Income Tax under Schedule D; and, if so, whether the proportion of the new Licence Duty falling within the financial year ending 31st March last will be deducted from the profits in each case assessed for Income I Tax in the same financial year?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The assessments on profits for the year 1909–10 were based on the average profits (after all admissible deductions, including Licence Duty) of the three previous years. Consequently no allowance falls to be made for 1909–10 in respect of the additional Licence Duty referred to.
    Mr. GRETTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the question as to whether the amount of the new Licence Duties will be deductable from profits?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have already given the answer. Does the hon. Member ask me in regard to next year?
    Mr. GRETTON: No. For the present year.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: For the present year the profits will be reckoned on the average of the last three years.
    Mr. GRETTON: I understand the taxation the Government propose is to tax the profits for Income Tax.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In the year when it is paid undoubtedly it must be taken into account. It must affect the profits and must be taken into account in the proper year.
    Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Do I understand that in the proper year the Licence Duty will be allowed as a deduction from the profits?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: After all it is a question of the actual profit made by the trader. At the present moment, before he arrives at his profit, he must take into account the licence fees, as well as other disbursements.
    Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I entirely agree with the answer, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Inland Revenue does not allow Income Tax to be so deducted?
    Mr. GRETTON: This is a matter of importance. Do I understand that in the year when taxation occurs the Licence Duty may be deducted from the profits before they are assessed for Income Tax?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Let us take the present year. When it becomes to be computed for the purpose of arriving at the average, it will be deducted from that particular year, and to that extent it may or may not reduce the profits.
    Mr. LAWSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not issue a special regulation to authorise a special deduction in view of the special circumstances?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot issue a special regulation unless I am authorised by the Income Tax Act, and I am not aware that I am.

    French Tariff (Lancashire and Yorkshire Products).
    Mr. PETOasked whether, in view of the recent declaration of the Home Secretary with regard to retaliation in connection with the new French tariff, the Government propose to impose any duties on Japanese silks, porcelain, and curios, with a view to negotiation for more favourable treatment of British, and particularly Lancashire and Yorkshire, products?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I must refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on this subject on the 26th instant to the hon. Member for West Staffordshire.
    Mr. BURGOYNE: Could the right hon. Gentleman state the total value of textile goods exported from this country which will be adversely affected, and also the average increase of duties which will be imposed?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

    East Coast of Africa (Carriage of Troops and Stores).
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE (for Mr. Lloyd)asked whether any expenditure has been incurred by His Majesty's Government since 1905 in respect of the carriage of troops or Government stores and supplies, respectively, by foreign steamers to and from the East Coast of Africa; and, if so, what has been the annual amount of that expenditure?
    Colonel SEELY: I presume that the question relates to troops and stores conveyed on behalf of the Governments of the British Protectorates in East Africa. Expenditure on such services is borne by the Protectorate Government concerned. It is the fact that troops of the Protectorate forces and stores have since 1905 been conveyed on behalf of the Protectorates by foreign steamers when it has been impracticable to make other arrangements. I regret that I am not in a position to state the annual amount of the expenditure on such services without referring to the Protectorates.

    Warwickshire Royal Horse Artillery.
    Major ADAMasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Warwickshire Royal Horse Artillery paraded last week for inspection by the Inspector-General of the Forces on horses borrowed from a battery of Regular Artillery?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): An ordinary battery parade took place on Thursday, the 21st instant, at which the Inspector-General, who happened to be in the neighbourhood, was present. In order fully to horse the wagons for the occasion twenty-six horses were borrowed as stated. This is permissible under the Regulations, and it would have been very difficult and expensive to have procured horses from civilian sources for that date.

    Royal Laboratory, Woolwich.
    Major ADAMasked whether in Q. F., Nos. 1 and 2, Royal Laboratory, Woolwich, men are being employed upon day-work upon what is really boys' piece-work; if so, under what circumstances; and what is the difference, if any, in the amount of wages paid to the men and that previously paid to the boys?
    Mr. HALDANE: Seven men are employed on work usually done by boys in the shops referred to, and men are similarly employed in certain other shops. The object is to avoid discharges of men for whom there is not at present sufficient men's work. The wages of the seven men are from 24s. to 25s. a week against 15s. to 21s. for boys.
    Mr. BOWERMAN: Arising out of that reply, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not better that a man should be employed doing boy's work than that boys should be employed doing men's work?
    Mr. HALDANE: It is certainly better we should avoid discharges of men so long as there is any work for them to do.

    Labour Exchanges (Army Factories and Workshops).
    Mr. T. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Secretary for War what steps have been taken to make use of the Board of Trade Labour Exchanges in the factories and workshops under his Department; and whether he proposes to make the use of these exchanges a condition in contracts in the future?
    Mr. HALDANE: As regards the first part of the question, the matter is under consideration. As regards the second part of the question, every reasonable opportunity is taken of placing the advantages of Labour Exchanges before Army contractors, but as the success of the scheme depends very largely upon the goodwill and voluntary co-operation, both of employers and employed, it is not considered that resort to the exchanges should be made a compulsory condition of employment on an Army contract.

    Territorial Force (Field Instruction).
    Major GASTRELLasked whether the three days of at least three consecutive hours' field instruction, laid down in the Territorial Force Regulations, Appendix 6, Sub-Appendix 1, as part of the training
    652
    of Yeomanry, is intended to consist of mounted work; whether the ten drills laid down as the minimum for trained men are intended to include any mounted drills; whether, if squadrons are assembled for three days preceding the annual training in camp, as authorised by the Territorial Force Regulations, paragraph 294, it is intended that any mounted work should be carried out; and, if so, whether the grants to the county association are expected to cover the cost of the provision of horses on such occasions?
    Mr. HALDANE: The replies to the four points raised in the question are in the affirmative.

    High Commissioner in the Mediterranean (Field-Marshal Viscount Kitchener).
    Mr. ARTHUR LEEasked whether it is intended that Field-Marshal Viscount Kitchener shall now take up his duties as High Commissioner in the Mediterranean, and, if so, upon what date; whether he will establish his headquarters at Malta; and what arrangements have been made for the effective discharge of the duties of his high office since his appointment in the autumn of last year?
    Mr. HALDANE: It is proposed that Lord Kitchener should take up the duties of Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief in the Mediterranean with effect from or shortly after his arrival in this country, his headquarters in that capacity being at Malta. He has not yet been appointed to the office in question, and since its vacation by His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught the duties have been temporarily performed by General Sir F. Forestier-Walker, Governor and Commander-in-Chief of Gibraltar.
    Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Arising out of that reply, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman why it was considered necessary by the Government to make this appointment in such haste in the autumn of last year when it was not intended that the duties should be taken up until at least six months later?
    Mr. HALDANE: It is usual to fill up these appointments something like six months before they actually become vacant, following the analogy of the Admiralty. The reason is we want time for making the arrangements, and it is a desirable thing that the appointment should be announced beforehand.
    Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, as a matter of fact, during this period Sir F. Forestier-Walker has been occupying the office, and has carried out the duties of inspecting the troops in South Africa?
    Mr. HALDANE: No, there has been no occasion for him to do so. Lord Methuen has been there.
    Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the duties cannot be continued to be carried out by Sir F. Forestier-Walker without calling upon so eminent a general as Lord Kitchener to take them up?
    Mr. HALDANE: It depends upon what the duties are. The hon. Member has not yet heard what those duties are, but in due course I shall be able to state what they are.
    Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that he stated in this House last autumn that the duties were to include the inspection of troops in South Africa? Is it now intended to abandon that part of the duties?
    Mr. HALDANE: No, I never suggested anything of the kind. The duties will include the inspection of troops in South Africa, and there will be other duties which I shall be prepared to discuss at the proper moment.

    Territorial Drill Halls (Social Functions).
    Mr. MORTONasked the Secretary for War whether he is aware that the use of the Territorial Drill Hall at Brora, Sutherland, had been refused to a social party for political reasons; and whether he will take steps to prevent the use of these drill halls being dominated by either political party?
    Mr. HALDANE: In order to prevent a recurrence of the rowdyism which bad recently taken place during the night, resulting in damage to property, the hall was refused for a dance following a social meeting held in another hall. The use of the hall was not refused for political reasons, and would have been granted for an ordinary political meeting.
    Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the rowdyism was caused by the party which supports my hon. Friend?
    Mr. HALDANE: I have no knowledge as to what extent my hon. Friend was associated with that social function.
    Mr. MORTON: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any proof that there was any rowdyism at all?
    Mr. HALDANE: I only go upon the information supplied to me, and I am told at this dance there was some.
    Mr. MORTON: Did your information come from the Tory party?
    Mr. HALDANE: I cannot say, but I know damage was done to my property.

    Duke of York's School, Chelsea.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked what steps are being taken to secure the buildings and grounds of the Duke of York's School, Chelsea, for the use of the Territorial Forces?
    Mr. HALDANE: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave on Tuesday to a similar question put by the Noble Lord the Member for West Perthshire.

    Intermediate Board, Ireland.
    Mr. THOMAS O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, seeing that the funds of the Intermediate Board, Ireland, will be very much reduced this year owing to the small amount to be received from what is called whisky money, he will take steps to secure such additional grants as will enable the schools to carry on their work?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have nothing at present to add to my reply to the question on the same subject asked by the hon. Member on 1st March last, but I would remind the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated on the 20th instant, in reply to a question that the Government recognise that education should not be dependent on a fluctuating source of revenue, and have decided to take steps to place it on a more stable basis.
    Mr. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind the fact that, in addition to the whisky money, secondary education in England and Scotland gets over a £1,000,000, while Ireland gets nothing?

    Secondary Education in Ireland.
    Mr. THOMAS O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will state the total number of students enrolled in secondary schools in Ireland, the number who presented themselves for the intermediate examinations, the total amount paid to the schools in respect of results, and the average per pupil; and whether any payment is made for secondary education given to children whose parents do not approve of the curriculum and cram of the intermediate?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed by the Commissioners of Intermediate Education that the number of students between the ages of thirteen and nineteen on the rolls of intermediate schools in Ireland on 15th October last was 17,025. The number who presented themselves at the intermediate examinations in 1909 was 11,332. The school grants paid in that year amounted to £50,142. The average amount paid being £2 18s. 11d. for students on the rolls and £4 8s. 6d. for students who presented themselves for examination. The regulations governing the payment of the school grant will be found in Section 12 of the Board's rules, which have recently been presented to Parliament.

    Argentine Centenary Celebration.
    Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury— in the absence of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—whether, in view of the fact that Great Britain was almost the first European nation to recognise the independence of the Argentine Republic, and in consequence of the large commercial and financial interests existing between the two countries, involving upward of £300,000,000 of British capital, of which £170,597,220 is invested in railways, the Government will consider the desirability of sending a more important and more representative Legation and a stronger and more up-to-date naval squadron from this country on the occasion of the celebration of the centenary of Argentine independence.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Master of Elibank): We have already expressed the desire of his Majesty's Government to mark their appreciation of the importance of the forthcoming celebration of the Argentine centenary. The hon. Member is apparently unaware that large vessels are
    656
    unable to get near to Buenos Ayres. As a matter of fact, His Majesty's Government are sending a more powerful squadron than any other European nation.

BILLS PRESENTED.
The following Bills were presented and read the first time:—
BILLS PRESENTED.
  TRUST INVESTMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Law as to the investment of trust funds," presented by Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER; supported by Mr. Scott. (To be read a second time upon Wednesday, 8th June.)
  BISHOPRICS BILL.
  "To facilitate the foundation of new Bishoprics and the alteration of dioceses, and to amend The Bishops' Resignation Act, 1869," presented by Colonel LOCKWOOD; supported by Mr. Simon, Sir John Bethell, and Mr. Pretyman, (To be read a second time upon Thursday, 26th May.)
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  SPRING RECESS.
  Resolved, "That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to the Adjournment of the House (Spring Recess) have precedence this day of the Business of Supply." —[The Prime Minister.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do meet To-morrow, at Ten of the clock, and, at its rising, do adjourn until Thursday, the 26th May; and that Mr. Speaker, as soon as he has reported the Royal Assent to the Bills which have been agreed on by both Houses, do adjourn the House without Question put."—[The Prime Minister.]

  INDIAN ADMIXISTRATION.
  1.0 P.M.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I rise to draw the attention of the House to a matter which seems to me to be of very considerable public importance. On the 7th of this month a statement appeared in "The Times" that a warrant had been issued against Mr. Arabindo Ghose for an article which he published in a paper (the "Karmayogin") which he edits, on 25th December last. I immediately approached the India Office to allow me to put a question

  657
  without notice, in order to get information, but I was told by the Under-Secretary at that time that they had absolutely no information of any kind at the India Office. I was requested to repeat the question. I have done so three times, and to-day, it having been put for the fourth time, all the information I have been able to get is that this warrant has been issued under Section 124 (a) of the Indian Penal Code. My hon. Friend, in answering my question to-day, said he could state nothing with regard to the case, because that would be to prejudge it. I respectfully differ from that opinion, and I would ask whether it would be possible for the India Office to put in the Library a copy of this paper for the information of hon. Members. I have never asked the India Office to express any opinion on the issue of the warrant. I have never asked even for any expressions of opinion in regard to the article. I have never suggested that the India Office should in any way take sides either with the officials in India or with Mr. Arabindo Ghose. The position is this: Although it may be bordering on impropriety—I do not want to minimise that in the least—to raise the question of the issue of this warrant, nevertheless behind the issue of it there is a set of circumstances and a state of official mind which the House ought to take cognisance of. We know perfectly well that we have had already at Patiala cases of sedition where warrants have been issued against men not one of whom has been brought into court. There has not been a single substantial tittle of evidence produced against them, yet these men have been practically imprisoned for weeks and for months, and, ultimately, have had to be discharged without a stain upon their characters and without any serious allegations being made against them. Yet, forsooth, we are told that this is maintaining the dignity, force, and majesty of British rule in India.
  I respectfully suggest that there is just as much damage done by the issue of a warrant as there is in bringing men before the court, and that it is the duty of the India Office to impress upon their officers in India, more particularly in view of the present state of political feeling and the exceedingly delicate nature of the task they have to face, it is, I say, their duty to impress upon their officers that such unfortunate occurrences as that which took place in Patiala the other day should not be repeated within the jurisdiction of
  658
  the Government of India. If this warrant is issued with evidence behind it, why is Mr. Ghose still at large? I have myself received, in the ordinary course of my Indian post, during at least the last three weeks, newspapers, each one of which stated that Mr. Arabindo Ghose was in a certain place, and each one of the statements agreed. It is perfectly well known he has left what we call in this country public life. He has become a sort of religious recluse. He has left the cares and concerns of the material affairs of the Universe, and has gone into retirement to make his peace with the Eternal. It is known what he is doing, and yet this warrant, issued, according to "The Times," on 5th or 6th April, is still undelivered. Nothing apparently has happened. With regard to the Section of the Indian Penal Code under which the warrant has been issued, I may say that Section 124 (a) was inserted, first, at the instance of Sir James FitzStephen, to deal with sedition.
  I am not going to read the Section; it is rather long, but there is an explanation attached to it, and that explanation is the organic part of the Code itself. It is divided into three headings, and heads two and three make it perfectly clear that the mere expression of disapprobation of measures taken by the Government is not to be treated as sedition unless unlawful means are contemplated in some shape or form. Let us see how the Indian Government and Indian officials think they are instructed to conduct themselves under this particular Section. I turn to a speech delivered by the late Home Secretary in India, who is now in this country, when he was introducing the Press Law, and with the House's permission I will delight and, I am perfectly certain, amaze them by extracts from that speech. The speech was delivered in the Viceroy's Council when this Bill was being introduced in February of this year. The Home Secretary gave several instances of what was a misdemeanour which ought to be regarded as sedition. He says, in effect, the Government is represented as foreign, and that is sedition. It is therefore stated to be selfish and tyrannical, it drains the country of its wealth and impoverishes the people. That is sedition. It has produced famine, and its public works have generated malaria. That is sedition. [Mr. REES: "Hear, hear.] The hon. Gentleman who cheers that knows very well that that statement is made in official Blue Books. There have been reports presented on the

  659
  subject of malaria which state that one of the reasons why malaria has become so prevalent is that the natural drainage of the country has been interfered with by railway embankments, and that the unfortunate result of otherwise exceedingly successful experiments in irrigation in some districts has been to waterlog other districts, where pools of water are allowed to collect from which malaria is carried when it would not otherwise be carried.
  Mr. REES: Is the hon. Member's case that there should be no irrigation works in India unless the mosquito is prevented from carrying malaria?
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: My case is nothing of the kind, and the hon. Member knows that perfectly well. All I state is this, and nobody disputes it, and any Indian official knows that one of the by-products of irrigation is that stagnant water does lie where it otherwise would not lie, and where this occurs malaria is generated, and having made that statement I decline to admit to anybody that I have been guilty of a seditious utterance. Then the Home Secretary went on to point out that it is said that the Government has introduced the plague and poisoned the wells in order to reduce the population so as to keep it in subjection. I am inclined to agree with him in regard to that single statement that it is seditious, and I have nothing to say about it. Then he goes on to say—these, the House must remember, are different examples of seditious utterances against the Government—that it is said it has destroyed religion by a godless system of education. [Mr. REES: "Hear, hear."] My hon. Friend associates himself with that seditious utterance by saying, "Hear, hear," to that statement, and I am not sure that I do not agree with him, but in saying these things, and in associating ourselves with such statements, we repudiate the idea that we are associating ourselves with seditious utterances. Finally, the Home Secretary alluded to the statement that the Government allows Indians to be ill-treated in the Colonies, and seeks to destroy caste. That is the idea of sedition in the minds of Indian officials, who have to apply this Section of the Indian Code, and who have to say whether any particular utterance by any particular man is or is not apparently culpable under that Section. This is where the difficulty lies.
  660
  But let me take the case of Mr. Arabindo Ghose. Mr. Arabindo Ghose is practically an Englishman. He does not speak Bengali, and his influence with his fellow Hindus is weak in proportion. When he was still a baby almost he was brought over to this country, and he was educated in Manchester. From Manchester he came to St. Paul's School in London, and from there he went to Cambridge, and whilst he was at that place he passed into the Indian Civil Service, but was disqualified because he could not ride. He then went to India, and from the Gaekwar of Baroda he received an appointment at the High School of Baroda, an admirable institution which anybody who goes to Baroda will see and examine with the greatest satisfaction. Here you have a man whose fundamentals are Eastern, whose habits of thought are Eastern, who is a Hindu in religion, and who is one of the most zealous followers of the revival sect of the High Church such as you see raising its head in Bengal at the present moment. But this man is imbued with Western thought, has read our literature and the poets like Byron, whom he is exceedingly fond of quoting. He goes back to India and makes several reflections upon the Indian Government, and makes criticisms on its action, and is immediately put down in the black books of the Indian officials, and is regarded either as a sedition-monger or as a man who ought to be watched. I am giving currency to no secret; it is a current report that as a matter of fact this man, after having been tried on an accusation that might have cost him his life, and having been acquitted, and not only acquitted without stain, and acquitted by a judge who uses language which he who runs may read— this man, having been brought before the court and acquitted, according to common and well-informed reports, it was actually discussed whether his name should be put among the list of men to be deported without trial under that Section of which we heard so much last Session.
  I am speaking what is common report in India, but of course the proceedings are never published. I wish they were, and I should be very glad if my hon. Friend to-day were going, in answer to anything I have said, to tell me that what took place on the consideration of the report of the nine deportees, plus the case of Mr. Arabindo Ghose, was going to be published. I should be the most delighted man in this House. But there it is, he

