Commons Sitting of 22 March 1910

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with)— Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
North and South Shields Electric Railway Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Surbiton Urban District Council Bill,
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

ENFRANCHISEMENT OF WOMEN.
Mr. CHURCHILLpresented a Petition from 5,000 electors of Dundee, praying for a Measure for the enfranchisement of women by granting to them the Parliamentary franchise on the same terms as is or may be granted to men.
RETURNS.

  ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND).
  Return ordered, "showing (1) the proceedings of parish councils in regard to allotments and common pasture under Section 26 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894; and (2), the proceedings of county councils in regard to representations by parish councils for orders under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, Section 26, authorising land to be taken on lease compulsorily for allotments,
  926
  from the year ending the 15th day of May, 1906, to the year ending the 15th day of May, 1909; the particulars to include a statement of cost of acquisition and legal and other expenses connected therewith in each case."—[Mr. Eugene Wason.]

  LOCAL CONTBIBUTIONS (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "of all Moneys contributed out of the rates by the county council and other local bodies in each county in Ireland, during the financial year 1909–10, for the purposes of schemes under The Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 269, of Session 1909)."—[Mr. Ginnell.]
  PEBSONS BOYCOTTED (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "showing the number of Persons in Ireland returned as Boycotted during the four years ended the 31st day of December last, who had been, in addition, the victims of overt crime, and indicating the acts of outrage committed in each case, without specifying the names of the individuals attacked."— [Captain Craig, for Mr. Lonsdale.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Royal Arsenal (Woolwich).
  Major ADAMasked the Secretary of State for War whether the privileges of medical and surgical treatment given to men employed in the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich had been curtailed; and, if so, whether he could see his way to have medical and surgical attendance reestablished on a broader basis?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): The privileges of the men employed in the Royal Arsenal as regards medical and surgical treatment have not been curtailed, but it has been found necessary to restrict the Government hospital at the Royal Arsenal to accidents for which it was established, and not allow it to become a general hospital.
  Major ADAMasked whether he could say on what date the discharges of lads at the age of 21 from the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, would cease; and whether, seeing that these lads had never been warned of this termination of engagement at 21 years of age, he could see his way to mitigate this hardship?
  Mr. HALDANE: At the age of twenty-one lads employed in the Royal Arsenal officially become men, and are then, if retained, entitled to the minimum rate of 23s. a week. As long as it is necessary to absorb all vacancies due to wastage, there are no vacancies for boys reaching the age of twenty-one to be entered as men. No date can at present be assigned for absorption of wastage to cease. The lads are well aware of their liability to discharge at the age of twenty-one.

  Army Commissions.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked whether the plan suggested by Lord Kitchener to the Australian Commonwealth of granting commissions for military efficiency instead of by means of social influence has been under consideration by the War Office, with a view of applying the plan to the British Army generally; and, if so, whether an opinion has been expressed that the West Point system is the best for training aspirants for such commissions?
  Mr. HALDANE: The hon. Member is incorrect in his suggestion that social influence controls the granting of commissions in the British Army. As I understand it, nomination is an essential feature of the West Point system, whereas entrance to the British Army is in the main by open examination.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: May I ask whether it is not the fact that when a soldier in the ranks wishes to attain commissioned rank, he is assisted to do so by the military authorities?
  Mr. HALDANE: We encourage it in every way, but it is not everybody who will take a commission in the Regular Army.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us in what way they encourage the ranker to go in for a commission?
  Mr. HALDANE: Whenever anybody is recommended by his Commanding Officer for a Commission every encouragement is given to him at headquarters to get it.

  Parsee Rustomjee's Case.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention had been called to the statement of Parsee Rustomjee, sentenced to a second term of six months' imprisonment on the 11th August, 1909,
  928
  for recrossing the border after being deported, and who complained of the treatment he received at the Diepkloof prison; whether the treatment complained of was that always given to offenders under the Registration Law; if so, would representations be made to the Transvaal Government, that the offences under the Act should be considered as political offences, and that those convicted should be considered as first-class misdemeanants, and should not be subjected to rigorous hard labour treatment?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): We have been in correspondence with the Transvaal Government, but as the reply is very lengthy it will be most convenient to the House to circulate it with the votes. —[See Written Answers this date.]
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Have the Government any intention of laying papers?
  Colonel SEELY: Does my hon. Friend mean in this particular case or on the general question?
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: All correspondence?
  Colonel SEELY: I will consider that. I do not know that anything fresh has occurred in the last few months, but I will consider it. and perhaps my hon. Friend will ask a question on it.

  East African Syndicate.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that some 3,000 people, 15,000 cattle, and 250,000 sheep were formerly on the land granted to the East African Syndicate, and that at the present time there were six Europeans and 80 Africans and 15,200 sheep and 135 other stock, he could state if the conditions under which the East African Syndicate obtained the land had been fairly carried out; and, if not, whether proceedings would be taken to cancel the concession in a similar manner as had already been decided on with reference to another concession granted to Captain Grogan?
  Colonel SEELY: I would refer my hon. Friend to what I said in the House on the 10th of June, 1909, when a similar question was asked by him. The statements which I made on that occasion were communicated to the Governor, and I have no

  929

  reason to suppose that, as far as possible and within reasonable limits, the conditions under which the East African Syndicate's concession was made are not being fairly carried out.
  Mr. C. WASON: May I ask whether we can be assured that all Concessionaires in East Africa will receive equal terms in administration as regards forfeiture?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes; I promise to be strictly impartial.
  Mr. WATT: Was not a promise given to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme that no long concessions of land would be given in East Africa?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not know that this arises out of this particular question. What I said then I adhere to now.

  Sedition Offences Ordinance (Southern Nigeria).
  Mr. CHARLES BUXTONasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether any limit had been placed to the fines which may be proposed under the proposed Sedition Ordinance for Southern Nigeria; whether he was aware that the Ordinance was stated by the Attorney-General of the Colony to have been drafted at home; whether this statement was made in order to meet the objection made locally that the Ordinance, while possibly suited to India, was unsuitable to the African hinterland; and whether, during the fifty years which had elapsed since the Lagos district was ceded to the Crown, any seditious act or acts had been proved against any members of the Yoruba tribes?
  Colonel SEELY: The fines which may be imposed under the Seditious Offences Ordinance are not specified in the ordinance, but, as in this country in such cases, are left to be determined in each case, subject to the proviso that they shall not be excessive. The statement of the Attorney-General that the Ordinance was drafted in England is correct, but I should add that it was not passed until the draft had been considered by the Governor of Southern Nigeria and his legal advisers, and until certain amendments suggested by them had been approved by the Secretary of State. It would not be strictly correct to say that there has been no hostility between the Government of Lagos and any of the Yoruba tribes since 1861, the date of the cession; but I have

  930
  no hesitation in saying that the loyalty of the people generally is beyond dispute, and gives no cause whatever for dissatisfaction. The Ordinance referred to is a codification, for local purposes, of the common law of England, which was already in force in the Colony, but which was not readily ascertainable on the spot by the local inhabitants. The penalty of transportation for life, which is provided by the Indian penal code, has not been included in the Southern Nigerian law. I may sum up the matter by saying that this legislation is simply the translation of the existing law of the Colony, that is the Common law into Statute.
  Mr. CHARLES BUXTON: Will an opportunity be given for further consideration in this House before the Ordinance is finally approved by the Colonial Office?
  Colonel SEELY: The question can be raised on the Colonial Vote. But I think there is a misapprehension in the matter. There is nothing new in this Ordinance; it is simply a codification of the existing law, and, as far as that goes, it is to the advantage of the people of the Colony, showing them what the law is.

  Robert Simpson (Conviction at Glasgow).
  Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether he could now see his way to recommend the liberation of Robert Simpson, Glasgow, who was convicted in 1907 of conspiracy to defraud certain newspapers, in view of the facts that the conviction rested largely on handwriting, and that further doubt had since the conviction been placed on the opinion of the handwriting expert?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave regarding this case to the hon. Member for Bridgeton last week.
  Mr. MORTON: Has the Secretary for Scotland considered this case?
  Mr. URE: Yes.

  Illegal Trawling.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked whether, having regard to the number of cases in which masters of trawlers convicted of illegal trawling go to prison so as to avoid payment of the fines imposed, procurators-fiscal would press in all cases for the confiscation of the trawl gear belonging to such trawler?
  Mr. URE: Under the existing practice the gear is seized at the time of detection, wherever it is practicable to do so, and is sold on a conviction being obtained. This practice will continue to be observed.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Will steps be taken to secure that the gear is sold in some centre of population, and not at the spot where the conviction has taken place; because when the latter course is followed, the gear is often bought back for a mere song, so that the offender receives practically no punishment?
  Mr. URE: I will communicate with the Fishery Board and see if it is practicable.
  Mr. MORTON: Is it not a fact that some of the sheriffs in Scotland have stated that the penalties attached to illegal trawling are not sufficient to prevent the continuance of the illegality?
  Mr. URE: I am not aware of that.

  Small Holdings.
  Mr. WINFREYasked how far the Small Holdings Commissioners had proceeded in securing land for the applicants at Newborough; and, seeing that it is now two years since the men applied for land and nine months since the Soke of Peterborough County Council refused to sanction the proposal of their own small holdings committee for the compulsory purchase of a certain farm, whether the Board of Agriculture could hold out reasonable prospect of the Commissioners securing this land before Michaelmas next?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): The Board deferred taking any further action in this matter until the new County Council had been constituted and its Chairman and other officers appointed. The Board now propose to bring the matter urgently to the notice of the Council and they will do everything in their power to expedite a satisfactory settlement. It is not, however, possible at this stage to say whether the land can be actually acquired before Michaelmas next.

  Small Holdings (West Riding).
  Mr. LANE-FOX (on behalf of Mr. Edward Wood)asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his attention had been drawn to the hardships and pecuniary loss to the present occupiers of land at Whixley, near
  932
  Harrogate, owing to the circumstances under which the West Riding County Council were proposing to take their land for small holdings; and whether, in view of the constant recurrence of similar grievances, the Board of Agriculture could see their way to secure reasonable compensation in such case to farmers affected?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: No representations have been made to the Board by the occupiers of the land in question. With reference to the latter part of the question, perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to refer him to the reply given yesterday by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Barkston Ash.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: Will the Board make inquiries into this case?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: With pleasure. If the hon. Gentleman puts down a question we will inquire into it, if he desires us to do so.
  Sir RANDOLF BAKERasked how many schemes involving the raising of loans for adaptation or equipment had been submitted to the Board of Agriculture by the various county councils under The Small Holdings Act, 1908, and how many of these schemes had been approved by the Board?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The number of schemes submitted to the Board, in which provision is made for expenditure on equipment or adaptation is 284, of which 270 have been approved. It does not, however, necessarily follow that every such scheme involves the raising of a loan.

  Sheep Diseases (Investigations).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether the Board had, since the issue in April, 1906, of the Report of the Departmental Committee on Louping Ill and Braxy in Sheep, prosecuted any further investigations into those diseases along the lines indicated in such Report; and, if so, when they would make public the results of such investigation?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Further investigations have been carried out by the members of this Committee since the date of their Report, but they were interrupted for a considerable time by the long illness and regrettable death last spring of Professor Hamilton. The Board hope to receive a further Report on the subject in a few months, and will consider the advisability of publishing it.

  Sheep-worrying.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether the Board of Agriculture had during the last six months received many complaints in respect of sheep-worrying by dogs; and, if so, whether those complaints came from any particular district or districts, or were fairly general throughout the country?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The reply is in the negative.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: Does that mean that no complaints whatever have been received from any part of the country of sheep-worrying by dogs?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I should not have replied "No" if that had not been the case.

  Board of Agriculture (Report ofIntelligence Department).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked when it was proposed to publish the Annual Report of the Intelligence Department of the Board of Agriculture for 1909?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Part I. of the Report mentioned will probably be issued in about six weeks. Part II., which will include information to the 31st instant, cannot be issued until June or July next.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: Is it quite impossible to have both parts of this Report before the Vote for the Board of Agriculture is taken?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: We do not yet know when the Vote is to be taken.

  Food of Birds (Investigation).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether the Board of Agriculture were carrying out any systematic investigation as to the food of different species of birds, other than the very limited investigation of Mr. Robert Newstead, to which reference was made in a supplement to the Journal of the Board of December, 1908, in order to ascertain definitely which British birds are harmful on the farm and in the garden and which are beneficial?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The British Association for the Advancement of Science appointed a committee in 1908 to investigate the feeding habits of British birds. The Board are represented on the committee, and are giving a contribution towards the expenses.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: Will not the Board consider it worth its while to pursue its own separate investigations in so important a matter, in the interests of those who cultivate the soil?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: What is being done at present is sufficient. If the Board were not satisfied of that they would not have made a contribution.

  All-Red Route.
  Mr. FELLasked the Postmaster-General if any progress had been made in completing the arrangements for the All-Red Route, and when he expected it would be at work; and if the new steamers now being constructed for the Pacific service by the Grand Trunk Railway would be available for use on that route?
  Colonel SEELY: The matter of the All-Red Route is still under consideration, and I am unable to say when a decision will be arrived at. In those circumstances it is not possible to give any reply to the last part of the hon. Member's question.

  Limerick Post Office (Female Officers).
  Mr. JOYCEasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention had been called to the fact that female officers had been recently employed at the public counter at Limerick general post office, contrary to the Departmental instructions issued in 1907 forbidding their employment at the postal side in the absence of cloak-room accommodation; whether an objection had been lodged by the female staff on these grounds; and whether he would consider the advisability of cancelling that arrangement, in the interests of the public and staff, pending suitable provision being made?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The Departmental instructions issued in 1907 did not forbid female officers being employed at the public counter on telegraph duties, and had no relation to the question of cloakroom accommodation. Those instructions reserved the postal duties for the male staff in order to enable them to have as frequent relief from night duty as possible. No objection has been lodged by the female staff on the grounds suggested, but I will inquire into the question of accommodation to which the hon. Member has drawn my attention.

  Leigh-on-Sea Post Office.
  Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Postmaster-General whether A. E. Fergusson, for seven years an employà in the postal office at Leigh-on-Sea, Essex, who had since been dismissed on account of being reported as medically unfit, was examined in person by the medical officer on whose report the dismissal was based; and, if not, would he consider the advisability of ordering another examination to be held?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: A. E. Fergusson was a telegraph messenger who applied for appointment as an assistant postman. He was personally examined by the local medical officer, and on account of a physical defect disclosed by his report, the Chief Medical Officer advised that Fergusson was not physically fit for the appointment.

  East Africa (Mail Service).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Postmaster-General, whether, in view of the fact that direct steam service was now provided to East Africa by the Union Castle Line viâ the Cape, he would ascertain on what terms that company could complete the round trip viâ the Suez Canal; whether the sum of £9,000 was still paid by the Post Office for the conveyance of mails from Aden to Mombasa; and if he would state what saving to the Post Office would be effected if the Aden-Mombasa mails were conveyed by German or French steamers?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have ascertained that the Union Castle Company is not at present prepared to make the arrangement suggested. The sum of £9,000 per annum is still paid to the British India Steam Navigation Company in respect of the service maintained by them between Aden, Mombasa and Zanzibar in both directions. If all the mails conveyed on this service were carried by French or German Packets there would be a saving to the Post Office Vote of £7,200 per annum.

  Fermoy Postmastership (Residence).
  Mr. WILESasked the Postmaster-General if he was aware that an advertisement appeared in the Post Office Circular of 1st March last with reference to the vacant postmastership of Fermoy, stating that there was no official residence at Fermoy, and that, as houses suitable for a postmaster were difficult to obtain, the appointment was only suitable for a
  936
  bachelor or a married man without a family; and whether, seeing that such a restriction unduly handicaps suitable applicants, he would consider the advisability of overcoming the difficulty by providing an official residence?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will look into the matter, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

  Great Britain and France (Penny Post).
  Mr. MORTONasked the Postmaster-General whether he could state the estimated cost to the British Post Office that would occur by the adoption of the penny post between this country and France?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The initial cost of penny postage to France is estimated as £82,000 a year, and it is calculated that the correspondence would need to be multiplied sixfold in order to recoup this sum. If penny postage with France were held to involve the extension of the penny rate to the other countries of Continental Europe, there would be a further initial loss of £243,000 a year.

  Elementary Schools (Air and Floor Space).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked why the air and floor space per child in the elementary schools was not the same as that of the secondary schools?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): I presume that the question refers not so much to the fact as to the Building Regulations of the Board, which are more stringent in this respect as regards secondary schools than as regards elementary schools. If that is the case, the answer is that the Board are compelled to bow to considerations of economic practicability. The Board's requirements in respect of public elementary schools represent the irreducible minimum consistent, in their opinion, with the preservation of the health of the children and the efficiency of the schools. The requirements in respect of secondary schools approach more nearly to the ideal which the Board would gladly see applied to all schools of whatever type, but the enforced application of this standard to all the 20,000 public elementary schools in the country would entail an enormous outlay in new or extended buildings.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Are we to understand that there is preferential treatment in the secondary schools?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is no preferential treatment, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a different standard set up for elementary and for secondary schools.

  Census (Religious Denominations).
  Sir JOHN ROLLESTONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he will give instructions to the officials conducting the approaching decennial Census to obtain, amongst other particulars, the religious denomination of the population?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The Census Bill does not provide for the taking of a religious census, and, as I am desirous of avoiding all points of controversy, I do not propose that it should.
  Mr. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: Is it not a fact that as regards the Irish Census that this information is to be given?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: As regards Great Britain there never has been a religious inquiry in the Census. The Government are following the precedents of 1890 and 1900.

