Commons Sitting of 5 July 1910

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Central Argentine Railway Bill [Lords],
Metropolitan Railway Bill [Lords],
Reading and District Electric Supply Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Southampton Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered:—
Ordered, that Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.
Kirkcaldy Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Montrose Water, etc., Order Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Montrose Water," presented by the Lord Advocate; read the first time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 13th July.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,—reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed];
Bill, as amended, to be considered tomorrow.
Message from The Lords,—That they have agreed to,—
Police Superannuation (Scotland) Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Ballochroy, Newlyn, and Ventnor." [Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords].
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Burnham Gas, Dinnington and District Gas, Dunblane Gas, Highbridge Gas, and Pinner Gas." [Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords].
Local Government Acts, 1888 and 1894, and Local Government (Scotland) Acts, 1889 and 1894,—That they have come to the following Resolution, namely: That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to inquire into the application of the provisions contained in the Local Government Acts, 1888 and 1894, and the Local Government (Scotland) Acts, 1889 and 1894, relating to financial adjustments consequent on the alteration of the boundaries of a Local Government area, or on an alteration in the constitution or status of the governing body of a Local Government area, and to report to the House if they are of opinion that any Amendments in such provisions are desirable.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

COUNTY COMMON JURIES BILL [Lords].
Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee C; Bill to be taken into consideration to-morrow.
CIVIL LIST.
Power given to the Select Committee to report their Observations. Report brought up, and read.
TAXES AND IMPOSTS.
Return ordered "showing (1) the rates of duties, taxes, or imposts collected by Imperial officers; (2) the quantities or amounts taxed; (3) the gross receipts derived from each duty; and (4) the net receipts and appropriations thereof in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1910; and (1) the aggregate gross receipts derived from all such duties, taxes, or imposts under the principal heads of revenue; (2) the aggregate net receipts; (3) the charges of collection; and (4) the produce, after deducting these charges, in each of the ten years ending the 31st day of March, 1910; and notes to show-any changes in the taxes, duties and imposts consequent upon the acceptance of the Budget proposals of 1910 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 313, of Session 1909)."—[Sir Daniel Goddard.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Land Tenure in Poland.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received from His Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires at St. Petersburg the Report upon the Imperial Ukaz of 14th March, 1887, as affecting the obligation upon foreign subjects of different nationalities to sell land acquired by inheritance in Poland and the western governments of Russia within a certain period, which was asked for last August; and, if not, whether he will take steps to obtain such a Report at once?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): His Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg has been informed by the Russian Government that the privileges acquired by German subjects with regard to the tenure of land in Poland in virtue of the Russo-German Convention of 28th July, 1904, will in future be extended to British subjects.

  Suez Canal (Proposed Agreement).
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table the correspondence which passed between the Suez Canal Company, the British Consul-General, and the Egyptian Government in reference to
  1488
  the proposed Suez Canal Agreement, and the text of the reasons drawn up by the Committee of the General Assembly for refusing to agree to the proposal?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no knowledge of any correspondence that has passed either between the Suez Canal Company on the one hand and His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General on the other, or between Sir Eldon Gorst and the Egyptian Government; nor am I in possession of copies of the correspondence which has passed between the Suez Canal Company and the Egyptian Government. I will get further copies of the Report and of the reply of the Egyptian Government, and place one or two in the Library; but they are long documents, and I do not think that the considerable expense of translating and reprinting them would be justified.

  Sir Eldon Gorst.
  Mr. DILLONasked whether Sir Eldon Gorst is to leave Egypt in the course of a few days for his summer vacation; and, if so, who will be in charge of the Consulate during his absence?
  Sir E. GREY: Sir Eldon Gorst left Egypt on the 2nd instant, and the First Secretary has assumed charge of His Majesty's Agency and Consulate-General at Cairo. This is the arrangement which for many years has always been made in this month.
  Mr. DILLONasked whether Sir Eldon Gorst is to be removed from the position of Consul-General in Egypt; and, if so, whether Lord Kitchener is to be appointed to that position?
  Sir E. GREY: There is no question of removing Sir Eldon Gorst from the post which he now occupies in Egypt.

  Indian Police Promotions.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Undersecretary of State for India whether, in addition to Maulvie Mazharul Huq, other police officers whose conduct in the Mid-napore conspiracy case was the subject of animadversion by the Chief Justice of Bengal had recently been promoted?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The officer mentioned in the question has not been promoted. He is merely officiating temporarily in a higher post. The Secretary of State has no reason to suppose that any of the officers referred to have been promoted.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: As the statement has been cabled to the Press that these men have been promoted, will the hon. Gentleman cause inquiries to be made?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Certainly.

  Indian Press Act.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Undersecretary for India whether he would grant the Return asked for on the Order Paper this day in the name of the Member for Merthyr Tydfil?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Act has been in operation for so short a time that the Secretary of State does not think it desirable as yet to instruct the Government of India to prepare a Return. I would refer my hon. Friend to the promise that I made to the hon. Member for Leicester on 28th June, that reports, when forthcoming, will be laid before the House.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Undersecretary of State for India whether he could state the circumstances under which the "Sind Gazette," an old established Anglo-Indian paper published at Karachi, was required to deposit 1,000 rupees as security under the provisions of the new Press Act; and whether the proprietors or editor had ever been charged or prosecuted for the publication of any seditious matter or any matter calculated to disturb the peace or inflame the native mind against the Government?
  Mr. MONTAGU: As regards the first part of the question, the "Sind Gazette" became liable to furnish security under the Act of 1910, because it had omitted to register under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. The answer to the latter part of the question is in the negative.

  Department of Commerce (India).
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Under-Secretary for India if it is the intention of the Secretary of State to advise His Majesty to confirm the temporary appointment of the Hon. Mr. Robertson as the member of the Council of the Governor-General in charge of the Department of Commerce and Industry; and, if not, will he say if it is the intention of the Secretary of State to advise His Majesty to appoint a member of the Indian Civil Service or a prominent member of the business community in India?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State does not propose to make any statement as to the advice that he may think fit to tender to His Majesty.
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Under-Secretary for India if the member of the Council of the Governor-General in charge of the Department of Commerce and Industry had invariably been a member of the Indian Civil Service; if not, would he state from what Service such member or members have been drawn; and whether personal knowledge of the conditions and circumstances of Indian commerce and industry is an indispensable qualification of anyone holding the appointment?
  Mr. MONTAGU: It happens that the three gentlemen who have hitherto held this post have been members of the Indian Civil Service, although those who were responsible for its creation contemplated that this would be the exception rather than the rule, and did not regard personal knowledge of the conditions and circumstances of Indian commerce and industry as an indispensable qualification.
  EARL of RONALDSHAY: Was it the intention of those who were responsible for the creation of this post that either a member of the Indian Civil Service or a prominent member of the business community should be appointed?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is impossible to say what was the intention.

  Nasik Shooting Case (India).
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked if Ananta Luxman Kanare, who shot Mr. Jackson, at Nasik, on the 21st December, 1909, was tried under the special procedure provided by the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, No. XIV., of 1908?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Yes.

  Death of King Edward (Eastern Bengal).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked whether any demonstrations expressive of popular sorrow at the death of His late Majesty were held in any portion of Eastern Bengal, particularly in the proscribed districts of Mymensingh, Faridpur, and Barisal; and, if so, whether permits to hold such were obtained under the provisions of the Seditious Meetings Act?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Yes, such meetings were held. The Act is directed against

  1491
  meetings likely to promote sedition, and therefore had nothing at all to do with meetings of this character.

  Worcestershire Regiment.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give the musketry figure of merit and number of marksmen in the 4th Battalion Worcestershire Regiment for the years 1908, 1909, and 1910, respectively, and the date of manufacture of the ammunition used in the last course?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): The 4th Battalion Worcestershire Regiment is stationed in India, and the figures for the two later years are not yet available, those for 1910 not being due until after 31st March, 1911. The musketry figure of merit and the total number of marksmeń in the battalion for the year 1908 were 198 and 246 respectively. The information as regards the date of manufacture of the ammunition cannot be given without reference to India.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some considerable complaint has been made with regard to the quality of the ammunition supplied?
  Mr. HALDANE: I am not responsible for the ammunition. It is the Commander-in-Chief in India.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: To whom should I apply in this House?
  Mr. HALDANE: The hon. Gentleman should address his question to the Undersecretary of State for India.

  Army Boot and Shoe Stores.
  Mr. POINTERasked how many pairs of leather boots and shoes the Government had in stock on 30th June for the use of the Army, and the number of officers and men of all ranks and grades of the Army Service at his disposal in the event of such being required?
  Mr. HALDANE: The number of leather boots and shoes in stock on 30th June last amounts to 866,940 pairs. Roughly the establishments to be provided for number about 400,000, but these are already equipped, apart from the above numbers, as there are two pairs in the possession of each serving soldier, two pairs in the kit
  1492
  of each Special Reservist, and two pairs in the kit of each Regular Reservist stored ready for mobilisation.

  British Forces in Egypt.
  Mr. DILLONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could give particulars of the increase in the garrison of Egypt during the last five years; and will he state what is the amount of the charge thrown on Egypt by this increase?
  Mr. HALDANE: The principal additions to the British Forces in Egypt have been one regiment of Cavalry, one battery of Royal Horse Artillery, and one battalion of Foot Guards. These additions were made in 1906. Egypt pays the extra cost of maintaining the British troops in the country as compared with the cost of maintaining them at home. The amount so paid is now £150,000 per annum as compared with £100,000 paid prior to 1st April, 1906.
  Mr. LAWSON: Is there any intention of increasing the garrison this year?
  Mr. HALDANE: No; we have always an eye on the garrison in Egypt, and we consider that at the present moment it is sufficient.

  Royal Military College, Sandhurst (Cadet Examinations).
  Mr. NEWMANasked the number of duly qualified cadets that have presented themselves for final examination at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, during the year 1909; and how many cadetships were thrown open for competition during the same year to such duly qualified candidates?
  Mr. HALDANE: The number of cadet-ships offered for competition during 1909 was 226 for the June-July examination and 161 for the November-December examination. The number of qualified candidates who applied to attend these examinations were 184 and 154 respectively. No competitive examinations were therefore held.

  Cavalry Commissioned Ranks (Vacancies).
  Mr. NEWMANasked what number of vacancies in the commissioned ranks of all grades existed in the Guards, Cavalry, Artillery, and Line Regiments, respectively, as on 30th April, 1909 and 1910, or on any two corresponding dates of this year and last which it may be easier to select for purposes of comparison?
  Mr. HALDANE: The number of vacancies for first appointments on 30th April, 1909, and 30th April, 1910, respectively were as follows:—

  1909.

  1910.

  Cavalry

  36

  41

  Royal Artillery

  68

  37

  Foot Guards

  10

  13

  Infantry

  134

  91

  There were no vacancies in the higher grades which are filled by promotion in the ordinary course.

  Foot Guards and Cavalry Regiments (Second Lieutenants).
  Mr. NEWMANasked whether it is proposed to continue the system of appointing second lieutenants on probation to Guards and Cavalry regiments; and, if so, whether the same system will be applied in the case of appointments to Infantry regiments of the line; and whether he can state how many of these probationers have hitherto failed to qualify themselves for permanent appointment to their respective units?
  Mr. HALDANE: The system referred to is temporary only, and it will be discontinued if a sufficient number of qualified candidates present themselves in the usual way. It is not intended to apply the system to Infantry of the Line. The number of probationers who have hitherto failed to qualify themselves by examination for permanent commissions are as follows:—Cavalry of the Line, 3; Foot Guards, 6.

  Royal Garrison Artillery (Sergeants and Staff-Sergeants).
  Major ADAMasked whether sergeants and staff-sergeants of the Royal Garrison Artillery are being forced to leave the Service earlier than at the age up to which the Royal Warrant entitled them to leave?
  Mr. HALDANE: The privileges of continuing in the Service beyond twenty-one years has been temporarily suspended in the case of sergeants and staff-sergeants of the Royal Garrison Artillery, owing to the large number of supernumerary noncommissioned officers caused by reductions in establishment. The warrant gives no title to sergeants and staff-sergeants to be retained up to a specified age.
  Major ADAM: Why should not a privilege granted to the Horse and Field Artillery be equally given to the Garrison Artillery?
  Mr. HALDANE: It depends upon what the establishment is. If the establishment is short, to grant the privilege would inflict injustice on other people whose promotion comes in the ordinary course.

  Territorial Artillery (Quartermasters).
  Major ADAMasked how many vacancies for quartermasters exist in the Territorial Artillery at the present time?
  Mr. HALDANE: There are no quartermasters provided in the establishments of the Territorial Artillery (except the Honourable Artillery Company), as they are not considered to be necessary.

  Southern Nigeria (Railway Construction).
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he had any official information showing that the construction of the railway in Southern Nigeria is proceeding economically and satisfactorily, especially in view of a recent report of the auditor that it is no exaggeration to say that thousands of pounds' worth of material have been lost to the Government; whether these deficiencies have occurred under the governorship of Sir Walter Egerton; and whether there is a more recent auditor's report of such a character as to restore the public confidence?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): The construction of the Southern Nigeria Railway extension may be said to be practically complete as far as Jebba, and it is anticipated that the last completed section of this extension (i.e., the section from Illorin to Jebba) will be completed within the estimate. Construction north of Jebba towards Zungeru has not yet proceeded far enough for reliable comparison between actual and estimated expenditure, but it is anticipated that there will be a considerable excess owing partly to labour difficulties and partly to the country proving more difficult than was anticipated. I should be glad if my hon. Friend could give me a precise reference to the report of the auditor referred to, I shall then be in a better position to deal with the last part of this question.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any information, from whatever source, of any lack of public confidence in Sir Walter Egerton?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not know that this arises on the question, but, since the hon. Gentleman has asked, I may say at once that we have no reason to doubt that there is the fullest confidence in Sir Walter Egerton.

  Experiments on Living Animals.
  Mr. GREENWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the nature of the operation not authorised by the certificate which was performed by a licensee holding Certificate B, as recorded by the inspector in the Return showing the number of experiments on living animals during the year 1909; what is the name of the licensee in question; whether there is any reason why such licensee, should not be prosecuted under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876; and whether he will give his assent to such prosecution as by that Act required?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): The operation consisted of cöphorectomy of two rabbits, of course under anæsthetics. It was brought to the notice of the Home Office by the licensee sending a paper published by him in which the experiments were described. Even had it been a case for prosecution it was then too late, the statutory period of six months within which any proceedings must be taken having expired. I do not wish to minimise the serious nature of the offence, but I may mention that the licensee in question held certificates in previous years authorising this very experiment, and, as he explained, failed to notice that his certificates, at the time when he performed the operation, were so worded as not to include it. He is a distinguished man of science, to whom the refusal of a licence is a very severe penalty, and I think the House will agree that, in these circumstances, I am not called upon to disclose his name.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under certificate B the animal, although put under an ænesthetic, is allowed to come out of it, and have its life prolonged, that the effect of the experiment may be watched after the ænesthetic has ceased to operate; and is there any other Department, mines or factories, where, if the inspector detects an offender against the law, he keeps the name of the offender concealed, or does the conspiracy of silence apply to this alone?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend has answered his own question; but, so far as
  1496
  concerns his expression "conspiracy of silence," I cannot admit any conspiracy of silence, and I think I am fully justified in this case in not disclosing the name.

  Wellington Pit (Whitehaven).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked how far the workings of the Wellington Pit, White-haven, extend under the sea beyond the low-water mark?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The distance is rather less than three and a half miles.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked on what dates during the last three years the inspector of mines visited the Wellington Colliery, Whitehaven; and whether on the occasions of his visit he examined the intake and return airway, especially the latter, and found these clear and available for the free passage of the men?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have made inquiry, but have not yet received the information asked.

  Slaughter-houses (By-laws).
  Mr. CAWLEYasked the President of the Local Government Board what powers are conferred by the Board on local authorities for making by-laws regulating slaughter-houses, with a view to the prevention of unnecessary suffering on the part of animals killed for human food?
  The PRESIDENT Of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): By Section 169 of the Public Health Act, 1875, which incorporates the provisions of the Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1847, as to slaughter-houses, a town council or urban district council may make by-laws for the regulation of slaughter-houses, including the prevention of cruelty therein. Similar powers may be conferred on rural district councils by Order of the Board. In London, the London County Council have powers to make by-laws for regulating the conduct of the business of a slaughterer of cattle under Section 19 (4) of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891.

  Loss of the S.S. "Waratah."
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he could state whether any inquiry has been held into the circumstances attending the loss of the steamship "Waratah," which was lost nearly twelve months ago; and whether he can state if Messrs. Lund and Sons are meeting their obligations towards the relatives of the crew?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): A formal investigation into the circumstances attending the disappearance of the steamship "Waratah" was ordered by the Board of Trade on 7th February last, but owing to the necessity of obtaining evidence from Australia and South Africa, it has not been possible yet to hold the inquiry. I am informed by Messrs. W. Lund and Sons that the claims of all dependants entitled to compensation up to date have been settled.

  Labour Exchanges.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman will advise the superintendents at the various Labour Exchanges that the halls attached to the exchanges may be used, so far as accommodation will allow, by registered workpeople in order that they may not have to wait about outside exposed to the weather as at present; and if he will advise that newspapers and periodicals may be supplied to the exchanges for the use of registered workpeople?
  Mr. BUXTON: As I have already stated, it is within the discretion of a manager of a Labour Exchange to allow men to wait for employment within the exchange, as far as space permits, and it is the intention of the Board that, generally speaking, such space as is available should be used for this purpose. At the same time, it would be undesirable to allow men to wait at the exchange for whom no possibility of employment was likely to arise. I am afraid I could not recommend the considerable expenditure which would be incurred by adopting the suggestion contained in the last part of the hon. Member's question.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at some of the Exchanges there is not accommodation for a hedgehog, much less a number of working men?
  Mr. BUXTON: Many of the Exchanges occupy temporary places, and we are expediting as far as possible the provision of permanent premises. We are endeavouring to give all the accommodation possible.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked whether on 23rd June last the Camberwell (London) Labour Exchange advertised for a foundry trimmer, and that a Mr. C. Anson applied, and was given a letter to take to the Clapham Junction Exchange, where he
  1498
  was given another letter to take to Messrs. Brett, Hennebegar, and Company, of Elm Works, Earlsfield, where he was informed that the situation had been filled some hours previously, and that the applicant had to walk all the way, it taking him from 8.30 a.m. until 3 p.m.; if he is aware that on the same date this Exchange advertised for a horse-keeper, and a Mr. E. Oddy was sent at 8.30 a.m. to Deptford Exchange, after waiting there an hour and a half asked the clerk if he could be attended to, and was then informed that there was no such job vacant, and that the bill remained in the window of the Camberwell Exchange until 4 p.m. that day, and other workpeople were sent on a similar fruitless errand; that on 28th June the Camberwell Exchange advertised for a cook, and a Mr. W. Husting applied, and was told by the clerk to call on the following morning at 9 a.m. which he did, and was then given a letter to take to Temple Chambers Labour Exchange, and was sent from there on to Harrow Road Exchange, and from thence to North Kensington Exchange, where he was given a letter to a Mr. Harville, of 4, St. Helen's Gardens, who told the applicant, after he had been kept waiting from 11.10 to 2.30, that a cook had been engaged on the previous Monday; and whether he can see his way to institute at the Exchanges methods of working whereby applicants for employment will not be in future sent on fruitless errands whereby time is wasted and in some cases money in fares?
  Mr. BUXTON: Inquiries have been made into the facts of each of the three cases to which the hon. Member has called attention, and I am prepared to furnish him with the particulars elicited which do not quite agree with the statement. The failure of the employers to notify the cancellation of vacancies is one of the difficulties with which Labour Exchange managers have to contend, and occasionally leads to the despatch of applicants to situations which are found to be filled. I am satisfied, however, that such incidents are of rare occurrence, and every effort is made to reduce them to a minimum. In particular, it is the duty of managers, before sending an applicant to a distance, to obtain, if possible, direct confirmation of the vacancy still being open, and where such information cannot be obtained, to give full warning to the applicant. The matter is being carefully watched.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is prepared to make arrangements with the various local authorities that have tramways under their control for free travelling facilities to be allowed to workpeople seeking employment on production of a certificate from the superintendent of a Labour Exchange?
  Mr. BUXTON: I will consider the suggestion, but I see considerable difficulty in the way of adopting it.
  Mr. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for the last twenty years the Colonial authorities in New South Wales have issued passes to men out of work?
  Mr. BUXTON: When the Act was passed the point was raised, and the Board of Trade was omitted from giving the passes. This question is in reference to the local authorities, and that they should be asked to do so. I will look into the matter.

  Company Liquidation (Powers of Board of Trade).
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, under Section 109 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, the Board of Trade has power to appoint inspectors to investigate the affairs of any company whatever, whether in voluntary liquidation or not, and to report thereon in such manner as the Board direct on the application of members holding one-tenth of the shares issued, if supported by appropriate evidence, and on necessary guarantees being given as to the costs of the inquiry; whether, in the case of the Law Guarantee Trust and Accident Society, Limited, he would be prepared to exercise these powers of the Board if the conditions precedent were complied with; and whether, as under the terms of the section the investigation may be in such manner as the Board direct, he would, in that case, direct that a public investigation should be made?
  Mr. BUXTON: As at present advised, I do not think the Board of Trade have the power suggested. As regards the Law Guarantee Trust and Accident Society I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for South Hackney on 29th June, of which I am sending him a copy.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Would the right hon. Gentleman take the opinion of the Law Officers as to whether or not the Board of Trade has this power?
  Mr. BUXTON: I do not think so, as at present advised. I am still examining the question.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean as at present advised by the Law Officers or by laymen?
  Mr. BUXTON: By the advisers at the Board of Trade.

  Paris and London Mails.
  Mr. PIRIEasked the Postmaster-General, with reference to the conveyance of mails between Paris and London, if he can now state what progress has been made in the communications he was making with the French Government as to the possibility of utilising to a greater extent the shorter routes between the two capitals, namely, viâ Newhaven and Dieppe, and viâ Folkestone and Boulogne, in place of the longest, viâ Dover and Calais; if he will state the position as regards the suggested ameliorations of the train service generally between London and Paris, both in the interests of the mail service and that of the travelling public; and if there is any hope of the evil use of the monopoly which the South-Eastern and Chatham Railway Companies have exercised for so long to the disadvantage of the public being either checked or coming to an end?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Negotiations in the matter of the mail service between London and Paris are still proceeding, and I regret that I am not at present in a position to make a statement on the subject.
  Mr. PIRIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this matter has been on for something like four years? He has himself admitted the urgency of the reform?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: At this moment there are negotiations going on with the railway companies and with the French Government with regard to this mail service, and I cannot now say more.