  661
  has been put in the suspected list, and there is not a single thing that he does but is twisted and misrepresented. Even as a matter of fact—and this is my own version of the issue of the warrant—when he retires from public life into private life, although that again was known, and although all his friends said it was imminent, and although he himself practically told me when I saw him that he would not be very much longer in the affairs of the world and engaged in journalistic work—when that step was taken, and he did retire, it was apparently regarded by the Government of Bengal as a move in some deep-seated hidden political plot, and that was the thing which caused the issue of the warrant—at any rate, that is my theory. What is this article about which so much has been said? My hon. Friend has not been able to furnish me with a copy. I have it myself. The "Karmayogin" is a paper published once a week, and up till quite recently Mr. Arabindo Ghose edited it. I have the complete article, but I only propose to read two main seotions of it. They indicate what was in Mr. Arabindo Ghose's mind, and they indicate the character of his offence, so far as it was an offence. This is the key sentence of the whole article:—
  "If the Nationalists stand back any longer, either the national movement will disappear or the void created will be filled by a sinister and violent activity. Neither result can be tolerated by men desirous of their country's development and freedom."
  Surely to any man who reads this article as it was meant to be read the meaning of that sentence is perfectly clear, and Mr. Arabindo Ghose, as is perfectly well known by those who have followed his actions and his writings, sincerely believes that the Nationalist movement of which he is the head for the time being at any rate, or was till quite' recently, is the one guarantee that there shall be no violence done in India, and be blames the officials who have suppressed the free expression of Nationalist sentiment for the unfortunate circumstances which have led to murder and death and executions which everyone deplores.
  Mr. J. KING: May I ask in a friendly way whether this article is published in Bengali, and whether Mr. Arabindo Ghose is not a Bengali?
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: The article is in the most excellent English. There is not a line of Bengali in the whole
  662
  of it except the date of this issue and its own title. Mr. Arabindo Ghose could no more write an article in Bengali than I could. The second extract, which will give an idea of the article, is this:—
  "Fear of the law is for those who break the law. Our aims are great and honourable, free from stain and reproach, our methods are peaceful though resolute and strenuous. We shall not break the law, and therefore we need not fear the law."
  Then he turns to comment on certain things on which comments have been made again in the official Blue Books.
  "But if a corrupt police, unscrupulous officials or a partial judiciary—"
  That, of course, is not justified by the Blue Books, but it is a matter of common discussion in India—
  "make use of the honourable publicity of our political methods to harass the men who stand in front by illegal ukases, suborned and perjured evidence or unjust decisions, shall we shrink from the toll that we have to pay on our march to freedom? Shall we cower behind a petty secrecy or dishonourable inactivity? We must have our associations, our organisations, our means of propaganda, and if these are suppressed by arbitrary proclamations we shall have done our duty by our Motherland and not on us will rest any responsibility for the madness which crushes down open and lawful political activity in order to give a desperate and sullen nation into the hands of those fiercely enthusiastic and unscrupulous forces that have arisen among us inside and outside India."
  There is a strong, sincere and effective criticism and condemnation of the practices which have been disgracing the extreme left movement in India during the last year or so. The gentleman of infamous associations who lodges in Paris and tries to stir up the youth of this country and India has had no stronger opponent and no more effective counteracting influence than Mr. Arabindo Ghose in his attempt to say honestly and fearlessly, but yet lawfully and fairly, what he feels about the administration of our officials in India. As I said at the commencement I had no desire to raise this question. I know perfectly well that the state of India at the present moment is a very difficult and a very dangerous one, and those who are best qualified to form a judgment about what may happen are perhaps more pessimistic than those who are less qualified to form that judgment. But I feel perfectly certain that unless the India Office will insist upon its officials administering India with some generosity, some Catholicity of sentiment and some serious attempt to associate with themselves men like Mr. Arabindo Ghose the future is going to be very much darker than it at present is. When we talk about India as being Oriental and Hindu, we make a profound mistake. India is nothing of the

  663
  kind. India is a sort of growth of the West engrafted upon the stock of the East, and that is the great problem of India to-day. It is not your millions, who simply toil morning, noon and night, week in and week out, month in and month out, year in and year out, toil from the cradle to the grave, and have no aspirations, no thoughts, and no knowledge of the Government of India. That is not the problem of India.
  The problem, of India is contained in the handling, in the treatment, in the classification of that small group of Hindus, and of Mahomedans too, who are fundamentally Eastern in their characteristics, but who have been educated over here and have gone back full of the sentiments and the aspirations and the political ideas of the West. If you are going to say, as your officials have said with unfortunate emphasis in issuing this warrant, which has been the occasion of my interposition, "We treat you as suspects, we will have nothing to do with you, and if you criticise us we will put into operation Section 124 (a) of the Indian Criminal Code," the consequences will be upon their heads, and those consequences will certainly not redound to the honour and glory and majesty of our Government in India. I hope, without saying anything more, that what I have said may result in a more satisfactory statement and some better assurance from the India Office, because, I feel perfectly certain that the very best service which we can give to these hard-working and, on the whole, honest officials is to compel them, not to regard themselves as little Akbars who must be obeyed, but to put themselves into the position of Ministers, leaders of political parties if you like, who have to judge public opinion, who have to sway public opinion, and to manipulate public opinion, and who have to take advantage of opposition and criticism as well as of flattery and agreement. It is because I feel that that is the great thing which is required in India to-day that I have raised this question.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: My hon. Friend has dealt so fully with Mr. Arabindo Ghose that that matter need not be further dwelt upon, but the House may be reminded once again that Mr. Arabindo Ghose has already been the victim of one very exhaustive trial. It came to a close on 6th May of last year, when Mr. C. B. Beachcroft, who tried the case, delivered
  664
  a very lengthy judgment. One of the difficulties in India is the paucity of information supplied be the public of this country concerning Indian affairs and the acts of the Indian Administration. Everything which tells against the Indian people is blazoned forth, and matters which might tell in their favour do not receive anything like the same publicity. Mr. Beachcroft, after a very lengthy and exhaustive trial, found that Mr. Arabindo Ghose had not been guilty of any offence known to the law of India. The law of India casts its net nowadays at least very wide indeed. Mr. Beachcroft described Mr. Arabindo Ghose as
  "a man who seems to have an extraordinary hold ever the affections of his countrymen."
  And he added these words:—
  "It is freely admitted for Mr. Arabindo Ghose that his ideal is independence, but the attainment of it is to be reached by passive resistance and by educating the people to stand by themselves; and counsel for the Crown admits that there is nothing wrong in cherishing such an ideal, provided it is not sought by violent methods."
  Counsel was forced to admit on that occasion that the idea of national independence which Mr. Arabindo Ghose advocated was in itself neither seditious nor wrong, provided the methods taken to attain the idea were not in themselves violent or criminal. The judge proceeded, after hearing all the evidence, to say:—
  "Now not a single article has been pointed out to me—
  And this applies to the written articles and the speeches made by Mr. Arabindo Ghose,
  "which suggests the use of violence."
  Because of that Mr. Arabindo Ghose was acquitted. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) has quoted several statements from the articles on which, we understand, the fresh warrant is being issued, but there is one quotation which I should like to read to the House, because it appears to me to be the real gravamen of the charge which the Government of India is now about to make against Mr. Arabindo Ghose. After describing the ideals of the Nationalist party and the movement against the present régime, Mr. Arabindo Ghose proceeds:—
  "These are the objects for which we have to organise the national strength or India. On us falls the burden, in us alone there is the moral ardour, faith and readiness for sacrifice, which can attempt and go far to accomplish the task. But the first requisite is the organisation of the Nationalist, party. I invite that, party in all the great centres of the country to take up the work and assist the leaders who will shortly meet to consider steps for the initiation of Nationalist

  665
  activity. It is desirable to establish a Nationalist Council, and hold a meeting of the body in March or April of the next year. It is necessary also to establish Nationalist associations throughout the country. When we have done this, we shall be able to formulate our programme, and assume our proper place in the political life of India."
  Here we have a movement which is admittedly not to be associated with violence, which admittedly is animated by a high patriotic and moral ideal—a movement which claims the attention of the young enthusiasts of India to prevent them from being led into those devious courses into which some of them, unfortunately, have lately been tempted, and the Government, seeing the growth of this movement, apparently wish to stifle it, or, by threatening the prosecution of Mr. Ara-bindo Ghose, to hint to others like minded with himself that every attempt to carry out a conference and to organise that force will be encountered with all the rigours of the law.
  Attention called to the fact that there were not forty Members present. House counted, and forty Members being found present,
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE (resuming): I hope the Under-Secretary of State for India, when he comes to make his statement, will be able to assure us this organisation and the Nationalist Conference on the lines of Mr. Arabindo Ghose's teaching will not be prevented by moans taken to intimidate Mr. Arabindo Ghose. Now I come to another matter bearing upon this case, and upon the questions which are arousing much interest, and not a little feeling, in India. I refer to the conduct of the police. I refer to that matter because all these cases and charges must necessarily, in the first instance, be based upon information supplied by the police. They not only make the charges, but supply the evidence, and obviously, unless the people of India of all classes have faith in the police and in the purity of their methods, there will not be that respect for justice and for law which all well-wishers of the country desire to see.
  A former Member of this House, whose absence we regret (Mr. Mackarness), made this question his own when he was with us. Those of us who were present when these questions were being discussed by the hon. Member recollect the long quotations which Mr. Mackarness used to give us from the Commission appointed by Lord Curzon to inquire into charges against the police, and how that Commission found
  666
  that unquestionably there was substantial ground for believing that a great deal of corruption was practiced in the police force, not merely in the lower grades, but in the higher grades also, and that certain forms of illegal pressure were brought to bear to compel confessions from persons whom the police desired to implicate or from whom they desired to obtain evidence against some persons accused. I would like to cite one case to illustrate what was meant. I cite it because it is not the case of a political prisoner. This is the case of a woman, Gulab Bano, who, in 1908, was accused of having murdered her husband. She was arrested, tried, and sentenced to death; an appeal was taken to the High Court at Lahore, and the sentence was quashed and the woman was ordered to be liberated. The judge who quashed the sentence in the High Court pointed out that certain evidence favourable to the woman could have been given by the police officials, but these witnesses were kept out of the box and not allowed to come forward. In his judgment, torture had been applied to the woman to make her confess to a deed which she had never committed, and if the House will allow me I will read out the torture applied in this case. It is a horrible thing; it is a disgusting thing, a kind of thing no one likes to think of, much less to mention, but still, the facts have got to be known if we are to appreciate the importance of the subject with which we are now dealing.
  The judge, in sustaining the appeal of the woman and in dismissing her, called upon the Government to institute a special inquiry into the charges made by the woman against the police and the prison officials, and afterwards the Government issued a Resolution, based upon a secret inquiry, at which, so far as is known, no steps were taken to obtain evidence beyond that given by the accused parties themselves; that is to say, the police officials implicated. In the course of that Resolution this sentence occurred: "On the evening of 7th June she" (that is, the accused woman) "complained to the matron of the gaol that the police had maltreated her." The hospital attendant was summoned, and to him Julab Bano (the woman) made a statement to the following effect: "I was hung to the roof by the police (superintendent and two head constables) in my village during the investigation, with a rope in my legs, and a baton smeared with green chillies was thrust up my anal opening."

  667
  The civil surgeon who examined the woman at the same time subsequently testified that he found her terribly inflamed and ulcerated, "a condition which, in my opinion, would only have been caused by an assault similar to that described by the prisoner." The district Judge, when the case was tried before him, received from the woman a very clear and detailed account of all the circumstances. Under the agony produced by this torture she confessed to having murdered her husband, and was condemned to death. Fortunately, an appeal was taken, and the case came before the High Court. The presiding Judge expressed his surprise that the woman should have been condemned on such evidence, and called for a strict and searching inquiry into all the details of the case. The woman, it may be said, subsequently died in prison, and, so far as I know, no statement has yet been made public as to the cause of death mentioned in the case, and for this reason, because the officials apparently were more concerned in shielding and protecting the police than they were in finding out and punishing those who were guilty of this atrocity.
  A more recent case, which has a direct bearing upon that of Arabindo Ghose is that of Mr. A. B. Cohatka, who held degrees from the University of Madras, and was editor of a paper which published some reports of speeches by Mr. Arabindo Ghose and translations of his articles. This man was charged with the dissemination of sedition, and was sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment for the offence. The interesting fact to be borne in mind here is that when Mr. Arabindo Ghose was being tried for his speeches the judges decided that they were not seditious, and yet this man, who was simply charged with publishing the speeches which the judges had declared not to be seditious, was convicted of sedition and actually sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment. He was kept in Nagpore Gaol for five and a half months in a solitary cell. I understand that the Indian Penal Code lays it down that no one can be kept for longer than seven days at a time in a solitary cell; but this man was kept in one for five and a half months, and during that period his weight went down from 135 1b. to 103 1b. He was loaded with chains, and on one occasion was seen by some medical men being removed from one prison to another, and he was so weak and his chains were so heavy that he had
  668
  to stoop at every step and lift the chains from the ground to enable him to make any step forward at all. I want to ask why it is that political prisoners are treated in this fashion? In this country it is admitted that the political prisoner is entitled to and he receives better treatment, and only the other day the Home Secretary, to the great pleasure of most Members of this House, announced that in future further special privileges would be granted to all prisoners who were not guilty of sordid crime. If that be the case, surely we are entitled to ask that a similar law should be applied to political prisoners in India. I come to a more painful case under this head, and it is one to which I direct special attention of the Under-Secretary—I refer to the Midnapore case. It will be remembered by those interested in this question that recently four men were charged with conspiracy, the manufacture of bombs, and all the rest of it. Finally three of them went for trial, and on 1st June of last year the High Court dismissed the charges and set them at liberty. During the course of the trial it came out that in this case also there had been, or it was alleged anyhow, resort to torture to extort confessions from witnesses and from the accused. These confessions would not bear examination. On the strength of them, however, a conviction was obtained in the lower court, which, as I have said, was subsequently quashed by the higher court in which the Lord Chief Justice of Bengal presided. Here likewise an inquiry was ordered, and the strange fact is that the Chief of Police and the chief officials against whose conduct an inquiry was ordered were granted free passes for the purpose of travelling, and I believe that some of them are travelling in Europe at this moment on leave of absence. Some of the accused have raised several actions at law for damages against the police in respect of their conduct. But the point is that these actions cannot be proceeded with because the parties against whom they are directed have received leave of absence, and are travelling either away from the district, or, as I understand, some of them at least, in Europe. The other day the parties against whom the claim is being made were allowed a further extension of three months in which to lodge their defence. I ask hon. Members to look at the facts of this case from this point of view: Supposing in this country certain officials were charged

  669
  with some gross offence which necessitated an inquiry into their conduct at the Home Office, and that the innocent parties whom they had wrongly accused were about to file actions for damage against them—what would be said if the men so accused were to be granted leave of absence for a whole year in order that they might escape inquiry and the results of their conduct? I ask the Under-Secretary for India to state what is being done in connection with the inquiry in India, and whether the officials responsible will insist upon the return to Midnapore of the officials against whom the actions have been brought, in order that those actions may be proceeded with without further delay. Obviously, the longer a case of this kind can be delayed the less chance the claimants will have of pressing their case.
  During the past few weeks a series of conferences which were being organised in Eastern Bengal have been prohibited under the provisions of the new Seditious Meetings Act. May I remind the House that these district conferences which have been prohibited are part of the organisation of the Indian National Congress? For some twenty-five or thirty years now the Indian National Congress has met yearly, but no one in responsibility, certainly no Indian official of any note, has ever brought the smallest charge either of disloyalty or sedition against that body, or against the men responsible for carrying on its affairs. In connection with the Indian National Congress district conferences are organised, and they have been held without let or hindrance. Last year, and the year before that, and during all the heat of the agitation due to the partition of Bengal, these conferences were allowed to be held. This year, however, for some reason or another, the authorities have taken into their heads to prohibit the holding of three of these conferences which were to take place at Faridpur, Mymen-singh, and Barisal. They have taken steps by proclaiming a certain area in Eastern Bengal, apparently with the desire to prevent these conferences. As showing the peaceful condition of certain parts of Eastern Bengal, and one or two places where these conferences were to be held, I may state that since the case of deportation for fourteen months meetings have been held in the district in an open manner, and this did not lead to any disorder. But now the district magistrate, acting under the powers conferred upon him by the Seditious Meeting Act, has prohibited the
  670
  holding of conferences at Faridpur, Mymensingh, and Barisal. The three places are all together. The terms of proclamation were:—
  "Whereas information has been received of the intention to hold a public meeting on the 25th and 26th March, 1910, for the purpose of discussing resolutions, most of which are not the direct concerns of this district, and which are so indeterminate and elastically worded as to admit of the introduction of seditious discussion; and whereas I have no guarantee that persons likely to indulge in seditious discussions will not be allowed to attend and speak at the meetings—"
  And so on. The House will observe that the prohibition is not because of anything in the resolution, not because of any persons attending, but because possibly in the discussions of the resolutions things might be said which would be seditious. Surely, that is the most flimsy pretence ever put forward for prohibiting a gathering of this kind. Under the terms of the Indian Penal Code anybody guilty of sedition can be prosecuted and heavily penalised. To prevent a discussion of any kind at conferences attended by persons of standing and responsibility, because possibly some one might say something that would not be pleasant to the Government, is, I repeat, one of the most flimsy pretences under which it was ever attempted to interfere with freedom of meeting. I question whether in the long history of Ireland under coercion there was a case so bad as this. The resolutions to which the magistrate took exception were those calling upon the people to firmly adhere to their vow to patronise native industries. The second resolution was:—
  "That this Conference fully appreciates the necessity of the full establishment of Colonial self-government in India as it was defined and adopted at the Calcutta Session of the Congress in 1906."
  The Conference was not to be asked to discuss Indian independence, or separation from the British Empire, but all this resolution asked the Conference to discuss was the establishment of Colonial Government in India under the British flag. Surely the authorities in India must be in a very nervous condition if they are afraid to allow a topic, which everybody admits is a perfectly legitimate topic, to be discussed at a conference of this kind. We who attempt to raise these questions in the House of Commons labour under considerable difficulty. The point of view some of us take is not popular. It is not popular mainly because the facts concerning India are not properly understood. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear that sentiment cheered. If the facts were understood our point of

