Commons Sitting of 11 August 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 7th August, and agreed to.
Corporation of London (Bridges) Bill (by Order),
Lords Amendments further considered, and agreed to.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (NEW WORKS) BILL [Lords.]
  As amended, further considered.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): I beg to move that "Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time."
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I object.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: I think the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: One of the hon. Members for Middlesex who is not here now objects, and it is on his behalf that I object.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: The hon. Gentleman cannot know what took place this morning before the House met.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not propose to oppose this Bill any further, but one hon. Member for Middlesex, who is greatly interested in this matter, is not here now.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: Then I will not now press the Motion.
  Further consideration deferred till Monday next at a quarter past Eight of the clock.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  Severn Fisheries Order Bill,
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Dunfermline and District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
  Edinburgh Suburban Electric Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
  Paisley District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill,
  Considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

RAILWAY COMPANIES (CHARITABLE AND OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS, 1910).
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 10th August; Mr. Sydney Buxton]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Regulations providing for Special Grants in aid of certain Local Education Authorities in England and Wales in 1911–12 [by command]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF EDUCATION.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PRIVATE BUSINESS).
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Emmott)had on the Paper a notice to move, "That any Private Business set down for consideration at 8.15 on Monday or Tuesday next shall, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Order 'Time for taking Private Business,' be taken after the conclusion of the Business of Supply; and any Private Business so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House, and the consideration of the business shall not be anticipated by a Motion of Adjournment, and no dilatory Motion shall be moved, and the business shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order."
  I need not, after what has passed, take up any of the time of the House in explaining this Motion, except to say that I wish to move it in a slightly amended form, by leaving out, "Be anticipated by a Motion of Adjournment and no dilatory Motion shall be moved, and the business shall not." The Motion therefore will read: "That any Private

  1493
  Business set down for consideration at 8.15 on Monday or Tuesday next shall, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Order 'Time for taking Private Business,' be taken after the conclusion of the Business of Supply; and any Private Business so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House, and the consideration of the business shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order."
  Sir HILDRED CARLILE: Is that the usual form?
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: I cannot say it is the usual form, but it seems the most convenient plan to adopt. It would be highly inconvenient on Monday and Tuesday when we are in the last stages of Supply, and what is called the guillotine falls at ten o'clock, to put down a private Bill at 8.15 It would be far more convenient if discussion is needed, and I do not believe it will be needed, to take it after Supply is over.
  Sir H. CARLILE: I suppose the Orders to be taken will be arranged as usual between the two sides.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: I do not know of any other Bill at present to be taken. There may be others, if unexpected opposition arises, but I do not know of any.
  Mr. KING: Will St. Mary's, Radcliffe, Bill be taken?
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: It will not.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: The Metropolitan Water Bill may be further discussed. It is an exceedingly difficult question and requires very careful attention, and it is hardly right to put it down in the middle of the night. A Motion such as this makes the consideration of details very difficult and really makes the consideration of Private Bills more or less a farce. I do not say any thing against the Chairman of Ways and Means, but I would protest against this being done frequently.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: I shall certainly not put forward any Motion of this kind frequently because I do not like these Motions. May I point out that this Bill has had two full night's discussion, and so far as I know any further opposition has been concili-
  1494
  ated. Under the circumstances, I think it would be more convenient to take it later than 8.15. This matter ought to be settled one way or the other, and this is desirable so that the Water Board may make their contracts if the Bill is passed.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out that sometimes the business is not concluded before 12 o'clock at night, and that is a very inconvenient time. I hope it is clearly understood that this is merely an exceptional Motion made under exceptional circumstances.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: I do so regard it.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: If this is the only Bill I do not think there will be any desire to discuss it further on Monday.
  Question put, and agreed to.

PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS, ETC.) BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Sir JOHN JARDINE: I wish to have some more information before this Bill is advanced. Will the Governors receive these pensions without making those payments out of salaries towards pensions as most Civil servants have to do? Will the Bill, if passed, affect Indian Governors, and so place a new charge on Indian Revenue for the period of service passed in India? Again, I asked the Under Secretary to state what protection, administrative or other, will be given to the regular Civil Service against the tendency of this measure, which I apprehend will give a powerful inducement to any one who has been provided with a governorship for five years to try hard to get another such place for another five years. This would tend to the supersession of the Civil servants in one Colony after another by the arrival of the outsider who is becoming qualified for pension. What protection, then, has the regular Civil servant against this frustration of hopes and laudable ambition for high employments?
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The answer to the first question put by the hon. Member as to whether there is any deduction

1495
of salary is in the negative. He further asks me whether the Bill applies to India and the answer I must give him is in the negative. With regard to his third point it will not encourage outsiders. It merely arranges that a pension shall be payable after ten years' service as Governor, whereas the existing law gives a pension after twelve years' service.
Mr. CLYNES: The arguments which were previously used against this Bill have not been in any way met by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this measure. I think objection is further justified by the position revealed in previous discussions relating to poor people who still find it impossible to enjoy the benefits of the old Pension Act, although they are seventy years of age. It was intended by the persons who supported the Old Age Pensions Act that these poor people should enjoy that Act. I therefore object to offering any further facilities at the present time to Colonial Governors or to any other persons so well placed until something is done to make better provision for the industrial poor. This Bill does improve the facilities for getting pensions in the case of Colonial Governors, and in the case of a Governor receiving only one pension it increases the amount of that pension from the former maximum of £1,200 to £1,300. This measure also allows a pension to be obtained not merely at the age of sixty, but long before that age if the Governor discontinues his duties through the office being abolished or through physical or mental infirmity which might prevent him continuing to discharge his duties. The industrial poor can only get pensions at the age of seventy. This Bill proposes to give an advantage to persons who are much better able when they reach the age of sixty to continue to earn their living than the industrial classes. I understand that this Bill, in the case of a maximum pension would give £24 a week to an ex-Colonial Governor, and that sum would provide pensions for 150 of the industrial poor. It is not right or just to give to those who have the best means of providing for themselves a pension equal to what is the total sum required for 150 industrial pensions. I gather from an answer given to a question which was put on this matter in the House that at the present time there are twenty two persons receiving pensions under such conditions as this Bill covers who have been Governors in one part of the world or another, and they
1496
receive among them £11,000 a year, a sum which would about pay, according to what is offered to the industrial poor no less than one thousand pensions. I object to giving to twenty-two persons a sum which, if spent upon the industrial poor, would have to cover no less than one thousand. Yesterday, for instance, a question was put by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) with regard to the conditions which disqualify poor people from obtaining their pensions, and the answer revealed the fact that the Old Age Pensions Act is being so administered that old persons who have been thrifty and have put a few pounds by have some sum deducted from their pensions if they go to the post office and take out a few shillings of their past savings. Another question has revealed the fact that additions are being constantly made to the persons who come under the advantages of the Civil List Pension arrangement. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few days ago whether persons who had devoted their lives to the solution of some problem and the service of the State in endeavouring to advance generally the condition of the people, or the families of those persons, had ever had their cases considered in connection with the Civil Pension List.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: On a point of Order. I understand the hon. Member is discussing the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act for England. This is a Bill for Colonial Governors' pensions.
Mr. SPEAKER: I was occupied for the moment and did not hear all the hon. Member said, but it is clear the hon. Member would not be entitled to discuss proposed Amendments to the Old Age Pensions Act on this Bill.
Mr. CLYNES: I was at the moment offering a comparison between the way Colonial Governors are treated under this Bill and the way persons are now able to take advantage of pensions under the Civil List. I had, prior to that, also given a few comparisons between the way old age pensioners are treated under the Old Age Pensions Act and the way Colonial Governors are treated under this Bill. I will not pursue the matter, but I would like to state what the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was. It was to the effect that a reference to the last addition to the list would show that a man who had devoted the greater part of his life to the subjects to which I have

