Commons Sitting of 17 August 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Saint Mary, Radciffe, Rectory Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday, 24th October.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—

Public Health (Scotland) Act (1897) Amendment Bill,

Pensions (Governors of Dominions, etc.), Bill,

Indian High Courts Bill,

Labourers (Ireland) Bill,

Government of India Act (1858) Amendment (No. 2) B+ill,

Wellpark (Glasgow) Church and Parish Quoad Sacra Order Confirmation Bill,

without Amendment.
Old Age Pensions Bill, with an Amendment:—
Amendment to—

National Gallery and St. James's Park Bill [Lords],

Parsonages Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the enfranchisement of the sites of places of worship held under lease." [Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881." [Conveyancing Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to dissolve the marriage of Herbert Watson, of Mount, Nephin, Newtownbreda, in the county of Down, in Ireland, esquire, bachelor of engineering, with Rosanna Gertrude Watson, his now wife, and to enable him to marry again; and for other purposes." [Watson's Divorce Bill [Lords.]
Read the first time; to be read a second time.

OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 24th October.
TRUSTEE (BODIES CORPORATE) BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 24th October.
IRON AND STEEL, 1910.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 16th August; Mr. Sydney Buxton]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
COAL TABLES, 1910.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 16th August; Mr. Sydney Buxton]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
COUNTY COURTS (PLAINTS AND SITTINGS).
Return presented relative thereto [address 16th August; Mr. Masterman]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
Copy presented of Fortieth Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1910–11. Part I. Administration of the Poor Law; the Unemployed Workmen Act; and the Old Age Pensions Act [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LONDON (EQUALISATION OF RATES) ACT, 1894 (ACCOUNTS UNDER SECTION 1 (7) OF THE ACT).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 1st August; Mr. Herbert Lewis]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
POOR RELIEF (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 3rd August; Mr. Herbert Lewis]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
EXTRADITION ACTS, 1870 to 1906.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 8th August, 1911, for giving effect to a Supplementary Convention between the United Kingdom and Belgium for the Mutual Surrender of Fugitive Criminals [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL PRISONERS' REMOVAL ACT, 1884.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 8th August, 1911, entitled The Southern Nigeria Protectorate (Colonial Prisoners' Removal) Order, 1911 (No. 2) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copies presented of five Orders in Council, dated 8th August, 1911, under The Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions Act, 1865 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 4757 to 4759 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CRIMINAL AND JUDICIAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Criminal and Judicial Statistics of Ireland for the year 1910. Part I. Criminal Statistics [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS.
Copy presented of Return of Proceedings of the Irish Land Commission under the Land Law Acts, the Labourers (Ire-
2078
land) Acts, 1883 to 1891, and the Land Purchase Acts during the month of February, 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

Copy presented of Fifty-seventh Report of the Postmaster-General on the Post Office [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL (PART I., NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE).
Copies presented of Reports of Deputations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of further Regulations for the Army Reserve and Special Reserve [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
Copy presented of Report of Proceedings at the Twenty-first Annual Meeting of Representatives of Authorities under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

GROUSE DISEASE (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Report to the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the Nature and Cause of Grouse Disease [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

INQUIRY INTO CHARITIES (COUNTY OF DEVON).
Further Return relative thereto [ordered 26th July, 1905; Mr. Griffith-Boscawen]; to be printed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Alleged Espionage (Arrest in Germany).
  Mr. FELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he could give any information respecting the arrest of Mr. Stewart, an English solicitor, in Germany for alleged espionage; and whether arrangements would be made during the adjournment that his position as an English subject would secure him the protection of the Foreign Office so far as it can be rendered?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for the Uxbridge Division on the 10th inst. There has been no change since that answer was given.
  Mr. FELL: That answer did not apply to the last part of this question.
  Sir E. GREY: This answer did cover the last part of the question, because it contained a statement that the British Embassy at Berlin had been instructed to give what assistance it properly could to the legal representative who would be sent over.

  Arbitration Treaty (Great Britain and United States).
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the present position of the proposed Treaty of arbitration between this country and the United States of America?
  Sir E. GREY: I understand that the Treaty, which was signed at Washington on the 3rd instant, is now before the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate of the United States.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is it a fact that the Senate has inserted Amendments?
  Sir E. GREY: I have seen the statement in the newspapers, but I have no official information of what the Senate has actually done.

  Esperanto Congress.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of the Government to send a delegate to the seventh Esperanto Congress to be held at Antwerp from 20th to the 27th instant; whether he is aware
  2080
  that last year the British Government was unrepresented, but fifteen other Governments, including the United States, were officially represented; and whether this year a special invitation has been received from the Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs?
  Sir E. GREY: I have nothing to add to the answer given by the Prime Minister on 24th July last to the question asked by the hon. Member for Halifax, except to say that His Majesty's Government received an invitation to be represented.

  Egyptian Affairs.
  Mr. ROBERTSONasked whether there is in the Egyptian Administration a statistical bureau; and, if so, whether it can supply figures showing the rise in the cost of the prime necessities of life in Egypt during the past five years; and what, if any, general rise in wages has taken place in the same period?
  Sir E. GREY: There is a "bureau de statistique" attached to the Ministry of Finance, but there is no general statistical bureau in the Egyptian Administration, and when statistics such as the hon. Member asks for in his question are required, they have to be compiled in the different Ministries concerned. As I have explained to the hon. Member, the compilation of such statistics involves a great expenditure of time and labour on the part of the senior officials of the Egyptian Government, in addition to their ordinary administrative work, which is very heavy. I therefore propose to refer the two last portions of the hon. Member's question to His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General at Cairo, in order that he may include a reference to these inquiries in his next Annual Report, so far as material that is easily available enables him to do so.
  Mr. ROBERTSONasked whether any scheme has been entertained by the Egyptian Government for the establishment of a uniform system of weights and measures for the better prevention of frauds?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no information as to any such proposal being under consideration by the Egyptian Government at the present moment.
  Mr. ROBERTSONasked whether the Egyptian Government has yet considered any scheme for the promotion of small tenant holdings of land in Egypt upon State land or for the promotion of other

  2081
  forms of cultivation than that of cotton, in view of the economic dangers of a single crop system; whether, in particular, any effective action has been taken to promote the cultivation of sugar; and whether the Egyptian Government is still resolved to prevent the cultivation of tobacco?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no further information than some that was obtained last year, which I can give at length if desired in reply to an unstarred question.

  Bagdad Railway.
  Mr. LLOYDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether negotiations regarding the Bagdad Railway are now being pursued by His Majesty's Government; and whether, in view of the fact that the House is about to adjourn, and that any settlement must affect important British commercial interests, he will give what information he can regarding any developments that may have occurred since his last statement to the House on the subject?
  Sir E. GREY: Negotiations have, as is well known, been in progress for some time respecting the terms upon which His Majesty's Government will agree to an increase of the Turkish Customs Duties from 11 per cent. to 14 per cent. ad valorem; and, incidentally, these negotiations bear on the Bagdad Railway question. His Majesty's Government have made proposals to the Turkish Government to secure economic equality on the railway, and a definite settlement as regards the region of the Persian Gulf, but the details must remain confidential till the negotiations are concluded.

  Opium Traffic.
  Mr. THEODORE C. TAYLORasked whether the International Conference upon opium and kindred drugs is to be held upon the 16th October next?
  Sir E. GREY: No date has yet been fixed, but it is hoped that the Conference may meet at some time during the spring of next year.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he has received a request from China that she shall be allowed under the terms of agreement of 8th May last to exclude opium from three of her provinces; and, if so, what action he is taking in this matter?
  Sir E. GREY: The Chinese Government have expressed a desire to exclude Indian opium from Manchuria, Shansi, and Szechuan, under Article 3 of the Agreement of 8th May last. His Majesty's Minister in Peking has, with our approval, refused to consider the proposal until he is satisfied that breaches of Article 7 of that Agreement by the Chinese authorities in Canton and Fukien have ceased, and that it is the intention of those authorities to fulfil the terms of the agreement in future.
  Mr. THEODORE C. TAYLORasked what were the stocks of Malwa and of provision opium, respectively, on 1st April last and at the present time; and how many acres, if any, are now being authorised by the Indian Government to be sown with the opium poppy for next year's crop?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu):The stock of Bengal provision opium on 31st March last was returned at 32,598 chests. Deducting the number of chests sold for export to China and elsewhere from April to August, the stock is now about 19,700 chests. Malwa opium stocks are in the hands of traders for the most part resident in native States, and are not returned. They were estimated last year at upwards of 50,000 chests. The area for which licences to cultivate opium will be granted this year has been approximately fixed at 200,000 acres.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the success that has attended the opium policy of the United States in the Philippine Islands and which is attending a similar policy now being carried out by us in Wei Hai Wei, namely, the policy of registration of existing smokers, limiting them in quantity supplied, and of fixing a time limit in which the practice must cease, and further of preventing the commencement of the opium smoking habit on the part of any new victims?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I am, of course, aware of the results of the policy in Wei Hai Wei, but I have no special information as regards the Philippines.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether anything beyond the closing of opium dens has been or is being done in Hong Kong to stop the vice of opium

  2083
  smoking; and whether any efforts in the direction of registration and limitation of old smokers and prevention of the commencement of the habit on the part of new victims are being put forth by the Hong Kong Government?
  Mr. HARCOURT: My hon. Friend will find a full statement of the restrictions on the use of opium in Hong Kong on pages 26 and 27 of the annual report for 1909, Cd. 4964–33. The introduction of a system of registration is impracticable.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the recommendations of the Straits Opium Commission of 1907 are being fully carried out; and whether the policy which has been successful elsewhere, of registering all existing opium smokers, imposing a time limit, and making illegal the commencement of the vice by any fresh victims, has been or will be adopted in the Straits Settlements and in the Federated Malay States?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative, and the answer to the second is in the negative.

  Declaration of London.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, under the provisions of the existing treaties culminating in the Declaration of London, it would be permissible for a foreign merchant ship belonging to a nation at war with Great Britain to pass through the Dardanelles, which are closed to men-of-war, and as soon as she arrives in the Black Sea to mount her guns and prey upon the English merchant ships; whether, in that case, we should still be unable to send an armed cruiser through the Dardanelles for the protection of our merchant ships; and if he will consider what steps can be taken to prevent such a situation?
  Sir E. GREY: The position in regard to the passage of the Dardanelles is not modified by the terms of the Declaration of London. I cannot, without a more careful examination of existing treaties, say what bearing they have upon this point, but in any case the most certain protection must remain that of the British Fleet.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does not the Declaration of London make this difference, that a merchant ship going through laden with munitions of war would, before
  2084
  the Declaration of London, have to go back again out of the Dardanelles to her own country before she could start as a privateer?
  Sir E. GREY: No; the Declaration of London did not affect that point at all. We wanted to effect an agreement on the point, but no agreement was obtained, and the Declaration of London therefore left it alone.

  Government Contracts (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Mr. EDGAR JONESasked the Undersecretary of State for India what steps he proposes to take as to the wages paid on Government contracts at Dowlais works?
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Undersecretary of State for India whether he has yet received a Report from the Fair-Wages Advisory Committee on the district rate of wages for the Dowlais district?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Fair-Wages Advisory Committee have this morning advised the Secretary of State that the wages paid at Dowlais are in their opinion not strictly in conformity with the Fair-Wages Resolution. In these circumstances Messrs. Guest, Keen and Nettle-fold will be informed that no further orders will be placed by the Secretary of State in Council with them at Dowlais until this state of affairs has been remedied.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Up to what standard are these wages to be brought, the Ebbw Vale or what other district?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I cannot say that at present, because the advice that we have received from the Fair-Wages Committee goes no further than that. It was all that was necessary for the moment for taking immediate action. The other matter will be enquired into, but I think the hon. Member will agree that it is very satisfactory, having regard to the pressure on the Board of Trade, to have received this information so expeditiously.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I agree, but I understand the point referred to the Advisory Committee was what district were the Dowlais wages to be compared with for the purposes of the Fair-Wages Clause. Has no decision been come to on that point?
  Mr. MONTAGU: No, not yet.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: Is there any question of the cancellation of the contract?
  Mr. MONTAGU: There is no necessity, I think, to consider the cancellation of any contract. The present contract between the India Office and this firm is a very small one, and, I understand, is almost completed.
  Mr. EDGAR JONESasked the Secretary for the Colonies what steps he proposes to take as to the wages paid on Government contracts at the Dowlais works?
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received a report from the Fair-Wages Advisory Committee concerning the wages rate for Dowlais?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The Fair-Wages Advisory Committee have this morning advised that the wages paid at Dowlais are in their opinion not strictly in conformity with the Fair-Wages Resolution. In these circumstances Messrs. Guest, Keen and Nettlefold will be informed that no further orders will be placed by the Crown Agents with them at Dowlais until this state of affairs has been remedied.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Has any further progress been made by the Advisory Committee in determining what Fair-Wages should be in Dowlais?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Our instructions will be given on the report of the Advisory Committee.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: As the right hon. Gentleman's answer only refers to the Crown Colonies, may I ask whether the Government would have any authority to intervene in regard to contracts made in one of His Majesty's self-Governing Dominions?
  Mr. J. WARD: Would it be possible to advise the Colonies not to make contracts with those firms which pay sweating wages?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I am not sure that it would be wise for me to assume the position of adviser in these matters?
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have already done so. What is the remedy? What wage is to constitute a fair wage? That is the point.
  Mr. HARCOURT: The remedy is if the wages are too low they should be declared.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked whether the Fair-Wages Advisory Committee has yet come to a decision on the questions referred to them by the India and Colonial Offices concerning the rates of wages which should be paid at Dowlais?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Tennant): I am informed that the Committee have this morning communicated to the India Office their views on the point which was referred to them by that Department in a letter dated 14th August.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: What wages are to be paid at Dowlais to the workmen employed there under the provisions of the Fair-Wages Contract? When is an answer expected to that?
  Mr. TENNANT: The answer has been sent by the Committee to the India Office, and I have not by me the actual terms of that letter.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is not it the case that the same answer was some two days ago delivered in this House? The point at issue now really is what wages are to be paid at Dowlais. When is an answer expected to that?
  Mr. TENNANT: My hon. Friend's question on the Paper is whether the Advisory Committee have yet come to a decision on the question. I believe they have.
  Mr. EDGAR JONESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what steps he proposes to take as to the wages paid on Government contracts at the Dowlais works?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The Admiralty has no contracts with the Dowlais works.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked whether the Admiralty adopts a different interpretation of the Fair-Wages Resolution from that followed by the India and Colonial Offices; and whether the First Lord of the Admiralty can recommend a method by which workmen will know when to claim union rates for Government contracts who are being sweated whilst employed on non-Government work; and whether a firm which does not generally pay fair wages is entitled to remain on the approved list of Government contractors?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Admiralty adopts the same interpretation of the Fair-Wages Resolution as that followed by the India and Colonial Offices. It is open to workmen to claim fair rates for Government contracts at any time, irrespective of the rates of pay which they are receiving for non-Government work. I consider that the non-payment of fair wages generally by a firm is a good ground for the non-retention of that firm on the list of Admiralty contractors.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that wages of 18s. a week are being paid by some contractors to the Admiralty?
  Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member will bring to me any case I will submit the circumstances to the Fair-Wages Advisory Committee in order to get their advice upon it.
  Mr. J. WARD: Does the right hon. Gentleman interpret fair wages to be 5d. an hour for poor navvies?
  Mr. McKENNA: That will depend upon the rate of wages paid in the district by the best employers.
  Mr. J. WARD: Did not the right hon. Gentleman state distinctly in this House in answer to a question that he considered 5d. an hour a fair wage?
  Mr. McKENNA: What I said as to the interpretation of the Fair-Wages Clause was that the rate of wages should be such as would be covered by the terms of the Clause.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: May I ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, with regard to sub-contracts, for instance, whether Dowlais steel used by shipbuilding firms is made at wages below the scale?
  Mr. McKENNA: I understand that the steel is not made at Dowlais, but at Cardiff, and that fair wages are paid.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how far steel made upon a scale of wages below the proper scale, and used in other yards, is permitted by the Admiralty?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Fair-Wages Clause applies to sub-contractors as well as to the principal contractors.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: How far is this material which is used traced into other yards where it is worked?
  Mr. McKENNA: I should have notice of that question.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the machinery for holding steel plates at Cardiff is made in Dowlais, and is he aware that those engaged in making that machinery are under the terms of the Fair-Wages Clause?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Fair-Wages Advisory Committee have advised that where plant is mainly or largely used for the purpose of Admiralty contracts, the wages in making the plant must be taken into account, but it depends, according to their advice, whether the plant is mainly or largely used. I have already explained to my hon. Friend that in this case we have not yet been advised as to whether the circumstances of the plant used at Cardiff are such as to enable us to declare that the plant is mainly or largely used in the execution of a Government contract.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I shall raise the question on the third reading of the Appropriation Bill.

  Prison-made Laths (Ireland).
  Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether representations have reached the Local Government Board from the Operative Society of Lath-makers, Dublin, to the effect that foreign prison-made laths are being used in the erection of labourers' cottages in Ireland; and whether any steps will be taken, by representations to the local councils or otherwise, to secure the use of Irish or British made laths in the construction of these cottages?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry): Representations to the effect stated in the question have been made to the Local Government Board. The materials to be used in constructing cottages are, subject to the Board's approval, in the discretion of local authorities, who are aware of the relative value of the materials in the market.
  Mr. HUNT: Are there any other foreign prison-made goods used in Ireland?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: Probably there are.

  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked what balance remains of the reserve fund in aid of evicted tenants in Ireland; and whether, in view of the number of meritorious

  2089
  claims rejected in consequence of some technical objection in reference to the age or want of resources of the applicants, or to the acceptance of some nominal sum by way of compensation, for their eviction, the Lord Lieutenant will issue new regulations empowering the Estates Commissioners to grant gratuities in equitable cases of such a character?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The reserve fund to which the hon. Member refers is exhausted, and the money required by the Estates Commissioners' for the equipment of holdings of reinstated evicted tenants and for the benefit and improvement of estates is now, under the Irish Land Act, 1909, paid out of moneys provided by Parliament in the Vote for the Land Commission. There is no power under the Land Purchase Acts to grant monetary compensation to evicted tenants in lieu of reinstatement.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: In view of the fact that the cost of the Land Commission has been raised to £544,000 a year, has the right hon. Gentleman no word of hope at all for these poor old broken down people?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: Of course the hon. Gentleman will gather from what I have said that there is power to grant money, but it must be provided by Parliament on the Vote for the Land Commission.

  Expedition against Abors.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether an expedition against the Abors has been sanctioned; if so, what is its object; what steps have been taken to obtain satisfaction without fighting; and what instructions have been given to the officer in command?
  Mr. MONTAGU: An expedition will be sent into the Abor country as soon as climatic conditions permit (i.e., probably in the late autumn) to exact reparation for the murder of Mr. Williamson, Dr. Gregorson, and their following. No satisfaction short of that so to be obtained could be given for a premeditated and singularly atrocious crime; but it will rest with the Abors to decide whether there is any fighting. So far as the Secretary of State is aware instructions to the officer in command have not yet been framed.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask what sort of reparation is to be exacted?
  Mr. MONTAGU: My hon. Friend can imagine that this was a hostile act on the part of a whole tribe, which may be described as a savage tribe, and the expedition is to be of a punitive character. It will exact such reparation as the life of a British officer engaged in the discharge of his duty demands.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask if any investigation has been made into the circumstances which led to the killing of the officer?
  Mr. MONTAGU: If the hon. Member was aware of the sort of country and of the state of civilisation of the tribe, he would see that there is no case for the possibility of a committee of inquiry.

  Government of India (Promotions).
  Mr. CROFTasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has yet ascertained whether Lieutenant-Colonel Bannerman has been promoted to the rank of surgeon-general in Madras; and, if so, what reasons he can give for the promotion of this officer over the heads of others of wider experience and greater service?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I have nothing to add to my previous reply on this subject on the 10th of July.
  Mr. CROFT: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that a report has appeared stating that Lieutenant-Colonel Bannerman has received the appointment?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I have not seen the report to which the hon. Member refers, but I may state that the appointment is one in the discretion of the Government of India. They have not yet reported as to the appointment.
  Mr. CROFT: Will the hon. Gentleman make instant inquiry on this question, with the view to informing the House?
  Mr. MONTAGU: When the appointment has been made the Government of India will report the fact to the Secretary of State that this has been done, and there will then be an opportunity for those who consider themselves aggrieved to memorialise the Secretary of State against the appointment.

  India (Midnapore Magistrates).
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Undersecretary of State for India whether the magistrate and police officers in Bengal against whom Mr. Justice Fletcher has

  2091
  recently given judgment in the Midnapore case are the same persons upon whom the High Court of Calcutta made serious comments in 1909; whether the issues before the two courts were in the main the same in respect of the conduct of these officers; whether more than £20,000 of public money has already been spent by the Government of Bengal in defending them; whether it is now proposed to place further public funds at their disposal for an appeal; and can he say what precedent there is for such procedure on the part of the Government of Bengal?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes." The answer to the second part is "No": the conduct of the police was not an issue before the court in the first trial. As regards the last part of the question I have nothing to add to my answer of last Thursday.
  Sir W. BYLES: I understand that decorations have been granted to the police. May I ask my hon. Friend to answer the last part of the question? Do I understand my hon. Friend to say that after £20,000 of public money has already been spent by the Government of Bengal to obtain justice they are to be asked to spend still more?
  Mr. MONTAGU: There is nothing about decorations in this. With regard to the expenditure of public money, I informed the House on Thursday last that I had not received the report of the trial. I have no information yet.
  Sir W. BYLESasked the Undersecretary of State for India whether the two police officers against whom Mr. Justice Fletcher recently gave judgment in the Midnapur case, at Calcutta, were the same officers who were recommended for special honours at the hands of the Sovereign last year; whether he can state by whose advice and upon what grounds such honours were conferred; and whether it was known at the time by the Government of Bengal that these officers had been publicly censured by the High Court of Calcutta a few months before in a judgment delivered by the Chief Justice of Bengal?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The two officers are the same. The latter part of my hon. Friend's question was fully covered in the reply given to the junior Member for Merthyr Tydvil on 26th July, 1910.
  Sir W. BYLES: My hon. Friend did not say whether the decorations have been withdrawn?
  Mr. MONTAGU: They have not been withdrawn, and nothing will be done to prejudice the position of these officers.

  Transvaal.
  Mr. ROBERTSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any reply to his representations to the Government of the Union of South Africa as to the effect of the operation of certain clauses of the Transvaal Gold Law, the Townships Amendment Act, and the Draft Municipalities Ordinance upon. British-Indian interests in the province; and whether he will state the nature of the reply, if any?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have addressed several despatches of inquiry to the Governor-General, but there has not yet been time to receive a reply.

  Crown Colonies (Contracts).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the firm of Marshall, Sons, and Company, Gainsborough, contractors to Crown agents and the Government, have discharged all their workmen who are members of the Boiler Makers' Union and refuse to employ any but non-union men; and whether he will make inquiries as to whether the Fair-Wages Clause is being observed?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir; but inquiries shall be made.

  Sub-Post Offices (Pay).
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked the Postmaster-General if there are any scale payment sub-offices where the gross emoluments of the sub-postmaster exceed £200 a year; if so, how many; and will he also state what conditions govern the transfer or non-transfer of such scale payment sub-offices to the salaried class?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): There are 536 scale payment sub-offices where the gross emoluments of the sub-postmaster exceed £200 a year. In accordance with the recommendation contained in paragraph 531 of the report of the Parliamentary Committee the question of converting scale payment sub-offices into salaried sub-offices is considered when the gross emoluments exceed £250 in the provinces and £500 in London.

  2093
  The change is not made as a matter of course when these limits are exceeded, but each case is considered on its merits.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked if it is the duty of the sub-postmaster at those rural sub-offices from which deliveries by postmen are made to sort the incoming letters into postmen's walks; and what remuneration attaches to this work?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is the duty of the sub-postmasters at some of the offices in question to provide for the sorting of incoming letters. The work is included in the general work of the office, which is remunerated on the scale approved by the Parliamentary Committee. At a number of sub-offices the work of sorting inward letters is done by postmen, and this practice is being extended gradually as circumstances permit.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked if it is the duty of scale payment sub-postmasters at country offices to provide out of their gross emoluments for the facing up, date stamping, and tieing up in bundles of letters posted at the sub-office and despatched thence in sealed bags; whether the remuneration per bag despatched at offices where the average number of letters per bag is very high is greater than at offices where the average number of letters per bag despatched is very low; and at whose expense the string used in tying up the bundles is provided?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is the duty of the sub-postmasters in question to provide for the items of work referred to in cases where sealed bags are made up. The remuneration of sub-postmasters is based upon the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee, and includes credit in respect of sealed bags calculated on the number of bags dealt with and not on the number of letters in each bag; but additional credit and remuneration are given to sub-postmasters who sort the correspondence into divisions. The string is provided by the sub-postmasters.

  Board of Trade (Reports on Accidents).
  Mr. WARDLEasked whether any steps can be taken to expedite the preparation and publication of the Reports on accidents which the Board's inspectors are instructed to make?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware that there is any undue delay in the issue of
  2094
  these Reports, but if my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind I shall be glad if he will communicate with me.

  Labour Exchanges (Kilkenny).
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIENasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can say what steps, if any, have been taken for providing a building and engaging a staff for the projected labour exchange in Kilkenny; and when the exchange is likely to be in working operation?
  Mr. TENNANT: Premises for a labour exchange have been acquired in Kilkenny and the necessary alterations have been almost completed. The staff have now been appointed, and it is hoped that the exchange will commence operations in a month's time.