  671
  view would be popular. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear that sentiment cheered. The people of India whose homes are in India, have small opportunities of putting their case before the country. Therefore it is all the more incumbent upon the India Office here to see to it that when there is unrest, when there is discontent, when there is a tendency to crime, that instead of oppressing those who guide the Indian people along constitutional lines they should be given every latitude for conducting the agitation on legitimate and constitutional lines. If that be refused the inevitable result must be to drive, the movement under ground, and to lead to results we should all deplore. When it is true that effort in India in matters of this kind depend upon police, it is doubly incumbent upon the India Office to see to it that every step is taken to punish all illegal acts committed by the police, whether they take the form of torturing prisoners to compel confessions, or extorting bribes to hush up cases, are properly dealt with, so that the people of India may have confidence in the administration of the law, and, therefore, be more ready to assist in giving effect to it than they possibly could be under the present circumstances.
  2.0 P.M.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): This is, I think, the first occasion on which this Parliament has had to discharge one of its most important duties, namely, the discussion of Indian affairs. It would appear that both the attack and the defence of the Government of India both come from this side, the only part of the House which appears eager to discharge that duty. When I look upon the row of eager, interested faces opposite me I find it difficult to realise the Imperial mission of the Conservative party. In fact, I think the only attempt to take part in the discussion from the benches opposite to-day was a suggestion that the House should be counted out. I should be, I think my hon. Friends will believe, the last to deprecate a discussion such as that which has taken place now. It is absolutely essential that the assembly which forms the only link between the Government of India and the people of this country, upon whom in the last resort the responsibility for the government of that country lies—I refer to the link afforded by this House of Com-
  672
  mons and the House of Parliament—should always be ready to criticise, to question, and to defend the action of those officials who represent it in India. I do not complain of most of what the two hon. Members who have spoken on this side have said, but, if they will both forgive me for saying it, I like their perorations better than their facts. But I do find grounds for complaint in the precise moment which my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) has chosen to launch his attack upon the treatment of sedition in India, and in his basing it upon the case of Arabindo Ghose. I had occasion to refer this morning to an occurrence in this House when the hon. Member for Louth put a question on the Paper dealing with the trial of a Noble Lord for bigamy. The trial had not yet been begun, and, on being called on to put his question, the hon. Member said:—
  "I understand, Mr. Speaker, you have expressed a view adverse to the putting of this question, as the trial is pending. Therefore. I do not propose to put it."
  Mr. Speaker replied:—
  "I am glad the hon. Member has taken that course because I think it is a question calculated to prejudice the trial."
  I hope my hon. Friends will forgive me for saying—
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I consulted the Speaker on this point.
  Mr. MONTAGU: I hope the hon. Member for Leicester will forgive me for saying that I think a large part of his arguments, referring to Mr. Arabindo Ghose, is likely, one way or the other, to prejudice the proper administration of justice under the Indian law. Let me recite to the House, shortly, the facts in relation to this case. On 25th December an article was published in a newspaper called "Karmayogin," and the tone of that article was brought to the notice of the law officers of the Government of Bengal, I the Advocate General, the Legal Remembrancer, and the Standing Counsel, who is an Indian lawyer. The opinion of those Law Officers was that the article was of such a nature as to render the writer liable to prosecution under Section 124 (a) of the Indian Penal Code. The hon. Member for Leicester did not read it. I propose to read the Section to the House. "Whoever by word either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to

  673
  excite disaffection towards His Majesty or the Government established by law in British India, shall be punished with transportation for life or any shorter term, to which a fine may be added, or by imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which a fine may be added, or by fine." The Law Officers of the Government of Bengal considered that the tone of the article was such that it came within the meaning of the words of that Section. The Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 196, lays it down that no prosecution under this Section may be instituted without the sanction of the Local Government. The Government of Bengal, having the advice of their Law Officers before them, accepted it, and sanctioned the prosecution of Mr. Arabindo Ghose, who was believed to be the writer of the article in question.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: It was signed.
  Mr. MONTAGU: There were certain difficulties in obtaining legal and technical proof of the authorship, and so the issue of the warrant for Mr. Ghose's arrest was delayed until the beginning of this month. That warrant has not yet been executed, because Mr. Ghose's whereabouts are unknown. The hon. Member for Leicester, on private information of his own, culled, I gather, from newspapers, has been more fortunate than the police officers who are called upon to execute the warrant.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: May I remind the hon. Member that I have put all the information at his disposal.
  Mr. MONTAGU: Precisely. I presume the same information is available to the Government of India. At the same time, it is not always possible immediately to effect the arrest of somebody wanted by the police. I have no doubt that every effort is being made, and that at any moment Mr. Ghose may be arrested; but the latest information I have is that Mr. Ghose has at present succeeded in evading arrest. Anyhow, a warrant in the name of the King Emperor for the arrest of Mr. Ghose has been issued by the Chief Presidency magistrate in Bengal, with the consent and on the advice of the Government of Bengal and their Law Officers. Immediately that warrant is issued I contend that the question whether it should or should not have been issued, whether the article was or was not seditious, rests
  674
  entirely with the Courts of Justice in India. It is not a matter for this House to decide; it is not a matter for any Member of this House to express an opinion upon at this moment. If the hon. Member for Leicester is wrong, Mr. Ghose, having been tried by the chief Presidency magistrate in Calcutta, with full rights of appeal to two judges of the High Court of Justice, will be properly punished. If, on the other hand, my hon. Friend is right and the article is not seditious, Mr. Ghose will be acquitted, and then will be the hon. Member's opportunity for challenging the action of the Government of Bengal, and, if he likes, of the Imperial Government, and, if he likes, the Secretary of State for India. But when an action is being tried, when a charge is pending, not only would it be improper to express an opinion on the article forming the subject, but, I submit, it would be highly improper to place before this House any information merely intended to give an opportunity for expressing an opinion about a subject in which I suggest, with all humility, it has no right to interfere at the moment, and to interfere in which would be for the House to do that very thing which hon. Members below the Gangway are always asserting we should not do, namely, calling in the Executive to interfere with the judicial arrangements of India.
  I would remind my hon. Friend that the only other evidence brought in support of his charge about sedition was a case in Patiala, which is not a part of British India, but is a Native State, with the judicial procedure of which we have nothing to do. I would submit that a charge based, first, on an occurrence in a Native State, and, secondly, upon a case which has still to be decided by a court of law, is very poor material upon which to ask the House to discuss the whole question of procedure with regard to sedition.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a British Resident in the State of Patiala responsible for British interests?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I am aware that there 13 a political agent for the group of States of which Patiala forms part; but we are not responsible for the judicial procedure in Patiala. If I may ask the House to leave Mr. Ghose where he is, and not to usurp the functions of the Indian Courts of Justice, I would only pause to say in conclusion one other word as to

  675
  the difficulty of discussing matters of this kind. I do not desire to follow the hon. Member for Leicester or the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) in exonerating from all blame a gentleman who has still to stand his trial by a judicial court, nor do I desire to say anything derogatory to a man whom my hon. Friend has rightly described as having great influence in India and being well known for his high education and eloquent writings, a sample of which my hon. Friend read to the House. But no sooner does a case like this come up for discussion than my hon. Friend, quoting a statement relating to the gentleman in question, allows the House to assume that such quotations are correct and accurate, and then I am saddled with the choice either of leaving that impression on the House or running the risk of saying something, which I desire to avoid, to the detriment of Mr. Ghose. I will give the House an example. Once again the judgment of Mr. Beach-croft in a trial, not for sedition at all, but for conspiracy to use bombs, has been quoted as showing how innocent of all evil effort and intention Mr. Ghose must be taken to be. Mr. Ghose was acquitted of any share in any conspiracy to use bombs or of any charge to wage war against the King; but he was not on trial for sedition, and Mr. Beachcroft definitely and deliberately refused, in words which I could quote, to express any opinion as to whether a charge for sedition could or could not be based upon some of Mr. Ghose's teachings and writings. Therefore the whole argument of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil about the punishment of a man for publishing speeches which had been declared by a judge of the Sessions Court to be innocent falls absolutely to the ground. I venture to say with all respect that that conclusion and that inaccuracy are only an example of many others in the long speech which the hon. Member made to the House. Let me refer shortly to one or two others. There is the prohibition of meetings in certain districts in Eastern Bengal in answer to a question I was asked the other day upon this point I replied that there was no conspicuous unrest or disturbance in these three provinces. It is not with a view of quelling such disturbances and unrest that the Seditious Meetings Act was prepared. It was with a view of preventing disturbances being caused by agitators brought in from outside.
  676
  These three districts, many years before there had been any talk of general unrest in India, have always been particularly delicate and difficult districts to administer. So long ago as 1872 Sir George Campbell referred to them in curious but forcible language as "hot-blooded tidal districts." That seems to me to describe exactly the kind of condition which these districts are permanently in. Meetings might disturb such districts; firstly, by spreading seditious views and gaining converts to these views among the people; secondly, they might also be dangerous to the peace of the districts for a totally different reason. They might arouse animosity and antipathy among the differing races and religions in the districts. They might have an exaggerated, but similar effect, to that of an Orange procession going through a Roman Catholic town in certain parts of Ireland. Both points of view have to be taken into account by the magistrate who has to decide whether a particular meeting shall or shall not be held. I gather that my hon. Friend is of opinion that a particular magistrate misused his power under that Act. If that be so, I can only say that I will convey that view to my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for India, and suggest to him that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr Tydvil desires inquiry into the particular circumstances.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Let me make my point clear. I was not referring to public meetings, but to the conferences which have been allowed in former years, in the same place, and with the same speakers. They have never been prohibited before.
  Mr. MONTAGU: The conferences to which my hon. Friend referred do come under the Seditious Meetings Act, but I will mention the point to my Noble Friend the Secretary of State. There is one other point to which I have not referred— the general charge of corruption against the Indian police. As my hon. Friend knows, in 1902 and 1904, a Commission sat to investigate the condition of the Indian police. Since the Report of that Commission vast sums of money have been spent and radical alterations have been made with a view to, and with the effect of, enormously improving the Indian Police Service. It would be idle, I think, to deny there is some ground for the charges both of corruption and of violence on the part of the Indian police. I can only say that such charges, well founded, are becoming increasingly few with the

  677
  improvement of the Police Service. They are always followed by proper inquiry and visited with the most rigorous and exemplary punishment, and they have little effect upon the impartial and magnificent courts of law before which these cases are heard. I would remind my hon. Friend that the over-painting of these accusations against the Indian police does not help to make that force a better force. I would also remind him that there is no commoner way—I do not say it applies to every case—for a man to endeavour to escape from a serious charge in India than, first, by confessing and then alleging that that confession has been extorted from him by the police. Such a device being possible, hon. Gentleman should be particularly careful in regard to forming any conclusion as to the genuineness of these allegations against the police. Let me take the painful case which the hon. Gentleman raised of Gulab Banc. The judge did not find that in that case the police were guilty of outrage. They did, however, say that there was a case for inquiry into the conduct of the police. The inquiry was held, and as a result it appeared from the medical evidence that it was practically impossible for the injuries to have been inflicted after the woman was in the custody of the police. The woman, it was suggested, inflicted these injuries upon herself with a view of getting off by a false charge against the police. I have only to say, in conclusion, that the woman did not die in prison, but in a distant village, and that she did not mention the injuries until Home time after the date on which she alleged they occurred.
  To come to another charge of the hon. Gentleman—that of the Midnapur case—I gather that his grievance there is that we did not publish the result of the inquiry. I have explained to this House that it is impassible to publish the results of that inquiry without prejudicing the results of certain civil actions involving large sums of money in which, practically speaking, although not actually, the police are on their trial.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I will raise that point again.
  Mr. MONTAGU: I understand that my hon. Friend suggested that there was a delay in getting a settlement of those civil actions because various officials were on leave. That has nothing to do with the Government. If a civil action is pending against an official who goes on leave
  678
  he does it at his own risk. The court may or may not, in their discretion, grant an adjournment of the case, and the Government have no power of interference. So far as I can I have answered the suggestions and points raised by both hon. Gentlemen. I assure both of them that we are awaiting the results of these trials, and that the fullest possible information will be subsequently laid before the House. My hon. Friend complained that Indian officials are slow to give information to this country, and that there is always a difficulty in extracting it. I sincerely believe it to be the duty of the House to criticism Indian administration, but I must remind hon. Members that criticism uniformally hostile is not the sort of criticism to invite a willing gift of information from the people who are criticised. And when it is affirmed that the most that can be said of an. Administration, which is the envy and the admiration of every nation of the world, is that they are its officers, hardworking and on the whole honest, I venture to remind both hon. Members that part of the responsibility for the difficulties in obtaining information rests upon this House, and not upon the Indian Government.
  Mr. J. D. REES: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for India, in his able and discreet speech, on which I beg to congratulate him, if I may as a Parliamentary contemporary, referred to the empty benches opposite. I venture to think that the explanation may be that the Opposition did not know that this question was to be raised. It was purely by accident I myself learned last night that this question was to be raised. I attended here to-day for an entirely different purpose. At any rate, since no hon. Member of any real Indian experience has spoken, I cannot refrain from referring to the questions which have been brought before the House. The junior Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie), after a race through India, appears here on behalf of the oppressed peoples of India, and against the oppressors, who are his own fellow-countrymen. I was rather sorry to see the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) pursued the same role, and took up the mantle that fell from the shoulders of Dr. Rutherford, the late Member for Brentford. He was always ready with some patent Parliamentary representation medicine, which I was to apply to the whole world. It

  679
  was made at Brentford, but Brentford, although it was famous for supporting two kings, could not tolerate its former hon. Member for two Parliaments. I was astonished to see a gentleman of the very great ability of the hon. Member undertaking the same rôle and coming back from India with information supplied entirely from one source, and prepared upon that information to try to discredit the impartiality and the justice of his own fellow-countrymen. I do sympathise with my hon. Friend in a way, because I do realise that if a certain organisation says to you, "Come, curse me this people, for they are too mighty for me," it would be a very flat, stale, and unprofitable thing to come back and say, like all distinguished foreigners, like our neighbours say, these Anglo-Indian people are worthy of all praise. It is this difficulty that obsesses hon. Gentlemen who go out to India this way, and accounts for the fairy tales with which the House is amused from India, Egypt, the Congo, and such places. But, taking the very case the hon. Member brought before the House, I cannot understand how they work themselves up into a frenzy because the Government of Bengal issued a warrant. Surely the Government of many millions of people is equal to the issuing of a warrant. The case has not yet been tried, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has showed the impropriety of dealing with the case which is still before the court. I was amused at the suggestion that because Arabindo Ghose has become religious that therefore he has washed his hands free of mundane affairs, and no longer persists in his former work. Had the hon. Member for Leicester the most elementary acquaintance with the elements of Indian conditions he would know that there is no better platform for carrying out an intrigue than the platform that Arabindo Ghose has now chosen. I do not speak positively, but I think that another Indian Sivajee, who really made something like an Indian nationality, became a religious mendicant, and I have no doubt that during that time he was as busy with his post as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester is with the letters he receives from members of Indian societies. I do not consider it proper to comment upon what was written by Arabindo Ghose for the good reasons given by the Under - Secretary for Foreign Affairs, but I say this, that Arabindo Ghose was distinguished, not
  680
  only for his literary ability, but distinguished above all things for his hostility to British rule in India, and to our fellow-countrymen, and that has been sufficient to secure for him the sympathy in certain quarters which has led some Members to espouse his cause.
  I was also astonished to hear the hon. Member for Leicester lay down so crudely that the British Government in ruling 300,000,000 people of India should itself be governed by a small band of English-educated Hindus. I have never heard that position so boldly stated, and I hope Members of the House have not failed to notice it.
  Then the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil came along, and his speech was distinguished from that of the hon. Member for Leicester by its greater inaccuracy. The hon. Member referred to the corruption of the Indian police, and the manner in which they brought cases before the courts. It must have occurred to everybody in the House, except the Member for Merthyr, that these police are natives of India, and that they are the representatives of every nationality in India. They are that part of the public service of India that is least under the control and influence of the European. They are the service above all others in India in which Europeans are rarest. If you can look anywhere in India for a mirror of what Indian administration would be without British supervision, it is to the police department of India that you must go. The whole burden of the case of some hon. Members here is that a people of whom the Indian police are very fair representatives should have the right to manage their own affairs without the slightest help or let or hindrance from us. That is the position of such hon. Members. I do not speak of the police as they do—far from it. I say that the police are fair representatives of the peoples of India, and that on the whole they are a fair and respectable force. It is very easy to come here with one or two cases against the Indian police, who are dealing with 300,000,000 people; but I say that, on the whole, the police do their work well. Lieutenant-Governors, and Inspector-Generals, and other great officials, have recorded their opinions of late in the most unequivocal terms that the Indian police have been greatly improved in honesty and efficiency. The Indian police are a fair representative of the Indian

  681
  peoples, and the Indian police are not what hon. Members of a certain type report them to be, black at heart. The police are well able to perform their functions. We are reminded that Arabindo Ghose concluded his articles with the words, "Mind, no violence." The hon. Members for Merthyr and Leicester are such ingenuous politicians that they do not see that published articles such as those of Arabindo Ghose excite uneducated youths to assassination and crime. Anybody who reads these articles will not deny that I have given a fair description of them. If hon. Members wish to know the facts about the police in India they should read the latest work upon India, written toy a distinguished French deputy and publicist, who has studied Administrations in the East. He says:—
  "Administrations in India have great cause of complaint that the highest courts set up impossible standards. They make it impossible to obtain convictions where the police bring forward clear cases such as any ordinary man would act upon, by setting up high and impossible standards which no police can be expected to attain."
  The hon. Member for Merthyr said that conferences were prohibited in Eastern Bengal. They were not prohibited, but an Act was brought into force to enable the local magistrate to prohibit that which was likely to lead to the occurrence of the breach of the peace. The resolution put before this conference was likely to lead to trouble and disorder, and it alleged that the partition of Bengal was disapproved of by all the inhabitants. This is absolutely and notoriously contrary to the whole facts of the case. I deeply deplore that it does seem that hostility to the British Government and to our fellow-countrymen in India is very much the measure of the support and sympathy which these individuals receive in certain quarters of the House of Commons. Today we have only heard the echo of what was only too familiar in the last Parliament. The hon. Member for Leicester was somewhat hurt, and rebuked me, because I said that these questions are prompted by a seatless syndicate which now happily possesses very few representatives. I repeat that all these matters are put up for consumption by the public, and I implore hon. Members who are inclined to be carried away to consider whether the peoples of India really are oppressed, and whether such comforters are likely to bring to the people of India any real comfort.