  Foreign Trawlers (Prohibited Areas).
  Mr. PIRIEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the number of foreign trawlers that have been reported to the Customs authorities by the Scottish and Irish Fishery Boards respectively for fishing within the prohibited areas since the coming into force of the Act of last year for the prevention of the same, specifying the number reported in the Moray

  1501
  Firth; whether in any case their fish has been seized by the Customs authorities on entry of the trawlers into British ports; and what is the total value of the catch so seized?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): Five trawlers in all have been reported by the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), and forty-four in all by the Scottish Fishery Board. None of those reported by the former and thirty-eight of those reported by the latter were observed in the Moray Firth. Three seizures have been made by the Customs—two, of the same boat, under notification from the Irish Department, and the third, on report of fishing in Moray Firth, by the Scottish Board. The gross proceeds of the sale of the three catches was £210. It should be added that two of the cases reported by the Department of Agriculture occurred only yesterday, and that in many cases the vessels, knowing they had been observed, did not attempt to land their fish in this country.
  Mr. PIRIE: Does the Government still seriously pretend, in face of these facts, that the Act that was passed last year is of any use whatever?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My own point of view is the point of view of the Customs.
  Mr. PIRIE: Surely the right hon. Gentleman has an opinion of his own?
  Mr. BOWLES: Were the vessels in question British or foreign?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not know. It has been reported to me from the point of view of the Customs.
  Mr. PIRIE: I shall address a question to the Lord Advocate on the subject.

  His Majesty's Dockyards (Petitions of Workmen).
  Mr. WILKIEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can now state when the workmen in His Majesty's dockyards will receive the replies to their last year's petitions; whether he can state when the petitions for the present year will have to be presented; whether he can give the approximate date of the annual visit of the representatives of the Admiralty to the respective dockyards; and whether he will give adequate notice of the date of such visit to the representatives of the various workmen in accordance with previous promise?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): We are now in correspondence with the Treasury, and hope to give replies within the next few days. The new petitions may be presented as soon as replies have been received to those of last year. With regard to the third part of the question, dates have not yet been fixed. The reply to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

  Commissions in Royal Navy.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked whether, since the system of two-year commissions was instituted for fully commissioned ships, any representations have been made to the Admiralty by commanding officers or others that this period is too short and that a reversion to the old three-year commissions would be advisable?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is not advisable to make public reports received from commanding officers on matters of organisation.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the present condition of the ships?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir, quite.

  Home Fleet (Third Division Accountant Staffs).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked whether, in consequence of the constant changes in the ratings carried by the ships of the Third Division of the Home Fleet, it has been found necessary to increase the clerical staffs of those ships; what is the average-time spent in these ships by men of the seamen and stoker ratings who are drafted to them; and whether the Board are satisfied that this is a sufficient length of time to ensure the war efficiency of the ships?
  Mr. McKENNA: The accountant staffs of the Third Division battleships and cruisers have been increased up to the numbers allowed in their full sea-going complements, in view of the large number of supernumerary ratings borne in the ships for disposal or training. The average time spent by nucleus crews in their ships is twelve months. Ratings supernumerary to the nucleus crew complements, and borne for disposal or training, are frequently changed, and no average time can be given. The reply to-the third part of the question is in the affirmative.

  Minerals under Sea (Rights of Crown).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Attorney-General whether the Crown right to the sea beyond the three-mile limit extends to the minerals under the sea; and whether the rights of the Crown to mineral royalties have been protected in the case of mines working minerals beyond the three-mile limit?
  The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): The rights of the Crown to the minerals under the sea are co-extensive with its rights to the bed of the sea. I am informed that the rights of the Crown were fully protected in the only case of minerals under the sea beyond the three-mile limit which has hitherto been dealt with.

  French Straw (Embargo on Importation).
  Mr. WILKIEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that French straw has been imported into this country for generations "without any complaint or suspicion whatever; that French straw such as is imported into this country does not come within touch of cattle, but is thrashed, baled, and sent direct to the seaboard for shipment; whether his Board has yet come to any decision with regard to the removal of the embargo on the importation of French straw; and whether there is any prospect of an early removal of the embargo?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): Yes, Sir, and the Board are in communication with the French Government and are awaiting certain information from them. When such information is received the Board will consider if it is possible to modify the present regulations.

  Invalidity and Unemployment Insurance.
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked when the proposals of the Government with regard to invalidity and unemployment insurance will be laid before the House?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am unable to make any statement on this subject at present.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask the right lion. Gentleman if these proposals are not ready?
  The PRIME MINISTER: They are quite ready.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: If they are ready, may I ask why they are not produced?
  The PRIME MINISTER: All in good time.

  Registration of Teachers.
  Colonel LOCKWOODasked the President of the Board of Education what progress, if any, has been made with regard to giving effect to the resolutions passed at a conference of educational bodies in November last on the subject of the registration of teachers?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): At the conference in November the resolutions passed were subject to reservations in the case of several of the bodies represented there. These reservations were embodied in various memoranda which were submitted to the Board and have been under consideration. Since then the Association of Teachers in Technical Institutions, who were members of the conference, have held their annual conference, and on 18th June passed the following resolution:—
  "That this association is of opinion that, owing to the complexity of technical education and the diverse qualifications of those engaged in it, the representation accorded to technical teachers on the proposed Registration Council by the scheme submitted to the Board of Education is totally inadequate."
  Meanwhile, I have under consideration means by which the registration fees paid to the late council may be returned to those who claim them, and make good their claim on lines which I hope soon to settle.

  Nickel Coinage.
  Mr. REAasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take advantage of the opportunity which will be afforded by the forthcoming issue of new coinage to follow the course now adopted by nearly all other nations and introduce nickel coins of the value of a penny and twopence, either concurrently with or in substitution for the present bronze ones?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend does not think the experience of other countries in connection with nickel coinage affords adequate grounds for its introduction in the United Kingdom, either in substitution for or concurrently with our present bronze coinage.

  Income Tax.
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked whether in the case of persons entitled to relief on account of earned income who failed to

  1505
  send in their returns before 30th September last, those who earn less than £1,000 a year have to pay at the rate of 1s. 2d., while those who earn more than £1,000 have been permitted to pay at a less rate?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer is in the negative.

  FINANCE ACT, 1909–10.

    LICENSED PREMISES (ASSESSMENT APPEALS).
    Colonel HICKMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if, considering that the owners of licensed premises have had no chance of appealing against the assessment of 1909–10, he will allow them to appeal against the 1909–10 assessment at the same time as they appeal against the 1910–11 assessment?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am informed that the law does not admit of such appeals.

    INCREMENT DUTY (TRANSFERS AND LEASES).
    Mr. FELLasked how many transfers and leases were lodged for stamping, and for the assessment of the Increment Duty during the month of June, or during any other period that is available?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: During May and June just over 10,000 instruments were presented in England and Ireland under the provisions of Section 4 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910. A different system prevails in Scotland, and the figures for that country are not yet available.

    LAND VALUATION OFFICE.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked what portion of the sum of £151,803, appearing in the Supplementary Estimate, under the head of salaries, wages, and allowances, in addition to salaries in the Land Valuation Office, is allocated to the permanent staff of that office; and what is the number of such permanent officers on which the Estimate is based?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Supplementary Estimate referred to by the hon. Member provides for some 100 permanent officials at a total cost of £37,725.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked what is the number of temporary officers in the Land Valuation Office for whom provision is made in the Supplementary Estimate; and what is the period during which the services of such officers are estimated to be required?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is estimated that, including clerks and other subordinates, over 600 of the appointments will be on the temporary staff, and their services will be required until the initial valuation has been completed.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: How long is that period estimated to be?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I cannot say.
    Mr. LAWSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether those officers will be put on the establishment later on without examination?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No; my answer to that is that they are temporary.

    Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the rejection by the Local Government Board of a claim to an old age pension by Mrs. Mary O'Sullivan, Peter Street, Knightstown, Valentia; whether he is aware that she is the daughter of her father's first wife, and that the Census Returns show that the eldest child by her father's second wife is seventy-one years of age; and whether, in view of the fact that Mrs. Sullivan is two years older than one who is conclusively proved to be seventy-one years of age, he will state on what grounds Mrs. Sullivan's claim has been rejected?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Mrs. O'Sullivan claims to have been about four years old at the time of her father's second marriage in 1840. The date of this marriage is confirmed by the Census Returns which also show the eldest child of that marriage was nine years old in 1851, and would be now 68. Mrs. O'Sullivan has produced no evidence in support of her statement that she is the daughter of her father's first wife, and the Local Government Board have disallowed her claim as there is nothing to show that she has attained the statutory age.

    Ennis, County Clare (Housing Scheme).
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary if he can state when the report of the inquiry into the housing scheme for the town of Ennis will be made; and whether he will represent to the Local Government Board the urgency of this question in the interests of the working people of Ennis?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The inquiry in question was only held on 23rd June. During the preceding fortnight the same inspector held five other inquiries into housing schemes, each of which would seem to demand attention as urgently as the Ennis scheme. This last scheme will be dealt with by the Local Government Board in its due order as soon as practicable.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: In view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that many of those schemes were as urgent as the Ennis scheme, may I ask whether his attention has been called to the evidence at the Ennis inquiry by representatives of all classes and clergymen of all denominations as to the deplorable condition of the houses in the town of Ennis, and as to the strong necessity there is from every point of view of providing better dwellings for the working people?
    Mr BIRRELL: Yes, I have seen that evidence; but I am sorry to say that evidence of the same character was given at the other inquiries. The matter is one of great importance.
    Mr. JOYCE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman does not think it would be a good thing to expedite the granting of these loans as being one of the very best means of combating the dreaded disease of tuberculosis, of which we hear so much in Ireland?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, Sir. The expedition of the loans is always in itself most desirable.
    Mr. JOYCE: We think the process very slow in Limerick.

    Extra Police Charges (Ireland).
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked what was the total amount levied in respect of extra police charges in Ireland for the six months ended 31st March, 1910, exclusive of payments made by the Corporations of Belfast and Londonderry?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The amount payable in respect of extra police by local authorities, other than the Corporations of Belfast and Londonderry, for the period mentioned is £7,240.

    Shandangan Petty Sessions (Assault Case).
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention had been called to the action of
    1508
    two justices of the peace at Shandangan petty sessions, county Cork, who insisted on adjudicating in an assault case arising out of a dispute over an evicted farm in which they, as members of the United Irish League, supported the claims of the plaintiff Murphy against those of the defendant Kingston who at present occupies the farm; whether, under such circumstances, he will give instructions for the fines against Kingston and the co-defendants to be remitted; and will he call the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the conduct of the two magistrates?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that the solicitor for the defendant Kingston intends to make application to the King's Bench Division to have the proceedings in this case quashed, on the ground that the bench was improperly constituted. In these circumstances no action on my part would appear to be necessary or desirable. No application has been made to the Lord Lieutenant for the remission of the fines.

    Coosheenkenny Beach (County Kerry).
    Mr. BOLANDasked what steps, if any, will be taken by the Congested Districts Board to clear the beach at Coosheenkenny, Valentia?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have authorised a small expenditure for clearing the beach, but they expect the local fishermen to keep it clear for the future.

    Lands of Cransallagh (King's County).
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the application made by the Ulster Bank to appoint a receiver and manager on the lands of Cransallagh, Garrycastle, King's County, on which the bank held a mortgage, and to the affidavit of the manager of the Tullamore branch of the bank, from which it appeared that the owner, Stone, had been boycotted since taking possession; that the buildings and outhouses were burned in May, 1909, for which £336 was awarded as compensation, and that since the burning the holding had been abandoned and the lands derelict; and whether, having regard to the comments of the Master of the Rolls that it was disgraceful that the law should be disregarded and set at naught, he proposes to take any steps towards restoring respect for the law in the district?
    Mr. BIRRELL: My attention has been called to this case. The facts as to the burning of the buildings and outhouses are as stated. I am informed by the police authorities that Stone has not been boycotted personally, but he cannot let his meadowing or grazing, and not being in a position to stock his farm he has been obliged to have it practically derelict. The local police have done everything in their power to protect Stone and his property, and will continue to do the same for the receiver who has recently been appointed.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: Is not Stone a member of a well-known family in Ireland who have been camp followers in the land war?

    Credit Banks (Ireland).
    Mr. VERNEYasked whether any, and, if so; how many, credit societies or loan banks on co-operative principles have been established in Ireland; whether any super vision is exercised over them by the Irish Government; whether their working is shown to be satisfactory; whether any, and, if so, what, financial assistance has been given them by the Irish Government; and whether any money so advanced to them has been or is irrecoverable; and, if so, to what extent?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am not in a position to say what number of these societies have been established in Ireland. They are not under the supervision of any Department of the Irish Government, but an inspector of the Department of Agriculture was allowed last year to examine the books of 103 societies to which the Department had made loans. The only financial assistance afforded by the Irish Government to these societies is by way of loans granted' by the Department, amounting in all to £17,800. Of this amount £600 was considered by the Department's inspectors to be bad or doubtful, but it is not possible to say how much may ultimately prove to be irrecoverable.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: May I ask whether, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, these agricultural credit societies, which have been so eminently successful on the Continent, are not likely to succeed in Ireland or in other parts of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I would rather not express an opinion. The subject is one well worthy of Debate in this House, and I hope it shall soon receive attention.

    Board of Works (Ireland).
    Mr. NANNETTIasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the wages paid by the Board of Works to their labourers is not in accordance with the Fair Wages Resolution of this House; whether he is aware that the wages paid in London to men employed on similar work is at the rate of 27s. per week, while those employed in Dublin only receive from 14s. to 16s. per week; and whether he will investigate the matter with a view to a readjustment of the wages paid to the labourers employed under the Board of Works in Ireland?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have nothing to add to the answers which I have previously given on this subject, which dealt fully with the matter.
    Mr. NANNETTI: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when this question was gone into, sufficient consideration was given to the difference of the cost of living in Dublin compared with London, and whether he considers that 14s. to 16s. per week is a sufficient wage for these men?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I went very fully into this subject, and received a very full Report on the matter at the end of last Session. I am told that the wages paid are the standard wages paid for this kind of labour in that district.
    Mr. NANNETTI: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that a labourer, required to be a learner in gardening and doing rough work of that character in Phœnix Park, should not be paid more? Phœnix Park is in the City of Dublin, where the wages paid by the corporation is 25s. per week, and by Messrs. Guinness 24s. Will the right hon. Gentleman see that a fair wage is paid to the workmen in the City of Dublin?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: From inquiries I have made I find there are different standards of wages. In the Phœnix Park district, where these men live, I am told that the standard rate of wages is paid.

    North Dublin Union (Surcharge).
    Mr. NANNETTIasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the guardians of the North Dublin Union have been surcharged by the auditor of the Local Government Board for granting outdoor relief to Mrs. Devlin, the youngest of whose children is only four months old; whether he is aware that the circumstances

    1511
    under which this relief was granted were that the husband was imprisoned for a month, leaving the family absolutely destitute; that the guardians dealt with the case as one of sudden emergency and continued the relief during the short period of imprisonment; and whether, seeing that if they had taken what the auditor said was the legal course the cost to the ratepayers would have been greater, he proposes to allow the surcharge to stand?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board have not had occasion to investigate this case as no appeal was made to them, but they understand that portion of the amount surcharged has already been paid. As regards the concluding portion of the question I would point out that the Board have no jurisdiction respecting surcharges save when appeals are made to them.
    Mr. NANNETTI: If an appeal is made in this case will the right hon. Gentleman see that the surcharge is removed? May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the family relieved, six in number, only received 4s. 6d. per week to keep them; and whether he is aware that the mother of the family had a baby four months old?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Well, Sir, I cannot answer the last part of the question.
    Mr. NANNETTI: If I supply the right hon. Gentleman with information dealing with this case will he inquire into it and see that justice is done to the relieving officer?
    Mr. BIRRELL: If the hon. Gentleman will supply me with the facts of the case of course I will look into it. With regard to the appeal, if an appeal is made justice will be done.

    United Irish League (Swinford Branch).
    Captain COOPERasked the Chief Secretary if his attention has been called to the meeting of the Swinford branch of the United Irish League at which the people were urged to boycott a Mr. O'Hara, who was described as a despicable landgrabber; whether Mr. T. Morrin, who presided at this meeting, has since been made a justice of the peace; whether his conduct has been brought to the notice of the Lord Chancellor; and whether any action will be taken in the matter?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I understand the question to refer to a resolution alleged to
    1512
    have been adopted at a meeting of the Swinford branch of the United Irish League held on 6th June, 1909. The Lord Chancellor has already made inquiries into the matter, it having been represented to him that such a resolution was passed; and he is informed that no such resolution was adopted, and that any report to that effect is without foundation. Mr. T. Morrin was appointed a magistrate in January last.
    Captain COOPER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that copies of the alleged resolution have appeared in the public Press?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have seen a lot in the public Press.
    Captain COOPERasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that on 3rd January, 1910, a party of women drove cattle on to a farm, the property of Mr. O'Hara, at Cloonaghboy, near Swinford, and that on their prosecution the case was dismissed; whether he is aware that out of the four magistrates who tried the case two were members of the United Irish League, and that the resident magistrate dissented from the decision of his colleagues; and what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that summonses for trespass were issued against three women by Mr. O'Hara, which came on for hearing on 18th March, 1910. A legal question arose as to whether Mr. O'Hara, being a grazing tenant under an eleven months letting, could maintain proceedings for trespass, and the hearing was accordingly adjourned at the instance of Mr. Henn, R.M., the presiding magistrate. The adjourned hearing took place on 6th June, 1910, before Colonel Johnston, R.M., and Messrs. Henry, Keane and M'Dermott, when the charges were dismissed, the magistrates, with the exception of Colonel Johnston, being apparently of opinion that Mr. O'Hara was not the owner of the land within the meaning of the Act. The Bench acceded to an application to state a case for the High Court on the question of law. I Have no information as to whether any of the magistrates are members of the United Irish League.

    Congested Districts Board, Ireland.
    Mr. KERR-SMILEYasked the Chief Secretary whether the Congested Districts Board proposes at an early date to do anything for the inhabitants of Rathlin Island; and whether he is in a position to state what form the assistance will take?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Rathlin Island is not situate in a congested district, and the Board therefore have no power to do anything for the inhabitants.
    Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary whether the non residential grazing farm held by the late R. A. Duke, Esq., J.P., of Ballymote, and situated in Killaraght, county Sligo, Boyle union, has yet been sold to the Congested Districts Board; and, if not, can he state the cause of the delay?
    Mr. BIRRELL: This farm was offered to the Congested Districts Board in 1907, but they were not then in a position to buy. There has been some difficulty in reopening negotiations since the passing of the Irish Land Act, 1909, owing to the death of Mr. Duke, but the Board are now about to communicate with the present owner.

    Boycotting Cases, Ireland.
    Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary whether Mrs. Ryan, of Craughwell, county Galway, in connection with the protection of whose workmen Constable Goldrick was shot dead on 22nd January, 1909, continues to be boycotted at the present date; and whether he will enumerate the overt acts of outrage directed against her land and her property since she entered into occupation of her holding?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Mrs. Ryan is still boycotted. Save for the occurrence which led to the murder of Constable Goldrick, she has not been the object of any definite offences since 1907. In that year stones were thrown and shots were fired through the windows of her house and of the cottages of her workmen, a cock of hay belonging to her was burnt, and the walls of her farm were knocked down, while in 1906 the hair was cut off the tails of five of her cattle.
    Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary whether Mrs. Hall, of Clooney, county Clare, a widowed lady eighty years of age, is still boycotted; whether there has been any improvement in her j condition since attention was drawn to her case by the hon. Member for Cambridge University on 25th March, 1909; whether the lady and her property continue to receive special police protection, and what is the number of constables engaged in this duty; and whether any person has been brought to justice for the malicious burning of her hay and barn?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed by the constabulary authorities that Mrs. Hall is still boycotted, and that there is very little improvement in her case. She is still protected by a sergeant and three constables. The persons who burnt her hay and barn last year were never discovered.

    Oaths Act.
    Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary whether, in order to remove doubts which have arisen, he will issue instructions to all who have to administer oaths in courts of justice that witnesses who object to take the oath in the new form sanctioned by the Oaths Act, 1909, shall have the oath administered to them either in the old form by kissing the Book or, if they prefer it, in the Scotch form by holding up the right hand, authorised by Section 5 of the Oaths Act, 1888?
    Mr. BIRRELL: A circular has been issued to petty sessions clerks and coroners calling attention to the Oaths Act, 1909, and pointing out that in the case of any person objecting to be sworn in the manner prescribed in that Act, the oath may be administered in any form which is now lawful. No instructions on the subject were issued to officers of the supreme court or of the county courts, who perform their duties in such matters under the directions of the presiding judge.
    Mr. LONSDALE: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that it is perfectly lawful for a witness to be sworn under the old form of oath?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I should not like to answer that question off hand. I have always thought so.

    Royal Irish Constabulary.
    Mr. HAZLETONasked the Chief Secretary whether Sergeant Thomas Jenkins, Royal Irish Constabulary, station Greenore, holds the position of port inspector at Greenore under the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction; if so, whether this is in accordance with the rules of the force; and whether he receives police pay while absent in England on work connected with the office of port inspector?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Sergeant Jenkins, who is stationed at Greenore, acts as ship inspector there under the Department. Other members of the force perform similar duties elsewhere, and there is nothing in the constabulary regulations to prevent their doing so. Since he took

    1515
    up this duty the sergeant has only once been in England, when he went over for a few days as a witness in a prosecution under the Diseases of Animals Acts. He received constabulary pay during his absence.
    Mr. HAZLETON: I would like to ask the Chief Secretary if he holds that policemen in Ireland should be free to travel into other countries on work wholly unconnected with their police duties, and at the same time be paid as policemen for work which they have neglected to do?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I can only say that as at present advised I see no harm in the matter.
    Mr. HAZLETON: Does the Chief Secretary to the Irish Government propose to continue to allow policemen to hold other positions while they are being paid to devote their whole time to the work?
    Mr. BIRRELL: It all depends what the positions are. If it is found that these duties can be easily performed by persons of police training and habit, I do not see why they should be interfered with, and unless such office is incompatible with their duties as policemen.
    Mr. HAZLETON: Is it not the fact that the regulations lay down that policemen should devote their whole time to the duties of their office as policemen, and is not this a paid position under the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir, there is nothing whatever in this position inconsistent with the position of a constabulary officer under the rules.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that no county council in Ireland is subjected to a charge for extra police so long as the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary are in England?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, I will see.

BILL PRESENTED.
  SALMON FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To enable fishermen to become leaseholders or purchasers of fisheries under the Irish Land Acts," presented by Mr. JOYCE; supported by Mr. William Redmond, Mr. Boland, Mr. MacVeagh, Sir Thomas Esmonde, and Mr. Clancy; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next.