  Roman Catholic Church, Moorthorpe.
  Mr. LANE-FOXasked the President of the Board of Education whether any application has been made to the Board for the building of a Roman Catholic school at Moorthorpe, in the township of South Kirkby, in the West Riding of Yorkshire; and whether, if such application is made and is opposed by the local education authority, he will cause a public local inquiry to be held before giving his decision?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: On the 31st December, 1909, the Board received a printed copy of a notice of the intention of certain persons to provide a new public elementary school for about 120 children at Moorthorpe, in the rural district of Hemsworth. The notice states that religious instruction will be given in the proposed new school in accordance with the doctrines of the Catholic Church. On the 17th March, 1910, an appeal against the proposal was received from the local education authority. The Board have not yet received formal evidence of the publication of the notice, in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of the Education Act, 1902. As soon as this evidence is received the Board will proceed to consider the pro-
  938
  posal, and the appeal against it. I am not yet in a position to say whether a public local inquiry will be necessary.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: If the appeal is in order, is the right hon. Gentleman not bound to grant a local inquiry?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to know about this particular case he had better put a question on the Paper. I have given all the information I can give at present.

  Burnt Yates School, West Riding of Yorkshire.
  Mr. LANE-FOX (for Mr. Edward Wood)asked the President of the Board of Education whether the scheme which the Board for some years have been considering in connection with Admiral Long's Charity and the Burnt Yates school, in the parish of Clint, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, is approaching completion; and, if not, whether he will consider the hardship to the ratepayers caused by the fact that the moneys derived from the endowment are accumulating instead of going in aid of the education of the parish?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: In view of the recent appointment of a Departmental Committee to inquire into certain classes of Educational Endowments, and specially those in rural areas, the Board have thought it desirable not to proceed with the preparation of a scheme for this Charity at present. In the meantime, I understand that arrangements are being made, with the approval of the Board, for the payment of a substantial sum out of the income of the Charity to the Local Education Authority for application by them in relief of the local rate under Section 13 of the Education Act, 1902. This application of a part of the income can properly be made under the existing Trusts.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: Do I understand that the income is actually being paid to the Local Education Authority?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir; I said part of the income.

  Land Registry Office (Junior Clerical Staff).
  Mr. MALLABY-DEELEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the discontent amongst the clerical staff of the junior ranks in the Land Registry Office in relation to the constitution of the office and their pay and

  939
  prospects; and whether His Majesty's Government will appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into and report upon the constitution of the Land Registry Office with especial relation to the pay and prospects of the clerks in the junior ranks of that office?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Robson): My right hon. Friend has asked me to say that he is not aware of discontent among the junior staff of the Land Registry Office as suggested in the question; and he does not think there is any occasion to institute an inquiry.

  Duties on Tobaccos (India).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether, as the result of the protective duties levied on tobaccos and cigarettes imported into India, between 1,000 and 2,000 hands employed in this country are being thrown out of employment?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I have no official information as to whether or to what extent employment has been affected by the duties levied on tobacco and cigarettes imported into India. The new duties came into operation on 25th February last.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that one large London firm has during the past fortnight dismissed between sixty and seventy hands; a Liverpool firm has dismissed 300 hands; and a prominent Bristol firm—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is giving information, and not asking for it.

  Steamship "Strathesk" (Provision Scale).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked why the scale of provisions set out in the First Schedule to The Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, was not supplied, as required by Section 25 of that Act, to the twenty-four Chinamen engaged as the crew of the steamer "Strathesk," of Glasgow, on 13th September, 1909, at the mercantile marine office, Poplar; and by what authority the Board of Trade superintendent sanctioned a smaller and cheaper scale, called a Chinese provision scale, to be embodied in the agreement of the crew?
  Mr. BUXTON: As I stated, in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough on the 16th instant, Subsection (5) of Section 25 of the Merchant
  940
  Shipping Act, 1906, provides that the scale of provisions set out in the First Schedule of the Act shall not apply in the case of Lascars or natives of India or others not accustomed to a European dietary with whom an agreement is entered into providing an adequate scale of provisions suited to their needs and uses. The scale of provisions sanctioned in the case of the steamer "Strathesk" was, I was informed, that usually adopted for Chinese crews.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked whether the steamer "Strathesk," of Glasgow, engaged a crew of twenty-four Chinamen at the mercantile marine office. Poplar, on the 13th September, 1909; that nineteen of these Chinamen stated their birthplace to be Hong Kong; that seventeen did not produce continuous discharge books; that fourteen stated they had previously served on foreign ships; and that no qualified able seaman was carried; whether he could state what evidence of birthplace, previous service on British or foreign ships, and ability to efficiently perform their duties as sailors and firemen was produced; and what steps were taken by the Board of Trade surveyor to test the seaworthiness of the ship, having regard to the composition of the crew?
  Mr. BUXTON: No evidence of the seamen's statement of birthplace being produced, they were examined in regard to their knowledge of the English language, and satisfied the superintendent of the mercantile marine office that they possessed a sufficient knowledge of it to understand the necessary orders which might be given to them in the course of the performance of their duties. It was not necessary for the Superintendent to refer the case to the Board of Trade Surveyor.

  Tin-plate Production (Great Britain and United States).
  Mr. RICEasked what was the number of tons of tin-plates produced in this country and the United States of America respectively for the years 1891 and 1908
  Mr. BUXTON: The only official statistics available of the production of tin-plates in this country are those compiled in connection with the Census of Production, which show that in 1907 the quantity of tinned and terne plates and sheets produced was 529,000 tons. No corresponding figures can be given for 1891 or 1908. As regards the United States of America I have no available figures for 1891. In

  941
  1908 the quantity produced was 537,000 tons.

  Labour Exchanges.
  Mr. FELLasked how many names of unemployed have been received by the Labour Exchanges up to the present time, and in how many cases has work been found for the applicants?
  Mr. BUXTON: I gave the information asked for by the hon. Member to the House on the 18th instant so far as available, and explained the position of affairs in Debate. As I informed the House on Friday last, statistics of the operations of Labour Exchanges will be published periodically in the "Labour Gazette."
  Mr. T. E. HARVEY: Has the attention of the President of the Board of Trade been called to statements published in a London newspaper purporting to give detailed statistics of the operations of the Labour Exchanges in the London district, and may I inquire whether these statistics are correct?
  Mr. BUXTON: My attention has been called to these statements. They are entirely unfounded, and the figures, both in total and in detail, bear no resemblance whatever to the facts. I may say that the number of situations filled in London has been more than three times as great as the total stated in the newspaper paragraph.

  His Majesty's Dockyards (Fair Wages Rexsolution).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN (for Mr. George Roberts)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the wages of rivetters, platers, and iron-caulkers in His Majesty's dockyards range from 24s. to 28s. per week, whereas the minimum rates prevailing in private yards range from 33s. 9d. to 40s.; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the matter with a view to bringing the wages of these men more in harmony with the spirit of the Fair Wages Resolution?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): In His Majesty's dockyards there are no mechanics classed as rivetters, platers, or iron-caulkers. The scale of wages in His Majesty's dockyards alluded to in the question is that of skilled labourers, and ranges from 22s. to 28s. per week. This scale is now under the consideration of the Board. Where skill is concerned in the operation of plating, shipwrights are employed in His Majesty's dockyards.

  Marine Artillery and Light Infantry.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked when the last officer was entered into the Royal Marine Artillery and into the Royal Marine Light Infantry; and how many officers have left the corps since those dates?
  Mr. McKENNA: The last officers who joined the Royal Marine Artillery and Royal Marine Light Infantry were appointed second lieutenants in the Royal Marines on the 1st September, 1907. Since the date mentioned the number of officers removed from the list is thirty-one, but ten officers have been absorbed on return from seconded list.

  Destroyers (1909–10 Programme).
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked on what dates the destroyers for 1909–10 were laid down?
  Mr. McKENNA:
  2 are not yet laid down.
  5 were laid down in February, 1910.
  3 were laid down in January, 1910.
  9 were laid down in December, 1909.
  1 was laid down in November, 1909.
  It may be observed, however, that these vessels were all ordered in October of last year, and that the contract dates for completion run from the date of order, and are not affected by the date of technically laying down.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the two which are not yet laid down will be laid down?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes. Our officers report to us that they do not think there is any danger of these two boats not being completed within eighteen months from the date of the order.

  Floating Dock (Medway).
  Mr. WHELERasked whether there is any condition in the contract for the floating dock to be placed in the Medway that the dock shall be in a position, ready for possible use, by the end of the year 1911?
  Mr. McKENNA: The contract date for completion is such as to provide for this condition being fulfilled.

  Finance Bill, 1909–10.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister if he was now in a position to say, for the convenience of Members residing at a distance, when the Finance Bill of 1909–10, or any Resolution in lieu thereof, or giving effect to its proposals, will come before the House of Commons?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): No, Sir, I am not at the moment in a position to answer the hon. Member's question.
  Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if this business will come on before 5th April?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, I cannot say so definitely. I think it is extremely improbable.
  Mr. NEWDEGATEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to postpone collecting Death Duties for Budget purposes as well as postponing collecting Income Tax1?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Payment of the Death Duties may be made, at the taxpayer's option, either at the statutory rates or at those proposed in the Finance Bill of last Session. Note is taken of any case in which the lower rates are tendered, with a view to recovery of the difference when the rates proposed in the Finance Bill are confirmed.
  Mr. PETOasked the number of cases in the years 1906, 1907, and 1908 in which Income Tax payers have had to be sued to recover the amount of the tax; and if he has formed any estimate of the increase in the number of such processes that will be required owing to the collection of two years' Income Tax in the coming financial year?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The number of cases for the years referred to in which writs were issued for the recovery of Income Tax was as follows:—

  1906

  …

  …

  …

  1,784

  1907

  …

  …

  …

  1,950

  1908

  …

  …

  …

  1,921

  The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the event of the Finance Bill of 1909 becoming law without further change, and continuing law for ten years, what does he estimate that the aggregate increase effected by it in the taxation of Ireland will amount to in the tenth year?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I must refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend yesterday to a similar question by the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh.
  Sir JOHN ROLLESTON: I desire to ask whether any of the applications for the position of valuer under the Finance Bill
  944
  of 1909 have been considered, and whether any appointments have been yet made?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: All applications of the character in question are noted and receive careful consideration, but no appointments have been made in view of the Finance Bill of 1909 not having yet passed into law.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman state all the Stamp and other duties to which an ordinary agricultural farm in Ireland of the capital value of £1,000, and subject to a purchase annuity for that sum, would be liable on the death of its owner, on conveyance to a member of his family, and on sale, respectively, if the Finance Bill of 1909 become law, as compared with the similar liabilities of the same farm before purchase and before the Finance Bill?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: On the assumption that, by the statement that the farm is "of the capital value of £1,000," it is meant that it has that value over and above the redemption value of the purchase annuity, the Stamp Duties payable before purchase under the Land Acts and before the Finance Bill would be, on conveyance to a member of the owner's family, 10s., and on sale for £l,000, £5. After purchase, but before the Finance Bill, these sums would be 10s. (assuming there were no covenant in the deed to indemnify against the liability for the annuity) and £10 (if sold for £ 1,000) respectively, the increase from £5 to £10 on the conveyance on sale resulting from the creation of a charge upon the property and the consequent application of Section 57 of the Stamp Act, 1891. After the Finance Bill, the Stamp Duty on the conveyance to a member of the; family would be £10 in respect of a gift of the value of £1,000, with £20 on the conveyance on sale. No statement is possible in regard to Death Duties in the absence of more specific information. In no other respect would the Finance Bill affect the property, seeing that the farm, being stated to be an ordinary agricultural farm, would presumably, on the occasions in question, have no higher value than its value for agricultural purposes only, and therefore on sale would pay no Increment Value Duty whatsoever, no matter how large a price might be paid for the farm by the purchaser.
  Mr. MACMASTER (on behalf of Mr. Worthington-Evans)asked what amount

  945
  was received into the Exchequer in respect of Income Tax from 1st April, 1909, to 12th March, 1910, and how much of this was in respect of assessments made for the year 1909–10?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The amount paid into the Exchequer from 1st April, 1909, to 12th March, 1910, was £12,782,000.
  This amount is approximately made up of—

  (i.) 1909–10 Assessments

  £10,600,000

  (ii.) Arrears of Previous Years

  2,182,000

  £12,782,000

  Mr. FELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when the Income Tax on profits for the past year will be levied on traders and professional men, so that they may have reasonable time to arrange for the payment?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: As to the date when the Budget of last year will be introduced into the House of Commons, I must refer the hon. Member to the statements made by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am unable to admit that, on the passing into law of the Finance Bill for 1909–10, there can be any hardship involved in the immediate collection of Income Tax which, but for the rejection of the Bill by the House of Lords, would have been payable on or before 1st January last.
  Mr. FELL: May I ask if the collection of the Income Tax will not entail the withdrawal of a large sum of cash from the Money Market, and whether that will not cause a great disturbance in the market?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The collection of the Income Tax always draws a large sum of money from the market.

  " Dreadnought" Building (Thames Contract).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Thames Ironworks Company, in order to complete the construction of the "Dreadnought" for which a contract has been placed with it, has found it necessary to order a special floating crane, and that such order has been placed in Germany, notwithstanding that a British firm of standing and experience had tendered for it; and, seeing that its erection will be largely contemporaneous with that of the "Dreadnought," and will involve the
  946
  employment of Germans with access to the building yard during the construction of the battleship, what steps he proposes to take to safeguard British interests.
  Mr. McKENNA: The Admiralty have no power in the matter of the purchase by shipbuilding firms of their plant, and have no knowledge whether the firm in question is obtaining alternative tenders for the floating crane from Germany and from British firms. The contract contains a clause securing all necessary secrecy.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentlemen did he read the whole of my question, which is: "Whether or not the Thames Iron Works Company had actually placed an order in Germany for a special floating crane, and whether or not its erection will be largely contemporaneous with that of the 'Dreadnought,' and will involve the employment of German workmen and supervisors and allow them to come into the shipbuilding yard?"
  Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend supposes the "Dreadnought" is now under construction in this yard. He is in error. We have no knowledge at the Admiralty— and I have made inquiries on the point— we have no knowledge whether the crane in question has been ordered from a British or foreign firm, but should it have been, ordered from a German firm—a fact which I do not know—every precaution will be taken to ensure secrecy, and, as a matter of fact, there is a clause in the contract which absolutely secures secrecy.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman, but what I want to ask is this. Accepting, as he will for the moment from me the statement that the crane has been ordered from a German firm, and that German workmen will supervise its erection contemporaneously with the commencement of the "Dreadnought" in the shipbuilding yard, is it not a fact, then, that the work and conditions are such, that these workmen may take the fullest information of the details of the construction of the "Dreadnought"?
  Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend has overlooked the fact that the crane in question is part of the plant for building the "Dreadnought," and it will have, therefore, to be completely erected before the "Dreadnought" is advanced any distance at all in its construction. No German workmen can be admitted to the dockyard at a time when anything secret is being done.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is it not a fact that the contract placed with this German firm provides that the German firm shall by its own workmen and supervisors erect the crane when it arrives in this country in parts in the shipbuilding yard in a certain position which is in communication with the yard in which the "Dreadnought" is being built contemporaneously?
  Mr. McKENNA: Assuming the statement made by my hon. Friend to be accurate that this crane has been ordered from a German firm, the crane will have to be erected before the "Dreadnought" is built. The crane is for the purpose of building the "Dreadnought."
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman says distinctly that the "Dreadnought" will be laid down upon its slip only when the crane is completed?
  Mr. McKENNA: Oh, no, Sir, I said nothing of the sort. There is no secrecy about a slip or the laying of the keel upon a slip. As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, such secrecy as there may be in the construction of a ship only arises at a far later stage.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No.
  Mr. McKENNA: Then the right hon. Gentleman does not know. There is no secrecy in the keel of a "Dreadnought."
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Docs the right hon. Gentleman not know that in erecting a ship the frames and other parts which will be handled by this crane disclose the whole of the design?
  Mr. McKENNA: The frame and other parts handled by the crane can only be handled when the crane is erected. The crane having been erected, the German workman, if they are there—I have no knowledge, but assuming that German workmen will be employed there—they will have disappeared before the ship is built.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Will not the parts be there alongside the slip before the keel is laid.
  Mr. McKENNA: No German erecting a crane nor anyone else can in the least discover the design of a ship from the parts of a ship laid one over the other.

  Prize Money (Capture of Chinese Destroyers).
  Mr. BURGOYNE (for Lord Charles Beresford)asked whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to grant, prize money to those officers and men who took part in the capture of the four Chinese destroyers on 17th January, 1900?
  Mr. McKENNA: The question of taking steps for the award of prize bounty on account of the captures referred to was fully considered in the spring of 1901 by Lord Selborne's Board, and the decision was that no such action should be taken.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: Is it the intention of the Admiralty to alter the policy of giving prize money in the case of a capture of that sort?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir; the Admiralty have no intention of altering the decision come to by Lord Selborne's Board in 1901.

  Local and Imperial Taxation (Rateable Property).
  Mr. LANE-FOXasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state approximately what is the present proportion of local and Imperial taxation, respectively, paid by rateable property in this country; and, if not whether the calculation has ever been made officially in the past, and with what result?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: An attempt to classify Imperial and local taxation on the basis suggested in the question was made in a Return presented to the House of Commons by the President of the Poor Law Board in 1870 (House of Commons 470 of 1870). It would not be difficult to apply the method of classification therein adopted to the figures of local and Imperial revenue for any subsequent year down to the present, but it has now for many years been generally recognised that such analyses provide no real indication of the comparative incidence of taxation as between the owners of different kinds of properties.

  Taxation of Ireland.
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has noticed that the excessive taxation of Ireland, estimated by the Financial Relations Commission at nearly £3,000,000 a year, has since been increased by £2,500,000, making the present taxation of Ireland about £5,500,000 a year more than its propor-

  949
  tionate share, and more than the entire government of Ireland would cost in Irish hands; and whether, in any future financial proposals, so long as the Act of Union is maintained, he will give Ireland the benefit of the exemptions and abatements to which she is entitled under that Act?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Financial Relations Commission made no estimate of the absolute taxable capacity of Ireland. The only aspect of the question dealt with was that of relative taxable capacity as compared with Great Britain. On the basis of one-twentieth suggested in the Majority Report, the proper contribution of Ireland to the total revenue of 1908–9 would have been £7,073,000 as against an actual contribution of £9,250,000 or £2,177,000 less. The corresponding excess on the figures for 1895–6 was, as pointed out in the question, nearly £3,000,000. Thus, on the basis of the one-twentieth standard, the excessive taxation of Ireland has, instead of being increased by £2,500,000, as suggested in the question, actually been reduced by about £750,000 in the thirteen-year period. The latter part of the question touches upon a subject which is of far too controversial a nature for me to deal with in a reply to a Parliamentary question.