1497
referred had been brought within the scope of the list. I was very glad to hear it. Mr. Frederick Rogers, who has devoted himself to furthering the amelioration of social conditions, was himself conceded a pension of £50 a year. I say there is no other instance that any Minister can give to the House of any person like Mr. Frederick Rogers, who has devoted practically the greater part of his life to the services of the community and particularly to the industrial poor of this country. I say no reasons whatever have been given to justify the passing of this Bill.
I would like to ask how two parts of the Bill itself can be reconciled. Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 leaves the granting of a pension absolutely in the hands of the Secretary of State, and Sub-section (3) of Clause 9 declares that a Minute of the Secretary of State, approved by the Treasury, granting a pension under this Section shall set forth the amount of the pension granted and the reasons for granting it, and shall be laid before Parliament. What is the good of placing information like this before Parliament if in another part of the Bill absolute power is reposed in the hands of the Secretary of State as to the granting of a pension. It takes away from the House any power except that of having the right to gaze at the Minute or of receiving information of the absolute act of the Secretary of State. I think there are many other reasons which could be adduced against this measure, and I am anxious to hear, in view of the ample provision made for persons of the ex-Colonial Governor class, to hear why it is these further facilities are to be given them for improving their position and pensions.
Mr. ARTHUR LYNCH: I rise on the present occasion not to oppose this Bill at this stage, but simply to say a word of explanation. I was greatly struck toy the Force of the arguments of the hon. Member who has just sat down, and by the ability with which he put them forward, but in view of the number of Bills to follow this, I do not propose to intervene between the House and a decision. The main object I had in view in putting down Amendments to the Bill was to test thoroughly the question of the status of the Dominions. I believe it has now been, I will not say conceded, but ascertained that the Governments of the Dominions are not subordinate in any way whatever to this Parliament, but are co-ordinate. I am glad to find the present
1498
Colonial Secretary is perhaps the most enlightened gentleman who has occupied that office, and that he is in full sympathy with the views of the representatives of the Dominions. I venture to say, if ever an occupant of the Colonial Office should imagine he was a great constructive statesman, and that the Dominions were to be the raw material of his constructive genius, the result would be one which I, at any rate, would be able to regard with complacency, and would be of a character greatly to astonish him and the party who put forward that great scheme of Imperial Federation to bolster up a stale Government and to retrieve their decaying forces.
Mr. CATHCART WASON: It is common knowledge that the average man sent out as a Colonial Governor is a man of considerable wealth, but there is another kind of Governor in our African and West Indian dependencies, and I think it is extremely desirable the Government should do something to make their lives easier. They are gentlemen with no opportunity whatever of saving sixpence during the whole course of their time out. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) or his friends went out to those dependencies, they would be received with open arms and every consideration and kindness would be shown to them and every opportunity afforded them of opening their minds. It is for those Governors I imagine the Government have introduced this Bill. I think the remarks of the hon. Member below the Gangway would have been just as applicable to the salaries which Ministers enjoy, to the salary which you yourself enjoy, or to the salaries which we in future are going to enjoy. The remarks were far more applicable to any of us than to these Colonial Governors who, at great risk to their lives, live with death constantly surrounding them, and I am sure that anything we could do to lighten their burden the House will cheerfully, accede to.
Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD: I desire to express my whole-hearted support of this Bill for two reasons. In the past many men who have served the State uncommonly well have come back to the old country and been forced by reason of financial weakness to undertake directorships of businesses which they do not understand, and have, consequently, been the dupes of unscrupulous persons in different parts of the country. This Bill will protect servants of the State in future from such catastrophes which reflect on the adminis-

1499
tration of the Empire. Secondly, I support the Bill because of Clause 9, which gives discretion to the Secretary of State for the Colonies to pension any Governor who proves not to be worthy of the high position to which he has been appointed. It is notorious that at the present moment men are given Colonial Governorships when they are not qualified, in order that they may obtain a certain age and record of service, to entitle them to a pension as the law now stands. Under this Bill, when the Colonial Secretary, who is the most generous judge of his own servant, finds him inefficient or not qualified he will be able to pension him off and relieve him of the responsibilities that he has not proved himself adequate to perform. I think that gives the Colonial Secretary a wise discretion, and will make for greater efficiency in the administration of the Colonies and Dominions.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Member for North-East Manchester (Mr. Clynes) has suggested there is something irreconcilable between Clauses 1 and 9, but if he had looked at the latter Clause he would have seen that the first words are, "Where in any special circumstances." In any special circumstances the Colonial Secretary may do what my hon. Friend, the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Hamar Greenwood) describes as a very terse thing to do, but he will not be entitled to do it unless he presents the full circumstances of the special cases to Parliament so that the House and the fund it has to administer may be protected against favouritism in that respect. I agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland. I have known many Colonial Governors leave their governorships far poorer men than they began. I am not referring to quasi political servants, but to Colonial servants who have risen from the lowest ranks in the Civil Service, and have expended far more than they have received from the Government. They are entitled to the most generous treatment from the Government.
Question put, and agreed to. Bill read the third time, and passed.