  REGENCY BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)

  CLAUSE 1.—(Her Majesty Queen Mary to be Regent).
  (1) If on the demise of His present Majesty (whom God long preserve) any child of His Majesty succeeds to the Crown whilst under the age of eighteen years, Her Majesty Queen Mary shall be the guardian, and have the care and tuition of such child until the child attain the age of eighteen years, and until that time shall have the disposition, ordering, and management of all matters and things relating thereto.
  (2) Her Majesty Queen Mary shall, until such child attain the age of eighteen years and no longer, have full power and authority in the name of such child and in the stead of such child, and under the style and title of "the Regent" to exercise and administer, according to the laws and constitution thereof, the Royal power and government of this realm, and all the dominions, countries, and territories belonging to the Crown thereof, and use, exercise, and perform all prerogatives, authorities, and acts of government and administration of government that belong to the Sovereign of this realm to use, execute, and perform according to the laws thereof, but in such manner and subject to such conditions, restrictions, limitations, and regulations as are contained in this Act.
  (3) All acts of Royal power, prerogative, government, and administration of government of any kind which shall be done of executed during the Regency established by this Act otherwise than by and with the consent, and authority of the Regent, in the manner and according to the directions prescribed by this Act, shall be absolutely null and void to all intents and purposes.
  Mr. BRUNNER: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "eighteen" ["Whilst under the age of eighteen years"] and to insert instead thereof "twenty-one."
  The Amendment which I propose will relieve the Sovereign from taking up the duties of his position until he is twenty-one years of age. The question, of course,

  1517
  can be argued at great length as to when a boy is old enough to assume responsibility. Practically, eighteen years is too young. At eighteen years of age a boy cannot come to this House, and if he is born to be a legislator his judgment is not considered to me matured until he is twenty-one years of age. Lawyers have a great contempt for anyone under twenty-one years of age. He is called an "infant." If you lend an "infant" money you are very likely to land yourself in gaol.
  There is another point in view: that is, that the King, when he comes of age, will have the handling of several hundreds of thousands of pounds a year. This sum is not so much as it looks on paper, perhaps, because a great deal of the Civil List has to be paid to certain useful and ornamental people about the Court, so that the King does not get it all. I have known boys who would get into mischief if a great amount of money is placed at their disposal. At eighteen years of age the ordinary individual begins his university life. If the Sovereign has to have a university training at all, that is the age at which he will begin, it. Eighteen years of age is too soon for a boy to begin reading dry documents and to sign his name all the morning, and to lay foundation-stones all the afternoon. I am not a Court physician, but I maintain that those of Royal blood do not mature any earlier than ordinary human beings. I can conceive that there is only one argument against my Amendment. That is the constitutional argument— that it has always been so. The Sovereign under every Regency Bill has to come of age at eighteen. Well, Sir, I hope the Prime Minister is not afraid of the Constitution. None of us think much of the Constitution to-day. It may be precedent, but I think the Crown will never, again commit follies in the name of precedent. I beg to move.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I assume, Mr. Emmott, when you allowed my hon. Friend to make the speech he has made that you did not regard this Amendment as out of order. The title of the Bill is: "To provide for the administration of the Government in case the Crown should descend to any issue of His Majesty while such issue shall be under the age of eighteen years, and for the care and guardianship of such issue." Primâ facie, the Amendment is going beyond the scope of the title.
  The CHAIRMAN:I have to consider the scope of the Bill as well as the title, and I do not think the Amendment is out of order.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I assumed that from the fact that my hon. Friend has made his speech. I hope he will not press this Amendment. We are following in this matter what I venture with all deference to him to regard as not unimportant, namely, the unbroken line of constitutional precedent. In every Regency Bill ever submitted to, or passed by the House of Commons, the majority of the Sovereign was to be attained at the age of eighteen years. It was so in the case of Edward VI., and it was so in the case of Her late Majesty Queen Victoria, and it was so in 1840 in the Bill regulating the Succession to the Throne. It would be an entirely new departure in our constitutional history and precedents to make the age at which the Sovereign should attain his majority twenty-one instead of eighteen. The age of eighteen has been that applied both in the case of men and women, and I really do not think it can be said that in these days persons are less fit to discharge duties at the age of eighteen than they were in the fifteenth, sixteenth, or seventeenth centuries. It is to be hoped my hon. Friend will allow us to preserve the Bill in the form sanctioned by the unbroken usage of the past.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I do not understand why the hon. Member opposite brought forward this Amendment. We have had in the last hundred years a very excellent example of how well the Bill as it is presented by the Government worked. The late Queen Victoria succeeded to the Throne at the age of eighteen. She was quite a young girl, presumably unacquainted with great matters of State. Will any hon. Member opposite get up and say that the late Queen Victoria during the first three years of her reign did not carry on the Government as a constitutional Sovereign as well as any man or woman could have done? And with that precedent before us, I cannot understand why the hon. Member should have brought forward his Amendment. We have, as the Prime Minister has said, precedent in favour of this Bill, and we have before us a great example of how well a Sovereign of eighteen can carry on the Government.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  CLAUSE 1 added to the Bill.
  CLAUSE 2 agreed to.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Marriage of Sovereign under the age of eighteen forbidden during Regency without consent of Regent and Parliament).
  (1) During the Regency, the Sovereign for whom the Regent is appointed shall not intermarry, before attaining the age of eighteen years, with any person, unless the consent in writing of the Regent and the assent of both Houses of Parliament is previously obtained, and any marriage entered into in contravention of this Section shall be null and void to all intents and purposes.
  (2) Any person who shall act, aid, abet, or be concerned in obtaining, procuring, or bringing about any marriage in contravention of this Section, and the person who shall be married in contravention of this Section to the Sovereign shall be guilty of high treason.
  Mr. J. KING (for Mr. Luttrell): On behalf of my hon. Friend I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "and any marriage entered into in contravention of this Section snail be null and void to all intents and purposes."
  I move this Amendment because I think the retention of the words I propose to leave out would be obviously offensive to present ideas. We desire to treat the Royal family, and all members of it, with as much respect and confidence as we should the members of our own families. This Clause, as it stands, means that a marriage might be lawfully performed according to the rites of the Church of England, and yet be declared null and void by this Parliament. I trust I shall have the support of those Members opposite who accept the traditions of the Church of England in my effort to eliminate the last portion of the Sub-section.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think my hon. Friend has carefully examined the language of the Clause. If he had he would see that the Amendment, if adopted, would be meaningless. What are the words he proposes to allow to stand without objection? That "during the Regency, the Sovereign for whom the Regent is appointed shall not intermarry before attaining the age of eighteen years, with any person unless the consent in writing of the Regent and the assent of both Houses of Parliament is previously obtained." He is prohibited there from marrying before attaining the age of eighteen unless the consent of the Regent and the assent of
  1520
  both Houses of Parliament is previously obtained, and the Clause goes on, "And any marriage entered into in contravention of this Section shall be null and void." What is the object of and what would be the effect of prohibiting a marriage if the prohibited marriage after it took place was not, to all intents and purposes, null and void? If my hon. Friend had proposed to omit the earlier words of the Section we should have something to argue about, but when you say first in absolute terms such a marriage is not to take place why object to saying if it does take place it shall be null and void?
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment can really have read it before he moved it, because the Amendment would make nonsense if carried. Suppose, for the sake of argument, the Amendment was carried, and that the Sovereign was married without the assent of both Houses of Parliament, the marriage would be null and void, even though the words of the Amendment were omitted, because the Sovereign would have contracted a marriage without the consent of Parliament. I am not learned in the law, but I hope I have a little common-sense—a quality which seems to be lacking among certain Members on the other side of the House. It seems to me that the omission of these words can only be moved with the object of wasting time or else that the hon. Gentleman in whose name the Amendment stands upon the Paper, when he read it, decided he had better not move it himself, and left it to his hon. Friend to do so. I should like to have some explanation as to whether the Amendment was put down after due consideration, or if, after seeing it on the Paper, the hon. Member in whose name it is retired from the House for the time being. I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
  Mr. LUTTRELL: I think we ought to have the same law for the Sovereign with respect to matrimony as we have for the people of this country.
  Sir F. BANBURY: This makes the Amendment more confused than ever. The hon. Member says we ought to have the same law for the Sovereign as for everybody else. Supposing the hon. Member were to marry, has he to come and obtain the assent of both Houses of Parliament? He is prepared to agree to the first part of the Section, which says the Sovereign

  1521
  cannot marry without the assent of both Houses of Parliament, unless without my knowledge he has introduced some Bill—
  Mr. LUTTRELL: What I stated was that after the marriage was contracted the law with regard to it ought to be exactly the same as it is in the case of anybody else. The Sovereign should be treated in the same way as an ordinary being after he has entered into the bonds of matrimony.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That apparently has only just occurred to the hon. Gentleman. The Amendment says nothing about "after the marriage has been contracted." The only argument he has brought forward is one which ought to induce him to vote against the Clause as it stands. I do not know whether he proposes to do that, but it is the only logical outcome of his argument.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. LUTTRELLmoved to leave out Sub-section (2).
  I am strongly opposed to this Sub-section. One may object to a marriage of this sort, but I do not think we ought to have the severe penalty of high treason put upon it. The Sovereign would be exempt and get off scot free, but the poor woman who happened to marry him would be subject to the punishment of death. I think that is far too high a penalty for such an offence, but I would be willing to accept the penalty for felony.
  Mr. CARLILE: A responsibility is laid upon the Sovereign in the terms of the Bill by the Legislature, and in return for that he is entitled to the protection provided for in the Bill. No penalty could be too high, and I hope the hon. Member will see fit to withdraw his Amendment, because by eliminating the Sub-section the whole of the responsibility still devolves upon the Sovereign under the Bill, and the only protection which is extended to him by this Sub-section, is removed.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The effect of the Amendment would be that no punishment of any sort or kind would be inflicted on those concerned in aiding, abetting, or procuring the marriage. My hon. Friend proposes to make it a perfectly legal act. I do not think he intends that. If he desires to discuss the question whether it should be treated as high treason or not
  1522
  that is an arguable point; but he now proposes that it should be perfectly legal for a person, or a number of persons, to procure the Sovereign a lady in marriage. I would therefore suggest to him that he should withdraw this Amendment.
  Mr. LUTTRELL: My object was to eliminate this Sub-section and have something put in its place. We hope there will be some improvement on the Sub-section, and on those grounds I am perfectly willing to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. LUTTRELLmoved, in Sub-section (2), after the word "shall" ["any person who shall"] to insert the word "knowingly."
  I think my Amendment will greatly improve the Sub-section. Anyone might abet a marriage of this sort without knowing it, and it would be very hard indeed that there should be this very heavy penalty for anyone who took a part in the marriage. Even the clergyman or minister might be subject to punishment for treason. My Amendment, at any rate, would make sure that if anyone was punished for aiding or abetting the marriage they would have done so knowingly.
  40 P.M.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think there is much difference one way or the other. I do not see how anybody can abet a marriage without knowingly doing it. The legal effect is exactly the same whether or not you leave out the word "knowingly." Why is the hon. Member so extremely anxious to save from this penalty any person who tries to marry his daughter to the King? There must be some hidden object in this Amendment. Will the hon. Member explain, and then perhaps I may be able to come to his assistance? He told us there would be great danger if this Section were passed. I cannot see any danger. I do not believe any ordinary person in England would endeavour to get his daughter married to the future King when he knew that by so doing he would be contravening an Act of Parliament. Unless the hon. Gentleman knows that there is some conspiracy on foot, which he may be aiding and abetting himself, I really do not know what the object of this Amendment is.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: I think there is some substance in the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  Sir F. BANBURY: What, have you a daughter, too?
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: I do not know that the word "knowingly" will make much difference, especially as previous provisions of this Act make such marriages null and void. Such an attempt is doomed to failure therefore from the outset. It cannot be a marriage after all, and I do not think that the failure should be treated as an offence subject to the death punishment. I must confess I do not think that this matter should be treated as a joke. My hon. Friend who has moved this Amendment has good intentions; there is common sense and humane feeling at the back of his proposal. We all know him to be a very humane and serious-minded man, and I do hope that the Prime Minister will give consideration to this proposal. Of course, I am speaking in entire ignorance of any understanding there may be between my hon. Friend and the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I can assure you I have no desire to prevent this Bill going through.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: I can only express my humble opinion in favour of some modification of this Section. I do not think the offence indicated is one worthy of the death penalty.
  The CHAIRMAN: I understand we are going to discuss the question of the penalty at a later stage, and we had better deal with this point then.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: I thought I was in order in assuming that the word "knowingly" did apply to the Amendment of my hon. Friend, which seeks to provide that the person who commits the offence shall "knowingly" be guilty of something very serious. The question is: Cannot the penalty in this case be made less serious? I strongly urge the Government to agree to some modification, because I confidently believe that public opinion would never allow any Court to give effect to the Clause as it now stands.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think it is worth while spending time in discussing this Amendment; but, if it will afford any satisfaction to my hon. Friend, I will at once state that I agree that under the legal construction of this Clause no man can possibly be convicted unless it can be shown he knew what he was doing.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. LUTTRELL: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to omit the words "and the person who shall be married in contravention of this Section to the Sovereign."
  The object of this Amendment is to prevent the person who marries the Sovereign being subject to this extremely heavy penalty. It is quite possible that great hardship may arise under this provision. The person might be to a very great extent innocent; she may possibly have been foolish, but certainly she ought not to be subject to this very heavy penalty, and I therefore ask the Government to except one who may be the victim of a conspiracy on the part of others to bring about this marriage.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I should like to say I am disposed to agree with the Mover of this Amendment, although there is not the faintest reason to fear that the extreme penalty of the law would be inflicted in a case of this kind. But at the same time my hon. Friend will not surely contend that the person who is the most guilty party ought not to be punished.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I do not think the Prime Minister is entirely right in saying that the person who marries the future Sovereign is the most guilty party of all. I would remind him of the case of Mrs. Fitzherbert. I do not think it can be said that she was the most guilty party. I am rather sorry to see this Bill treated with so much levity. After all, it is a very serious arrangement for dealing with a very serious set of circumstances. In case, which God forbid, our present gracious Sovereign should die during the minority of his son, circumstances might then arise which would not be at all the subject of a joke; they would indeed be very serious circumstances, and they must be provided for in a serious manner. I think there is something to be said for this Amendment. It cannot be denied that the person who has married the Sovereign has been acting, aiding, and abetting, or concerned in obtaining, procuring, and bringing about the marriage; and as a humble layman I think there is something to be said in favour of leaving out the words proposed to be omitted. It would not in any respect weaken the Clause, because the case of this particular person is included in the rest of the Clause, and, therefore, subject to the same penalty.
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is a pure question of drafting. My hon. Friend

  1525
  surely will not suggest that the person who contracts a marriage should not be punished. This is the form of words invariably used by the great lawyers and draftsmen of the past when they have had to deal with this particular matter. I am not so sure that they have been wrong or that my hon. Friend is right. I can quite conceive that a person who is actually one of the parties to such a marriage contract may not be strictly described in point of law—and in these legal matters the Statute has to be very strictly construed— I am not so certain that such a person could be accurately described as acting, aiding, and abetting, or concerned in obtaining, procuring, and bringing about the marriage. If anybody is to be punished at all it surely cannot be suggested that the person who is herself one of the parties to the marriage should be exempted. I appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment, as really his point will be served when we come to deal with the question of the amount of punishment to be awarded.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: If such a marriage as has been referred to did take place, it is quite possible that the bride might not know that it was the Sovereign she was marrying, and, therefore, it is necessary to include the word "knowingly" at some point, in order to justify her being made subject to the penalty of high treason; otherwise the Clause might operate very harshly against her.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I agree with the hon. Member for King's Lynn that we ought to treat this question in a spirit of seriousness. I do not quite agree with him in his reference to Mrs. Fitzherbert. As far as I remember, it was stated in that case that no marriage had taken place. Indeed, it has never been admitted that any marriage did take place. On the contrary, it was always denied, and therefore I do not think the illustration is an apt one. I can hardly believe that in these days any girl would be so foolish as to allow herself to be married to the Sovereign without knowing it. I really do not think it is possible, and under the circumstances I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment.
  Mr. LUTTRELL: I do not know whether I am in order in referring to what fell from the Prime Minister, which leads me to suppose that he would consider whether the penalty should not be greatly reduced,
  1526
  but on that understanding I am quite willing to withdraw this Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I do not know whether I should be in order in moving the insertion of the word "knowingly," but I suggest it to the Prime Minister.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Move it.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "Sovereign" ["and the person who shall be married in contravention of this Section to the Sovereign"], to insert the words "knowing him to be such."
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am disposed to agree that, having inserted the word "knowingly" in the first part of the Subsection some words should be here inserted. I do not quite like to accept the Amendment exactly in the form in which the hon. Member has moved it at the moment, but if he will defer the matter to the Report stage I will consider it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. LUTTRELL: I beg to move in Sub-section (2) to leave out the words "high treason" ["shall be guilty of high treason"] and to insert instead thereof the words, "a misdemeanour and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment at assizes to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds."
  My object is to reduce the penalty, and I think that which I have proposed would be quite sufficient to attain the object in view.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I venture to express a hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment. There can be no doubt, I think, that any offence that affects the Succession to the Crown is either high treason or nothing. The Government will be acting contrary to the whole body of the Law and innumerable Acts of Parliament if they introduce the principle that an act affecting and involving the Succession to the Crown is anything but high treason. The question of whether the penalty for high treason is not in some cases too severe is another matter which does not arise on this Bill, but this is beyond all doubt high treason, because it is an act affecting the Succession to the Crown. The Government will go against a great body of constitutional authority if they treat it as anything else.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I quite agree with the Noble Lord in so far that I do not think that the maximum penalty proposed by my hon. Friend would be adequate to meet the offence we are considering. I can imagine a very serious conspiracy to entrap a youthful Sovereign into an extremely improvident and undesirable marriage, and it would be most inadequate to treat that offence as a misdemeanour and make it punishable by a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment. I do not think that that covers the necessities of a case which is likely to occur. On the other hand, I am disposed to think we might modify the Bill. It has been drawn to render the act one of high treason, and it follows the precedents of all the previous Acts of Parliament. The last Regency Act was 1840, and that was passed prior to the Treason Felony Act of 1848. That latter Act, as many in this House will remember, was passed for the purpose of giving the law and giving the judges an opportunity of dealing with cases which were technically cases of high treason, but had not been of an aggravated character or grave offences which ought to be punishable by death, and death alone. That Act put these offences in a new category as regards punishment, and described them as treason felony. It imposed a penalty of the most elastic kind, as it might be nominal or it might be penal servitude for life, and I do not think that now, having opened this new chapter of the law, we might treat the offences dealt with by this Bill as those of treason felony. If my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment I will myself propose to leave out the words "high treason," and to insert the words "a felony under the Treason Felony Act of 1848."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move to leave out the words "high treason," and to insert instead thereof the words "a felony under the Treason Felony Act of 1848."
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I desire to ask one question as to the provisions of that Act. The hon. Gentleman suggested in his Amendment that this offence might be dealt with by a fine not exceeding £500, but having regard to the offence, if it is an offence, I think that would be ridiculous. I want to put it to the Prime Minister, therefore, whether, if it was made an offence under the Treason Felony Act imprisonment would
  1528
  necessarily form part of the punishment, or whether under that Act a fine might be imposed? I do not think that this is an offence which can be curbed by the payment of a fine. If Parliament thinks it necessary solemnly to lay down that the King being a minor shall not marry without certain precautions, and without certain preliminary consents, the case we are dealing with is that of people who, in defiance of an Act of Parliament, induce the minor or connive at the minor committing a breach of the statute, and that, as my Noble Friend has pointed out, is a matter which most nearly concerns the Succession to the Crown and the safety of the nation, and is an offence which, under no circumstances that I can conceive, would be adequately met by the infliction of a mere fine. I should therefore like to know from the Prime Minister whether a fine is an alternative in the statute which he has adopted, and whether the more serious punishment must be inflicted?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am speaking from recollection, but I should say certainly that in the case of treason felony the smallest punishment that would be awarded would be some term of imprisonment, but I will look into the matter. At any rate, this Act does give the court a perfectly elastic power of imposing sentences as high as penal servitude for life, or as low as imprisonment for a short period. I think that is satisfactory.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Regent not entitled to give the Royal, Assent to any Act alteriny the Succession to the Grown, etc. 12 Will. 3. c. 2. 13 and 14 Chas. 2. c. 4).
  The Regent shall not give or have power to give the Royal Assent to any Bill for repealing, changing, or in any respect varying, the order or course of Succession to the Crown of this realm, as established by the Act of Settlement or to any Bill for repealing or altering the Act of the fourteenth year of the reign of King Charles the Second, chapter four, commonly known as the Act of Uniformity, or an Act of the fifth year of the reign of Queen Anne, made in Scotland, intituled "An Act for securing the Protestant religion and Presbyterian Government."
  Mr. HOLT: I beg to move to leave out after the word "Settlement" ["as established by the Act of Settlement"] all the words to the end of the Clause.