  Railway Accident (Kilkenny).
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIENasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet received the report of the Board of Trade inspector directed to inspect the Great Southern and Western Railway Station at Kilkenny, where a man named Michael Delahunty was killed on 28th June last, and in which case the coroner's jury found that the railway authorities wore guilty of gross negligence in not providing proper facilities for the public between the various platforms, in not keeping the station properly lighted, and in not providing sufficient booking offices; and whether he will give the report of the inspector on these allegations?
  Mr. TENNANT: An inspecting officer has visited Kilkenny Station, but his report has not yet been received. As soon as the Board of Trade have had an opportunity of considering any recommendations that he may make I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

  Unemployment.
  Mr. HUNTasked whether the percentage of unemployment was greater from 1st January, 1906, to 1st January, 1911, than from 1st January, 1901, to 1st January, 1906?
  Mr. TENNANT: The mean of the monthly percentages of unemployment in certain trade unions in the five years ending 1905 was 4.6 as compared with 5.5 in the five years ending 1910. During 1911 the percentage has varied from 3.9 to 2.5, the mean of the seven months ending 31st July being 3.1.

  Egypt (German Exports).
  Mr. CROFTasked what is the value of British and German exports to Egypt during the last completed year; what was the value twenty years ago; and what is the increase per cent. of British and German exports to Egypt during the last twenty years?
  Mr. TENNANT: The value of domestic produce and manufactures exported from the United Kingdom to Egypt was, in 1891 £3,780,000, and in 1910 £8,717,000, being an increase of £4,928,000, or 130 per cent. The value of the corresponding exports from Germany to Egypt was, in 1891 £307,000, and in 1910 £1,679,000, an increase of £1,372,000, or 447 per cent.

  House of Lords Reform.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether he can now say when he proposes to set up an elected senate?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. HUNT: Are we to understand that the rights and liberties of the people are to be under the tyranny of an accidental majority in this House for an indefinite time?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That savours of a peroration.
  Mr. HUNT: Are we to have the pleasure of seeing the Prime Minister back in the House?
  Mr. PAGETasked the Prime Minister at what date he proposes to introduce a Bill to carry into effect the intention expressed in the Preamble of the Parliament Bill, to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It would be premature to give any answer to this question.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is to be before or after Home Rule?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a question that I could not undertake to answer. There is no intention of introducing a Home Rule Bill this Session.
  Mr. CROFT: Is there any intention whatever of amending the Second Chamber now?

  Labour Exchanges.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that, in spite of the fact that the Board of Trade have given assurances that the Labour Exchanges would not interfere with domestic servants' agencies, the exchanges are now advertising in their windows numerous vacancies for domestic servants; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?
  Mr. TENNANT: Managers of exchanges are instructed not to accept notification of vacancies for indoor domestic servants for private houses. I am not aware that any action contravening this instruction has been taken, but if the hon. Member has any specific instance in his mind and will bring it to my notice I will cause inquiry to be made.
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTSasked whether the advisory committee of the Liverpool district, which controls the Labour Exchanges of Liverpool, Birken-head, Warrington, St. Helens, and South-port, permits any trade union or friendly society to hold its business meeting in the Labour exchange premises for the nominal charge of 1s. per meeting; and to what extent the same course is adopted by other advisory committees?
  Mr. TENNANT: The Liverpool and District Advisory Trade Committee have dealt with applications from trade unions under Section VIII. 1. of the General Regulations (copy of which I am sending my hon. Friend) and have approved of the use of rooms in Labour Exchanges in Birken-head, Bootle, Liverpool, St. Helens, and Warrington. I understand that several other advisory committees are adopting the same course. The rate charged is one shilling per meeting.

  Fatal Tramcar Accident (Dublin).
  Mr. CLANCYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the case of a young girl named Elizabeth Johnston, who was burnt to death while travelling on the top of a tramcar in Dublin in July last; whether at the inquest, while no direct evidence was given as to the cause of the burning, two theories were suggested, namely, one that it was caused by an electric spark from the trolley, the other that it was caused by someone smoking and throwing away a lighted cigarette; whether he is aware that the relatives of the unfortunate girl are anxious for a

  2097
  sworn inquiry as to the origin of the accident, and that many other persons share that desire; and whether, under all the circumstances, he will, in the public interest, direct an inquiry to be held into the question at issue, in regard to which the coroner's jury returned an open verdict?
  Mr. TENNANT: When a report of this accident was received the question of holding an inquiry was considered, but the Board of Trade were advised that there was no reason to suppose that the accident could have been due to any electrical defect. In these circumstances an inquiry by the Board of Trade in addition to that held by the coroner did not appear to be necessary.

  Caerphilly Cheese.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that a large quantity of skim-milk cheese is being sold in London and elsewhere under the name of Caerphilly cheese; whether he is aware that genuine Caerphilly cheese is a whole-milk cheese, and its producers in Monmouthshire and Glamorganshire are suffering loss through the sale of an inferior article under the same name; and whether, in view of the fact that under all conditions a whole-milk cheese shows on analysis an excess of butter-fat over casein, any steps can be taken under the Food and Drugs Acts, or otherwise, to put a stop to such fraudulent sales?
  Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): Enquiry is being made as to this matter, the result of which I shall be happy to communicate to the hon. Member.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Will inquiry be translated into action?

  Straw Crop.
  Mr. WILKIEasked whether, in view of the very short crop this year of straw in this country, there is any early prospect of the embargo on French straw being removed?
  Mr. GULLAND: Foot-and-mouth disease is still very prevalent in France, and my reply must, therefore, be in the negative.

  Fox Preserves (Loss of Poultry).
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked whether the Board of Agriculture has received from the Poultry Keepers Protection Society a letter calling his attention to the injury done to smallholders and other poultry keepers by the increasing number of foxes preserved in England and to the increase
  2098
  in the losses of poultry due to the depredations of these animals; whether the society have directed his attention to the fact that some hunts ignore poultry claims, and that the Southdown Hunt, whilst preserving quite three times the number of foxes that it can adequately deal with in the hunting season, yet refuses compensation to any poultry keepers except farmers over whose land the hunt rides and the employés of such; whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture is aware that the society also complains of the increasing importation of alien foxes; and whether, having regard to the manner in which the poultry-raising industry is threatened by this state of affairs, he will state what reply he proposes to make to the representations of the society?
  Mr. GULLAND: The Board have received the letter to which my hon. Friend refers, and inquiry is being made with regard to it.

  Darenth Asylum (Hours of Stokers).
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he can now state the result of his inquiries into the change made in the arrangements of working hours of stokers at the Darenth Asylum under the Metropolitan Asylums Board?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I learn that instructions have been given by the clerk to the managers that their resolution as to hours of labour is to be interpreted in the most liberal fashion. The matter will be further considered by the managers after the Recess.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire why the eight hours were taken away.
  Mr. BURNSwas understood to indicate assent.

  Hollesley Bay Labour Colony.
  Mr. LANSBURYasked what is the total number of men who have received temporary assistance at Hollesley Bay labour colony since it has been under the control of the Central (Unemployed) Body for London; the number of men selected for training, the number of such men who have been emigrated, and the number of such men who have obtained work in the United Kingdom, together with the number of their dependents; the total cost of relieving men and their families temporarily, and the total cost for training men

  2099
  either for emigration or other work; and will the President of the Local Government Board state the net weekly cost of maintenance per man resident in the colony after taking account of receipts from sales and estate improvements, and the average cost per family maintained in London?
  Mr. BURNS: I am making inquiry of the Central (Unemployed) Body with a view to obtaining the statistics for which my hon. Friend asks so far as they are available, and I will inform him of the result.

  Unemployed Workmen's Act (Emigration).
  Mr. HUNTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman has received a request from the British Immigration League of Australia asking that the authorities in Great Britain will extend the operations of the Unemployed Workmen's Act so that it may cover the whole of the United Kingdom, as it will be the means of allowing many people to emigrate who are now unable to do so, and so be of benefit both to the Mother-country and also to the British Dominions; and whether he intends to take any action to bring about this result?
  Mr. BURNS: I have received a copy of a resolution passed by the British Immigration League of Australia to the effect referred to. It is proposed by the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill that the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, should be continued in force in its present form until 31st December, 1912. I could not promise to introduce amending legislation on the subject at the present time.
  Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Australian Immigration League only want to take the surplus unemployed in the towns, and are we to understand that at present, under normal conditions, there is no want of regular employment in the towns of the country?
  Mr. BURNS: I do not think that question arises out of my answer.
  Mr. HUNT: If there is no employment in the towns, would it not be better for men to go to Australia, where there is employment to be obtained?
  Mr. BURNS: There will be the local distress committee to consider each particular case.

  Consumption (Alleged Cure).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether Dr. Kaye medical officer of health
  2100
  to the West Riding County Council, was requested by the President of the Local Government Board to visit a maggot farm and inquire there into the alleged cure for consumption resulting from the inhalation of the trimethylamina and ammonia issuing from maggots found in putrifying meat; and, if so, what was the result of such inquiry?
  Mr. BURNS: As I informed the hon. Member in answer to a similar question on 1st August, I have made no such request to Dr. Kaye.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has been repeatedly stated at meetings of local authorities that he made that request?
  Mr. BURNSYes; and I have just as repeatedly contradicted it.

  Damage to Destroyers (Irish Coast).
  Mr. FELLasked if the cause of the damage to the five destroyers off the coast of Ireland has now been ascertained; if the damage has been repaired; and are the boats now ready to take part in the autumn cruises?
  Mr. McKENNA: The damage was caused during a full-speed trial which was stopped before it had been completed on account of the severe weather conditions. The five vessels affected are now under repair and are expected to be ready for sea next month.

  Hyde Park Corner.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the hon. Member for Southampton, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that the road across Hyde Park from Victoria Gate to Alexandra Gate was closed to vehicular traffic on the morning of Tuesday, 15th August, presumably for repairs, notwithstanding the fact that the road was then intact, no stone having been turned; and whether, having regard to the inconvenience to the public in being unable to drive across the park for a period of some weeks while the road is under repair, he will arrange that the road be divided lengthwise, so that one half only of the road be closed at a time, as is done generally when other roads, both in London and in the country, are being repaired?
  TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Dudley Ward): The First Commissioner regrets the inconvenience which must always be felt by the public when repairs of this kind take place. This road

  2101
  was closed on 15th August, and work was begun on the same day at 10 a.m. The alteration in method suggested by the hon. Member would be expensive and unsatisfactory, but the First Commissioner is trying to minimise the public inconvenience by hurrying on the work as much as possible.

  House of Commons (Members' Rooms).
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked whether the Department will consider during the coming recess if some rearrangement of the rooms chiefly used by Members of the House would contribute to their convenience, and particularly that all the dining-rooms, which are only visited once or twice a day, should be located in the far corridor, and the Members' smoking-room, to which brief and frequent visits are made, and which is much used as a convenient waiting-room for Divisions, should be brought next to the smoking library, or to some other place nearer the debating chamber?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: The First Commissioner will be glad to consider the matter, which must, however, be decided by the general wishes of the House.

  School Gardens (Manual Instruction).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the difficulty which is being experienced in many parts of the country in obtaining land adjacent to public elementary schools for the purposes of school gardens and manual instruction, he will consider the advisability of including the consideration of this problem in the terms of reference to the Departmental Committee recently appointed to consider the provision and extension of playground accommodation for such schools?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis, for Mr. Runciman): I am anxious that the Inquiry of the Departmental Committee on School Playgrounds should be as short and businesslike as possible, and that their report on a matter of great practical importance to local education authorities and managers of schools should not be delayed. I am, therefore, very reluctant to widen the terms of reference so as to include anything which is not strictly connected with the specific problem referred to the Committee. I am very greatly interested in the development of school gardens and manual instruction, and shall feel obliged
  2102
  if the hon. Member will inform me of any cases within his knowledge in which the efforts of local education authorities to develop either of these branches of instruction have been frustrated by the difficulty to which the hon. Member refers.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in many cases the school gardens are part of the playgrounds, and therefore it is difficult to keep the two problems distinct.
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: I will communicate with my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. KING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the difficulty of getting land for educational purposes is not confined only to the country districts, but that there is an urban difficulty also?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: I am aware of the difficulty.

  National Competition Exhibition.
  Mr. GRANTasked if the President of the Board of Education is aware that the National Competition Exhibition is being held in iron buildings, inadequate in size for the purpose and with a temperature so high as to inconvenience visitors; and if he can state why this exhibition is not housed in the space originally provided for it in the Victoria and Albert Museum?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: It is not the case that any particular space was provided for the National Competition in the new buildings for the Victoria and Albert Museum. With regard to the rest of the question I have nothing to add to the answers I gave to the hon. Member on the 6th and 31st March last on this question.
  Mr. GRANT: Does the hon. Gentleman consider the present building satisfactory?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: It is the best possible under the circumstances.

  Coronation Ambulance Arrangements.
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that the ambulance arrangements at the Coronation were made by the police, he will state how many members of voluntary aid detachments of the Red Cross Society did duty at the Coronation, and how many members of the St. John's Ambulance Brigade?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): Two thousand one hundred and forty-two

  2103
  members of the St. John Ambulance Brigade did duty on June 22nd. The Red Cross Society offered its services, but the offer was subsequently withdrawn, as it was found impossible to ensure the attendance of a sufficient number of detachments with the requisite uniform. In consequence, no members of the voluntary aid detachments of the Red Cross Society did duty.

  Clapham Murder Trial (Police-constable Greaves).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Home Secretary whether, having regard to the fact that the Assistant Commissioner of Police promised with reference to the letter Police-constable Greaves had written to Stinie Morrison's counsel that if the letter was written in good faith his (Greave's) career would be in no way affected, and that Police-constable Greaves, prior to his transfer to Pinner, had been attending for eight months classes for instruction in the Yiddish language, and had been studying that language in his own time, with a view to qualifying for the position of interpreter at a police station, and that it is impossible for Greaves to secure such appointment whilst at Pinner, he will see that the promise of the Assistant Commissioner is carried out; and whether he will direct that Police-constable Greaves be returned to his former division, where his prospects would remain unchanged?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot add anything to the answer I gave the hon. Member on the 7th instant.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the locality there is discontent on account of the bad treatment this constable has received?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No; I am not aware that there is any discontent.

  Flogging Sentence (Liverpool).
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Home Secretary whether the new Recorder of Liverpool, Mr. Hemmerde, K.C., has just sentenced a young man, Edward Gillibanks, to twenty-five strokes with the birch, in addition to twelve months' hard labour, for being an incorrigible rogue; and whether, in view of the effect of this form of punishment, he will consider the desirability of proposing the repeal of the Vagrancy Act?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The prisoner in this case was, I understand, a man who had corrupted a girl of fifteen, and for the second time had been convicted of living on the earnings of her prostitution. I cannot say that I think the punishment inflicted on him supplies an argument for repealing the Vagrancy Act.
  Sir W. BYLES: Is it necessary to suggest that the questioner is in sympathy with such crimes as this, and was not that the object of the right hon. Gentleman, not in his answer to-day, but on previous days where anybody objects to that punishment, in drawing attention to the nature of the crime which has nothing whatever to do with the question.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I can assure the House and my hon. Friend that nothing was further from my thoughts or from my words than to suggest that he had the slightest sympathy with the odious character, but it is necessary to state what the offence is in order to justify the very proper and salutary punishment.
  Sir W. BYLES: What I want to get at is whether it is possible to get rid of this degrading method of punishment. I want some answer from the Home Office on this question.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have given my answer. I think it is very proper punishment.
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Section 10 of the Vagrancy Act of 1824 lays down no restriction whatever as to the amount of flogging, or as to the manner in which it is to be inflicted, or as to the instrument by which it is to be inflicted, and whether he will consider the advisability of repealing that part of the Section?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of an important question of that kind.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman says that this punishment was inflicted for the offence of seducing a girl of the age of fifteen?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The man was convicted of being a rogue and vagabond, living on the earnings of prostitution, and what adds to the gravity of the offence is the youth of the girl with whom he was living. Under those circumstances I think

  2105
  the Recorder, whom we all know is thoroughly in touch with the opinion of this House, acted entirely properly.
  Sir W. BYLES: Is it the view of the Home Office that any young man of twenty-six who is physically healthy is incorrigible?

  Public Libraries Act.
  Mr. BRADYasked the Home Secretary whether he is prepared to grant the Return standing in the name of the hon. Member for the St. Stephen's Green Division of Dublin?
  [The following was the Notice of Motion referred to: Mr. Brady,—Public Libraries Acts,—Return showing the names of all places in England, in Scotland, and in Ireland, in which the Public Libraries Acts had been adopted prior to the 25th day of March, 1911, with Tables showing for each place its population according to the latest available Census; the date of adoption; date of opening the Library; date of opening branches, if any; date of opening Museum and Art Gallery, if any; number of volumes in Reference Library, in Lending Library, and in. branches on the 25th day of March, 1911; number of volumes issued in the year ended on that day; average daily attendance in Reading Rooms during that year; income and expenditure during that year, distinguishing income from other sources than public rate, if any (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 5, of Session 1890–91.]
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Return will be granted, subject to slight amendments respecting which I will write to the hon. Member.

  Payment of Members.
  Mr. BOOTHasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether under the Vote providing payment of Members of this House it was intended that the term Ministers should refer only to those Members of the Government who hold office direct from the Crown; and whether a Treasury Minute will be issued excluding the Patronage Secretary, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Financial Secretary for War, and the various under-secretaries from participation in the Vote of £400 per annum for each non-salaried Member of the House?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): (1) The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. (2) The term "Minis-
  2106
  ters" includes all Members of His Majesty's Government, whether holding office direct from the Crown or under other Ministers. The Ministers mentioned in the question will therefore be excluded from receipt of salaries as Members of Parliament by the terms of the Grant, without any special direction by the Treasury.
  Mr. BOOTH: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any authority whatever for his statement other than his own view?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: If my hon. Friend will look at Standing Order No. 9 he will find the term "Minister" used in the sense I have referred to.
  Mr. BOOTHasked whether it was the intention of the Government, in moving the Resolution passed by this House on the 10th of August relative to the payment of Members, that the definition as a Minister contained therein should be confined to Members of the Cabinet, the Law Officers of the Crown in England, Ireland and Scotland, or if it was intended in future that the paid and unpaid Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, the Under-Secretary of the Home Office, the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, the Under-Secretary for India, the Financial Secretary for War, the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade should take the rank of Minister?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The term "Minister" employed in the Resolution includes the persons referred to in the latter portion of the question.
  Mr. BOOTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reply given a few minutes ago is entirely erroneous, and that Standing Order No. 9 gives no definition whatever of "Minister"?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not know to what answer my hon. Friend refers.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to exclude the unpaid Lords of the Treasury, who are certainly Ministers of the Crown, from the payment which every other unpaid Member of the House is to receive?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should not like to answer that question straight away without consideration. I should have thought they would have been included.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that Lords of the Treasury, unlike Secretaries of the Treasury, are Ministers of the Crown, and that they are therefore excluded by the express words of the Resolution which the House has carried? Is that the intention?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will consider that. There is only one unpaid Lord of the Treasury.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that even at this stage he had better bring in a Bill to deal with the matter?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the right hon. Gentleman might realise, before putting that question, that it is not necessary to bring in a Bill; it could easily be amended in the Resolution itself. It is quite unnecessary to bring in a Bill for the purpose.
  Viscount WOLMER: May I ask whether the hon. Member for North Ayrshire (Mr. A. M. Anderson) and the hon. Member for Wick Burghs (Mr. Munro) will receive their salaries, as they are Advocates-Depute and receive salaries of £700 a year?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Perhaps the Noble Lord will put down a question on the point.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Who will be the person to decide these points? Will the £250,000 be handed over to Mr. Gibbons, a clerk of this House—a distinguished officer of this House, I agree—for distribution amongst us, and will Mr. Gibbons decide these points?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Gentleman referred to will be acting under the direction of Mr. Speaker, who will be the ultimate judge in all these matters.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you would be good enough to inform the House whether you are the ultimate judge of what is proper to be done by the Accounting Officer of this House?
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: And may I ask whether you have been consulted as to whether you were willing to undertake this extraordinary task?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I had better say nothing on the last question. With regard to the former, I think the matter stands thus. The Accounting Officer, Mr. Gibbons.
  2108
  is responsible, but if he were to be in any difficulty he would come to me, and I should give him the best advice I could. If I was in any difficulty I should go to the Treasury. I should do my best to carry out the Resolution, but it would always be open at the proper time, if it was not properly administered, to bring the matter up for consideration.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will the Comptroller and Auditor-General exercise his functions over this fund?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I take it that this will not be any exception.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Will you take into consideration the fact that the Minister referred to as the only unpaid Lord of the Treasury, is one of the Chief Whips on the Government side, and therefore has a lot of extra work to do?
  Mr. SPEAKER: We have all a good deal of extra work to do now.

  Development Commission (Forestry).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the statement in the First Annual Report of the Development Commissioners that the provision of effective education in forestry at suitable centres must be a condition precedent to I he adoption by them of any national afforestation scheme or the allocation of any grant out of the Development Fund for such purpose, the Government, through the Office of Woods and Forests, the Board of Agriculture, or the Board of Education are taking any, and, if any, what, steps to increase forthwith by suitable scientific education the number of trained men in this country capable of directing forestry operations on a large scale?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Development Commissioners have before them applications from the Board of Agriculture, the Scotch Education Department, and the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland, which include proposals for giving increased facilities for the education of forestry experts; but I am not yet in a position to state what the final form of these schemes will be.

  Income Tax.
  Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESasked whether it is the practice, in cases of persons of small means whose income is partly derived from property and partly earned, to

  2109
  assess the whole less the statutory deduction at 1s. 2d. in the £, or on the same basis as if it was all unearned?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Under the provisions of Section 19 (2) of the Finance Act, 1907, and Section 68 (3) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, the statutory allowances to which a person may be entitled are in the first instance to be deducted, so far as is possible, from such person's earned income. If the earned income is exhausted by the deduction of these allowances, the remainder of the income, being unearned, is chargeable at 1s. 2d. in the £, but if there is any balance of earned income it is chargeable at 9d. in the £, provided a claim to the lower rate has been duly made and allowed.
  Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESasked, in the case of a person whose entire income is £250 per annum, of which £100 is derived from property and £150 earned, what proportion should be charged 9d. in the £ and what proportion 1s. 2d.?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: After allowance of the statutory abatement of £160, the amount chargeable at 9d. in the £ would be nil, and the amount chargeable at 1s. 2d. would be £90.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked what were the realised amounts during the last completed financial year of the additional burdens thrown upon agricultural landowners by way of Super-tax and increases of Income Tax and Death Duties by the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As regards Super-tax, Income Tax, and Succession Duty the information asked for with regard to agricultural landowners is not available. The additional Estate Duty chargeable under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, on agricultural land for the year 1910-11 amounts approximately to £125,000.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman remembers that ho carefully estimated those increased burdens at an aggregate amount of £880,000, and whether in view of that estimate, the amount has been exceeded or not?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have no recollection of that Estimate. I think it was an Estimate made before the concession on Schedule A.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has nothing whatever to do with the concession under Schedule A? He carefully estimated this on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill in 1909?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree. The hon. Gentleman is confirming what I said. I said that the statement was made before the concession under Schedule A, which I made in Committee on the Bill, and which amounts to some hundreds of thousands of pounds a year. That would reduce the amount very considerably.

  Government Printing Contracts.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked what was the annual value of the printing work done for the Stationery Office by Messrs. Wyman in 1910-11; whether this work is tendered for annually, or at what periods; if at periods of more than one year, on what notice the contracts terminate; and how many firms are invited to tender?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The value of the printing work done for the Stationery Office by Messrs. Wyman in the year 1910–11 was about £27,000. The work was provided for in nine contracts, the terms of three of which have run out, subject to the completion of outstanding work. The current contracts held by the firm run generally for five years, and are subject to termination in some cases at twelve months' notice and in others at six months' notice. Tenders for the contracts (with one exception) were invited by advertisement in the newspapers, as well as by letter addressed to firms selected from a list which is kept at the Stationery Office. The exception was a contract involving a not very considerable amount of work. In this case the contract was not advertised, but invitations to tender were sent out to some 150 firms.

  House of Commons (Sessional Employés).
  Mr. STEPHEN WALSHasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that certain employés of this House, known as sessional men, have been informed that no work can be provided for them after the House adjourns until the Session is resumed in the autumn; and whether an effort will be made to provide them with work during the Recess in accordance with the implied conditions of their service?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The men referred to in the question engaged only for the

  2111
  Session, with no other conditions of service. They will benefit by the Autumn Session, and the usual effort has been made to provide them with work during the Recess in other Departments.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

    POSITION OF REGISTERED FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
    Mr. ROWNTREEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under Clause 55 of the National Insurance Bill, registered friendly societies which do not apply to become approved societies will be required to submit a scheme for the application of their funds on the lines laid down in the Clause?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The reply is in the affirmative.

    SICKNESS BENEFITS.
    Mr. ROWNTREEasked (1), under the operation of Clause 27 of the National Insurance Bill, what means will be adopted to ascertain the total amount of sickness benefits which a sick member is receiving independently of the Act; and (2), under the operation of Clause 27 of the National Insurance Bill, what means will be adopted to ascertain the weekly income of voluntary contributors who are engaged in some regular occupation and are wholly or mainly dependent for their livelihood on the earnings derived by them from that occupation?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The matters referred to in this and the next question on the Paper in my hon. Friend's name can be dealt with most suitably by means of regulations.