  SOMALILAND.
  I want to take the House from India to another country which was long administered by India. I think the Under-Secretary will always find that wherever the Indian Government administer a country you get good administration. I wish to deal with Somaliland. I bring this matter up to-day not by way of making complaint of what is going on, because I have confidence in the Secretary of State and his able lieutenant, and in the agent they have entrusted with the exceedingly delicate operations now going on in Somaliland. I think it is a great proof of the fitness of these officials that they have selected as their agent Sir William Manning, with whom I have the honour to be acquainted, and who is well fitted for the functions which he has to perform, I have been in communication with him about administration elsewhere, and I know how highly his services are valued. I regret the withdrawal in Somaliland from the interior to the coast. I realise that wherever British protection, however shadowy it may be, has even nominally been extended a retrograde movement is always subject to serious objection, and particularly in the East. I am as conscious as anybody of the objections to such a scheme. In this case, supposing the Government had been anxious to subjugate effectually the whole of Somaliland and to hold it with garrisons, I do not think this House of Commons would have backed them up. They would not have got any support, and they would have placed themselves in an untenable position. There would have been objections in every quarter of the House had the Government proposed to retain their position in Somaliland. This seems to me to be a very special and exceptional case, and as a member of the Diplomatic Service said to me:—
  "While we were there, we were doing the Mullah no harm, we were doing our friends no good, and we were spending a great deal of money."
  That puts the case very briefly, but it is almost an unanswerable description of what the case is. Only a night or two ago we heard it argued that millions of money should be made available immediately for divesting parents of what remains to them of parental responsibility, by feeding children at all times instead of sometimes. Such extravagant views are widely held. How then is it likely that troops will be available from Nyassaland, Uganda, and India in Somaliland for the purpose of

  683
  keeping the peace under these circumstances. The Home Secretary doubted the correctness of the position I took up, when I attributed some trouble at Aden to the Mullah's influence. But the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that I am one of those old Civil servants to whom, if he retains possession of his faculties, Aden is as familiar as Clapham Junction, and to me Somaliland is no further distant from Aden than Dover from the coast of France. We hear a good deal now about the influence of the Lords Temporal and a little of the Lords Spiritual. A Lord Spiritual in the East is greater than a Lord Temporal, and when you get a man like the Mullah, who is at once a Lord Spiritual and a Lord Temporal, you have an exceedingly influential individual, and to suppose that that man's influence is not projected across the narrow straits which separate Berbera from Aden is to underestimate the potentialities of the situation. I really attribute my right hon. Friend's statement about myself to that little impatience which the Front Bench may occasionally display when some of us pawns on the back benches are goaded into speech. I wish to impress upon the House the fact that anything that happens in Somaliland has an influence far removed from Somaliland—in the Soudan, in Nyassaland, in Uganda, across the sea in Aden, and probably even on the coast of Malabar and far beyond. It may be said, "Why raise this question now when all is going well?" I think all is going well and that the operations on which the Government have decided are turning out better than some of us may have expected, but now the House is about to rise it seems to me a desirable thing that the present condition of affairs should be stated.
  I would refer quite briefly to what happened in another place when Lord Curzon raised this question. Lord Curzon acted upon imperfect information. I am not disparaging the action of Lord Curzon, far from it; wherever Eastern affairs excite great interest the views of that eminent man must always receive the utmost respect and attention, but I do say that the Noble Lord spoke without sufficient information, and I think unintentionally he made the case appear rather more serious in the belief that already incidents had happened, which subsequent information proved did not occur. A policy of concentration and withdrawal is not peculiar to the present Government; it was pursued in respect of thi6 very Protectorate by an
  684
  Administration of the opposite colour, and at a time when the Noble Lord himself was one of its efficient agents and able spokesmen. It is desirable just to note that Lord Curzon, also I think unintentionally, rather suggested that there were more formal treaties and some engagement of a more binding character as regards the protection of the tribes in the Hinterland than is actually the case. I believe there was nothing more than an entirely informal protection, and during the time this protectorate was admirably administered from Bombay and Aden this fact was very clearly and continuously kept in view. We absolutely refused at that time to maintain local peace outside the ten-mile radius, or to preserve the tribes from raids, or to compose any inter-tribal quarrels. The real fact is that these tribes delight to bark and bite; it is their nature. They do not appreciate peace being enforced upon them, and, in point of fact, they have under that peace lost some of the manly qualities which distinguished them, and which probably they now regret they have not retained. Lord Curzon seems to me, perhaps unintentionally, to have somewhat over-estimated the extent to which a formal and regular protection was ever exercised by us in respect of the internal tribes.
  It was suggested in an able speech by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. L. Baird) and other hon. Members that a railway should be made into the interior, which would enable us to preserve our position there without the necessity of having garrisons scattered about this stony wilderness. I asked what guarantee there would be that the Mullah would remain at the end of the railway to fight any action in which we might desire to engage him, and I see "The Times" the next day referred to this as a derisory question. It was not meant by me as a derisory question; I merely recognised the obvious fact that at present it would be impossible to provide funds for a railway, like the Uganda railway, in Somaliland. It would have no sufficient commercial return, and it is doubtful whether it would attain the object in view, because, at whatever point it ended, it would be quite easy for the Mullah to be quite out of the way when the train stopped, and when orders were given for the action to begin. I cannot help regretting this concentration on the coast since it is a retrograde movement, but I realise it is probably inevitable, and I notice "The Times,"

  685
  which maintains so admirable, so consistent, and so correct an attitude upon all these Imperial and foreign problems, says:—
  "We do not suppose the public will contemplate this action with regret. From first to last, Somaliland has cost this country much money and many valuable lives."
  I see on the railway point they say:—
  "A conflict between ourselves and the Mullah would be like a fight between a lion and a swallow."
  I should rather say between a lion and a wild ass, a wild ass that is used to the wilderness, that snuffeth up the wind at his pleasure. The lion is comparatively immobile, and the Mullah is the swiftest antagonist we can have. There was nothing derisive in what I said; I was seriously dealing with the question whether a railway is practicable. I do not think it can be got, and, if it could, I do not think it would altogether attain the object which certain hon. Members think it would. I am not sure to what extent the condemnation from Mecca which is said to have been passed on the conduct of the Mullah as a religious leader has diminished his power and checked his arrogance in Somaliland. I should be glad if the Under-Secretary would say something on that subject. A good deal is taken for granted on the subject in the Blue Books. Priests, Mullahs, and others have often flourished for many years under sentences of excommunication, and I think that may be the case with the Mullah. I do not find in the books sufficient material for the attitude which is rather assumed to exist in that respect. It is very striking that this article, coming from a quarter where there are such sane, proper, and Imperialistic tendencies as in "The Times," should end by saying:—
  "No one is likely to seek to supplant us in such a worthless and inhospitable territory."
  That does not satisfy me; I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will tell us that the withdrawal to the coast and the future omission to continue to supply civil government in the hinterland do not in the least imply that it will not be within our sphere of influence, or that any other Power could under any circumstances take any act of ownership or diplomatic act or settle there without such act being regarded by ourselves as an unfriendly act. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will reassure us on that point, and I am quite 6ure the House will be anxious to be reassured upon it.
  Turning to Sir William Manning's despatches upon this subject, it seems he has issued ponies and rifles to the friendly tribes, and he does not hesitate to say they can reasonably be said to be in a position to hold their own against the Mullah. Hadegga seems, as far as I can make out to be the case, the only engagement which has happened. It was inconclusive in character, and there is not very much on one side or the other. It did not happen that the Friendlies were as sheep fighting with the wolves. I beg the attention of the House to this exceedingly interesting and suggestive passage in Sir William Manning's letter. He said:—
  "It cannot be denied that our ten years' administration of the interior has not enhanced the manly qualities of those tribes who have been most in contact with us. They have remained content to leave all questions of defence to us, and they have consequently degenerated. A little rough usage in the future will probably bring out the right spirit."
  I am not sure that that is altogether satisfactory. They have lost the habit of fighting, and now we are telling them they had better learn it again in fighting with their neighbours. I do think there is a great lesson in this. When we assume administration over territories of this sort we should not be in a hurry to interfere with the habits of the people, and if their habits are to have fights and quarrels with one another, and it has been their nature for thousands of years to do so, they should be left alone. These people have strongly the feeling which is expressed in the lines:—
  "Curst be the boasted progress that hunts our sons to school,
  That breaks the spear and blunts the sword, and bids our courage cool."
  If we were going to make babus and B.A.'s of them it would not matter, but as we do not intend to introduce the regulations and administration of high schools and of intermediate schools, we should have interfered as little as possible with these people. I think it is to be regretted that the Foreign Office should have adopted a somewhat more elaborate sort of protection and administration without first deciding what was to be the permanent policy of this country. I note that Sir William Manning, speaking of the recent engagement, said there was an armed gathering well in front of the stock while grazing amply sufficient to protect them from loot. That recalled to me the picture of the shepherd in the Caucasus, who goes about with a lamb under one arm and his gun under the other. But it also proves we should never

  687
  undertake the administration of territories like these in anything but the most informal manner, unless we have first decided that it is to be a permanent occupation. I must confess I do not think there is much truth in the reports with regard to the Friendlies and the Mullah. Sir William Manning says that a period of disorder will follow which will in no way interfere with our policy. I sincerely hope there will be no disposition in future, when anything happens in Somaliland, for questions to be asked as to where the engagement took place, and how many people were killed or how many camels were looted. That must be the result of the policy of withdrawal which has been deliberately adopted. These people will, we know, fly at one another's throats. Unless we are at some future time contemplating going back upon this last policy we must deliberately shut our eyes to all that is going to happen in the interior. If the Mullah kills a certain number of Dervishes we should say it is all in the day's work, and if the Dervishes kill the Mullah we should also say it is in the day's work, and that from our point of view it is probably the more satisfactory day's work.
  3.0 P.M.
  Mr. GEORGE SANDYS: It appears to me that particular interest attaches to this Debate on Somaliland, in view of the Report issued yesterday from our Consul-General in Egypt. Everyone knows that we succeeded to the Protectorate of Somaliland at the time we took over the administration of Egypt, and there is, therefore, a distinct historical connection between the two countries. Somaliland was one of the outlying territories administered by Ismail Pasha. It is therefore evident that the evacuation at the present juncture must necessarily cause a very unfortunate impression amongst our Mahomedan subjects in general throughout the world, and particularly in Egypt. In view of the peculiar difficulties of our position in Egypt, which are undoubtedly disclosed by the Report issued by the Consul-General, it seems to some of us, at any rate, that the time of evacuation, if evacuation was necessary, was not very wisely selected. It is only a platitude to say that we hold our position in the East not so much by the number of men we are able to put into the field as by the prestige which our flag and Govern-
  688
  ment have obtained, owing to the fact that past experience has taught the native races that they can rely upon us for protection, and that they can also rely upon us to keep our word. But by this time the course we have adopted in Somaliland, and the fact that we have evacuated the country, at any rate so far as the interior is concerned, is generally known throughout Egypt, and, as the hon. Member who has just sat down stated, it is probably also pretty generally known throughout India and the East, and this complete reversal of our traditional policy in dealing with native races, and the fact that we have abandoned the protection of native races to whom we do appear, twenty-five or more years ago, to have made certain definite promises of protection, that fact, inasmuch as it will undoubtedly be represented that the Mullah has defeated the British Army, must produce an exceedingly unfortunate impression, not only in Egypt, but also throughout the East, and it must also inflict a serious blow on that prestige by which our position is entirely maintained.
  There is another point of view which I think, at any rate, a certain number of people take, who believe that our policy with regard to Somaliland is somewhat dangerous. Somaliland itself may be, and we are told it is, practically a worthless country, but unquestionably British East Africa is a most valuable territory, and one which has the greatest possible future before it among our African possessions. The Somalis touch upon British East Africa, and we must remember that in abandoning Somaliland we are deserting a race which those who have an intimate knowledge of the country have told us is one of the finest and most intelligent of the native races in Africa. We are driving these people back from any advance which they may have made under our administration, and from any advance in civilisation to the outer darkness of barbarism. We are supplying them with arms, and at the same time encouraging them to develop their natural spirit of fighting. In the future they will realise that they have nothing to hope for from us, and the experience which they have just passed through will, perhaps, impress upon them the fact that they have very little to fear from us; and, under these circumstances, may it not be the case that they will turn their attention to British East Africa, where our military forces are comparatively insignificant.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): I should not like that statement to go out. Our forces are by no means insignificant; we have there a very formidable force, indeed, which can be collected if it is required.
  Mr. GEORGE SANDYS: At the same time I should imagine it would not be at all desirable from the point of view of those who are settled in British East Africa that there should be anything in the nature of a disturbance in that country, and such an occurrence would naturally put back the progress of the colony. In the speech which the Home Secretary made in this House during the last Debate on Somali-land on 3rd March he told us:—
  "I do not wish to say any more about the actual military position, still less would I like to say anything about the prospective movements which are of an aggressive or contractive nature. These are movements which conceivably, if they were announced or spoken of in this House, might cause real embarrassment to people on the spot who are dealing with the situation, and therefore I shall purposely deny myself the opportunity of making any clear or precise statement, to the House."
  On that occasion the Home Secretary pointed out that the Government were most anxious not to cause embarrassment to the people on the spot who were dealing with the situation, but in spite of the careful editing of this Blue Book which was recently issued—the very careful editing indeed—it is quite obvious that the opinion of those on the spot, who are dealing with the situation, does not appear to have received that consideration which we might have expected from the remarks of the Home Secretary. On page 53 of the correspondence these words are used in reference to the Commissioner of the Protectorate:—
  "I think it right to state at once that my action in inviting yon (Sir F. B. Wingate) to visit the Protectorate has not been dictated by any mistrust of the ability or judgment of the Commissioner of the Protectorate. On the contrary, Captain Cordeaux, who possesses a unique knowledge of the Somali question, has carried out for several months a most difficult and thankless task with conspicuous ability, and has pursued with absolute loyalty the policy prescribed by His Majesty's Government."
  Again, on page 71 of the correspondence, in a despatch from the Secretary of State to the Commissioner, these words are used:—
  "I have been very much impressed by your good and loyal service under exceptionally trying and difficult conditions."
  In spite of this tribute, which is on two occasions thus notably paid to the ability and unique administrative experience of the Commissioner, it is obvious from the
  690
  correspondence that this somewhat precipitate retreat to the coast which was begun last month was not a policy which was recommended by the Commissioner himself. It is also a somewhat significant fact that when this policy was decided upon, and at the most critical moment in the history of this country, this very officer who had ten years' experience of the country, and who, according to the testimony of the Government themselves, possessed a unique experience of it and its administration, should have been suddenly removed to another appointment entirely outside the Protectorate. Again, the Home Secretary, in the same Debate of 3rd March, used these words:—
  "We are endeavouring to relieve the cost and strengthen the situation, and contract the area of our responsibilities in Somaliland, and at the same time do justice to our obligations to those who, through mistaken policy on our part, have been led to rely to some extent, at any rate, upon the protection of our military forces."
  In view of what we read in this correspondence, can we conscientiously say that we have done justice to our obligations to those who have been led to rely to some extent upon the protection of our military forces? Have we reason to suppose that these tribes who have been under our protection all these years are, as a matter of fact, in a position to defend themselves and their property against attack now that our military forces are withdrawn? The internal evidence of this correspondence goes, as a matter of fact, to show that the entire opposite is the case. I do not wish to detain the House by reading all these different quotations from this correspondence, but I would refer hon. Members to pages 48, 51, and 63, and there they will find that there is evidence time after time given by the Commissioner and by the officers commanding the troops in Somali-land that, as a matter of fact, the natives are not actually in a position to look after themselves competently if our military forces are withdrawn. Especially I would draw the attention of the House to page 87 and to the report from Sir William Manning, to which reference has already been made. He says:—
  "Tribal cohesion, which in former days did exist, is now partly lost; they openly acknowledge that they look to Government to lead them, and that they have no known leader amongst themselves. They say that they have fought and can still fight, but that they want a leader. Whether this be true or not, it is certain that as in other places necessity will produce the leader, and until they suffer, as it is possible at first they will, no leader will be forthcoming…In order, however, that the Ishak may be welded together, it would appear to be necessary that they are made to suffer by being raided, and I have little doubt but that one or two such experiences will bring out the right men."

  691
  It seems to me that that is hardly the traditional way in which British Governments in the past have fulfilled their obligations to native races. We are told that they are to learn a lesson after severe suffering, but for what? Because for all the years these tribes have been loyal to us and to our administration. In any case, whether they are able to hold their own or not able to hold their own, it appears to me to be a very serious step to withdraw our protection from a country which we have to a certain extent administered for many years past, with our eyes completely open to the fact, that we are handing over this country to be administered in future by methods of barbarism. On Page 10 of the later correspondence from Sir William Manning there occurs the sentence which the hon. Member has read:—
  "As soon as the evacuation of the interior is completed it must be borne in mind that there will be a period of disorder."
  I think that is a somewhat unsatisfactory sequence to twenty-five years administration of a country under the British flag. Another point to which I should like to refer is the way an which the retirement was carried out. For twenty-five years past we have exercised a protectorate over that country, and for ten years past we have administered the interior. Therefore, under those circumstances, surely it might have been thought advisable that as long notice as possible should be given to the friendly tribes before the evacuation took place and they were actually thrown upon their own resources. So far from that being the case, it appears to have been the policy of the Government to conceal from them until the very last moment what they were actually going to do. In the Debate in the House of Lords the Secretary of State for the Colonies used these words:—
  "It was due to the tribes concerned that the first news that they should get of our withdrawal from the advanced posts should be made to them by those on the spot whom they knew and trusted, and that they should not hear it from the extremely inaccurate sources of information from which it might otherwise have reached them."
  But in spite of this talk about giving the tribes time to make their preparations, from the internal evidence of this correspondence it appears that the evacuation had actually been begun before the announcement was made. I think this is a somewhat unfortunate way in which our occupation and administration of this country was suddenly brought to an end.
  692
  Our treaties, such as they were, were torn up, and friendly tribes were without warning left to shift for themselves. Under these circumstances can we conscientiously say that the conditions laid down by the Home Secretary have been fulfilled? Does not this correspondence rather disclose a somewhat discreditable episode in the history of our Colonial Empire?
  Mr. BAIRD: I should not have troubled the House with any remarks on this subject again but for the fact that, one or two things have occurred since the evacuation of Somaliland took place, and I should like to ask the Under-Secretary for a little information. On the last occasion when this subject cropped up the Under-Secretary did me the honour to ignore my arguments altogether, and levelled a considerable amount of personal abuse at me. I cannot imagine any greater honour, because it was a clear case of "no case, abuse the plaintiff's attorney." There I leave it. I think that sums up the whole case. The Government have no case. They have scuttled out of Somaliland, and have left the tribes to shift for themselves, and they have avowedly instituted a system of disorder in a country where we have been responsible for depriving the tribes of arms and of the power of looking after themselves. In fact, we have tried to institute civil government. Now we say might is right, and it is to be a question of the survival of the fittest. When we add to that the fact that we have supplied the Somalis, who have hitherto been armed with spears, with a considerable number of rifles and ammunition—if the Under-Secretary can imagine that anything except pandemonium is going to result, I cannot agree. What are our responsibilities in that country? It is perfectly clear that it is a disagreeable incubus, but surely we cannot run the British Empire on the lines of a limited liability company. We cannot expect the whole place to pay at one time. There is the expression, Noblesse oblige. That applies. The Somali understands it. He knows we have gone in there, and treaties have been made. I should like to quote the terms of one of the treaties which was made originally with these tribes. It was quoted by Lord Lans-downe the other day:—
  "The British Government is desirous of maintaining and strengthening relations of peace and friendship with the tribes, and, in compliance with their wish, undertake to extend to them, and to the territories under their authority and jurisdiction, the gracious favour and protection of Her Majesty the Queen. Empress."