INDIAN HIGH COURTS.
Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Revenues of India, of the Salaries of any Judges or temporary Judges ap-
1500
pointed under any Act of the present Session to amend the Indian High Courts Act, 1861."—[Mr. Montagu.]
Resolution agreed to.

INDIAN HIGH COURTS.

  INDIA HIGH COURTS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  Reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. ACT (1858) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
Read a second time, and committed to Committee of the Whole House for Monday next, 14th August.
LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.

  CLAUSE 8.—(Amendment of Section 6 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906.)
  (1) A petition under Section six of the Labourers (Ireland) Act. 1906, against the refusal of the inspector to confirm the scheme, so far as it relates to any representation, may be presented by the rural district council or by the agricultural labourer by whom or on whose behalf the representation had been made.
  (2) The inspector may divide the scheme into two parts, each of which shall thereupon be deemed to be an improvement scheme, and may make an order confirming one part and may adjourn the consideration of the other part, as he shall think fit, and may subsequently make an order confirming such other part, and such inspector shall have all the powers conferred on the Local Government Board by Section six of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1891.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry): I rise to move the omission of this Clause.
  The Clause was passed in a very small Committee by a very small majority, but it affects the provisions of the Act most injuriously in the view of those who are interested in the administration of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts. It provides not merely for an appeal by the district council, but it will give an agricultural labourer interested in a scheme a right of appeal either to the Local Government Board or to the county court for the purpose of reversing the order made by an inspector

  1501
  after inquiry on the spot. The whole provision is an absolute departure from the principle of these Labourers Acts. From the very first, under the Act of 1883, a very elaborate and costly system of dealing with improvement schemes was established. Local Government inquiries were held, Provisional Orders were passed, and sometimes an Act of Parliament had to be obtained in order to get a scheme through. The whole process was very cumbrous, and involved considerable delay. An effort was made in the Act of 1885 to remedy it by enabling the Privy Council to deal with bodies connected with a scheme, but that, too, was found to involve delay, and the present system was adopted. It simply amounts to this: If an improvement scheme has been prepared by the local authorities the Local Government Board send down inspectors to make local inquiry and examination of all the circumstances connected with it. They make a full and exhaustive inquiry, hearing both sides, and then practically frame a Provisional Order embodying the scheme. Having done that, they report to the Local Government Board. Under the Act of 1906 authority is given to any one when land is being compulsorily taken to appeal to the Local Government Board or to the county court of the district to have the Order amended by excluding their land. The appeal was limited to that class of case alone. What is now proposed by this Clause is that the Rural District Council itself, or any agricultural labourer who is interested in the acquisition of a site or the building of a cottage, should have the power also to make an appeal to the Local Government Board, and it is felt by those who understand the administration of the Acts that the greatest possible delay and immense complication would be caused. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment in Committee was able to point out that in the course of the long period during which these Acts have been in operation some one or two cases of hardship occurred which he suggested might have been rectified if a system of appeal existed under which a labourer who thought he was hardly dealt with had a right to appeal to the Local Government Board or a county court. The case was of a most exceptional character. If a man is harshly or improperly treated it is within the competence of the local authority to give him on the very next vacancy a cottage, but to give him a right of appeal which will involve very considerable ex-
  1502
  pense and occupy the time of the Local Government Board and its inspectors to a very large extent and delay the carrying out of these schemes seems to the Government to be a very undesirable proceeding, therefore I ask the House to omit the Clause.
  Mr. SHEEHAN: I regret very much the Motion that the right hon. Gentleman has made. I am well acquainted with the administration of the Labourers' Acts, and I do not know of any Clause which is more essential for safeguarding the interests of the labouring community, and I hope it will be left in the Bill. You give the right of appeal to a farmer, and the labourers ask for the same right. They have not had it in the past, and they feel it as a grievance that they should not have it. The right hon. Gentleman said it would lead to delay and complication. Nothing of the kind. On the contrary, it would enable the labourer to have his claim decided at once instead of postponing it for a couple of years until some new scheme is formulated.
  Mr. CLANCY: I was one of those who supported this Clause in Committee, because I think, notwithstanding what the Attorney-General said, that a case exists for making this change. I do not agree at all that only a few cases have occurred in which wrong has been done through the labourer himself and the representatives of the district council not having had an opportunity of appeal, therefore I should have liked this change to be made even on an earlier occasion than this. If on this occasion we had an opportunity for a general debate dealing with the Labourers' Acts, I should certainly advocate this change, and if an opportunity occurs I shall certainly advocate it. But the question is now whether or not this Bill is going to pass. I want it to pass before the adjournment for the Recess. Inasmuch as it is a Bill merely for providing an additional sum of money for the completion of schemes already undertaken, I certainly will not undertake the responsibility of supporting a Clause which would undoubtedly be regarded as contentious in another place and lead to the wrecking of the Bill. I have no right to advise my colleagues in the matter, but this is my own view, and I fancy I speak for them also. Although we have supported this Clause in the Committee, and are prepared on a suitable occasion to endeavour to induce the Government to insert it in some