  1529
  This Clause precludes the Regent giving her assent to any Bill for repealing or altering the Act of Uniformity, and another Act with regard to the establishment of the Church in Scotland. I do not want to drag the Committee into any theological discussion, although I should be perfectly in order in discussing this Act, tout I would remind the Committee that this Act of Uniformity was passed at a bad time in English history. It was passed at the time of the Restoration, and it led to the breaking up of the Christian Church, and the expulsion of 2,000 clergymen from their livings. It is therefore not an Act to be particularly proud of. I think I am also right in saying this, that it is impossible to carry out any scheme for making an alteration in the Prayer-book of the Church of England without making an alteration in the Act of Uniformity. The Prime Minister has made an alteration in the Accession Declaration of the King in order to meet the wishes of Roman Catholics, but there are other persons who object to the Athanasian Creed, and the alteration of that is one of the very things which under this Clause the Regent will be prohibited from assenting to. Furthermore, the Act of Uniformity actually prevents the use of college churches and chapels in connection with universities for giving a fair and universal exposition of religious teaching among the persons going to the university. It is also a great bar to the interchange of the ordinary courtesies, such as the change of pulpits between the Established Church and other religious bodies, and I submit it is not an Act which ought to have any special difficulty put in the way of its repeal or alteration. I was under the impression that the Act would have to be altered or repealed in regard to the disestablishment of the Church in Wales, but the Prime Minister very courteously said he did not think it was necessary, and I would like to ask him a question. When the Bill was introduced for the disestablishment of the Church in Wales it was proposed that the parish churches and the great cathedrals should be handed over to the Established Church, but supposing the Bill were to provide that these churches were national monuments, and should be held by a national body as trustees for the use of all branches of the Christian Church—and no disestablishment ought to be undertaken which did not carry that provision out—I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether in that event he will say that it would be
  1530
  possible to disendow or disestablish the Church without repealing the Act of Uniformity?
  Sir F. BANBURY: Does the hon. Member advance the argument that it would not be possible to disestablish the Church if this Clause is in the Bill?
  Mr. HOLT: The argument I am advancing is that this Clause, if it has any effect, will prevent the Regent giving any assent to the disestablishment of the Church. Now, with regard to the Scotch Act, I do not know very much about Scotch domestic law, but I have read some evidence as to, and made some little inquiry into, the history of this Act, and a very superficial inquiry has shown me that at a recent date this Statute for securing the Protestant religion was actually partially repealed. That was in 1905, when an Act was passed called the Churches (Scotland) Act, which contains a Schedule repealing a portion of the Act referred to. So that far from this particular Act being sacrosanct and one to the repeal of which no Regent ought to give her assent, in the last five years it has been altered and portions of it have been repealed. Apart from the merits of these two particular Bills, it is a very mistaken policy to put in an Act of Parliament that the assent of the Regent to any possible measure which we may pass should be given on different grounds with respect to some measures from those on which it should be given in respect to others. First of all, it is absurd; you cannot possibly bind the Parliament of the day, you cannot prevent it from passing a Bill to repeal the Act of Uniformity. Does anyone suppose that if the two Houses of Parliament were to pass such a measure the Royal Assent would be refused? It is very childish, but, apart from that, it suggests a wrong idea of the position of the Crown. The Regent acts temporarily for the Crown, and what applies to one must apply to the other. This is a suggestion to the Crown that there are certain measures the assent to which ought not to be given on the advice of Ministers. If it means anything, it means that. There is no reason whatever why the Crown should be required to deal with matters affecting the Church establishment in England and in Scotland on different lines from other measures.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I rather agree with the hon. Member. I thought it was one of the well-recognised principles of legislation that you cannot bind future Parlia-

  1531
  merits. But, further, the only effect of this would be to involve the passing of two Acts of Parliament instead of one. There would be one Act to repeal this Section and another Act to carry whatever you please. I suppose this provision is merely copying an earlier Act, and it is evidently an irrational proposal. You cannot possibly restrict the Legislature. It is interesting to observe that the present Government have actually given letters of business to Convocation to consider changes in the Prayer Book which will involve a modification of the Act of Uniformity, and if the great calamity against which this Bill is intended to make provision takes place it might quite easily happen that the Act of Uniformity would come before the Regency. So that, unlike earlier Amendments, this is one which really might have some positive relevancy. It would put Parliament in an absurd position to have to pass two Acts of Parliament instead of one to carry out an alteration of the law.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am very much disposed to agree with my hon. Friend and with the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil). I do not think a Disestablishment Bill would necessarily involve the repeal of the Act of Uniformity.
  Mr. HOLT: Would it make any difference if particular churches were to be retained by the State?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think it would. This is not really a very important matter. We are dealing only with a period, at the outside, of two years, during which I do not suppose the Noble Lord is sanguine enough to think that such a Bill will be awaiting the Royal Assent or that of the Regent. He is more sanguine than I am if he anticipates anything of the kind. We have in this matter followed strictly the precedent of preceding Acts. I think they are rather irrational, because, as the Noble Lord says, by the simple expedient of passing two Bills— one empowering the Regent to give her assent to a new Act and the other the new Act itself—any Parliament could at any moment override this provision. I think we should be well advised to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman
  1532
  confines his advice to the House to accepting the Amendment. The argument of the hon. Member, as apart from the illustration, of course, applies to the whole Clause.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not mind omitting the Clause.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think it is better to confine the alteration to be made to the words proposed by the hon. Member in substitution for those of the former Statute. It is quite true that Parliament, no doubt, could first repeal the Clause, and then pass the contravention of the Clause. At any rate, the Succession to the Throne is a matter of some solemnity and importance, and it is not a bad thing that we should place on record our opinion that the Act of Uniformity ought not to be altered during the minority. We are providing for a contingency which we hope will not occur, even if the Regency occurs. The probability of any Bill of the kind prohibited here in the first words of the Clause being introduced or passed is very remote and almost nonexistent, and it is just as well to mark the solemnity of that Act and to say that it is one which ought not to be treated of under such circumstances as that.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am not at all sure that I agree with my right hon. Friend or with the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil). Here we have a Clause which undoubtedly the Government put in after careful consideration. The hon. Member opposite is desirous of disestablishing the Church of England, and in the hope of doing that he tries to persuade his Leader to make an alteration in the Clause which that same Leader has carefully considered, and presented to the House as being a proper Clause to pass. I do not see what we are going to gain by accepting the Amendment, but I can see what we are going to lose. We are going to give an opportunity for an immediate agitation for the abolition of the Chuch of England in Wales. Probably that is the meaning of the Amendment. I really think we might wait before we have any more of this harassing legislation, and if we were to have the calamity, which none of us hope will come about—the Leader of the House says it will only be a question of two years—and as we have been so many years in possession of the Church of England in Wales, we can certainly wait for two years before we trouble about disestablishing it. The Bill is really more or less, if not entirely,

  1533
  on the lines of former Regency Bills. What is the use of introducing all these alterations? I believe the Act of Uniformity deals with the Rubric. We may have all sorts of alterations made in the Rubric, and all the trouble between High Church and Low Church springing up which we might be deprived of it was left as it is. If, unfortunately, such things occur we do not want to take the time when there is an interval between the death of the last King and the succession of the next King for controversial measures, and none can be more controversial, or more likely to lead to bitter feeling than the religious question, and it would be very much simpler if the right hon. Gentleman would stick to the Bill, and not accept the Amendment.
  Mr. J. KING: I wish to intervene in consequence of some words which fell from the Prime Minister. He stated just now that we are only legislating for two years. Surely that is inaccurate. Surely it is quite possible that the events contemplated might arise at a period much beyond two years. Suppose, for instance, we were face to face with the unfortunate event of the
  death of the Sovereign, and also before that time, the death of the present Heir-apparent. The circumstances contemplated under this Bill would possibly arise at a much later date than the two years, and though we, in the first instance, contemplate only a possible two years, yet really the purview of the Bill may be extended to a much further period, therefore I think it would be much more to the point that we should legislate with a view to the possible circumstances which the Mover of the Amendment contemplates.
  Sir CLIFFORD CORY: The Noble Lord suggests that the Amendment should be accepted in order to alter the Prayer Book so as to make legal the illegal practices now being carried on by the Church of England. I therefore think it better that the words should be left in, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will keep them in.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 118; Noes, 209.

  Division No. 84.]

  AYES.

  [4.45 P.m.

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

  Grant, J. A.

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid.)

  Adam, Major W. A.

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Arbuthnot, G. A.

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Attenborough, W. A.

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Bagot, Captain J.

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Proby, Colonel Douglas James

  Balrd, J. L.

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hardy, Laurence

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Harris, F. L. (Stepney)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Barnston, H.

  Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)

  Rice, Hon. W.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Ridley, Samuel Forde

  Bird, A.

  Heath, Col. A. H.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Henderson, H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hickmann, Col. T,

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Calley, Colonel T. C. P.

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Campion, W. R.

  Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Cator, John

  Kerry, Earl of

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cautiey, H. S

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Clay, Captain H. Spender

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Kirkwood, J. H. M.

  Stewart, Gershom (Ches., Wirral)

  Coates, Major E. F.

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkcudbright)

  Cooper, Capt. Bryan (Dublin Co., S.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Sykes, Alan John

  Cooper, R. A. (Walsall)

  Llewelyn, Major Venables

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

  Cioft, H. P.

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

  Dixon, C. H.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)

  Falle, B. G.

  Macklnder, H. J.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Fell, Arthur

  Macmaster, Donald

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

  Fleming, Valentine

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)

  Mitchell, William Foot

  Goldman, C. S.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt

  Mount, William Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir F.

  Gordon, J.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Banbury and Mr. Ashley.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  NOES.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Agnew, George William

  Hancock, J. G.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Alaen, Percy

  Hardle, J. Keir

  O'Dowd, John

  Allen, Charles P.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Malley, William

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Palmer, Godfrey

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Partington, Oswald

  Barlow, Sir John E.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Pearson, Weetman H. M.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hayward, Evan

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Barton, W.

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Louth, N.)

  Pirle, Duncan V.

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pointer, Joseph

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Bentham, G. J.

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Boland, John Pius

  Higham, John Sharp

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hindle, F. G.

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Bowles, T. Gibson

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Brace, William

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Brigg, Sir John

  Hooper, A. G.

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife West)

  Reddy, H.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Hughes, S. L.

  Robinson, S.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Roche, John (Galway East)

  Cameron, Robert

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Powntree, Arnold

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Johnson, W.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Jones, Edgar (Merttiyr Tydvil)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Chancellor, Henry G.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Jowett, F. W.

  Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Joyce, Michael

  Snowden, P.

  Clough, William

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Clynes, J. R-

  Lambert, George

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Leach, Charles

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Summers, James Woolley

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Sutton, John E.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Lincoln-, Ignatius T. T.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamo'gan, E)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Crossley, Sir W. J.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burgh;)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Toulmin, George

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Delany, William

  M'Callum, John M.

  Lire, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Denman, R. D.

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Devlin, Joseph

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

  M'Laren, Rt. Hon. Sir C. B. (Leics.)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Dickinson, W. H.

  M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Duffy, William J.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-ln-Furness)

  Martin, J.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Middlebrook, William

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Esslemont, George Birnle

  Millar, J. D.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Falconer, J.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Whyte, Alexander F.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mond, Sir Alfred

  Wiles, Thomas

  Ferens, T. R.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  France, G. A.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Furness, Stephen

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Muldoon, John

  Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Munro, R.

  Winfrey, Richard

  Glanville, H. J.

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Wing, Thomas

  Glover, Thomas

  Muspratt, M.

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Neilson, Francis

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Greenwood, G. G.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Noland, Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

  Guest, Major

  Nuttall, Harry

  Question, "That the Bill be read a second time," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 5.— (Powers of the Jet to determine if Regent becomes Roman Catholic or marries Roman Catholic, or resides abroad).
  If Her Majesty Queen Mary shall, after becoming Regent, be reconciled to or hold communion with the See or Church of Rome, or shall profess the Roman Catholic religion, or shall marry a person profess-
  1536
  ing the Roman Catholic religion, or shall cease to reside in or absent herself otherwise than temporarily from the United Kingdom, Her Majesty shall no longer be guardian and Regent; and all the powers and authorities which she may have derived under or by virtue of this Act shall thenceforth cease and determine.
  Mr. HOLT: I beg to move to leave out the words, "be reconciled to or hold communion with the See or Church of Rome, or shall profess the Roman Catholic religion, or shall marry a person professing the Roman Catholic religion, or shall."
  I should like to protest against including words in the Clause which will prevent the Regent from becoming a Roman Catholic if she thinks fit to do so. I am as sincerely attached to the Protestant religion as any Member of this House. I have been a Protestant all my life, and I hope I always shall be, but I cannot for the life of me understand how Protestantism is going to be advanced by putting these restrictions on a person in the position of Regent. The success of Protestantism depends on the extent to which we adhere to our principles and give free liberty of conscience to everybody else. That is the keynote of the Protestant religion, and it seems to me to be absurd to try to maintain Protestantism by intolerant methods. In my judgment the Regent, and, so far as that is concerned, the Sovereign himself, ought to have precisely the same right as every other citizen to profess that which they feel in their own conscience as accurate. I believe that the position of Protestants in this country when enactments of this nature were originally passed was different from that in which they are now. In the old days the King was able to dismiss the Government and to appoint unqualified people in order to carry out his own arbitrary designs. We have got beyond all this now, and I believe if we had absolute equality it would be a good thing for the Protestant religion throughout the country. I understand that the words which I propose to leave out of the Clause are really superfluous. The same provision is contained in the Catholic Emancipation Act. In that Act there is a Clause which provides for preventing the Regent becoming a Roman Catholic, and part of the Clause prohibits the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland becoming a Roman Catholic. The Liberal party have pledged themselves to abolish that Clause. They pledged themselves during Mr. Gladstone's time in the 1886 Parliament, and I would really suggest to the Government that we have now reached a stage of civilisation when we ought not to re-enact any of those old tests, but stand fast by what I believe to be the right principle of
  1538
  Liberalism, namely, that there shall be complete civil and religious liberty accorded to everyone in the country.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): I am sure that everyone will agree with the principles of toleration expressed by my hon. Friend (Mr. Holt), and will sympathise with him in his desire to accord liberty of conscience. At the same time, I do not feel that the Government will be expected to adopt in their fullest interpretation and freest spirit the views he has put forward, and to sweep away the whole of the long and not inglorious history of the country in this matter. It is unquestionable that a very great body of opinion in this country views with extreme apprehension the accession, if it were possible under the law, of a Roman Catholic Sovereign to the Throne of these realms. The Protestant Succession is protected by Statutes of the most serious character, and it is maintained strongly by the provisions of Acts of Parliament passed by this House. We have recently taken, or are about to take, steps to rid our procedure of language, which has been held to be offensive to the members of the Roman Catholic faith. But the Government are not at all prepared to place themselves in opposition to the whole structure which has grown up for centuries, and by which the Protestant Succession to the Throne is safeguarded, as we would do, by leaving out the words which my hon. Friend proposes to omit from this Bill. If it is the will of Parliament, as it undoubtedly is at the present time the law of the land, that the Sovereign of these Realms must be in communication with the Church of England as by law established, then it equally follows—and, indeed, it follows all the more—that the Regent also who is to guide the mind and convictions of the young Sovereign who is a minor should not be in communion with the Church of Rome. In those circumstances, while not in any way disputing the broad general view which my hon. Friend has brought forward, the Government do not at all feel able to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. LUTTRELL: I would ask whether the Government can accept a portion of my hon. Friend's proposal if they cannot accept the whole of it, and omit from the Clause the words whereby the Regent is prevented as Regent from joining the Church of Rome. We who agree with the hon. Member (Mr. Holt) have heard the

  1539
  answer of the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the Amendment as proposed, and we will not press the Government further on that point. I myself think that there ought to be no disqualification at all, but I accept the right hon. Gentleman's reply in so far as it relates to the whole of the Amendment. At the same time, I would ask whether the Government could not accept the Amendment in the modified form which I suggest. Supposing the Regent wished to marry a member of the Church of Rome, I do not think that marriage would prevent her from remaining a member of the Church of England. A good many Protestants in this country marry Roman Catholics, and, nevertheless, both parties remain Protestants and Catholics as before. I think we might well say that the Regent should be allowed if she wished to marry a Roman Catholic, and therefore I would suggest the omission of the words "or shall marry a person professing the Roman Catholic religion."
  5.0 P.M.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I am not surprised that the Government are unwilling to accept this Amendment, I only rise to ask the Solicitor-General some questions affecting the meaning of the Clause. The Regent, being a descendant of George III., is not able to marry anyone without the consent of the Sovereign. How can this consent of the Sovereign be given in the circumstances of the case? Being under age, could the Sovereign give consent, or would the Regent herself be in a position to give consent? There is no provision for dealing with the case. The second point is the point which has been often called attention to by historians, that this Clause, no more than the Bill of Rights itself, makes no provision for dealing with the case if the Regent did become a Roman Catholic. What would happen if she did? What would be the position of Parliament and of the State under such circumstances? Nobody knows how the Bill of Rights could be enforced. The Sovereign could go on and it would be impossible, short of a revolutionary measure, to enforce what is desired. The truth is that Parliament is really trying to do something by this Clause which lies beyond the power of the Legislature. I recognise that feeling is very strong on the subject and that it is not worth while pressing for the exclusion of the Clause, but it is worth while mentioning the matter if only for the sake of
  1540
  educating the public. This Clause is an attempt to do something which the machinery of legislation has no power to do. The only thing you can do in the case of extreme misgovernment is, that Parliament can, in the future as in the past, declare the Throne vacant. All provisions saying that the Sovereign is not to be a Roman Catholic and that he is not to do this or that are essentially vague.
  Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: I think the decision announced by the Home Secretary is a matter for regret. If he had availed himself of the opportunity of showing readiness to drop a large part of the Clause, I think he would have interpreted the true sense of the House. The Government is at present engaged in the excellent work of endeavouring to effect a constitutional change in the matter of the Oath, which is offensive to twelve millions of His Majesty's subjects in the Empire. The Home Secretary said that if it was the law that the Sovereign must be in communion with the Church of England, and that the Regent must be in communion with the Church of England, then it is all the more necessary that this Clause should remain; but this Clause does not say that the Sovereign shall be a member of the Church of England. It does say that, "if Her Majesty Queen Mary shall, after becoming Regent, be reconciled to or hold communion with the See or Church of Rome, or shall profess the Roman Catholic religon, or shall marry a person professing the Roman Catholic religion," certain penalties shall follow. The Committee will observe there is nothing there penalising any other denomination except the Catholics. The Sovereign has a perfect right to become a Mahomedan or a Wesleyan Methodist, or a Jew, or to proclaim that she has no religion at all, and there is nothing in this Clause to prevent it. This Clause is a relic of the days when bigotry ran rampant throughout the land. I think the best sense of the House and of the whole country will be cordially with the Government if they decide to remove the Clause.
  Mr. BELLOC: The English people are attached to the idea that the Throne or the Regent for the time being shall be professedly and openly a member of the national Church of England. I think it is equally true that of the increasing power of what would be in their eyes a menace to the future of the Catholic Church they have no conception at all. I think if you

  1541
  will go to any of the great artisan constituencies, with the exception of a certain amount of anti-Irish feeling, due to friction between the two races, any definite specific hatred in the matter has disappeared from among the masses of the people. Whether it will reappear I do not know. When the Noble Lord said that he did not wonder at the decision of the Government, I think he was exaggerating the opinion of the University of Oxford. A body less in touch with the English people I cannot conceive. I have no doubt he is representing the feelings of the curates and schoolmasters, but I am certain that in supporting this Amendment I shall be representing my Constituents, not only those Liberals who sent me here, but the overwhelming majority of them.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I intend to support the Declaration Bill, but I shall not support the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite. The two things are absolutely different. The Declaration Bill deals with matter which is offensive to the Roman Catholic Church. This is a different thing altogether. Surely the hon. Member (Mr. MacVeagh) below the Gangway cannot say that it is offensive that the Sovereign of this realm shall not be a member of the Roman Cathoilc Church.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: What I suggested was that you should put in all the other denominations—Mahomedans, Jews, Turks, and all the rest—and say that the Sovereign shall not belong to any of them.
  Sir F. BANBURY: But I was endeavouring to follow the advice of the Prime Minister, and discuss the matter in a serious manner. There is no fear of the Regent becoming either a Mahomedan or a Jew.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Yes, she might become a Jew.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I think there is a very strong feeling in the country that the Sovereign should be a member of the Church of England—the National Church of the country.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Then put that in your Clause.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think it is necessary. There is no danger of the Sovereign or the Regent embracing any other religion except that of the Church of England, unless she embraces that of
  1542
  the Roman Catholic Church. I was very glad to hear the Home Secretary, for the first time for the last three or four years, having some regard to the past. He told us he looked back upon the centuries which have gone, and hesitated to destroy the work these centuries have made. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) astonished me. He thinks this Amendment ought to be carried, and yet he gets up and says, because the Government will not have it, there is nothing more to be said. Unless the hon. Member shows some more courage he will never carry any opinion whatever. He will get no Amendment and no consideration unless he says, "These are my opinions, and I believe I am right and my conscience goes against my party loyalty." If he takes that course he will become a person of considerable reputation. This is a very serious question. All that is stated is that the Regent or the Sovereign shall be a member of the Church of England.
  Mr. BELLOC: The Clause does not say that.
  Sir F. BANBURY: It comes to the same thing.
  An HON. MEMBER: No.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Well, if we are to have an Amendment, let us have one to that effect. But do not let the inference remain that the House of Commons and people of the country do not object to the Sovereign being a member of the Roman Catholic Church. That would be a very serious admission to make, and I hope the Committee will adhere to the decision of the Government.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I repudiate any idea of intolerance in this matter. I do not think that the Roman Catholics can say that they have not received in this country the widest measure of tolerance. But why should you single out this particular religion? I hope I may put what I believe is in the minds of the great multitude of people without any offence. I do not know if Members of the House have read Mr. Gladstone's pamphlet on the Vatican Creed in relation to civil religion. Mr. Gladstone will not be called an intolerant man. What does he point out in that excellent pamphlet? In the early days, before Catholic Emancipation, the great objection taken to Catholic Emancipation, which he says had swayed the mind of such a tolerant and large-minded

  1543
  man as Sir Robert Peel, was that Catholics could not give an undivided allegiance to the Sovereign. Then we find, if we read the history of these times, the most ample assurances are given. If you read what Bishop Doyle says; he says, "What have we to do with Popes? We have nothing whatever to do with them." And the Irish heirarchy said that the doctrine of Papal infallibility had nothing to do with them, and that it was not binding upon their conscience. What followed? In 1870 we had the Vatican Decree, and now, said Mr. Gladstone, rightly or wrongly, no one can be a member of that Church without putting his civil allegiance wholly into the hands of another person, because we have this in the Vatican Decree of Papal infallibility, that the Pope, when he speaks ex cathedra is infallible. And what, says Mr. Gladstone, is ex cathedra He said that there is only one man who can say that, and that is the Pope himself. The seal is in his drawer, and he keeps the key. It only refers to matters of faith and morals. But, says Mr. Gladstone, if you can show me a rag or a tatter of human life which does not come under human morals, then it must be such a rag or tatter that we may disregard it entirely. Therefore, rightly or wrongly, there is that belief on the part of multitudes that they do think that the civil allegiance of Catholics must be in all matters of faith and morals not with the Sovereign here, but with the Sovereign beyond the seas. That is the principal objection which sways the minds of a great many Englishmen in this direction.
  Mr. MacVEAGHMight I remind my hon. Friend that he himself does not follow his own Sovereign in matters of faith?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: But in matters of civil allegiance, which is a different thing. If the hon. Member will read the pamphlet to which I allude, he will see that Mr. Gladstone expressly deals with that, and he says that, in the matter of civil allegiance, that allegiance must be given in all matters of faith and morals, not to the Sovereign of this country, but to the Sovereign over the water. Therefore it is, I think, that we should all greatly object to see a Roman Catholic Sovereign or Regent of this country. It is not on religious grounds—and I hope that I shall not be accused of intolerance—but because the political objection does sway, rightly or wrongly, multitudes of my com-
  1544
  patriots; and for that reason we cannot vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I may venture to appeal to the House not to be drawn into a discussion upon grave and serious matters which, although in order to a certain extent upon the consideration of this Amendment, really carry us far beyond any intention or purpose which the House can correctly bring into the discussion. If it be proposed to examine and test the foundations on which the Act of Succession reposes, that would properly be done by dealing with the Act of Settlement and other great measures of that character. But it is not proposed to do that. No one contemplates any attempt to alter or affect that historic legislation at all, and while such Acts remain in force it is merely carrying out their purpose in a subsidiary form to put such a Clause as this into the Bill. And I do trust that we shall not be drawn into any argument as to the basis of civil and religious liberty and all those other matters when we are simply considering a subsidiary measure for carrying into effect the bigger Acts of Parliament. With regard to what my hon. Friend behind asked as to whether the Government could not leave out the words "or shall marry a Roman Catholic" I do submit to the House, first of all, that that is even more improbable and remote, but it does seem to me, in view of the general tenour and character of our legislation on these subjects, that it would be right and proper that Parliament should be in a position to review the whole question of the Regency.
  Mr. DILLON: This discussion was not initiated from our benches or by the Catholics, but by a Liberal Member, and I will only say a few words in order to point out on behalf of my co-religionists that we do not see anything offensive in this Clause at all, nor do I see anything offensive in the slightest degree in the remarks of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Greenwood), who just now argued in favour of the Clause. I only direct your attention to the fact that the very singular argument he used, and used with perfect good faith, and not in the slightest degree offensively to any of us, was an argument against allowing us into Parliament at all and not in favour of this Clause. The argument was that a Catholic cannot be loyal to the Crown, that a Catholic cannot bear true civil allegiance to the Sovereign. There is no