  Export Coal Duty.
  Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked what would have been the revenue which would have been received from the export duty on coal, if it had not been taken off, during each of the past four years, and assuming that the export trade had not been affected by such duty?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Under the conditions specified the revenue that would have been derived from the export duty on coal during each of the four years, 1906 to 1909 inclusive, is estimated at—

  £

  Year 1906

  2,500,000

  Year 1907

  3,150,000

  Year 1908

  3,100,000

  Year 1909

  3,050,000

  Old Age Pensions (Vote on Account).
  Mr. NEWDEGATEasked whether, as the old age pensions fall due at the end of the month, he will take measures to collect Income Tax to pay the same instead of borrowing money?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Ample provision has been made by the Vote on Account to pay
  950
  the old age pensions which fall to be paid weekly and not monthly as suggested by the question.
  Mr. NEWDEGATE: Will the Government arrange for the regular weekly payments of old age pensions in the event of the General Election taking place?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The payments now made will undoubtedly and unquestionably be continued weekly as heretofore.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to support and vote for old age pensions whenever proposed and by whatever Government?
  The PRIME MINISTER: There is no question whatever about the payment of old age pensions.

  Boards of Agriculture (England and Ireland).
  Mr. STANIER (for Mr. Courthope)asked what are the amounts of the grants in the Session of 1909 and the Estimate for 1910–11 for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Irish Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, respectively; why the grants and estimates for the Irish Department are so much greater than those for the British Board; what accounts for the increase of £181,500 for the Irish Department; and why a similar increase of vote is not asked for for the Board?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The figures are as follows:—

  Net grunts in the Session of 1909.

  Estimate 1910–11.

  Board of Agriculture and

  £

  £

  Fisheries

  173,169

  185,710

  Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, Ireland

  234,817

  416,356

  The Estimate for the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction contains provision for institutions of science and art, for the geological survey of Ireland, and for grants for schools and classes of science and art and technical instruction and for day secondary schools, the corresponding provision to which in Great Britain appears in the English and Scotch Education Votes. Approximately £110,000 is taken in the Estimate for the Irish Department for the above objects. I should also explain that there is included in the Vote for. the Irish Department the grant-

  951
  in-aid of the Congested Districts Board for Ireland, which now amounts to £169,750, having been largely augmented under Section 49 of the Irish Land Act, 1909. The principal items of which the increase of £181,500 is composed are £163,750 under the above Section, of which £144,750 is for the Congested Districts Board and £19,000 for the Department; £9,100 for equipment, etc., of the new Royal College of Science, Dublin; £4,000 for grants to schools; and £2,810 for increase of staff.

  Stamp Duties.
  Sir JOHN ROLLESTONasked whether the stamp duties chargeable in respect of marketable securities under Section 76 of the Finance Bill, 1909, will be retrospective if the Bill becomes law, namely, will marketable securities which have already been duty stamped have to be stamped with the increased duty the first time they are assigned or in any manner negotiated in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir.

  Tobacco Growing (Scotland).
  Mr. MORTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would make provision for a grant-in-aid of experimental tobacco growing in Scotland of £6,000 per annum for five years, as is now provided for Ireland?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend thinks, in view of the Development Act of last Session, that this is a question which should be brought before the Development Commission when it is constituted.
  Mr. MORTON: Is it not a fact that the grant made to Ireland was made out of the ordinary fund?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, that is so, because the Development Commission was not then in existence.
  Mr. MORTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already promised to do the same for Scotland as he has done for Ireland?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Again I must point out that that promise was made before the Development Act was passed.

  Surveyors of Taxes (Clerks' Notice).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention has been directed to the fact that 70 per cent, of the clerks employed in the offices of Inland Revenue surveyors of taxes are un-established and liable to have their engagements terminated at a week's notice, on the ground that their duties were of a routine character; whether he is aware that the main consideration in framing the list of established clerks was the class of the district in which they happened to be employed at the time the Treasury scheme of April, 1908, took effect; whether he is aware that the clerks employed in the lower class districts are discharging duties of a confidential and responsible nature, similar in character to those of established clerks; and, if so, whether, having regard to the interests of the public, he will consider the advisability of placing the whole of the clerks employed on this work upon the establishment?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am informed that the question of the further establishment of clerks in the offices of surveyors of taxes is the subject of a petition which is now before the Board of Inland Revenue, and I am unable at present to express any opinion on the matter.

  Advisory Committee (Government Stocks).
  Mr. MALLABY-DEELEY: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer prepared to appoint a Committee, consisting of Treasury officials, leading bankers, and other gentlemen conversant with finance, to advise and report as to whether a scheme can be advised for the consolidation into one stock, at a uniform rate of interest, of all the existing Government Stocks, namely, Consols, Irish Land Stock, the War Loan (to be provided for on 5th April), and a possible Naval Loan, with a view to greater convenience and at the same time towards raising the status and the value of the premier securities of Great Britain both at home and abroad?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend does not think that the appointment of such a Committee would serve the purpose anticipated by the hon. Member.

  Tobacco Workers (German Budget).
  Mr. JAMES PARKER (on behalf of Mr. William Thorne)asked whether his attention had been called to the fact that the Budget Committee of the Reichstag had

  953
  voted a further sum of £37,500 for the relief of tobacco workers thrown out of work in consequence of the increased taxation imposed on tobacco by the German Budget of 1909; and if, when he was framing his Budget for 1910–11, he would take the Tobacco Tax into consideration?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend is aware of the facts stated in the first part of the question. As regards the latter part, he will be glad to consider any representations which my hon. Friend may wish to make to him in regard to the Tobacco Duties.

  Treasury Bills Outstanding.
  Mr. MACMASTERasked what was the amount of Treasury Bills outstanding on 11th March, 1909, and what amount was paid in interest thereon; and what are the corresponding figures for 11th March in each of the years 1905 to 1908, inclusive?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The amount of Treasury Bills outstanding on 11th March in each of the years 1905 to 1909 inclusive, and the amount of interest paid thereon, was as follows:—

  Amount of Treasury Bills outstanding 11th March.

  Amount of Interest paid on thereon.

  £

  £

  1905

  …

  21,133,000

  …

  393,298

  1906

  …

  20,633,000

  …

  331,352

  1907

  …

  12,713,000

  …

  223,971

  1908

  …

  12,213,000

  …

  229,834

  1909

  …

  15,000,000

  …

  145,190

  The interest figures represent the amounts issued from the Consolidated Fund upon the respective issues of Bills, as explained in the reply my right hon. Friend gave to a question by the Noble Lord the Member for Maidstone on the 15th instant.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will say at what rate of interest the advances for the Grange-more portion of the Magan-Topping estate, Westmeath, are to be repaid; and whether all the untenanted land comprised in it will be distributed among the suitable congests on the estate and in the immediate neighbourhood who are anxious to get it and willing to pay its full value?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): If the Estates Commissioners acquire the lands, which are the subject of proceedings for sale to
  954
  them under the Irish Land Act, 1903. the annuities on resale will be at 3¼ per cent. The matter referred to in the second part of the question will be considered when the estate is being dealt with by the Commissioners.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELL: In view of the fact that many persons who, on the evidence of the Census Returns, have got old age pensions would not have got any but for that evidence, and of the inability of many applicants to have those Returns examined, will the right hon. Gentleman have that examination made for them in the cases in which it has not yet been done; when a, name is not in those Returns, and the pension officer and committee disagree on the point of age, which opinion is adopted; and whether there is any class of cases of applicants in which he will have the applications reconsidered as a result of the Debate on the 18th instant?
  Mr. BIRRELL: In all cases in which no other sufficient evidence of age has been produced, it is the practice of the Local Government Board to require search to be made in the Census Returns, this being done free of charge by officers employed by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. The committee decide the question of age in the first instance, and, if the pension officer appeals, the Board come to a decision on the evidence and do not adopt the opinion of either party. The answer to the final paragraph of the question is in the negative. If any persons; wish to have their cases reconsidered, and think they can furnish further evidence, they must make fresh claims.
  Mr. GINNELL: In a case in which the local committee have voted the pension, and it has been disallowed by the Local Government Board, because they say they do not know whether the name is in the Census Returns or not, by whose authority is the pension suspended?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is suspended by the Local Government Board, because they are of opinion that the applicant has not made out a case, and the onus rests upon him of proving that he is seventy years of age.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: On what principle do the Local Government Board decide this question when there is no entry in the Census Returns?
  Mr. BIRRELL: We go a good deal by appearance.
  Mr. GINNELL: Is it a case that, so far as these poor people are concerned, the Debate of last Friday was a mockery?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Oh, no.
  Mr. HUGH LAW: Are we to understand that the Local Government Board interview these persons? Is it not a fact that they never see the applicants?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board do not see them themselves, but they see them through their inspectors.
  Mr. HUGH LAW: Can the Chief Secretary state the ground of withdrawal of the old age pension of Patrick M'Dermott, of Barnes Upper, parish of Kilmacrenan?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The pension officer raised the question that M'Dermott had not reached the statutory age, as he was shown by the Census Returns to be only one year old in 1841 and eleven years old in 1851. On appeal, the Local Government Board have decided that the claimant will be entitled to a pension from 1st April next.
  Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Chief Secretary if he could state the grounds upon which the old age pension granted to James Doherty, Kilmacrenan, county Donegal, has been withdrawn?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The. pension in this case was discontinued as the result of a question raised by the pension officer as to the pensioner's age, which was recorded as seven years in the Census Returns of 1851. His name does not appear in the 1841 Census Returns, and no satisfactory evidence that he had attained the statutory age was produced.
  Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Chief Secretary if he could state the grounds upon which the old age pension received by James Boyse, Meenacross, Milford, county Donegal, since January, 1909, has been recently withdrawn?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The pension in this case was disallowed as the result of an appeal by the pension officer to the Local Government Board on the question of age. Boyse's age is recorded in the Census Returns of 1851 as ten years; his name does not appear in the Census of 1841, and no satisfactory evidence that he had attained the statutory age was produced.

  National University, Ireland (Extern Students).
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether, in view of the admission of one class of extern students, namely, the students of Maynooth, to the right of competing for a degree of the National University in Ireland without having the qualification of residence in the university, he will take steps to have the same right conferred on another class of extern students, namely, the national school teachers of Ireland?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There is no power under the Irish Universities Act to permit extern students to enter for the university examinations save in the case of students of the late Royal University. Students in recognised colleges are not extern students.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of my question—whether he will take steps to have the same right conferred on another class of extern students, namely, the national school teachers of Ireland?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir; the students of Maynooth are not extern students, because they are resident at a recognised college. I do not propose to take the steps suggested.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Is it not a fact that the extern student must be a qualified resident in the university?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The extern and the intern students are what they are declared to be by Act of Parliament.

  Labour Recruiting (Angola).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Decree prohibiting the recruitment of native labourers in the Province of Angola for labour in the cocoa plantations of San Thomé and Principe is still in force; and if he can say whether the cocoa planters have recently engaged a large number of free labourers from Mozambique for work in the plantations?
  The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The Decree of 22nd November, 1909, prohibited recruiting in Angola until 1st February last. I understand that it was decided that recruiting should not be resumed until the new regulations were properly introduced. It is at first only to

  957
  be allowed in the districts of Quillenges, Bailundo, and Jinga de Ambaca. With regard to the second part of the question, recruiting of labourers from Mozambique has been proceeding for some months, but I am not aware whether a large number of labourers have been engaged recently. I am asking for reports from the Consul to get the latest information on both these points.

  International Arbitration Movement.
  Mr. JAMES PARKER (on behalf of Mr. William Thorne)asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if his attention had been called to a discussion in the German Reichstag on 15th March, when a unanimous resolution was passed that a sum should be inserted in the next Estimates in support of the movement for international arbitration; and if he was prepared to recommend to the Government that a grant be made to further the international arbitration movement?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No report has yet reached me of the Resolution said to have been passed in the Reichstag on the 15th instant. As regards the second part of the question, the principle of international arbitration is viewed with sympathy by His Majesty's Government, but I cannot promise a Government grant such as is suggested.

  Liquor Shops (India).
  Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Under-Secretary for India whether he was in a position to state to what extent the Resolution of the Government of India, dated 15th August, 1907, directing that local opinion in regard to the number and sites of liquor shops should be consulted more systematically and recorded more definitely had been carried out; in how many towns and municipalities local committees had been set up for this purpose; the extent to which non-official opinion was represented on such committees; and whether, in the event of the information not being immediately available, he would call for a Return giving the necessary particulars?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): From the Excise Reports of the different provinces for 1908–9, and from other sources, the Secretary of State has obtained the following information as to the progress made in
  958
  forming local committees and as to their constitution. In Madras committees have been sanctioned for all municipalities; in the United Provinces for those with populations exceeding 20,000, in Bengal for 28, in Bombay for 20, in Burma for 10, in the Punjab for 7, in Eastern Bengal for 3. In the Central Provinces, where there are few-large towns, the formation of such committees is considered unnecessary, and the ordinary municipal committees will be consulted on licensing matters. The constitution of the committees varies in the different provinces, but the most general type is a committee of five or six, of whom three are officials and the rest non-official representatives of the municipality.

  Alleged Conspiracy (Thurles).
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can state approximately the number of years during which it has been impossible for Mr. Charles Clarke, of Graiguenoe Park, Thurles, to visit the town of Thurles without police protection; how many police are at present detailed to protect his person and property, and how many of these sleep in his dwelling-house; whether he can state the nature of the offence committed by Mr. Clarke which renders it impossible for the authorities of the United Irish League to allow any person in Thurles to have dealings with Mr. Clarke; whether he is aware that Mr. Clarke has been for some years compelled to purchase and bring all the necessaries of life from Dublin, a town eighty miles distant; and if he can state what measures, if any, the Government have taken in the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: From November, 1908, to May, 1909, Mr. Clarke could not visit Thurles without a police. escort. Things have since improved, and the arrangements for his protection have been modified Five police are at present detailed to protect his person and property. None of them sleep in his house. The hostility shown to him arose from his refusal to sell certain lands to the Estates Commissioners for distribution. He has been obliged for the past sixteen months to obtain his supplies for the most part from a distance, but I understand that certain local traders are now willing to supply him. A charge of conspiracy is pending in connection with the agitation against him.

HOUSE OF LOKDS VETO.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely, why the Resolution, which was to make it plain, that the proposals of the Government with regard to the Veto of the House of Lords were "without prejudice to, and contemplate in a subsequent year, the substitution in our Second Chamber of the democratic method of representation," does not appear on the Notice Paper, and when it will be communicated, to the House? For the language of my question, I am indebted to the Prime Minister's speech.
The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman, I think, has not studied my language with perfect care. I have refreshed my own memory, and what I said on 28th February was this:—
" We skill present our proposals in regard to the relations between the two Houses of Parliament in the form of Resolutions."
I went on to say:—
" These Resolutions will. T hope and believe, he both few and simple. They will affirm—I am speaking now in general terms—the necessity for excluding the House of Lords altogether from the domain of finance. They will ask this House to declare that, in the sphere of legislation, the power of Veto, at present possessed by the House of Lords, shall be so limited in its exercise as to secure the predominance of the deliberate and considered will of this House within the lifetime of a single Parliament."
Then I went on in most carefully chosen language, because I have become very careful in these matters in the use of language, for I have had a kind of lesson this Session, to say, not of the Resolutions, but—
" Further, it will be made plain that these constitutional changes—"
that is the changes contemplated by the Resolutions—
" are without prejudice to, and contemplate in a subsequent year, the substitution in our Second Chamber of the democratic method of representation."
That language was carefully chosen in order to leave the Government with a perfectly free hand, either to embody that proposition in a Resolution or to make it plain in some other way.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Are we then to understand that the Government do not propose to submit to the House, even in outline, any suggestions for the reform of the Second Chamber?
The PRIME MINISTER: No, certainly not If the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to wait till this day week, when I am going to propose that the House shall resolve itself into Committee, I shall carry out the pledge I then made and make perfectly plain what the position of the Government is.
Lord H. CECIL: No resolution will be proposed?
Mr. ASQUITH: No.

" DREADNOUGHT"' BUILDING(THAMES CONTRACT).
Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the proposed erection by a German firm, by German workmen and supervisors, of certain works incidental to the construction of one of His Majesty's ships, a "Dreadnought," in such circumstances as will involve the presence of these foreigners in close proximity to and during the construction of such battleship.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will have an opportunity to-morrow, on the Motion for the Adjournment, to raiséthe point. I can hardly say the matter is so urgent between to-day and to-morrow as to make it absolutely necessary to take the matter to-day. I think the hon. Member will have ample opportunity to-morrow.
Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Of course, if that is your ruling, I at once bow to it, but with great respect may I submit that there are restrictions to the opportunity to-morrow, especially when we may have something else to talk about, of taking the opinion of the House on a matter which a Member of the House pledges himself to establish, namely, something contrary altogether to the assurance given by the Minister.
Mr. SPEAKER: I have to consider whether the matter is urgent or not within the meaning of the Ruin, and I was really "letting the hon. Member down easily" in suggesting that he should raise the discussion to-morrow. If he presses me very hard, I should have to say the matter was not urgent within the meaning of the Rule.
Mr. BOTTOMLEY: There may be a blocking Motion, Mr. Speaker.

NOTICES OF MOTION.
Mr. JOHN TAYLOR: I beg to give notice that to-morrow three weeks I will call attention to the political disabilities of trades unions, and move a Resolution.
Mr. W. E. HARVEYgave a notice in like terms.