  1503
  other Bill, we will not on this occasion take any action which will prevent it from becoming law before the Recess.
  Mr. CLYNES: I supported this Clause in Committee, and I have not heard to-day any good enough cause to disturb the opinion I formed on that occasion. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are, of course, better able to judge than I what ought to be their action on this matter. My own disposition is certainly to support the Clause as it stands, and I think a strong reason has been given from the Ministerial Bench in support of the Clause. If it be that there are only a few cases of hardship, on what ground can serious disturbances be anticipated in connection with the administration of the measure? As I understand the Clause, it is that in regard to representations respecting the necessity of labourers' cottages, the rural district council, or the agricultural labourers affected shall have a right to petition, or that there shall be a further right in the hands of those acting on behalf of the labourers or the district council to make representations. That liberty to make known fully the necessity for cottages cannot be a serious danger to the working of the measure. The measure itself I like, and I hope it will not be long before the Government will be disposed to make corresponding provision of a financial nature for the erection of cottages for many labourers, both agricultural and industrial, who are in need of better housing facilities in this country.
  Question, "That Clause 8 stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Mr. SHEEHAN: Whilst I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and the Chief Secretary on having introduced the Bill, I believe it does not go far enough to satisfy the demands of the labourers. The Chief Secretary thinks that £1,000,000 will be sufficient to complete the housing of the working population. I am satisfied, from my own experience and knowledge of the labouring population, and the numbers who are still unhoused, that it will require far more than this before you will complete the beneficent work of housing our workers in happiness and comfort on their native soil. I should have wished a larger amount of money could be secured. Anybody who, like myself, lived in the country
  1504
  twenty-five or thirty years ago, and who knew the wretched conditions of the labourers' dwellings at that time, must feel pleasure and gratification in knowing that at the present time we are in a fair way of having 50,000 labourers in happy homes, where they will be able to rear their families in comfort and cheerfulness. I hope it is not too much to expect that in this Session or next Session we will be able to introduce an amending Bill to correct many of the defects which exist in previous Acts. The way I look upon the matter is this: For every house you build you are keeping a family in the country and rooting them to the soil. The labourers in this matter owe their salvation to themselves and to their organisation when they won the Labourers Act of 1906. The transformation effected in rural Ireland has been of the most marvellous kind. Anyone who remembers the state of things in the country ten years ago, and who now sees the rural districts dotted all over with happy homesteads—the squalid cabins in which the people formerly lived having been removed—and who sees the bright and happy conditions which have replaced the griminess and misery of other days, must feel that we have made a great advance all along the line in this matter. I am glad to say that, under the schemes which have been lately promoted by district councils village communities are being formed more and more. The labouring people are in this way brought together, and they are enabled to enjoy social amenities and an environment which they had not before. I believe this measure will be the means of extending that practice in many directions. In that way this House will have assisted in laying the foundation of a sturdy and independent working class in our country, who will work with cheerfulness, knowing that they have a stake in the land. We take this measure for what it is worth, and to me it is worth a great deal in the increased comfort and happiness it will bring to our people. You are not only building cottages, but you are building up the national character of the people. You are not only increasing the material comfort of the people, but you are lifting up the tone of their home life. I welcome the measure, and I wish it God-speed, because I believe it will add a great deal to the happiness of the labouring poor.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

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

TELEPHONE TRANSFER BILL.
  Part I.
    FINANCIAL PROVISIONS.

      CLAUSE 1.—(Powers for Discharge of Telephone Purchase Money.)
      (1) The Treasury may for the purpose of providing for the payment of the telephone purchase money as defined by this Act—

      (a) notwithstanding anything in the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1866, set off any sums due to the Postmaster-General from the National Telephone Company, Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company), on account of sums paid in advance to the Company by subscribers in respect of services to be rendered during a future period, against a corresponding amount of that part of the purchase money which is payable in cash; and

      (b) issue out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof any further sums which may be required for the payment of that part of the telephone purchase money which is payable in cash; and

      (c) issue to the Company, or to such persons as the Company may direct, such terminable annuities as may be required for the discharge of that part of the telephone purchase money which is not payable in cash.

      (2) If so agreed between the Treasury and the Company, the Treasury may, instead of issuing terminable annuities for the discharge of that part of the telephone purchase money which is not payable in cash, issue to the Company or to such persons as the Company may direct, such amount of Exchequer bonds bearing interest at the rate of three per cent. per annum as may foe agreed upon between the Treasury and the Company.
      Any Exchequer bonds so issued shall be paid off by the Treasury at the rate of one hundred pounds sterling for every one hundred pounds of the bond, together with all arrears of interest, before the expiration of such period not exceeding twenty years, and at such times within that period, and in such amounts and manner, as may be fixed by the Treasury.
      Any Exchequer bonds so issued shall, notwithstanding anything in Section
      1506
      twenty-six of the Exchequer Bills and Bonds Act, 1886, be made out and issued with coupons for the interest becoming due thereon for a term not exceeding twenty years from the date thereof.
      The ASSISTANT-POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the words "set off" ["set off any sums due to the Postmaster-General"], and to insert instead thereof the word "treat."
      This Amendment, and the Amendments which follow in connection with Clause 1, are for the purpose of carrying out the undertaking which was made with the National Telephone Company. The company were in doubt whether the words in the Clause carried out the terms of the agreement which we made with them, and these Amendments have been placed on the Paper by my right hon. Friend for the purpose of giving satisfaction to the company on these matters.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendments made: In paragraph (a), leave out the word "due" ["any sums due to the Postmaster-General"], and insert instead thereof the word "paid."
      In paragraph (a), leave out the word "from" ["due to the Postmaster-General from the National Telephone Company"], and insert instead thereof the word "by."
      In paragraph (a), leave out the words "against a corresponding amount of that part," and insert instead thereof the words "as sums to be applied in payment."
      In paragraph (a), leave out the words "which is payable in cash."
      In paragraph (b), leave out the word "further."
      In paragraph (b), after the word "cash," insert the words "so far as provision is not otherwise made for that payment."
      Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

      CLAUSE 2.—(Grant for the Purpose of the Telegraph Acts.)
      The Treasury may, with a view to the development of that part of the telegraphic system of the United Kingdom which is called the telephonic system, without prejudice to the exercise of any powers previously given for the like purpose, issue out of the Consolidated Fund or the

      1507
      growing produce thereof such sums, not exceeding in the whole the sum of four million pounds, as may be required by the Postmaster-General for the purpose of developing the telephonic system aforesaid according to estimates approved by the Treasury.
      Mr. PETO: I beg to move, after the word "development" ["with a view to the development of that part"] to insert the words "in rural as well as urban areas."
      I do not object in the slightest degree to the large sum of £4,000,000 being taken, but I should like some words inserted to make it perfectly clear that a portion of that considerable sum is really going to be devoted to the development of the telephonic system in rural areas.
      Captain NORTON: There is really no object in inserting these words. The Clause, as it stands, carries out the object which the hon. Member has in view.
      Mr. PETO: With all respect to the Assistant-Postmaster-General I could point out that I have a further Amendment which specifies the exact proportion which should be devoted to telephonic extension in the rural areas, and that if these words are not inserted, I shall not be able to move that Amendment.
      Amendment negatived.
      Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill."
      Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
      This Bill, when brought in, contained a great deal of contentious matter. Apparently a good many of the contentious points have been covered. As regards the National Telephone Company, the adjustment has been complete. As regards the staff of the company, certain points on which the staff feel very strongly are still outstanding. I know something of the difficulty with which the Postmaster-General is confronted in these matters. With all the great powers of discipline which he has his financial powers are practically nil. When there are large questions of finance affecting the Post Office long negotiations have to take place with the Treasury, who regard these matters not only from the point of view of the
      1508
      actual sum involved, but from that of precedents in other departments. This, I think, is fully recognised by the representatives of the staff of the National Telephone Company. They quite agree that the Postmaster-General and the officials of the Post Office have met them and adjusted many points, and altogether shown a conciliatory spirit. But some of the points, which are Treasury rather than Post Office points, have not yet been settled. In moving this Motion, I only ask that those portions of the Bill which contain these critical points should go over to the Autumn Session. I know that there is a great deal involved for which I do not even blame the Treasury on this occasion. I quite recognise that they have to consider these matters all round, and from a rather different point of view from that of the Post Office. But I do not despair that if these points are left open for consideration and negotiation during two months some agreement may be arrived at. This Bill need not operate in practice until next year. It does not very seriously matter whether it is passed next week or in November. That it will be passed no one denies, but I think it would be better to leave it over until next Session, so that in the meantime these outstanding matters of dispute may be settled.
      The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the hon. Member refers to Clause 5?
      Mr. JAMES HOPE: I am in a little difficulty about that because there are Amendments put down to Clause 5; but if you will allow me to move this Motion before the first Amendment is put, I do not want to prevent the Government getting Clause 4.
      The CHAIRMAN: I was only going to suggest that we should take Clause 4, and then I will put the hon. Member's Motion that Progress be reported.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Mr. JAMES HOPE: I now move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: It may save time in the discussion of some of the Amendments if I tell the Committee the position; of this matter. We took what was in effect a Second Reading Debate on the Financial Resolutions. The House will remember that on those Financial Resolutions in June last I put forward several claims on behalf of the staff. I think it will be agreed that those claims