  LABOUR DISPUTES.
  Mr. BOOTHasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the dispute between the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway and the farmers in the district of Womersley; whether he is aware that a claim has been made by a farmer in connection with delays at Woodall crossing; whether he has official information showing that the inconvenience caused to users of the public road is due to insufficient signalling arrangements; and whether he can see his way to take any action for the safety and convenience of the public?
  Mr. TENNANT: I have asked the railway company for their observations in
  2112
  this matter, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend upon receipt of their reply.
  Mr. HUNTasked whether the net wages of labour have increased or decreased or remained stationary since the 1st December, 1905; and whether, in view of the admitted increase in the cost of living for the working classes during recent years, he has any official estimates showing whether the rates of wages obtained in this month of this year enables the working classes to live in greater comfort than in August, 1905?
  Mr. TENNANT: During the six years ending 31st July, 1911, the wages index number rose from 97.1 to 100.3, while the index number showing changes in the prices of food in London rose from 102.8 to 108.1 The unemployment percentage at the end of July, 1905, was 4.7, and is now 2.9.
  Mr. J. WARD: Is it a fact that during the whole of this year the total wealth of the country has accumulated greatly beyond any improvement in the condition of the working classes?
  Mr. TENNANT: I believe that to be accurate, but I would like notice, in order to give accurate figures.
  Mr. HUNT: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?
  Mr. TENNANT: I really must leave that to the imagination of the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. HUNT: Is it not a fact that the conditions of the working people have got worse since the Liberal Government came in?
  Mr. TENNANT: It is obviously the fact that the amount of unemployment has diminished very much.
  Mr. LLOYD: May we press for an answer to the last part of the question on the Paper?
  Mr. TENNANT: It is fully covered by my answer.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is it a fact that hon. Gentlemen opposite are anxious to use the military in pending disputes?
  Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time for debate.
  BARON de FORESTasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the Motion standing in the name of the Member for West Ham North;

  2113
  and whether he will give the House the opportunity of discussing the same at an early date after the Recess?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot give any such undertaking.
  BARON de FOREST: Is my right hon. Friend aware that almost all the social legislation to which much of the time of this House is devoted is vitiated and rendered practically futile because the cause to which the Motion refers is not established as it may be established?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend raises a very big question that I could not possibly discuss by way of question and answer.
  Colonel YATEasked for what period Mr. H. Gosling was appointed by the Board of Trade a member of the Port of London Authority; whether, when the time arrives for the consideration of the advisability of re-appointing Mr. Gosling for a further period, the Board of Trade will take into consideration the conduct of Mr. Gosling during the present strike which, in the opinion of many of those concerned, has been prejudicial to the interests of the Port of London, which interests he was appointed to serve?
  Mr. TENNANT: Mr. Gosling's present appointment on the Port of London Authority will terminate on 1st April, 1913. It is obvious that I cannot say how the power of the Board of Trade in the matter of appointments will be exercised in two years' time.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is any charge made by the Board of Trade against Mr. Gosling in his capacity as member of the Port of London Authority?
  Mr. TENNANT: No, none.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the invaluable services rendered by Mr. Gosling during the last fortnight?
  Colonel YATE: Is this Mr. Gosling the same Mr. Gosling who placarded the walls all over the country at the last election but one with statements that we starved the children of London?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am not at all aware to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers. In reply to the hon. Member for South-West Ham I believe that the efforts of Mr. Gosling have been entirely for good.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I ask the Under-Secretary for War whether his Department has considered the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1908, in reference to the employment of the military in civil disturbances, especially the recommendation that more adequate warning should be given to the crowd, before firing takes place.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): Yes; as a result of the recommendations of the Select Committee referred to, the King's Regulations respecting the duties of troops in aid of the civil power were amended by an Army Order in 1909 in order to emphasise the duties and responsibilities of the officers commanding under common law. With regard to the latter part of the question, where it is practicable, before the reading of the Proclamation under the Riot Act the attention of the crowd will be drawn by the sounding of a bugle to the fact that the Proclamation is about to be read, and orders have been issued accordingly.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Was that done in the case of the unfortunate occurrences in Liverpool?
  Colonel SEELY: No, Sir; the orders in regard to this special warning when the Riot Act is about to be read have only been issued this afternoon. All the authorities were not agreed as to the advisability of adopting this method, but on the balance of opinion it has been decided that it is best, if possible, to sound a bugle in order to call attention to the fact.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered whether it would be advisable that the first volley fired should be of blank cartridge in order that those in the neighbourhood should know that firing is about to take place?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think that that would be a wise policy at all. It might lead to further loss of life. If my hon. Friend will read the reports of what has taken place in past years he will see that upon at least one occasion the firing of a volley was attended by great loss of life when it was believed that it was a blank volley being fired. Any attempt to fire over the heads or at the feet of the crowd or to fire blank cartridge is very liable to defeat its own object, as all inquiries into the matter have shown.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether any orders were issued to the military in

  2115
  Liverpool not to give unnecessary cause for disturbance by marching through public meetings as was done yesterday? It might have led to a riot.
  Colonel SEELY: The reports we have received at the War Office are that the military have shown the greatest forbearance, and I have no doubt that is the case. If there is any specific instance where, in the opinion of the hon. Gentleman, a mistake has been made, that is certainly not due to any desire on the part of the military to exasperate the crowd. So far as my information goes there has been no mistake.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a justice of the peace of Liverpool has stated in the Press this morning that such was the case yesterday, and that but for the strong attitude of the strike leaders in all probability it would have led to a riot?
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is stated by correspondents on the spot that the military went near, but they did not interfere?
  Colonel SEELY: There are two sides to the question, no doubt.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the specific charge?
  Colonel SEELY: We are at this moment inquiring into all that takes place in the disturbed districts.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Are any special warnings issued to the officers who undertake this duty?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, every officer is fully acquainted with the King's Regulations, to which I would refer my hon. Friend—especially the paragraphs about No. 960. Every officer is specially warned to read those Regulations.
  Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question of which I have given him private notice: Whether the Government are aware that at the Central Station in Manchester that transport yesterday was wholly discontinued; that the food supply of the city and surrounding district is in an alarming condition; that the business of the city is practically at a standstill; that large numbers of persons have been compelled to walk along the lines in order to get from
  2116
  place to place; and what steps do the Government propose to take in order to terminate this extraordinary state of things?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Government are doing all in their power to promote a settlement, and I have nothing to add to what I have already said on the subject.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Has the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary any information with regard to the state of things in Liverpool to-day?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: In London the improvement has in most directions been maintained; but I regret to learn that in other directions new demands are being made which are contrary to the agreement of last Friday. Some of the lightermen, I am informed, have come out because they refuse to work under non-union foremen, and the difficulties to which I alluded yesterday, arising from the claims of the dockers at the Victoria and Albert Docks to be engaged outside the dock gates, still continues. This demand is admittedly a contravention of the agreement of last Friday, and if persisted in will be likely to upset the whole settlement. I have reason to hope, however, that the workmen and their leaders will abide by the agreement and withdraw this claim. In Liverpool the comparative quiet of yesterday continued throughout the night. Some tramway men came out yesterday, and there have been attacks on the trams, but not of a serious character. The gravest feature to-day is that the Strike Committee have called on the men employed in the electric power station to come out at 2.0 p.m. to-day. The result of which will be to stop all trams, and cut off the electric light in Liverpool, Bootle, and the large areas round. This is an act which would be most detrimental to public order, and could in no way promote the object of the-strikers. There have been one or two fires on vessels in the docks, but they have been put out before much damage could be done. A cruiser has been sent by the Admiralty to the Mersey for purposes of protection. In Manchester there has been no marked change in the situation. The convoys of food have been kept up in spite of desultory attacks made by hooligans and strikers. In Sheffield convoys of food are also being constantly attacked, chiefly by persons of the hooligan class. At one of the railway stations there was an attack last night on a, signal box by a

  2117
  mob, which threw stones from a bridge and drove out the signalmen. Assistance to guard the railway has now been given by the military. A battalion of infantry has arrived in the City of Sheffield at the request of the local authorities. The Guards brigade have returned to their regular Station in London.
  Mr. POINTER: May I ask in regard to the last statement of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, whether it is absolutely correct, seeing that the Lord Mayor of Sheffield has stated that the troops coining into the City, or which have already come, are not there by his orders or at his request?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My information is that the troops went in response to the request of the local authority.
  Mr. POINTER: He denies it.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: In regard to the part of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman when he stated that the dockers and the lighter men are making fresh demands, I would like to ask him if he is aware that so far as the stevedores and others are concerned, that the major part of the shipowners and contractors have always taken on the dockers outside the dock gates?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir, it is the Victoria and Albert Docks where the difficulty has arisen.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can the Home Secretary say what are the circumstances which justify the sending of troops to Cardiff?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The local authorities requested; I think it was 500; and they have been sent.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Why?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: They have been sent because the local authorities consider it desirable to have them at hand. We are meeting all reasonable requests on behalf of the local authorities. It does not follow that the troops will be used if there is no occasion.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: I desire to put a question to the President of the Board of Trade, of which I have given him private notice. I think, Mr. Speaker, I ought to apologise now to you and to the President of the Board of Trade for not being in my place last night in view
  2118
  of the fact that you gave me permission to raise the question. The reason I could not be here was in consequence of serious trouble at the docks. My question is whether the President of the Board of Trade is aware that the Strike Committee of the Transport Workers' Federation were apprised on Friday last of a telephone message sent by the general manager of the Port of London Authority to Sir H. Llewellyn Smith, that he would use his good offices to secure that there should be a general reinstatement of the men when they presented themselves for work, and that no procedings would be taken against them for breach of contract; whether he is aware that it was out of respect for that undertaking on the part of the Port Authority, that the Strike Committee declared the strike at an end on Friday last; and whether he is aware that when the men did present themselves for work on the Saturday and Monday following the undertaking was not carried out, and the committee of the Port Authority afterwards made a settlement conditional on a probation of six months being served; and whether he will use his good offices to secure the carrying out of such undertaking in order that the whole of the men may be able to resume work at once?
  Mr. TENNANT: The facts are substantially as stated in the question, but I would point out to my hon. Friend that the general manager of the Port Authority, when giving the assurance referred to on Friday night, made it perfectly clear that he was unable, without consultation with the Port Authority, to promise more than that he would use his good offices in the matter. That is a pledge that I have every reason to believe was honourably kept. The matter apparently did not come before the Port Authority till Monday morning at a meeting specially summoned for the purpose, so that anything which happened in the interval was before the Port Authority had had an opportunity of considering the question. I understand that the words inserted in the resolution of the Port Authority to which exception is taken are not intended to bear the meaning which has been attached to them in some quarters. There is no qualification for reinstatement, except that the men who broke their contracts shall be of good behaviour for the next six months, that condition being imposed out of regard for their colleagues who refused to break their contracts. There is no intention to victimise or penalise the reinstated men, or

  2119
  to interfere with their pension rights. While there may be room for differences of opinion as to the wisdom and necessity of the condition, I am certain that my hon. Friend may safely reassure any men who have- not yet resumed work that they need not be under any misapprehension on this score. I am glad to know that the great majority have already gone back to work. I earnestly trust that the general resumption of work in the port may not be impeded by this or any other matter.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Port Authority has already posted up notices to the effect that the men are "reengaged," but not "reinstated," and is he aware—it must be perfectly plain to everybody—that there is a great deal between being "re-engaged" and "reinstated"?
  Mr. TENNANT: I would like my hon. Friend to give me notice of that question.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: I would like to ask the Postmaster-General a question of which I have given private notice. Whether he is aware that, owing to the position in Liverpool and Manchester several business houses in London and elsewhere are being compelled to send their goods by parcels post; whether in the circumstances he will consider the question of a refund being made with regard to the extra expenses incurred.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am not prepared to take the course suggested. In the first place, it would be quite impossible to distinguish which parcels are so diverted to the parcels post; and, in the second place, I have no administrative power vested in me which will allow me to do so.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it the intention of the Department to make a profit out of the strike?
  Mr. POINTER: I desire to ask the President of the Board of Trade the following question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether he has yet received any definite information in respect to the alleged cases of trains running past signals standing at danger, and the working of signal-boxes and passenger trains by incompetent men, in the Sheffield district of the Midland Railway system?
  Mr. TENNANT: My hon. Friend asked me this question yesterday. I put myself
  2120
  into communication with the railway yesterday, and I was promised an early reply. I have since asked for that reply, and the company say that it is impossible to give me one at this moment, but that they will do so at the earliest possible moment. When I receive it I will communicate with the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. POINTER: Has the hon. Gentleman yet received any resolution of protest from the signalmen in Sheffield against the using of incompetent men in the signal-boxes, and pointing out the danger thereof. I understand one has been sent?
  Mr. TENNANT: It is conceivable that such resolution sent to the Board of Trade may have been sent without my knowledge. I will make inquiry, as I am not aware at present.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: In view of the great public anxiety, is the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a position yet to make any statement with regard to the negotiations in connection with the railway strike?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think it would be rather undesirable to make any statement at the present moment, because negotiations are pending.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I do not press the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I should like to ask the Home Secretary whether he has received any complaint from the citizens of Liverpool as to the action of the police on Sunday last.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: There may be a great many at the Home Office, but I have not seen any as yet.
  Mr. WARD: The right hon. Gentleman, I believe, said he had not received any on Monday last. I only asked the question because I received copies from the doctor and several traders in the town of complaints that had been sent on to the Home Office on Monday, and therefore I cannot quite understand why none of them were received.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I said I have not myself seen them. I will inquire and see it they did arrive. Of course, the matter is one to be dealt with in the first instance by the Liverpool local authorities.

  BILLS PRESENTED.
    LABOUR DISPUTES BILL.
    "To deal with Labour Disputes," presented by Mr. CROOKS; supported by Mr. Needham, Mr. Allen Baker, Mr. Rowlands, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Enoch Edwards, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Hills, Mr. Lawson, Sir Gilbert Parker, and Mr. Booth; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 24th October, and to be printed.
    RAILWAY OFFICES BILL.
    "To regulate Railway Offices and the hours of labour therein; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. WARDLE; supported by Mr. Hudson, Mr. George Roberts, Mr. Alden, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Crooks, Sir James Yoxall, Mr. MacVeagh, Mr. Snowden, and Mr. Pointer; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 25th October, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday said he would make a statement as to the business that would be taken on the reassembling of the House in October.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, the Insurance Bill will be taken on the first day, and it will be followed by the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill on a subsequent day.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the Insurance Bill will be taken on the first day and that it will be interrupted on the second day by other business?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, the Insurance Bill will be taken on Tuesday and Wednesday, and it may be interrupted on the following day when the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill may be taken.

TELEPHONE TRANSFER BILL.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: May I submit, on a point of Order, that the Motion standing on the Paper in the name of the Prime Minister, in reference to the Telephone Transfer Bill, is an infringement of the rights of private Members, and is wholly unnecessary, and does not state accurately the facts to the House. It is well known that at this period at the Session the
2122
House never refuses the Third Reading to a Bill immediately after its Report stage. It is constantly done. This Motion is an infringement of the rights of private Members, because private Members cannot make such a Motion, and if it is carried it will set up a practice in the House which is frequently likely to be fatal to the advancing of a Bill by a private Member. Bills constantly get their Third Reading by the general consent of the House without the intervention of such a Motion as this. I therefore submit that unless something should arise to make a Motion of this kind necessary it is far better that the Chair should rule, as your predecessor, Sir, and yourself, I think, have frequently done, that the Third Reading can be taken at this period of the Session without any Motion whatsoever.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word by way of explanation. This Motion in regard to this Bill of which I have charge was put down by request. It is right to say that in respect of many Bills the Third Reading may be taken immediately after Report stage, by the general consent of the House. But that is not the case in respect of Bills founded upon Money Resolutions, such as this is. The hon. and learned Gentleman is therefore under a misapprehension. The Third Reading could not be taken following upon the Report stage, unless there was a Motion passed in the sense of that now upon the Paper. I should like to explain further that the reason why it is desirable to pass this Bill, which is now happily uncontroversial, this afternoon is that the other House is anxious to get the Bill this afternoon in order that they may pass it through all its stages.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I have no objection whatever to the Motion, only that I wish to safeguard the rights of private Members.
MASTER of ELIBANK: I should like to supplement what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said about business by saying that to-morrow we shall ask the House to pass all the stages of the Official Secrets Bill, which, in the opinion of the Government, is of an urgent nature.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: We, of course, shall give our support in every way we can in carrying out the intention which the Patronage Secretary has just announced. With regard to the Telephone Transfer Bill, may I ask the Postmaster-General whether he knows of any prece-

2123
dent for this Motion which is on the Paper relating to a Money Bill?
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: This is a Bill founded upon a Money Resolution. I do not know whether there is any precedent for the Motion, but, unquestionably, there-was no objection to it.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Whatever be the former practice in respect to Resolutions of this kind, is it not usual to rely upon the general consent of the House?
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It cannot be done by the general consent of the House.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is that so, Mr. Speaker? Is it not a fact that the course announced by the Patronage Secretary with regard to the Official Secrets Bill is as much a departure from general practice as passing two stages of this Bill in one sitting? Is not that frequently done by the general consent of the House?
Mr. SPEAKER: That is certainly so in the case of ordinary Bills, but I do not recollect that it has ever happened in the case of a Money Bill, or of a Bill originating in a Resolution in Committee. This Bill is, perhaps, technically not a Money Bill, but it is a Bill founded upon a Resolution taken in Committee, and it would have been my duty to have stopped two stages of such a Bill being taken on the same day.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: May I submit the consideration of what will soon be the Parliament Act and the part which the views of the Chair will play in this class of matter. If we now decide that this Bill requires these stages we practically tell the House of Lords that they have no power to touch it because it is a Money Bill, and therefore we will be by this system affixing that character to Bills which have not yet received the Royal Assent. We are now deciding that this Bill, founded upon a Resolution is a Money Bill, and we tell the House of Lords that in future they cannot touch a Bill of that kind, and that they have no power to amend it, and the House of Commons can pass it over their heads.
Mr. SPEAKER: I would not like to say that this is a Money Bill. There is a new definition of what a Money Bill is, and I have not yet had time to consult it, and therefore I would not like to commit myself. But I say that this is a Bill founded upon a Resolution taken in Committee, and
2124
the practice in regard to such Bills as that has been not to take two stages in one day. Yesterday we had a case in point. We had a Bill, not strictly speaking a Money Bill, but a Bill founded upon a Resolution in Committee, and the Government tried to take two stages of it last night, and it was my duty to say that it could not be done. I would suggest that as this is a somewhat novel procedure it might be debated, and the discussion could be taken after I had put the question, when the proper opportunity for raising such points would arise.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard to what has happened, do the Government think it worth while to persist?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand it is a matter rather for the convenience of the other House that this Bill should be got through in time this afternoon in order that they may have an opportunity of discussing it.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer really think that he is consulting the convenience of the other House by giving them half a day for this discussion?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not understand the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that this Bill should go over to the Autumn Session.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Why not?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Because I believe that would be a very serious inconvenience. There is a feeling on both sides of the House, and it would be very undesirable to put the arrangements of the telephone system off until the Autumn Session. There is a desire on the part of the other House to get the Bill as early as possible, if it is sent up to-morrow they will have no possibility of debating it.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I have no intention of delaying this Bill.
Mr. SPEAKER: To put ourselves in order I think we ought to get this Motion formally before the House.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move, "That the Third Reading of the Telephone Transfer Bill may be taken immediately after the consideration of the Bill, as amended, notwithstanding the practice

2125
of the House relating to the interval between the Report and Third Reading stages of such a Bill."
Mr. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General has stated what the law of the House in this matter is. That law will be governed by precedent. These precedents are easily ascertainable by the Government, and certainly when the Government is so fortified I think it is only fair that those interested in the question should know whether there is any necessity for a Motion of this kind. I respectfully demur as to the necessities for this Resolution. The House itself has departed in a very signal way in recent years from the system of interposing days between the several stages of Money Bills when passing through the House. Let us take what happened yesterday. The Secretary to the Treasury walked up the floor with the Appropriation Bill. In olden times he could not have done that, but yesterday the moment the Money Resolution was voted by the House upon its Report stage the Bill was immediately brought in. The former practice was the Money Resolution was brought in upon one day, and then, having got your money Resolution on that day, the next day you inarched up the floor and brought in your Bill. That was the practice until 1881, and I remember putting a question on the point to that very competent official, Mr. Milman, who was one of the Clerks of the Table for many years, and shed much distinction upon the House, in reference to this matter, and he said, in reply, "I never agreed with Mr. Gladstone's finance." We have now arrived at a very much more critical time, because now we have passed the Parliament Bill. I did not intervene at all the other day when that very foolish procedure was adopted of associating with Mr. Speaker the Chairman of Public Accounts and the Chairman of Ways and Means in considering what was a Money Bill. A more foolish procedure than that was never adopted in regard to any Statute. You have imposed upon Mr. Speaker the duty of consulting these officials, but you have in no way bound him to take their advice. We have therefore a state of the law in which we bind Mr. Speaker to give a decision to what are and what are not Money Bills, and I respectfully submit that once you rule that a Bill founded upon a Resolution is a Money Bill you thereby earmark measures of that character as coming
2126
within the prohibition of Money Bills under the Parliament Act. That is the real meaning of a Motion of this kind. If it is a Motion for which there is any precedent, no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will tell us. He has not cited any precedents, and I think he ought to cite them if they exist. The power of the House is by general assent going to be given to pass the Official Secrets Bill in all its stages. I have no objection to that, but I do say that a Bill of that kind ought not to be brought in at the end of the Session and thrown at our heads. Such a thing has not been done since 1866, and I certainly think we are depriving ourselves of the inherent powers of the House, and I think we are interfering with the rights of Mr. Speaker by passing a Resolution of this kind. I wish to say most emphatically that I do not desire to oppose the Telephone Bill, because I am entirely in sympathy with it, and with the policy of the Government in regard to it. I am afraid, however, that this is an innovation which may interfere with the liberties of the Members of this House.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the form of this Resolution really will enable the House to pass these stages. Standing Order No. 201 provides——
Mr. SPEAKER: There is no Standing Order No. 201.
Mr. JOYNSON HICKS: I mean paragraph 201 of the manual of procedure.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am sorry to trouble the House again with a small matter of procedure of this kind.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: It is not a small matter.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I anticipated that the Telephone Bill would have been passed on Friday last, but, at the desire of hon. Members opposite, I postponed one Clause which was considered controversial, and that Clause was passed by general consent, in virtue of an arrangement arrived at in the meantime. That is the reason why the Bill has been pushed back. If this had been an ordinary Bill not founded on a Money Resolution, the Third Reading could have been taken by the general consent of the House. I have no reason to think that anyone is going to raise any objection to the Bill on its merits, but it is the practice that a Bill founded on a Money Resolution in Com-

2127
mittee must have each stage taken upon different days. That has been the invariable practice of the House, and Mr. Speaker has already told the hon. and learned Member that yesterday a Bill was stopped for that very reason, and it was not allowed to be taken through more than one stage on the same day, because it was a Bill founded on a Money Resolution. There is a special definition of what a Money Bill means in Clause 1 of the Parliament Bill, but it does not mention Bills founded upon Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means. Nothing that we do or do not do can make the smallest difference to the procedure under the Parliament Bill, or in any way bind Mr. Speaker in the matter, or affect the House of Lords.
The two things are really quite separate. A Bill is not a Money Bill because it is founded on a Resolution originating in Committee of Ways and Means under the meaning of the Parliament Bill, but because it is founded on a Money Resolution the two stages cannot be taken in one day. If the Bill is not passed through two stages in one day one of two alternatives will occur. Either the House of Lords will be asked to pass it through all its stages to-morrow in order that it may be dealt with before the adjournment; or as the other alternative the Bill will have to be hung up in mid-air until October. I think all the parties understood this. The Post Office, the National Telephone Company and all the people throughout the country who are now busily engaged arranging to make transfers next year would be disappointed if any further delay took place, and if any further alterations were made in the latter part of this year in the Bill. I have endeavoured to meet the wishes of all sections of the House, and I have got complete unanimity on the subject. Neither the company nor the staff have any further points to raise, and I appeal to the House on this occasion to adopt this Resolution.
Sir W. ANSON: This matter was discussed at some length in the Debate on the Parliament Bill, and perhaps I may be allowed to say that I do not think the anxieties of the hon. Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) are well founded. A Bill might be founded on a Money Resolution which by the Standing Orders of the House would have to go through certain stages. I recollect very well the discussion arising on the definition of a Money Bill when we were discussing the
2128
Parliament Bill, and I feel sure that this Resolution will not prejudice the question.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: My objection is not to the Bill, which has, by the concessions made by the Postmaster-General, become a non-contentious one. I wish to ask what special reasons there are for breaking what I believe has been an almost unbroken Rule in this House. I am told that the Government have one precedent, and it happens to be one which they set for themselves, but it is the very worst they could possibly have chosen. The precedent I allude to is the one under which they guillotined the Finance Bill and passed the Third Reading on the same day as the Report Stage. I have not the least objection to this procedure under the circumstances in regard to this particular Bill, but I do not want the Government to establish it as a precedent at the time when they are going to receive an unparalleled control over this House and everything in the nature of a Money Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.

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

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  Schedule (B).—Part 12.