  693
  These men were pledged to keep order and to give up raiding, in view of the fact that we were going to maintain order in that country; and now we clear out. It is purely playing with words to say, as Lord Crewe did apparently in the House of Lords the other day, that there is no question of evacuation. It is merely coastal concentration. Our good friends the French had a certain experience of peaceful penetration in Morocco, and your coastal concentration is very much on all fours with this peaceful penetration. You are running away to the coast. When you arrive there, what are you doing? The last time I asked the Under-Secretary some questions he commenced his speech by a quotation from the Home Secretary, and he said I had not been here and had not paid any attention to it. However, let that pass. At present the right hon. Gentleman is attending very much to the discussion. I should like to know what the effect of this coastal concentration is. I have heard on excellent authority that the white men are collected at Berbera behind barbed wire, and that the Indian traders are outside the barbed wire. If that is the case it is very serious. If it is not, I shall be glad to know it. If that is the case, what can they think of a brave and plucky race like the Somalis, who have always looked up to Englishmen as being as plucky as themselves? What can they think of people who have to surround themselves with barbed wire and allow the natives outside to be at the mercy of the Mullah when, the chooses to come round? The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Does he mean that everyone, or no one, is behind the barbed wire?
  Colonel SEELY: No one.
  Mr. BAIRD: I think that is exceedingly foolish, because if the right hon. Gentle-man would sit down in Berbera and try to defend himself without barbed wire against people well armed like the Mullah—
  Colonel SEELY: Where does the hon. Member think the Mullah is? I think he has got hold of a very extraordinary apprehension.
  Mr. BAIRD: That is precisely one of the questions I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman. He is paid to know where the Mullah is, and I hope he is going to tell us. The Mullah, I suppose, is in Somali-land, or has he made a trip across to Aden? In the meanwhile there is no doubt that the Mullah has come out on top, and that sooner or later there will be a dispute as
  694
  to whether he is to be the chief man in Somaliland or whether the British Government is to be supreme. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman really thinks he can exercise civil government in Somaliland. Anything more fatal than to paint a country red on a map and say it is British territory, and then not to exercise government you cannot have. It is one of the most damaging blows to prestige which it is possible to imagine. You let the people say they are British subjects, and you allow them to be harried and chivied about by their neighbours, and that all reacts on the British name, and the consequence is that either you abandon the country altogether or else you exercise real and effective government. The whole of this policy, of course, is on its trial. When the rain is falling in Somaliland and people can get easily about the country, if raiding has not taken place and the lion and the lamb lie down together, and they let their rifles get rusty and do not fire off the cartridges which the right hon. Gentleman has given them, he will be able to score a success. He will have strengthened enormously the case of his friends the Little Englanders. Not being a Little Englander, I entirely deprecate the idea that we ought to give up anything at all unless we are compelled by force majeure. What was the whole reason for withdrawal? It was financial. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman will question that.
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, I do.
  Mr. BAIRD: May I refer to a statement which was made in the old Blue Book?
  "The cost of transport required to maintain the troops in the present position was so great that His Majesty's Government must reconsider the whole question of their policy in Somaliland."
  Now we have the Government coming down to the House and boasting that they have a surplus of nearly £3,000,000 which they do not know what to do with—money which can be spent in the way the House of Commons decide. We know that the Government will decide how it is to be spent, and they will come down to the House and we shall have to register their decision. Why should they have chosen the moment when they have this large surplus to withdraw from Somaliland, and to hand over the troops to the Mullah?
  There is a very much more serious aspect of this question than any local things connected with it, and that is that the whole of our position in North-East Africa is involved. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Under-

  695
  Secretary has ever been in those parts— the Soudan, Abyssinia, Somaliland, or any of the other portions in that region. We know that the "white man's burden" is a very real thing. We have assumed that burden and borne it with advantage to the tribes under our rule. Every time we have destroyed existing organisations in those countries we have taken over the countries. If you clear out after that, you leave nothing in its place, although you have destroyed their organisations. You go away and leave them to fight among themselves. Are we who are telling others how we bear the white man's burden to take that line? What is the position we will be in then if we attempt to interfere in the Congo? We are going to have a far worse state of things in Somaliland than in the Congo, and hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House will be entirely responsible for it. If we confine ourselves to the coast towns, and if arms get into the hands of the tribes, you will be driven out of the country. Hon Gentlemen opposite say that this country is going to be all right. In his speech on the last occasion when this subject was discussed, the Under-Secretary said it was perhaps conceivable that Lord Morley, Lord Crewe, the Foreign Secretary (Sir Edward Grey), and the Secretary for War (Mr. Haldane) had been in conference with him, and they might be assumed to have some glimmering of how to maintain British prestige. I sincerely hope that they have, but there is nothing whatever to show that they have remembered the requirements of British prestige or the interests of subject races. If you look at the state of the two countries, for which Lord Morley and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs are responsible, I should say that they are the last two men whose opinion is worth anything in regard to Somaliland. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite say that the present condition of India and Egypt is not incomparably worse now than when the administration of affairs was taken over by the present Government. Does anyone deny it? [HON. MEMBEES: "Yes."] Do hon. Gentlemen maintain that Egypt is in as good a condition now as when the control of the country was handed over to the present Foreign Secretary? You cannot maintain that the position of India is as good now as when Lord Morley took it over from his predecessor. [An HON. MEMBER: "Egypt is not controlled by the Foreign
  696
  Secretary."] I should like to know who 's responsible for the government of Egypt if he is not. The British Government are responsible for the maintenance of order there.
  Sir WALTER MENZIES: There were forces—
  Mr. SPEAKER: If every question were to be answered in this way the House would be a regular— Well, I do not know what it would be. If the hon. Member wishes to reply, I shall have pleasure in calling upon him.
  Mr. BAIRD: I should like to have an answer to the questions I have asked, and I hope the Under-Secretary will reply. I maintain that both of these countries are in a deplorable condition, and to ask the men who are responsible for that deplorable condition to settle the affairs of Somaliland is a very foolish thing to do. I do not know that these Gentlemen have a glimmering of the way we should maintain British prestige. I do not consider it is enough, when dealing with men, women, and children, for whose safety we have made ourselves responsible, that our Government should act as they are doing. It is a question of humanity, and not a question of policy. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give me credit for sincerity when I say that I should have taken the same course I am now taking if this policy had been pursued by Gentlemen on this side of the House. I do not look upon this as a party question. I believe that right hon. Gentlemen opposite think their present policy is only a continuation of the policy of their predecessors. I think that is no reason whatever for following that policy. Two wrongs do not make a right. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are not so modest as to think that they cannot improve on the policy of their predecessors. On the contrary, I have always been led to suppose that they are very much cleverer, and that if they saw the other side carrying out a wrong policy, it was their duty to endeavour to change that policy with the view to carrying out the right one. If it is not the intention of the Government to evacuate Somaliland, why not say so? What is the position of the people on the coast at the present time? Are they properly secured against attack? Are there proper fortifications? My information is that part of the people are inside fortifications.
  Captain BARING: I should like from practical experience to make one or two criticisms of the policy of the Government, and to ask one or two questions. Two years ago there was an outbreak of hostility on the part of the Mullah in Somali-land. The matter was brought to the notice of the Government, and they were asked to formulate a policy, but they have absolutely refused up to a month ago to formulate any policy whatsoever. There were only two policies put forward by the military gentleman who was regarded as the greatest authority on the subject in Somaliland—one was to attack the Mullah and one was to withdraw altogether. The Government have been two years trying to make up their mind to do one thing or another, and in spite of continued questions they refused to step forward, and they refused to go back. Finally, in order to save their faces, they called in Sir Reginald Wingate from the Soudan to give his verdict. I should like to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman why the Report of Sir R. Wingate to the Government has never been made public? I would surmise that that Report does not agree with the intentions which the Government had already formed, and that therefore the expedition of Sir Reginald Wingate, and the money, which amounted to a very considerable sum, spent in sending him and his distinguished staff, was absolutely thrown away.
  During the last two years we had Supplementary Estimates of very considerable magnitude. Last year they amounted very nearly to £100,000. All of them were due to the halting state of indecision which the Government have adopted towards Somaliland. I am not one of those in favour of an expedition against the Mullah. I think there is a medium between an expedition and an absolute scuttle, which is what the Government have done. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to give us a full description of what the situation is to-day. When I was in Africa there was a fort erected, and then everybody was ordered by the Government to retreat. There the fort still stands, a stockade surrounded by barbed wire, and it is known as Fort Funk. I should like myself to have a retreat not of such an extended description as that. I believe that if the Government had held certain posts, from which you could to a certain extent have influence over tribal matters, our hold in Somaliland would be more satisfactory than it is
  698
  to-day. It seems to me that we now occupy the otium cum dignitate in Berbera simply by fomenting disputes between the tribes themselves. That is not a very dignified position for the British Government to occupy. How long does the Government think that that situation is going to remain? The Mullah, if he thought well, might say, "Why should we quarrel? Why should we not unite our forces, and with the rifles with which the Secretary for the Colonies has provided us, and with the ammunition which he has told us today he is prepared to give, make it exceedingly uncomfortable for the gentleman now at Berbera?" I hope that this exceedingly probable situation has been faced by His Majesty's Government, and that they will have sufficient forces on the spot to reassert their authority if subsequent occasion arises.
  One other point has been mentioned— as to British prestige. I do not know that I take quite as serious a view of that as did the hon. Member who referred to it, because the situation in Somaliland is not one that is in the least likely to extend out of British East Africa, for this reason, that the Somalis themselves, though they are a fine race in their own country, are some of the most disliked and most unpractical people to get on with among the other African nations; and, therefore, I do not think there is any danger in the suggestion of the Mullah trying to do harm to British prestige by casting discredit upon it among tribes further South. On the Juba River, which is the southern boundary of Somaliland, where there is almost a section of Somali-lake, and where we live on a very small balance of safety, and have got a very few troops, it is quite possible that the Mullah's influence, or the arms of the right hon. Gentleman, might sooner or later find their way down there, and we might then have a situation of some seriousness arising. The Juba River, I may point out, as the boundary, is a great natural defence, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to see, not by the establishment of another Fort Funk, but by showing a bold front to the Somalis, who are not a very warlike tribe at Juba, that he will insure that there is no such danger, and insure that the East African Protectorate may be effective. We have not had many opportunities of broaching this subject in the House, and we are not likely to have another one for, some time, and I do appeal to my right hon. Friend not to shield

  699
  himself behind the question of any serious military necessity, or such things as that, which preclude him from answering the criticism of those that have spoken, because he knows, as we all know, that Somaliland, the Mullah, and all the rest of it is a very tinpot affair. The Mullah is a very small man, and if we chose to beat him we could have done so. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will on this occasion give us full, frank details of all that has taken place and of all that is going to take place as far as His Majesty's Government is concerned.
  Mr. WILLIAM PEEL: I would like to ask the Under-Secretary of State a question in connection with one that has already been asked by my hon. Friend below me. He said, and I rather agree with him, that all sorts of euphemisms have been used, such as "We are not going to evacuate, but we are going to concentrate on the coast. We are going to leave the hinterland of Somaliland alone." One is inclined to ask, Is there very much difference or is there not between that and the policy of evacuation? Of course, that depends upon what you are going to do, and on whether you are going to keep a force at Berbera. If you are going to remain in the country at all it is vary difficult, when there is a set of obligations, to get out of those obligations. If you were going away altogether then the case would be different, but you art going to retain your hold on the country, although you are going to evacuate the interior of it. Obviously, if any difficulty arises in future it is not likely you will retain the confidence of the tribes you are now going to desert. Hon. Members have referred to the question of why we went to Somaliland, and as to whether the reasons which took us there have ceased or not. I do not think there is any ground why that should not be mentioned, because it has been referred to in another place by Lord Lansdowne, who is a monument of discretion. He said that twenty-five years ago it was not a question of getting beef or mutton to supply England; it was that we could not afford at that time to let anybody go into that country except ourselves. The second point is that when you go into that country you must have some delimitation of frontier, or, if you go there without a delimitation of frontier you cannot complain if any other country steps in which wishes to exercise a protectorate. Have the reasons
  700
  which took us to Somaliland twenty-five years ago disappeared or have they not disappeared? That, after all, is the principal question from our point of view. If there be no question of that kind then really it resolves itself very largely into the financial question as to whether or not you should have an expedition against the Mullah. I am bound to say I was surprised to hear the Under-Secretary say that the financial question was not the point. I was under the impression it was. I do not altogether follow the reasoning that after you have spent two or three millions on the country you are now about to go. I should have thought that was a reason for staying, having spent so much money. It is a very odd thing that, when the Mullah was supposed to be dangerous then you were desirous of going away because you did not wish to send an expedition, and that now you are going away under totally different circumstances. By the report it appears that the Mullah is not dangerous, that he has had a severe snub, that his forces are split up, and that he is not able to get a combination of Dervishes, as he could two or three years ago.
  I read a letter in the "Spectator" which said that the Mullah is no longer dangerous, because he is an old man. I do not agree with that, for I think some old men are much more dangerous than young men. Still, the Government are anxious to go. Whether the Mullah be dangerous or not dangerous, their position is exactly the same. The real question is, if you have entered into obligations, are you breaking those obligations, or are you not? I quite admit if you enter into solemn obligations with other people you can get out of them if you are let off by the other side. Certainly, however, on reading through the Blue Book, I do not see any evidence myself that there was careful consultation with the tribes, or the leaders of the tribes, as to whether they did, or did not, wish us to give up our obligations to them. The hon. Member opposite, who speaks with knowledge on these matters, seems rather to think that the tribes wanted us to go away because they like the amusement of a tribal fight, and so long as we were there we stopped the entertainment which went on in the country. The first question is, that if the obligations we are under are going to be broken, are the tribes with whom we entered into those solemn obligations ready that we should go. I certainly find no evidence of it. I find, on the other hand, the greatest anxiety throughout the

  701
  Blue Book on the part of the Secretary to the Colonies, showing that if we do go circumstances might arise which would cause disturbance in that country. On page 54 of the latest Blue Book there is rather an important passage, showing that the fear of disturbance among those tribes was very present indeed to the mind of the Secretary of State. At one time there was an idea that the Mullah might be subsidised. I do not know why that fell through, or whether it was that the Mullah was one of the kind of people who cannot be bought. The Blue Book says:—
  "We should be able largely to reduce our garrison and decrease expenditure without that loss of prestige, and those disasters to our friendly tribes which might follow any great reduction of our armed strength in the absence of such arrangements."
  This shows perfectly clearly that those dangers which have been prophesied by my hon. Friends on this side of the House were fully recognised by the Secretary of State. Then we are told further on that the Secretary of State showed a great desire and anxiety that those tribes might be armed in order that they might be able to defend themselves in our absence, but we find evidence that they were not in a position to do so. Indeed, the hon. Member opposite admitted that the tribes, owing to twenty-five years of our rule, have lost many of their manly and warlike qualities. Throughout this Blue Book, in many places, you see statements made that the tribes in our absence will not be able to take proper care of themselves. It is all very well to say for the moment that the Mullah may be weak, that his forces are split into three or four different bodies, and that he does not command a following, but you cannot get rid of your responsibilities during the last twenty-five years merely on the ground that at the present time the Mullah is supposed to be weak and his forces split up. Our responsibilities still continue. If the tribes are in future harried or worried by the Mullah, or by a fresh Mullah, the responsibility for that must rest upon us, because for twenty-five years we have exercised some sort of protectorate or control over this country. We have, to some extent, induced a great many of the inhabitants to become more peaceful, and we shall be responsible for any sort of damage that comes to those tribes, if the Mullah regains his strength and is able to inflict upon them punishment. These really are the two points on which I wish for information. What evidence has the Under-Secretary of State for knowing that these
  702
  tribes are ready that we should withdraw from them our protection? Has he really any reason to suppose that if we do go away in this very short space of time the tribes will be able to put themselves into a proper position of defence? The hon. Member opposite, I think, said that the Government were only following out in this particular matter the policy of their predecessors. I think there were great differences in the position. I happened to look up the particular policy of the previous Government in that respect. First of all an officer, General Swayne, was sent out to take charge of the organisation of the tribes to protect themselves, and a force of Regulars was to be kept at Berbera. So that there are obligations towards tribes, recognised by the late Government in a way in which I think the present Government has not recognised their obligations. It is all a question of time. After all, in a certain time you might be able to organise those tribes to be able to defend themselves. That cannot be done in a hurry. We see from the rather cynical remarks of a military authority that he seems to think there will be a period of disturbance, and that out of that tribulation the tribes may be in a position to defend themselves. The Government seem to accept that position—the somewhat cynical position as I think—and we are going to leave those people, whom we protected for twenty-five years, and through our action have been unable to put themselves in a position of defence, to be raided and harried, and after they acquire a certain amount of experience in war they are to be deserted by the British Government because they are able to defend themselves.
  Colonel SEELY: I will endeavour to make a statement to the House on the present position of Somaliland. I welcome the opportunity of so doing, and the House has the right to know how matters stand. Before dealing with the various questions put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomery Boroughs (Mr. Rees) and hon. Gentlemen opposite in a most reasonable spirit, if I may say so, I should like to refer to what fell from the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Baird), who thought fit in the course of the Debate to attack my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend Lord Morley over the state in which various portions of the Empire, which are under their immediate control, are now in. He asked the House to believe that whatever was wrong

  703
  was due to their laxity of administration, to their vacillation, and to their misdoings. I think it is unusual to deliver these attacks upon Ministers without any notice, but I congratulate the hon. Gentleman upon the wise discretion he has shown in carefully reserving his attack to the moment when he knew the Foreign Secretary could not reply himself. I think he was very wise. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has got the confidence of this House, not on this side alone, but on the other, too, and were he in his place, as he would have been had he known that this bitter attack was to be made on his general administration, I have little doubt that the answer he would have given in this House would have satisfied the hon. Gentleman that he was very ill-advised to attack a man who holds such a high position and, in the estimation of persons on both sides, has in their judgment done more to maintain and raise the honour and dignity of the great office than almost anyone of his great predecessors.
  Mr. BAIRD: The right hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting what I said. I did not attack—[HON. MEMBEHS: "Oh, oh."]—the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his general administration at all, but on the specific question of Egypt. I would do that whether he was in the House or not. It was simply in connection with those gentlemen being referred to as authorities on Oriental matters, and I said that on Oriental matters they had not been successful in their administration.
  Colonel SEELY: The hon. Gentleman delivered what cannot be described as other than a bitter attack—and when he reads his words to-morrow I trust, perhaps, he may think it wise to correct them—as other than a bitter attack upon the Foreign Secretary.
  Mr. BAIRD: About Egypt.
  Colonel SEELY: If he reads it he will see it was properly described as a bitter attack on the conduct of the Foreign Office and of the Foreign Secretary. I deny that there is a word of truth in it. I again say the hon. Gentleman has one quality, that of a wise discretion in waiting until the Foreign Secretary is well out of the way. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why is he not here?"] The hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that the Foreign Secretary would have been here if he had received notice that foreign questions would be
  704
  raised to-day. Indeed, the specific notice had been given that foreign questions would not be raised. I do not wish, however, to pursue that matter further. It is my duty and my privilege to defend my colleagues when they are attacked, and when for various reasons it is well known that a colleague cannot be in his place to reply for himself. I am glad to state the general policy as to Somaliland. First of all, I wish to emphasise that the policy we are adopting is the agreed policy of all parties in this House so far as you can judge from the official information which I have at my disposal.
  Mr. PEEL: Lord Lansdowne denied it.
  4.0 P.M.
  Colonel SEELY: I was coming to that. The hon. Gentleman, I understand, quoted from the instructions to General Swayne, and the instructions to General Swayne, which I have here have been in almost every particular in the most curious fashion identical with the instructions which we have given and which we have carried out, as the hon. Gentleman showed in the course of his speech. The policy is so soon as you can be reasonably sure that the troops of the interior are in a position to protect themselves that you should confine your hold upon Somaliland to the coast, and that you should hold the coast with troops in adequate strength, and that beyond the practical limits of your own coastal control that you should not attempt to set up a political administration in Somaliland. That was the policy of the late Government as has been stated in this House, but never so clearly stated as by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. Peel). Of course, we all know that is the case, and that is no doubt the reason why, as I understand, no official leader of the Opposition wished to call our policy in question at the present time. That is proved by the fact that not one of them is here on the very sensible ground that it remained to be seen whether we were right or wise in adopting this particular agreed policy at the present time, or whether we were justified in doing so I hope the House will understand that I wish to do what I was asked to do by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Captain Baring), and that is to take the House completely into my confidence so far as I have information; for there is nothing to conceal in the matter—nothing whatever. We cannot claim to be carrying out a great action of Liberal policy