PRESENTATION OF BILLS.
The following Bills were presented, and read the first time:—
DEATH CERTIFICATES (CHARGES) BILL.
" To provide for a reduction in Charges for Death Certificates in certain cases," presented by Mr. GIIX. (To be read a second time upon Tuesday, 5th April.)
ROAD TBAFFIC BILL.
" To provide for the better regulation of Road Traffic," presented by Mr. GILL. (To be read a second time upon Tuesday, 5th April.)
CONVEYANCING BILL.
" To amend the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881," presented by Mr. HILLS. (TO be read a second time upon Monday, 11th April.)
SETTLED LAND BILL.
" To amend the Settled Land Acts, 1882 to 1890," presented by Mr. HILLS. (To be read a second time upon Monday, 11th April.)
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered, That the Proceedings on the Consolidated (No. 1) Bill, on the Resolution relating to the Supreme Court of Judicature [Salaries, etc.], on the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill, and on the East India Loans (Railways and Irrigation) Bill, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed.—[The Prime Minister.]
SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered, That this House do meet Tomorrow (Wednesday), at Twelve of the clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. EHMOTT in the Chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
CLAUSES 1, 2, and 3 agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Amendment of s. 46 of Army Act with respect to Powers of Commanding Officers.)
With a view to reducing the number of cases which have to be sent for trial by courts-martial owing to the limited powers of punishment exercisable by commanding officers, the maximum period of detention which may be awarded by a commanding officer who deals with a case summarily shall be twenty-eight days, and accordingly "twenty-eight" shall be substituted for "fourteen" in Paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section forty-six of the Army Act, and Sub-section (4) of the same Section shall be repealed.
Viscount CASTLEREAGHmoved, as an Amendment, to omit "twenty-eight" ["shall be twenty-eight days, and"], and to insert instead thereof "fifty-six," the object being to extend to fifty-six days the maximum period of detention to be awarded by a commanding officer.
Mr. JOHN WARD: On a point of Order. Will the moving of the Amendment of the Noble Lord preclude my Motion for the deletion of the Clause?
The CHAIRMAN: No. Later on I will put the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I have no desire to delay the Committee unduly, but I feel sure the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War will bear with me for a few moments, especially in consideration of the fact that he and I on more than one occasion have spent the evening and probably most of the night in discussing Bills of this nature. My proposal is to increase to fifty-six days the jurisdiction of the commanding officer. This Bill already increases it, and I do not quite know the reason the right hon. Gentleman found it necessary to propose the increase. There is one objection which may be paramount in some minds, and that is that if wider jurisdiction is accorded to commanding officers it may have the effect of causing the private soldier to have more recourse to the option of being tried by court-martial. But my experience in the Army

963
is that the private soldier prefers to be dealt with by his commanding officer instead of claiming a court-martial. The question I want to raise under this Amendment is the responsibility of the commanding officer. At the present time I do not think sufficient scope is given him to enable him to deal responsibly with the unit under his command. Present conditions cannot, under any circumstances, be considered satisfactory. When an officer joins the Army he has to go first through the drudgery of the subaltern; he obtains a little more scope as captain; and a little more as major. But when he at last reaches the position of commanding officer he will be well on the road to fifty years of age; and I hardly think this is the most efficient way of obtaining the best men to command units in this country. The whole system resolves itself into this: the colonel is so hidebound by the time he attains the position of commanding officer—he is so bound in red tape that he has no initiative and no individuality.
4.0 P.M.
I believe the remedy lies to a certain extent in my Amendment, which will give additional scope to the commanding officer and encourage him to take responsibility, then he will become a more efficient asset for the whole Army. This is a question in which I have always taken great interest. I believe that at this moment the present Secretary for War, who is perhaps the only man on the Government Bench on whom praises and congratulations have been showered from all sides of the House—and he is certainly fortunate in that respect—will desire to make his Army into a reality. Therefore, this is the proper time to raise this question. I have already alluded to the position which the commanding officer occupies. I have no desire whatever to make any attack on commanding officers; in my opinion they are a most deserving body of men. They deserve praise and commendation for the fact that they have gone through the drudgery of regimental life, and have withstood the temptation of obtaining greater scope for their energies and activities by the far more attractive method of either going abroad or obtaining appointments on the Staff. We cannot disguise from ourselves the fact that the energetic young officer who is full of individuality does not aim at the command of his regiment; he prefers to leave it at an early stage and go on to
964
the Staff. I am of opinion that the command of the unit is essential to the well being of the Army. No matter how small the unit may be, the command should be the training ground and the stepping stone to the higher grades in the Army. I know that there is the question of age at the present moment, and that there is not a sufficient opportunity for the young man in the prime of life to obtain what is the highest ambition of a man in the Army, and that is the position of a regimental officer. It is a great encouragement to the individual to think that he will have the responsibility in his own hands of controlling a unit, and I believe that such control would to a very large extent assist in making the officers of the Army efficient.
When we consider that the Duke of Wellington in his campaign in the Peninsula was only thirty-six years of age, and that on him was the supreme responsibility to his country, it does seem strange to say that it is practically an impossibility for an officer in the Army at the present moment to command a unit which he joins as a subaltern at the age of eighteen before he has reached what I may call the mature age of forty-eight or fifty. That is the reason why I have moved this Amendment, but. of course, it is not my intention to take a Division upon it. I should like, however, if the right hon. Gentleman would say if in his scheme for the perfecting of the Army, and in order to make the Army a reality, he will begin upon a scheme which will encourage the individual officer at an early age to undertake responsibility, which, I believe, would help in the formation of character and in making that officer an efficient asset to this country in time of need. When we compare the conditions of the Army with those in the Navy, I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that a great deal more responsibility is placed upon naval officers at an earlier age than is placed upon military officers of the same stamp. There is no need for me to go into all the details of the duties of the midshipman, the sub-lieutenant, the lieutenant, and the commander in the Navy, and the responsibilities which they have to undertake, but if we compare these with those of the respective officers in the Army we find comparatively young men in the Navy occupying precisely the same position and undertaking far more responsibility than an officer of the same age who is a regimental lieutenant in the Army. It is quite true that

965
some officers have risen to high rank who can claim the experience of having commanded a regiment, but it is almost a unique experience, and what I want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman is that all those inducements for education, such as the Staff College, of which I am a firm supporter, and other facilities, prevent the energetic young officer from desiring to command his unit, which should certainly be one of the ambitions of a lieutenant and of every officer. It is for this reason that I move the Amendment, and I should like to hear the views of the right hon. Gentleman, which are based upon practical experience in regard to it.
The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): No one can complain of the Amendment which the Noble Lord the Member for Maidstone has brought forward in his desire to do everything which can be done to put responsibility upon the junior officer in the Army. The point I take in replying to his arguments is the occasion which he has chosen for bringing them forward. We are here dealing with the administration of justice, which is a very difficult thing, and my attitude does not express any doubt in regard to the young officer of whom I have the very highest opinion, but when you are dealing with a question of liberty and of punishments you have to move with the utmost care. For our judges we require people of mature years and tried position, and you must extend the rules which obtain in civil life in order to deal with the problems of the Army which we have before us. We propose on this occasion to raise the punishment which can be awarded from fourteen days to twenty-eight days, but there is nothing in the Noble Lord's Amendment which would enable these punishments to be awarded with any sense of responsibility by junior officers, because the King's Regulation 493, which deals with summary punishment and detentions, provides that the power to award detentions exceeding seven days, but not exceeding fourteen days, cannot be exercised by a commanding officer under the rank of field officer. That is to say, we do not entrust this limited power to anyone less than a major. I should like just to explain what is the procedure in this matter, and to say that it is not the interests of the officer that I can take into account in regard to it. I must deal with the interests of the Army as a whole. At the present time there is great progress being made in the improve-
966
ment in the position of the soldier. There is a great drop in the number of courts-martial, which has gone down since 1901 some 40 per cent., and that is due, I think, entirely to the better feeling in the Army, the better position of the soldier, and to the fact that he is a far more educated man than he used to be, and is in closer contact with the civilian population from which he comes.
There is no doubt that the soldier is a steadier and more responsible person than he used to be, and nothing marks that more than the great drop of 40 per cent, since 1904 in the number of courts-martial, and also by the drop since that period in the length of sentences. In 1904 the daily average amounted to 1,540, but last year the daily average was 656, or a decrease of 58 per cent. Consequently last year we were able to relieve the Estimates by the closing of twelve Army detention barracks, and that marks no falling off in discipline, but that the soldier has got to be a better man, has a better sense of responsibility, and there is less necessity for punishments. What we propose to do on this occasion is somewhat to increase the power of the commanding officers with the rank of field officers. We propose to enable them to award not imprisonment, because that is not given except in bad cases, but we propose to enable them for minor offences to deal with cases up to a sentence of twenty-eight days' detention. We safeguard the right of the soldier, because we say to him that we give him the option of either being tried by his commanding officer, and being sentenced within those limits, or of going to a court-martial. We tell him that if he wishes to go to a court-martial he has a perfect right to do so, but if he elects and prefers to be tried by his commanding officer he can take that course, and we propose to give the officer power to try a considerably larger number of cases than he can at the present time. At present he cannot give a sentence of more than fourteen days, and he is bound to send a case to be tried by court-martial if he thinks that that is the suitable punishment. That is very unfortunate, because a court-martial brands more or less, and if a man has been tried by such a tribunal he can never be the same as he was before, whereas in the case of ordinary offences in the Army, for which a man is condemned to be confined to barracks or is reprimanded, nobody is any the worse in the long run, and a man's character is sustained unless he is convicted of

967
some offence which can be regarded as serious.
In the circumstances what we feel is that, at any rate for the present, twenty-eight days is far enough to go in this matter, and what we propose to do will cut down the number of courts-martial by 25 per cent. If any soldier is charged, however, as I have said already, he may ask for a court-martial, but if he is sensible, as the bulk of our soldiers are, he will prefer to be tried in a summary fashion by his commanding officer, and my opinion, from experience, is that a man gets off very much more easily before his own officer than if he goes to a court-martial. The feeling existing between the officers and soldiers leads to a very great sense of comradeship, and the commanding officer does not like to see his men get into trouble. I know of no more satisfactory tribunal for these minor offences than this, but, of course, in the case of more serious offences a different course is desirable. As to the genesis of these proposals, I would like to say it rests with the Adjutant-General Sir Ian Hamilton, than whom, I think, no man takes a greater interest in soldiers. He has worked almost all his life among soldiers; he has been in contact with them in every part of the world, and he is strongly of opinion that we have reached the time when this advance might be made which would reduce the number of courts-martial materially. We have consulted the most experienced commanders-in-chief, and they gave an opinion in each case in favour of the change. General Smith-Dorrien, General Douglas, and other officers feel that the time has come when these things may be dealt with more on the analogy of civil life where an offender gets off much more easily than he does in the Army. For my part, I regard this change as entirely in the interests of the soldiers, and one which ought to lead to a still further improvement in the condition of the soldier who, I may point out, is exactly as well off as he was before because he has a right to the other tribunal if he chooses to demand it.
Mr. JOHN WARD: I will take this opportunity of reiterating the opinions to which I gave expression last night, especially and more strongly because of the remarks that have been made by the hon. and Noble Lord opposite. He has led us to believe, if his argument amounts to anything, that you can
968
only get responsible men as officers in the Army if they are allowed to tyrannise over all these men under them. He suggested that taking away the right of the officer to impose any other punishment than fourteen days is tantamount to reducing the status of the officers, and practically to reducing their position in the Army. So far as I am concerned, instead of increasing the sentence which the commanding officer can impose upon his men, I should think that any advance should be in the direction of reducing the power ot the commanding officer. I object to this proposition for increasing the sentence. I much prefer to leave the maximum punishment as it is, at fourteen days. I should prefer an advance in the direction of reducing the fourteen days to seven or ten. The proposition that we should go beyond what has been proposed by the reactionary Army Council over which the right hon. Gentleman presides and increase the twenty-eight days to fifty-six days is one which I do not suppose the Noble Lord himself really intends seriously. I suppose it really is the outcome of those long conversations he says he has had with the right hon. Gentleman on the subject, with the idea of forestalling the probable reduction after a full Debate in this House.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I had no long conversation with the right hon. Gentleman, and I never said I had.
Mr. JOHN WARD: I understood the Noble Lord in his opening remarks said he had talked military affairs over considerably with the right hon. Gentleman.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH: What I alluded to was the all-night sittings in which the hon. Member and myself have taken part on more than one occasion.
Mr. JOHN WARD: If they are the only conversations I must confess that I had quite as long conversations with the right hon. Gentleman. I wish to refer specially to the statement that is constantly urged by the right hon. Gentleman, and which is put in the preamble of this Clause. It does not look like a clause of an Act of Parliament at all. "With a view to reducing the cases of courts-martial," and so on. It is like the preamble of a new law relating to the Military Code. I do not think that is a desirable way of introducing the subject, because it does not in any way mitigate the suffering of the private soldier. In many a case in which at the present time the commander deals

969
with his man and sentences him to a minimum detention of fourteen days without going to a court-martial, if the officer even in the days which have gone, had had the power to give him twenty-eight days, that would have been the sentence. Therefore, instead of relieving the danger to the private soldier by granting this additional power to the commanding officer, you may very likely be doubling his sentence for even the most trifling crimes or breaches of military law. There are detentions even under courts-martial showing clearly that some of the cases which are dealt with by courts-martial at present are so trifling that they are not serious cases at all, but the court finds that its discipline is amply maintained by a sentence of slight detention even then. You must not necessarily assume, as the right hon. Gentleman does, that when a man prefers, or is taken before a court-martial, he must get a more severe sentence than the commanding officer would give him. I only wish the right hon. Gentleman had served in one of the line regiments as a private, say twenty years ago, for a little while. I do not think he would be so sanguine about this advance. For instance he gives the opinion of officers of great standing in the Army in favour of this innovation, men whom one knows perfectly well, especially one of them, who does everything he can to mitigate the hardships of the soldier's life. I admit that, but officers are not the best judges of the way in which a private soldier should be punished as a rule. It is only necessary to go back to about the seventies. Twelve months ago, when I was contesting with the right hon. Gentleman on the Army (Annual) Bill, I looked through the Debates with reference to flogging in the Army, and I noticed that nearly every soldier of any standing as a commanding officer declared that it would be utterly impossible for officers to maintain anything like discipline or even to hold the Army together, even in face of the enemy, unless flogging was maintained. If we had taken the advice of the ordinary professional soldier we should never have allowed our humanity to step in and prevent flogging in the Army. If it had been left to the Army officers themselves we should flog soldiers to-day for the slightest breach of discipline. There are some officers who even now think that the Army would be much better if the commanding officer was allowed to flog a man occasionally before breakfast or for breakfast according to his whim or requirements. The opinion
970
of the officer as to what is the best punishment and the best method of dealing with breaches of discipline on the part of the man is not always the best advice, as has been proved on many occasions before. Hence I protest against this statement being put forward as a sufficient justification for making the lot of the soldier more difficult than it is to-day. Very often, I have no doubt, in spite of the intention of the commanding officer to weigh the facts of the case and to deal justly with the man, he largely has to depend upon his subordinates, upon his non-commissioned officers, for all the information that he gets relating to the conduct of the private soldier, and even sometimes upon his fellow commissioned officers.
MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: I do not think any modern officer, at all events, is of any use at all unless he knows more about his men than any man in his regiment.
Mr. JOHN WARD: In the majority of cases they know a great deal about their men, and they know them personally, but as to the incidents upon which charges of insubordination are made, I think the Noble Marquess would agree, to a great extent the commanding officer has to rely upon information supplied by non-commissioned officers, and even of men in almost the same position as the private himself. A non-commissioned officer may be prone to take personal pique arising out of incidents in the barrack room, and a charge may very soon be trumped up against the private soldier, and his position in the Army and his life generally can be made a positive burden to him. There is not the slightest doubt about that. In addition to that the officer is bound to support his non-commissioned officer. If he did not, the corps could be scarcely held together. I should think there is hardly ever a charge made by a non-commissioned officer against the private soldier of insubordination or want of attention to his duties that is not maintained and punished at once, as a matter of course, on the information of the non-commissioned officer. I should say it is done regularly, and that the commanding officer acts on this principle that if he wants to maintain the discipline of his regiment it is a thousand times better for him to be a little more severe on the private against whom the charge is made than to lower the authority of the non-commissioned officer in the eyes of the ordinary private of the regiment. I understand why it is done, but