    CIVIL SERVICES.—Class VII.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the, Schedule of the Bill."
    Mr. PETO: I wish to ask a question, upon Item No. 9 in Schedule B for contributions in aid of expenses under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, amounting to £100,000.
    Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. I understood you to say "The Aves have it."
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not know that I said that. In any case the point the hon. Member is discussing is not in order. We cannot discuss items in the Schedules, as it is against our practice at this stage.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill reported, without amendment; read the third time, and passed.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION].
Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise the remission of a Debt due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to grant Money for the purpose of certain Local Loans out of the Local Loans Fund, and for other purposes relating to Local Loans."
Resolution agreed to.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION].

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  Reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

TELEPHONE TRANSFER BILL.
As amended, further considered.
TELEPHONE TRANSFER BILL.

  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 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 desire to move, after the word "development" ["development of that part of the telegraphic system"], to insert the words "in rural as well as in urban areas."
  I am aware that we have been told that this is the intention of the Government and that these words are unnecessary. We have the assurance that the Government have the pious intention in spending this £4,000,000 of developing the telephonic system in rural as well as in urban areas. I want to see something in this Bill more definite, something in black and white, and something beyond the mere expression of opinion that the rural areas will not be entirely neglected. I want to point out that this £4,000,000 for telephone development is only a very small beginning, and therefore it is additionally important that we should establish the principle at the
  2130
  outset on which we are going to spend the money for the purpose of developing the telephone system now to be taken over by the Government throughout the whole of the country. The Government have indicated to the House that they rather look to the United States of America as a model of what we are to do in this country. If that is so, I think it would be quite in order to put briefly before the House what that standard is we are going to try to reach. The standard in the United States is 76 subscribers per thousand of the population, whilst here it is only 15. In order to reach the standard of the United States, which is obviously very largely a question of the development of telephones in the enormous rural areas, we should have to increase our telephone stations by 2,500,000, and we should have to spend £76,500,000 at the rate of £30 per station. If that is so, this is part of a very large question, and I think we certainly ought to have these words inserted at the very outset. Clearly indicating that this is the first loan authorised in the telephone system, and that this money should be expended in the development of the telephonic system in rural as well as urban areas.
  Sir WILLIAM BULL: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): It is the intention of the Government to develop the telephone system in the rural districts. We have now nine hundred exchanges in these districts, and we have some score of exchanges added every year. What is proposed is unnecessary, and it is even contrary to precedent to state in the terms of a Bill that it is intended to develop any rural area, or that it is intended to develop Ireland, Scotland, or Wales. That is in the discretion of the Department concerned, subject to the control of the House of Commons. This matter may be raised every year in the course of the Vote, and, if there is not sufficient development in the rural districts, the Postmaster-General may be criticised and a Motion may be-made to reduce his salary. The hon. Member has, as the Bill stands, a control which is more efficient than any vague statement in an Act of Parliament.
  Mr. PETO: I want something very much more than a vague statement. If the House accepts the first Amendment in my name I will get something more definite when we come to the later ones.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member has given no definition of rural area. That is not for example adequate. Take mining and other areas. Would these be included? It would be impossible for us to precisely adjust the expenditure so as to secure the proper one-eighth or one-quarter. But why should it not be one-tenth or one-sixth. It is impossible to fix any sum in an Act of Parliament. I would ask the hon. Member to leave the matter in, I think, the not incapable hands of the Department.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member move his next Amendment?
  Mr. PETO: I would like to ask whether it would be in order to move this Amendment, seeing that the previous Amendment has not been accepted?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There is no definition of "rural areas" which are mentioned in the Amendment.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment seems contingent on the first one. They all seem to hang together.

  CLAUSE 7.—(Provisions 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.
  Amendment made: Leave out the words "Post Office" and insert instead thereof the words "Civil Service."

  CLAUSE 8.—(Temporary Provisions as to Transfer).
  For the purpose of enabling the company to prepare and conduct its claim for purchase money under the provisions of 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 thirty-first day of December nineteen hundred and eleven, temporarily retain for their own use the services of such officers as they
  2132
  may select, to such reasonable number, for such time, and on such conditions as may be approved by the Postmaster-General; but the officers so temporarily retained shall be deemed nevertheless for the purposes of the provisions of this Act in relation to the company's officers to have become officers of the Postmaster-General as from the said thirty-first day of December nineteen hundred and eleven.
  Amendments made: Leave out the word "its" (1) ["its claim for purchase"] and (2) ["its affairs"], and to insert instead thereof, in each case, the word "their."

  CLAUSE 9.—(Interpretation).
  In this Act unless the context otherwise requires—
  The expression "the telephone purchase agreements" means certain indentures dated respectively the second day of February and the eighth day of August nineteen hundred and five and respectively made between the Right Honourable Edward George Villiers Stanley, C.B., commonly called Lord Stanley, His late Majesty's then Postmaster-General, on. behalf of His late Majesty, of the one part, and the National Telephone Company, Limited, of the other part:
  The expression "the telephone purchase money" means such sums as may be payable to the company by virtue of any award or awards of the Railway and Canal Commission in respect of the purchase of the plant, property, and assets of the company which the Postmaster-General has agreed to purchase or has power to purchase under the purchase agreements together with interest from the thirty-first day of December nineteen hundred and eleven at the rate of three per cent, per annum on any amount thereof which is not discharged;
  The expression "office" includes any place, situation, or employment; and the expression "officer" shall be construed accordingly;
  The expression "transferred officer" means any officer of the Company who becomes an officer of the Post Office on or in consequence of the carrying into effect of the telephone purchase agreements, and the expressions "transfer" and "transferred" as respects an officer shall be construed accordingly;
  The expression "pensionable office" means any office service in which is ser-

  2133
  vice qualifying the officer for a superannuation allowance under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1909;
  The expression "the Company's pension fund" means the pension fund established under the deed of trust creating a pension fund for the employés of the Rational Telephone Company, Limited, dated the thirtieth day of July eighteen hundred and ninety-six; and the expression "original member of the fund" means a person who is entitled under paragraph (a) of article two of the said deed of trust to a retiring pension at sixty-five years of age, equal to two-thirds of his salary as on the first day of January eighteen hundred and ninety-six.
  Amendment made: In the paragraph beginning "The expression 'transferred officer'" leave out the words "becomes an officer of the Post Office" and insert instead thereof the words "is employed in the Civil Service of the State."
  Bill reported with Amendments; read the third time, and passed.

COPYRIGHT BILL.
As amended in Standing Committee [28th July] further considered.
COPYRIGHT BILL.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Ownership of Copyright, etc.).
  (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein:
  Provided that—

  (a) where in the case of an engraving, photograph, or portrait the plate or other original was ordered by some other person and was made for valuable consideration in pursuance of that order, then, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom such plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright; and

  (b) where the author was in the employment of some other person under a contract of service or apprenticeship and the work was made in the course of his employment by that person, the person by whom the author was employed shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright.

  (2) The owner of the copyright in any work may assign the right, either wholly or partially, and either generally or sub-
  2134
  ject to limitations to any particular country, and either for the whole term of the copyright or for any part thereof, and may grant any interest in the right by licence, but no such assignment or grant shall be valid unless it is in writing signed by the owner of the right in respect of which the assignment or grant is made, or by his duly authorised agent.
  Provided that where the author of a work is the first owner of the copyright therein, no assignment of the copyright, and no grant of any interest therein, made by him otherwise than by will after the passing of this Act, shall be operative to vest in the assignee or grantee any rights with respect to the copyright in the work beyond the expiration of twenty-five years from the death of the author, and the reversionary interest in the copyright expectant on the termination of that period shall on the death of the author, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, devolve on his legal personal representatives as part of his estate, and any agreement entered into by him as to the disposition of such reversionary interest shall be null and void.
  (3) Where under any partial assignment of copyright the assignee becomes entitled to any right comprised in copyright, the assignee as respects the right so assigned, and the assignor as respects the rights not assigned, shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as the owner of the copyright, and the provisions of this Act shall have effect accordingly.
  Amendment made: At the end of Subsection (2), insert the words, "but nothing in this proviso shall be construed as applying to the assignment of the copyright in a collective work or a licence to publish a work as part of a collective work."—[Sir J. Simon.]
  Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move, to insert at the end of Sub-section (3) the words, "Provided that where a sale of copyright has taken place before the passing of this Act, the property in such copyright shall revert to the author or first owner or his dependents upon the completion of the term of copyright authorised by the law existing prior to this Act coming into force, and the absolute proprietary rights of copyright shall vest in the author or first owner or his dependents until the expiry of the additional term granted by this Act."
  I think I have made it clear to the House. It is framed in the interest of the author.

  2135
  I do not hesitate to say that it may be against the interests of the rich publisher and dealer. I think this is a very excellent Amendment in order to lest whether those who oppose the Bill are sincere. The object of the Amendment is this: Where a man has sold his copyright under the existing law the purchaser shall enjoy it for the existing term, but where this new Act extends the term and gives a longer period the copyright shall revert back to the author and his family. Some have had the confidence to suggest that the Bill was introduced in the interests of the poor author. If there is any sincerity in the position of the Government or the hon. Members opposite who are the originators of this kind of legislation; and if it is in favour of the poor author, I cannot see how they can oppose this Amendment. I think where a bargain has been made it is not right, hastily to extend the terms so that the purchaser, when he buys it obtains a period for which he did not pay. I have been attacked for some of my references in this House, because I intervened in the interests of these authors.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I would like to ask the Solicitor-General whether provision is not already made for reversion to the author.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): It is in Clause 24 (1) (a).
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: We are all in sympathy with his view. The only objection is that it has already been provided for in the terms of the Bill.
  Mr. BOOTH: I had some conversation on the subject, but I was not at all satisfied. I was informed that this would be opposed, but I could not see why. I brought it forward at the instance of a distinguished author in this country. His children came to see me. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause to add the words:
  "In the case of an assignee of copyright becoming bankrupt the royalties due under the agreement to the author shall continue to be paid to the author by any purchaser of the rights of such assignee if the work is thereafter published, and if not thereafter published, the copyright shall at once revert to the author."
  2136
  The Solicitor-General will remember that upstairs in Committee I raised this point because a case had lately been decided in the court against an author. The case is known as Warwick Deeping v. Grant Richards. The author had made a partial assignment of his copyright. The publisher became bankrupt and the courts decided that the purchaser of the copyright was not bound to pay the royalties of the original agreement. The Committee all agreed that if that was the case it was a great injustice to the author. We made it clear that we desired that if a bankruptcy should occur the copyright should revert to the author. The Solicitor-General and the Solicitor to the Board of Trade at that time agreed it was a hardship, and the Solicitor-General said that on Report stage an effort would be made to put this right in the Bill. I understand the Government have found it difficult to insert a Clause dealing with this because it would appear by doing so they would add to this Act something that properly belongs to a Bankruptcy Act and that we might be contravening by the insertion of such an Amendment conditions which now exist under the Bankruptcy Law. I received a letter from the President of the Board of Trade pointing out these difficulties and saying that at the present time it was the opinion of the Board of Trade that an author was protected under the Copyright Act.
  If it would not be considered a breach of confidence I will quote a suggestion made in the letter. It is regarding the suggestion that the trustee in bankruptcy can sell the copyright free of the obligation to pay royalties. The letter states that:—
  "If the person who acquires the copyright from the trustee has notice of this obligation, i.e., if he knows or ought to know that the obligation exists, there is authority for saying that he is himself bound to pay the stipulated royalties to the author. See Copinger on Copyright (1893 edition), p. 960. … For these reasons, I hope you will agree that it is undesirable to propose any amendment, especially as the author can protect himself by making a proper assignment in the first instance."
  We have a case decided in court very lately, and it is a serious grievance and one which ought to be put right. I do not want to press the Amendment, in view of the difficulties that the Government say exist regarding it, if I can get from the Solicitor-General a clear statement on the matter, and he can show me that author under the present law will be protected in spite of the judgment.
  Mr. BOOTH: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Sir J. SIMON: The difficulty with which this Amendment is designed to deal is one with which we all feel a good deal of sympathy, and not the less so because I understand the hon. Gentleman knows of a case which has produced actual hardship; but I think the House will see it is hardly possible in a Copyright Bill to deal with something which would involve an alteration—I think a general alteration—of one of the principles of the Bankruptcy Law. I think it is a general proposition, of the Bankruptcy Law, if a vendor has sold his goods on the terms that he has passed the property in his goods and he is going to wait till afterwards to get paid, and if the person in whom he has shown this touching confidence goes bankrupt; so much the worse for the vendor of the goods. That is the law of bankruptcy, and I do not think we ought in a Copyright Bill to alter a principle of the Bankruptcy Law. If it is done at all, it will have to be done on a general consideration of the principles of the Bankruptcy Law. While I am quite willing to accept what the hon. Gentleman tells me is the result of the case he has particularly in mind, it is far from being the fact that an author is necessarily exposed to this risk and danger when he deals with a publisher whose financial position may be insecure. It does not at all follow that the author assigns his copyright. It may be he keeps his copyright and gives a licence to produce, and he is at liberty to say it is a licence to produce by the publisher and by nobody else. There, of course, he keeps the copyright and does not run any risk at all.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: I am sure the Solicitor-General wishes I should understand him quite clearly. Do I understand, if an author makes an agreement with a publisher, and names that publisher for a limited period of time, say five or seven years, and does not dispose of his copyright altogether, he is secure, and that the purchaser of that agreement is bound to pay the royalty?
  Sir J. SIMON: That was not quite what I said, but I want to make myself plain. In the first instance, an author has two ways of turning his product to advantage. One way is to sell or assign the copyright. If he does that, of course the purchaser acquires the copyright, and that is the circumstance in which the difficulty may arise if the purchaser becomes bankrupt. The author's alternative method is to keep the copyright and to confer on the publisher
  2138
  not the copyright, but a licence for a period of years to produce. It is perfectly competent to anybody who gives such a licence to impose upon the publisher the condition that it is a licence in the publisher to produce, and in nobody else to produce. That is one way. I am strongly inclined to think it can also be done by another form of agreement in which an effective charge is made upon the copyright in the hands of the publisher to secure the royalty. I fear, under the existing law, it is not possible for a man to sell the copyright of a book to a publisher hoping all would go well on the terms that the publisher will pay him from time to time reward in the form of royalty, and then when the publisher goes bankrupt for him to enforce that bargain against the purchaser of the copyright. I am rather afraid that is the difficulty. The hon. Gentleman tells me he finds it has arisen. I am obliged to say, on behalf of the Government, it is difficult for us to see how this Clause can be introduced in a Copyright Bill, and we regret it. It seems hardly possible, in dealing with this particular subject to effect a change which will either involve a great exception to a general principle of the law of bankruptcy or involve a general amendment in the law of bankruptcy. That is quite outside the scope of a Copyright Bill. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman we cannot do more at present, but, if anybody between now and when this Bill appears in another place can find another form of words, the Government will by no means refuse to consider them. I regret, however, that at present we do not see our way to go further.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

  CLAUSE 6.—(Civil Remedies for Infringement of Copyright).
  (1) Where copyright in any work has been infringed, the owner of the copyright shall, except as otherwise provided by this Act, be entitled to all such remedies by way of injunction or interdict, damages, accounts, and otherwise, as may be conferred by law.
  (2) The costs in any proceedings in respect of the infringement of copyright shall be in the absolute discretion of the court.
  (3) In any action for infringement of copyright in any work, the work shall be presumed to be a work in which copyright subsists, and the plaintiff shall be pre-

  2139
  sumed to be the owner of the copyright, unless the defendant, in his pleadings in defence, states that he disputes the existence of the copyright, or, as the case may be, the title of the plaintiff, with the addition of a statement of the ground of such objection, and the name of the person (if any) whom the defendant alleges to be the owner of the copyright.
  Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "costs" ["The costs in any proceedings"], to insert the words "of all parties."
  The object of this Amendment is to make quite certain the court will have absolute discretion in regard to any order they may make as to the payment of costs.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words "in his pleadings in defence, states that he disputes," and to insert instead thereof the words "puts in issue."
  If the House will turn to page 6 of the Bill, they will find a provision as to what is to happen in an action for infringement of copyright as regards the presumption of the ownership of the work, or the existence of the copyright. The Clause, as it was originally drawn, was unnecessarily cumbrous, and the result of the Amendment put down in the name of the President of the Board of Trade will, in substance, be to provide, in the first place, that when an action is brought for infringement and there is no challenge to the assertion that the plaintiff is entitled to the copyright it should be presumed; and further, where it is in issue that the author or publisher whose name appears in the ordinary way, is to be regarded primâ facie as the person entitled to bring the action. It will still be necessary to prove the work is copyright, but it is surely not necessary we should impose, it may be on the descendants of an author after his death, the difficult and elaborate task of proving the actual devolution of the title of the copyright. I do not think, in practice, this can involve any hardship upon anybody.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the words 'puts in issue' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In Subsection (3) leave out the words "With the
  2140
  addition of a statement of the ground of such objection, and the name of the person (if any) whom the defendant alleges to be the owner of the copyright," and to insert instead thereof the words "and where any such question is in issue, then—

  (a) if a name purporting to be that of the author of the work is printed or otherwise indicated thereon in the usual manner the person whose name is so printed or indicated shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to be the author of the work;

  (b) if no name is so printed or indicated, or if the name so printed or indicated is not the author's true name or the name by which he is commonly known, and a name purporting to be that of the publisher of the work is printed or otherwise indicated thereon in the usual manner, the person whose name is so printed or indicated shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to be the owner of the copyright in the work for the purposes of proceedings in respect of the infringement of copyright therein."

  CLAUSE 7.—(Rights of Owner against Persons possessing or dealing with Pirated Copies, etc.).
  All pirated copies of any work in which copyright subsists, and all plates used or intended to be used for the production of pirated copies of such work, shall be deemed to be the property of the owner of the copyright, who accordingly may take proceedings for the recovery of the possession thereof or in respect of the conversion thereof.
  Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move to leave out the word "pirated" ["Production of pirated copies"], and to insert instead thereof the word "unauthorised."
  This Amendment to leave out the word "pirated" and to insert I hope the more acceptable word "unauthorised" is an Amendment to which I attach the utmost importance. The use of this word is calculated to create a large amount of prejudice. The name is apt to stick even to an innocent offender who has once been charged before the court with being a pirate, even if he disproves it. The whole idea to me is objectionable. I am glad some other bad features have been taken out, but I am rather surprised that a distinguished author and an able statesman, in framing this Bill, should have put in a word that I cannot regard in any other way than as pure slang. I certainly think a Copyright Bill which in its drafting has

  2141
  had all the advantages of University men, men learned in the law, and men of a superior intelligence to an humble Member like myself, should have been framed with more choice language and delicate expression than to include such a word. I have been at some trouble to look up the classical authorities for the use of this word. I have no doubt this will be stale news to some hon. Gentlemen, but the first reference I can get is in "The Perfect Pilgrim," published in 1526, and there the phrase occurs:—
  "Ye great pirat and olde thefe, the Devyll."
  I should be obliged if any hon. Member has a reference more antiquated than that if he will acquaint the House with it, but that seems to me the first time the word appears in an authentic work. In 1640, in the "Parliament of Bees," we find the word, used as an adjective and spelt "pyratick." The later references which I would like to take are entirely confined, where they are accurate, to water, and I object entirely to the word being used with regard to transactions on land. I think it is against all the canons of good taste in literature. In 1802, in Sampson, there is a very peculiar use of the word "pirates," which rather astonished me. It applies there to sheep:—
  "No clover is sown on account of promiscuous flocks of sheep, which are emphatically called pirates."
  That is a very curious use of the term. A hundred years later, in 1902, the "London Daily Chronicle" introduces the word in this way:—
  "Eggs were captured by rats or other water pirates."
  5.0 P.M.
  I do think this word ought to disappear from what I hope will be a standard Act of Parliament, to which people may look for guidance in literary taste. I understand the Solicitor-General agrees, but it is my business to make the House agree, and I want my opponents across the floor of the House to see that, in making this change, I ought to be able to appeal to them even more than to my hon. Friends. The word is also used in Byron's "Corsair." They were pirates singing a great song of freedom and liberty. In fact, one would almost think that they were "Die-hards" at the Halsbury banquest. There are numerous references to these pirates being ready to die in the cause of what they considered to be their duty. But how can this description in any way apply to poor people standing in the gutter and attempting to sell infringing copies of works, and looking round every moment to see if they
  2142
  are likely to be "nabbed" by a policeman who is going to prevent them earning a penny or a halfpenny by selling literature in this way in our great streets? They cannot be said in any way to represent the noble idea of a pirate. It would be perfectly absurd. I believe the copyright of this poem was sold for £500— not by the poet—our noblest poets have no sordid mind, but by the person to whom the poet gave the poem—probably a publisher. After all the term "pirate" is one surrounded by romance, and I cannot under stand its being applied to these people. It is almost offensive that it should be.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Sir J. SIMON: I do not know that any harm will be done by the substitution of the word "infringing" for "pirated." It will, of course, be necessary to make a similar alteration in some ten other places in the Bill.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Is it not the wish of the hon. Member for Pontefract to substitute the word "unauthorised" for "pirated"?
  Mr. BOOTH: No; I prefer to use the word "infringing."
  Sir WILLIAM ANSON: May I ask the Solicitor-General whether he thinks that the word "infringing" is really sufficiently clear. What is meant by infringing a copyright?
  Mr. BOOTH: It is clearly defined.
  Sir W. ANSON: I confess the word "pirated" has never struck me as very offensive in this connection. It is a very common thing to apply to cases where a literary person appropriates other people's property. It is quite a mistake to suppose that the pirate on whose behalf the hon. Member has spoken is always a small person. This piracy goes on a very great scale, as I have had occasion to know. I do not think anyone would deem this an offensive word to use in this connection. I confess I should regret very much to see it deleted from the Statute for the purpose of putting in the word "infringing." Possibly we might find a better word, as "infringing" does not convey the same meaning as "pirated" does.
  Sir J. SIMON: I think there is something in the criticism of the hon. Member behind me. It is not very apt to speak of pirated copies. It is the original that is

  2143
  pirated; it is not the copy. The copy is the thing that infringes the original which is pirated. Therefore I think there is some force in the literary criticisms of my hon. Friend when he says that when you talk about a pirated copy it ought to be a copy which has been pirated by a pirate. The copy is the thing which is supposed to inflict the injury, and I therefore agree that there is a certain amount of justification for changing the word.
  Question, "That the word 'pirated' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the word 'infringing' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I express the hope that because we have substituted the word "infringing" for "pirated," it will not be necessary to call it a "pirated infringement."
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I beg to move to insert after the word "subsists," the words, "or of any substantial part thereof." The sole object is to prevent a man escaping the penalty by merely making a slight alteration. This is a point which, I think it was agreed should be dealt with on the Report stage.
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: Insert after the words "production of" the word "such"; and to omit after the words "pirated copies" the words "of such work."

  CLAUSE 8.—(Exemption of Innocent Infringer from Liability to Pay Damages, etc.).
  Where proceedings are taken in respect of the infringement of the copyright in any work and the defendant in his defence alleges that he was not aware of the existence of the copyright in the work, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to any remedy other than an injunction or interdict in respect of the infringement if the defendant proves that at the date of the infringement he was not aware and had not reasonable means of making himself aware that copyright subsisted in the work.
  Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move to leave out the words "and had not reasonable means of making himself aware." I admit that the Bill has been vastly improved in this particular. These words are part of the original framework of the Bill, which
  2144
  partook too much of the idea that a man must prove his innocence. The bulk of that has been taken out, and that is one of the reasons why I feel myself in a less antagonistic position. But there is still this phrase remaining, and it is one that is calculated to lead to litigation. It is one of those things which every man will interpret in a different way, and I do not think its inclusion will prove of any value to anyone except the lawyers.
  Mr. J. WARD: I beg to Second the Amendment.
  Sir J. SIMON: I recognise the reasonableness of the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that when I have offered a few words of explanation he will withdraw his Amendment. There are two reasons for leaving the Clause as it stands. In the first place this Bill already makes a very great and beneficent change in the interests of the innocent infringer. If the Bill becomes law it will relieve the innocent infringer from liability for damages and to an injunction; and it does not expose him to liability to the penalties for deliberate wickedness. It appears to me it would be a most unfortunate thing if we were to lay it down that a man who says he is an innocent infringer should be entitled to be treated as such so long as he shows he was not aware that the copyright existed. That would be exposing the really honest person to the full severity of the law while it would provide a loophole for the man who was sufficiently shifty to take care not to inquire if the thing was copyright. If we are going to relieve the innocent, it is our duty to see that it is pure and unspotted innocence that will have the benefit.
  Mr. BOOTH: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 9.—(Restriction on Remedies in the Case of Architecture).
  (1) Where the construction of a building or other structure which infringes or which, if completed, would infringe the copyright in some other work has been commenced the owner of the copyright shall not be entitled to obtain an injunction or interdict to restrain the construction of such building or structure or to order its demolition.

  (2) Such of the other provisions of this Act as provide that a pirated copy of a work shall be deemed to be the property

  2145
  of the owner of the copyright, or as impose summary penalties, shall not apply in any case to which this Section applies.

  Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "a pirated," and insert instead thereof the words "an infringing."