  705
  for which we wish to claim credit, because it was the adopted policy of our predecessors. Nor, on the other hand, can the Opposition attack our policy with any prospect of success so long as it can be proved that we have fulfilled the conditions they thought wise to lay down, and which we frankly confess we also laid down.
  There were really two policies, and, if I may, I will define the policy of His' Majesty's late advisers, because it is a matter of agreed policy. There are only two possible courses in Somaliland, or, at least, so it seems to me, and with one very brilliant exception there is hardly a I military man who will not agree with the statement. Either you must effectively I occupy the country, for which purpose you must smash the Mullah's forces, capture him, and then build a railway, or else you must occupy the coast towns, where you are safe from all possibility of disaster, and where you can still maintain what you undertook to maintain when you went to the country. It is quite true that Captain Cordeaux took the view that it was possible to continue what he described as the hinterland policy, holding small posts in the interior with only a small connecting link, and holding a small place with a small garrison of 200 men at Hargeisa. I wish to say that Captain Cordeaux did wonderful work in maintaining the position there all these past years. The very fact that the policy was so difficult, and in our judgment could not continue with any prospect of ultimate success, is the measure of the credit due to Captain Cordeaux. If ever there was a man who for several years was engaged in making bricks without straw—and making very good bricks, too—it was Captain Cordeaux. Neither party in the State were prepared to provide Captain Cordeaux with another garrison or another political administration. Neither party would dream of incurring the great expense that that would involve. Amongst other things, what useful purpose would it have served? The Somalis did not want it, and it would not have added in any way to the strength of the British Empire. Consequently, with the few troops that could be spared, he held on, partly by military skill, partly by diplomatic skill, by rare courage, and by rare good humour, under difficult circumstances, to these isolated posts. May I again describe to the House the position, for it has a bearing on the question which has been asked as to what is the position to-day?
  706
  Berbera is the coast town which we have all along held since 1886, and which we shall continue to hold. We have every intention of continuing to hold Berbera, Bulhar, and Zeila. That is our avowed policy. Berbera is the coast town that we have held, and 140 miles from Berbera there is a little place called Burao. Lord Curzon, in another place, in a speech which we may fairly say bristled with inaccu racies, which is not surprising, seeing that it was based upon a most silly bazaar rumour, to which no sensible man would have given a moment's credence—[An HoN. MEMBER: "Have you given Lord Curzon notice?"] Yes, I have made the statement before in precisely the same words when the hon. Member was not in his place. Burao has been described to me by an officer who has spent more time there than probably any other. You have a dry river bed; on one side there is a little fort, and round about it a few mud huts. About 300 yards further on there is a bazaar, composed entirely of mats spread on poles, plastered together with mud, and by lapse of time they have become quite substantial structures by the addition of layers of mud. This little unimportant place is the place where we have had at varying times different forces, but as a rule between 200 and 300 men—140 miles from the coast. I ask any hon. Member, who takes an interest in military strategic questions, is it a wise plan for a country which depends so much upon prestige as we of necessity do, to have 200 or 300 men, 140 miles from the sea, all alone in the midst of the people of Somaliland, who at any moment might, though I do not think they will, adopt a hostile attitude? It is not as though all this were a matter of conjecture. As a matter of fact, the very thing I have indicated did take place a year and a half ago, when the Secretary of State, was away, and all responsibility for the action fell on myself. The Mullah, with extraordinary rapidity, gathered together a very large force, estimated at one time to number 30,000 or 40,000 men, and moved towards Burao. To have evacuated Burao in the face of the hostile power of the Mullah would, I think, have caused us great damage. We, therefore, took the steps of reinforcing Burao with a very large number of troops drawn from wherever we could get them.
  The House will remember that we brought some of them in a foreign ship, because we could not wait the short time which would have elapsed before a British ship came.

  707
  But is that a wise position for a country to hold that has a prestige to consider? No, Sir, it is not. Captain Cordeaux had such skill in this matter that he managed to hold on without reinforcements for a long time. But a time came, August of 1908, when he, even with his great skill and diplomacy, could not hold out any longer, and we had to reinforce him with between 2,000 and 3,000 troops. We could not keep those troops there. They were wanted back in East Africa, Nyassaland, India, and at Aden. So the troops had to be sent back as soon as the Mullah and his following had dispersed. What then happened? Just at an opportune moment the Mullah was excommunicated. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Montgomery Boroughs (Mr. Rees) that excommunication has no terrors for priests of most denominations. It has had very many and lamentable results on many of them, and it certainly had a disastrous effect upon the Mullah. He is no longer the acknowledged leader of the great religious body. He is, on the other hand, a robber chieftain with a considerable knowledge of military tactics.
  Mr. REES: Was there any proof that the excommunication proceeded from an authoritative source?
  Colonel SEELY: Oh, yes, it appears to have been published. It was a very definite letter that was sent to the Mullah. It was sent from Mecca and from responsible authority. It was an excommunication of a most violent character, and the Mullah resented the presentation of it in characteristic and summary fashion. It was the knowledge of it that made me suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Mayo not to go and spend a week end with the Mullah. That letter not only greatly damaged the prestige of the Mullah, but altered the whole situation in Somaliland. At the present moment there can be no question that the Mullah's powers are waning. Lord Curzon, I notice, in his speech quotes his belief that the Mullah is not the man he was in 1903–4, and that his policy does not contemplate an invasion of our Protectorate. That, no doubt, is the case. That is the very fact for which the late Government were waiting, in order to enable them to carry out their policy, and that is now used as an argument against our carrying out that policy now. The fact of the matter is that it
  708
  would not do for British prestige for us to run away from a victorious Mullah; but now that he is as he is it is proper for the House of Commons and the country as a whole to recommend the plan of withdrawing from these isolated posts as soon as you can do so, without the fear of anyone, with a few exceptions, saying that we are doing that from any fear of the Mullah.
  Mr. PEEL: The right hon. Gentleman says that there is a garrison to be left at Berbera. Supposing the neighbouring friendly tribes are raided in the future by the Mullah, is the garrison to stand by and do nothing at all?
  Colonel SEELY: I must not tell the hon. Gentleman to "wait and see." He will know what I mean when I say that one cannot say what action the Government will take if any emergency should arise. I wish to explain fully to the House how the matter stands. I will endeavour to answer all the questions put to me, but I do not want to open up fresh matter. But I can say that the policy of the, Government is to do their best to maintain the friendly tribes who have supported us free from the hostility of the Mullah. I think that the House now understands that it was an agreed policy to retire from the coast so soon as you could do so without loss of prestige, and that was as soon as the Mullah was in a sufficiently weak position that no one would suppose that we had retired in haste. The late Government came to that conclusion. It was believed that the power of the Mullah was broken, and in the opinion of His Majesty's Government the denunciations of the Mullah from Mecca, and tribal arrangements which were hostile to him, made the powers of the Mullah as bad, if not worse, than it is to-day. Therefore, in true pursuance of continuity of policy, now is the time to effect a withdrawal, to which all parties are agreed, except some soldiers, such as the military correspondent of "The Times." They have all agreed that this was the proper course to pursue. I believe that "The Times" itself agrees, although their military correspondent does not. I must say a word as to the alternative. We could not undertake a great military expedition against the Mullah, with any prospect of support, such as suggested. It was suggested by the military correspondent of "The Times" that at a less cost than three-quarters of a million of money it would have been possible to smash the

  709
  Mullah, and possibly catch him. My advisers do not tell me that; but, in any case, it would have been necessary to secure the co-operation of Italy, and that there should be no hostility on the part of Abyssinia. It would be a most difficult undertaking, but if it was necessary for this country's honour and prestige, of course we would not hesitate; but do not let the House delude itself with the idea that it would have been done easily with 4,000 men and three-quarters of a million.
  The late Government spent many millions, and the Mullah was not caught. His mother-in-law was caught, but it is understood that the Mullah did not mind that. If the late Government could not effect that with so great an expenditure of money and men, I do not think that we can claim to be so much cleverer or likely to be more successful. Therefore I think we are bound to dismiss the idea that a great military expedition would not be necessary. I know that the House would not have agreed to such an expenditure of money, nor would hon. Members opposite agree to it, in order to establish a protectorate over this whole vast area of barren land, which would do nothing to enhance the prestige of this Empire, but which, after that great expenditure of men and money, might have still left the Mullah in the position in which he is, and might have involved us in still further expenditure.
  Now, what happened? And has the moment been well chosen? I submit to hon. Members that that is the real question before us. Was the retirement well carried out, and was the proper moment chosen to retire to the coast? I telegraphed to General Manning last Saturday to give me the fullest information additional to what he had sent, which has been published in the Blue Book, and he was good enough to send me a very full reply. I cannot read it to the House because it contains some military details as to the position of the friendly tribes which I could not possibly give without embarrassing their chances of success, but I will state to the House broadly how the matter stands so far as I have been able to ascertain at the moment. First of all, Are the people of Berbera living in barbed-wire entanglements? The place has been fortified undoubtedly, but living in barbed-wire entanglements means sheltering behind barbed wires, and that is a most fantastical idea. Let me explain the position. The Mullah is known to be 400 miles from Berbera in a straight line. That is a
  710
  long way off, and he has a very small following with him. With regard to the tribes, it will be remembered that there was a battle fought at Hadegga, and a report came from Aden that 800 were killed and that the natives were fleeing to the coast. It was upon that telegram that a great part of the speech in another place was made. I took exception to that as being likely to damage our prestige. That was a complete mistake. The place where this fight took place, which was quite inconclusive, and which resulted in quite as much loss to the Dervishes as to the Friendlies, is a place 280 miles from Berbera. Will the House believe that this violent attack delivered upon us resulted from an action which took place 140 miles beyond our furthest advanced post?
  Mr. BAIRD: That is only a three days' journey.
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think the journey could be done in that time.
  Mr. BAIRD: Yes, a Somali can do 140 miles in three days easily.
  Colonel SEELY: In the fight I have alluded to the Friendlies ran short of ammunition, but, fortunately, the Mullah's men ran short too, and about an equal number were killed on both sides. The Friendlies have been reinforced, and for the moment there appears to be a balance of forces. The Mullah is 410 miles away, and the friendly troops are 280 miles from Berbera, and therefore I think we may dispel the idea of the Friendlies and Berbera being involved. Of course, anything may happen. I do not pretend that we are absolutely safe wherever we are; but I say we are a great deal safer now, and our prestige is safer, and the honour of this Empire is much safer when we have adopted the avowed policy of both parties to maintain our position at the coast. So much for the position of the Friendlies and the Mullah.
  The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Peel) has asked me some questions about the treaties made with the tribes. In 1886 we made a treaty with six of these tribes, but most of them have no treaties at all. Two of the tribes had to promise that they would not enter into relations with other foreign Powers, but we did not promise anything in return. In the case of four the gracious favour and protection of Her Majesty was promised, which is the usual form, but no protection was, or could be, given because we remained upon the coast.

  711
  I may be asked why we entered into these arrangements. I think we had very good reasons for doing so, and I will tell the House. One case was that of the Warsangli tribe on the east coast of Berbera. The Warsangli tribe has shown a great lack of appreciation of our promise of gracious favour and protection, in fact the only form of the protection we have been able to give them is an occasional bombardment of their coast towns. Again, if you are going to give gracious favour and protection to one tribe, you have to bombard and kill the others, because, although the fighting is not of a severe character, there are inter-tribal disputes in which a good deal of ammunition is fired off in Somaliland most of the time. There have been these disputes from the earliest times, and I presume there will be so long as tribes exist in that part of the world. We have, we believe, done our very best to fulfil our engagement by putting the Friendlies in a position to defend themselves, but the very people with whom we have made treaties are not always very much concerned with them. The people in the province of Warsangli do not like our protection. In fact it is not a very safe place to go to at any time, and probably not now. With regard to the others who have our gracious favour and protection, Habr-Toljaala, Habr-Gerhajis, and Habr-Awal, they are all behind the lines which the Friendlies now hold. There are few who take part in this combination which is now concentrated on the Mullah's force 140 miles from Burao. I think the House may rest assured there is no breach of obligation. I do not think the late Government would have taken the action they did if there was likely to be any breach of obligation to the friendly tribes, and I can assure the House we have no intention of evading our obligations. What we want is to do what is right in the best interests of the Empire.
  One hon. Gentleman opposite asked me whether we did it on the ground of expense, and I said, "No, that was only one of the many reasons, and it was the least forcible." It was quite true the alternative policy would have involved great expense, and we rejected it largely on that ground; but the actual holding of Berbera or Burao with 300 men does not make very much difference in cost. It was not an affair of expense, it was an affair of military necessity and of military advan-
  712
  tage, and a question of the prestige of this country. I understand from Sir William Manning that the operation of the retirement itself went on without any untoward circumstances of any kind. I can assure the House from all the information which has come to us, that the conduct of the few European officers who were there, and of the native troops as well during the retirement which took place during the most remarkable storm of rain which has ever afflicted Somaliland, itself reflected the greatest credit on all concerned. It is always a difficult thing to conduct a retirement, even if, as in this case, there is no enemy pressing upon one from the rear. But everything was done in order without undue haste or undue delay. There seems to have been no loss of stores or ammunition other than that which was decided upon beforehand, and I think I can assure the House that the actual business of retirement was well and carefully carried out by Sir William Manning. I do not remember that any other special point has been raised in regard to the general question. The hon. Member for Winchester wanted to know how this would affect the Juba River. It is a very long way from Berber and from the places where these Friendlies are to the Juba River. We did take into consideration these and other questions. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of State for War, the Secretary of State for India, the First Lord of the Admiralty and other Ministers sat on a Committee for many anxious days deliberating this question with the sole desire of doing what was best in the interests of the Empire— not to save money, but to safeguard the interests of the Empire. They had to consider what would be the effect on our prestige in Egypt, India and the East, and the conclusion they unanimously came to was that the best course to pursue was the course which we have adopted. I trust it may turn out we were right. So far it has turned out right, because, for five weeks I the country has been more quiet than for many long months, and the Friendlies are beginning to learn that if they want to protect themselves against the Mullah they must set to work to do it themselves. The prophecy of Colonel Manning has so far proved true. I hope and believe it may continue to be justified by events One cannot be sure, of course, on that point, but I believe there is no reason to anticipate any serious uprising in Somaliland. The British

  713
  Empire is full of danger spots, and he would be a rash man who predicted that in any one place in our dominions in the East we could rely upon perfect quiet for any very long time. I do not believe that Somaliland is one of those danger spots. We have heard from no one in that country the kind of wild language indulged in by two persons in this country about our loss of prestige. People from Somali-land have taken the withdrawal as an ordinary business of military arrangements. They have seen it was the same kind of manœuvre as was carried out at Aden when we withdrew from the interior to the coast. They realise it is the same policy which prevails throughout that region. Even in the case of Northern Somaliland Italy has held to the coast only; they have their ships there, and exercise, of course, great control over the coast.
  Captain GUY BARING: They were kicked out of Abyssinia.
  Colonel SEELY: That is an ungenerous thing to say of a friendly nation. I have nothing further to add except that we will do our best to see that the honour and prestige of the Empire is maintained, and I shall always be willing to give the fullest information to the House on this most difficult matter on which we have so long been engaged.
  Sir CLEMENT HILL: If I remember aright, the last Government only thought withdrawal desirable, if possible or feasible, without loss of prestige, yet when they gave these instructions to Colonel Swayne they did so in the idea that certain British officers should be left behind to see that after the withdrawal no suffering was caused to the tribe, and that the tribes had arms over which proper control was exercised, so that at certain periods of the year they should either give a list of those arms or return the to the custody of the British officers. Therefore, it was not an unconditional retreat from the place that was embodied in the general idea of the policy of the late Government. We all feel that the position in Somaliland to-day is a difficult one; it has always been very awkward, and we may sometimes have made treaties with the tribes which under other circumstances we should not have desired to make. There is no doubt that in 1884–85 we did incur certain obligations, but I am bound to say that my recollection of the operations that
  714
  subsequently took place was that they were intended to protect the tribes against hostile interference from without, and this Mullah was looked upon as such a hostile individual, not as one of those who merely indulge in tribal fighting for the pleasure of fighting, as some tribes undoubtedly do. He was one of those persons against whom it was proposed to protect our tribes in just the same way as the Abyssinians. Beyond the reasons for looking with some doubt upon the policy of the Government, which have been already very well stated by the Gentlemen who have already spoken, I do not propose to enter into this question. I only rise in the absence of any gentleman on the front Opposition bench for the purpose of entering a caveat against certain statements made on behalf of the Government, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman has a little exaggerated the position when he says that the policy they are now pursuing is exactly the policy of the late Government.
  Colonel SEELY: I do not want in a non-controversial Debate, which this has become, to take any advantage of the absence of any right hon. Gentleman from the Front Bench opposite, but I can assure the House that what I have said is true as to the general policy. I will show the hon. Gentleman the instructions which were given, and I think he will see that they are in effect the same. I say they are identical, but I do not wish to say any more. I do not wish to make out a case.