  1545
  question about the Sovereign bearing allegiance to himself. Therefore the whole of his argument is absolutely wide of the issues that have been raised. I recognise, and I always recognise, that if the people of this country desire, as I believe they do desire, to have a Protestant Sovereign of the Church of England they have a perfect right to have one. It is not offensive to us so long as we are treated with perfectly fair play and toleration by the majority of people of this country so long as we remain subject to the Crown of England and that the majority of the, people of this country insist upon the Sovereign being a member of the Church of England. Therefore I only rose for the purpose of pointing out to hon. Members that they must not for a single moment confound the Debate that arose on this Clause with the Debate on the Declaration. There are totally different issues raised. I think myself if the Government were wise they would have dropped this Clause altogether or drafted it in another shape, namely, to the effect that the Sovereign must remain in communion with the Church of England. It appears to me absurd that in Acts of Parliament dealing with the Throne of England there should be this terror of the Pope always brought forward. It is to my mind humiliating to yourselves. It does not humiliate us. It rather compliments us, as if our Church were so formidable that England was continually shaking in her knees at the prospect of the Pope ruling over this country. We do not trouble about such laws, but it is humiliating for England that it should be continually passing Acts of Parliament to protect itself against the Pope. If it cannot maintain its liberties without these Clauses then it has no liberty at all. The Clause is really absurd and unnecessary, but for my part I hope that no Division will be taken on such a matter. It is really not a serious issue; the Clause is not offensive to us as Catholics; it is rather offensive to yourselves, and humiliating to the people of this country.
  Mr. HOLT: With the Home Secretary and the hon. Baronet against me it is hopeless to have a Division and therefore I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment; but I would wish to say that there is nothing I feel more strongly than this, that there should be any provision as to professing or abstaining from professing any particular religion.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Before the Motion is withdrawn, I would like to point out
  1546
  how utterly unworkable this Clause is. The more you reflect how it is to be worked, the more absurd it becomes. It says that if the Regent be reconciled—
  The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord can speak about that on the Clause. The hon. Member desires leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 5 be added to the Bill."
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I thoroughly agree with what fell from the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). If this Clause is in a negative form and not in a positive form there would be great difficulty in working it. How can you prove whether the Regent has or has not been reconciled to the Church of Rome? You will get no evidence on that point at all, or if you do get evidence, before what tribunal are you going to establish it, and by what inquiries can you prove by rules of evidence that the Regent has joined the Church of Rome? It is obvious that difficulties of a serious character would arise. Will it be enough to show that the Regent, or possibly the spouse of the Regent, did say in conversation, "I think there is a great deal of truth in Roman Catholic doctrine." What does the profession amount to in law? So you can go through this Clause word by word and show that it has no legal significance. It has no significance which is provable in point of law, yet you propose to establish legal consequences of the utmost gravity on such a foundation. Obviously nothing can be done except on such a degree of public rumour and report as to leave no doubt about the matter, that the Regent could not deny it, and the thing could be established there and then. But in such a case Parliament could take action and you do not really require a provision of this kind unless you propose to enforce it against someone who is resisting your authority. If you want a Clause of this kind you should say, "shall join in communion with the Church of England." That is a definite thing which can be established regularly and with all authority, but all those provisions about being reconciled to the Roman Catholic religion are things that could not be proved without great difficulty, and on which Parliament could not act.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I quite agree with what the Home Secretary said, but I do not wish to keep silence in reference to

  1547
  the argument of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Greenwood) lest it should be said that it is not susceptible of an answer. I protest in the strongest manner against the implication that my allegiance to my Sovereign in civil matters depends upon anything but my own conscience. The arguments quoted by the hon. Member from Mr. Gladstone were all answered by Cardinal Newman at the time. I do not want to say more than that now or go in detail through all the arguments which he put forward, but if he wishes to continue the discussion in private I shall be delighted to explain my position more fully. With regard, however, to this Clause, the discussion is really one de minimis.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: What I spoke of was what was going on in the minds of a great many of my fellow countrymen. I did not say that I held these opinions myself. I am sure that the hon. Member's co-religionists are quite as loyal as my own.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I may say as a good Conservative that I think my civil allegiance is somewhat better. I thought that in what the hon. Member said he was expressing his own opinions.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I did not mean to cast doubt upon the civil allegiance of the hon. Member.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  Clause 6 agreed to.

  SCHEDULE.
  1. I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to [here insert the name of the Sovereign] his heirs and successors according to law. So help me God.
  2. I do swear that I will truly and faith fully execute the office of Regent according to the Regency Act, 1910, and that I will administer the government of this Realm and of all the Dominions thereunto belonging according to the laws, customs, and statutes thereof, and will in all things to the utmost of my power and ability consult and maintain the safety, honour, and dignity of [here insert the name of the Sovereign] and the welfare of His people. So help me God.
  3. I do faithfully promise and swear that I will inviolately maintain and preserve the Settlement of the true Protestant
  1548
  religion with the government, discipline, rights, and privileges of the Church of Scotland as established by law. So help me God.
  Mr. LUTTRELL: In the Schedule I beg to move, in paragraph 3, to leave out the words "the settlement of the true Protestant religion with the government, discipline, rights, and privileges of the Church of Scotland as established by law," and insert instead thereof the words "the order or course of Succession to the Crown of this Realm as established by the Act of Settlement."
  As the Schedule at present stands the Church of Scotland must remain in its present state as established by law. I think it has already been recognised that this provision should not be applied to the Church of England, and I think it ought not to be applied to the Church of Scotland. If there be any change made in connection with the Establishment in Scotland, I think they ought to be able to do so without practically upsetting the Bill which we are now passing. Therefore, I beg to move.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I think there is a great deal of force in the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. The Committee has already, in Clause 4, left out the words after "Settlement"—"or to any Bill for repealing or altering the Act of the fourteenth year of the reign of King Charles the Second, Chapter four, commonly known as the Act of Uniformity, or an Act of the fifth year of the reign of Queen Anne, made in Scotland, intituled 'An Act for securing the Protestant religion and Presbyterian Government.'" This Amendment brings the Schedule into harmonious conformity with the Bill as the House now wishes it to stand. It gives full effect to the wishes and intentions of Parliament in this matter, and safeguards all the purposes which are aimed at by the Act of Settlement. I am therefore quite prepared to accept the Amendment on behalf of the Government.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to know what the representatives of Scotland have to say to this proposal. This Amendment is proposed by an English Member representing Devonshire, who proposes an alteration which, I gather, refers entirely to Scotland. I have not heard a single word from any Scottish Member either in favour of the Amendment or against it. I do not think that we should deal with a

  1549
  matter of this sort on an Amendment moved by an English Member. I do not quite know why these words should be left out of the Schedule. I should like to know what the objection is to the "Settlement of the true Protestant religion, with the government, discipline, rights, and privileges of the Church of -Scotland as established by law." Why should the words not be retained? Is it intended to abolish the Church of Scotland, or what is the object? Here is a Schedule dealing with the appointment of a Regent, an event which we hope will never occur, but even if it does occur, can only last for a short time. We have the extraordinary spectacle of the Government accepting this Amendment, though they must perfectly well have known when they drafted the Bill that Amendments might be moved, or they would never have drawn up the Bill in the way they have.
  Lord BALCARRES: On a point of Order. I understand that the hon. Member proposes to substitute words for those left out.
  The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps it will be convenient that I should read the Schedule without the words proposed to be omitted and with the substituted words: "I do faithfully promise and swear that I will inviolately maintain and preserve the order or course of Succession to the Crown of this realm as established by the Act of Settlement. So help me God."
  Mr. NEIL PRIMROSE: As the right hon. Gentleman represents a constituency with one of the largest majorities in Scotland, may I ask whether some declaration of this kind is not defined by the Act of Union?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The Amendment proposed follows inevitably upon what was agreed upon in Clause 4, from which the words after "Settlement" were omitted. The Bill, as it was introduced, precluded the Regent from giving assent to any Bill repealing or altering the Act of Security. The Committee have cut that out, and accordingly it would be absurd and contradictory to make the Regent swear to inviolately maintain the Act of Security, which is practically what the Schedule does as it now stands. The Committee have deliberately struck out of Clause 4 all reference to the Act of Security, so that the Committee will see that this change is consequential on the alteration we have made in Clause 4.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Why do you want to substitute words? If you wish to do so, why not have put them in the Bill as originally drafted.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is quite correct. What we did in Clause 4 was to stop at the word "Settlement." Then we come to the Schedule, which sets forth the form of declaration which the Regent has to make. "I do faithfully promise and swear that I will inviolately maintain," etc., "the true Protestant religion with the government, discipline, rights, and privileges of the Church of Scotland as established by law." What is to prevent the Sovereign from making that declaration? That words were left out of Clause 4 really means nothing, and I see no reason why the declaration of the Sovereign should not stand in that form. The Lord Advocate is apparently under the impression— he was not in Committee at the time— that we have put something into the Bill by which the Regent is to do certain things. We have done nothing of the kind; we have simply left something out; it can have no effect. It might have had an effect if it had been put in, but it is not put in, and therefore it has no effect. That being so, what is to prevent the Sovereign from making this declaration, which surely I should have thought would be satisfactory to the people of Scotland? I understand the Lord Advocate's contention is this: A Bill may be brought in to disestablish the Protestant Church in Scotland as by law established. If this declaration is made the Sovereign will not be able to give his or her assent to that Bill. But this has nothing whatever to do with the assent to a Bill; it is merely a declaration that the Regent will maintain the Protestant religion in Scotland as by law established. And why should we alter it?
  Mr. URE: What happened was this. In Clause 4 we left out all reference to the Act of Security, and what the Committee is now asked to do is to leave out all reference to the Act of Security in the Schedule, the words in the Schedule really being taken from the Act of Security.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I venture to differ from the right hon. Gentleman, and to say at once that I agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. Let the Committee consider what is being done. Clause 4, as it originally stood, prohibited the Regent from giving

  1551
  assent to anything interfering with the Church of Scotland. You have omitted that. She can give her assent to such an Act, while she was prohibited from assenting under the Clause as it originally stood. What has that got to do with the Oath? Nothing in the world. It seems to me that the very fact of your having omitted the latter part of Clause 4 renders it more necessary than ever, if ever it were necessary, that the Declaration should be made by the Regent. Let the Committee consider what the Declaration in the Schedule is: "I do faithfully promise and swear that I will inviolately maintain and preserve the settlement of the true Protestant religion with the Government, discipline, rights, and privileges of the Church of Scotland as established by law." Suppose the Regent agreed to an Act altering the establishment by law, that does not seem necessarily to have anything to do with the traditional Oath of the Sovereign. It seems to me that the omission of the words from Clause 4 renders all the more necessary the words in the Schedule. Without grave reason, indeed, I venture to think it would be a very dangerous thing for this Committee to tamper with the Declaration of the Sovereign or the Regent.
  Lord BALCARRES: I cannot help thinking that the Home Secretary accepted this Amendment somewhat hurriedly. He has already amended the Act of Union in Clause 4, and I presume we shall have an Amendment to the Schedule when the question is put from the Chair. I am not at all convinced by what the Lord Advocate has said. Am I not correct in saying that these words were taken verbatim from the Oath of the Sovereign at the Accession Council 1 If there is objection to these words, so far as the hon. Member refers to the disendowment of the Church of Scotland, clearly he ought to have moved their omission from the Oath taken by the Sovereign at the Accession Council, or else, to be consistent, should leave the Oath to be taken by the Regent. I submit this to the Home Secretary: The present Sovereign has taken this oath already a few weeks ago, and on what grounds of logic or of precedent can you say, in the event of the demise of the Crown, that the Regent who succeeds during the minority of the Prince to the functions of the Crown ought not to take precisely the same oath as that taken by
  1552
  the Sovereign. This is the fault of the hon. Member not putting his Amendment on the Paper. If it had been on the Paper it never could have been accepted, and therefore I may congratulate him on having left it off the Paper. I do think it ought not to be accepted in a light-hearted manner, and I would suggest that perhaps the Home Secretary might appeal to the hon. Member to withdraw the Motion for the time being, and put it on the Paper for the Report stage.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: There is a great deal of force in what the hon. Member has just said. While I think that the opinion 1 have expressed is not an incorrect opinion, namely, that this would be the logical course to pursue, still I agree that the matter is one on which opinions may differ, and on which the House is fully entitled to make a careful examination before arriving at a decision. If that is the general opinion I would join in the appeal of my hon. Friend opposite to let this Amendment stand over until the Report stage, to let the Schedule go through unaltered, and the hon. Member can put down an Amendment.
  Sir JOHN DEWAR: I wish to join in the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman. I am quite sure the Scottish people would prefer the Oath as it is, without any alteration. This Oath, I take it, is not so much to prevent Presbyterianism being disestablished as to prevent any form of religion being thrust upon us. I agree that this matter ought to be more fully considered, and that the opinion of the Scottish Members ought to be taken upon it. I do not think that Scotland desires the oath to be altered, or the rights and privileges of the Presbyterian Church as established by law to be in any way amended.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I most heartily agree with what has followed from the hon. Baronet. While I quite give the Government credit for wishing to meet the convenience of the House by asking the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment I cannot refrain from saying that I do not think that they have quite realised what the Amendment is they have proposed to accept in so light-hearted a manner. As an hon. Member has pointed out what we are proposing is to repeal the Act of Union between Scotland and England. Section 5 of Article 25 of the Act of Union is as follows:—
  "And it is hereby statuted and ordained, That this Act of Parliament, with the Establishment therein con-

  1553
  tained, shall be held and observed in all time coming, as a fundamental and essential condition of any treaty or union to be concluded betwixt the two kingdoms, without any alteration thereof or derogation thereto in any sort for ever: As also, That this Act of Parliament and Settlement therein contained shall be inserted and repeated in any Act of Parliament that shall pass for agreeing and concluding the foresaid Treaty or Union betwixt the two Kingdoms; and that the same shall be therein expressly declared to be a fundamental and essential condition of the said Treaty or Union in all time coming.…"
  That is the portion of the Act of Union which, in a light-hearted spirit, the Government, on a Tuesday afternoon, without any particular notice of an Amendment which was not even on the Paper, suggested we should tear up. I therefore urge strongly on the Committee and on the hon. Gentleman opposite that he will do very well to withdraw his Amendments. I may add, for the information of the Committee, that if he brings it forward in anything like the form in which he has brought it forward to-day, I am perfectly certain it will encounter the most resolute opposition, not only from the representatives of Scotland on this side of the House, but if I know anything of them from representatives of Scotland, on the other side of the House also.
  Mr. J. KING: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I should just like to suggest to the Committee that they should not accept too readily the view that has just been laid before them by the hon. Member opposite. This Amendment has been very strongly attacked by those who have not seen it in writing I venture to say that the more they see it the more they will understand that it is a very admirable one. I may add it has one strong advantage—that it requires the Regent to take in definite categorical form, an oath of allegiance to the Protestant Succession, and the form of words which it introduces ensure, in my opinion, a statement in favour of the Protestant Succession that "was not in the oath before. I have no doubt we will have a full opportunity of discussing the matter later.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has condescended to answer my question, which is: Why is it necessary to have the insertion of words guarding the Protestant Succession with the abolition of words guarding a particular religion which is known as the Presbyterian religion? The two things do not hang together, and nobody has told us why, if we want the words, they were not in the Bill.
  Mr. LUTTRELL: I wish to thank my right hon. Friend for the favourable reception he has given to this Amendment. I quite recognise that there should be a full opportunity of considering the Amendment, and therefore, in deference to his desires, and, with the consent of the Committee, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I hope the Scottish Members will remember that they owe this to me.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill Reported with Amendments; to be considered upon Monday next, 11th July.

  MINES ACCIDENTS (RESCUE AND AID) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I desire to say a few words, not, of course, with any desire to differ from the object of the Bill, because undoubtedly there has been in previous discussions in this House the greatest sympathy of every side that further steps should be taken with reference to rescue work in mines. Certainly the mine-owners are the last people who would raise any objection to a matter to which they have given much personal attention, and about which they are the only people who have taken practical steps to discover means to deal efficiently with the question. I would earnestly ask the Government to consider, when they get to the further stages of this Bill, whether they cannot adopt the procedure which is perhaps more in accordance with our mining legislation. They have taken by the Bill absolute discretion to the Home Secretary in connection with this rescue work. He is given the sole authority. The only restraining influence is an Order in Council which, as we know, is not a very efficient one, or one that is very easy to work. I would ask the Government whether it is not desirable in connection with this matter affecting mining legislation to follow mainly on the principles which have been followed always in the past in connection

  1555
  with similar legislation, namely, to act rather on the principle of special rules or on legislation which has in some measure adapted that principle of the special rules. I know it will be impossible, perhaps, to apply the special rules absolutely to this particular case, and that it would lead to great difficulty if every individual miner had his say in the matter. If the Government could see their way to give some arbitration, so that those interested should have the power of giving their opinion before the question is settled, and if they would be willing to accept some considerable portion of those representing a particular mineral area in this country, that, I think, would give greater satisfaction to the mine-owners, and they would feel that it was following upon the old lines. There are difficulties, no doubt, in applying that absolutely to all mining areas.
  I have been especially interested all my life in the thin coal seams of the country, and I know there will be some difficulties as affecting them. The only desire in this matter is that we should have some say in the matter, because undoubtedly mines are entirely different from any other industry in this country. Those who work them are practical experts themselves. In the factories the manager may not be an expert in any way, and in such a case it may be left to the Home Secretary to exercise his authority. In the mines it has always been acknowledged that the manager is an expert, responsible for the working of the mines, and as the responsibility rests upon him he should have some say in considering the matter for which he is responsible. Therefore, whilst without any desire to take any hostile action in any way against the object of the Bill, I most earnestly appeal to the Government that in the future consideration of this Bill they will consider this matter, and, if possible, adapt the procedure to the one that has been more intimately connected with mining legislation in the past, and it seems to me to be still suitable for the purpose.
  6.0 P.M.
  Sir CLIFFORD CORY: I wish to join in the appeal to the Home Secretary to consider some amendment to the Bill with a view to carrying out the proposal of the hon Member opposite (Mr. L. Hardy). In some districts a great deal has been done by the mine-owners to provide appliances
  1556
  for necessary purposes, and, notwithstanding the expense, they are prepared to do all that is necessary in the future; but they think it might become a hardship if the Home Secretary insisted on certain appliances being provided by the mine-owners, as he might do, on the advice of his experts, in cases where the mine-owners took a different view, without their having any right, as the Bill now stands, to object in any way or to refer the matter to arbitration. The right hon. Gentleman may not see his way to give individual mine-owners a right to object, but if a considerable proportion of the mine-owners in a district, through an association or otherwise, brought forward an objection, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would consider their views. As has been pointed out, mining is in a different category from other industries, inasmuch as the managers are men who have to pass examinations and are responsible for the safety of the mines and of the men. More responsibility rests upon them than upon anybody else in reference to having the requisite appliances, and they are very anxious to do all that is necessary; so that it might safely be left to them to appeal to arbitration only in cases where there was legitimate ground for so doing.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Clause 1, Sub-section (2), deals with the establishment of a committee of mine-owners, and gives considerable powers to it. I have no objection to such a committee, but I think in common fairness, with a view to the proper carrying out of the provisions of the Bill, the workmen ought to be represented as well as the mine-owners. After all, it is the workmen who have to be organised for rescue purposes, and it would not weaken such a committee, but, on the contrary, would add to its efficiency, if the workmen, with their practical knowledge and interest, were represented. I hope therefore the Home Secretary will see his way to meet this point.
  Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: On behalf of the Lancashire mine-owners I wish to express their gratitude to the Home Secretary for the introduction of this Bill. We are particularly glad to see it, because the coal-owners of the Kingdom are, and have been for a long time, in advance of the requirements of the Government in this matter. In the recent discussion about rescue appliances, statements were made to the effect that the nation has a right to see that the men who obtain the necessary coal are not sacrificed on the