  CLAUSE 10—(Limitation of Actions.)
  An action in respect of infringement of copyright shall not be commenced after the expiration of three years next after the infringement.
  Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move, to leave out the words "three years," and to insert instead thereof the words "one year." This is a matter on which I am open to compromise. I do object to a man being able to hold over a threatened action for a period of three years. If he is satisfied that there is some infringement of his copyright going on it should be his duty to take action at once and not to wait for three years in order to see whether it is worth his while to put in a claim. That seems to me to be a very objectionable provision. Three years is far too long, and the ends of justice might well be met by allowing him not more than two years before he pounces on the offender.
  Mr. J. WARD: I beg to second this Amendment. Of course it is desirable to have some provision by which the author shall not be deprived of his right to take action through not being aware that his copyright was being infringed during a certain period of time, but I do not think we ought to allow him to hold over his action for three years. The hon. Member for Lime house says that the author might not know that the infringement was going on and that is possible. In that case no doubt he should have this right. If the author knows that an offence is being committed he certainly ought to take proceedings before three years, and unless there are some limiting words of that description this seems to me a reasonable proposition.
  Sir J. SIMON: As far as summary jurisdiction proceedings are concerned, the three years would not apply. There is a general rule that when one takes proceedings under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, which is the way we have to take proceedings under Clause 11, they must be taken within six months of the time of the offence being committed. The class of case which is being dealt with here is
  2146
  not a criminal case at all, but the case of the owner of the copyright who is bringing an action for damages against a knowingly guilty party. Under the existing law there is a great variation of periods. In some cases it is shorter than three years and in others it is as much as six. The hon. Gentleman suggests that you might have a provision that it should be a period which only lasts from the time when the plaintiff knows what has happend. I suggest that that is really an undesirable complication. It raises an extra issue— sometimes a very difficult one to determine. It really is, as a rule, better to lay down a suitable length of time. When the old copyright laws were made in the early part of the century what we were thinking of was copyright within these islands. The days of international copyright had really not arisen. While I do not regard this as a matter on which the Government feel any obligation to insist on the figure, I would ask the good sense of the House as to whether they really think three years is too much. If it is the general sense of the House that it is too much, there is no difficulty about reducing it. It will not very often happen, because a man who claims damages wants them as soon as possible, but I can conceive the case of an author, probably a struggling author rather than a great and popular author, who finds, it may be a considerable time after his book has been published, say in England, that it is, in fact, being infringed in some other part of the British Dominions or elsewhere. The question before the House is really one which anyone here can judge as well as I. I believe I have stated the conditions fairly. We are trying to get a general period. Is not three years perhaps a reasonable period in the circumstances? It involves a reduction from six to three in some eases and a rise in other cases.
  Sir W. ANSON: I hope the Government will adhere to the three years. I am quite aware that there are different periods of limitation, but I think, on the whole, three years is the more common period within which a civil action must be commenced. Also there is the very important point that, now that we have international copyright, a shorter period than three years might press very hardly on a man who, I am sure, hon. Members on the other side would not desire to press hard, and that is the struggling author who finds that his work is being infringed in some other quarter of the globe.
  Mr. BOOTH: What was in my mind was musical infringement. The discussion has taken the turn of only considering literary infringement. That is the inconvenience of a Bill like this which deals with all together in a hotch-potch. I can quite see that there is an objection and that the poor author might suffer. In deference to what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 11.—(Penalties for dealing with Pirated Copies, etc.)
  (1) If any person knowingly—

  (a) makes for sale or hire any pirated copy of a work in which copyright subsists; or

  (b) sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade exposes or offers for sale or hire any pirated copy of any such work; or

  (c) distributes pirated copies of any such work either for the purposes of trade or to such an extent as to affect pre-judically the owner of the copyright; or

  (d) by way of trade exhibits in public any pirated copy of any such work; or

  (e) imports for sale or hire into the United Kingdom any pirated copy of any such work:

  he shall be guilty of an offence, under this Act and be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding forty shillings for every copy dealt with in contravention of this section, but not exceeding fifty pounds in respect of the same transaction; or in the case of a second or subsequent offence, either to such fine or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two months:
  (2) If any person makes or has in his possession any plate for the purpose of making pirated copies of any work in which copyright subsists, or knowingly and for his private profit causes any such work to be performed in public without the consent of the owner of the copyright, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act, and be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, either to such fine or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two months.
  (3) The court before which any such proceedings are taken may, whether the alleged offender is convicted or not, order that all copies of the work or all plates
  2148
  in the possession of the alleged offender, which appear to it to be pirated copies or plates for the purpose of making pirated copies, be destroyed or delivered up to the owner of the copyright or otherwise dealt with as the court may think fit.
  (4) Nothing in this section shall, as respects musical works, affect the provisions of the Musical (Summary Proceedings) Copyright Act, 1902, or the Musical Copyright Act, 1906, but the last-mentioned Act shall have effect as if for the reference therein to registration under the Acts therein mentioned there were substituted a reference to registration under this Act.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1). paragraph (a), omit the word "pirated," and insert instead thereof the word "infringing."
  Corresponding drafting Amendments made throughout Clause.

  CLAUSE 15.—(Delivery of Copies to British Museum and other Libraries.)
  (1) The publisher of every book published in the United Kingdom shall within one month after the publication deliver, at his own expense, a copy of the book to the trustees of the British Museum, who shall give a written receipt for it.
  (2) He shall also, if written demand is made within twelve months after publication, deliver within one month after receipt of that written demand to some depot in London named in the demand a copy of the book for, or in accordance with the directions of, the authority having the control of each of the following libraries, namely: the Bodleian Library, Oxford, the University Library, Cambridge, the Library of the Faculty of Advocates at Edinburgh, and the Library of Trinity College, Dublin, and the National Library of Wales.
  (3) The copy delivered to the trustees of the British Museum shall be a copy of the whole book with all maps and illustrations belonging thereto, finished and coloured in the same manner as the best copies of the book are published, and shall be bound, sewed, or stitched together, and on the best paper on which the book is printed.
  (4) The copy delivered for the other authorities mentioned in this section shall be on the paper on which the largest number of copies of the book is printed for sale, and shall be in the like condition as the books prepared for sale.
  (5) If a publisher fails to comply with this section, he shall be liable on. Summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds and the value of the book, and the fine shall be paid to the trustees or authority to whom the book ought to have been delivered.
  (6) For the purposes of this section the expression "book" includes every part or division of a book, pamphlet, sheet of letterpress, sheet of music, map, plan, chart or table separately published, but shall not include any second or subsequent edition of a book unless such edition contains additions or alterations either in the letterpress or in the maps, prints, or other engravings belonging thereto. In the case of an encyclopedia, newspaper, review, magazine, or other periodical work, or work published in a series of books or parts, it shall not be necessary to make a separate claim for each number or part, but, a single claim for the whole work shall suffice.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (2) after the word "and'' ["and the Library I of Trinity College, Dublin"], insert the words "subject to the provisions of this Section."—[Mr. Sydney Buxton.]
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2) to leave out the words "and the National Library of Wales."
  I have not the slightest wish to do anything in the least injurious to the University of Wales, but I think it is rather doubtful whether assistance ought to be given to it in this way. The burden of keeping a complete and absolutely entire record of books published is very considerable, and I suppose the right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Anson) will agree with me in thinking that this burden is quite as great as the benefit that is conferred on the author. You are bound in this case to provide room for every volume that is produced. It is a national duty to be performed by those on whom the burden was originally laid. In this case apparently a corresponding responsibility is not to be laid upon the National Library of Wales. I daresay the hon. and learned Gentleman has sound arguments in favour of the provisions, but I should like to hear them before assenting to the principle that a grant to a National Library, however excellent in spirit it may be, should be given at the expense of a particular class—the authors.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I am very much astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman move this Amendment and still more to find it seconded, though apparently rather reluctantly, by the hon. Member. Both hon. Members were on the Committee, but they did not take this line there. What is the new light that they have received? I understand the proposer of the Amendment thinks it would be too great a burden on us in Wales to have these books. We will look after our burden if he will let us do so. He need not worry himself about the burdens that this Bill will cast on Wales. We will discharge our obligations. I understand under this Clause Scotland and Ireland are to have these books. Under the next Amendment to be moved by the President of the Board of Trade we are liable to certain restrictions and limitations with which we are content. The hon. Member opposite represents the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen, and I would remind him that five years ago the University of Aberdeen got compensation. For what? For not having any further burden put upon them. This is a remarkable Scottish idea of compensation, because up to five years ago that university had the burden of taking books, and when the burden was removed, they received thousands of pounds for being relieved of this obligation.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Let me say to the hon. Member that I have no objection to the library receiving books, but in the case to which he refers it was done at the expense of the National Exchequer. My objection is not to the grant of books, but to the grant being made in the form of a tribute from a particular trade.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: As long as the hon. Member gets the money he does not care where it comes from. I think the least the House can do is to put Wales in the same position as Ireland and Scotland in this matter. I appeal to the generosity of the House to give us this elementary right
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move, after Subsection (4), to insert "(5) The books of which copies are to be delivered to the National Library of Wales shall not include books of such classes as may be specified in regulations to be made by the Board of Trade."
  Perhaps the House will allow me to make a few observations in regard to this Amendment. An Amendment was put on

  2151
  the Paper either by myself or some other Member to include Wales in these grants of Books, and as it came on unexpectedly at the end of the meeting of the Standing Committee we had no opportunity of discussing it on its merits. I suggest that the best and fairest way to settle this matter is to accept the Amendment, which I now move. I have been in communication with the parties interested, and the suggestion I have to make, after consultation with the publishers on the one hand, and with the representatives of the National Library of Wales on the other, is, I think, fairly satisfactory. The position is this: In this matter, in the first place, it really is in some senses a great burden on a library to receive all the books which are published, and I think it is quite fair, and it is even an advantage to them, that there should be a selection. Therefore the library undertakes to make a selection, and to take some little trouble to apply only for the books they really require, instead of having shot upon them a large number of books which they do not require and for which they have no room and practically no readers.
  The second point is that at all events there should be the qualification that grants of all Welsh books should be made. The third point raised was in regard to expensive editions, with a limited number of copies published. It appeared hard that a further demand should be made on publishers with regard to books, of which a limited number of copies are published, and which cost £l, £2, £3, £10, and up to £25. I was glad to be met by the publishers in a reasonable spirit, and also by those representing the National Library of Wales in regard to this matter. Having completed our negotiations, I am able to state that there is really no difference between us. They have met the suggestion which I made that where a limited number of copies of books are published, and when a book has a certain value, the National Library of Wales should have no absolute claim to a copy of it. It was represented to me, on behalf of the National Library of Wales, that it might happen that while there were books which they had no particular desire to have, there were others which they might wish to possess, and it seemed hard in such cases that they should have to pay the full retail prices for them. The suggestion I made was that in regard to books coming under that particular category the National Library of Wales should
  2152
  not have an absolute claim to a free copy, but that they should have a title to get it at the price of production—thirty-three per cent. off the published price. I hope that is a reasonable proposition which will meet the view of the National Library of Wales, while mitigating the burden on the publishers. It is for this purpose that I am proposing that the Board of Trade should be given some power under regulations to carry this out. I venture, therefore, to hope that the House will agree to this proposition on the understanding that I have been able to bring all parties to an agreement.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I desire to thank the President of the Board of Trade for the good offices he has exercised in this matter. This Amendment represents an agreement arrived at with the publishers on the one hand and the National Library of Wales on the other. We have not been unreasonable or ungenerous in the matter. I would far rather that we had been put on the same footing as Edinburgh and Dublin, but let that pass. This Amendment gives the Board of Trade very great power, and after the explanation by the right hon. Gentleman we may safely leave the matter in his hands and the hands of his successors. When the right hon. Gentleman referred to Welsh books I understood that he did not refer only to books published in Welsh, but to books referring to Wales, irrespective of the number of volumes or the price. With regard to the other matter we are perfectly content with the position as it now stands.
  Mr. BUXTON: My hon. Friend spoke of the "agreement" between the publishers and the National Library of Wales. I wish to say that it was not in the ordinary sense an agreement. It was an arrangement that "The books of which copies are to be delivered to the National Library of Wales shall not include books of such classes as may be specified in regulations to be made by the Board of Trade."
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: That means that those who agree with the same person will not necessarily agree with one another.
  Sir W. ANSON: I am glad that an agreement of arrangement has been come to on this matter with the assent of the National Library of Wales. This matter came on quite unexpectedly in the Committee when the representatives of Wales were not there. I ventured to suggest that were they asking for something which

  2153
  would be in some measure a burden. It appeared to me to fee the case of a library which did not need for the sake of continuity such books as university libraries must contain, and that if they received copies of all books they would find themselves overburdened in the matter of organisation and in the matter of space if they had dumped upon them the great cases of recent literature which I have watched with mingled feelings of admiration and regret arriving at the library at Oxford. I hope that the provision made by this Amendment will ensure to the National Library of Wales what it ought to have, namely, everything connected with the history of Wales. That I understand was the main object for which the National Library of Wales was started, and that is why it was established at Aberystwyth. If the representatives of Wales are content with the proposal now made, I wish the library every success.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: It was not from any discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ellis Griffith) that I seconded the last Amendment. I really did it from the idea that when a Friend moves an Amendment it should be debated. We had in consequence of the action I took the interesting and splendid speech which the hon. Member made.
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move in Subsection (6) to leave out the words "or other periodical work." It was represented to me that these words would cover all periodical work, and I find that there are works which are really not intended to come under this provision. I find that if these words are retained, they would affect periodicals which are clearly not intended to be brought into this class.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I am sorry that I did not notice the Amendment put down on the Paper, or I would have been prepared to go more fully into the matter. It occurred to me that works like the "Law Journal Reports" would come within the scope of this Sub-section.
  Mr. BUXTON: I think they will come under the next words in the Sub-section.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: No.
  Mr. BUXTON: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to have a consultation with him I shall endeavour to arrive at words to meet his point.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would meet me on this point, as otherwise it would cover a very large number of cases.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 19.—(Provisions as to Mechanical Instruments.)
  (1) Copyright shall subsist in records, perforated rolls, and other contrivances by means of which sounds may be mechanically reproduced, in like manner as if such contrivances were musical works, but the term of copyright shall be fifty years from the making of the original plate from which the contrivance was directly or indirectly derived, and the person who was the owner of such original plate at the time when such plate was made shall be deemed to be the author of the work, and where such owner is a body corporate, the body corporate shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to reside within the parts of His Majesty's Dominions to which this Act extends, if it has established a place of business within such parts.
  (2) It shall not be deemed to be an infringement of copyright in any musical work for any person to make within the parts of His Majesty's Dominions to which this Act extends records, perforated rolls, or other contrivances by means of which the work may be mechanically performed, if such person proves—

  (a) that such contrivances have previously been made by, or with the consent or acquiescence of, the owner of the copyright in the work; and

  (b) that he has given the prescribed notice of his intention to make the contrivances, and has paid in the prescribed manner to or for the benefit of the owner of the copyright in the work of royalties in respect of all such contrivances sold by him, calculated at the rate hereinafter mentioned:

  Provided that—

  (i.) nothing in this provision shall authorise any alterations in or omissions from the work reproduced, unless contrivances reproducing the work subject to similar alterations and omissions have been previously made by or with the consent or acquiescence of the owner of the copyright, or unless such alterations or omissions are reasonably necessary for the adaptation of the work to the contrivances in question; and

  2155

  (ii.) for the purposes of this provision a musical work shall be deemed to include any words so closely associated therewith as to form part of the same work, but shall not be deemed to include a contrivance by means of which sounds may be mechanically reproduced.

  (3) The rate at which such royalties as aforesaid are to be calculated shall—

  (a) in the case of a contrivance sold within two years after the commencement of this Act by the person making the same be two and one-half per cent. and

  (b) in the case of contrivances sold as aforesaid after the expiration of that period five per cent.

  on the ordinary retail selling price of the contrivance, so however that the royalty payable in respect of a contrivance shall in no case be less than a halfpenny, and where the royalty calculated as aforesaid includes a fraction of a farthing such fraction shall be reckoned as a farthing.
  Provided that if at any lime after the expiration of seven years from the commencement of this Act it appears to the Board of Trade that such rate as aforesaid is no longer equitable, the Board of Trade may after holding a public inquiry make an order either decreasing or increasing that rate to such extent as under the circumstances may seem just, but any order so made shall be provisional only and shall not have any effect unless and until confirmed by Parliament; but where an order revising the rate has been so made and confirmed no further revision shall be made before the expiration of fourteen years from the date of the last revision.
  (4) If any such contrivance is made reproducing two or more different copyright works and the owners of the copyright therein are different persons, the sums payable by way of royalties under this Section shall be apportioned amongst the several owners of the copyright in such proportions as, failing agreement, may be determined by arbitration.
  (5) When any such contrivances by means of which a musical work may be mechanically performed have been made, then for the purposes of this Section the owner of the copyright in the work shall, in relation to any person who makes the prescribed inquiries, be deemed to have given his consent to the making of such contrivances if he fails to reply to such inquiries within the prescribed time.
  (6) For the purposes of this Section the Board of Trade may make regulations prescribing anything which under this Section is to be prescribed and prescribing the mode in which notices are to be given and the particulars to be given in such notices, and the mode, time, and frequency of the payment of royalties, and any such regulations may, if the Board think fit, include regulations requiring payment in advance or otherwise securing the payment of royalties.
  (7) In the case of musical works published before the commencement of this Act the foregoing provisions shall have effect, subject to the following modifications and additions:—

  (a) The conditions as to the previous making by or with the consent or acquiescence of the owner of the copyright in the work, and the restrictions as to alterations in or omissions from the work, shall not apply:

  (b) The rate of two and one-half per cent, shall be substituted for the rate of five per cent, as the rate at which royalties are to be calculated:

  (c) Notwithstanding any assignment made before the passing of this Act of the copyright in a musical work, the royalties aforesaid shall be payable o and for the benefit of the author of he work or his legal personal representatives:

  (d) The saving contained in this Act of the rights and interests arising from or in connection with action taken before the commencement of this Act shall not be construed as authorising any person who has made contrivances by means of which the work may be mechanically performed to sell any such contrivances, whether made before or after the passing of this Act, except on the terms and subject to the conditions laid down in this Section:

  (e) Where the work is a work on which copyright is conferred by an Order in Council relating to a foreign country, the copyright so conferred shall not, except to such extent as may be provided by the Order, include any rights with respect to the making of records, perforated rolls, or other contrivances by means of which the work may be mechanically performed.

  (8) Notwithstanding anything in this Act where a record, perforated roll, or other contrivance by means of which

  2157
  sounds may be mechanically reproduced has been made before the commencement of this Act copyright shall, as from the commencement of this Act, subsist therein in like manner and for the like term as if this Act had been in force at the date of the making of the original plate from which the contrivance was directly or indirectly derived.
  Provided that—

  (i) the person who, at the commencement of this Act, is the owner of such original plate shall be the first owner of such copyright; and

  (ii) nothing in this provision shall be construed as conferring copyright in any such contrivance if the making thereof would have infringed copyright in some other such contrivance if this provision had been in force at the time of the making of the first-mentioned contrivance.

  (9) In the case of contrivances reproducing more than one separate musical work in which copyright subsists, the royalty payable in respect of each work shall in no case be less than a halfpenny.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: I beg to propose in Sub-section (3), after the word "farthing" ["such fraction shall be reckoned as a farthing"] to insert the words "also, in the case of a medley, the royalty for each extract shall be in no case less than a farthing."
  I think, perhaps, I should have suggested a somewhat lower sum if possible, but a farthing was the lowest which I could suggest. The point was brought up in Committee upstairs, and we all agreed that it seemed a hardship to a composer that medleys which contained five or six or seven extracts from musical compositions should be published without any compensation to the composer. This is an effort on my part to get something for the composer. There is no doubt that the number of medleys has been increasing and will continue to increase. The composer should get something out of them, as everybody else gets something. The workmen, the publisher, the manufacturer of the rolls, and everyone except the composer gets something. I admit, of course, that with eight or ten pieces on a record a payment of a farthing for each piece would make the price rather high.
  Sir W. ANSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. BUXTON: This matter was one which I said in Committee I would consider. I have looked into it very carefully and find that the practice is practically this, that these medleys, when reproduced, mechanically are taken from musical compositions which are printed. That means that the various authors concerned have made their arrangements with the printers of the musical compositions. Practically the mechanical manufacturers themselves rarely, if ever, produce medleys which, as I have said, are taken from various musical works which have already been printed. Therefore, the conclusion I came to was this, that justice would be done to the composer if each medley together was treated as one work. That has this great advantage that it would be workable, whereas the proposal of my hon. Friend would be unworkable, as it would increase the cost so much that it would have a very serious effect on the price of the cheaper former of musical contrivances. I do not say that in some cases there may not be a hardship in not placing a minimum on these medleys, but I am bound to say that it seems to me that the only practical way of dealing with the matter is to treat the five or six pieces in the medley as the whole.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Do I understand that upon a record which contains a medley the minimum of a halfpenny would be paid in any case?
  Mr. BUXTON: Each musical medley is made up of a considerable number of compositions. We are treating those medleys together as a work that would be subject to a minimum of a halfpenny.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: After that explanation I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. CASSEL: I beg to propose, in Subsection (7), to leave out the words of the Sub-section after the word "Act," and to insert instead thereof the words "copyright shall not include the sole right to make any record, perforated roll, or other contrivance by means of which the work may be mechanically performed or delivered."
  Under the law as it stands at present it is not an infringement of copyright to make a perforated roll or any mechanical contrivance for the reproduction of musical sound. The Bill proposes to alter the law in that respect, and to make it an in-

  2159
  fringement of copyright so to do. I am not objecting to that by this Amendment. What I am objecting to is making that new provision retrospective. It ought not to affect people who have already spent their money in producing a certain stock and who have that stock in hand. Every manufacturer is entitled to sell while the law remains as it is at present without any royalty at all. The matter is one of very great importance to makers of musical instruments of whom there is a very large number in London. Whatever other arguments I may be met with I hope that I shall not be met with the argument that this matter has been settled by the Committee or by arrangement with particular members of the trade. I could understand the argument that it had been settled in Committee in the case of a Select Committee where they have heard evidence which this House has not had before it. On a question of this kind I submit we should have an opportunity of putting forward our own case, and particularly as it affects our constituents, and if we are to be met with the answer that this matter has been fully threshed out in Committee then our rights as private Members to bring forward the case of our constituents are affected. I also hope that I shall not be met by the right hon. Gentleman with the argument that this matter has been settled with the trade, because while I agree that the right hon. Gentleman has been approached by particular members of the trade and that their particular interests have been met, there were other interests which were not at all represented before this Committee. Therefore, I ask from this House fair consideration for these other cases. These gentlemen were not dealt with at all, and I think that an arrangement of this kind ought not to be binding on this House.
  A letter was written to the right hon. Gentleman by certain large manufacturers of musical instruments, who informed him that their case had not been before him at all. It is dated 25th July, 1911. They say:—
  "We the undersigned manufacturers of and dealers in perforated music rolls, beg leave to inform you that we were not consulted with respect to the new clause that has been added to this Bill, providing for the payment of royalties on music published before the commencement of this Act.'
  That letter is signed by, among other large companies, the Orchestrelle Company, Steinway and Sons, Sir Herbert Marshall and Sons, Limited, the Per-
  2160
  forated Music Company, and other large firms. The right hon. Gentleman tells me he has made an arrangement with the Gramophone Company which has satisfied them. That may be so. I do not wish in the least to interfere with any arrangement which he may have made with that particular firm, but I submit that the special case of these firms should be considered by this House from the point of view of doing justice. Under the law as it stands it was perfectly open to these firms to manufacture these perforated rolls without paying any royalty at all. That was decided in 1900 in a case in the Court of Appeal of Boosey v. Wright. In that very decision the court took into consideration the fact that the Legislature in 1842 must have contemplated the existence of musical instruments and deliberately refrained from imposing a royalty on those or making it an infringement of copyright to manufacture them. Lord Justice Romer in his judgment particularly refers to that, and there were musical instruments of this kind such as musical boxes in existence in 1842 when the Copyright Act was passed. Since then the legislature expressly recognised this, because in the Musical Copyright Act of 1906 they expressly exempted from its provisions musical instruments of this description, and moreover the Berne Convention of 1886 also exempted from the scope of infringement of copyright musical records and perforated rolls of this description.
  6.0 P.M.
  So the House has got to start with this position that these people who have laid out their money upon this particular business started at a time when it was the law that they could do so without infringing any copyright, and when they were justified in assuming from the action of the legislature itself that the legislature would not reverse the position, or at all events if they did would not do it retrospectively so as to injure them. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman has realised how large a question this is for these particular interests concerned. Take the case of one firm alone, who have in stock at the present time something like 10,000 stencils from which the rolls themselves are manufactured. They are expensive things to produce, and cost money at a time when it was perfectly legal for them without infringing any copyright to make those stencils. Not only have they got some ten thousand of these in their stock, which would be