971
at the same time I know how irksome and degrading and how unfortunate it is for a private soldier who happens to find himself a scapegoat. A court-martial is not an ideal place for sifting evidence, and you cannot get law or justice, or anything of the sort. You get a sort of rough justice, but anything approaching what you would expect in a civil process is out of the question. But, rough as it is, as long as you have a chance of establishing a court and hearing evidence properly you may, and the commanding officer does occasionally, sift the evidence and the charges sufficiently to ensure acquittal. But that is only in a few cases. Some 6,000 men in the year before last lost their liberty by courts-martial of one kind or another. Of the 6,000 who were tried only 130 or 132 escaped conviction, showing it is almost certain that if once a charge is brought against a man, it will be sure to be carried home. The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that this extension of the power of commanding officers is an advantage to the men is one I cannot for the life of me see. The right hon. Gentleman must admit that when my Friends here were refusing him support in respect to the Territorial Army I stood behind him the whole time. I championed the cause right through from beginning to end, and I got into serious difficulty with my Friends for it. It is not from any envy or ill-feeling towards the right hon. Gentleman that I object to this extension of power; it is only because I believe that if you make it possible for a commanding officer to impose increased punishment, you are going to add greatly to the punishment of the men against whom charges are made. The commanding officer must rely always on his subordinates for information with reference to matters of this description. The "Notes on Clauses" of the Bill are unfortunate. It is said it is for the purpose of reducing the number of courts-martial. If it does not decrease the punishment on the men, what is really the use of lowering the proportion of courts-martial1? I think myself I would much rather not go before the commanding officer if a case were trumped up against me in the corps to which I belonged out of prejudice on the part of the non-commissioned officers who had been constantly in attendance on me, and who might have a grudge against me. I dare not even say I am not guilty. I would rather remain absolutely silent and get a sentence of twenty-eight days' imprisonment, or whatever it might
972
be, because, if I had denied the charge, when once the commanding officer has decided that I was guilty, that again is another offence in addition to the one of which I had been convicted. As a matter of fact, everybody in the Army knows that if the King's Rules, or the Queen's Rules, as we used to call them, were insisted upon by every commanding officer, and if the men had to obey them, they would not be able to breathe. Those who understand the strictness of the Code wish that the rules should be made more generous, and that the amount of punishment which commanding officers are able to inflict should be restricted.
Colonel WARNER: I have had some experience on this subject. A commanding officer relies, in the first place, as the court-martial does, entirely on the evidence before him. Any evidence can be produced before a commanding officer in exactly the same way as before a court-martial. In the second place, I would point out that the term of fourteen days is not a minimum; it is a maximum, and the commanding officer is quite entitled not only to dismiss a charge, but also to give a very light punishment indeed. Let me point out to the Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. John Ward) that the very case he quoted is one where the proposal in the Bill will be of advantage to the men, because where there is a non-commissioned officer fond of raking up charges against the men the colonel will know that noncommissioned officer's character, but a court-martial might not know it. Therefore in that particular case it will be a distinct advantage to be tried by the colonel instead of by a court-martial, because the colonel would discount the charge made by an officer who was in the habit of making charges against the men. I do think that the Amendment to extend the power to fifty-six days would put rather too much on the commanding officers. I do not think the men would object to it. The first question which is always asked is: Do you wish to be tried by court-martial? If he does, there is no slur cast upon him for choosing that course, but there is this disadvantage, that if he is convicted the sentence is likely to be greater than if he had been tried by the commanding officer. It would be some advantage, therefore, to get the punishment given by the commanding officer instead of by the court-martial. That is a small point. I think at the same time that no commanding officer wants to be made

973
judge in really serious eases, such as would be punished by anything more than twenty-eight days' detention. I think if the limit was fifty-six days, it would mean that cases would be brought before the commanding officers which they would not like to try themselves. I do not think it necessary or wise to adopt the Amendment. There would be a feeling if a man got a long punishment from a commanding officer that he was not the right person to try the case, and that it ought to have been tried before a formal court. I think that under any system cases ought to be tried before a formal court, such as a court-martial, where heavy punishment is given. The object of the extension of the commanding officer's power, proposed in the Bill, is to enable him in certain cases which are near the margin to be able to give as much as three weeks' imprisonment instead of sending a man to a court-martial, where he would, as a rule, get a heavier punishment than if the case was dealt with by the commanding officer. The men, as a rule, prefer to be tried by the commanding officers of their regiments, because they generally get lighter punishment. In fact, when a commanding officer wishes a man to get a heavy punishment he sends him to a court-martial. I think it is an advantage that the men should have the option of being tried by commanding officers, even if they should get a little more punishment than can at present be given.
Colonel HICKMAN: I cannot let this occasion pass without saying a few words in defence of the character of the officers of His Majesty's Army. It has been distinctly aspersed by the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. J. Ward). I wish to support as strongly as I can the Amendment proposed by the Noble Lord, because I feel very deeply that the interests of the soldiers, the officers, and the Army at large are very much involved in the Amendment. In my experience of something like thirty years in the Army I have always found that a private soldier, when he has been given an opportunity of saying whether he would be tried by court-martial or take the award of the commanding officer in ninety-nine cases out of 100 he prefers to be dealt with by the commanding officer. I think that is the best possible proof that soldiers prefer to be tried by officers who know them and who know all the circumstances instead of going before a court-martial, which may be composed of officers of other regiments who have no specific knowledge of the men
974
and of the circumstances of the case beforehand.
I should like to back up what the Noble Lord has said as to the great advantage it would be to the Army and also to the officers to widen the scope of the responsibilities of the younger officers, beginning at the beginning and continuing on until they reach the higher ranks. In my experience I have found that young officers are always trying to get away from their regiments to go to Nigeria, Uganda, Egypt, and in fact all over the world, solely and particularly that they may be put in positions where they may hold higher responsibilities, gain experience, gain some confidence, and thereby improve themselves as officers, so that when the time comes they may go back to their regiments well fitted to give service in fighting for the King. If I understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he said he was raising the punishment from fourteen days to twenty-eight days. So far as I remember he is raising it from twenty-one to twenty-eight days.
Sir CHARLES DILKE: The hon. and gallant Member is referring to the provision in a Section which is struck out.
Mr. HALDANE: That is struck out.
Colonel HICKMAN: I should like to repudiate the statement made by the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent that there are officers at the present time in His Majesty's Army who are willing to bring back flogging in the Army. In the whole course of my thirty years' service I have never heard an officer say that lie wanted to see flogging brought back. The hon. Member has made aspersions against commanding, officers in stating that they must necessarily take what the non-commissioned officers tell them about a man before they form an opinion as to the justice of an accusation. When a commanding officer hears a case he is in the position of a magistrate or a judge. He has to sift the evidence and give the best judgment in his power. He has to question the non-commissioned officers because they are witnesses. That is the reason why he asks them to give their evidence. The best proof we have that there has been great improvement where commanding officers' power of punishment has been increased is to be found in the words of the Secretary of State for War. The right hon. Gentleman told us that during the past few years there has been such

975
a great improvement in the discipline of the Army that there has been a reduction of forty per cent, in the number of courts-martial.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I entirely sympathise with the Noble Lord (Viscount Castlereagh) and the hon. Member who has just spoken in their desire that greater responsibilities should be put upon the officers in the Army, but I would point out that it is impossible that officers of the same age in the Army could ever have the same responsibilities as officers in the Navy, for the simple reason that the Navy is always at war with one of its two enemies, and that one the greatest, namely, the sea. It is because naval officers have to combat with the sea from an early age, and that at the age, possibly, of fourteen or fifteen years a lad is put in command of a boat's crew and sent away by himself. In this way naval officers learn to exercise discipline in time of peace. The Navy is always in active service against its worst enemy, but the Army has only against it a sham enemy in time of peace. I observe that the Noble Lord and others who have spoken on behalf of the officers on this occasion are in favour of giving them greater power of punishment. I do not think that is calculated to improve them as regimental officers in the fighting line. Other qualities are required than those. If you give them ampler powers of punishment it can only tend to increase their sense of arbitrary power, but I do not think you will improve their fighting power.
I really rise to make a very sincere, may I say an almost heartrending, appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to press this Clause. Let me remind the House of what has happened? And in this connection I venture to submit that commanding officer does mean the officer who commands a detachment away from his regiment in time of active service. Seventeen years ago there was a power in the commanding officer to give twenty-one days' imprisonment. And although imprisonment is now termed detention, it is imprisonment all the same. Confinement to barracks is imprisonment in a limited area. Seventeen years ago, less two days, we passed an all-night sitting in this House in the attempt to reduce the power of the commanding officer from the power of giving twenty-one days' imprisonment to the power of giving fourteen. We were defeated upon that occasion by the late Sir
976
Henry Campbell-Bannerman, who was then in power; but the force of the arguments so impressed the right hon. Gentleman that when the Bill got into the House of Lords the very Amendment which we proposed, and which was rejected here, was inserted by the Government itself. The Bill came down here on the 24th April, 1893, with that Amendment inserted by the Lords, and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman moved that the House of Commons should agree to the Amendment. The result of that was that the power of commanding officers to impose sentence was reduced from twenty-one days to fourteen days, and it has so remained up to this day.
Now the right hon. Gentleman proposes to raise it to twenty-eight, and I may remark that he has destroyed his case for any attempt of the sort. He says that courts-martial have decreased and the sentences upon soldiers have decreased. I rejoice to hear it; but if that is so surely that is a reason not forgiving the commanding officers greater powers, but rather for giving them less powers, or at any rate for leaving things as they are. The language of this Clause 4 is remarkable. It begins in a way I have never known a clause of an Act of Parliament to begin before—" With a view to reducing the number of cases." You never insert a motive in a clause of an Act of Parliament, and it recalls to me the famous words of one whom the Secretary for War will certainly respect, Sir Edward Coke, who talks of "Acts beginning with false, flattering preambles." I think this is rather a false, flattering preamble; and when the right hon. Gentleman tries to make out that a soldier is going to be better off if somebody has the power of imprisoning him for a longer period, I really cannot accept that line of argument. It is said that there will be fewer courts-martial and more sentences by commanding officers. The truth is this: The commanding officers have now only a power of fourteen days, but under this Clause they are to have a power of twenty-eight days detention, as it is called. My belief is that this tendency to imitate the arbitrariness of some Continental nations, and to give more and more arbitrary powers to commanding officers, is detrimental to the interests of the Army. I would rather see a development in the English way.
Our Army we are always told is inefficient. No War Minister comes into power but he attempts to make radical changes,

977
and every succeeding War Minister finds that his predecessors made big blunders. And so it has gone on ever since I have known of an Army or read of it. There is another force from which the right hon. Gentleman might take some lessons. The English Army which conquered France and brought credit to England were what were called Sevenpenny Men, and the Welsh among them were only Fivepenny Men, men with only 5d. a day. They found themselves and lived upon the enemy. Those men fought bravely, but when they came home they returned to their wives and families. They were a sort of ancient foreshadowing of that most admirable of all forces, the Metropolitan Police, who are ready to fight and go anywhere, but who live at home, and are always on hand, and the result is the admirable force that all the world admires of the blue angels who guard our streets. I am talking of the method of dealing with the Army. I am comparing the method of segregating a man from his fellow-subjects, keeping a man in barracks and depriving him of his civil rights in the ordinary sense, and, let it not be forgotten, subjecting him to all sorts of special punishments, and then attempting to increase the severity of those punishments, and I am contrasting that with the method which was found quite sufficient for the men who won Crecy and Poitiers, or who later on won Waterloo, aye, and even for the Metropolitan Police, who after their duty go home to their wives and families. I was only suggesting that that might be the ideal rather than the Continental, I will not say German, ideal, which we seem to be trying to pursue, almost since the time of Frederick the Great.
I do make this appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to persist in this Clause, and I make it because I cannot vote against it. If I did vote against it I should be helping to provide an opportunity for the return to power of a Protectionist Government, so that I must support the right hon. Gentleman, as I regard him as the sole barrier against that Protection which I believe would ruin the country. I believe he is taking the wrong method with regard to the Army. I believe, with him, that the Army is so improved that it will need not more drastic but less drastic powers of punishment, and if I am to compare the individual commanding officer, whatever his rank may be, with the court-martial, I think I would prefer the court-martial. If I was on my trial I would prefer a jury of my countrymen,
978
even if it was only a court-martial. The commanding officer is not a jury; he is a judge. He acts according to his discretion, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that the discretion of a judge is only another name for personal tyranny. Commanding officers differ, but when you have a court-martial you get the average common-sense just as you do on a jury. When the right hon. Gentleman asks me to prefer an individual, and to give that individual a double power of sentencing me, I would certainly prefer a court-martial. I again repeat my appeal. I am quite helpless in the matter. I am in the right hon. Gentleman's hands, and I would ask him to temper justice with mercy.
Mr. SANDERSON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman is it not a fact that the sentence and proceedings of a court-martial are subject to review by the Judge Advocate-General, and that the sentence and proceedings before the commanding officer are not subject to any review at all? And if that is so, and if this Clause is passed, does not that mean that the benefit of the revisal by the Judge Advocate-General would be withdrawn in a great many cases from the private soldier?
Mr. HALDANE: By Section 43 of the Army Act the private soldier has a right to complain against anything whatever done by the commanding officer, and that power is, in fact, used; and if anybody complains of the sentences an opportunity is given for reviewing them.
Mr. SANDERSON: Do not the sentences of the court-martial, as a matter of course, in every case come before the Judge Advocate-General?
Mr. HALDANE: Yes.
Mr. SANDERSON: While the sentence of the commanding officer does not come as a matter of course before the Judge Advocate-General, but only if the private soldier takes it into his own hands and has it brought on?
Mr. HALDANE: Yes.
Mr. SANDERSON: If that is so, and this Clause is passed, are you not taking away from the private soldier a very great benefit that may be of great use to him, namely, the revisal by the Judge Advocate-General, in the ordinary course of proceedings against and sentences passed upon him?
Mr. HALDANE: I do not think so, because, first of all, if he wants to go before a court-martial, he can go to a court-martial just as now. If he goes to a commanding officer, he chooses to go to him, and if he thinks he has been unjustly treated, he has only got to complain, and the practice which exists now will be followed, the matter will be investigated, and he will have redress.
MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ward) made a most extraordinary statement, that he thought all the officers of the Army were in favour of flogging.
Mr. JOHN WARD: I would like to say, in answer to the Noble Marquess and to another hon. Gentleman who put words into my mouth, that I did not say anything of the kind. All I said was that when the subject of flogging was under discussion in this House every officer who spoke upon the subject advocated flogging, and I therefore suggested that commanding officers were not necessarily the best judges of the right way to inflict punishment upon private soldiers.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: The point of the hon. Gentleman is that at that time the commanding officers were in favour of flogging. Since then the good sense of the House has shown that they were wrong. Is there any particular reason why the good sense of the House should not be at this moment correct? It was correct before, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War is correct on this occasion. We have got several Service members on both sides of the House, and I think that while the hon. Member for Stoke certainly was speaking with an honest desire for the best from the point of view of the soldier, other Members are doing the same. I think you must grant that we have also some experience in the matter, and are most anxious to do what we can for the welfare of the soldier. I think he thought that the Secretary of State for War was increasing the powers of the commanding officer for punishment, and that therefore there would be, in fact, more punishment for a man to get. The right hon. Gentleman, however, has the opposite point in view. Though it seems, oil the face of it, to be increasing the powers of the commanding officer with regard to the punishment of the men, the reason is to give the men a chance of not having to be sent to a court-martial for offences which really
980
should not go before a court-martial. When a man who has been in the Army wants to get a place and you look up his record and find he has got court-martialled at any time, you will have nothing to do with him; but you never ask has he come before the commanding officer. One is, in fact, a goal bird, and the other is not. By increasing the power of the commanding officer you simply increase the number of cases dealt with by him which otherwise have been sent to a court-martial.
5.0 P.M.
The soldier may ask to be tried by court-martial, but I have never yet known a man prefer to go before the court-martial rather than before his commanding officer. There are some cases in which the fourteen days is perhaps too little, and in which it might be said that a rather heavier punishment should be given, and if a man went to a court-martial he would probably get a very much more severe sentence than would be imposed by his commanding officer. A court-martial has no feelings, it cannot have feelings, it is simply in the position of a judge, and it does not take into consideration whether the soldier accused has a wife and children, or anything of that sort. Its duty is to inflict the statutory punishment, and it is not supposed to know anything about the soldier, as does a commanding officer, who takes all the circumstances in consideration when he is considering the punishment to be inflicted. A court-martial does not make the punishment fit the individual; it acts by rule of thumb. I do think that the right hon. Gentleman is giving extended powers to the commanding officer in order to save the man from worse. That is a reason why I am thoroughly in accord with the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. I should not, however, be altogether in favour of so drastic a change as that of increasing the period to fifty-six days. I think, if you were to substitute fifty-six days you would be giving the commanding officer rather more power than would be perhaps wise. Speaking from personal experience, I think the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in bringing forward this Amendment, which, I think, is framed in the right spirit.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: This matter has been discussed on a good many occasions with reference to the maintenance of discipline in the Army. The first glance at the Clause proposed by the Government seems to be in the direction of humanity. It certainly is desirable to pre-

981
vent poor men who have committed mere trivial offences from being sent before a court-martial, and from having convictions recorded against them and their characters practically destroyed. That is the argument for the Clause. On the other hand, my own instincts, at all events, are against the Clause. I have known some commanding officers who are little better than bullies—I do not say I have known many of them, but I have known some. If this Clause should pass there are some commanding officers in the Army who, I believe, would give a man, a few days after hi had come from detention, another month, and would practically keep him in detention all the year round, and that without a chance of his going to a court-martial. To put to a private soldier whether or not he will go before a court martial is a very serious proposition to place before him, because he would find himself eventually punished if he had availed himself of the alternative. I think it has been found that the more reasonable and the more humane you make punishment the better discipline you eventually get. You do not get better discipline by flogging people; you do not really vindicate the law or improve society by brutal punishment, and it seems to me that the power to give fourteen days' detention is quite enough for any offence which is a mere trivial one. If a private soldier has committed a more serious offence, then it is time that he should go before a court-martial. We have on several occasions with you in the Chair, Sir, discussed for a great many hours this question of punishment from all points of view. I am not going to repeat any of those arguments that were formerly used, but, personally, I cannot allow the Debate to a close on a question of such importance without saying a few words upon it. I do think that the power of the commanding officer to order fourteen days' detention is quite sufficient, and if a man has committed an offence deserving a longer period of detention then the proper way in which to try him would be by court-martial, whose decision would inevitably, and as a matter of course, come up for revision by the Judge Advocate-General, and before whom there would be more chance of the man getting substantial justice. The Army is a place where men are particularly liable to be bullied, and I oppose this Clause, which simply gives the officer twice the opportunity which already exists to inflict punishment. Hon. Members who look at the matter from the opposite point
982
of view say that the object of giving this increased power to the commanding officer is to keep men from the courts-martial, but if we only look at the subject from the point of view of the man himself and from the point of view of the actual discipline of the Army, it will be seen that to increase the power of the commanding officer would be a mistake.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH: My only object in bringing forward this matter is that I do not think the commanding officers or the men of the Army as a whole have sufficient responsibility. In bringing forward this Amendment, I had distinctly in view the idea that more responsibility should be placed on every member of the Army. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. JOHN WARDmoved to omit Clause 4.
I think if I get no one else to tell with me if I go to a Division, I shall have the services of the hon. Member for one of the divisions of Liverpool (Mr. Watson Rutherford). I daresay the Noble Lord (.Viscount Castlereagh) will agree with me that I have not even suggested one-quarter of what was said by the hon. Member behind him. I think I dealt in a gingerly manner with the subject compared with him. I propose the deletion of this Clause because I believe it is against the whole policy of military affairs in Europe. In almost every country at present the tendency is to relax the severity of the military code. In France, and I believe also in Germany, the power to inflict punishment without trial is gradually disappearing. I believe that to be the case with every army in the world except our own. It is unfortunate, at all events it is unfortunate from my point of view, that this tendency to increase the penal code in our Army should come at a time when a Liberal Minister has charge at the War Office. I do not know whether the things were planned before the right hon. Gentleman took possession of his present office, but I must say I do not think it is very creditable to a Liberal Minister to be constantly asking this House to stiffen up and tighten the power of a commanding officer over the soldier in the way suggested, not only on this occasion, but on other occasions also. I believe, as a matter of fact, that in the case of every Army Annual Bill brought in by the right hon. Gentleman he has done something in