  1557
  altar of £ s. d. and that the colliery managers should not be allowed to draw dividends at the expense of the safety of the men. But if one looks at what has been done by the coal-owners, it will be found, as regards coal-dust appliances, that they are spending a very large sum of money. The Government have not seen their way to bear a portion of the cost, nor have the workers, although they took the matter into consideration, come to any resolution to join in the expense; therefore, the whole burden has been borne by the coal-owners. As to the provision of rescue appliances, it might be thought from the recent discussion that the coal-owners had done nothing whatever. That, however, is not the case. In Monmouthshire the coalfield is divided into seven areas, all of which are being worked with rescue appliances, and no difficulty JS anticipated. A large number of men are qualified, there are a number in training, and the capital expenditure for rescue appliances is probably about £15,000, with an annual cost from about £600 to £700. In Durham and Northumberland there is a station at the Elswick Works, where they have a thoroughly trained brigade; while in Lancashire there is a large rescue station, where men are brought from almost all the collieries and trained in the use of the apparatus. I could give similar information in regard to other districts, but this is sufficient to show the country that so far the coal-owners have been in advance of the Government, and have done a great deal in the direction of providing rescue apparatus. We welcome this Bill for two reasons: first, because it will do good, though perhaps many people have somewhat exaggerated the good it is likely to do; and, secondly, because those coal-owners who have not been doing their duty will be brought into line, and will have to share the expense with those who are already doing their duty. A great point in legislation is to make the bad do what the good are willing to do, and that will be the effect of this Bill.
  Under the present Mines (Regulation) Act there is an appeal allowed. I would support the suggestion that there should be some such system in connection with the rules to be made under this Bill. Coalmining is a very expert business, and the experts should have the right to ask that when rules are made they shall be in conformity with their experience. I believe a Clause has been submitted to the Home
  1558
  Office with a view to securing that when objection is taken to the proposed rules the matter should be referred to arbitration, in order to secure that the rules shall be in accordance with the requirements of the district and with the proper regulation of coal-mining. I hope the Home Secretary will assent to that principle. It is not intended in any way to interfere with the proper working of the Act. We do not ask that it should apply to every district or to every colliery; we feel that that would be impossible; but we ask that there should be an appeal of this sort where there is a general objection.
  Mr. FENWICK: In reply to an observation which has been made from the other side, may I say that during my long and close connection with the mining industry I have not met anyone who has complained of the niggardliness of the coal-owners in the provision of safety appliances at their respective collieries? On the other hand, many of us have again and again complained of the niggardliness of respective Governments in refusing to come to the assistance of coal-owners—as I think they ought to have done—by providing a certain portion of the funds to carry out the experiments necessary for the maintenance of the safety of mines. I rose principally to support the suggestion of my hon. Friend (Mr. Keir Hardie). It is very desirable, indeed, it is essential for the smooth working of any such arrangement as that which the Government have under consideration, that there should be a joint committee of employers and workmen. The difficulty here is that the responsibility for finding the whole of the capital for the provision of appliances, the breathing apparatus and so forth, contemplated by the Bill, is thrown upon the employers, and where men have to find the whole of the cost, they are naturally very anxious to keep the whole of the control in their own hands. I suggest that in order to smooth the way the Government should consider the advisability of providing a portion of the cost. Do not let us forget that large and expensive experiments have been carried out by the coal-owners in various parts of the country, with a view to finding out the effect of blown-out shots upon coal dust in the generating of explosions. In other countries — France, for example — the Government have come very generously to the assistance of coal-owners in erecting galleries to enable them to carry on their experiments. Nothing of the kind has

  1559
  been done in this country. We have been very backward indeed in the matter of providing financial assistance to enable employers of labour, not only in coal-mining but in other industries, to carry on experimental work with a view to proving the efficiency of appliances for protecting and safeguarding the lives and limbs of their workpeople. I believe it is very desirable that you should have a joint committee, consisting of workmen and employers, to enable you to carry out this plan smoothly and satisfactorily, and my only object in rising was to back up the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr Tydvil, and to ask the Government if they cannot do something in the way of providing financial assistance to enable those concerned to carry on smoothly those experiments which they are making.
  Sir JOHN RANDLES: Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I welcome the advent of this Bill. I am sure it is well worth while to take some little pains to make the Bill as workable and as useful as it is possible for it to be. There are, as we all know, in connection with most mining districts joint committees, to which reference has been made. How far useful cooperation of both employers and employed can be introduced into the working of these proposals is well worth consideration. We must, however, I think, as well as having regard to the question of cost, have regard to the question of responsibility. The responsibility, I think, must remain with the responsible expert manager who is in charge of the mines. It may be that the joint committees would be useful to advise, but if you are going to divide the responsibility you are in danger of weakening the object which you wish to serve. You must put the responsibility, as distinguished from the cost, upon the responsible person in charge of the mines. That, I fancy, will be one of the difficulties. In respect to the question of appeal, I would join in urging the Government to consider the point. It may very well be the case that not only the employer or owner of the mine may wish a reference to an arbitrator or to a referee beyond the Home Secretary, but that the men employed in the mine may very reasonably wish to bring their view of the case before such person. I think the opportunity should be given to both sides, so that in case the Home Secretary's decision on a particular point, or in a particular matter, or in re-
  1560
  ference to some local authority was not satisfactory, that both sides, both men and masters, should have ample opportunity to state their case and to put it before a referee other than the Home Secretary. As a rule, and in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, the working would be smooth, and it would be unnecessary to appeal; but there is an impression both amongst masters and men that some such arrangement should be made. I think the Government will be well advised to make it. I wish this Bill success
  Mr. VERNEY: I would like to add a word in confirmation of what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr Tydvil, and that has been repeated since. I strongly hope that some organisation will be set on foot by which the workmen, as well as the mine-owner and manager, shall have their say. I had the opportunity a short time ago of talking with an expert manager in regard to a particular coal pit with which I am connected, and he said this: "We must remember that rescue appliances are now in an experimental stage. Some people have very strong opinions in favour of one kind of appliance, and another set of people have equally strong opinions in favour of something quite different." He said it may be that we shall find out as time goes on that what suits one set of mines very well will not be quite so suitable for another. I think in these matters it is of the greatest importance that the responsible manager should have his say. Let me add another word in regard to the workmen, because, after all, these appliances, whatever they are, cannot be really as successful as they should be unless you have a trained body of workmen who are thoroughly competent to use them. This manager with whom I was talking told me that in that particular district great trouble had been taken to train a certain body of men so that they might know exactly how best to use the appliances. These men ought to know exactly where to go to in the pit, should be thoroughly cognisant with the pit itself as well as with the appliances. Remember, though it is quite true that the masters risk or spend their money, that the men risk their lives. It is the men who risk their lives who have to work these appliances. I think there is the strongest reason for combining both employers and workmen in any such organisation as we all hope may be started under this Bill. I should like, in conclusion, to add my thanks to

  1561
  those already given to the Home Secretary and to the Government for introducing such a Bill as this.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: On behalf of some portion of the coal-owners of the country, may I say that we have always been very anxious for legislation which would in any way tend to the safety of our workpeople, and to the safety of our mines-This Bill will most certainly conduce to the safety of the workmen engaged in the mines, and also to the safety of the mine itself. Therefore we welcome it. I do wish, however, to support the appeal made by my hon. Friend behind me, the Member for the Ashford Division of Kent (Mr. Laurence Hardy), that there should be some reasonable appeal in case of great objection on any point in regard to any particular district. The procedure might be fashioned after that of the special rules of the Coal Mines Regulation Act. Perhaps not in quite the same way, but there should be a right of appeal. The coal-owners, say, representing a third of the output of any particular district, who wish to appeal against an Order of the Home Secretary in that district should be allowed to do so. I also think, and I agree with my hon. Friend who has spoken on behalf of the workpeople, that they also should have the right of appeal if they see any objection to the Order proposed by the Home Secretary. The proposal is that before the Order is confirmed notice shall be given of a certain period, say thirty days, to enable objection to be taken- I would put it that objection should be taken either by the coal-owners or by the workpeople in the district. I think if this procedure were followed it would answer extremely well. I do wish, on behalf of some of the coal-owners, to say that we welcome this legislation, and to say, further, that so far as we are concerned, we shall do nothing to prevent this Bill becoming law as quickly as possible, with the slight exception that I have ventured to point out, the matter of appeal.
  Mr. MARKHAM: I do not know on behalf of what coal-owners the hon. Member who has just sat down speaks.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: South Yorkshire.
  Mr. MARKHAM: I believe I am interested in South Yorkshire, possibly more than anyone else here, and the principles of the Act have been in operation in South Yorkshire for a number of years. It
  1562
  is to South Yorkshire that the whole of the credit is due for first starting the provision of these rescue appliances. Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire have not any rescue stations that I know of. I ask the House not to attach too much importance-to this Bill. I do not think if there had been rescue appliances at Whitehaven they would have saved a single life. Supposing a mine is supplied with every one of these appliances, and the fire is reached by the men, how is that going to-put the fire out? The mere fact that a. man is able to get to the fire will not enable him to put that fire out, unless there is a water supply laid on to the particular spot where the fire takes place. I have been going in and about pits all my life. I am in pits when I am not here. I do not believe that this terrible mortality which we have in mind is going to be dealt with in any appreciable way whatever by this Bill. My own view has always been, that if any single life can be saved by these appliances by all means let us have-them. That is the view that all my co-directors have taken. In cases where life can be saved by having these appliances it is the duty of coal-owners to provide them. So far as these appliances go you are dealing with the effect before you deal with the cause, whilst you should deal with the cause before you deal with the effect. If the Royal Commission which is now sitting, and has been sitting for so long, would let us have their Report, and the House could go into the Report and the recommendations of this Commission—this matter of fire appliances is only one of their minor recommendations—and deal with the causes which bring about explosions, it would be well. I think that Report will show that coal-owners have always been anxious to promote legislation of this sort in connection with mines. I hope we shall have from the Home Secretary, and those who think with him, every assistance in passing what must be the duty of this House to pass—that is, legislation to prevent these accidents taking place. My view is that after these accidents have taken place you cannot, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, render any practical assistance to the men. We ought to deal with the cause, and not with the effect.
  Lord BALCARRES: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mansfield did not, perhaps, allow sufficient for the good work done by Mr. Garforth and some of those engaged in the work of life-saving.
  Mr. MARKHAM: Perhaps the Noble Lord will allow me. I was not going into the respective questions. I quite agree that the whole mining community owes more to Mr. Garforth than to any other person.
  Lord BALCARRES: Anybody connected with any part of the British Isles will agree with the words of the hon. Member. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wansbeck made one suggestion which I thought not inapposite. That is that the Home Office should make a contribution towards the expenses of this Bill. Some three or four years ago, I think, suggestions were made by the Royal Commission on Mines, then sitting, that the Government should undertake certain experimental work, chiefly in the direction of estimating the possible danger of coal-dust in mines. It was said that the Home Office was sympathetic in this matter, but when the thing was brought before the Home Office there was an absolute refusal. Ever since the Home Office and the Treasury between them have declined to make any grant in this direction.
  Personally I have no objection whatever to the Government or any Department of the Government undertaking experimental work of a scientific character. They frequently possess plant and apparatus better than that belonging to private associations, and they are better able to work them, and I should not in the least raise any objection to the Home Office spending money upon working and experiments, but I entertain the strongest objection to people saying that the Government ought to take up work now incumbent upon the collieries or mills or other places for the safety of life. The case made out by the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Fenwick) is altogether too thin that representation upon these Committees would be obtained by means of indirect grants of money made by the Treasury. If he wants representation he had much better get it without a Government Grant, and he will have to wait long before he secures it if it is to be done through the generosity of the Treasury.
  I want to say a word about the rules; as the Bill stands there is no appeal whatever. There must be some appeal, I think, not only for those who have to find the apparatus and superintend the training of the corps, but for the colliers and underground workers who are equally effected by the rules laid down. Some
  1564
  appeal will have to be granted. The Home Office is right, I think, in putting in safeguards against frivolous appeals. On the other hand, the colliers and the mine-owners have a right to be safeguarded against any ill-considered rules. That is a common-sense position to take up, and it will probably be conceded by the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Keir Hardie), and I imagine it would be very easy to come to some agreement. With due respect I should like to point out that the Home Office has got no knowledge upon these matters except what it ascertains from those who have served at the rescue stations. The inspectors from the Home Office are welcomed there at these stations, and they get their information and give their advice, but for every item of information which these rescue stations get from the Home Office they receive ten times as much from the chemists and people who are there day by day and hour by hour, and it is not reasonable to say that the inspectors at the Home Office, though they are men of great judgment and are very remarkable men, should, in matters highly technical and empirical such as these, lay down the law without any power of appeal either for those who have to use the apparatus below the 'surface or for those who for years and years past, in many cases, have been devoting their whole time to these very experiments.
  As the Bill is drawn of course the Secretary of State is supreme, and that leads me to another point. It does not, I admit, necessarily arise out of the Bill, but is quite germane to it, that is the question of responsibility. The whole tendency of the Home Office, and, indeed, of every other Government Department as well, is towards a modest form of meglomania, the officials wish to obtain authority in all departments of public rights where at the present moment the responsibility is divided. As this Clause is drawn you are going to divide the responsibility; I think that is a very dangerous thing to do. The hon. Member for Merthyr said that representatives of the colliers would be upon those committees, but the most important result is still further to diminish the responsibility of the manager. Does the hon. Member opposite want to do that? If you allow the Home Office the power conferred upon it by this Bill you reduce the responsibility of the mine manager.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I wish to point out that all this committee is empowered to

  1565
  do is to report to the Home Office. The former legal and final decision is with the Home Secretary.
  Lord BALCARRES: I presume if the committee is appointed, the Home Secretary will act upon the Report of the committee, and you cannot get away from the fact that you diminish the responsibility of the mine managers. Hon Members who are connected with the textile industry will not apprehend the difference there is between the position of a mine manager and the manager of a mill or factory. The Under-Secretary to the Home Office, or I, or anybody else, are competent within the law to become the manager of a great cotton mill, no examination is required. That is a practice which is absolutely unknown in the case of a coal mine. I do not say it is right that the manager of a mill or anything else of that kind should have to go through an examination like the manager of a coal mine. It is absolutely essential that the manager of a coal mine should have expert knowledge, and that you should have a man with expert knowledge to deal with the greatest physical dangers that exist in this country, namely, the dangers of explosion. The mine manager in this country is in danger of being prosecuted for manslaughter, if, owing to any act of carelessness, life is lost in his pit. Does the Under-Secretary think that it will add to the safety of the mine if he reduces the responsibility of the manager? I say it will be doing an injury to everyone to do so. If it is done, the manager will say, "The Home Office said I must do this. It is quite true, I am techncially to blame, but you must also bring to book those gentlemen from the Home Office, and the representatives of the Miners' Union, or whoever else they may be."
  Probably you will find that there are many mine managers in this country who would not object to the course suggested, because it would remove from their shoulders the sole and terrible responsibility which now rests upon them, but I do not think it is to the interests and safety of the mines that that division should be made of the responsibility of the mine manager. I think that if you want to place this terrific responsibility upon the shoulders of a man, and have him prosecuted, perhaps for manslaughter in the event of a death, you will not add to the safety of the mine by dividing that responsibility among two or three parties.
  1566
  I urge that very seriously, because it is an aspect of the situation which is not appreciated probably by anyone except those who live in colliery districts, and are familiar with the colliery problem.
  There is a great deal of truth in what the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Markham). He mentioned what is a commonplace, namely, that at the present moment this apparatus is in a perfectly experimental state. I gather that either the committee or the Home Secretary have got to sanction the apparatus. I really do not know what apparatus they will choose to sanction; there are only two or three, and everybody knows that in every single one of these apparatus there is one admitted shortcoming, and although experiments have gone on for years, we are still only in the first stage of this experimental process, and it will be necessary, if the Home Office does its work properly, at every three or four or six months to have new experiments, because science is not going to stand still, and what the Home Office may say is good now may be useless after a very short time. That is why the procedure under the Bill is so cumbrous. I think it will be very difficult, for instance, to make any particular form of helmet obligatory. Those used all over the country, and indeed on the Continent as well, are only experimental, and, indeed, I do not think that the Continental helmets which are obligatory are better than those we have in this country.
  It is not the least good thing that pressure should be brought to bear to stimulate inquiry into this matter, and I have no doubt that before very long expert people will be able to devise some machinery or helmet that will take the rescuers through a section of the poisonous area, though, of course, in the case of the fall of the roof or in the case of a serious fire no breathing apparatus can be expected to exist, but I have the greatest confidence in the future. We have now reached a certain stage. Hitherto people said we were groping in the dark. Now there are six or eight men, each of whom may be said to be within the reach of a really good thing, and I have confidence that, although at the present moment we are in a perfectly experimental stage, and no existing apparatus can be guaranteed to do what its promoters desire it to do, yet I think we shall be able to do much more in the future. It is not only this apparatus with which good work is being done. Experiments are now being conducted, to

  1567
  which great importance is attached, to reach beyond the pillar of fire where survivors may be by wireless methods, and if that be so it is a tremendous step in the right direction. That is in itself a tremendous step in the right direction. I would renew my request to the Undersecretary to take care in framing his rules not to limit or reduce the responsibility of those upon whose shoulders it is now properly placed.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): I must thank the House for the manner in which they have received this Mines Accidents (Rescue and Aid) Bill, and, in thanking the House and the representatives of the coal-owners who have spoken, I must also thank the general body of coal-owners outside who have shown no hostility to the Bill, but, on the contrary, have welcomed it and are prepared to work under its conditions. I find myself very largely in agreement with the Noble Lord (Lord Balcarres) on the general questions which have been discussed by him, but I think he is probably under a little misapprehension as to the intentions of the Home Office with regard to these Orders when he suggests that we should, for instance, fix upon some particular kind of apparatus, express our opinion it is a perfect type, and insist that it should be provided in all mines, or that we should in any way interfere with the responsibility of the management. I agree with every word he said as to the importance of that responsibility. Whatever form of megalomania we possess, it will not take the form of trying to interfere with that responsibility. The management is responsible for the welfare of the men, and it will be as much responsible after this measure becomes law.
  I noticed a protest in the paper last week in connection with this Bill. It seemed to be assumed we should make this apparatus compulsory not only in its availability but in its use. Nothing is further from our minds. It is entirely for the management, having the apparatus and the trained men, to decide, when any of these difficult explosions or fires occur, whether it will be of any use or not. Nothing will interfere with that nor will any Home Office rule insist upon its being used under any circumstances. The question of expense has been
  1568
  raised. There, also, I am in agreement with the Noble Lord. I think that for the Home Office to get money from the Treasury is more hopeful on an afternoon like this than on an afternoon like yesterday, and, if any Treasury or Development Grants are to be given in connection with this subject, they should be confined to grants for experimental purposes, for the advancement of scientific knowledge through experiment, and should not take the form of grants for the general provision of apparatus which so many of the colliery owners are taking upon themselves not only for the protection of lives but also property in the mines.
  The questions mainly raised in this discussion are strictly relevant to the Committee stage of the Bill, but they are of sufficient importance to make them well worth raising, and they are questions which quite rightly I am asked to answer. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie), in dealing with the general committees which are enforcing the provisions of this Bill, suggested we should arrange that both masters and men should be members of them. I am doubtful, after consultation with some of the representatives of the mine-owners, whether that provision will stand in Committee. It was provided in order to relieve the very great extra work thrown upon the inspector, and it was hoped we might utilise the committees which are now in so many parts of the country running rescue stations and training men in rescue work. I rather understand a good many of the colliery owners are not very much inclined to take upon themselves the obligation of inspection and enforcement. These committees, will not be entrusted with powers of interfering with the mine management. They are to see the orders are carried out, and the orders will merely provide that some form of these various kinds of rescue apparatus are available in case they are needed either at the mines or in the neighbourhood, and that some proportion of men familiar with the mine in its working shall be trained in the use of that apparatus, because all experts agree that to send untrained men into the mine with this apparatus is very nearly like sending them to their death.
  I quite agree that the question whether sufficient safeguard is being allowed against what has been termed the megalomania of the Home Office is a more substantial point. Our suggestion is to proceed by Order. Any Order made shall be

  1569
  first published as a draft Order. Objections may be urged against it and considered. It shall afterwards be laid upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and if neither House objects it shall become law. I know there is some objection to that course of procedure, and I think the objection is more valid in this case than in some others, because in this case it really does concern the technical details of the mine and not very much people outside. It is not, however, quite true to say this is a new precedent, because we have a precedent in the Explosives Clauses and Mines Regulations.
  Lord BALCARRES: There is no obligation to use those explosives, whereas there is an absolute obligation to provide this apparatus.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I know. I rather understood the objection to this particular provision was largely on account of the introduction of a precedent. We agreed from the beginning on this point fully to take into consultation representatives of the mine-owners before framing any rules or Orders, and, of course, we have no intention of framing an57 rules or Orders beyond those which will provide what has been carried out in the collieries with which the Noble Lord is connected and what others have been carrying out in Lancashire. We do not want to quarrel about a matter of that sort, and so long as we can make the arbitration simple and so long as we can prevent the obstinacy, doubt, or indifference of an individual owner checking the development of a movement, we have no wish to exercise autocratic authority on the matter. I will not confine myself to the terms, but we would favourably consider in Committee some such suggestion as that advanced by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Samuel Roberts) and the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Harmood-Banner). I am glad they agree, as we certainly would agree, that in any cases of appeal the men should have an equal right of appeal with the masters. The master provides the money and the apparatus it is true, but the men have to provide the men to be trained, and the men's lives as well as the master's property are at stake. I should roughly propose that if, say, a minority of a third of the coal-owners or of the men affected by any Order take objection to a draft Order that is published, they should, within a certain number of days, be allowed to
  1570
  lodge an appeal. That appeal would go before an independent referee—I think one referee would be enough. The present system of arbitration is too complicated. The decision of the referee, say the Lord Chief Justice or some quite independent tribunal, should be final on the matter. If that will allay all the objections to this Bill, I shall be very glad to agree to an Amendment of that sort in Committee.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: Does the hon. Gentleman mean one-third of any district or of the whole country?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: No; one-third of those affected by the Order. The hon. Member is perfectly right in saying the Order may be different in different districts. It will be a third of those affected in the district. If an individual mine is dealt with, then, of course, it would be a third of those in the mine. I have, with the assistance of the experts at the Home Office, studied the history of this movement in England and abroad, and I agree it; is possible to exaggerate the effect of the appliances; but my contention is that a very large number of mine-owners have found it worth their while to spend many thousands of pounds in the provision of appliances and in training their men in the use of them. I contend, further, that we have the compulsory provision of these appliances in most of the other coal-mining countries of Europe, where science is rather more believed in than in this country. I contend also that in every mine explosion of which I have had report, including the explosions for the last ten years, there have been hastily despatched messengers for this apparatus. It has been used and found imperfect, either because of the distance it has had to be brought or because no one at the mine has been able to use it. In the case of the Whitehaven disaster two sets of apparatus were sent for, one from Newcastle and one from Derbyshire. The Newcastle apparatus came without the liquid air necessary, and the Derbyshire apparatus came without the electric light. Consequently, it was not until twenty-seven hours afterwards that the men could proceed to operate the apparatus. If that had been in use within half an hour, and there had been trained men at the pit, no one can say what might have been 'done. There are very few Bills which realise all the objects which it is hoped to achieve. Let us hope this Bill will, at any rate, realise some of them.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I find some difficulty in addressing the House on this subject as, without supporting the Bill in its entirety, I do wish to emphasise a point raised by the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division of Northumberland which has my entire sympathy. The hon. Member asked that the Treasury should, in some form, assist any experiments that might be carried out with regard to life-saving apparatus. I do not advocate that these experiments should be carried out independently by the Treasury, but, where experiments are now being conducted by owners of mines and engineers, the Treasury should give them sympathetic attention, and, as far as possible, render pecuniary and other assistance. A terrible accident occurred recently in the Ham-stead Colliery in my own Constituency, and I went down the pit and made the most minute inspection I could of what had happened. I was told that if suitable apparatus had been provided the lives of many of the miners might have been saved. My great difficulty was to find out which was the best apparatus to provide for that purpose, and, acting on the best advice I could get, I presented certain apparatus, namely, the Draeger apparatus, to the pit in order that if any similar accident should occur in the future there would be on the spot the means of rescuing the unfortunate miners. I stipulated that the apparatus should be available not only to the Hamstead Colliery, but also to other collieries which surround it. I do not know whether I was wise in the form of apparatus I chose, and it is for that reason I am anxious that the Government should take up this question, and assist, pecuniarily and otherwise, experiments which have for their object the finding out of the best form of apparatus, so that those interested in the saving of lives in mines may know the direction in which they can best proceed. The hon. Member for the Mansfield Division rather decried the use of such apparatus, but I will give a short account of what happened in the case of the Hamstead Colliery. A fire occurred between the up-cast and the down-cast, and the men at the bottom of the pit naturally supposed from the direction from which the smoke poured that if they could force their way through the smoke they would get into clear air and be able to ascend by the down-cast shaft. As a matter of fact, the fire had broken out between the
  1572
  up-cast and the down-cast, and the draught was so strong that the smoke was drawn into the workings, past the foot of the down-cast shaft, so that the nearer they got to the down-cast the smaller became their chances of escape. I maintain that if apparatus had been available by which it would have been possible to send down a couple of men when the fire occurred to warn the miners where the fire was, and that it was of no good their attempting to make their way to the downcast, and to direct them in the other direction, many lives would have been saved, as they would have been able to avail themselves of the up-cast. It is surely of the greatest importance that we should know what is the most effective apparatus to provide, so as to save the lives of our underground workers, who are deserving of our greatest sympathy, and for this reason I hope the Government will not show itself averse to providing some assistance from the Treasury for experiments which have this object in view. I am not advocating that the coal-owners should be relieved of the necessity of providing efficient apparatus for saving life in their coal mines, but that the Treasury should by every means in their power assist in the discovery of the best means of saving life when an accident has actually occurred.
  Sir JOSEPH WALTON: I represent one of the largest mining constituencies in the United Kingdom—
  Mr. MARKHAM: Except Mansfield.
  Sir JOSEPH WALTON: My hon. Friend the Member for the Mansfield Division is, of course, at the head of the coal trade; but on behalf of the miners of the Barnsley Division, arid not only on their behalf, but I am sure I can speak in the name of the 900,000 men and boys working in the coal mines of this country—I say that they will gratefully welcome the introduction of this Bill by the Government. There has been shown in the course of this Debate on both sides of the House a recognition of the fact that everything that is humanly possible should be done to safeguard those who work in our coal mines and who pursue a most dangerous and hazardous calling. I am sure it does credit to the humanity of the House of Commons when we recognise that the whole House has shown to-day a strong anxiety to make every provision in this direction. At any rate there should be within convenient reach of all mines