  2161
  affected by the Bill if it remains in its present form, but I have heard of close upon half a million musical rolls made from stencils and sold at a time when it was no infringement of copyright. The Legislature is now going to step in, with regard to these hundreds of thousands of rolls, made at a time when they could be legally made and without paying any royalties, and say, "You shall pay a royalty." I submit to the House that it is not just or equitable in any way to make a provision of that character. I think that, as a matter of principle, we should always be very careful before we make any law retrospective at all. The Courts are very careful about construing an Act, in regard to its being retrospective, which almost always works an injustice. Not only have they manufactured this large stock at a time when it was legal to do so, but the manufacturers have entered into contracts under which prices are already fixed. They will not be able to alter those prices when you impose this royalty upon them. It is proposed now, even with regard to those large stocks which they have got on hand, that they shall not be able to sell them without paying a royalty of 2½ per cent. on the retail price. The right hon. Gentleman may tell me that 2½ per cent. on the retail price is not a very large percentage, but he must also bear in mind that it is a large percentage in the case of the manufacturers, to whom it would be a very considerable item. But whether it is a large or a small item, I do submit that it would be contrary to every principle of justice and of equity to make this provision retrospective. In America a somewhat similar question arose, and when the American Act of 1909 was passed—it was considered for four years before it became law—an express provision was inserted in it to the effect that, although in future the composer was to have the right of receiving royalty in respect of these perforated rolls and musical records, that it should not apply retrospectively to known works. The following is the Clause:—
  "Provided that the provision of this Act, so far as they secure copyright controlling the parts of instruments serving to reproduce mechanically, the musical work shall include only compositions published and copyrighted after this Act goes into effect."
  That was a just provision to put in the American Copyright Act, and it would be a just provision to put into this Bill. Again let me refer to the Berlin Convention itself, which has given rise to this
  2162
  very Act on which it was largely founded. Clause 13 of the Berlin Convention contains a provision, in regard to these mechanical reproductions of existing works, and says that it shall not "retroact."
  I agree that there may be some question how far it extends, or whether it merely extends to the case where contrivances have actually been made before the passing of the Act. If the Government think that my Amendment goes further than the provision in the Berlin Convention, I am quite prepared to accept words limiting it to what the Departmental Committee held to be the interpretation. I do not ask for anything more than the Berlin Convention, although perhaps my Amendment goes further. One interpretation of the Berlin Convention is that it shall not retroact. I think I may refer to what the Solicitor-General said with regard to the Berlin Convention, when he was speaking of the provisions giving copyright to architects. The hon. and learned Gentleman then based himself very strongly on the Berlin Convention, and what he said on the 28th July was as follows:—
  "The first point is that there was a great convention signed as the result of the Conference at Berlin, There was an international discussion, followed by an international convention. I do not suggest that any desperate international consequences will follow if we depart from that convention, but I ask the House to observe that the inclusion of architecture in the scheme of the Copyright Bill was then recommended, and, so far as this country was a party to that convention, is covenanted for in the Berlin Convention. Therefore, if we do not include it in the Bill, we are deliberately refusing to do a thing which our representatives, negotiating with other great civilised countries of Europe, came to the conclusion ought to be done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1911, col. 1934.]
  I use those words of the Solicitor-General in support of my argument. I am perfectly content, if the Solicitor-General thinks that my Amendment goes further than the Berlin Convention, to accept any modification of it which brings it into line with the Berlin Convention. There is a very large export trade in these rolls, and the other signatories to the Berlin Convention, who have adopted its provisions without making them retroactive, will be put in a position of advantage over the British manufacturers, who are going to be subjected retrospectively to the payment of this royalty, for the reason that in those countries no royalty will be made payable by the manufacturers, while a royalty would be payable by the manufacturers in this country. That, again, is a further reason why the right hon. Gentleman should adopt the provison of the Berlin Convention, which was accepted by the

  2163
  Departmental Committee appointed by the right hon. Gentleman's own Department. It ought to be borne in mind that most existing copyrights have been assigned by the composers, and are now vested in the publishers. I quite agree that under the provision of the Bill these royalties are, under special provisions, going to the composers, but 80 per cent. of them have been assigned to the publishers. What are you doing? What are you giving the composer who assigned all his rights at a time when he was absolutely certain that he was never going to get anything more from his copyright? You are giving him a windfall which was quite unexpected, and you are going to give it to him at the expense of the people who have laid out their money on the footing that it was perfectly legal for them to do what they did do, without making any bargain about it at all. I think the authors and composers have done pretty well out of it. I think their interests have been most ably represented on the Committee. If they are going to have these great advantages in the future, I think they might at least be content to allow existing stocks of rolls possessed by these manufacturers to be free of royalties, and that in future they should be allowed to sell perforated rolls from stencils or contrivances with regard to particular copyright works made before this Act comes into force. I have no objection to this measure as a whole; in fact, if I may be allowed to do it, I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having been so successful in consolidating so many Acts of Parliament which were difficult to construe in one Act, and I think that consolidation will be an advantage. While the right hon. Gentleman has accomplished that work, I wish to press upon him as strongly as I can that he should remove from the Bill this blot, which would do a great and grievous injustice to a large trade, which employs a great number of persons.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  It seems to me that this is not a case for retrospective legislation at all, and I think the public ought not to be excluded from doing what they can do now as regards existing works. I would point out that the reproduction of music by mechanical means was known under the Copyright Act of 1842, when there were barrel-organs, musical-boxes, and other contrivances from which the modern record is a
  2164
  mechanical descendant. In 1842, the Legislature expressly did not include those mechanical contrivances for the reproduction of music. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, in the copyright legislation of 1906, they were also expressly excluded. It is as well, I think, that the House should bear in mind that those who are making these records now from existing works, are doing what Parliament has held they had a right to do, and what has been expressly sanctioned by that provision in the Copyright Act of 1906. In these circumstances, while I think the copyright in records should be extended so far as future productions are concerned, I submit to the House that it ought not to apply retrospectively to existing productions, which the public are already free to use in that way. If this provision, or anything like it, goes through it will be retrospective as regards works published, not only here, but as regards certain works published in foreign countries. While in those foreign countries I believe I am right in saying they have not this retrospective provision, here we would be hampered by the retrospective provision and by the payment of royalty. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will see his way to deal with that point. Reference has been made to the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars, but I should like to point out that it does not, to my mind, go far enough. We wish to safeguard the rights of the public to existing works, and I think we should do it in express terms, and in the simplest possible way.
  Mr. BUXTON: I am not going to say that a discussion or decision of a Grand Committee ought to be sacrosanct and not reviewed in this House. I quite agree that any such decision is subject, and justly subject, to the decision of this House, but at the same time I think that when a Grand Committee of this sort has given very careful consideration to the various points which have come before it that the decision in that case, and unanimous decision, I believe, in this case, deserves the consideration of the House when they are deciding as to what line they should take in regard to Amendments moved. As regards the second point, in the course of the Copyright Bill, I saw a very large number of persons, and rightly so, who are pecuniarily interested and otherwise interested in the question. I did my best to ascertain what was in their mind in order to arrive at the best conclusion I could having

  2165
  regard to the justice of the various views expressed. I must deny the statement that the particular interest of which the hon. Member is speaking this afternoon had no opportunity before 25th July, 1911. As a matter of fact, I received a deputation from the various interests concerned on 2nd May before the Bill got into Committee, and I considered the various questions then put to me by the deputation, of which, I think, the hon. Member was a Member. Therefore, I was entitled to think that the various views had been represented.
  Mr. CASSEL: I think that at that time it was represented to the right hon. Gentleman that those interests desired that the Bill should not be retrospective, but subsequently an arrangement was made with the Gramophone Company alone without those interests being consulted.
  Mr. BUXTON: That is not so. I do not really attach any importance to this point, but as the hon. Member made it against me, or, rather against the position I am taking up, I am entitled to show that it was otherwise. Sir Herbert Marshall came on that deputation on the 2nd May, and I had no representations direct or indirect from those he professed to represent until 25th July, some time after the Bill had left Grand Committee. Therefore, I was entitled to conclude that he was represented by the other Gentleman whom I saw from time to time. I really think I have some cause to complain that when there was opportunity of putting Amendments before the Grand Committee it was only a week or two ago these Amendments were put down by the hon. Gentleman some time after the Bill had come to the House.
  Mr. CASSEL: I was not on the Committee.
  Mr. BUXTON: If the interests concerned considered that they were in any way injured by the proposals, surely they could have had the opportunity through a Member of putting Amendments down. The point of the hon. Gentleman, as I understand it, is that if this Bill is made retrospective it will be injurious to and place a very heavy burden upon a particular trade. He spoke of this as being a windfall, as did my hon. Friend who seconded, to the composers. I do not at all agree with that view. I am quite sure if when the Act of 1842 had been passed, when those rights in printed musical works had been given to the composer, it had been anticipated for a moment that
  2166
  musical works would have been reproduced by mechanical means, then I am quite confident that the composers would have been given their copyright, like any other author or artist. Therefore, though I do not say that people were not perfectly entitled for the last eight or nine years to reproduce those works by mechanical means without payment, I am bound to say that I think the composer has a considerable grievance in the matter; and I do not think that it is at all unfair when you are, as you are, very much restricting the opportunities of royalties to give him retrospective rights with regard to compositions. The hon. Gentleman said that ho was quite content with the Berlin Convention. Substantially the proposal is in conformity with the Berlin Convention and with the report of the Committee to which ho referred. I propose to accept an Amendment on the Paper from my hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division.
  The hon. Member said that it was rather hard on those companies to pay royalties on those stocks immediately, but that is not so. So far as they have those already in stock, and so far as the particular composition has been already reproduced for eighteen months they will be charged no royalty. At the end of that time they will be charged royalty in perpetuity, but only 2½ per cent. In addition to that it will not be necessary for them to obtain the assent of the author for reproduction, and they will have much greater freedom and greater elasticity with existing works. Under those conditions I cannot think that this is in any sense a real burden on this particular trade, whereas I think it is a slight solace to the composer for the rights we are depriving him of in the future. As regards the public, I would point out that the royalty of 2½ per cent. for existing works was fixed at that low rate because it was shown to the Committee that many of those rolls and other mechanical instruments were reproduced at the low figure of half-a-crown, two shillings, and so on, and that, therefore, unless the royalty was pretty low, it might be difficult to adjust the price without throwing a burden on the public. The particular rolls to which the hon. Member has referred are not those cheap rolls which would be in any way affected by the 2½ per cent., which is only a penny in forty pence. They are of a much higher character, and of a much more expensive character. I find that none of them are below two shillings, that 66 per cent. of them are above 5s., and

  2167
  that no less than 20 per cent. of them range from nine to ten shillings. Therefore 2½ per cent. would foe a very slight burden on the trade, and I am quite convinced no burden on the public at all. Under those circumstances, I hope the House will reject the Amendment and allow the Bill to go as it stands. Really, I think it protects both the trader, the manufacturer, and the public, and at the same time is a slight solace to the author, who in other parts of the Bill is considerably deprived of his opportunity.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. BARNES: I beg to move, in Subsection (7), at the end of paragraph (b), to insert the words, "but no royalties shall be payable in respect of contrivances sold before the first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirteen, if contrivances reproducing the same work had been lawfully made or placed on sale within the parts of His Majesty's Dominions to which this Act extends before the first day of July, nineteen hundred and ten."
  I do not think there is any need to make a speech after the long and learned speech to which we have listened from the other side, and the crisp speech of my hon. Friend who seconded the previous Amendment. I may say that I am largely in sympathy with what has been said by the two hon. Members. I think this is a modification of the Bill which can be accepted by the Government. It simply provides that in respect of those contrivances made two years prior to the Bill coming into operation that the Act shall not apply if those things are sold within one year after it comes into operation. That, of course, prevents those people taking any advantages while the Bill has been under discussion, and it enables them to clear off all those contrivances made when presumably they had no knowledge of the Bill.
  Mr. CASSEL: I beg to second the Amendment. As I could not get the Amendment I myself moved I think this is certainly much better than nothing. The only point I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider is whether the words, "sold before the first day of July, 1913," ought not to be omitted, because there is no reason why you should limit this to sales within the year. Suppose the people cannot get rid of their stock, and they have very large stocks of these rolls, why should they not get the benefits of the exemption. If it is right that they
  2168
  should have an exemption why should they not have it whenever they sold them? Therefore I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would not be willing to take out the words "sold before the first day of July, 1913"?
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: The speech of the hon. Gentleman is an example of how voracious is the appetite for the interest which he represents. I am extremely sorry that my right hon. Friend has accepted the Amendment at all, but I should be driven to something like despair if I thought he was going to accept the further suggestion now made. The hon. Member suggests that nearly two years is not sufficient time for these people to get rid of their discs. I cannot understand any human being except the hon. Gentleman maintaining that proposition. I am strongly against the Amendment, but I shall not oppose it, because I am a man of peace and compromise. At the same time it seems rather ridiculous that after these people have had twenty or thirty years of free pillage, they should now get a further term. As I say, I am a man of compromise, but all the compromise should not be on one side. As my hon. Friend has received this concession, I would ask for a small concession in return, namely, that when we come to Clause 37, instead of making the date of the commencement of the Act the 1st July, 1912, we should make it the 1st January, 1912. That will not affect the present Amendment in the least; it will only affect the new discs and the new perforated productions. But it will give the poor authors and composers a little earlier opportunity of getting their rights, which the Bill, after all, gives with a very niggardly hand.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: I should like to recall to the Committee the early discussion upstairs when we were all practically agreed upon two things, the first of which was that there should be copyrights in discs already made. I remember a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), which greatly impressed the Committee, in which my hon. Friend showed the injury that was being done to British workmen and British manufacturers by unfair competition from Russia. In securing copyright in discs and records already made, you secure a very slight advantage to the author and composer, but you secure a very great advantage to the manufacturer and the workman employed in the manufacture. It was on

  2169
  that basis that retro-activity was arranged. There was to be retro-activity of copyright secured on works already made if a royalty was paid, and that royalty has been whittled down to one penny in forty pence. I ask any human being who understands business whether any manufacturer would take that percentage of profit on any work he produced. As far as I am concerned, I am quite willing to compromise and to accept the Amendment which has been proposed, but to whittle it down still further is really an injustice, to which I think this House is ill-prepared to consent. Two and a-half per cent. is offered to the composer on condition that he accepts retro-activity. It is a small sum, insignificant beyond words, but it establishes the principle. I ask anyone who knows about these matters whether he considers 2½ per cent. a high percentage. I think that he will agree that the minimum has been given. I suggest that the further Amendment to be proposed by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) should be accepted.
  Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. Can we discuss that suggestion at present?
  Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment refers to the date, and the suggestion of the hon. Member is germane to it, though the House cannot come to any decision on it now.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: I understood that the principle of retro-activity would be accepted, and that if a royalty was granted it would be granted from the date of the passage of the Bill. But it is not going to be granted from the date of the passage of the Bill; therefore I ask that the concession suggested by my hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) should be made. In a year, at any rate, the manufacturers would be able to get rid of their stock. Does my hon. Friend (Mr. Cassel) suggest that manufacturers, knowing their market, manufacture goods for years ahead? They manufacture from year to year as near as they can, and they are not likely to lay up so large a stock that they cannot get rid of it, particularly when they have no royalty to pay. I beg the Committee to look at the matter not from a generous but from a just standpoint, and to accept the suggestion which has been made.
  Sir JOHN SIMON: I should be very sorry indeed if now that we are getting to the end of the Bill there
  2170
  should be any feeling of injustice or of a want of consideration on one side or the other on what is after all not one of the fundamental provisions of the Bill. The House is agreed that what the hon. Member calls the principle of retro-activity should be applied to this matter. Then comes the very difficult question how exactly you are to introduce your new scheme in the existing situation. While I suggest that the Amendment might be accepted as a businesslike proposition, I feel the force of what has been said by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I do not think it would be possible to carry out the suggestion quite in the way proposed by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division, for this reason: if you say at the end of the Bill that the Bill shall come into force on the 1st January instead of the 1st July, it must come into force for all purposes. The Board of Trade have to make a great number of regulations, and I am not certain that there would be sufficient time either for the trade to make their preparations or for the Board of Trade to make the regulations. Clause 19 (3) refers to the sale of contrivances within two years of the commencement of the Act. That is to say, the two years do not run from the date when the Act is passed, but from the commencement of the Act. If an opportunity were taken in another place to substitute for the words "the commencement of the Act" the words "the passing of the Act" we should be making a concession. I hope in these circumstances the Amendment will be accepted.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am quite willing to accept the compromise.
  Mr. J. WARD: I have no wish whatever to upset the arrangement which is being entered into, but I think a statement should be made on the other side of the question. The hon. Member has referred to this royalty as a beggarly, miserable 2½ per cent. I would like Members of this House to understand that up till the time when this Bill becomes law there is no copyright at all in these things. A Bill passed through the House of Commons so recently as 1906, referring to Musical Copyright, absolutely and definitely declared that there was no copyright in these things which we are now declaring to have copyright for the future. As a matter of fact, what we are doing with this "beggarly," "miserly" 2½ per cent. royalty is to make a free grant of it to people who never had any right before of even ½ per cent. I think

  2171
  that under those circumstances at least we ought to be given credit for having gone so far as we have. Something is better than nothing. At all events, we who are engaged in negotiations in labour disputes usually think so.
  We are recognising a right, a vested interest, in a thing in which no right or vested interest has ever before been recognised. To that extent I think this Bill is generous. It is not beggarly or miserable. It is positively generous. It is recognising a form of property that has not previously existed at all. Those of us who were on the Committee, and I was on the Committee— and I know more about copyright now than I ever did before—and heard the Debates and discussions—remember the peculiar incident of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) saying that he was a man of compromise and was always prepared to surrender his view to the views of other people providing that he always got hold of the best end of the negotiations! I venture to suggest that this is, after all, a free gift, which has established a right for composers, though, I am afraid, the thing is being argued as if the royalty went absolutely to the composer of music. That is not so.
  Mr. BOOTH: Hear, hear.
  Mr. J. WARD: As a matter of fact I do not suppose the composer will get one-thousandth part of the gift we are making. It is people who by some means—some great musical publisher who gets hold of the copyright in a particular music to which reference has been made—it is really that vested interest that we are creating on this occasion. There is no doubt a great deal in what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gravesend said. It does seem wrong in the case of a composer, and looks unjust when one inquires into it; that someone may be able to come along, some big publisher or gramophone firm, and lay hold of a piece of original music and make a fortune out of its reproduction, and absolutely ignore the right of the composer altogether. I feel quite sure that there is no Member of this House but what would like to protect the composer if it were possible. I have no doubt we are doing something towards assisting in his protection. I, however, learnt sufficient on the Committee to know that the lion's share is going to be taken by other persons than the composer.
  2172
  While I have no objection to the demand made it must not be forgotten that a compromise has been arrived at which those concerned considered reasonable and fair. The proposal of this Amendment does not alter the compromise nor affect the interests of those concerned to any great extent either one way or another. I have no reason whatever for arguing against the Amendment or for interfering with the suggestions made on either side of the House. But to say that we are acting ungenerously and in a miserable way, and not doing the thing which is fair and just, is, I think, uncalled for. I think after the matter has been thoroughly thrashed out in Committee we have gone in a direction generous rather than otherwise in relation to this matter.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not always agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. J. Ward), but very largely throughout the proceedings of this Copyright Bill I have found myself in agreement with him. What I do want to suggest to the President of the Board of Trade and the Government is that this Bill in its present form is practically a compromise, and an agreed compromise. I look upon it as not quite fair that any extreme alteration should be made in the Bill, and the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, does make a considerable difference in the Bill. While I do not want to make a speech now, I may say that many of us have on the understanding that it was desirous that this Bill should be got through to-day, forborne to put down other Amendments that we had in our minds. I should have put down several other Amendments on points where I did not agree with the Committee upstairs. I have forborne to do that because in its main provisions the Bill was an agreed Bill. I do not think the Government ought to accept the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division, or the alternative suggestion made by the learned Solicitor-General. I do say this: that if this Bill goes to another place that it must not be understood that the suggestion of the Solicitor-General is an agreed suggestion on the part of all Members of this House. If the Government do make that alteration in another place, they must run the risk that it will be debated when the Bill comes back.
  Mr. BUXTON: The hon. Gentleman opposite has said that this is a departure more or less from the agreement

  2173
  or conclusion to which the Committee came when they discussed this matter. That is perfectly true. On the other hand, I did say at the concluding part of the debate that the particular point raised by the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Blackfrairs was one that deserved consideration, and that I would consider it. I am now accepting the Amendment in the interests of the composers, I am bound to say, too, that the very small suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, is one that he is perfectly entitled to make in these circumstances. I do think that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Black-friars Division, is not an unreasonable proposal. I think it will make the Bill more workable. Therefore, I hope it may be taken as part of the general conclusion to which the Committee came to. Certainly, it is not adverse to that principle in any way.
  Mr. BOOTH: I put an Amendment down on the Paper to bring the Bill into operation in 1913, or later. I represent no interest I am proud to say. I cannot be pulled upon cither side. I listen with a great deal of horror to this kind of bargaining between one interest and another. "You give us something and we will give you something." It seems to mo that the public are being lost sight of. I heard in the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gravesend (Sir G. Parker) that the payment of a royalty meant an increase in the price.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER Sir GILBERT PARKER dissented.
  Mr. BOOTH: The hon. Gentleman used the phrase that the "price would go up."
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I made no such statement whatever.
  Mr. BOOTH: I accept what the hon. Baronet says, but I would advise him to consult the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. That is my point, that "undoubtedly the price will go up," and that means an infringement of the public rights. It means that it will be more difficult for poor people to buy these books.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: What I did say was that one-half of the manufacturers would have the opportunity of selling their goods without the 2½ per cent. royalty, and that, therefore, they could sell them cheaper.
  Mr. BOOTH: I am not replying to the hon. Member's point on that. I do not consider it worth discussing. I only was replying to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland division, namely, about bringing the Bill into operation at the earlier period. My Amendment was to bring it into operation a year later. Out of consideration for the House, though I still believe in it, and in order to facilitate the passing of this Bill, I did not bring my Amendment forward. I was not prepared to hear the earlier suggestion made. It is a retrograde direction. This Bill is an attack upon the public, being an increase of price, an encroachment upon the liberty of the subject, and the later it comes into operation the better for the public good.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, in Subsection (7), paragraph (c), after the word "work" ["copyright in a musical work"] to insert the words: "any rights conferred by this Act in, respect of the making, or authorising the making, of contrivances by means of which the work may be mechanically performed shall belong to the author or his legal personal representatives and not to the assignee, and."
  This is only carrying out what was intended. The words which we are adding are intended to provide that the author shall get the advantage, not only of compulsory royalties, but any other royalties which arise in this new subject matter.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 21.—(Provisions as to Photographs.)
  The term for which copyright shall subsist in photographs shall be fifty years from the making of the original negative from which the photograph was directly or indirectly derived, and the person who was the owner of such negative at the time when such negative was made shall be deemed to be the author of the work, and where such owner is a body corporate, the body corporate shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to reside within the parts of His Majesty's Dominions to which this Act extends, if it has established a place of business within such parts.
  Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause to add the words, "Provided that if a photographer takes a portrait without the consent of the subject, and the features of the person photographed can be identified, the royalty shall vest in such person in the same way as if the said person had been the photographer."