983
this direction. I believe that on the occasion of every Army (Annual) Bill since I have been a Member of the House, and since the right hon. Gentleman has been Minister of War, some new burden has been placed on the private soldier—some new difficulty added. Last year we had the question of billeting—
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is supposed to be speaking against the Clause, and he is travelling over the whole subject. He must confine his observations to the Clause itself, and tell us how it adds to the disabilities of the private soldier, and he is not in order in going over the whole field.
Mr. J. WARD: Excepting in the last words which I used I have dealt absolutely line by line with the Clause, and nothing else. I admit I was unfortunate in mentioning billeting. This Clause, if it becomes part of the Bill, will again carry out this tightening process that has been going on for a long time. Here we propose to allow the commanding officer power, without trial, as the hon. Member (Mr. Watson Rutherford) has pointed out, to inflict still greater punishment in the future than he can inflict at the present time. I say this Clause is absolutely tightening up the whole process of punishment. It is not a party question, and hon. Members opposite, I am sure, are just as interested as any hon. Members on this side in protecting the interests of the private soldier. The hon. Member below the Gangway a moment ago put a most important problem with reference to this Clause to the Minister for War, who never attempted to answer it. Under this Clause the punishment is inflicted, and there is no appeal unless the soldier himself appeals in some way or makes a complaint. If he makes a complaint, and if it is a wrongful complaint, he can be given another six months, I think. There are peculiar sections in the Army Act, and even in the copy the right hon. Gentleman sent to me there are some very ambiguous sorts of crime. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Liverpool, by this process the soldier may point out that there is something wrong about the sentence of his commanding officer, and I daresay there is some way of rectifying it. But as the hon. Member also pointed out, if the man goes before a court-martial, then there is an officer properly appointed, and with all the powers and
984
authority and all the necessary qualifications for investigations of this kind, who automatically inquires into the sentence, and you get an automatic rectification without the soldier being called on to make a charge against his commanding officer, a thing he is not likely to do, no matter how severe the sentence may be. Under those circumstances, if I can only get one to tell with me, I am certainly going to take a Division against the Clause. I move it be deleted.
Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: The question under discussion is a very interesting one; but the point to consider is the case of the man, as it is the man who is going to be punished. When a man receives summary punishment it is over in a very short time. He is not kept waiting, and there is none of that irritation caused by keeping a man waiting for punishment, and generally he gets a fairer punishment from the officer than he does from the court-martial. May I give some instances which happened to me? As a captain I had a sergeant-major of Marines who had served twenty-onxe years, with great credit to himself and with great credit to his country. He went ashore and he got drunk. It was not his fault, as he drank some filthy stuff that made him drunk. I had to disrate him. He was a very valuable man, and in a very short time I gave him his rating back. If I tried that man by court-martial he would have lost all that service which he had given to the State. He was a splendid man, an excellent non-commissioned officer, respected by everybody, but he would have been disrated, and have lost all that service, and lost his pension, and he would not have got employment on shore, because, it must be remembered, that the court-martial goes down on the conduct sheet. I had another excellent man who through carelessness put his helm in such a way as to lose two men's lives. I had to disrate him. It was carelessness, and one, of those mistakes which we are all liable to. But on active service in the Navy you have got to think of every little finger of your men, and to see that nothing is done of any sort or kind to lose men's lives, and a little error of judgment might have that result. If this particular case had been tried by court-martial there is no doubt that the man would never have got his rating back again, which would have affected him in his whole career. I only mention these circumstances on the point as to whether a commanding officer should have the

985
right of punishment, or whether he should refer the matter to courts-martial. It is a very difficult case I admit, but I am thinking only of the men.
Mr. JOHN WARD: If the Noble Lord tried all the cases I would submit them to him without courts-martial.
Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I am much obliged for the compliment. In the old days in both Services the rigour of discipline was, "Do not ask" and "Do not speak." In these days the whole, of the sympathy of the officer is with the men, and I am sure I speak for the sister service as well as for the one I know so well. The effort is not to try and run a man in, but to try and get a man out and give him every chance. As for non-commissioned officers or petty officers irritating the men and running them in for offences against discipline or making irritable remarks to the men, that is known at once, I am sure, to every colonel of a regiment and captain of a ship. They know it from the other noncommissioned officers. I myself am certainly only thinking of the men. Do not let us think of the officer's power but of what is best for the men. My humble opinion is that the right hon. Gentleman's idea of giving the officer more power with a view to getting rid of courts-martial is certainly best for the men, and I shall vote for the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.
Colonel IVOR PHILIPPS:I do not think the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) represents the views of the soldiers of the Army, because I am firmly convinced that the soldiers of the Army know that it is not to their benefit for minor cases to go to courts-martial. The hon. Member talked as if a man who was brought before his commanding officer had to appeal against the decision. There is no such thing. What happens to the man is that the case is inquired into, and then the commanding officer says, "Will you be tried by me or by court-martial?" and the man says whichever he prefers. If he thinks the commanding officer has a "down" upon him he says by court-martial, and if he thinks the commanding officer is a man who will deal fairly with him, he says, "I will be tried by the commanding officer." There is no question of any unfairness. I do not think it should go out from this House that during the tenure of office of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that the Army Act has been stiffened up. I believe that it is entirely
986
the other way, and I believe the whole tendency of the Army Act has been to make military law more suitable for the soldier and to benefit the soldier. I am quite certain that the soldier thinks so too. I say with every confidence that the remarks of the hon. Member for Stoke do not represent the views of the soldiers. I am certain that the officers will say the same thing. They do not advocate these proposals to add to their power. These proposals give more power to the soldier who can be tried either by his officers or by court-martial, which ever is most beneficial in his opinion. I certainly do not think it should go out from this House that we are tightening up the Army Regulations.
Mr. REES: I heard with the greatest pleasure the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Philipps). I agree with him, and I am convinced that the picture drawn by the hon. Member for Stoke of antagonism between the private soldier and his officer is a figment of that hon. Member's imagination. I do not say that he himself may not have seen such things, but if it is so, then I think the cases have been exceptional, and he has been particularly unfortunate in his experiences. The hon. Member said that the Question before the House was not a party question, and neither is it. He proceeded, by way of showing how it was not a party question, to attack the Secretary of State, and to ask how could a Liberal Minister propose to stiffen up discipline in the Army, and how could a Liberal Minister do this, that, or the other. If the hon. Member really believes that this is not a party question, how can he suppose that there is anything Liberal or Conservative in the action of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War? I suppose that the Secretary of State, whether he happens to belong to the Liberal or Conservative party, acts on the advice of distinguished soldiers on his council. I do not suppose that in a matter of this kind he lays his own views before the House of Commons. The hon. Member commented on the thin House in which this has been discussed. I believe there is very good and satisfactory explanation of that, and I believe it is that the Members of this House know that the private soldier is in good hands, and that he can be trusted to his officer and to the War Office, and that he does not require all this defending. What the hon. Member says is very different to my experience, not as a soldier, but as one who has been

987
a judge and a magistrate in cantonments. I remember that officers have said to me that when they got into command they must be considered by their brother officers and by their men either to be fools or to be tyrants. They always have that unfortunate alternative before them. If they try to do their duty somebody accuses them of being tyrants, and if they are too lenient they are accused on all sides of being fools. I venture to make these few remarks because I confess I heard with some indignation the speech of the hon. Member, reflecting upon British officers.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill Reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Considered in Committee; Reported without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE BILL [LORDS].
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. Robson): This is a Bill providing for the appointment of two additional judges in the High Court of Justice to be attached to the King's Bench Division. The staff of the High Court Judges on the King's Bench side consists now of fifteen puisne judges and the Lord Chief Justice. This Bill must not be taken as providing permanent additions, because it contains the proviso that: "Whenever, after 1st January, 1911, the whole number of such puisne judges amounts to upwards of fifteen, such vacancy shall not be filled unless and until an Address is presented by both Houses of Parliament representing that the state of business in the King's Bench Division requires that such vacancies should be filled." So that if, after 1st January next a vacancy occurs, that vacancy cannot be filled up unless this House and the other House take the state of business into consideration and present an Address to the Crown asking that the vacancy should be filled. The findings of the Committee ap-
988
pointed to consider this Question was that the congestion in the King's Bench Division is serious. I do not think anyone with any knowledge whatever of the state of business in the courts would doubt or dispute that statement for a single instant. Not only is the congestion serious, but I think it may very fairly be said to have become chronic; and it causes delay in the administration of justice, especially in the cases of poorer litigants, in which, perhaps, the money sought to be recovered is vital to their business or subsistence, which amounts very often to an absolute denial of justice.
The Committee had before it a great mass of tables and statistics, with which I do not propose to trouble the House, tending to show how great the congestion is, but I think the House would desire that I should put before them one or two figures of the least disputable kind to show the necessity for the Bill. In 1876 the common law side of the court was under the administration of eighteen judges. In that year three of the judges were removed to form the Court of Appeal, along with the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls. That, of course, made a very serious drain upon the strength of what is now called the King's Bench Division, and what was then the common law side of the High Court; but the Legislature, instead of making good that important diminution in the number of judges, proceeded to lay an additional strain upon the judicial staff. In 1883 the Legislature transferred to the common law side the jurisdiction in bankruptcy. In 1888 they formed the Railway and Canal Commission, and recently we have had constituted the Court of Criminal Appeal, which has made very substantial demands upon the judicial resources of the King's Bench Division. These matters, however, are comparatively small, and I do not think they would themselves have called for this Bill. For the really substantial and important considerations we must look elsewhere. In 1873 the population of the country under the jurisdiction of these judges was something over 22,000,000; today it is 34,000,000 or 35,000,000. Moreover, there has been a far more than corresponding increase in the commercial and manufacturing business of the country; and it is impossible to suppose that in 1910 the courts could cope with that enormous increase in commercial and manufacturing business with a judicial staff, which is not only not greater than it was in 1876, but which has suffered positive diminution.

989
The extent to which the business has increased Members may well imagine for themselves. It is not that the number of cases to be tried is larger. That is a matter upon which statistics may very easily mislead. You may easily have—and you have had—a very great increase in the work of the courts at times when there has been a steady diminution in the number of cases. For instance, two causes—and there are others—which have operated to reduce the number of cases are the extension of county court jurisdiction and the extension of the process known to lawyers as "Order XIV.—Proceedings"— proceedings by which a defendant who is resisting a claim, but has no sort of substantial defence, is called upon to state what his defence is; that defence is then considered, and, if it is found to be trivial or not to form adequate legal grounds, judgment is entered against him at once without trial. That, of course, greatly diminishes the number of cases to be tried. Thus we have reduced the lists very considerably by the removal of cases involving small amounts, which are in themselves generally small cases, and also of cases as to which there is no substantial defence. The cases, therefore, that are left are long cases, which come to court by compulsion, often cases where the amount is unimportant, but which are very keenly fought. We have also an immense number of great commercial cases which cannot be disposed of by arbitration between the parties, although it is now increasingly found that commercial men entering into contracts insert a clause providing for arbitration. But disputes do not arise merely between those who are directly parties to the contract. They arise between persons who are connected with the contract without being actual parties to it, and for such persons there is no recourse except to the courts, unless they can agree with their opponents upon some other course of action.
In arbitration cases themselves, greatly as they have operated to relieve the courts, there is now beginning to be a just source of complaint and grievance. Commercial men are beginning to discover that they are not always a perfectly economical tribunal. They are generally so, but they are not always economical tribunals, and where they have to deal, as in nearly every case they do, with some point of law, they are not expert tribunals. I have seen, and all those connected with the law have seen, cases where you have had a great array of solicitors
990
and counsel arguing before a layman, who perhaps has expert knowledge of the subject matter of the dispute from a commercial point of view, but who is not able to guide and control the controversy from the legal point of view. Why is it that there should be this great expense in order to employ an inexpert arbitrator? It is said that justice is supposed to be freely and gratuitously administered, and that in cases where they are compelled to employ counsel and solicitors they ought to be able to have an expert judge. But they do not get one because of the delay that ensues before a case comes on for trial. That delay is often referred to as being a hardship to the poorer litigants, but it is also a very great hardship on the wealthier business people. You have cases involving large sums of money, sometimes amounting to many thousands of pounds. A short time ago I was talking to a distinguished counsel, who was giving me, from his own recollection, instance of cases where great sums have been justly claimed, in which the defendant put up some technical defence, and the plaintiff has said:—
" I am claiming £12,000. There will be a long interval before we can get the case ready for trial; then when it is ready for trial I shall be lucky if it is tried within six months: I cannot afford to stand out of this money for all that time."
Therefore he is compelled often to make a very inequitable compromise involving a substantial surrender of his rights. These are grounds which will appeal to everyone as making it reasonable that in the commercial interests of the country, and in the interests of justice generally, there should be an adequate staff of High Court Judges.
One of the reasons for the block in the courts is the increasing length of cases from the point of view of time. It was stated before the Commission that judges in olden times disposed of a large number of cases. That is an observation which ignores what I have just pointed out. In the olden times they had an immense number of undefended cases, and cases of the kind which are now transferred to county court jurisdiction, and it was, before Order XIV. proceedings were known. There was also another reason operating to give judges in olden times an appearance of greater rapidity than they possess now, namely, that cases were continually stopped on some technicality. Prosecutions in criminal cases were continually stopped upon some trivial flaw in the indictment; pleadings were subjected to the most meticulous examination, and

991
powers of amendment were sternly exercised; so that case after case was ordered out of court upon some purely technical ground, by no means to the general interests of justice between the parties. Now-a-days cases are tried with much greater freedom from these technicalities. There is a much more generous discovery and production of documents, with the result that the heavy cases which come to trial are undoubtedly tried at greater length. Some people talk about the greater verbosity of counsel, but I do not think that counsel are more verbose than formerly. There are other causes which have tended to occupy the time of the court. For instance, there is the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act, a most just and beneficent Act. Another great cause for the increased length of criminal cases is the right of prisoners to give evidence on their own behalf. That has greatly lengthened criminal trials. Formerly, cases were continually disposed of on technicalities. Now every criminal ease is much more carefully tried. I am bound to admit that the institution of the Court of Criminal Appeal, whether or not it has increased the care with which prisoners are tried, has certainly increased the length of the trial. The note is much more carefully taken; it has to be sent up to the Court of Criminal Appeal; and every point on which a question of law might arise is much more fully thrashed out. All these things tend to increase the length of criminal trials. There is also an increasing number of trials. Between 1903 and 1908 the number of criminal trials increased from 2,500 to 3,192.
This, it has been estimated, means 25 per cent, added to the time that it takes to get the work done. The result is a block of a very serious character. It has caused sittings for months longer, and with much longer hours. I notice, not at all with any great surprise, that the great mercantile communities of Liverpool and Manchester have been protesting against the very long hours the courts have been sitting. The judges on circuit have been accustomed to sit very long hours indeed, and the protest raised is against the hardship to witnesses and other parties concerned, who are kept hanging about the courts. It is impossible for those concerned to do any portion of their ordinary work. I know some people say that the judges might sit longer, but they are the very first to protest at long sittings.
992
Various remedies have been suggested. One is that there should be a grouping of the circuit towns, and so time be saved on circuit. That proposal, ever since I remember the courts, has been before the country. There has always been somebody advocating it as though it had never been heard of before. There is no objection on the part of judges and counsel to the grouping of certain towns. Why, then, it may be asked, is it not done? Because you have these small circuit towns which for long have been the centre of a large agricultural area and population. The removal of the court does not so much matter in the case of civil business. But if you take a prisoner from such an area and try him at some distant town or large commercial centre, he feels a sense of injustice. For instance, if all the Welsh towns concerned are to be deprived of their circuit business, and it is sent to. say, Cardiff, what is the first lament of the persons sent for trial? It is: "We can prove such and such facts in defence, but we cannot, of course, bring our witnesses the distance." It is in the interests, of the prisoner, and certainly not in that of the commercial, professional, or judicial people, that the grouping of the circuit towns cannot be carried much further than at present.
There is the suggested increase of county court jurisdiction. All I can say to that is that the pressure of work in the county courts has become as serious, and is going to raise questions as serious, as the block of business in the High Court. A county court is intended to be the poor man's tribunal, but the poor man finds now that his case is delayed from court to court in order that what is really High Court work should take precedence. If you increase the jurisdiction of county courts much further you will have to increase the salaries of the judges. There are sixty-four judges, and the addition to their salaries which has been suggested is £500 per year each, or £30,000, which is as much as six High Court judges will cost. You will also have to raise their clerks to the High Court scale of pay. Hence you gain nothing in point of economy, but you will be laying a great and continued strain on the county court. What have the courts been obliged to do? They have been obliged to act by Commission. The Lord Chancellor has appointed commissioners to go round in the absence of certain judges. The judges themselves are also entitled to call upon counsel to give them assistance, and this has been done. I see