  1573
  apparatus which may be used for the saving of human life. I am sanguine that when this Bill is passed into law. as it is certain to be in view of the general acceptance it has met with, every coal miner will be trained in the use of these, appliances, and we shall soon find that changes will be introduced and fresh apparatus and appliances discovered in the interests of life-saving. We all rejoice that the number of deaths from accidents in our mines has been reduced in the last forty years from 5 per cent- to 1½ per cent. But that does not make us the less anxious in case of accident to have at hand apparatus which may be available and thus to a still greater extent reduce the loss of life. I welcome the introduction of this Bill most warmly, and I believe the result will be that in the future the lives of our workers in the coal mines will be more efficiently safeguarded, and that the total number of deaths occurring in the pursuit of this hazardous calling will be substantially decreased.
  Mr. STRAUSS: I should like to call the attention of the Under-Secretary—in case this Bill is intended to apply to metalliferous mines—to the mines in Cornwall. We have in that county a large number of small mines, in which perhaps some thirty men only are at work, and these mines are perhaps more dangerous than many collieries, because the work is carried on in old shafts. Now, these small Cornish mine-owners have but a small capital at their command, and it is very desirable to know whether they will be obliged to incur the heavy expense of buying this apparatus. If so, I fear it will result in the closing of many of the mines. I hope the Undersecretary will to-day, or later on, give us some information as to what is contemplated with regard to this class of mine. It is a matter of vital importance to know whether or not they are to be included in the provisions of this Bill.
  Mr. A. E. DUNN: I should like to know whether it is not intended that this Bill should only apply to coal mines. I understand that at the present moment a very important Committee is inquiring most minutely into matters appertaining to metalliferous mines, and, undoubtedly, when we have the Report of that Committee, steps will be taken to remedy the many evils which are, unfortunately, prevalent in mines, such as those which have been referred to by the last speaker. But I think we may take it that the pre-
  1574
  sent Bill has no reference whatever to mines such as those in which the Cornish people are interested.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE BILL [Lords].
  As amended, considered.
  Mr. MARKHAM: I beg to move the following
  NEW CLAUSE. — Every judge appointed under this Act shall make an annual return of the number of days in the year on which he has sat, in accordance with rules to be laid down by the Lord Chancellor.
  I believe that under our Rules that if an hon. Member who has put down a new Clause moves it, he loses his right to reply. I therefore formally move the Clause which stands in my name, and I may have to ask the indulgence of the House later on in order to make a few remarks upon it.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think it may be for the convenience of the House that I should take this opportunity of making a very brief statement which will affect, not only this Amendment, but Amendments lower down on the Paper. The Bill was introduced to carry into effect one of the recommendations of the Joint Committee of both Houses to appoint two new members of the Judicial Bench, and to give the consequent charge upon the Consolidated Fund, which course requires statutory authority. The Government have been ever since this Committee reported, and are, fully alive to the fact that the proposals of the Committee are only for a temporary increase of the judiciary of the King's Bench Division, and these proposals were accompanied, and in our view they cannot be dissociated from the other recommendations for the prompt adoption of various administrative changes—changes which I agree with the Lord Chancellor in thinking are equally called for as the creation of these two extra judges, as will appear from the evidence taken before the Committee. I quite agree with him that those changes are equally called for in order adequately and promptly to deal with the present, I hope, temporary congestion

  1575
  of business. It is quite evident to everyone who has looked at the Notice Paper and watched its ominous growth in the last few weeks, that there are hon. Members in various quarters of the House who are anxious that some of those changes and other changes which are not contemplated by the Bill should be introduced into this Statute, but I should like to point out that all the reforms that are suggested to us and recommended by the Committee, with the exception of this increase in the number of the judiciary, can be brought about by administrative action and without any Act of Parliament at all. I think that applies to every one of them, and I should like further to point out to some of my hon. Friends—with whose aims in the matter I personally am entirely in sympathy—I should like to point out that there is a certain inconsistency or, at any rate, inconvenience in applying by Statute new rules of conduct as to age, length of sittings, and so forth, to the two new members of the Bench which you cannot apply to the Bench as a whole.
  These two judges would enter upon their offices under different statutory conditions from those which are applicable to the rest of the Bench. That, I think, everybody will admit is an inconvenient arrangement. It is far better that whatever administrative changes are made— and I quite agree in thinking some are needed—they should apply to the King's Bench Division as a whole and not to some selected members of that tribunal. In our view, as I said some time ago, the appointment of these two new judges, though urgently needed—it is certainly urgently needed, as everyone acquainted with the state of business in the King's Bench Division knows—the appointment of these two new judges is not in itself an adequate and complete solution of the problem of the accumulated state of business, and it is not so put forward. I am glad to know from inquiries I have made from those who are acquainted with the matter that steps are now actually under consideration for the better arrangement and employment in this division of judicial time. In particular, I think, and I believe most of us do, that a strong case was made out before the Joint Committee in regard to what is called the Saturday sitting—the House knows what I mean, the practice which has sprung up in recent years—it was not so when I was at the Bar—of some of the judges not sitting at
  1576
  all on Saturday, and many of them sitting only for a very short time. It is our view, and we understand it to be the view of this highly responsible and representative Committee upon whose Report this Bill is founded, that it should be a general rule, subject, of course, to special exigencies, that a judge might be expected to sit on Saturday, unless, indeed, as is the case with some of the judges, he has during the preceding days of the week sat on such a number of hours as can approximately be considered equivalent to an ordinary Saturday sitting. I may say that is the course pursued by some of the judges now, and there is no magic in Saturday qua Saturday, and the magic is rather the other way. What we want is that there should be an adequate employment of judicial time, and whether a judge sits on Saturday or he prolongs the sittings on other days of the week is immaterial. We think this Bill has the support both of public and Parliamentary opinion, and we have no reason whatever to believe that it will not commend itself to His Majesty's Judges themselves. I do not wish it to be supposed for a moment that I am associating myself with any attack upon the judicial body, but, on the contrary, I do agree with a great deal of the evidence which was put before the Committee, and with what I understand to be the conclusion of the Committee. They suggested that some Amendment by proper administrative action is urgently needed in order that the administration of justice should become more promptly accessible to those seeking our courts, and this scandalous condition of affairs involved in the state of congestion which exists in the King's Bench Division, which is a denial of justice to some few of His Majesty's subjects, should be put an end to at the earliest possible moment, and by the promptest possible means. I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw this Amendment of which he has given notice.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Having taken a very active part from the beginning with regard to this Bill, I am very pleased to pay my humble testimony to what I think is the highly satisfactory statement with regard to it which the Prime Minister has just made. I was one of those who was deeply impressed by the remarks which have been made as to the shortness of hours which the judges sat, but when I first opposed the Bill I was alone, and I only withdrew my opposition on the

  1577
  Second Reading on that ground and on an undertaking that the recommendations of the Committee for increasing the efficiency of His Majesty's judges would be carried out. The Government pledged themselves to carry them out without delay, and I withdrew my opposition. Then my hon. Friend commenced his opposition, and when I found him backed up by a large and increasing number of Members, and a still larger and more important number of Amendments, I felt myself at liberty to come back to the assistance of those who wanted, in a fair way, to get a little more work out of His Majesty's judges, and certainly, had my hon. Friends continued their opposition, and had they not been met, as I think they have been met, by His Majesty's Government, I should have supported them. But I rejoice that a Debate, which I think would have been painful, and, perhaps, damaging to the administration of justice, has been avoided. I think that the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman does enable my hon. Friend to abstain from further opposition, because it comes to this: that a statement has been made on behalf of the Government that there is a case for the restoration of Saturday to the week as regards the judges of the King's Bench Division. A very strong and effective statement has been made by the Prime Minister, backed, as I am sure it will be, by the opinion of this House, whose views will certainly be taken into account by the judges of the King's Bench Division, and I am quite certain that we shall have not merely a nominal sitting from them, but they will give us, as honourable gentlemen would, an effective Saturday sitting, subject to the various conditions of the business. There is reason in the roasting of eggs, and there is also reason in Saturday sittings.
  I have listened with great satisfaction to the statement of the Prime Minister, and I believe that a condition of things "will be brought about by it which will be satisfactory. I am perfectly convinced that the effect of it will be that we shall get an effective Saturday sitting from the judges of the King's Bench Division, and that being so, I think that my hon. Friend and those acting with him will be able to abstain from further damaging discussion on the industry of His Majesty's judges, and they will be able to allow this Bill to pass. The understanding is, I
  1578
  think, threefold—first of all, that the administrative changes shall be carried into effect as recommended by the Committee; secondly, that there shall be an effective Saturday sitting; and, thirdly, I think it must be understood that the terms of the Bill are to be adhered to, and although these two extra judges are to be appointed now, they are to be regarded as temporary appointments, and that when two judges fall out they shall not be renewed. That, as I understand, is the situation created by the statement of the Prime Minister, and I have no hesitation in saying for myself I shall withdraw from any opposition I would otherwise have given to this, Bill, and I hope my hon. Friend and those who feel with him may be able to do the same.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I do not gather that what has been said by the hon. Member is entirely in accordance with what was stated by the Prime Minister. I agree with what the Prime Minister has said, but I do not think I should agree with all that has been said by the hon. Member for King's Lynn. The Prime Minister has said in his speech that he does not make any charge against the industry of the judges or the way they carry out their work, and it must be remembered that their work is most important and most exhausting. Everyone who has watched the hearing of cases in the courts must see that in the great majority of cases our judges are worked up to the greatest extent of their powers. I am sure, in regard to what the Prime Minister has said about Saturday sittings, that it is a question of administrative arrangement, that the full time which might be expended by the judges should be given in the week or on the Saturday. I entirely agree with what the Prime Minister has said that all matters of that kind are much better dealt with by administrative arrangements than by hard and fast statutory enactments. There is really no difference in this respect as between judges and other officials or Members engaged in extremely important business. As regards the addition to the Bench, everyone with the slightest knowledge of the condition of business in the King's Bench at present must be in favour, at any rate for temporary purposes, of the appointment of two new judges. There can be no worse economy than not giving suitors a proper opportunity of bringing their cases to trial within a reasonable time, and under existing circumstances

  1579
  no doubt there is considerable congestion in the King's Bench. I can express hearty approval, from my own experience, of every word which has been said by the Prime Minister, and I hope on that understanding the Bill may pass.
  Mr. J. MARTIN: The statement made by the Prime Minister certainly makes the Bill more acceptable. It has been stated that this is a temporary measure. It is not very often when the number of judges is increased that it is ever decreased again and it is a very difficult thing to do. It is suggested also that the matter is left in the hands of Parliament to decide whether the number shall be continued on, but it is not, after all, in the hands of Parliament but in the hands of the Government, because no Address would have any opportunity of being heard, let alone of passing, unless it was first approved by the Government, and it seems to me that in all probability when the time comes when a reduction can be made in the number of judges it will not be found that the business before the courts is such as to justify the Address being passed in the terms of Sub-section (2) of Clause 1. With regard to the other statement of the Prime Minister that administrative changes could be made, I understand that the only administrative change which we have been promised is a provision that the court shall sit on Saturdays. While it is certainly one of the objections that has been taken to the appointment of two additional judges that practically very few judges sit on Saturday at present, the most important objection has not been alluded to at all, that is the fact that the judges have four months' holiday in the year. I understand that also is a matter which can be remedied by administrative action, but we have no promise at all from the Government on that score. I do not see any necessity for the judges to assume that a full discussion on this subject is in any way an attack on them. The attack is not on the individual judges of the court; it is upon the law which permits the condition of affairs which we have going on, and these laws are in the hands of Parliament. It certainly will be much more satisfactory for Members who are opposed to the Bill for these reasons if we have an assurance from the Government that the length of holidays which the judges have at present should be curtailed.
  1580
  I understand that the County Court judges, who, it seems to me, are just as important to the administration of justice as the High Court judges, only have holidays amounting to about two months in the year, and if County Court judges can get along with holidays of that kind, why cannot the Supreme Court judges manage with the same amount of holidays? There is another reason why the Vacation is so long in the court, and it is not a reason which deals in any way with the interest of the public, which alone we ought to consider here. The holidays last for four months, largely for the convenience of the leaders of the Bar. These gentlemen, of course, are very important, and there is no doubt that the Bar is a very fine Bar, and will compare favourably with that of any other country of the world, but there is no reason why justice should be tied up for four months in the year simply to allow the leaders of the Bar, who have more than they can possibly do, to take a long holiday. I have no doubt at all that if the courts were kept going the junior members would come to the front. No doubt there are plenty of young men at the Bar who have just as much ability as the leaders. The trouble is that they do not get a chance. I see no reason why the courts should not be kept open every day of the year. It would be necessary to provide proper holidays for the judges, but all the Civil servants have reasonable holidays, and the War Office is not stopped, and the Navy goes on. It seems to me that if that were inaugurated with regard to the Courts of Justice it would be, after all, in the interest of the suitors. The announcement, however, is very satisfactory so far as it goes. I am only sorry that the Prime Minister was not able—I hope on further reflection he will be able— to go much further and to deal with the real evil, the fact that the holidays are too long.
  Mr. H. E. DUKE: The hon. Member must really excuse us for being an old country. He views the practice of the courts from a recent arrival upon the scene. If he will familiarise himself with our proceedings in the English courts I think he will find that the people of this country have been able to adjust their business in accordance with the state of things which has grown up with their business. I notice that hon. Members who know least about this matter are the most severe in their criticism of those who know most about it. My qualification to speak upon this subject is merely that for

  1581
  twenty-five years I have spent my life engaged in the practice of the law, and, although that may seem a slight qualification to hon. Members who have spent, perhaps, a few hours in the course of the present year in interesting themselves in this Bill, at any rate it entitles one to have an interest in the subject. I have been very glad to hear the announcement of the Prime Minister that the view the Government take is that this proposal, which everyone who knows the subject knows to be essential, is to be carried upon the terms that there will be administrative changes which will make this temporary addition to the judiciary part of an effective scheme for improving the present congested condition of business in one of the divisions of the High Court. Everyone laments the congested condition of business in the King's Bench Division—that is, everyone who knows anything about it. The suitors lament it most. It is a misfortune to suitors because it denies justice to them. But it is not a just method of dealing with the matter to throw the blame for congestion on His Majesty's judges. Anyone who is brought by daily business into contact with-His Majesty's judges knows that the suggestion that they shirk their work is an absolutely unfair suggestion. Many of us upon the circuits have seen judges sitting from nine in the morning until eight or nine o'clock, or even later, at night, and never grudging the time which was devoted to the performance of their duties.
  If hon. Members who take an interest in this subject would find out what the judges, in fact, do, and how they occupy their time, they would see that there is absolutely no ground for the attack upon the honesty with which they render service to the people of this country. The judges never would have enjoyed the confidence and esteem in which they are held if that had not been the case. I am very glad the Prime Minister has taken the view that it is impossible to lay down a hard and fast line as to the time of sittings or as to Saturday sittings. Members who attack the system do not know that a judge's duties do not begin when he comes upon the bench at half-past ten, and do not end when he leaves the bench at four or half-past four or five o'clock. In addition to hearing cases in court, a judge has many other duties, and one of them is to prepare, day by day, for the conduct of the business which he discharges in public. But under
  1582
  the system which has come into existence in the course of the last year or two every one of the judges of the King's Bench Division is bound to be ready, week by week, to sit in the Court of Criminal Appeal. Some Members do not know that to qualify a judge to sit in the Court of Criminal Appeal or in any court where depositions have to be considered there must be careful study in advance of the work to be done. The reason why many of the judges have not been sitting on Saturdays in recent times is that they have been occupied with the study of depositions for the purpose of sitting in the Court of Criminal Appeal on the Monday. The time spent in criminal appeals must be doubled if the judge is to go to the Court of Criminal Appeal with no previous acquaintance of the work to come before him. That is not the economic way of dealing with the matter.
  I cannot believe that this House, or the constituents whom the House represents, would grudge the addition of £10,000 a year, or any other necessary sum, for the purpose of making the administration of justice in the Common Law Division of the High Court a satisfactory administration. I do not believe it is any cheeseparing disposition which causes the opposition to this Bill, but if the Government had trammelled the administration of justice and the administration of the business of the courts by accepting a hard and fast code of regulations for the conduct of judges, to bind them to being in places at times when their duties did not require it, they would have done one of the worst possible services to the administration of justice in this country. I am very glad they have done nothing of the kind, and I am very glad that they have stood up against the suggestion that what is called a scandalous congestion is due to any kind of misconduct or of indifference on the part of His Majesty's judges. I am equally glad that they have been able to agree with hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway that this temporary addition to the judiciary shall go hand-in-hand with permanent changes, which will tend to make the administration of justice not only sufficient, but also continuous and steady and such as to cause general satisfaction.
  Sir THOMAS WHITTAKER: As I had the honour to sit on the Committee which made the recommendations on which this Bill is founded I should like to say a word or two. I approach the question not

  1583
  with the experience of the hon. and learned Member, but as a layman. I was convinced that the addition to the Bench recommended here is required. I think the proper way to look as this question is not with respect to the number of hours the judges work, but as it affects the convenience and necessities of the public. It is essential that the courts should be ready for access to the public when required, even if in order to provide for that the judges may sometimes be off work for a day or two. If you are to crowd all the work you possibly can on the judges so that they may be kept working from Monday morning until Saturday at mid-day, you will find congestion which will be a serious inconvenience to suitors. With regard to the question of the arrangement of the work, it is by no means so simple when you come to look into the matter. What we found from the evidence was this: You have to remember, in connection with the business of the courts, that not only have the judges a great deal of work to do outside the courts, but that they have to get up a mass of information in regard to their cases, and then when the cases have been heard they have to look up points of law and do an amount of work which you cannot gauge in any way. Solicitors, counsel, and witnesses have to be brought together and dealt with. There are such things as consultations, and these have to be held out of court hours. If you have a court sitting too long, it becomes very inconvenient for suitors who are concerned in these consultations. When witnesses are brought up to London, it is very inconvenient to have the courts sitting on Saturday. It is a very usual thing, when a court has been sitting on a case for several days, for everybody concerned on Friday to ask that the judge will not take the case on Saturday, The jury have been there possibly away from their business; witnesses have been there away from their business, and everybody engaged in the case says it would be a great boon for them to get away on Saturday to look after their business. Again and again when the judges do not sit on Saturday it is not a question of their own convenience, or of their going to play golf. It is a case of the judge meeting the convenience of litigants, witnesses, and other persons interested in the case. If that case be put off until Monday, it is not easy to find business which the judge can take on
  1584
  Saturday. He cannot begin another case, because if he did so, it would have to be given up half finished, in order that he might take the other case on Monday. He can only take on Saturdays such work as can be got rid of on the same day. He may give a judgment on Saturday or deal with little points which are brought before him, but, as I have stated, it is very often for the convenience of litigants, and litigants alone, that he does not sit on Saturday. I think when you have got men of the status of judges, you cannot deal with them as if they were paid so much an hour. You cannot gauge the work they have to do by the time they sit on the bench. We want the most competent and able men we can get to take these positions, and if you are going to make the position onerous and tie the judges down by petty regulations, you will not get the best men. You will get an inferior class of men by acting in that way. One thing we have reason to be proud of in this country is the character and capacity of the judiciary.
  As to the question of costs, that is a mere nothing. The courts almost pay for themselves. The fees paid practically meet the expenses of the courts to a large extent, and when you take into account the additional expense which will be involved in the appointment of two temporary judges, it is trifling in view of the work which will be done. It is recognised that there are reforms which might be made. Some of the reforms affecting the circuit system will be very difficult to get through the House. Everyone interested in a circuit town will be on the warpath. Therefore the Committee suggested that the appointments should be temporary. There is congestion in the courts and the public are being inconvenienced. It is desirable therefore that that should be dealt with at once. The way to do that is to appoint more judges to deal with the work. While dealing with that, it is practically stipulated that the proposed reforms shall be thoroughly examined and put through if they are found to be practicable, and in order that the House of Commons may have full control over that it is specified that these judges shall not be replaced unless a vacancy occurs immediately, so that before the additions to the Bench could be made permanent the House of Commons would have an opportunity of considering whether the reforms which are practicable have been carried through. I would suggest that in the interest of the public and those who use the courts it is