      1509
      were put forward without undue heat and with a desire to meet the views of the Postmaster-General Then negotiations took place between the staff and the Postmaster-General, and I was enabled on the Second Reading of the Bill to allow it to pass without a Division, and to inform the House that I thought the result of those negotiations would be that the claims of the staff would be met by the Postmaster-General. I am sorry to say that the claims, in our opinion, have not been satisfactorily met. The Postmaster-General received, I believe, two deputations from the staff, and some minor points have been met, but there is one main point as to which I think it would be very detrimental in the future if we have to divide upon it. The Postmaster-General is taking over a very large staff of 18,000 men, and for the future working of the Post Office it would be very much better that we should not divide upon the claims which the staff make, but that they should come to terms with the Postmaster-General without the hostile intervention of this House. But unless those claims are met more closely than at present there must be hostile intervention by this House.
      The main point on which disputes arise are embodied in the first Amendment which I have down. The subsequent Amendments deal so much with matters of detail that I have great hopes that the Postmaster-General will accept them. The chief point is the question of pension rights to men who are working for their living in the service of the Telephone Company and have been looking forward for years past to enjoying a pension, and have been in many cases paying for that pension by deductions from their own salaries. It is essential that on coming into the public service they should receive a continuation of those pension rights. Although the Postmaster-General is willing to give them an increase of salary or something else, that something does not in my opinion compensate for an assured certainty of a pension at the age of sixty which these men are entitled at present to get. The claims which I put before the House two months ago have really been in effect conceded by previous Postmaster-Generals. If they are not conceded to-day there will be something like—I want to use as little harshness as possible—a breach of faith with these employés. They ask that the members of the company's pension fund, those members of the company's staff who have been paying into the pension fund, and
      1510
      who would be if the company remained as it is entitled to a pension, who have been company's servants for two years continuously, should be transferred to pensionable offices in the Post Office. That is to say men who are now earning and paying for their pensions, if and when they are taken over, should be placed in such a position in the Post Office that they will at the expiration of their time be entitled to pensions. That was accepted by Lord Derby, who was then Lord Stanley, when the Post Office agreement was made for taking over the telephones in the year 1905. That agreement was submitted to a Select Committee of this House. That Committee reported in 1905, and one of the recommendations of the Committee was that people in the service of the company taken over by the Post Office shall suffer nothing by the transfer, whenever it takes place. That is that the employés of the company shall have the option——
      The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that this discussion is on the Motion to report Progress. I do not know whether this explanation has any bearing on that, and if he is arguing on the Amendment which follows he is not in order in doing so on this Motion.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am entirely in your hands, Sir, but I may explain that my object was to save myself making two speeches. I will not argue the case now, but will merely state what these claims are, and if the Motion to report Progress should not be carried, I will establish what I am saying as to the evidence of the Select Committee and Lord Stanley's speeches in this House. The point is that the members of the staff who have had pensionable services under the company should be transferred to pensionable service under the Post Office. That has been put before the Postmaster-General, and I believe he would be prepared to accept it if he could do so himself. Many of the other cases have been met, and now there are only 400 men left in this position of not having had their rights conceded. All these pensionable servants of the Telephone Company have been accepted by the Postmaster-General. But if it was not 400, if it was only forty, or even four, who were going to have different positions forced upon them from those to which they are entitled, we should be right to place their case before the House. I may call attention to a letter which the Postmaster-General wrote yesterday to the staff. It

      1511
      is not confidential, and was in reply to a deputation which waited upon him. It has reference to these 400 men, and he says the question of a transfer of a proportion of these officers is still under discussion with the Treasury, and he hopes it may be possible to make such provision for these sections of the company's staff as will establish practically all such persons on the pension fund.
      I think I was justified in saying that the Postmaster-General's personal feeling was strongly in favour of doing justice to those members of the staff for whom I am pleading, but he has to make representations to the Treasury, and is blocked at the moment by the right hon. Gentleman the "watch dog" of the Treasury (Mr. Hobhouse), I do not blame him for defending the Treasury as much as he can. I wish that in other cases he had defended the Treasury a little more than he has done during the last five years. But in this case it is a question of doing justice to individual men, and in order that justice may be done we must ask the Treasury to give way, and if the Treasury cannot see their way to grant this boon at the present moment, I strongly agree with the Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope) that this portion of the Bill should stand over. The right hon. Gentleman has got the fourth Clause, and he can get the Third Beading of the Bill in October. Meanwhile he can go on with the arrangements for taking over the telephone service with the knowledge that these four Clauses have been passed. That would give him time to negotiate with another deputation which I understand he is perfectly willing to see from the workmen and it would also give him time to place their case more fully than he has done before the Treasury, and I am sure he will do it more ably than any Member of this House can do. I strongly support the proposal to report Progress. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will assent to it and bring up the Bill again in the Autumn Session.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I should like to explain to the Committee the precise situation in which this matter now stands in order to persuade Members that there can be no justification for the Motion to report Progress. In taking over a large staff numbering some 18,000 people there are, of course, a great number of points to be settled. Lord Stanley, in 1905, laid down the general conditions under which
      1512
      these men should be taken into the service of the State. I have considerably modified these conditions in very many respects and in all of them in favour of the staff. I have been in close consultation with the representatives of the staff. They are very representative and capable men, and on several occasions we have come to agreement, I think, on all the points except perhaps two, the chief one being that mentioned by the Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks). The question is whether persons now pensionable with the company shall be pensionable with the State. Without going into the merits, let me explain how very small a point it is, and the difference between those who are in the service of the company and who are pensionable and those who are in the service of the Post Office and are pensionable. The servants of the company are pensionable if they have a salary of more than £100 per year, and contribute 2½ per cent. of their wages to the company's funds. They are pensionable at a certain age. The servants of the State who are pensionable, if they belong to an established class. The established classes are differentiated from the unestablished by a very complicated series of rules, into which I do not intend to enter. It is enough to say that they do not have any relation to the £100 limit fixed under the company. Therefore a person may be pensionable in the service of the company and not be pensionable while doing the same work in the Post Office or vice versâ. The company has 18,000 people employed and of these 2,000 are on the pension fund. Sixteen thousand are not pensionable.
      We take over the whole 18,000, and when they come to us instead of 2,000 being pensionable and 16,000 not pensionable, 12,000 will be pensionable, so that 10,000 of these people will for the first time get pension rights and much more valuable pension rights than they would have had with the company and without any deduction of 2½ per cent. For the first time 10,000 of these people will be pensionable. In addition to these 10,000, of the 2,000 already pensionable, about 1,700 will come on the established class, so that there will be about 11,700 of the company's servants who will be pensionable under us instead of 2,000 as at present. There remain three or four hundred who are doing work which is done in the Post Office by a class not established. If they had been in the service of the Post Office