993
that in 1908 there were something like twelve commissioners requested to act by judges, in addition to those sent on circuit by the Lord Chancellor himself. These twelve gentlemen sat for about forty-one days of five or six hours each. They gave their assistance effectively, but it is not a satisfactory method. These gentlemen have to be called from the Bar, and, after adjudicating upon cases, they take their place again among counsel, which seems rather contrary, I think, to sound principles of judicial administration.
These are the reasons which have induced the Select Committee to recommend that these two additional judges should be appointed. The Bill suggests that, after the appointment of such judges, any vacancy occurring among the puisne judges of the King's Bench Division, shall be filled, provided that after January the whole number of such judges amounts to upwards of fifteen, such vacancy shall not be filled until an Address is presented from both Houses of Parliament. The Bill will allow us to test whether this block is a temporary or a permanent one. If it is found that the business has increased in proportion to the appointments, which I think will very likely be the result, then it will be in the power of Parliament to make these appointments permanent. On the other hand, if the delay is a mere temporary delay, due to exceptional cases, then Parliament will be able to exercise its discretion; and I am sure no Government will desire to continue the appointment of judges that experience has proved to be unnecessary. I beg to move.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I should like to congratulate the Government most heartily on introducing this Bill, which is not only necessary now, but has been necessary for a large number of years. This matter has been brought before the House, in season and out of season, by various Members, including myself, for the last two or three years. I am not going over the arguments which have been frequently put before the public, probably no more strongly than by the present Solicitor-General at a public meeting held last spring, where the whole of the arguments were thoroughly reviewed and gone into by him. It is not necessary to go into them for this reason: The Government last year appointed a Commission, which I think I am entitled to say was certainly a strong Commission, at all events from the Government point of view, most members having been connected more or less intimately with the Treasury at one time and another. It
994
could not have been said that that Commission was too sympathetic with the demands of the legal world, and the business world, so far as the appointment of more judges was concerned. The Commission came to the unanimous decision in favour of the speedy appointment of two more judges, and that proposal is incorporated in this Bill.
The Attorney-General has referred to one or two different matters, and has given various reasons why there is a necessity for more judges. Speaking personally, the Criminal Appeal Act alone is sufficient ground for the appointment of further judges. We were promised when that Bill was before Parliament that extra judges should be appointed in case they were needed, and the Government are only carrying out their pledge. Having cordially supported the introduction of this Bill by the Government, may I ask them for one small favour with reference to it? This Bill, as the Attorney-General pointed out, so far as the two judges are concerned, will only exist to the end of this year. If one or more judges of the King's Bench Division die or resign or leave their appointments after 1st January their vacancies will not be filled up unless further steps are taken by Parliament. That is a very short period indeed in which to give this Bill a fair chance. The Attorney-General said that in a year or two we should be able to see how the Act works, and to see if the block of business is merely temporary or permanent. That, I think, was the intention of the Committee. I think a fair interpretation of what the Committee meant was what the Attorney-General said to-day, that there should be a proper and sufficient breathing time to see whether on the appointment of these two judges the arrears, which exist now to such a terrifying amount, will be really worked off by the end of this period or not. I venture to submit to the Government that that period should be longer than 1st January of next year. The very least I think that ought to be would be to put the period to the Long Vacation of next year, so that we shall have at least more than one clear year's work to see the operation of the Act. I will press this point more strongly in Committee, where I hope the matter will get careful consideration, having regard to the possible risks of work between now and 1st January next, in the shape of election petitions and similar work which will take the judges away from their proper work. Having said this much I heartily support the Bill.
6.0 P.M.
Mr. RENDALL: The Government in taking action in this matter have given the go-by to the general agitation for other reforms that there has been in the legal profession for the last generation. The appointment of two new judges is a very easy way out of the difficulty. But it is at the same time piece-meal legislation. It takes no account of the enormous exertions for reform that lawyers of all kinds have been making, and not for their advantage but for the advantage of the commercial classes generally; nor does it take account of the hard work done in trying to get the county courts enlarged powers. It says nothing of work which in the future as in the past will have to be brought to London. The whole difficulty in regard to the increase of the powers of the county court and giving to the county court more jurisdiction lies, I believe, with the Bar. The difficulty, I understand, that the Lord Chancellor had in dealing with his County Courts Bill, has been that the Bar strongly object to the county courts having larger jurisdiction given to them unless they have the preferential right of pleading in those courts. It is really this attitude which has stood in the way of the county court getting those increased powers which, in my humble opinion, would be very much to the advantage of the commercial community generally, and would lessen the cost of litigation. The alteration of the circuit system is quite ripe for settlement. I am certain that people generally throughout the country long ago desired to see cases brought from the small county towns to the larger towns, if it was a fair and convenient distance, and especially Laving regard to the railway communication having vastly improved in recent years. I say, therefore, that whilst I certainly support this Bill because I believe it absolutely necessary, it is an easy way out of the difficulty, and it at the same time errs on the side that it takes no account of the work which the more enlightened of the legal profession have been doing for years in trying to meet the public need in favour of less costly and more convenient methods of law. One other reason must be named. This Bill has been produced because we have no age limit in regard to the judges. At present a judge may sit and go on sitting, whether he is seventy or eighty, and until he is dead. Of course, I fully agree there are cases of exceptional men. But these exceptional men may have exceptional rules applied to them.
996
Speaking of ordinary men, I think we must admit that the allotted days of a man's usefulness are completed by seventy years of age. I quite agree it does not seem to be possible to introduce an Amendment to that effect, but the Government ought to take up this question of limiting the power of the judge to sit upon the Bench after seventy years of age. If that were done a good: deal of the block of business in the courts might be done away with. It is quite true that an old judge is often speedy, but he is not the most careful, and it is the old judge that necessitates most appeals very often, and in the long run it would expedite business if he were not permitted to sit on after the age of seventy. I think the system of allowing judges to sit after seventy ought to be put an end to. We do not allow admirals or generals or ambassadors to work after seventy years of age. It may be thought a judge requires less physical strength to do his job than the other people I have mentioned. Personally I do not think that is so. I think it requires more physical strength to sit in a chair all day long and to pay attention to legal arguments than it does for other classes of work. Those of us who sit in this House for any length of time have discovered there is nothing more straining, physically, than sitting still and listening to other people's speeches.
The real difficulty that stands in the way of judges retiring is that they have to retire upon £3,500 a year, whereas their salaries are £5,000. That is a difficulty, but it could be got over by saying to a man, "You are seventy years of age; you must retire whether you have earned your pension or not." At present if a judge is raised to the Bench at sixty he cannot get his full pension until after fifteen years, and therefore he must sit up to the age of seventy-five. If he was, appointed at sixty-five years of age he has to sit up to the age of eighty before he gets his pension. All these things arc very prejudicial to the general good of the community. One way out of these difficulties has been very often to make a judge a peer. Lately a number of judges have been made peers, I am sure to the advantage of everyone concerned. But the real difficulty at present is that, in order to get rid of a judge who is past his duties, you have to make him a peer. They will not retire otherwise; that is a serious matter, because when you make a judge a peer you give him the power to sit in the House of Lords

997
and hear appeals from judges who are abler than himself.
If under a statutory enactment a judge had got to retire at seventy in the ordinary way you would have accomplished a great deal. In exceptional cases where you had a judge of unimpaired power and ability and strength you could make an exception, so that the State would not lose his valuable services by enabling him to sit in the House of Lords. There need be no difficulty in enabling him to do this. Any Act of Parliament carrying out these things need not prevent an ordinary judge from being sent to the House of Lords. I see no difficulty in allowing such a man to act as a judge because of his exceptional powers and abilities. The real difficulty we have to face is from the lawyers. These learned gentlemen at times have to appear before all sorts and kinds of people, and therefore they are the last to take the slightest trouble to try and get reforms of this kind carried out. That is perfectly natural. Lawyers can hardly be expected to stand up in this House and say judges are too old at seventy when in a few days they will he practising before, these very judges. If any alteration of this kind is made it will have to be made through the pressure of laymen. The chief reforms that might be brought about are—firstly, that all judges should be entitled to a pension at seventy years of age whether they have been fifteen years on the Bench or not; secondly, there should be a statutory provision which should terminate a judge's appointment at the age of seventy; and, thirdly, in the case of men of exceptional ability when they get to the age of seventy and the State requires their service still further they should be transferred to the House of Lords. If these things were done a very great advantage to the community generally would be obtained. With regard to this Bill, I do not think it is possible to oppose it because it is perfectly clear there are arrears, and these arrears must be cleared up, but the Attorney-General might have held out a hope that the Government would do something at an early date to deal with these matters. I trust if the hon. and learned Gentleman makes any further remarks later on he will hold out some such hope.
Mr. L. SANDERSON: I rise to support this Bill simply and solely on the ground of public interest, because it is in my opinion a matter of public interest that the very highest judicial standard possible
998
should be attained. I need not say a word about the details and figures to which the learned Attorney-General has referred. It is a matter of common knowledge how the work in the King's Bench Division has increased, and it is also a matter of common knowledge that the delay is due to the shortage of judges. It is almost impossible to overstate the inconvenience and the anxiety which is caused to suitors, and the injustice which is caused to them through delay. I should like to answer some of the arguments, put forward by the hon. Member opposite who has just sat down, in regard to the county courts. If anyone will take the trouble to look at the reports to which the hon. Member for Cambridge has referred he will see that that was all thrashed out before the Committee, and was very fully thrashed out. I think I am right in saying that, and I think I am right also in saying that if the Committee could have seen their way to meet this difficulty by putting extra work upon the county courts they would have only been too glad to do so. I will just mention one or two matters that seem to me conclusive against the argument of the hon. Member. I do not think that this Bill is intended to stop county court extension at all. There is no reason why county court extension should not go on if this Bill is passed. Let the hon. Gentleman remember that county court extension means this: That if you put heavy cases to be tried in the county courts you will oust the poor suitor for whom the county courts were instituted, and you will compel him to have his case tried, not by the county court judge but, in all probability by the registrar. In my opinion that will be a very serious thing. You cannot have too high a standard of judicial administration, however small the case or the suitor, and if you are going to do that you must not only oust the poor suitor but you must enormously increase the number of the county courts because the county court judges are as hardworked as possible, and you will have, in all probability, to raise the salaries of the county court judges and the salaries of the registrars. Therefore from the point of view of cost it will be much worse than the appointment of two additional King's Bench Judges.
The delay, of course, is a matter of common knowledge, but in my opinion the delay in very many cases really operates as a total denial of justice. I may instance the case of a poor man on one side and a rich man on the other. The rich man may

999
be able to call to his assistance the delay in the Law Courts and the poor man is kept out of the debt to which he is perfectly entitled. Take the case of a man who has sustained some injury, and who is entitled to some compensation. If he can get it at once it may mean the saving of him; if the remedy is postponed it becomes stale and is no use to him. Therefore, I say that in many cases the delay is an absolute denial of justice. If you have a shortage of judges, as we have at this moment, you not only cannot do your work in London, but you cannot do your work on circuit also. We have had a very good instance of that at the beginning of this term. There was a proposal that a new rule should be made which would have resulted la cutting down the facilities for civil trials in small circuit towns such as Appleby, which I have the honour to represent. We opposed it, and I hope we shall hear no more about it. We opposed it upon this ground, and upon this only: The Attorney-General mentioned that judges ought to go to these towns for the trial of criminals. Quite rightly; and we said, if judges go down for the trial of criminals, why should they not try civil cases as well? The desire to curtail facilities for trying cases in small towns is simply and solely because the judges are doing their best to do with fifteen judges the work which would require seventeen or eighteen judges to do properly. They are sitting long hours on circuit, and yet find it difficult to do the work properly. There is another matter, and perhaps the most important of all. Assizes have to be regulated according to the judicial strength that is available, and I think everybody who knows circuit will say that the intervals in some cases between assizes are too long. It sometimes happens that a man who is charged with an offence committed a short time after an assize has been held has to go to gaol if he cannot get bail and has to lie in prison for some considerable time without trial. That is a great blot, in my opinion, upon the administration of justice in this country, and it should be avoided at all costs, and it is one of the things that may be avoided by the appointment of additional judges. I think the whole of the ground has been well covered by the Attorney-General. I am speaking simply and solely from the point of view of the public interest in this matter. I know it may be said that I speak as a barrister, but I am not putting this forward as an advocate of the interests
1000
of the Bar, That which is best for the public is also best for the legal profession. This question is one of very serious moment not only for the business community, but also for the proper trial of criminal cases and the proper administration of justice throughout the length and breadth of the country.
Sir FREDERICK LOW: As I have not intervened in the Debates before, perhaps I may be permitted to say a word or two upon this measure, which is one of considerable importance to the public as well as to the legal profession. I say that with a considerable amount of trepidation, because one of the first things I heard on coming into this House was that a Debate in which lawyers were chiefly concerned is the dullest of all possible Debates that take place in this House. I think, however, there is some excuse for an hon. Member belonging to the legal profession speaking on this Bill when he has had some knowledge of the subject which is being inquired into. I should like to bring to the attention of the House the fact that in the present position of things in the King's Bench Division of the High Courts of Justice practically the working days upon which important cases can be taken have, by the operation of the Criminal Appeal Bill, coupled with the fact that circuits go on at the same time as eases are being tried in London, really been reduced to four days a week. Practically there is only Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday upon which jury cases and other work can be taken, and on Fridays and Saturday the work is practically at a standstill. I do not think the legal work of the country in the courts of justice can go on with any satisfaction to the public so long as this state of things continues.
The question of the retirement of judges has also been alluded to. It does not appear to me that this is very germane to the discussion, but I should like to say that a long experience in various capacities in the courts of justice has convinced me that the mere matter of age, as counted in years, is of very little importance in this connection. I can call to mind some judges who certainly have been quite old enough at very little over fifty years of age, and I remember other judges who have been perfectly able to administer justice with the greatest possible efficiency when they were approaching four score years of age. I think most of those who have had any real acquaintance with

1001
the profession would deprecate the drawing of any hard and fast line at which the retirement of judges ought to take place. The hon. Member who introduced this question seems to think that, however old a judge might be, and however incapable, he is quite young and capable enough to sit in the Supreme Court of the House of Lords.
Mr. RENDALL: What I said was that in the case of exceptional men of great ability and strong health it might be desirable to put them into the House of Lords in order to give their services in the Supreme Court to the country.
Sir F. LOW: I think it is introducing a most dangerous doctrine into our judicial system to lay down that the Government of the day should have anything to say in regard to the termination of the service of a judge. I think one matter, above all others, which should be kept out of the hands of the Government of the day is whether a judge should or should not continue in his judicial office. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for the Cambridge University, I cordially agree with his suggestion that a longer trial should be given to this Bill, or, rather, to its effective provisions. At the present moment there are two judges away from their duties on account of ill-health, and the appointment of two additional judges will practically only have the effect of filling up those two vacancies arising from necessity, and from circumstances over which the learned judges have no control. If the matter is only to be tried to the end of this year we should remember that we are now getting well on to the Long Vacation, and I think the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University that this extension of the judicial strength of the King's Bench Division should have a longer trial than merely to the end of this year, should receive the most earnest attention of the Attorney-General.
Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I took upon myself last night the responsibility of preventing the Attorney-General getting this Bill through without a word of discussion. I think, after the very able speech which the hon. and learned Gentleman gave us to-day and his interesting exposition of the grounds upon which this Bill had been brought forward, he ought to be grateful to me for the action I then took. Not only have we had a most interesting speech from the Attorney-General, but we have
1002
had important contributions from all quarters of the House as to the reasons why this Bill has been brought forward. It appears to me, in the first place, that there are a great number of arrears, so far as civil actions are concerned, both in London and throughout the country. It also appears to me that the learned profession and all classes connected with it are strongly in favour of this Bill. I must confess that I have not been fully convinced as to what the cause of the arrears is. There are many different views, and the reason why I took the responsibility of providing an opportunity for this Bill to be discussed was that I was very much interested in the evidence given by the Lord Chancellor, because if there is anyone to whom laymen ought to go in regard to advice as to the policy of this measure it surely is to the head of the law in this country, the Lord Chancellor. I was anxious to know exactly the position of the Lord Chancellor in regard to this matter, and I found that when the Lord Chancellor was before the Committee which inquired into this matter he was absolutely positive that there was no ground whatever for this Bill. I will read to the House an extract from his evidence. He said:—
" I must say for myself, and for the reasons that I will tell you in a minute or two, I was not able and I am not able to advise that the two judges or any judge should be appointed."
That, surely, is very strong evidence coming from the Lord Chancellor. He goes on in his evidence to say that there has been a great diminution in the number of cases that have been tried in London and Middlesex during the last ten years. He said:—
"In London and Middlesex there has been a great reduction during the last ten years, and last year was almost the lowest with regard to the number of cases which had been actually tried."
I think we are entitled to ask what the reply of the Government is to the views expressed by the Lord Chancellor? He further says:—
"On these grounds I myself feel, and I ought, to say so, that in a country where people are in the habit of doing their full share of work, and where there are full holidays of nearly four months in the year out of the twelve, there is not a case for making new judges."
I think we are entitled to ask whether the Government have the cordial and enthusiastic support of the Lord Chancellor in bringing forward this Measure. I should be glad to hear the reply of the Attorney-General on this point. Perhaps he will tell us if the Lord Chancellor is now in favour of this Measure, and, if so, state the reasons which have induced him