  1585
  very essential that this measure should be put through. It will give an opportunity for trying some of the reforms, and in that way we will be able to see them tested before the appointments are made permanent.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: I had not the good fortune to hear the statement of the Prime Minister, but I understand from the speeches to which I have listened that some administrative changes in the judiciary are about to be made. The object of my intervening in the discussion is to say that on a former occasion when this Bill was before the House I took the opportunity of making a few observations upon the condition of the judiciary of the King's Bench and the congestion therein. I desire now to say that at two or half-past two in the morning I may have made some statements concerning the Division which were not justified, and I desire now most unreservedly, in so far as they were not justified and were ill-considered at that early time in the morning, to withdraw those statements. We all regret the congestion, and we have all striven to arrive at the true cause of that congestion. I desire to associate myself with the encomiums passed upon the King's Bench Division by the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke), My reason for intervening in the discussion at that early hour in the morning was to enforce the conclusion I have arrived at after my reading and study of Lord Gorell's Report. I am convinced from the study of that Report that the time has arrived for a great change in the judiciary of England and Wales. There has been before this time a great change made in the judiciary of England, and in the judicial procedure of the courts of England. The last great change occurred in 1876, and the present condition of business must indicate clearly that that change has seen its day, and that the position created by the change no longer serves the requirements of the country. I thought the present moment was one when the view might be enforced that some great change might be instituted whereby the recommendation of Lord Grorell's Committee might be adopted, and that there might be some co-ordination of the courts of la-w which carry out the judicial business' of the country. Although I hold a strong view in that direction, I am at the same time convinced that to wait for such a reform as that—I submit this with all respect in the presence of my seniors at the Bar—would be injudicious. What is wanted is a reform which
  1586
  will strengthen the Bench, in order to do away with the present congestion. I hope if the Solicitor-General should speak he will be able to assure the House that the time is not far distant when the Report of Lord Gorell's Committee will be taken into account by the Government, and when far-reaching reforms wall be made in the condition of the judiciary of Great Britain. There is a widespread opinion that the courts of law—the high courts and the inferior courts—ought to be co-ordinated, and that there ought to 'be some unification of their procedure. I trust the day is not far distant when we shall have a deep investigation into the whole matter of reform that is much needed, whereby the courts will be enabled to deal with the increasing work of this very prosperous country.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. H. J. CRAIG: I listened with the greatest possible interest to the statement made by the Prime Minister, and as one of those associated in some measure with the opposition to this Bill I would gladly re-echo the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles) and withdraw, so far as I am concerned, my opposition, if we were able to feel assured that we have effected any reform in the judicial procedure of the King's Bench Division. But the Prime Minister's statement stops short at the most interesting point. He picked out one of the remedies suggested before the Committee by the Lord Chancellor, and one only, although the Lord Chancellor suggested several others. The Prime Minister picked out the question of Saturday sittings, and promised that by some administrative changes there should in future be longer sittings on Saturday in the King's Bench Division. The question arises, What steps will be needed to enforce that There was no Order in Council or other measure needed, so far as I know, when Saturday sittings were shortened. The question to which I hope we may have a reply from some one on the Front Bench is this: What measures will it be necessary to take in order that we on these benches may feel sure, if our opposition is withdrawn, that the Saturday sittings will be lengthened? I should like to know exactly and precisely what is meant by administrative changes. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will be able to tell us whether the Government mean by administrative changes to include any of the other remedies mentioned by the Lord Chancellor—reorganisation of the circuit system,

  1587
  longer sittings, and shorter vacations. These are the remedies which a Member of the present Government, the Lord Chancellor, suggested before this Commission and said ought to be tried not after two extra judges had been appointed, but before two extra judges had been appointed. If the extra Saturday sittings are put forward as a remedy for this state of congestion that obtains in the King's Bench Division, surely that remedy ought to be applied and given time to work before the Government asks for the two extra judges and not afterwards. Let me read from the evidence which the Lord Chancellor gave. He said:—
  "When the hours and the days of work are so moderate, ought we to add to the number of judges instead of saying: 'We ought all to join in making an effort to get rid of the arrears, and then pee what the state of business is when we have made a fresh start.' If necessary, every one ought to do what nil Ministers do, what all Members of Parliament do what Lord Chancellors do, and what everyone else does, namely, make the time fit the work instead of making the work fit the time. I would merely say this further: I don't want to see the hours too long or the vacations too short, but I think that there ought to be a reorganisation of business in London and on circuit, such as I have suggested. I think that an effort should be made by longer sittings and by sittings on Saturday to meet the business—that the Long Vacation, if necessary, should be shortened, if it appears that the work cannot be done by the present staff of judges, before we have recourse to appointing more judges."
  It is the Lord Chancellor's remedy which I wish to emphasise, which I wish to defend, and which I would like to see applied before the appointment of additional judges. At the same time I am willing, if we can have security that any of these changes would be effected, to withdraw further opposition.
  Mr. SANDERSON: I rise to ask the learned Solicitor-General a question. We have heard that there are to be administrative changes. Can the Solicitor-General tell us whether these administrative changes include any proposals to take over the assizes from any of the circuit towns?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: I have listened with great pleasure to the statement of the Prime Minister. The only point I raised in connection with this Bill was in restricting the age limit of judges. Unfortunately the Prime Minister did not say a single word on that particular point. The speech of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke) I listened to with very great regret. I
  1588
  think it a very bad practice whenever a Bill affecting a particular trade or profession comes before the House that only those affected should take part in its discussion. That is not a good practice. The particular point I wish to raise is whether we should have an age-limit so far as judges are concerned—that judges should retire at the age of seventy. It is recognised in the Civil Service that a man shall retire—
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member is going to discuss that question he must discuss it at the proper place when we reach the Amendment.
  Mr. PRICE: I only desire to get an assurance on the point.
  Colonel GREIG: I should not have intervened at this stage of the proceedings had it not been that I perhaps approach this question from a somewhat different point of view from my friends around me and from some of my colleagues of the King's Bench Division, who have spoken from the other side. As a member of the Chancery Bar we naturally approach this subject with, perhaps, a bias against making any addition to the number of the King's Bench Division judges. Naturally we at the Chancery Bar imagine that we do not get our fair share of the plums of the profession, such as our friends on the other side do. I say that because I read the Report of the Commission with that bias in my mind. I am sure that anyone who will read the Report of the Committee which went into this subject must come to the conclusion that a full and perfect case had been made out for an addition to the judgeship of the King's Bench Division. In the words of the Secretary of State for War, the difficulty in the King's Bench Division at the present time is normal. There is a normal glut of work, and it is not an abnormal incident that has occurred. Therefore, it is a denial of justice to the suitors at this time which ought to be removed. I am in favour of other reforms being adopted—continuous sittings in London, control of the court by the judge himself, rearrangement of the circuits, and so on. These ought to be carried. When you recollect that in 1898, I think, the late Chief Justice (Lord Russell of Killowen) pointed out that the Bench was undermanned, and when we remember that since then the population has been increasing, and that in 1876 we had eighteen judges, and there has been no increase since then, the necessity for

  1589
  the Bill will be seen. If we compare this country with Germany, we find that the whole legal business in this country is done by something like 200 judges—that is, speaking of county court justice and Imperial justice as well. In Germany, on the other hand, with a population on the same footing, something like 5,000 judges have to do with judicial business. I am aware that in that country the judges have also to deal with a good deal of registration work connected with companies and some other business which judges here do not have to do. Taking the whole circumstances into account, I have come to the conclusion that the course proposed in this Bill is a proper one to adopt.
  Mr. G. J. SANDYS: One of the effects of this Bill which I do not think has been dealt with this afternoon, but which has been brought very forcibly to the attention of those who represent constituencies concerned is that in the event of these two additional judges not being appointed there is very great danger that the courts may be removed from the cities and towns in which they have been held.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a separate subject and must be dealt with separately.
  Mr. MARKHAM: Having moved an Amendment, I can only speak with the indulgence of the House. I am very sorry that I cannot, according to the Rules of the House, except for its indulgence, reply to the Prime Minister, who has left the House. The statement that he has made, although one of great importance, is not at the present moment quite clear to my mind. I therefore want, if I may, to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" of his statement. I have spent nearly three weeks in going through all the judicature reports of the last fifty years. I know all the evidence of the Commissions and Committees that have sat, and I must protest against the remarks that fell from the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke). He said we knew nothing about this matter, that only judges and barristers were able to deal with the question. If a learned judge had given considerable time and thought to any case that came before him would you tell him he knew nothing about it? I think the man who would say so would get into trouble with the judge. If Members of Parliament who have studied the courts have to be told that only barristers can form an opinion on this question I think the House of Commons is not going to accept that doctrine. In this matter
  1590
  there has been no charge whatever made of misconduct against judges. That is a very improper word to use. The question I want to ask the Solicitor-General and I take it he is here speaking definitely on behalf of His Majesty's Government, is: Is the statement the Prime Minister has made this afternoon a declaration on behalf of the House of Commons that in the opinion of the House of Commons His Majesty's judges should sit on Saturdays, or, if they do not sit on Saturdays, that they should sit an equivalent number of longer hours during the week.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Yes.
  Mr. MARKHAM: I may take that as a definite statement.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I so understood it.
  Mr. MARKHAM: My hon. Friends around me thought his statement not quite definite, but I understand the Solicitor-General understood the Prime Minister to say—and he spoke as Prime Minister—to this House that the opinion of this House was that judges who practically discontinued sittings on Saturdays should either sit on Saturday or, as an alternative, that they should sit for a longer period on each day of the week except Saturdays. If that statement is a definite one, and I am glad to hear the pronouncement of the Solicitor-General that it is a definite one, and if it is a statement of policy on behalf of the Government, I am bound to say that I and my Friends who have taken a very strong view in reference to this Bill, if we have been able to get three hours per week additional time added to the work of justice in this country, we can take some measure of satisfaction for what we, as a small opposition, have been able to accomplish. My Friends nad I came down here, even with you in the Chair, Sir, prepared to argue this question during two all-night sittings. We had got sufficient information to detain the House for that time. But I think it is quite wrong that in any way the subject of the administration of justice should form part of acrimonious Debates in this House. We all want to keep His Majesty's judges above all questions of Debate which might reflect, directly or indirectly, on the dignity of the Bench. That is not our object. But we are entitled, as Members of Parliament, having to vote money from the public purse, to see that that money is

  1591
  properly spent. I must protest against what I consider a remarkable statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, who said that it only cost £10,000 a year to have these two judges. Does my right hon. Friend know what the administration of justice costs in this country? It costs no less a sum than over £4,000,000 sterling. In connection with the Supreme Court of Judicature alone we spent last year £330,000.
  Mr, RAWLINSON: The point the right hon. Gentleman made was that if you appoint two new judges who would be kept exclusively to civil work they would practically get their expenses paid from the fees of the suitors. Of course the expenses include the expenses of the criminal law, which is very expensive.
  Mr. MARKHAM: If my hon. Friend will look at 62–3 of the Civil Service Estimates he will find there are fifty officials in the Supreme Court alone, besides judges, drawing salaries of from £1,500 to £2,000 a year. They are all persons connected with the judges, so that the salary of the judge is only the commencement of the cost of the administration. Therefore it is quite inaccurate to take the salary of a judge and to say that this is the entire cost. It is nothing like the entire cost. It is only a very small portion of the total cost involved. The statement of the Prime Minister has, however, somewhat cleared up matters. If we have here a declaration of high policy of the House of Commons that in the opinion of the House His Majesty's judges should sit these longer hours, I feel it is unthinkable that His Majesty's judges should put themselves in conflict with this House and disregard that statement; because, as right hon. and hon. Gentlemen well know, there was an occasion—I think in the time of Richard II.—when in the case of the Regency Bill the judges held against Parliament, and Parliament at once chopped off the head of the Chief Justice and condemned the rest of the judges to death for their treason, but magnanimously pardoned them. I do not say that the Prime Minister or the Solicitor-General is going to act the part of Lord High Executioner, but I cannot help feeling that when we have had, what I term a declaration of high policy from His Majesty's Government, then for myself and my friends we will accept that high declaration, because
  1592
  it seems to me unthinkable that His Majesty's judges will put themselves in conflict directly with the House of Commons. I would like to say that, so far from being opposed to the addition of judges, I wrote to the Gentlemen responsible for this Bill to state that in my opinion it would be necessary to add ten new judges, so that every subject of the State should have speedy access to judges, as to deny justice to a large number of His Majesty's subjects was to discredit the administration of the law. But we part company at the point, and only at the point, when we ask ourselves the simple question whether the amount of time given in the courts of this country in the administration of justice and the hours of the judges are equal to what every other subject of the State has to give, except in the case of what I may, without using an offensive term, call the privileged class. There ought to be no body of citizens in the State drawing salaries much higher than the ordinary citizen for much shorter hours, and for that reason, and that reason only, we have had to take this opportunity which presented itself to us of preventing these additional judges being granted, although we had no desire in any way to place any obstacle whatever in the way of suitors in this country getting speedy justice in the courts. Our desire was to see certain reforms established, and now that, owing to this declaration of what I may term again "high policy," we have accomplished some of our purpose, I trust that none of my hon. Friends around me will get into hot water by reason of any action we have taken.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I am very glad that it has been made perfectly clear in this discussion that there was no intention on the part of any of the proposers of the Amendment to cast any discredit upon the judges or to suggest that they had been guilty of any misconduct, and if there was any misconception in the minds of anyone who had read the Amendment or bad heard what was said on previous occasions, when the question was discussed in Committee, I am sure it will be a matter of satisfaction to them to find that it was a misconception, and that there was not the faintest intention of casting any slur upon any of His Majesty's judges. What has brought us here is this Bill, which proposes to appoint two more judges, and that has raised the question of the administration

  1593
  of justice in the King's Bench Division in the High Court of Justice in this country. As I understand from all that has been said by those who have spoken, by some of my friends below the Gangway and otherwise, with reference to this Bill, their observations were directed entirely towards securing, so far as they are able, a better and a speedier administration of justice in this country. And, as I understand the argument which has been put forward, they are merely grounds upon which it is urged that there should be an alteration made of the system, and that there should be some administrative reform.
  Let me say this in reference to the observation put forward by hon. Members who resented the suggestion, if it was made, that laymen ought not to be entitled to criticise in matters of law, that I agree thoroughly with those who say that it is essential for laymen to offer criticisms on this subject. We lawyers are in this position, that we may be able to speak perhaps with a little more knowledge of the courts than laymen, or, at any rate than most Members of this House. But, of course, the courts exist for the public, and what the House has to do is to see that the public gets the full benefit out of the judicial system we have set up. And I do not think that anyone seriously suggests that laymen are not entitled to criticise. I may remind the House that the Committee which was appointed to discuss this very subject and report—the Joint Committee, was composed entirely— except, I think, with one exception— of laymen. I believe that the only member of the legal profession—if he is still a member of the legal profession, who was upon it, is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. We got the Report of that Committee. I am not going to refer to it in detail further than to say this, that it has been made clear by a Committee of business men of two Houses that it is first of all essential in their view that we should have these two new judges appointed, making the reservation, as they have done and we have done by this Bill which is now before this House, that those judges should not be reappointed except upon representation from both this House and the other.
  Further than that—and this is a matter which, no doubt, my hon. Friends below the Gangway consider of great import-ance—there are the administrative reforms which have to be proposed. I do
  1594
  not know if hon. Members caught what was said by the Prime Minister about that question. I do not profess to use his exact language, but my clear understanding and recollection of what he said was that at the present moment steps are being taken and consideration is being given to those reforms which were suggested before the Committee, and which the Joint Committee said should be considered, as they thought, forthwith. The reason why we are dealing with the Saturday sittings is this, that the matter does not require any Order in Council or any Act of Parliament; it really requires nothing, for the reason that in what the Prime Minister said he was expressing the views of the Government, the views of the Joint Committee, and, I think, the views of the House of Commons. Certainly there has been no dissent from the views which the Prime Minister expressed when he said that in the present state of business in the King's Bench Division it was desirable, indeed essential, that we should have effective Saturday sittings, or that full time should be put in, and in that way a good deal done for the purpose of getting rid of the congestion of business which at present exists. That was the definite suggestion made by the Prime Minister, and I do not think I need say anything more about it. One further fact. The Prime Minister was not professing to say anything which was antagonistic to the views of the judges, because I have before me the words of the Lord Chief Justice, that the judges are just as ready as we are to take into account the present state of business and give this extra time; that is to say, if they do not sit on Saturday, they will make the time up, or they will sit on the Saturday, so that the list maybe decreased in volume and the work proceeded with. The House of Commons, therefore, will not act in any way in opposition to the opinion of the judges that in the present state of business it is very essential that these sittings should be made practical, and that the time should be devoted to the public service. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Herbert Craig) raised a question which I venture to say, with all respect, he hardly would have done on further consideration. He asked what security we would get from the judges that this particular reform as to Saturday sitting would be carried.
  Mr. H. J. CRAIG: Not from the judges, but from the Government.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am very glad to hear from the hon. Member that that is so. I had misunderstood him for the moment. I thought he had said we should get some security from the judges, but he asks what security is to be obtained from the Government.
  Mr. H. J. CRAIG: I only mentioned the matter in order to get fuller details of the scheme of the Government in regard to Saturday sittings.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I have already given a few words which I quoted from the Lord Chief Justice, given in his evidence before the Joint Committee, and I think he may rest satisfied with that statement and need not ask for any further security. There is no doubt that we shall get extra hours to be devoted to the public service, with the addition of getting rid of the congestion, and with the further addition of administrative reforms which are under consideration, but upon which I am not entitled to say anything in this Debate under the ruling of Mr. Speaker, nor could I say anything beyond what I have stated in answer to a good many questions in this House, and if I may venture to remind hon. Members of the answers to the questions put to me, all I can say is that there are certain matters under consideration bearing on what the Joint Committee has said, and before any effective scheme is brought into operation opportunity will be given this House to discuss the proposal, so that everybody may rest satisfied that there will be ample opportunity for the argument of the whole matter when the Debate takes place. After what has been said in the course of the discussion, and after the observations of hon. Members below the Gangway, I hope we will be allowed to get to the Report stage of this Bill, and thus by the assistance of the House help quickly to carry out the reforms suggested, so that we may get some of these cases that have been standing over for so long a time disposed of.
  Mr. MARTIN: I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. MARKHAM: I beg, with leave of the House, to withdraw the further Amendments standing in my name on the Paper, in view of the satisfactory reply given by the Solicitor-General.
  Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. MARTIN: I also ask leave to withdraw the Amendments which stand on the
  1596
  Paper in my name, and to express my satisfaction at the statement of the Solicitor-General that the Government are considering further reforms. I am sure that every Member of this House will be very glad to have those reforms brought forward, and I personally hope that they will include a very considerable shortening of the Long Vacation.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  ALDERMEN IN MUNICIPAL BOROUGHS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The object of this Bill is to amend the law relating to the election of aldermen, and to bring the municipal corporations into harmony with that which applies to the election of aldermen in county councils and Metropolitan borough councils. Under the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882, aldermen, other than outgoing aldermen, are allowed to vote in the election of an alderman, but this practice does not apply in the case of the election of county aldermen or aldermen of Metropolitan borough councils. The Local Government Act of 1888 provides that a county alderman shall not, as such, vote in the election of a county alderman. The object of this provision was to secure that aldermen should be chosen only by directly elected representatives of county electors, that is, the county councillors. This step was taken by a Unionist Government with the full assent of both parties. The question came up again in the year 1899, after eleven years' experience of the working of the Local Government Act of 1888. The same rule is made applicable in the case of the election of aldermen of the Metropolitan borough councils, by Section 2 (4) of the Local Government Act, 1899. Here again I would remind the House that both parties were absolutely in agreement. This Bill provides that the aldermen of municipal boroughs shall not as such vote in the election of an alderman of a borough. The Bill also proposes to prohibit an outgoing alderman from voting as alderman in the election of a mayor, and in this respect also, the law is made uni-

  1597
  form with that appertaining to county councils and Metropolitan borough councils. I feel sure that the House will appreciate the very simple nature of the issues which lie before it, and will not expect me to enter at all elaborately into the reasons for the Bill. I think it is sufficient when it is seen that the present state of the law has resulted in giving to one political party in one town unchecked predominance for a long period, and to another political party in another town the same unrestricted dominion for an equally long period.
  I think we shall all agree that that is not a healthy state of things. The House has twice, as I have reminded it, condemned its impropriety and given its assent in regard to the election of aldermen of county councils and Metropolitan borough councils that they shall be elected by the councillors of those councils alone. That is our system of conducting local government, and I believe the continuation of the present state of things is unsatisfactory. I believe it has had the effect of keeping off good men who otherwise would have been of great service to the community, and of preventing them from entering those councils. I hope the House will, without distinction of party, approve of this simple Bill, the only object of which is to bring the law in regard to municipal corporations in this respect into harmony with the law as it relates to the election of aldermen in county councils and in Metropolitan borough councils. I hope, in the interests of good local, self-government the House will assent to this small, moderate, and reasonable Bill.
  Captain JESSEL: I well recollect, in 1899, the discussion in this House on the question of Metropolitan Borough Councillors. The system which was adopted in the Bill of 1899 has worked exceedingly well in London. The only question is whether under this Bill the aldermen in the municipal boroughs will be able, as they can in London, to vote at the election of the mayor. The hon. Gentleman stated the mayors would only be elected by the councillors.
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: I did not.
  Captain JESSEL: I must have misunderstood what the hon. Gentleman said. If the procedure is the same as in London I am sure it is a Bill with which we all agree. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the aldermen could not vote for the election of mayor.
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: I hope I did not convey that impression.
  Captain JESSEL: I am sure my Friends and myself welcome this Bill.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: There is one important point which affects the municipalities. I believe in the Bill in its entirety, but it has one defect, and that is with regard to the election of mayor. The process hitherto has been, and will continue under Sub-section (2) of Section 60 of the Municipal Corporations Act, that the election of mayor must take place as first business of the council on 9th November. The second business is the election of sheriff. Under this Bill, if it becomes law, the outgoing aldermen will not be able to vote for a new mayor, and in some cases, since the aldermen generally represent one-fourth of the council, you might have a mayor elected by a minority of the council. I would suggest that Sub-section (2) of Section 60 of the principal Act should be repealed, so that the election of aldermen would be the first business. After that election of aldermen you would have your council complete Otherwise, as I say, there is a probability of a mayor being elected by a minority, because in some cases ten or seven or five aldermen would be deprived of the right to vote. I know that that does not occur in the election of chairman in the county councils, and I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that between this and the Committee Stage that this point should be taken into consideration. On the principle of the Bill the change is important, and it is one that has my approval.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Joseph Pease.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen minutes before Nine o'clock.