      1513
      all the time they would not have been on the establishment or pensionable. If they had been in the Post Office service they would have got a gratuity of two-thirds of their pay if sick, and they have many advantages as unestablished which they would not have if they were established. We have thus these 300 or 400 men construction hands and wayleave contract officers who wish to be put upon our establishment. We say we cannot do that unless we also put upon the establishment the men in the Post Office service who are doing the same work. That surely is a reasonable proposition. Let me point out to the House that in the case of the Post Office staff, who have been in our service for very many years, it would be unjust to have, working side by side with them, men in a better position than themselves, and whose only claim to the better position was that they had not been in the service of the State hitherto, but in the service of the National Telephone Company. The Post Office staff feel very strongly in the matter, and I am sure every Member of the House who examines the case will see that from the administrative point of view it would not be possible to have men doing the same construction work—putting up poles and telegraph lines, side by side—one man in the established Civil Service receiving pension rights, and another man, working side by side with him, and exactly in the same position, but receiving no pension rights.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: On the point of Order, Sir. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I was stopped from arguing the merits of the case. If the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to do so—and I hope you will allow him to argue the merits on the Motion to report Progress—will other Members be allowed to discuss them?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: On the point of Order, may I explain? My point is to show the reason why we cannot and ought not to report Progress. The hon. Member has urged that this is a matter which could easily be settled with a very little consideration. I may point out that it is not a matter which merely affects the 300 men in the Telephone Company's service whom we are taking over, but it affects 5,000 men now in the Post Office service doing the same work as these 300 men, whose case is still under consideration. That is a matter which the Treasury is considering. It is a very large financial question indeed, because if we were to do as the
      1514
      representatives of the staff desire we should have to alter our Post Office system. I do not say it ought not to be altered. I do not say that some alteration is not desirable, but I do say that it is a matter which has very large financial results as to which we will have to work out an elaborate scheme. The simple matter is that if these 5,000 men are to be established, there are various details which will have to be gone into, and it would be an exceedingly complicated matter.
      The CHAIRMAN: On the point of Order which was raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Joynson-Hicks). It is true that I interrupted him and stopped his arguing the question on the merits, and I did so because I questioned whether his observations were relevant to the Motion to report Progress. The Postmaster-General is now making his reply, and the point is whether his argument has relevance to the Motion to report Progress. I think the right hon. Gentleman's argument has some reference to that Motion.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: In that case, if I submit any further argument that is relevant to the right hon. Gentleman's statement and to the Motion, I may be allowed to speak again.
      The CHAIRMAN: I will hear the hon. Member.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As I was pointing out, this question relates to 300 men in the Telephone Company's service, and to 5,000 men in the Post Office service, and the matter is therefore not so easily decided by myself in consultation with the able representatives of the transferred staff. Let me say, further—I cannot go into the merits now, that I shall be able to show that we are not leaving these men whom we are taking over from the Telephone Company any worse off than they are now in any respect. On the contrary, in many respects they will be better off. I cannot argue that now, but I will argue it later on. I do not at all admit the hon. Member's contention that they will be worse off. We are making special arrangements, into the details of which I cannot enter now. Finally, let me say that it is not necessary in regard to this Bill to have this matter settled now. No legislation is required to put these men on the establishment. It can be done administratively; it does not require Parliamentary powers or any statutory powers. Indeed, it would be improper to insert