  WAR OFFICE EMPLOYÆs.
  Mr. NEWMAN: I wish to deal with the dissatisfaction and unrest which at the present moment prevail in the Government factories at Waltham Abbey and Enfield, in my Division; but before I come to my general remarks I should like to say one word by way of personal explanation. A short while ago an hon. Member for Devonport was asking some question relevant to the dockyard there, and he was met by hon. Members opposite with the cry of "log rolling." In other words, it was said that hon. Members like that hon. Member and myself who represent constituencies in which there are dockyards and Government factories are taking up these questions with a view of saving our own skins or our seats. I do not think that is a very fair remark to make. Take my own case. I have the good or evil fortune to represent 30,000 electors of all sorts, and of these

  715
  there are not a thousand of them who belong to the Small Arms Factory, and therefore it is impossible for that establishment to exercise such a determining power in the division as to make me bow and scrape to them all day long. As far as the Enfield Division is concerned, we have managed to raise this question above party politics. Two Saturdays back we had a demonstration, according to the inspector of police, of something like 5,000 individuals, and there were half a dozen of us who addressed that gathering. We had three of the leading Labour leaders in the factory, myself, and a member of the Middlesex County Council, who was also the secretary of the Primrose League in my Division, and we had the gentleman who at present is leading the Liberal party. If that was log-rolling, we were all of us on the log-roll in the Enfield Division. I think we are log-rolling for the good of the Division. At that meeting we discussed three of the main grievances. The first was the question of the dismissal of lads. Youths take service in the factory at from fourteen to sixteen, and work on until they are twenty-one, when, having acquired a good deal of skill, too often they are dismissed because they cannot be taken on as men to earn men's wages. We have heard a good deal of a great trade boom in England. Certainly that boom has not reached Enfield yet, and if these young men are dismissed they are compelled to try and earn their living, and very difficult they find it to do. To make things worse, there is uncertainty whether the dismissals are going to take place or not at the age of twenty-one. Curiously enough during last winter and autumn there were no dismissals, and the young men were taken on, but at least half a dozen have been dismissed in the last few days, and I understand a good few more are under notice. Their fathers come to me and ask what I can do 'or them, and I put in a plea on their behalf. You are throwing away good material. It is not the case of boys minding machinery. They can do a certain amount of good work, and it is a pity to lose them if it can be avoided. If they are retained they have to look forward to a minimum wage of 23s. We do not ask for a minimum of 30s., we only want to get on an equality with what is bemg paid for the same class of work outside, and we have evidence that the average minimum wage outside is somewhere about 26s.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. C. E. Mallet): What class of work?
  Mr. NEWMAN: Work on the market gardens and in the district council. There has been practically no rise of the minimum rate of wage in Enfield for about ten years, or, rather, the rise has only been equal to 6d. It was a minimum wage of 22s. 6d, and when Woolwich got a rise to 23s. Enfield had the same rise. Though wages have not advanced the cost of living has advanced. I will give an extract from a list furnished to me by the leading Free Trader in the division. It is the price of provisions ruling on 21st March, 1910, with the comparative prices of the previous nine years. Taking the year 1906, when the Secretary of War came into office, the price of bacon was 70s, now it is 84s; butter was 122s, and is now 136s. The only thing that is down a bit is Canadian cheese. That is the preference, I suppose. It was 66s. in 1906 and is now 63s., Sugar was 19s. 1d. and is now 23s., 3d., showing that there has been a very considerable rise in prices and no corresponding rise in wages.
  I now come to the third question, and it is perhaps the most burning question among the wage-earners in the small arms factories. It is the question which is called the "time-speeding grievance." The men say that they are forced, under present conditions, to take piece-work at a contract price which practically amounts to sweating. They say that in order to get up their money they are forced to run their machines in a way which is detrimental to the important work they are called upon to perform, namely, the making of rifles, swords, and guns for the British Army. They say that in performing this work their lives are spent under conditions which amount to slavery. They say, further, that Government servants engaged in this delicate and important work ought not to be allowed to work in this way. They complain also of what they call Pinkertonism "—that is, foremen running about to see that each man is keeping his machine running at the proper speed, and reporting him if he is not. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Colonel Lockwood), the hon. Member for East Herts (Sir J. Rolleston), and myself, have endeavoured to approach these questions right through in a reasonable spirit. I maintain that the men also have shown a very reasonable spirit. I am an Irishman, and I know what agitation is, and I

  717
  say if the great meeting of 5,000 men had been a meeting of my countrymen there would have been a large force of police present to preserve order. As a matter of fact, in this case there was only one policeman on horseback. The men were determined to be orderly and not to break the law. This is not a spurious agitation; it is a genuine agitation. Wages have either been stationary or, in some cases, decreasing. The establishments are also decreasing. I have here the estimates for the ordnance factory for the year 1910–11, and I find that the upkeep charges are being decreased by something like £200,000. Wages themselves have shrunk by £91,000. We ask the Government to approach these questions in the spirit of reasonable men.
  Sir J. ROLLESTON: I support the representation made by my hon. Friend. I know nothing whatever about what logrolling means in connection with this matter. I know a large number of the workmen employed in the Government factories. Many of them are in my own Constituency, and they have been to me with their complaints. They have pressed them before me as they had a perfect right to do. I have seen and heard them on the spot, and have joined with a deputation of them to this House, and it seemed to me that the demands of the deputation were very reasonable, and should be acceded to by the War Department. My hon. Friend may think it his duty to bring this matter in some other way before the House, but I hope that the Committee or the Department authorised to deal with the matter will accede to what, I believe, is the principal request, that the men who are authorised to speak for their fellow workers may be heard viva voce by those Committees or Departments.
  Mr. BOWERMAN: I do not wish to prolong this discussion, but I would submit to the hon. Member that as the Government accepted the Motion proposed by the Labour party some weeks ago we are not unnaturally looking forward with expectancy to the action of the Government. On this point I would ask the hon. Member to explain the steps that have been taken in the matter and the steps that it is proposed to take; and I would like to reinforce the request of the last speaker that witnesses on behalf of the men may be able to appeal before the Advisory Committee in order to give the views of those for whom they speak.
  Mr. MALLET: I trust that hon. Members will excuse me for dealing somewhat shortly with the matters that have been referred to, as matters of this sort which involve great detail cannot very conveniently be threshed out on the floor of the House. I should be the last to complain of the hon. Member opposite ever being a dockyard Member in a sense, because I have the good fortune to be a dockyard Member myself. The points he raised are perfectly legitimate ones, and they are all points which are engaging just now very anxiously the attention of the Department. The points he made are three. First there is the case of lads who when they reach the age of twenty-one years have either to get men's work and men's wages or find work elsewhere. It is a matter of great regret to us that we should ever have to part with lads who have been for years with us. We should like to be able to keep them all on after they pass the age of twenty-one years, but we must have regard to our establishment. As hon. Members now know we lay down a minimum establishment at Waltham and Enfield. We cannot discharge more men, although there may not be sufficient work; and we have had under discussion the case of about sixty or seventy men about whom there was some doubt as to whether they should be treated as permanent or temporary hands, and we have been able to decide that they should be regarded as permanent hands. With regard to lads, we are not able to keep on all; there are some 150 lads altogether, and there are about a dozen for whom we may not be able to find work when they reach the age of twenty-one. If there are vacancies among the men we shall give them work. We want to keep them, but if there are no vacancies among the men, if the work is not there to be done, they must go and seek work elsewhere. But we are considering now whether we cannot revise the age limit by making it nineteen instead of twenty-one in the case of boys, so that if we have to part with a lad through not being able to keep him on, he shall have a better chance of finding work elsewhere. The other point raised by the hon. Member is that of a minimum wage. I am not able altogether to accept his view of what the minimum wage is. Our case is this, that we will find out what are the current rates among good employers in any particular district, and we shall have that as our guide in fixing the minimum rate.
  Our position with regard to Enfield is that our minimum rate there is certainly

  719
  not lower than, and I think is generally higher than the current local rates for work in Enfield. I know that there are unskilled men in the neighbourhood who get 18s. a week, and we pay 23s. a week, with privileges, equal to 24s. a week. I think that is arguable and even provable. The minimum wage is not low, having regard to the rates of the district. We have promised Parliament to consult the Advisory Committee on all these points. If any rate is challenged, as is the case at Enfield and at Woolwich, we promise to go to the Advisory Committee and ask them as to the latest evidence on the condition of living in the district affected, and by their report we shall be guided. The position is this: We have to get the reference fixed because several Departments have to be consulted, and the Advisory Committee have to meet to settle their procedure. We do not want to pronounce on such matters until we know what the procedure will be, and until there has been a meeting. We are getting forward with our case, ready to be submitted as soon as the meeting has been held and the procedure settled, and we shall begin our inquiry into any point on which our action has been challenged in the House. Then there is the speed and piece question, as it is sometimes called; that is the process by which a manager or superintendent endeavours to fix a rate at which the piece worker should do his work. He endeavours to see that the piece worker in a certain length of time does a certain amount of work. Some men work hard and with zest, others are a little slow—human nature varies, and some do a great deai while others do less. There must be some check upon them, and there must be some system. In certain cases a man may be found to be slack, and not doing what he should do. It is right, therefore, that there should be some check upon him. I have gone into this point a good deal, and I know there is a little dissatisfaction at Enfield about it, though I fear the dissatisfaction is exaggerated. I do not wish to discuss the question in detail here, because it is a point which ought to be settled by the men or their representatives with the superintendents. As a matter of fact, I saw the Secretary to the Union on the point, and his wish was that the question should be settled by the men being introduced to the superintendent, so that they may go over the whole subject and have a good talk about it without difficulty.
  720
  It is obvious that this should be done privately in conferences between the men and their employers, rather than that it should be considered in detail on the floor of the House. I think I may assure, hon. Gentlemen that we are not forgetful of any undertaking we have given with regard to consulting the Advisory Committee in regard to treatment of the men and the wages paid. Our full intention is that if there be any real grievances to put an end to them at once, and if any alleged grievance should be introduced to our notice we will go into it fully and do our best to ascertain whether it is well founded. With regard to wages, it is our wish and intention to be good employers in the fullest sense of the term, and in that we hope to have the support of all parties in the House.
  Sir J. ROLLESTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Committee will hear viva voce those authorised to speak for the men?
  Mr. MALLET: I cannot pronounce definitely with regard to the procedure before the Committee until there has been a meeting to settle it themselves, but my impression is that they will endeavour to give as full satisfaction on all points as possible.

  OLD AGE PFXSIOXS (IRELAND).
  Mr. P. J. POWER: I wish to make a few remarks on a matter of considerable interest, namely, the administration of old age pensions in Ireland. We have often heard from British Members their surprise at the number of questions put on the Paper in regard to the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act in Ireland, and they say that measure applies equally to England and Scotland and Wales, yet the Notice Paper is free from questions on the subject in regard to those countries.
  5.0.P.M.
  That is true, no doubt, but the explanation is perfectly simple. Seventy years ago the registration law applied to England, but not to Ireland until several years afterwards. Consequently there is a doubt as to the age of the old people, and the Census in years gone by was filled up without much exactitude, at any rate with regard to age, because old age pensions were not thought of in those days. The papers were filled up merely as an enumeration of the people of the country, and they were very careless about it. It is only human nature that the ages were understated. Most people, men and

  721
  women, and particularly women, would very much prefer to have their ages understated than overstated. Consequently we say that the information given by the Census Returns is generally misleading.
  With regard to the present administration of the Act I would like to know by what method of calculation most of the pension officers make out £10 per acre net profit can be made in farming. Farmers would be very pleased to hear of such a profit. I think it is a very exorbitant figure, and by that calculation the pension officers have cut off a number of people who are certainly entitled to a pension. Two or three people in my district, in receipt of pensions for some months, have had them cut off because, according to the Census Returns, they are only sixty-nine years. According to a reply given by the right hon. Gentleman to-day, apparently It is the intention of the Government, when those people reach the age of seventy, to impound their pensions to repay what they have got, and not to give them the pensions to which I maintain they are entitled. I quite admit, if you had absolute proof of their age, that would be justifiable, but, as I have pointed out, it is largely conjectural. I know personally some of those people, and I was very much surprised in one case to hear of a man being cut off on the ground that the Census made out that he was not seventy. I thought he was well over seventy. This is not the time to go into a discussion of the general administration of the Act. We in Ireland are grateful for the Act, and it has done an amount of good to our people that few people can understand. It has brought hope and cheerfulness to many a home that was despondent. Officials may not be satisfied with the result, and it may have cost a great deal more in Ireland than they anticipated; but to those of us who live in the country, who know the condition of the people, their homes and almost all their affairs, it is no surprise. If hon. Members on the Conservative side will look back to the last Administration under Mr. Gerald Balfour they will find that he established relief works in the West of Ireland, and had thousands of men working ten hours a day for wages varying from 3s. to 6s. a week, without any food whatever, and for this beggarly wage the men had to walk long distances to and from their work. I have been in Parliament a good many years, and the policy of old age pensions
  722
  has been dangled before the electorate for a long time. I never thought to see it in force; but having seen it in force we appreciate it, and we do not approach the consideration of the question in any captious mood. We are simply anxious that those who we believe are entitled to pensions should have them, and we say that if there is any doubt at all with regard to the ages of the people, considering that we have not registration laws which enable us to say definitely what their ages may be, in all justice the benefit of the doubt should be given to the applicants.
  Mr. SCANLAN: I must bear out my hon. Friend's remarks as to the way in which the granting of old age pensions has been received in Ireland. The old people are grateful for the passage of the Act, and in general we have no complaint to make of its administration. Although we may disagree with Treasury policy and Local Government Board policy, we set down the mistakes which are made and the hard cases which arise rather to the incompetence of a foreign tribunal like the Local Government Board or the Treasury to deal with our affairs than to a desire on the part of the right hon. Gentleman unfairly to strain the Act and deprive old people of the pensions to which they are entitled. It must be evident to those who have listened to his answers to questions put by representatives from Ireland that the Secretary to the Treasury is under a misconception with regard to the interpretation of the Act, and that through this misconception a certain amount of suffering is entailed on a large number of people in Ireland. A short time ago there was a discussion of considerable length with regard to the general question of the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act in Ireland. I must say that, apart from the length of the speeches to which we have been treated from the Treasury Bench, and the detail which was necessary to make up the length of those speeches, the argument presented from the Treasury Bench—in so far as any argument was presented—was one that could scarcely be called an argument. We were told in relation to complaints that came from Ireland: "We know what the population of Ireland is; you are getting over £2,000,000 of money." My contention is that the Old Age Pensions Act was not granted in favour of Ireland, but was an Act granted in favour of every individual over the age of seventy

  723
  years who was entitled to a pension. It is no fair answer to an old man of seventy to say, "Well, if the Treasury are making a mistake in your case you must remember that a great number of your fellow countrymen over the age of seventy years are getting a pension." It does not redress the grievance of such a man, and I think we are justified in bringing up this grievance in the House now or at any other time. It has struck a number of our colleagues in this House, Liberals, Conservatives, and Unionists, that a great number of questions are always down on the Paper from the representatives of Ireland to the Treasury and to the Local Government Board in respect of the administration of the Pensions Act, and in regard to the ventilation of grievances of old people in Ireland. The very fact that those questions are so frequent must indicate to the Treasury, if they open their eyes to the facts disclosed, and to all the Members of this House, that great evils exist in the administration of this Act in Ireland. When a discussion took place in March in reference to old age pensions it was admitted by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that since the Act came into force the Irish Local Government Board, which is the supreme court of appeal in the administration of the Act, had made between 8,000 and 10,000 mistakes in regard to the granting of pensions. When you have such a state of affairs existing in Ireland it must be evident that there is a screw loose, and, indeed, we say that there are great mistakes made, not only by the Local Government Board in giving too narrow an interpretation to the Act, but that the Treasury, through the instructions given to the pension officers, is decidedly unfair. The instruction the Treasury give to the pension officers in regard to their duty to appeals is such that between the Treasury, the Board of Customs and Inland Revenue, and the Irish Local Government Board, there is—I will not say a conspiracy, but something like it. Their action jointly in giving instructions to the pension officers as to settling questions of age and of means is unfair to the pension officers themselves, is in effect a conspiracy to deprive a large number of the old people in Ireland of the pensions to which they are justly entitled.
  I wish to call attention especially to the impounding of pensions by the Treasury. I think this point is worthy of attention.
  724
  When the Secretary of the Treasury was asked to-day, he stated, in answer to a question, "That the Treasury is entitled to retain from a pension granted to a person whose age is admitted payments which may have been made in mistake by the Treasury of such old age pensions before he became entitled to a pension." When pressed upon this point, the Secretary to the Treasury stated that he did not find any authority for his contention in the Statute itself, but that he depended upon the general law of the country. The meaning of the Statute, I think, is quite clear. It says:—
  "Every assignment of, or charge on … an old age pension under this Act, shall be void on any person, entitled to an old age pension. The pension shall not pass to any trustee, or any other person acting on behalf of creditors."
  Yet the Secretary to the Treasury contended in this House that, acting under the general law of the country, he is entitled—not to go to court to obtain judgment—but, at his own hand, in a most arbitrary way, is entitled to retain the money payable week by week, and payable in advance, as prescribed by the Act, until the debt due to the Treasury is satisfied. Under the Statute he has no authority for that, and I deny that either the general law of this country or the general law of Ireland gives him any authority whatever for his contention. Indeed I think it is quite clear that the Crown debts in respect to which the preference is given the Crown in case of bankruptcy are excluded by the Statute itself. I do not wish to go into questions of law. Our point is that when such a debt is incurred by the carelessness or mistake of the Treasury in granting a pension where it is not due, to take repayment of the money by way of the old age pension, when once that pension is due, is not right. I do respectfully maintain that the retention by the Treasury of sums payable to old persons after the age is admitted, and when no question was raised by the pension officer or any other person as to age or means—that the failure of the Treasury to pay that money over is something to which regard should be paid.
  On the occasion of a recent discussion in this House the Secretary to the Treasury stated that in order to meet the grievances which had arisen in Ireland, to give satisfaction to the county councils who are interested in this matter, and the Treasury, being actuated by a desire to fairly carry out the law, the Treasury would defray

  725
  the cost of an appeal to the highest tribunal in the land in order to make it clear as to whether the Treasury was right, or the Local Government Board was justified, in their rulings on certain questions that had been raised in Ireland. I wish to put this to the Secretary for the Treasury. Is he willing out of Treasury funds to provide the cost of an appeal to the Supreme Court in order to decide whether or not, at their own hands, without a decision of any court to support them, the Treasury have the right to retain from a pensioner the amount which is granted to him, when they have not challenged either in respect of age or means?
  There is another point which I have to bring to the notice of the House. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the fact that in Ireland registers of births, deaths and marriages were not kept till quite recently, so that it is impossible, by the production of baptismal certificates in the great majority of instances, to establish the age of a person claiming a pension. If there is to be any freedom in the matter as to what evidence will be acceptable in proof of age, I think a little latitude should be given to Ireland where registers have not existed as in England or Scotland. For a long time to my certain knowledge it has been the practice in Scotland and in England that the pension committees do not require documentary evidence of age. I was more than amazed to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury state, in answer to a question the other day, that it is necessary, in compliance with the very terms of the Old Age Pensions Act, that the person applying for a pension should in every case give documentary evidence of age. I do not think a more absurd contention could be maintained from the Treasury Bench or from any quarter of the House.
  There is absolutely nothing in the Act on which the right hon. Gentleman can found his contention that documentary evidence is necessary. Is he going to contend that where documentary evidence is not available, although it may be that probably a person has reached the age of seventy, that that person is not to get a pension? Is he going to contend that it was not meant to apply to all old people over the age of seventy, and only to those who lived in such times and in such parts of the country where registers were kept and where documentary evidence could be ob-
  726
  tained? That is utterly impossible in Ireland. The Act makes no requirements with regard to documentary evidence, and it is a grave reflection on the fairness and honesty of the local pension committees and the members of county councils and other most respectable members of the community that in almost every case the decision given by these people, deliberately arrived at, should be overruled. I have known cases where the ministers of religion of all denominations within a parish and other public men have met together, heard the evidence, and have come to a decision, not upon documentary evidence, but in regard to people known to be over the age of seventy, and where it was known that the particular applicant was entitled to a pension, and yet, because documentary evidence was not available, the pension was withheld by the Local Government Board, not on the merits of the case, but by virtue of an instruction which the right hon. Gentleman denies has been issued. I think I can convince him that such instructions have been issued. The pension officers have been instructed that in every case they must appeal against the decision of a pension committee unless documentary evidence is forthcoming. I do not think the Financial Secretary to the Treasury can deny that the Department with which he is connected has issued such instructions. The Board of Customs and Inland Revenue have issued to pension officers instructions that they are to appeal against any decision unless a certificate of birth is produced. This is a scandal and it is illegal to issue such instructions. I assert that the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for giving such instructions has no legal warrant for them, and he should withdraw them. If he would do that there would be much more confidence in regard to the fair and reasonable administration of this Act.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I have told the House before that the imaginary instructions to which the hon. Member refers have never been issued. I can only repeat that statement again. With regard to the question of documentary evidence, if the hon. Gentleman will turn to the 10th Section and 1st Sub-section of the Act he will see that it rests with the Treasury to make regulations under which pensions are obtainable, and it is under those instructions authorising the issue of such regulations that we require documentary evidence. I dwelt at very great length