  2175
  I put this down by request. The object, of course, is to protect various distinguished people from being subjected to snapshotters. There are people whose appearance and make-up is a great asset. I venture to say any photograph of our distinguished Speaker would command great sale when he is in full attire. People may wish to be photographed in certain surroundings and not in others. I was present the other day at a conference in this House between a very wealthy Member and one of the most prominent Socialists. Fancy a photograph of those two entitled "The Millionaire and the Socialist." I think people should have some right to make their own arrangements with regard to protographing, and that they should not be subject to the attention of snapshotters all over the country. I brought forward this Amendment at the request of a distinguished member of the Committee which sat on the Royal Commission. There is no doubt one, or two very bad cases have occurred, and this Amendment is really meant to deal with such cases. I cannot see that any harm could be done to the public interest by the acceptance of such an Amendment as this.
  Mr. J. WARD: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Sir J. SIMON: I am sure we all sympathise with the object the hon. Gentleman has in view, namely, of protecting the victim from the impertinence of unsolicited photographs. I doubt very much, however, if his Amendment would provide the proper remedy, and in the circumstances the Government cannot acept it.
  Mr. BOOTH: I regret the hon. and learned Gentleman does not see his way to accept the Amendment, but in view of the contract entered into between the two Front Benches I am, of course, powerless.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 23.—(Works of Foreign Authors first published in parts of His Majesty's Dominions to which Act extends.)
  If it appears to His Majesty that a foreign country does not give, or has not undertaken to give, adequate protection to the works of British authors, it shall be lawful for His Majesty by Order in Council to direct that such of the provisions of this Act as confer copyright on works first published within the parts of His Majesty's dominions to which this Act
  2176
  extends, shall not apply to works published after the date specified in the Order, the authors whereof are subjects or citizens of such foreign country, and are not resident in His Majesty's dominions, and thereupon those provisions shall not apply to such works.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, to add at the end of the Clause—
  "In the case of a foreign country under whose laws it is a condition precedent of protection being given to works that such works must have been in whole or in part manufactured in such foreign country, it shall be lawful for His Majesty by Order in Council to direct that the protection afforded by this Act shall not apply to works the authors or publishers whereof are subjects or citizens of such foreign country, unless such works are wholly manufactured in the United Kingdom."
  This Amendment raises a point of some importance, as the House will see by looking at the Clause. In the Committee upstairs I moved an Amendment, which was negatived without a Division on this matter, and I asked the Solicitor-General whether the object which I had in view could be provided for under the provisions of this Section. The hon. and learned Gentleman answered that, so far as he was concerned, he could not pledge the Government to give a right to American authors unless similar rights were given by the American authorities to British authors. I desire to move this Motion now with regard to one foreign country, which is, of course, I admit, the United States.
  I am afraid I must trouble the House a little with the law as it now stands in America. The House knows that for many years there was no copyright afforded to publishers of foreign countries. In 189] we get the first American copyright law. I will not trouble the House with the conditions in regard to time and so forth, but in 1891 the United States first agreed to grant copyright to foreign authors. There was a clause inserted in the American law at the instigation of the Type Setters Union that such copyright should not apply unless to books which were set up in type in America. That was the foundation principle upon which America agreed to give copyright to the citizens of foreign countries. After that Act was passed another copyright Act was passed, and although an effort was made by American authors to get that particular Clause eliminated, it was actually made stronger in order to comply with the demand of the

  2177
  type setters and workmen of America. It was made to apply not merely to type setting, but to the reproduction of all pictures photographs, chroms and lithographs, but a very curious provision was inserted in that Act, namely, that it did not apply to any foreign works except those printed in the English language, so that so far as Englishmen are concerned in the copyright of America we have gone backward and not forward since 1891. While the Frenchman and the German can obtain copyright in America, for French or German works, without the necessity of going over there and having their books printed in America, the English author cannot get copyright there unless he goes to the expense of sending his work over and having it set up in type and printed in America, and I think I am right in saying in having it bound there, and having any illustrations that may be necessary reproduced there.
  I have taken some trouble since I last spoke upon this matter to interview many authors, and I make a present of the fact to my hon. Friend the Member for Graves-end (Sir Gilbert Parker), whom I know is a very great opponent of this Amendment, that works like this, for which there is certain to be a large demand in the United States of America, do not suffer any injury or harm under the provisions of this law. It pays them to send their works over there and to have them printed and set up there, and, I am sorry to say, not only to have the American edition printed and set up there, but also to have the English edition printed there and sent back here rather than have it printed by our own printers. It pays in the case of certain books with large circulation, but with all deference to my hon. Friend, there are literary and scientific works. I do not mean to make any reflection upon the works of my hon. Friend, but the House understands what I mean when I say there are works of a literary and scientific character as distinct from works of fiction. The authors of these works cannot afford to have a double setting up in this country and in another country. Take the case of mathematical and scientific works. I had an opportunity of speaking to Professor Loney, the well-known writer of mathematical text-books. The great cost of printing such a book as his is not only the type-setting but the numerous corrections that must unfortunately take place with regard to these books, and lie assures me that in regard to scientific works of that character
  2178
  they are not at the present moment doubly set up both here and in America. He publishes his works here, sets them up in English type by English type-setters and has them printed in England, and the result he assures me is, that in the first year he may get a circulation of 1,000 or 1,500 in America. The second year he may have a circulation of 2,000 or 3,000, and in the third year none, because by that time the American publisher pirates the publication because he has come to see that the particular work is good business. He practically pirates the copy in America.
  Mr. BOOTH: Infringes the copy.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I prefer to say pirates the copy in America, giving the English author no benefit and the English printer and publisher no benefit. That is the position. You cannot go to the expense of having duplicate printing in England and in America unless you have a very large circulation. Further than that this action of America is detrimental to Canada. Many of these English works printed in that manner in America are sent over the Canadian Frontier and sold at a cheaper rate than they could be if they were sent out from England. I am not making this statement entirely upon my own responsibility. That is the point to some extent which was gone into by the Departmental Committee under the Chairmanship of Lord Gorrell, which sat some two years ago. I admit quite frankly the Committee did not decide in favour of this Clause, but there were two important witnesses called before that Committee from the point of view of the typesetters of Great Britain, and they were the only two witnesses who dealt with this question at all. I do not think there was any other witness called by the other side. Lord Gorrell's Committee did not see fit to recommend any alteration of the law. The first witness was Mr. James Hodgson, Chairman of the Master Printers' and Allied Trades Union. Mr. Hodgson made a very strong point with regard to this American law, and in question No. 3,719 he said "the main point is the insertion of an Employment Clause in our own Copyright Act similar to the Employment Clause that now exists in the American Act. That is what I advocate, and what I have repeatedly advocated." A little further along he was asked a question by the Chairman. This affects not merely the author, but very largely the working men

  2179
  of this country, and this is the point to which I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward).
  "By English authors?—By English authors, intended for the English market. They wanted to secure the American market, and they had them set up in type in America, they had electro-shells cast, brought into this country for the English edition, and they printed from the electro-plates.
  "Were the books actually printed in England, then? —Printed from plates supplied from America."
  The witness was asked for further details as to the number of these works. He admitted the difficulty of ascertaining the number, and he said:—
  "I may say I have been concerned in the production of three books which have been set up in America; as a matter of fact, they have not been printed in America."
  English works were printed there in America, re-exported to this country, and the title-pages merely set up here. I should like to call attention to a question which was raised by the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Bowerman), who took a very keen interest in this question. The question was:—
  "Your point is, if it is good for America insisting as a condition of copyright there that the work should be done there, then it is good for England that we should insert as a condition of copyright here that the work should be done here?—Yes. You see we do not want to take the Americans work from them, but we are trying to protect ourselves from America taking our work from us."
  The next witness was Mr. Harry Vane Stow, the secretary to the Federation of Master Printers and the authorised witness of the London Chamber of Commerce. He was authorised by them to give evidence and he did so. I need not trouble the House with very much of his evidence, but I may say that it bore out the evidence of Mr. Hodgson as to the injustice under which the English workmen suffered. He said:—
  "That the Amended Copyright Acts should provide, except where there is reciprocity, that no colonial or foreign authors can obtain British copyright unless their works are printed in a country signatory to the Berne Convention."
  Those are the witnesses which came before that Committee, and I think it is common knowledge to many hon. Members who take an interest in the commercial side of this question in addition to the author there is the work of the printer, who is entitled to appeal to this House for protection against this unfair competition. I remember the hon. Member for Norwich, who spoke on the Second Reading, asking the President of the Board of Trade if he would make inquiry as to the effect of this law on the English printing trade. I think hon. Members will agree with me as to the injustice caused by these particular
  2180
  provisions. What is their objection to this Clause? The objection raised in the Committee was a fear of the United States of America. We have been too long subservient to the United States in regard to our Copyright law. We have given American authors full copyright here, and they have given us in America only this very modified form of copyright. I do not believe that the Americans would alter their copyright had somebody suggested that the President of the United States would issue an order prohibiting the importation of the right of copyright to English authors.
  Mr. BOOTH: Retaliation.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: He could not do it. I have looked up the American law, and the only thing they could do would be to repeal the existing copyright laws in America. I now wish to deal with the conditions contained in the Berlin Convention, which has been held over us as a bugbear. Article 6 of the Berlin Convention makes it perfectly clear that, under the Convention, the authors of America are entitled to enjoy the same rights as native authors. But there is nothing in the Convention which prevents us modifying it with regard to our own internal laws. We have modified it over and over again in this Bill. In the first Clause of this measure you will find that we have modified the Berlin Convention, which grants copyright where a work is first published in parts of His Majesty's Dominions, but in no other works except so far as the protection conferred by this Act is extended by Orders in Council relating to the self-governing Dominions and foreign countries. So that the whole thing is in our own hands. Under the provisions of the Bill there is no copyright at all for the American authors until His Majesty in Council makes a provision bringing American authors within the provisions of this particular Bill. Clause 23, to which I am proposing to add a Subsection, provides:—
  "If it appears to His Majesty that a foreign country does not give, or has not undertaken to give adequate protection to the works of British authors, it shall be lawful for His Majesty by Order in Council to direct that such of the provisions of this Act as confer copyright on works first published within the parts of His Majesty's Dominions to which this Act extends shall not apply to works published after the date specified in the Order."

  2181
  If it appeared to His Majesty that the manufacturing Clause in the American copyright was unfair to English authors, and, incidentally, to English type setters and English manufacturers, it might be open to the Government to make an Order in Council protecting the American rights of copyright. But that is not the view of the Solicitor-General, and I want the House to pass this addition to Clause 23, not absolutely to debar the Americans from having copyright here, but to enable His Majesty in Council, if on consideration this conclusion is arrived at and it is found that the American printing Clause is an unfair hindrance to English manufacturers and printers to make conditions, when applied to copyright under the provisions of this Act to the American authors, insisting upon the American manufacturing Clause being repealed or else making a similar condition in the case of this country. I do not see that is in any sense an infringement of Free Trade, although I agree it could be done by imposing a tariff upon American books coming into this country. I do not suggest that alternative, because I do not want to drag the tariff question into this very important dispute. All I ask is that the same justice should be done to the English printer and manufacturer as the great American nation has decided upon for the protection of the American printer and manufacturer. In these circumstances I ask the Government to accept this Amendment.
  Mr. CASSEL: I beg leave to second this Amendment.
  Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Gentleman who has moved this Amendment has informed the House that in Grand Committee we had a discussion on this subject. This Amendment is not quite the same in language, and no doubt it avoids some of the difficulties which were then pointed out. I do not think, however, that it avoids all those difficulties, for the simple reason that it is not possible to introduce into a Copyright Bill a provision to this effect without doing some of those things which the hon. Gentleman wishes to avoid. My hon. Friend has examined the convention with great care, and he has served on the Departmental Committee. If we introduced a provision of the kind he desires we should be breaking Article 4, Sub-section (2) of the Berlin Convention, because it would be "the imposition of a condition or a formality," and the international
  2182
  Convention of Berlin says that shall not be allowed. It is no answer to say that they do it in the United States of America. We thought it was worth our while to take part in a Conference which represented all the great literary people of the old world, and in this matter there is a good deal to be said for the old world.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think if the Solicitor-General refers to Article 4 he will see that it does not apply.
  Sir J. SIMON: I notice that I was not making the right reference, but the House will see that I am right in substance. If my hon. Friend will turn to Article 6 he will see the intention is that a book which is written by an American—supposing that book is first published on the Continent of Europe—is a book which is entitled to the same copyright protection as though it were written by a European subject or citizen. It is impossible to contend that an Amendment of this sort can be accepted without setting at naught the provisions of the Berlin Convention. I may point out that the hon. Gentleman is not very successful in keeping himself within the limits of his own proposition. What he would enact would include any American painting or photograph taken by an American of architectural work on the Continent of Europe. He wishes it to be limited to books, but there is not a word to suggest that. The real truth is, the hon. Member thinks this is an opportunity for arguing the case for retaliation. He has given up consideration of the difficulties of the law of copyright in order that we may discuss an abstract question of retaliation.
  We cannot adopt what he proposes without a breach of the Berlin Convention under which any author who first publishes in a union country is entitled to have the same treatment as if he were a native of that country. His Amendment is far too wide even for his own purposes. I suggest that those who urge that this step should be taken would be well advised to follow the advice of those who have personal and intimate knowledge of this matter. I remember the speech made by the Member for Gravesend, who will not be accused of suffering from any Free Trade bias. He pointed out, convincingly, that it would bring down upon English authors in the United States the destruction of that very protection they enjoy. I did not quite understand the hon. Gentleman opposite when he explained the

  2183
  American law, but I am informed that it is quite a mistake to suppose any elaborate legislation would be required before the English authors could be denied copyright there. I am informed that a proclamation made by the President of the United States is sufficient. The hon. Member for Gravesend assured us in Committee that an attempt to introduce a provision of this sort is going to have no other consequence than that of depriving a certain number of English authors of the protection they enjoy. Is it not attempted to say that the printing trade of this country—one of our great and prosperous trades — is unable to remain on its legs unless we imitate the protective legislation of America? The truth is in this country the printing trade is a great and successful trade. It is not true that this legislation has had the result of throwing the work into other hands. Printing is better and cheaper done here than in America. If anyone buys a book in an American bookstall he will see the cost instead of being less is greater. I hope the House will come to the conclusion that we cannot do what is asked. What we can do is that we can reserve Clause 23, which does give to the Privy Council, when adequate protection to the works of British authors is not given, the power to expose the offending country to the disadvantages of that Clause. I would ask the hon. Member to rest content with that. To go further in this matter is not likely to assist British authors. It will, on the contrary, do them great damage.
  Mr. J. WARD: I shall certainly support the Amendment if the hon. Member takes this matter to a Division. I confess it is rather peculiar that men should talk of the principles of Free Trade or Protection being involved when, I suppose, it is taken for granted the Copyright law, as it has existed for years in this country, is rank Protection from whatever point of view you choose to look at it. There have been some modifications since I became a Member of this House which have tended towards greater freedom. I cannot for the life of me see, when I remember the Patents and Designs Act of 1907, how it is possible that those who supported that Act can refuse to assent to what the hon. Member opposite proposes. The situation with reference to patents was exactly similar to that presented now. We in this country were so vigilant in our protection that although an article was not being pro-
  2184
  duced in this country we absolutely prohibited our own people from producing it either. We gave the foreigner the absolute right to make it in his own country. Under this copyright certain countries at the present time only give copyright on the conditions on which we give patents. In some countries the only conditions on which copyright is given is that the work shall be produced in that country. The Government proceeded to rectify the question of patents by its Act of 1907, when it was discovered, as a matter of fact, that such was the protection given to certain monopolies that our trade was being ruined. The Solicitor-General has told us the printing trade is a powerful trade and may be left to look after itself. The Solicitor-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not say that with regard to the great boot industry, and other industries, when the Patents and Designs Act was under consideration. It was found that, owing to this special proceeding, which places the copyright in a foreign country, the copyright is only secure so long as the article is produced in that country. The matter was debated in this House and it is extremely questionable if the whole boot trade in this country would not have evaporated by now if action had not been taken. It is surely splitting hairs to refuse the same principles to works of art, musical records, and things of that description. We should give greater opportunities to our people to make these things. We should not design our laws to prohibit them from making them in this country. On the principles of Free Trade the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member ought to be accepted.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: If this question was not one of great gravity I would not detain the House. I am anxious the Bill should pass, but I should be unfaithful to my knowledge of the subject if I did not venture to say a few words in reply to my hon. Friend (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) and the hon. Member for Stoke. I agree with much they have said regarding the principle involved, and undoubtedly there is a grievance. It is a grievance against which I have protested, and hundreds, similarly situated, have protested. We recognise that it is an injury to the British printers that the American printers should have a particular advantage through books being printed there under compulsion, else they cannot be published. I would like to point out this. Before 1891 there was no copy-

  2185
  right in the book of an English author, or any other author, in the United States, and it was a work of twenty years to get that Copyright Bill passed. It would never have been passed but for this Clause, which was a compromise with the United States. The compositors and printers were not disposed to give copyright at all. They were brought in, and they were reconciled through having this printing Clause included. Every other nation of Europe of any importance has aimed at what my hon. Friend wishes—real Free Trade and international reciprocity in books. An attempt has been made to put music, art, and literature upon a plane different from the products of industry, and you find in the nations of Europe whom we do not consider to be as enlightened as ourselves a desire to come to an agreement whereby the arts shall be put upon what may be called a reciprocal basis. That has been achieved, and the Solicitor-General is absolutely right when he says there is great danger in England now adopting what we have always considered to be an absolutely retrogade action on the part of the United States.
  Supposing England adopted the printing Clause, I believe there would be a certain advantage to the English printer; but the ultimate loss would be great. It is absolutely certain this whole question of a printing Clause would come up again in the Berne Convention, and we should be breaking an international agreement and understanding reached after many years' striving and after many years of progressive thought and of conciliation of the various interests. The result of the Amendment, if carried, would be that the international agreement would be broken, because the principles laid down by the Berne Convention would be repudiated by this country, and we should be adopting a principle which we have condemned for a great many years. We not despair yet of getting the United States into that convention. There is a stronger movement in the United States now than there ever was before for the inclusion of the American Republic in the Berne Convention; and I honestly believe if we adhere to our honourable agreement of international reciprocity with those powers comprising the Berne Convention, and do not pursue this proposed policy of retaliation, we shall within a reasonable time be able to induce the United States to give up this reactionary principle of compelling a book to be printed and set up in the country where it is published. I want to say one word
  2186
  of warning. If we adopt this Amendment, I am absolutely certain the United States will abrogate the Copyright Act which already exists there to the injury of interests which all of us hold dear, the interests of literature and the interests of working people in this country, those who work with their heads as well as those who work with their hands. I beg the Solicitor-General not to hesitate a moment in adhering to the principle which has been well established as against a principle that has been repudiated by every nation of the world except the United States.
  Mr. JOYNSON HICKS: I should like to be quite clear about the matter before I withdraw my Amendment. If the Solicitor-General holds that Clause 23, as it now stands, would provide a Government of opinion that the American provision was detrimental to the English compositor with power to make an Order in Council, then I should be glad to withdraw my Amendment. I gather that is what the Solicitor-General said. I do not ask that this Government should carry that into effect, but, if that Clause would give the Government of the day that power, then I should be prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
  Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Gentleman knows the Clause begins:
  "If it appears to His Majesty that a foreign country does not give, or has not undertaken to give, adequate protection to the works of British authors, it shall be lawful for His Majesty by Order in Council to direct."
  If a situation arose to justify the application of those words, the Government would certainly have the power to make an Order in Council.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not ask the Government to make the Order, but so long as there is the power I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 24.—(Existing Works).
  (1) Where any person is immediately before the commencement of this Act entitled to any such right in any work as is specified in the first column of the First Schedule to this Act, or to any interest in such a right, he shall as from that date be entitled to the substituted right set forth in the second column of that schedule, or to the same interest in such a substituted

  2187
  right, and to no other right or interest, and such substituted right shall subsist for the term for which it would have subsisted if this Act had been in force at the date when the work was made and the work had been one entitled to copyright thereunder:
  Provided that—
  (a) if the author of any work in which any such right as is specified in the first column of the First Schedule to this Act subsists at the commencement of this Act has before that date assigned the right or granted any interest therein for the whole term of the right, then at the date when but for the passing of this Act the right would have expired the substituted right conferred by this section shall, in the absence of express agreement, pass to the author of the work, and any interest therein created before the commencement of this Act and then subsisting shall determine; but the person who immediately before the date at which the right would so have expired was the owner of the right or interest shall be entitled at his option either—

  (i.) on giving such notice as hereinafter mentioned, to an assignment of the right or the grant of a similar interest therein for the remainder of the term of the right for such consideration as, failing agreement, may be determined by arbitration; or

  (ii.) without any such assignment or grant, to continue to reproduce or perform the work in like manner as theretofore subject to the payment of such royalties to the author as, failing agreement, may be determined by arbitration, or, where the work is incorporated in a composite work and the owner of the right or interest is the proprietor of that composite work, without any such payment;

  The notice above referred to must be given not more than one year nor less than six months before the date at which the right would have so expired, and must be sent by registered post to the author, or, if he cannot with reasonable diligence be found, advertised in the "London Gazette" and in two London newspapers:
  (b) where any person has, before the twenty-sixth day of July nineteen hundred and ten, taken any action where-
  2188
  by he has incurred any expenditure or liability in connection with the reproduction or performance of any work in a manner which at the time was lawful, or for the purpose of or with a view to the reproduction or performance of a work at a time when such reproduction or performance would, but for the passing of this Act, have been lawful, nothing in this Section shall diminish or prejudice any rights or interest arising from or in connection with such action which are subsisting and valuable at the said date, unless the person who by virtue of this Section becomes entitled to restrain such reproduction or performance agrees to pay such compensation as, failing agreement, may be determined by arbitration.
  (2) For the purposes of this Section the expression "author" includes the legal personal representatives of a deceased author and the expression "composite work" means any work in which works or parts of works of various authors are incorporated.
  (3) Subject to the provisions of this Act as to copyright under the Copyright Act, 1775, copyright shall not subsist in any work made before the commencement of this Act, otherwise than under and in accordance with the provisions of this Section.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I beg to move to leave out the words from "the," in. Sub-section (1) ["such substituted right shall subsist for the term"] to the end of Sub-section (2), and to insert instead thereof the words, "same term as that of the right for which it is substituted."
  I move this Amendment in order to protest against what is retrospective legislation. I do not mean to raise any question as to works produced in the future, but it seems to me the House is doing a very strong thing if it extends the copyright of existing works. It is, of course, common knowledge that as soon as copyright runs out cheap editions are produced, and we should be very careful about extending the copyright and thus shutting out the prospects of cheap literature in existing works. I should like to give one or two instances which I think may be taken as fair samples. Mr. Herbert Spencer died some seven years ago, and consequently the provision with regard to seven years from the death of the author does not need to be taken into account, and the forty-two years copy-

  2189
  right only applies. In his case any work which was brought out before 1870 is now out of copyright. There are some important works brought out since 1870. The second edition of his "Principles of Psychology" were brought out in 1872, and according to the law they run out of copyright in 1914. His "Study of Sociology" was published the next year, and it will run out of copyright in 1915. A further work will run out in 1918. The effect of the provision as its stands will be that all these will remain in absolute copyright till 1933, and in qualified copyright till 1953. In the case of Lewis Carroll, "Alice in Wonderland," being published in 1865, runs out of copyright in 1907. If you take the companion work, "Through the Looking Glass," it was published in 1871, and its copyright will expire in 1913. Under the proposed provisions that copyright will be extended in absolute form till 1928 and in qualified form till 1948. It seems to me a very serious matter that works of that character should be kept in copyright after the time when under the existing law they would expire. I know it is said it is done in order to co-ordinate the law of copyright, but I venture to think if the proposal had been, not to lengthen, but to shorten, the term of copyright, we should have heard nothing of this co-ordination.
  Mr. CASSEL: I rise to second this Amendment as a protest against this Bill being made retrospective. I consider the Bill, having been made retrospective in a way contrary to sound principles of legislation, will work grave injustice in individual cases.
  Mr. BUXTON: My hon. Friend will hardly expect me at this stage to accept an Amendment which cuts at the root of the Bill. The matter was carefully considered in Committee, and I do not think I need really follow the various arguments he has put before the House.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
  Sir W. ANSON: I beg to move, to leave out the words from "expired," in Sub-section (1), paragraph (a) ["but for the passing of this Act the right would have expired"], to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert instead thereof the words, "all right to copyright under this Act, or otherwise, shall cease and determine."
  I am sorry to intrude on the time of the House, but I must call attention to a point
  2190
  raised in Committee, and to the extreme inconvenience which may arise in the case where an author, or joint authors, have assigned all rights which they contemplated to a publisher. The purchaser of their rights when their own copyright is run out will, after a lapse of years have to look about in search of a representative of one of the joint authors who may have-died years ago. Take the case of A and B, who made such an arrangement in 1870. A died in 1878 and B in 1913. In 1920 new rights would arise no one contemplated at the time the bargain was made, and the unfortunate purchaser would have to look about for the representative of an author who died fifty years ago. I venture to think this is a matter which the Solicitor-General might consider, and, if he is prepared to say it will be considered in another place, I shall be satisfied and will not press my Amendment.
  Sir J. SIMON: I think the right hon. Gentleman will find the Amendment to be moved by the President of the Board will to some extent meet the matter.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), paragraph (a) (ii), after the word "payment" ["subject to the payment of such royalties"], to insert the words, "if demanded by the author within three years after the date at which the right would have so expired."

  CLAUSE 35.—(Interpretation).
  (1) In this Act, unless the context other-vise requires,—
  "Literary work" includes maps, charts, plans, and tables;
  8.0 P.M.
  "Dramatic work" includes any piece for recitation, choreographic work or entertainment in dumb show the scenic arrangement or acting form of which is fixed in writing or otherwise, and any cinematograph production where the arrangement or acting form or the combination of incidents represented give the work an original character;
  "Literary work," "dramatic work," and "musical work" include records, perforated rolls or other contrivances by means of which a work may be mechanically performed or delivered;
  "Artistic work" includes works of painting, drawing, sculpture, and artistic craftsmanship, and architectural works of art and engravings and photographs;
  "Work of sculpture" includes casts and models;
  "Architectural work of art" means any building or structure having an artistic character or design, in respect of such character or design, or any model for such building or structure, provided that the protection afforded by this Act shall be confined to the artistic character and design, and shall not extend to processes or methods of construction.
  "Engravings" include etchings, lithographs, wood-cuts, prints, and other similar works, not being photographs;
  "Photograph" includes photo-lithograph and any work produced by any process analogous to photographs;
  "Cinematograph" includes any work produced by any process analogous to cinematography.
  "Pirated," when applied to a copy of a work in which copyright subsists, means any copy made, or imported in contravention of the provisions of this Act;
  "Performance" means any acoustic representation of a work and any visual representation of any dramatic action in a work, including such a representation made by means of any mechanical instrument;
  "Delivery," in relation to a lecture, includes delivery by means of any mechanical instrument;
  "Plate" includes any stereotype or other plate, stone, block, mould, matrix, transfer, or negative used or intended to be used for printing or reproducing copies of any work, and any matrix or other appliance by which records, perforated rolls or other contrivances for the acoustic representation of the work are or are intended to be made;
  "Lecture" includes address, speech, and sermon;
  "Self-governing dominion" means the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, and Newfoundland.
  (2) For the purposes of this Act (other than those relating to infringements of copyright), a work shall not be deemed to be published or performed in public, and a lecture shall not be deemed to be de-livered in public, if published, performed in public, or delivered in public, without the consent or acquiescence of the author, his executors, administrators or assigns.
  (3) For the purposes of this Act a work shall be deemed to be first published within the parts of His Majesty's dominions to which this Act extends, notwithstanding that it has been published simultaneously in some other place, unless the publication in such parts of His Majesty's dominions as aforesaid is colourable only and is not intended to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, and a work shall be deemed to be published simultaneously in two places if the time between the publication in one such place and the publication in the other place does not exceed fourteen days, or such longer period as may for the time being be fixed by Order in Council.
  (4) Where, in the case of an unpublished work, the making of a work has extended over a considerable period, the conditions of this Act conferring copyright shall be deemed to have been complied with if the author was during any substantial part of that period a British subject or a resident within the parts of His Majesty's dominions to which this Act extends.
  (5) For the purposes of the provisions of this Act as to residence, an author of a work shall be deemed to be a resident in the parts of His Majesty's dominions to which this Act extends if he is domiciled within any such part.
  Amendments made: Leave out the words "'Literary work,' 'dramatic work,' and 'musical work,' include records, perforated rolls, or other contrivances by means of which a work may be mechanically performed or delivered."
  After the words "'cinematograph' includes any work produced by any process analogous to cinematography," insert the words: "Collective work" means:—

  (a) An encyclopædia, dictionary, year book, or similar work;

  (b) A newspaper, review, magazine, or similar periodical; and

  (c) Any work written in distinct parts by different authors."