      1515
      in the Bill this Amendment which the hon. Member suggests, and which would not allow any discretion to the Postmaster-General to do anything at all. If we deal with the Amendment, I think I shall be able to show that these men are treated very generously under the transfer.
      Mr. BRADY: I desire to support the Motion to report Progress, not only in the interests of the whole staff of the Telephone Company throughout the United Kingdom, but particularly the Irish staff. As an Irish Member, I have some little knowledge of the conditions under which the Irish staff at present works. The Postmaster-General himself has afforded the very best reason for this Motion in the remarks which he has made. He tells us that this is only a question of 300 men. We heard at an earlier stage that £4,000,000 are asked to amplify and enlarge the scope of telephone work, and that there is to be an enlarged system of State control which is going to take the place of the system hitherto worked by the Telephone Company. It is not too much to suggest to the Committee that these unfortunate 300 men certainly hope to carry on the work in which they have been engaged for a very considerable portion of their lives, and that, when they come under the State they will have those pensionable rights which they enjoy under the Telephone Company. The Mover of the Motion to report Progress put his finger on the real difficulty in this case. We recognise the ability, the patience and the courtesy with which the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General has from beginning to end approached these negotiations. I am sure that the last thing the right hon. Gentleman would wish, even if he had the power, under the scheme of amalgamation, would be to do anything that would prejudice the position of the workers under the Telephone Company. But surely that is the very reason why a few months should be given, on the one hand to the right hon. Gentleman, and on the other to the staff, to discuss these questions, which the right hon. Gentleman himself has pointed out are of so exceedingly narrow a character. Previous speakers have shown that the real reason of this difficulty is, of course, to be found in the right hon. Gentleman sitting on the left of the Postmaster-General (the Financial Secretary to the Treasury). It is the Treasury which has to be dealt with, and I see in the right hon. Gentleman the
      1516
      mobile embodiment of national economy. I tried to shake the right hon. Gentleman myself even this week, but I was unable to do it. I have not myself the powers of persuasion that can be exercised by the Postmaster-General, who may succeed in persuading the Treasury where a private Member such as myself cannot hope to succeed. Members on the Irish Benches all know well that the Chief Secretary on many occasions in relation to Irish financial questions has found himself up against the same impenetrable wall. I only mention these things in passing with a view to emphasising the fact that these are all reasons for delaying this case. Nobody suggests that the Postmaster-General will be prejudiced if the master is hung up for two or three months. He admits himself that the main portions of the matter have already been dealt with by an agreement entered into two years ago with the National Telephone Company, and in regard to this remaining point I am sure the right hon. Gentleman, with his courtesy and desire to meet the staff, will recognise that the time ought to be a little extended for its consideration. It is for that reason that I very cordially support the Motion of my hon. Friend, and trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not force this matter to a Division to-day, but will give us all the opportunity during the leisure months which some of us hope to enjoy to consider these matters, which axe of so small a character. There was one other matter referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. He suggested that the one reason for the impossibility of acceding to the request of these telephone operators is that objection would be taken that they would come in side by side with members of the Post Office staff who are already at work of a similar character. I can quite recognise the natural disinclination of old workers in the Post Office that any newcomers should come in and take their place. I suggest it is not a case of taking any place of others. We all hope that this scheme will be of a large and successful character under the able administration and guidance of the right hon. Gentleman, and that the telephone service, as we knew it of old, and I say no more about it, will become a thing that we will all enjoy in the future, and that it will not be a source of worry as it has been in the past, or, in other words, that the scheme will become so large that it will not be a case of the taking of 300 men, but the taking of thousands of men. I do appeal to the right

      1517
      hon. Gentleman, in the interests of all parties, not to press this Motion to a Division.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If I may be allowed to speak again on this question, I may perhaps shorten discussion. I perceive that it is the general desire of the House that a further attempt should be made to arrive at a settlement of this one outstanding point. It would be very unfortunate if this Bill were to become a matter of controversy when it has hitherto proceeded very smoothly. I am at the same time very unwilling to put off the Bill until the Autumn for certain reasons connected with the smooth passage of the Bill. I would make this suggestion to the Committee that we should postpone Clause 5 now, and that we should to-day take the other Clauses of the Bill, and in the interval allowed, and there is a Conference already arranged with the Treasury, I would confer with my right hon. Friend and the Treasury to see whether we can come to some settlement of this outstanding point. Should a settlement be reached within the next few days, then perhaps the Bill can go through as an agreed Bill in a short time one evening next week. If a satisfactory arrangement cannot be made, then I recognise that there must be opportunity given for further discussion of this matter in which so many hon. Members take an interest. For the moment if the hon. Member will be good enough to withdraw his Motion, I will move that Clause 5 be postponed, and we will not take it to-day.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Postmaster-General has met us very fairly. I quite realise that this Bill has not been a contentious Bill in the past. I think the suggestion which he has made to postpone the Clause, which embodies some few alterations affecting the position of the staff, is satisfactory on the condition that if no agreement is arrived at, if the right hon. Gentleman is unable to agree either with the Treasury or the staff between now and the end of this portion of the Session, that the Bill should go over until the Autumn.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There must be full opportunity for discussion. That was my offer, and it is possible that a similar opportunity to to-day may be given next week, in which case in the event of disagreement it must be decided in the House.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I quite agree if full opportunity is afforded, that is a week-day Debate such as this, and not a debate at one or two o'clock in the morning. I do not think it ought to be put down as a late order after a long day's sitting, as the points are really very important, and nearly everybody in the House to-day has been in communication with constituents on the subject. They desire to see justice done. I want to make it quite clear that if an arrangement is not arrived at between the Treasury, the Postmaster-General, and the staff, that the Bill will be put down again at a daytime sitting during next week, and, failing that, that it should go over to the autumn.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, I will meet the hon. Member as to that.
      Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I have representations from the existing Post Office staff with regard to the Seniority Clause in the Memorandum, and the Clause as to the position of Glasgow Corporation employés. I do not know whether we can bring those matters forward now.
      Mr. BARNES: I should like to ask the Postmaster-General in regard to the very much larger number, 5,000 of the existing staff, will it be within the province of the House to discuss their position, on Clause 5?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The position of the Glasgow employés who will be taken over from the corporation service is a question which cannot arise on this Bill.
      Mr. CLYNES: I do not think, in view of the general statements that it is necessary to adjourn this question to the Autumn Session. We have an explicit assurance that when the Clause is reached the position will be such that the men whose case is still in question will be in no way prejudiced, and that they can be transferred on conditions which will not make any disadvantage whatever to them. That is exactly, as I understand it, what the staff want. The staff do not want postponement—they want settlement. I am quite certain that what is wanted by the staff is settlement on terms satisfactory to them, and if we can to-day, and not in the Autumn Session, get a settlement on terms satisfactory to them, our time will be better spent in dealing with the matter than in adjourning the question. I think, therefore, that the hon. Member for Sheffield, in view of what has been said, should

      1519
      withdraw his Motion, and let us get on with the business, deferring for the moment the consideration of Clause 5, when probably the Postmaster-General will be able to give satisfactory assurances.
      Mr. JAMES HOPE: I was out of the House at the moment the Postmaster-General was making an explanation. I understand his offer is this: That he will move that Clause 5 be postponed, and that he wishes to get the other Clauses of the Bill, and that Clause 5 will come up at a reasonable hour within the next week, or, assuming that no settlement has been arrived at in the meantime, that it will come up in the Autumn Session. Have I stated it correctly?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes.
      Mr. JAMES HOPE: I think, under the circumstances, it would not be desirable to press this Motion further.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is understood we pass the other Clauses.
      Mr. JAMES HOPE: Yes; without prejudice to what may happen on the Report stage. I think it is only fair to ask leave to withdraw.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to move, "That Clause 5 be postponed to the end of the new Clauses."
      Question put, and agreed to.