  727
  upon this point a fortnight ago, when the whole of this subject was dealt with. I believe we spent the whole of Friday discussing the subject, and we went deeply into the administration of this Act. I do not propose to repeat all those details to the House. A very important point was raised by the hon. Member for Waterford, with which I should like to deal. Incidentally, it was dealt with by the hon. Member for Sligo. It was; the case in which an applicant, having been granted a pension, that pension had been revoked and subsequently a new pension was granted; and in the second instance the withholding of the payment of the pension until the money paid on the original grant had been wiped out. I think that was the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford, and it is a very important point. I cannot profess to be a lawyer, and any original pronouncement, therefore, of my own upon a question of law would be worthless, but I had had a previous opportunity when this question was raised of consulting my legal advisers. Notice was given to me very courteously by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and I have had an opportunity of refreshing my memory as to their advice. They were quite clear, and I have no reason to doubt their accuracy, that it is within the capacity of the Crown to retain the pension until the arrears have been wiped out. The Crown has a right to retain the pension as an off-set against a debt due to it.
  With regard to the other point, which is a larger point, I am very glad to be able to be in a position this afternoon to deal in a very few words with it. The question of the recovery of pension money paid to disqualified pensioners has been before the Public Accounts Committee. That Committee took the line that the Crown should lose no opportunity of recovering any debt due to it. It is unquestionable that in some circumstances that has entailed a considerable amount of hardship upon individuals, and I propose hereafter that unless in our opinion the action of the applicant was of such a character that he deliberately used means which were deceptive or dishonest to obtain the grant of a pension we should not, in cases where there had been an honest mistake on the part of the pensioner as to the age at which he applied for his pension, proceed against him for the recovery of the sum due from him. The sums in
  728
  themselves are very small compared with the great amount paid in pensions, and I am very glad to be able to relieve of the payment of the sums perfectly honest people who, as I stated in Debate the other day, are on the border line of seventy, whose exact age, whether they are sixty-eight or seventy-one, is not known to themselves, and almost certainly is not known to anybody else, and who have reasonably got the benefit of the doubt of a mistake, but we cannot allow the pension unless we have evidence to show that no mistake is present.
  Mr. POWER: You would not impound the future pension of that person?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, I do not think so.
  Mr. O'SHEE: I should like to be very clear about what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Does he say where a pension has been granted, and it is subsequently discovered that the person is not seventy years of age or is disqualified in some other way, and where a bonâ fide mistake has been made by the applicant, that when that person afterwards reaches the age of seventy and becomes entitled to a pension, no deduction will be made from his pension in respect of the money paid previously?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Not unless in our opinion there is some deliberate deception or dishonest method adopted.
  Mr. O'SHEE: I think that is very satisfactory. We ourselves would not claim on behalf of a pensioner where he has deliberately or knowingly deceived the Pension Committee and obtained a pension practically by false representations that there should not be a stoppage or any attempt to recover the amount of the cash payment. We quite see it is reasonable in such a case that it should be done. Therefore I think that the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman will give great satisfaction in Ireland as to the course it is intended to pursue in all cases where pensions have been granted in the bonâ fide, belief of the applicant that he or she was entitled at the time of application to the pension.

  GRANTS TO NECESSITOUS SCHOOLS.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I wish to call attention to a point of some importance in the administration of the Education Act especially with regard to the dis-

  729
  tribution of the special Grant an Aid—£200,000—amongst the necessitous school areas. The Board of Education has issued a Regulation, one of the provisions of which has the effect of preventing schools which have become necessitous since the first regulation was issued from sharing in the Grant. I am not asking or suggesting that there should be any additional Grant in excess of the £200,000, but merely that it should be distributed among those schools which are necessitous from time to time, and that it should not be confined as at present to those which were necessitous at the time the Regulation was first made. I do not know what Department of the Government is really responsible, because if I ask the Minister of Education a question on the subject he informs the House it is an affair of the Treasury. Regulations have, however, been issued, and the first that was issued did not contain the clause to which I object. But issues are made every year, and every subsequent issue to the first has contained the clause to which I object. That is Clause 4, which provides that the grant shall not be paid under this Regulation to any authority which has not already participated in the special grant. That has the effect of excluding all those schools which have become necessitous since the first issue of the Regulation. I do not pretend to say definitely whether this Regulation is ultra vires or not, but it certainly does not appear to carry out the intention of Parliament when the Giant was made. If I understand it correctly, it was the intention, whenever the elementary rate was over 1s. 6d. in the £, that subject to certain conditions Imperial funds should be given to assist necessitous school areas. There has been a great deal of correspondence between various educational authorities and the Board on this subject; but I cannot find that any reasoned argument has been advanced by the Board in answer to the representations made. I have here one letter in which the Secretary says "he is directed to state that the Board of Education are unable to hold out any hope that Paragraph 4 in the Regulation will be altered in the direction indicated," and he adds, "The restrictions laid down in that paragraph were designed to keep the expenditure out of the very exceptional Vote provided under this Grant within circumscribed limits." I suppose they know what they mean when they say that, but to my mind it is almost impossible to attach any meaning to it except that "we
  730
  have put in this Regulation, we intend to keep it in, and it is because it is in we shall keep it there." I would like to point out there are many education authorities which not only have a 1s. 6d. rate, but are paying as much as 19d., 20d., 21d., and 22d., so that they are all well qualified, by reason of their necessity, for a share in this grant; yet they are only debarred from it by Regulation 4, which seems to me to be an ultra vires regulation. I am making no apology for saying that in the borough which I represent the expenditure last year exceeded the amount entitling the borough to participate in this Grant, except for this Regulation, by the sum of £2,777. So that it is an important matter, not only to the borough that I represent, but to the bulk, if not all, of the seventeen authorities which were referred to in the answer of the Minister for Education. I should like that the Government should say on what basis these Regulations have been drawn up, and whether they will consider the question of altering them, so as to bring in to a share in the Grant those areas which I claim are not only entitled to them, but are the very areas for which those special Grants are made.
  Mr. H. S. CAUTLEY: The point raised by my hon. Friend is a very important one, especially to those local education authorities whose education rates exceed 1s. 6d. in the pound. This Parliament has granted the sum of £200,000 to be given to necessitous schools, which have been defined to be—
  "Those schools whose rate for elementary educational purposes exceeds 1s. 6d. in the £, calculated according to the Act."
  Primâ facie, therefore, every school whose education rate exceeds 1s. 6d. is a necessitous school, entitled to a share in that money, but the Government have made a Regulation limiting the number of schools claiming a share in that Grant to those whose rate up to the present has been 1s. 6d., but not to any future school whose rate may amount to 1s 6d. It seems to me that that action of the Government is ultra vires, and, if it is not, we shall be very glad if Ministers will tells us under what power in the Act it rests with the Treasury or the Board of Education to determine which schools are to be selected. I would suggest to the Government that they are very unjust in limiting it in this way, because I would point out to them, and especially to the President of the Board of Education that it does

  731
  not follow that because a school has been necessitous in the past it will be always necessitous, and it does not follow that these schools which are given this grant will always require it. I would point out to the President of the Board of Education that as areas alter places become more populous, and it may easily be that those local education authorities whose rate s under 1s. 6d. in the £ may be changed, and under certain circumstances their rate may become considerably more than 1s. 6d. That is what is taking place, and there are a number of places like Gateshead whose educational rate on the average would exceed 1s. 6d. in the £, and these places, according to this regulation, if it is not ultra vires, are going to be left out. It is a matter of great importance because, unfortunately, the amount of the rate for education purposes is constantly increasing, and that tendency to increase is not showing any sign of diminution. Therefore we ask first for them to tell us under what power they have made these Regulations limited to schools which have been necessitous in the past, and excluding those which may be necessitous in the future, and, secondly, if they have power to do it, I should ask them to take seriously into their consideration whether they ought not to keep to themselves power in the future to let schools whose rates have increased share in the Grant.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): The case which has been put by the hon. Gentleman h exactly similar to that which was put last year by an important deputation of Members who represented areas where the rate was above the 1s. 6d. limit. Then I had to tell the hon. Gentlemen who waited on me what I am afraid I must tell the House this afternoon—that we are unable to exceed the £200,000 limit which has been fixed by the Treasury en very good grounds. The Necessitous Areas Grant was in itself in principle indefensible. It was an arrangement made to relieve those areas in which, like East and West Ham, owing to the great growth of population and the poverty of the area, the Education Rate was becoming more and more crushing. It was only intended to give them relief until such time as a better basis for the payment of Grants should he instituted, and the Regulations to which the hon. Gentleman has taken exception, No. 4 and No. 5, were necessary, in order
  732
  that the areas of this grant should not he placed on anything like a permanent basis. I am sure he will be well aware of the fact that this basis is certainly not scientific, and that if it were continued on its present footing without any limitation, it must of necessity become part of the ordinary grant system of this country. Amongst other considerations which ought to come into any rearrangement of grants in the future must be a uniform system of valuation. We have not got that in this country, and it follows that the 1s. 6d. rate in some places is a heavy burden, whereas in others it is nothing like so heavy, merely because of the variation in the values which are put on rateable property in those areas. Indeed, the whole assistance which has been given out of the £200,000 is bad, is likely to lead to further abuses, and cannot be continued for an unlimited amount of time. Certainly it would place them on a more scientific basis if we were able to give assistance to local authorities in respect of the amount of energy and expense which they have imposed upon themselves in the cause of education. I cannot promise at present that we are going to remodel the whole of our grant system, for that involves legislation, and legislation for the moment appears to be impossible, but if I continue to hold my present office I contemplate putting forward a grant system which will be more justifiable than that under which we are at present working, but I cannot promise that anything can be done towards extending the area of these £200,000 Grants. We must restrict them to those areas which were decided a year or two ago to be necessitous, and which I still believe to be necessitous.
  Mr. CAUTLEY: May I ask the President of the Board of Education to answer a question? He says that he can act as he has been doing as long as the power stands on the Statute Book. What I want to know is, on what power the Treasury act in cutting out certain areas and limiting the Grant to certain schools?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I should like the hon. and learned Gentleman to understand that the Treasury limit the Grant acting under statutory powers. It is not my regulation. It is a regulation imposed upon me by the Treasury. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to challenge the Treasury as to its powers, he must address himself to the proper quarter.

  PUBLIC RECORDS.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the state of our public records. I had a Motion for a Return on the Order Paper last Monday, and my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hobhouse) was good enough to send me a letter in which he gave all the available information he had at the time, and, although I am conscious of his courtesy in sending that reply, I could not help being struck by the inadequacy of the reply, not due to any fault of his own, but owing to the fact that his information was limited. In ancient days the keeping of our public records was looked upon as one of the most important things belonging to the service of the King. They were kept in the Royal palaces, and it was only in 1838 that an Act was passed under which the public records and State papers since then are sent to the Master of the Rolls in Ghancery Lane. In 1852 an Order in Council was issued extending to a certain extent the provisions of the Act, but ever since 1838 no inquiry has been made by any responsible official, or by the Government, into the working of that Act, or into the present condition of our records. Every other country in Europe is ahead of England in this respect. The great Napoleon a hundred years ago founded a school called the "Ecole des Chartes," which is now an example for all other countries. Holland, Belgium and Germany are far ahead of us in this matter of keeping archives. Although we have made great progress in the last fifteen years, we still lag behind other countries in this very important matter. Let me point out two things which happened this year to show the importance, for the purposes of scholarly research, of doing something in the direction I have indicated. Professor Wallace, an American scholar, came over here to make researches in our Record Office some time ago, and he discovered what had hitherto lain hidden—details of the private history of Shakespeare. Up to that time it was thought that everything that could be known about the life of Shakespeare had seen the light of day, and yet we had to wait until an American gentleman came over here to discover in the Record Office documents unknown and uncatalogued, which gave information which Englishmen wanted to know about the greatest of all Englishmen.
  Within the last week or two a discovery has been made which ought to interest all
  734
  Members of this House. Up to a few weeks ago every constitutional historian believed that the model Parliament was the Parliament of 1295. Now, Mr. Jenkinson, quite by accident, came across certain writs of summons which show conclusively that the model Parliament henceforth should be designated the Parliament of 1275. The Parliament of 1295 was called the model Parliament, because it was thought to be the first in which writs were sent not only to knights of the shire, but also to the burgesses of the boroughs through the sheriffs, and that was supposed to be the first time that both classes were convened together. Mr. Jenkinson's discovery shows that the foundation of the modern Parliamentary system was laid not in 1295, but twenty years earlier. That is a fact of immense importance every scholar, and everyone who values the history of the past will agree with me that everything which this House can do to aid historical research ought to be done. We have been lagging too much behind other countries. Ever since the Public Record Act of 1838 was passed no public inquiry has been held into the working of that Act. In 1877 an Act was passed which gave for the first time power to public officials in a State Department to determine for themselves, without reference to scholars or experts, whether to destroy any document which they thought unnecessary to preserve. I do not wish to say that these gentlemen have not exercised the best discretion in the matter, but I am within the mark in saying that there is a great deal of fear among historical students and scholars lest through the working of that Act valuable documents should be destroyed. There is the astonishing fact that ever since 1877 now and again public documents have been sold in London and elsewhere. Documents which may be abstracted from public offices in this way may be of little value at the moment, but in another hundred years the most insignificant paper in the Home Office, or any other Department, might be of extreme value to the historian. I confess that I approach this matter, not from the standpoint of historical scholarship, on which I do not profess to be able to speak, but because I have interested myself in Welsh history, and I can give you an instance to show how necessary it is that something should be done which is not done now.
  In 1543 there were established for the first time the Courts of Great Session,

  735
  which were held in North Wales and in South Wales,
  sitting for six days or sometimes for a fortnight each half-year. These records go right on from 1543 to 1830, when the Courts of Great Session were swept away, and the legal system assimilated to that of England. The records of those Courts, invaluable to every student of the social history of Wales during those two or three centuries, were sent to the Record Office here, after the passing of the Act. There they have remained from that day to this, uncatalogued and uncalendered, and anyone who wants to find out anything about the history of the people of Wales cannot get hold of the documents without an immense expenditure of time. I cite this simply as one instance of the necessity which exists to do something more than has been done up to the present time. Since the Historical Manuscripts Commission issued their Reports I think there have been over 700 volumes published relating to the history of England, something like seventy relating to Scotland, and forty relating to Ireland. The Scottish and Irish volumes have been published separately, because they each deal with a different state of things. There has been no attempt to publish Welsh historical records apart from others. I urge upon the Government that they should, not only in fairness to Wales, but in fairness to historical study, see that the records of Wales are published separately, as was done in the case of Scotland and Ireland. I am perfectly certain of this, that during the last thirty years historians have become more and more convinced of the necessity of these records being available if they are properly to understand some of the most critical times in our history.
  6.0 P.M.
  Governments have been spending thousands of pounds for the last twenty or thirty years in the interests of Egyptian archeology, and now we are for the first time spending a few hundreds of pounds in order to understand and appreciate the valuable things we have amongst ourselves, and how to preserve them, and how to make the best use of them. The late Government is entitled to our thanks for appointing the Royal Commissions on Ancient Monuments.
  I do urge on the Government to go one step further. This is not a matter that appeals to the ordinary elector or to the man in the street, or even to the ordinary
  736
  scholar. The number of men who are engaged in research in this country are few and far between. They are men who ought to be encouraged in every possible way. They are men who sacrifice time and energy, and very often sacrifice brilliant prospects, which they would have if they devoted themselves to a more showy occupation, in order to devote themselves to this work. I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen read the very excellent article in the January number of the "Quarterly Review" of this year dealing with this matter. I do not know who the author was, but it was evident that it was written by a man who knew his subject thoroughly, and who established beyond all question a strong case for some action to be taken in this matter. I asked for a return to be made at the commencement, and I ask now whether the Government cannot consider the wishes of scholars in this question. I urge upon the Government to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole subject of the working of the 1838 Act, and of the present position and of the future prospects, and to do for the records of this country what they have already done by the Royal Commission for Ancient Monuments. I think a very strong case can be made out, and has been made out and I ask the Government to lend a favourable ear to the cry of those men who very seldom trouble this House, and who deserve well of their country.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I very much regret that I was not here during the first part of the speech of my hon. Friend, but if the first part was as interesting as the latter part, to which I had the privilege of listening, it must have been a very interesting speech. I agree with my hon. Friend that the time has come when something more ought to be done in order to catalogue and calendar these documents. There is no doubt there are very valuable documents, which have not been unearthed, and which contain material which should be a very important contribution to the history, not merely of Wales, but of other parts of the country, and of incidents in the life and history of this land which have not up to the present been fully explained and disclosed, and I am sure there are many documents of this kind which would throw light on obscure passages in that history. From all I have been able to ascertain there are a

  737
  great many of these documents in the most hopeless confusion, and any historian who its working up a period might spend, not weeks and months, but years in tracking a small and almost insignificant document—time which might be very much better spent in looking up matters more important and more material to the work he has in hand. I understand from my hon. Friend that there has been no inquiry for over seventy years. He has certainly made out a case for inquiry. I am not in a position at this moment to promise definitely that inquiry, but I will undertake to bring the matter to the notice of my colleagues, and especially of the Prime Minister, who not merely as the Head of the Government, but as First Lord of the Treasury, would be more particularly responsible for this part of the work, if my hon. Friend is satisfied with that for the time being. I am sure he has the sympathy of the Government in these matters. We think he has really discharged a public duty, and that historians will have good reason to be grateful to him if, as the result of his calling attention to the question, greater facilities are given to them in future for inquiring into all these matters.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. J. Burns.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Seven minutes after Six o clock, till to-morrow (Friday) at Ten a.m.

PETITIONS PRESENTED DURING THE WEEK.
The following Petitions were presented during the week and ordered to lie upon the Table:—
MONDAY.
Women's Enfranchisement—Petition from Falkirk, for legislation.

TUESDAY.
Poor Law Amendment (Scotland) Bill—Petition from Paisley, in favour.
Women's Enfranchisement—Petition from South Huntingdonshire, for legislation.

WEDNESDAY.
Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday Bill—Petition from Manchester.
Temperance (Scotland) Bill—Petition from Kilmarnock, in favour.