1003
to come round to his present view? The Lord Chancellor consented to the inquiry into this matter, in the first place, because of strong and influential representations which were made to him by all branches of the law, and he had no other alternative. Nevertheless, we have it on record in the evidence given by the Lord Chancellor that he was strongly against the appointment of two new judges, and I should like the Attorney-General to tell us what has occurred to change his views. I should like to know also if the Government intend to accept an Amendment providing that new judges shall not be appointed after they are sixty years of age, and that they should retire compulsorily at seventy years of age. These are both very reasonable proposals, and this is the time when the Government have the opportunity of showing that they sympathise with that view.
Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I am going to ask the House to listen to a very few words from me. I had the privilege of serving on the Committee which has been referred to, and I cordially say that the reasons given by the Attorney-General when he introduced this Bill certainly represent the views of those who signed the Report. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Sir Henry Dalziel) has asked the Government to tell us whether the Lord Chancellor has changed his opinion in regard to the appointment of two additional judges. The Committee listened with great attention and respect to the views which the Lord Chancellor put before them, but we had in opposition to his views the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Channell, and other judges, and this greatly discounted the Lord Chancellor's evidence, much as we respected his views and valued his opinion There is no doubt that the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice, and especially of Mr. Justice Channell, is very strongly opposed to the view of the Lord Chancellor as to whether more judges were required or not. I think there was no difference of opinion in the Committee finally that there was a congestion of business which must be removed, because that congestion of business which exists amounts almost to a denial of justice. We agreed upon that point, and then came the question as to whether these judges should be acquired for any particular period or for all time, and, fortunately, we were able to agree upon a compromise such as is suggested in the Bill. We were
1004
in that way able to get a unanimous Report.
We listened very carefully to all the arguments which were addressed to us with regard to increasing the jurisdiction of the county courts. Speaking as a member of the Committee, I can say that I. and I think many of my colleagues, were firmly convinced that the county courts have as much work as they can possibly get through. We then wont into the question as to whether the place of a judge could efficiently be taken on circuit by a commissioner, and we came to the conclusion that assize towns would think it more or less a denial of justice if a gentleman came down in a black gown instead of a High Court judge. There is no doubt a prejudice in favour of being tried by a High Court judge. There can be no doubt that the judges are wanted to deal with this congestion of business, and we shall no doubt have an opportunity at a later stage of considering the point raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) as to whether we can get an efficient trial of this new system in about six months. I venture to think that a little longer period might have been given, but, being a party to that unanimous Report, I should not separate myself from my colleagues on that Committee. I suppose an Address could be sent up if we found there was no congestion. I venture to hope that this Bill will receive the unanimous assent of the House, because I am perfectly certain there is a great-demand for these new judges in the country for the quicker despatch of business. We considered all those questions as-to the length of the holidays and whether the judges work longer hours each day and sufficiently long on Saturdays, and we came to the unanimous opinion that the time had arrived when more judges were required to relieve the congestion of business.
The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): I am substantially in agreement with all that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has said about these conclusions, but there are just one or two phrases in which he put his reasons which I should like to qualify in my own way. The position of some of us who sat on that Commission was this: We agreed that there was a block in the business—it was clearly proved—but we, were not, I think, all of the same mind as to whether that block was permanent, even with the existing staff of judges. Some of us certainly

1005
thought that temporary means might be adopted for disposing of it so as to leave us free to see how the experiment works of carrying out certain changes which we suggest as regards sittings and arrangements of business. I do not think I dissented from the view of the Lord Chancellor, or that the Lord Chancellor does anything but welcome this Bill, nor was I convinced by the whole body of testimony which was brought on the other side. There seemed to me to be two views: one, that nothing could be done without a permanent addition to the establishment of judges, and the other that there was no cause for any addition to the establishment of judges or for making any great change. Between these views the Committee came to a unanimous conclusion. I think possibly there were different shades of opinion among us, but I certainly did not dissent from the view of the Lord Chancellor, and we felt strongly and unanimously recommended that these administrative changes—they are not expressed in this Bill—should be carried into effect. I regard them, in addition to what is in this Bill, as part of the machinery for getting rid of the difficulty we are in with regard to the block.
As regards the Bill, this is the way the matter was dealt with. We said, first add to the establishment, but add temporarily; then, when you have cleared the block and made the experiment, you will be in a position to see whether you need a permanent addition to the existing establishment. Do not fetter the House of Parliament in the matter. Let Parliament have the opportunity of dealing with this matter in a definite way. Let no permanent addition be made to the establishment. That being so, we seem to have hit upon a means which certainly, at any rate, made the situation more hopeful than before. I wish emphatically to say that these administrative changes which the Committee recommended are an integral part of our plan and that we do not look to the Bill alone to accomplish what has to be brought about. I only rose to put forward my own view and to express my agreement with the Lord Chancellor in what he said and to obviate the impression that the Committee has come to a decision as between the two contending views entirely on one side or on the other.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: This Bill commends itself to me, as a layman, because it is in fact a compromise, as the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has
1006
practically described it to be. I am sorry that the only other Member of this Committee who has spoken—it has constantly been incorrectly described as a Commission—thought it necessary to say that he attached more importance to the evidence of common law judges than he did to that of the Lord Chancellor. I think that is unfortunate, coming from him as a Member of the Committee. I attach great importance to the evidence of the Lord Chancellor, and I believe his opinion as to the time the judges are on holidays and the time they spend in court, and all the rest of it, was absolutely well founded. This, as I have said, is a compromise, and a compromise on two points. First of all, let me inform the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke from this side of the House (Sir F. Low) that this is not a Bill which will appoint two judges till next year. It appoints two judges, making eighteen in all, who will go on until some one of the eighteen judges either retires or dies. That may be next year or the year after next, but we hope it may be long before it will be necessary for any of these emiment persons to retire or before any one of them dies.
I think there can be no doubt as to the existence of the arrears. Various causes have been suggested. I believe members of the Junior Bar believe it is because judges are not appointed until they are too old to be good judges, and they suggest that young men should be called to the Bench. It is not for me to criticise that. It has also been suggested, though it would not be in order to debate it here, that some judges are not so able as they might be. I think it would only be possible to discuss that if one were prepared to move an Address in this House, to be followed by the moving of another Address in the other House for the removal of a judge. It would not, therefore, be appropriate to entertain the idea now that any judge sitting on the Bench is not of the fullest possible capacity for conducting business. The arrears are there. How are they to be dealt with? There have been most important suggestions of administrative changes. Those proposals were entertained by this Committee, and they are an integral part of their recommendations. The House, I think, must thoroughly well understand that, if it is called upon to agree to the appointment of two new judges at £5,000 a year with a retiring allowance of £3,000 a year, it is on

1007
the distinct understanding that those administrative changes are to be considered. I should like to ask by whom are they to be considered. I presume by His Majesty's Government at the suggestion of the Lord Chancellor, who, after all, is the principal legal adviser of His Majesty's Government.
I principally rose in order to impress upon His Majesty's Government the absolute necessity of not treating these recommendations of the Committee which constitute a condition upon which they recommend two extra judges, as something they may take or leave, but as a matter with which it is their bounden duty to deal. It is impossible to read the evidence before the Joint Committee without coming to the conclusion that the Long Vacation is very long, that the sittings of the court are very short, and that in a very high office of which the members take sixteen weeks holiday in the year there is room for a little more work on the part of the existing judges. That is the impression left upon me, not only by the evidence of the Lord Chancellor, but also by that of the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Channell, and Mr. Justice Grantham, whose evidence the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Akers-Douglas) prefers, although I do not, to that of the Lord Chancellor. I believe it would be possible for the judges to sit half an hour per day extra in the courts, and I believe it would be perfectly feasible to shorten the Long Vacation, and perhaps the Easter Vacation. Those are some of the things which were in the minds of the Committee when they made this recommendation, on the condition of which they agree to the appointment of two additional judges. I am extremely glad these are not to be two permanent appointments. They arc appointments which will only subsist until the judges fall down to sixteen again. They are essentially temporary appointments. I trust they will be such as will deal with and clear off the arrears, and I still more earnestly trust that when those arrears are cleared off, whether by working longer hours or by appointing temporary judges, no such arrears will be allowed to accumulate again, because they do, in fact, amount to a denial of justice.
Mr. H. E. DUKE: With regard to what has just been said with respect to the sittings of the court extending over longer hours, I am quite sure the hon. Member for King's Lynn will appreciate that the
1008
whole of the business of the judges is not done in court. A very great deal of work has to be accomplished in connection with cases tried in court of which the public have no knowledge, but which would be most seriously interfered with if the judges had to sit for longer hours than those which have been settled after a great deal of experience. I hope the hon. Member will quite understand why one who has practised in the courts for a great many years thinks it only fair to say this with regard to the sittings of the judges. For my part I am very glad that the Government have made this an ad interim measure, and have not attempted to deal with it by way of a permanent settlement. The whole of this business is transitional. There has been a great deal of discussion with regard to the future relations of the various courts which make up our judicial system, and we really cannot tell what in a few years' time will be the judicial establishment of this country. These matters will have to be worked out after, no doubt, a great deal of controversy, which will include, of course, the claim for the maintenance of something like the existing provincial assize system. It does not seem to me that there is any practical utility in bringing into operation the Address to the two Houses so early as the beginning of next year. You will have no substantial change in the condition of our judicial system during this year; the arrears which exist cannot possibly be worked off in the course of this year.
At the present time a very great strain is put on the judges by temporary causes, and also by the permanent operation of the Court of Criminal Appeal, the effects of which have not even yet been fully foreseen. I would suggest that a really practical time would be the first round period at which you should stop—i.e., three years. Everybody knows that changes must inevitably take place before very long which will affect some of His Majesty's judges who have given a long period of service and have attained a considerable age. I suggest it would interfere less with the working of the system if the Government stopped at the first round period of three years, and then brought into operation the Address to the two Houses. One other question I wish to put, and that is why the Government, in the administrative changes which the Secretary for War insisted upon as being necessary, would not consider a point which is constantly a subject of discussion

1009
with those who had experience in the courts before the present system under the Judicature Acts was established, and that is the restoration of the distribution of the business of common law between judges in separate divisions, each having a separate president? If you have a body of judges, be it sixteen or eighteen, dealing with the multifarious business of the Common Law Courts as well as the circuit system, it surely is clear it imposes a burden in the matter of administration on the learned judge who is president of the one division and who also has a great variety of other duties. This is a matter which is common knowledge to the Law Officers of the Crown. They know the strong views entertained upon it in favour of returning to something like the old system. If there are to be administrative changes, I sincerely trust the Government will consider whether they may not probably increase the efficiency of the Common Law Courts by restoring something like the old emulation which existed when there were three divisions, each with its president. It would involve no additional expense and might be productive; of very considerable benefit in the working of the courts.
Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
Motion made and Question, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House "—[The Attorney-General]— put, and agreed to; to be considered in Committee upon 29th March.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE. [SALARIES, ETC.]
Considered in Committee.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Funds, of the salaries and pensions of two additional judges of the High Court, who may be appointed under any Act of the present Session."—[The Attorney-General.]
Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I should like to repeat the questions I put a short time ago but which have not yet been answered: Are the Government to pay any consideration to the question of age in the appointment of the new judges? I would suggest that to appoint men over sixty years of age—
The CHAIRMAN: I do not see how this point arises. It is purely a money Resolution.
Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I presume I shall be in order in asking what salaries are to be paid to the new judges, and whether a pension will be provided, seeing that this arrangement is only of a temporary character?
Sir WILLIAM ROBSON: The provision with regard to salaries and pensions will be exactly the same as in the case of ordinary judges—a salary of £5,000 and a retiring pension of £3,500. As to the age of the judges to be appointed, that is rather beyond the scope of this Resolution, and the Government have no proposal to make in that at all.
Mr. WATT: May I ask whether the system recently initiated of pensioning a judge before he has fulfilled the full period of service is to be continued? I was told, in reply to a question I recently put, that a judge had retired on a pension based on a medical certificate. Anyone with experience of medical certificates knows how easily they can be obtained. In my own lifetime I have for half-a-guinea got a certificate excusing me from attending an examination. I desire to ask whether the judges to be appointed under this Act are to have the advantage of retiring after a comparatively few years' service on getting a medical certificate that their health is not good?
Sir WILLIAM ROBSON: The judges will be appointed on precisely the same terms as the other judges, and they may be excused further service if they fall into bad health. I do not think medical certificates in such cases are given upon such terms—in point of money or principle—as the hon. Member appears willing to suggest. Retirement on a medical certificate is not at all a common circumstance in the case of judges, and I know of no case in which there has been a retirement except on good grounds. Judges in any case are not in a hurry to retire. At any rate, whatever the law is in regard to ordinary judges, it will apply to these new judges.
Resolution agreed to; to be Reported 29th March.

EAST INDIAN LOANS (RAILWAYS AND IRRIGATION) BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time," put, and agreed to.

LONDON ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the second time."—[Mr. Tennant.]
Sir F. BANBURY: There was an understanding that this Bill should not be taken to-night.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Tennant): I was unaware of any such arrangement, but I am quite ready to explain the purposes of the Bill if the hon. Baronet desires.
Sir F. BANBURY: I think the Bill should not be taken to-night.
Mr. TENNANT: I am afraid there has been some misunderstanding. The Bill is two years overdue. It is a harmless Departmental measure, which I am prepared to explain if the hon. Baronet desires.
Sir F. BANBURY: Go on, certainly.
7.0 P.M.
Mr. TENNANT: This Bill is introduced in pursuance of a pledge given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, when he was President of the Board of Trade. When the London Electric Bill of 1908 was introduced it linked up the various companies of London for the purposes of supply. There were, however, five companies to which it was impossible to give these powers at that time, and they unfortunately were left over until a later period, and it is now proposed to deal with them. This Bill makes the purchasing authority of electric lighting undertakings the London County Council, and if the hon. Member has any doubt about the making of that body the purchasing authority, I should like to inform him that the borough councils cannot become such a purchasing authority of the electrical undertakings in their districts, because two or three of them have already given up these powers and transferred them to the London County Council. It is very important that the London County Council or some authority should be responsible for the whole electric lighting of London at some future time, and therefore in 1931 these arrangements will take place, and the purchasing authority will become the London County Council. There are only two electric lighting authorities involved of any importance, only two borough councils involved, and I should think that
1012
this would be found to be a useful Bill, because it will simplify the work of the authorities which now supply electricity to London. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) would like any further information on this Bill which deals with a very complicated subject. I think there are sixteen borough councils authorised to supply electricity in London, and besides that there are fifteen companies. Surely it is in the interests of the consumers and in the interests of the public as the industry depends upon motive power, that some large body should deal with the undertakings, with a view to cheapening production.
Sir F. BANBURY: I daresay the Bill is a very good one, but it has come on unexpectedly, and as I see the Parliamentary Secretary on the Treasury Bench, may I appeal to him to assent to this Bill standing over?
Mr. TENNANT: If the hon. Gentleman insists I cannot avoid it. But it is a little hard upon the Board of Trade.
Sir F. BANBURY: I move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.
Debate to be resumed to-morrow.
Mr. FULLER (Vice-Chamberlain)moved "That this House do now adjourn."
Mr. J. F. REMNANT: On this Motion may I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and ask him whether some facilities cannot be granted for bringing on the Police Weekly Rest Day Bill at an early period? All the Government Amendments are in the Bill, and there is no opposition whatever, although we should like to see it extended. As the Bill stands to-day it will not be opposed, and we are of opinion that one day's rest in seven should be granted to policemen. This is the second night upon which we have been ready to pass this Bill, and I will ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will undertake very early after Easter that he will give us an opportunity of doing so?
Sir HENRY DALZIEL: Before the hon. Gentleman replies, I should like him to bear in mind that the Bill as it stands will encounter some little opposition, although the feeling of the House is generally in favour of it as far as it goes. The opposition to it arises in this way, that as far as

1013
the Bill was originally drafted it applied to Scotland, but as the result of a representation from the Scottish office, Scotland has been excluded, and that is what generally takes place. Therefore Scotland is not to get anything at all. Unless the Bill is restored to what it was when it was brought forward, we cannot ensure its being passed without opposition. I fear if it is maintained in its present condition of excluding Scotland some little opposition may be offered to it.
Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I hope the Government will reconsider the question as to whether this Bill should not be restored to its original condition. I certainly will not be a party to preventing the English police getting what the Bill gives them, but I see no reason why Scottish constables should not have the same advantage as the English.
Mr. A. H. SCOTT: I should like to impress upon the Government that all the municipalities in the country are favourable to the objects of this Bill, and would desire that it should become law, but they want this House to take into consideration the question of expense, because as now drawn the whole of the expenditure would fall upon the ratepayers, and nothing is granted from the Imperial funds towards meeting this increased cost. We are not anxious—I am sure the House is not anxious—that this expenditure should be met by giving increased work to the police.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled now to go into the details of the Bill. We are not discussing the Bill, but whether the House should adjourn.
Mr. W. E. HARVEY: May I associate myself with what has been said? I was one of the Committee which inquired into this Bill, and in consequence of the startling evidence given before us, we decided it was an essential necessity that the policemen should have some consideration at the hands of this House. I associate myself entirely with the request that the Government will attempt to bring about the requirements of the Committee.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Master of Elibank): I will convey to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the views which have been expressed by Members, and I will also mention to the Secretary for Scotland what has been said by my Scottish col-
1014
leagues. To-morrow I will tell hon. Members the decision arrived at.
Mr. WATT: I desire to associate myself with the remarks which have been made with regard to the Scottish police. There is no desire on the part of the Scottish Members to kill this measure for England and Wales, but they are desirous that the privileges granted to the constabulary in those countries should be extended across the Border. When the bill was introduced, as an hon. Member has stated, Scotland was included, but in some mysterious manner—due, my hon. Friend suggests, to the Scottish Office—Scotland has been dropped out. Whenever a boon is to be given to England and Wales Scotland is always in this extraordinary manner excluded. I have inquired among Scottish Members to-day as to their views, and I have ascertained that they are unanimous in their desire that Scotland should be reinstated in the position which it originally held in the Bill.
Colonel GREIG: I desire to associate myself with my colleagues from Scotland, and I see no reason at all why the law should not be the same in Scotland as in England.
Mr. MORTON: I wish to complain to the Parliamentary Secretary that he has no good reason for adjourning this House at all at this time to-day. Of course, I know very well when the two Front Benches arrange about these matters that there is very little hope in regard to the business of private Members, but it does seem unfortunate that when we have the time, as we have this evening, to assist forward private Members Bills, that the Government should make these arrangements, and shut us out of the advantage which we might have obtained. Private Members do not get much advantage in this House, and there are a large number of Bills— twenty-one, I think—down on the list, some of which might have been taken with advantage. I have to complain especially, because I have two Bills down, the Return Tickets Bill and the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Bill. Both of them are important, the latter being especially so to the people of Scotland, because it deals with their means of carrying on their legal business. I will not, however, touch upon the merits of the Bills, but generally I want to express my great regret that the Government should join in opposing these

1015
Bills when on an occasion like the present we have the time for considering measures which ought to be considered.
Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen minutes after Seven o'clock, until to-morrow, at Twelve o'clock Noon.