      CLAUSE 6.—(Temporary Provisions as to Transfer.)
      (1) Any person authorised in that behalf by the Postmaster-General shall have free access to the plant, land, and buildings of the company for the purpose of inspecting such plant, land, and buildings.
      (2) From and after the appointed day any officer of and any other person authorised in that behalf by the company shall have free access to the plant, land, and buildings transferred to the Postmaster-General from the company for the purpose of inspecting such plant, land, and buildings, and to all books, accounts, and documents of the company in the possession of the Postmaster-General for the purpose of inspecting, copying, and making extracts from the same, and shall have all proper facilities for the purposes aforesaid.
      (3) For the purpose of enabling the company to prepare and conduct its claim for purchase money under the provisions of
      1520
      the purchase agreements, and to enter into agreements with the Postmaster-General, and to discharge the liabilities of the company, and generally to carry on the business of the company, and to wind up its affairs and dissolve the company, the company may, after the appointed day, temporarily retain for their own use the services of such reasonable number of officers for such time and on such conditions as may be agreed between the Postmaster-General and the company, or may in case of difference be determined as in this Act provided; but the officers so temporarily retained shall be deemed nevertheless to have become officers of the Postmaster-General for the purposes of the provisions of this Act in relation to the company's officers.
      (4) Any difference between the Postmaster-General and the company arising under the provisions of this section shall be determined by the Railway and Canal Commission, and all proceedings relating to any such difference shall be conducted by the Commission in manner prescribed by the Telegraph (Arbitration) Act, 1909.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to move to leave out Sub-sections (1) and (2).
      These Amendments on Clause 6 form part of an agreement which I made with the National Telephone Company. The company considered that it was not desirable in a Bill in any way to vary the agreement which had been entered into. They thought that this Clause did in some respects vary the agreement, and they asked for some modifications. Sub-sections (1) and (2) give reciprocal rights of inspection of plant. Those rights have now been obtained by means of undertakings given in writing by the two parties. It is therefore unnecessary to introduce a Clause into the Bill in regard to the matter. In respect of Sub-section (3) there was some disagreement as to the definition of "appointed day." The term appears only in this Sub-section. It is proposed to leave out the term and to insert a fixed date. The other Amendments to Sub-section (3) are of an ordinary drafting character. Sub-section (4) becomes unnecessary in view of the Amendments in the earlier Sub-sections.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendments made: In Subsection (3), leave out the words "appointed day," and insert instead thereof the words, "thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and eleven."
      After the word "such" ["such reasonable number of officers"], insert the words "officers as they may select, to such."
      Leave out the words "of officers" ["reasonable number of officers"].
      Leave out the words "agreed between," and insert instead thereof the words "approved by."
      Leave out the words "and the company, or may in case of difference be determined as in this Act provided."
      Leave out the words "to have become officers of the Postmaster-General."
      At the end of the Sub-section insert the words, "to have become officers of the Postmaster-General as from the said thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and eleven."
      Leave out Sub-section (4).—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
      Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

      CLAUSE 7.—(Interpretation.)
      Amendment made: Leave out the words "The expression 'the appointed day' means the thirty-first day of December nineteen hundred and eleven or such subsequent day during the year nineteen hundred and twelve as the Postmaster-General may appoint, either generally or with reference to any particular provision of the purchase agreements or of this Act, and different days may be appointed for different purposes and different provisions of the said agreements or this Act."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
      Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to move, after Clause 4, to insert the following

      NEW CLAUSE.—(Audit.)
      The Postmaster-General shall within eight months after the end of every financial year in which money is issued or expended under this Act cause to be made out on account, in the form required by the Treasury, showing the money expended and borrowed and the securities created under The Telegraph Act, 1892, The Telegraph (Money) Act, 1896, The Telegraph (Money) Act, 1898, The Telegraph Act, 1899, The Telegraph (Money) Act, 1904, The Telegraph (Money) Act, 1907, and this Act, and the account of the expenditure under those Acts shall be audited and reported on by the Comptroller and Auditor-General as an Appropriation Account in manner directed by The Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1866.
      This Clause is necessary in order to give the Comptroller and Auditor-General statutory authority to require financial accounts of the transactions connected with the purchase of the National Telephone Company's system, and to submit the same to audit.
      Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to move, after Clause 5, to insert the following.

      NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision as to Gratuities to Transferred Officers.)
      Subject to the provisions of this Act, in the application of Section four of the Superannuation Act, 1887, to a transferred officer who is not on his transfer or subsequently appointed to a pensionable office in the Post Office, continuous service with the company shall be treated as service in the office to which the officer is first transferred for the purpose of calculating the qualifying periods mentioned in that Section.
      This is a staff matter. It represents a concession which I think will be welcomed by the staff. It provides that service with the company may count towards the qualifying period in regard to gratuities to un-established officers.
      Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday next.

STRIKE IN LONDON.
Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
Mr. PIKE PEASE: Can the Postmaster-General give us any information with regard to the strike in London?
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The information which the Government has at the moment is that, fortunately, almost all the outstanding questions have been settled, and that the main question still in dispute affects the lightermen. Conferences are still proceeding at the Board of Trade, and the Government are not without hope that a settlement of this dispute will be arrived at in the very near future. Should a settlement be arrived at in regard to the lightermen, there is

1523
every reason to believe that the whole of the men now on strike will return to their work.
Sir SAMUEL SCOTT: Have they gone back to work?
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have no information on that point. The main body of the men on strike who have not gone back, pending a settlement with respect to the men whose cases are not yet decided.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: In the unfortunate event of a settlement not being completed, are any arrangements being made with regard to the provisioning of London in the meantime, and to enable those who desire to get provisions to get them? There is really a crisis in that respect, and that is an interesting point upon which information is desired.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Government are taking the fullest steps to safeguard the food supplies of London in any eventuality.
Mr. LEACH: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to impart to the House as to the troops that have been summoned to London?
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot give any information about that.
Mr. BARNES: Do the arrangements which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned cover an arrangement with the carmen? Are they settled to-day?
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, I understand that is so.
Mr. KING: I hope the matter of the troops will not be lost sight of, and the unnecessary irritation that it will cause if there is any suspicion that they may be called up, when now, really, the reason for their presence has gone. I am sure that point ought not to be overlooked.
ADJOURNMENT—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
Adjourned accordingly, at Three minutes before Two o'clock, until Monday next, 14th August.

PETITION PRESENTED.
The following Petition was presented and ordered to lie upon the Table:—
TUESDAY.
Parliament Bill,—Petition from East Fife, in favour of the Lords Amendments.