  Leave out the word "Pirated" ["when applied"], and insert instead thereof the word "Infringing," and after the words "when applied to a copy," insert the words" including any colourable imitatation" ["of a work in which copyright subsists, means any copy made, or imported in contravention of the provisions of this Act"].
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Mr. BOOTH: I will not detain the House at any length. I wish to say I do not like this Bill, but I feel that the Committee of very able men who sat upon it are entitled to have their labour respected, and although I regard the measure as entirely unworthy of a Liberal and Progressive Government, I shall not oppose this Motion.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

LABOUR DISPUTES.

  ROYAL COMMISSION OFFERED BY CABINET.
  MASTER of ELIBANK: I understand that hon. Members desire to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the present unfortunate condition of affairs in the industrial world. I beg, therefore, to move "That this House do now Adjourn."
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Perhaps the House will allow me to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any statement to make relative to the strike in the railway world to-day?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I do not know I have very much to add to what has already appeared in the evening papers except, perhaps, by way of explanation of that statement. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has been conducting negotiations for some time with a view to averting this impending calamity, and the last day or two he has seen representatives of the railway companies and also representatives of the men. Last night I announced to the House that the Executive were travelling up to see my right hon. Friend at his invitation. I believe they saw him to-day with the Prime Minister, and it is in reference to that interview, I think, a statement has already appeared in the evening papers. It is a very important statement, and for the purposes of those who have not had an opportunity of seeing it I will give it to the House. Perhaps before I do it I ought to preface a few facts in order to make it clear why the Government have taken up the position which they have taken to-day, and which they have announced to the representatives both of the
  2194
  companies and of the men. Four years ago we were confronted with exactly the same difficulty; we had the same demand on the part of the men for recognition of their unions, and we had the same persistence on the part of the railway companies. A compromise was arrived at which had the same element as every compromise—of something which neither party had proposed up to that date, and which was not altogether pleasing to either party, but which was regarded as perhaps the best solution for the time being.
  It was decided to set up a number of Conciliation Boards containing freely elected representatives of the men to meet the representatives of the railway companies to discuss grievances. It was then proposed that that experiment should last for seven years. It was felt it was an experiment. The men never abandoned their claims for recognition, and, on the other hand, the railway companies felt that they could not go beyond treating a proposition of that kind as a mere experiment. It was decided that seven years would be a proper term for giving a chance to that experiment. The document was signed by the railway companies and by the trade union officials. I think it is the only document in existence where the signatures of the directors of railway companies and representatives of trade unions appear on the same paper, except on documents issued as reports. That document containing the signatures of the union officials as well as the representatives of the railway companies, and pledging both parties to attempt this experiment of Conciliation Boards for seven years has been in operation just short of four years. There is something like three years still to run. There has been a good deal of friction, I understand, in the working of these boards. There have been two complaints directed against the conciliation system. The first has been a complaint on behalf of the men that it has not been worked fairly by some at least of the railway companies. The second is that there are certain defects in the machinery of conciliation which are fatal to its success. These complaints were made, I believe, by the Executive Committee who met to-day. A question was put to them as to what their complaints were, and among other things this question was put to them:—

  1. What are the actual grounds on which the Executive Committee have founded their action in issuing their twenty-four hours' manifesto?

  2195

  2. What are the actual grievances in connection with the Conciliation Board Agreement of 1907?

  3. Are those grievances sufficiently grave to justify the action which the executive have taken?

  4. Could those grievances not be remedied in a less drastic way?

  5. Could those grievances be remedied in the way proposed—by means of a general strike?

  These were the questions put by the Board of Trade this morning to the executive committee of the various unions. To these five questions the following answers were given:—
  1 and 2. The failure of the railway companies to observe the spirit and the letter of the Conciliation Board agreement of 1907——
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: "Refusal."
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member says "refusal"——and the utter impossibility of the men's representatives to redress many grievances of which the men complain.
  3. The answer is "Yes."
  4. The answer is "Yes—by the suggestion offered by the Committee to the railway companies yesterday to meet the official representatives of the men."
  5. The answer is "Yes. In our opinion that is the only course."
  These answers came before the Government to-day, and we had to consider the whole position. We had to consider the fact that an agreement had been arrived at to try the experiment of Conciliation Boards for seven years. It was an agreement to which the men were parties—the trades unions were parties, the railway directors were parties, and to which the Government also were parties. But if, for any reason or other, these Conciliation Boards were not working smoothly, and especially if they were not working smoothly because either of the two parties to the agreement were not working them fairly, then we felt that that was a matter which certainly ought to be investigated, and ought to be investigated before we came to any decision in reference to it. It was a very serious statement of fact. We could not prejudge it. It involved necessarily some inquiry, and we decided to suggest both to the railway directors and to the men's representatives that there
  2196
  should be a special inquiry into these allegations. We decided to propose to both parties that there should be such a special inquiry.
  I will inform the House, after I have read the terms of reference, of the nature and character of the inquiry which we propose to set up. The terms were "to investigate the working of the Railway Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme signed on behalf of the officials of railway companies and the three trade unions of railway employés and the Board of Trade representatives, on 6th November, 1907, and to report what amendments, if any, are desirable in the scheme with a view to the prompt and satisfactory settlement of the difficulty. "Our idea was to appoint a small Committee of Inquiry or Commission of three. One of the Commissioners we proposed should be a representative of the labour interests of this country. We proposed that another Commissioner should be a great employer of labour, and that the Chairman should be a gentleman of position and distinction, of well-known impartiality, whose appointment would command the confidence of the whole community. We all realised the importance of acting promptly. We realised also that there would be a natural suspicion in the mind of those who were labouring under a sense of accumulated grievances—grievances so severe that they were prepared to run the terrible risk of a great strike— risks, however great they are to the community, are still greater to themselves. We felt, accordingly, that there was the danger in suggesting a Committee of that kind, that they must be apprehensive that we were simply trying to put off dealing effectively with their grievances. It was urgently important that this Commission should be appointed at once, that it should proceed promptly to work and that it should report without any delay. The Government, of course, cannot abrogate its responsibility and cannot accept the report of any Commission without investigation. The responsibility, of course, must be, in the first instance, the responsibility of the Government, and then finally on the House of Commons. We felt that it must be a Commission appointed with a view to reporting and with a view to action being taken, not merely to express a series of pious opinions, which would undoubtedly carry great weight with the community, and to that extent be the means of exercising pressure upon the contestants, but with a view to administrative, and if

  2197
  necessary even legislative action being taken by the Government in order to see that a fair condition of things could be established.
  This proposal was made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who saw both parties this morning with the President of the Board of Trade. He made this proposal to both parties. He saw them successively. The executive of the railway employés took some time for consideration, and then, I cannot help thinking without a full appreciation of the character of the proposal, they decided to refuse it, and to proceed at once to recommend a great national strike. The representatives of the railway companies accepted the suggestion, and they were prepared to give evidence before a Commission of that kind. That was the position some time ago—a very serious position. It would be very difficult for anyone to exaggerate its gravity. Some of us felt that it was so grave that at any rate if a conflict must come, it is of the utmost importance that it could only come after a full understanding on both sides of the actual character of the proposals and what the real intentions of the Government were. I cannot help thinking that the proposal was not fully understood in all its spirit and intention, and even its effects. At any rate, I am very glad to be able to say this, that negotiations for the moment have been reopened, and although a strike has been announced and there is no withdrawal of the manifesto which has been issued by the executive, still the House will be very pleased to know that, at any rate, the negotiations are not broken off, that the parties are giving a full consideration to the interpretation which I now place upon the proposal of the Government that it was really not the intentions to set up a roving Commission merely for the purpose of putting off the evil hour, but rather a Committee of Inquiry, a small one, a judicial one, and above all one which would lead to a prompt decision, and what I attach far more importance to, one which will lead to a prompt report, which would involve action and decisive action, with a view to putting an end to the causes of this irritation, which has been so fruitful of unrest and disturbance and which is so charged with possible disaster and catastrophe to the industrial system of this country. I cannot sit down without once more emphasising the importance of the considerations which I yesterday put before the House, the in-
  2198
  portance of exercising very great patience and restraint in this critical hour of the negotiations. I hope it will be possible, at any rate during the next few hours, to eon-duct negotiations without any exasperating intervention, either inside or outside the House. It is an exceedingly difficult position. I certainly have not given up the hope of arriving at some sort of conclusion which will be satisfactory to all parties.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDmade an observation which was inaudible in the Gallery.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope the hon. Member will not think I am casting any reflection upon anyone. It is rather with the view of an appeal to the future than a reflection upon anybody's past. It is an appeal which I make not merely to the House, but if I may respectfully do so to the Press as well. This statement will appear to-morrow. It will appear in the first instance as a refusal on the part of the men to accept the proposal put before thorn by the Government. I hope they will all bear in mind that at the present moment, at any rate, the whole matter is; sub judice, and if the Press will kindly take note of that fact I am sure it will be very helpful in arriving at a satisfactory conclusion.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: The light hon. Gentleman said he would read the statement which has been made to the Press.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think I have given the substance of it. The statement which the Prime Minister made warned them in very grave language of the responsibility which would be cast upon them if they refused that offer. I am sure the men themselves will be the first to realise what a tremendous and terrible responsibility it is. I am very anxious at this moment not to say anything which will render the negotiations-more difficult. The mere fact that there has been I think, rather a misinterpretation of the proposal is regrettable, but I am still very sanguine that when the men come to realise the full character of the proposal of the Government, that it is intended to give them every fairplay and every opportunity, and that it is not at all a mere attempt to lure out of their hands the great weapon of striking, but that it is merely an attempt for the moment to see whether we cannot arrive at the facts which must alone be

  2199
  the basis of safe negotiations, to arrive at that promptly, to arrive at it without loss of time, and in such a way that if the men are not satisfied with the recommendations of the Committee they still could fall back on the very powerful weapon in their hands. I hope and trust that in the meantime it will be possible to arrive at some means of obviating the suffering which must occur if the struggle goes on.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Will the House grant me its usual indulgence while I make a statement with regard to the point of view of the men, certainly not for the purpose of aggravating the situation, but for the purpose, I hope, of smoothing over the difficulties which may exist? After a very hard day's work, which has proved that the ways of peacemakers, as well as of transgressors, are hard, I have to say that I hope there is a possibility of re-opening all the case. I should like to make it quite clear to this House that the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the proposal that was made to-day was not made to the men in the way he has made it now. I do not intend to dwell upon that point, but I think, in justice to the men, that ought to be known. I heard the statement myself, and I think it is only fair and just to the men to say that. I will not go into the details, because that is only to be provocative. I would only ask hon. Members to please keep in mind that when the decision of the men was come to, after that statement was made to them, the way in which it was done was not the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself stated.
  There was a misunderstanding apparently all round, and so much is that the case that the men's reply will be in the newspapers to-morrow. I suppose that has been done, and cannot be undone. In that reply hon. Members will see certain points raised which could not properly be raised in connection with the statement we have just heard. It is possible—I do not want to say it is not—that it was purely a matter of misunderstanding, but so grave was the misunderstanding, and so very keenly did we feel it, that what I intended first of all to do this afternoon was to ask the Government to give us an opportunity of moving a Vote of Censure upon them for the way they had conducted the negotiations. But I am delighted beyond measure that such a thing is not necessary for the moment,
  2200
  and I sincerely hope it will not be necessary at all. I do not know whether it is possible—I hope it is possible— to re-open the negotiations. Both sides have drifted very far apart, and as hon. Members who have read their newspapers know, a strike has actually been declared. As a matter of fact, preliminary steps have been taken to re-open negotiations, and if these preliminary steps are successful, might we beg hon. Members on both sides of the House who can influence railway directors to argue with and persuade them in the ordinary way to try to make it easy for either side to declare a truce until this inquiry is held, if the men should see their way to accept the inquiry. I would like to guard myself in this respect too. I hope that nothing I have said will be taken to prejudice any decision which the men may come to to-night or to-morrow morning. They have their very great grievances, and it is just possible that they may still come to the conclusion that it is impossible to re-open the matter. So far as we are concerned here, we propose to state the case as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated it here, and to discuss the whole situation with him after the misunderstanding, as I call it, has been somewhat removed.
  I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, one or two questions. Would it be possible for him, supposing these negotiations are re-opened, to announce the names of the Commission, say, by Saturday forenoon, or some time during Saturday at the latest? Would it also be possible for him to make a statement that when the Commission is appointed it will meet, say, on Monday, or not later than Tuesday next week? The situation is a very pressing one. A strike has been declared, and of course until the men get a very firm offer from the Government one way or the other, it will be impossible to take any of those steps which we would all like, if possible, to be taken in order that the men may resume the normal operations of their labour. I would also like to ask whether I understood him aright to say that as soon as the report of the Commission is published the Government will take immediate administrative action for carrying it into effect, provided, of course, that the Government agree with it. We would never think of asking it to give effect to a report with which it does not agree. I wish also to know whether, if these steps fail, the Government would

  2201
  promise to take such legislative action as it considers necessary in order to establish peace on a tolerably permanent footing. All I can say is that I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Government, and the House, that if it is at all possible to assist in securing peace with honour, and peace with fairplay to both sides in the dispute, those of us who sit here will do our very best in giving that assistance. Those who are here, at any rate, will do our best to establish that. I think I ought to say something as to the condition of the truce. I understand it would be this. If an agreement is come to and if the negotiations which are opened up end successfully and the men declare the strike off, it will be on the condition that the men who have been locked out or who have already ceased work would betaken on by the companies, and that each side would meet the other in that respect, so that the whole railway system would be put into active operation again. That must be understood as a necessary preliminary to any successful negotiations.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is only by leave of the House that I can speak again. I will answer the four questions which have been put to me by my hon. Friend. His speech, to which, I am sure, we have listened with great satisfaction, is a very good guarantee, I think, that if the negotiations are reopened they will be conducted in the very best spirit and with a real desire to settle the dispute. He asked whether I could announce the names of the Commissioners by Saturday. If the Commission had been accepted today, we could have announced them to-morrow. If the Commission is accepted to-morrow, and if the Commissioners accept to-morrow, the names certainly could be announced on Saturday next. My hon. Friend asked me if we proposed that this Commission should meet on Monday. That is our idea. We think that prompt action is essential to meet these grievances. To keep them alive would be a constant source of irritation, and is the very last thing in the world the Government or anybody else desire to do. The sooner we dispose of the matter the better it would be, because it is a constant menace to the industrial peace of this country. Therefore, if the Commission were appointed on Saturday, we would make it a condition of acceptance that they should meet on Monday, and begin their work immediately next week and go on de die in diem until they came to a con-
  2202
  clusion. The third question was in the event of the Government accepting the recommendations of the Commissioners, and the Government accept absolute responsibility in that respect—whether having regard to all the circumstances of the case we would be prepared immediately to take administrative action in reference to it, and whether if we discovered that our administrative powers were insufficient and inadequate we would take steps to strengthen those powers. Certainly, that was the intention of the Government.
  As I have already pointed out, the Government is setting up this Commission with a view to being advised as to the action which it should take. In order to lead to immediate action it is proposed that this Commission should be set up. The fourth question is a very important and a very difficult question. The hon. Member says that a truce to be binding must be a truce all round, and not merely that the men who struck should return to work, but that those over whom hangs the menace of a notice should also be allowed to return. Of course, I cannot pledge myself to do more than to bring all the influence of the Government to bear in a case of that kind, but I must say that the hon. Member has met us in a very fair spirit, and I cannot imagine if there is a truce of that kind anyone interposing any obstacles. I am sure that it would be the general opinion of everybody throughout the country that when everybody is willing to do his best to obviate this disastrous industrial war all the parties must give fair play to the truce by making it a real and effective one, and, therefore, I am sure that the Government will have the support of the House of Commons in bringing pressure upon both parties in this case, so that the men who are out shall return to work during the period when the investigation is taking place.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Arising out of what the Chancellor has said, may I ask, if the Report of the Royal Commission made suggestions that could not be dealt with by administration and the Government would be prepared to legislate, are we to infer from that that the Government would be prepared to summon Parliament before the time fixed for the Autumn Session?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend is asking me a question which I should not care to answer myself without consulting my colleagues, especially the Prime

  2203
  Minister, but with regard to that everything depends upon the character of the recommendations. If the recommendations are such as involve very urgent considerations upon which the peace of the community depends, and that it depends upon them being dealt with promptly and without delay, I cannot imagine anyone objecting in that case to Parliament being summoned at any period.
  Sir W. ANSON: I think that on this side of the House we are fully alive to the gravity of the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and more particularly to the importance which he attaches to reticence in letter and speech lest anything should be done which might mar the possibilities of a happy solution of this serious difficulty. Under those circumstances all one can say as to the plans of the Government is that we recognise the value of the prompt action which the Government propose to take, and we feel quite sure that if it should be necessary to summon this House again at any inconvenience we would willingly come. The Government's duty—and I think we recognise it as the duty of all of us—is to be impartial as between the two parties to this strike. The Government has another duty, which was recognised yesterday, and which I feel sure they have not ceased to recognise, a duty to the public to protect life and property and to ensure that the people of this country obtain the necessaries of life. I feel that the public at large is entitled to that assurance under present circumstances, and I do not doubt that that is the intention of the Government as was declared last night. Under those circumstances we will endeavour to carry out the injunction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not say one word more than that, and we all hope that the efforts of the Government to solve this painful difficulty may be crowned with success.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: I am sure that everyone in this House realises thoroughly the gravity of the situation and hopes sincerely that there may be a satisfactory settlement. May I, however, say that it seems to me that if there is a satisfactory settlement by Conciliation Boards it does not go to the root of the evil, the question of the wages. We all know that the cost of living has gone up in England and that wages have not gone up in proportion. Might I suggest that if the Government
  2204
  appoint one Commission they should appoint a second Commission at the same time to investigate——
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Member would not be in order in introducing a new subject at this moment.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: With all due respect might I say it is with reference to this present dispute. I am suggesting a second Commission in order to get at the root of the evil. If we had a second Commission to inquire——
  MASTER of ELIBANK: By the leave of the House I beg to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), deferred till Tuesday, 24th October next.
TELEGRAPH (CONSTRUCTION) (RECOMMITTED) BILL.
Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
PACIFIC CABLE BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.

EDUCATION (ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS) (No. 2) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

EDUCATION (ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS) (No. 2) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Power of Board of Education to make contribution orders in respect of boarder children.)
  (1) Where any children resident in the area of any local education authority for the purpose of Part III. of the Education Act, 1902, are receiving education in any public elementary school within the area of some other local education authority, the Board of Education may, if they think fit, on the application of that other local education authority (in this Section referred to as the applicant authority), and after giving the first-named local education authority (in this Section referred to

  2205
  as the respondent authority) an opportunity of being heard, make a contribution order under this Section.
  (2) For the purpose of this Section, a contribution order means an order directing the respondent authority to pay to the applicant authority annually such sum as the Board think proper in respect of children resident in the area of the respondent authority who, in the opinion of the Board, are properly receiving education in a public elementary school within the area of the applicant authority.
  (3) In considering whether children are properly receiving education in a school outside the area in which they reside, the Board of Education shall have regard to the interests of secular instruction, to the wishes of parents as to the education of their children, and to economy of rates.
  (4) Any sum due to an applicant authority under a contribution order shall be recoverable as a debt due to that authority from the respondent authority, and the Board of Education may, if they think fit, without prejudice to any other remedy on the part of the applicant authority, pay any such sum to the applicant authority, and deduct any sum so paid from any sums payable to the respondent authority on account of Parliamentary Grants.
  (5) If any question arises between the applicant and respondent authorities as to the amount due in any year under a contribution order, that question shall be referred to the Board of Education, and the decision of the Board shall be final.
  (6) The Board of Education may revoke or vary a contribution order on the application of either the applicant authority or the respondent authority after giving the other authority an opportunity of being heard.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (6), to add the words: "A contribution order shall not be made under this Section so as to alter, without the consent of the parties, the effect of any subsisting agreement made between two or more local education authorities before the passing of this Act with respect to contributions in connection with the education, within the area of one education authority, of children resident within the area of another such authority."
  The effect of this Amendment is that where there is a specific agreement between two contiguous education authori-
  2206
  ties, the terms of that agreement shall stand in spite of the provisions of the Bill, I understand that the Government are likely to accept the Amendment, and therefore I will say no more about it.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): I accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question, "That Clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Exemption of school buildings from building by-laws where plans approved by Board of Education.)
  The provisions of any by-laws made by any local authority under section one hundred and fifty-seven of the Public Health Act, 1875, as amended by any other Act, with respect to new buildings (including provisions as to the giving of notices and deposit of plans and sections), and any provisions in any local Act dealing with the construction of new buildings, and any by-laws made with respect to new buildings under any local Act, shall not apply in the case of any new buildings being school premises to be erected, or erected, according to plans which are under any regulations relating to the payment of grants required to be, and have been, approved by the Board of Education.
  Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move, to leave out the words "shall not apply" ["new buildings under any local Act shall not apply in the case of"], and to insert instead thereof the words "may with the consent of the local authority be set aside."
  The Amendment preserves the rights of local authorities. Under a Clause of this kind, the Education Department could send down officials to exert a little authority over the local body, and I am not sure that that would be altogether acceptable. It is only in that view that I move the Amendment. It is becoming increasingly difficult to get men of independent character, men of business, to go on to these local authorities, and if their views and wishes were to be ignored from time to time, there would be a deterioration in the quality of the men who would accept membership of those local authorities. It is best that we should have responsible and good men on these local authorities, but if they find themselves overridden by officials they will simply return to their own private business. I do not know what

  2207
  the answer of the Department will be; but I cannot see that any harm will be caused by getting the consent of the local authority.
  Mr. TREVELYAN: The whole object of this Clause is to enable the Education Department to have greater freedom in order to be able to override local by-laws. Local by-laws, in a great many cases, cause a quite unnecessary expenditure on schools. We have recently had a small departmental inquiry into the matter, and one of the complaints we find most general is that in many places the by-laws are antiquated, and prevent cheap building. Schools have to be built, like mills and warehouses, with very thick walls, where much thinner walls would be satisfactory. In regard to the Amendment, if the words "local authority" means the education authority, then that is simply saying that one-half of the Clause may do it, and the other half of the Clause may not do it.
  Mr. BOOTH: It is the sanitary authority.
  Mr. TREVELYAN: If it means the sanitary authority, then it makes the Clause of no avail. Where this Clause is wanted is mainly in the rural districts where the authorities are not in touch with one another. I think the Amendment is not necessary, and I hope my hon. Friend will not press it.
  Mr. PETO: In what places are rules and regulations applicable to factories applied to elementary schools?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I cannot tell all the places. But Manchester is one of them.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I should like to say, as a member of a local education authority, that I am entirely in accord with all that has fallen from the Parliamentary Secretary with regard to this particular matter. There is no doubt that a very valuable work has been done by the Departmental Committee of the Board which has been sitting on this question of how to build efficiently and at the same time inexpensively. I think that the aid which will be given by the Board to the local authorities will be of very great value. In my own district the regulations approved by the sanitary authorities provide for a central hall in connection with the school, and the result of this is that if it becomes necessary to have an extension of the building, it is found impossible to effect it without very great and unnecessary cost.
  2208
  That is one of the reasons why I feel that this proposal will be of great value to the local education authorities.
  Mr. BOOTH: After the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Power of Local Education Authority to provide lodging near school for children resident in outlying parts of their area.)
  (1) The powers under the Education Act, 1902, of a local education authority for the purpose of Part III. of that Act, shall include a power to defray the whole or any part of the cost of providing lodging in convenient proximity to a public elementary school for any child who is resident in some outlying part of the area of the authority, and who will be unable to attend school unless such lodging is provided for him.
  (2) No lodging shall be provided for any child under this section except at a place which has been approved by the parent of the child, and the local education authority may for the purposes of this section enter into an agreement with the parent of any child to defray part of the cost of lodging the child upon condition of the parent agreeing to defray the balance of the cost.
  Any agreement so entered into shall be made so as to continue in force for such period, not being less than a school term, as may be provided by the agreement, and it shall be a term of the agreement that the parent shall not during the continuance of the agreement (except for some urgent cause) remove the child from the place provided as lodging.
  (3) Every lodging provided under this section for any child shall, before the child is received therein, and subsequently from time to time, be inspected by some officer of the local education authority for the purpose of ascertaining that the lodging is properly fit for the reception of the child.
  (4) In this section the expression "lodging" includes "board."
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I beg to move to leave out Clause 4.
  I promised, on the occasion of the Second Heading of the Bill, that if I could not meet certain objections raised by hon.

  2209
  Members opposite, I would move to omit the Clause. Unfortunately, I have not been able to meet those objections, and I therefore move.
  Question, "That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
  Bill reported with Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

SALFORD HUNDRED COURT OF RECORD (Re-committed) BILL.
Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Mr. BOOTH: I take this opportunity of thanking the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee. I took some little interest in the formation of this Committee, and as far as I can see they have made a most excellent Bill. It will be a very great boon to the poor litigants in the district, my own native district, who have been suffering under the misuse of the old court. I would like to make my acknowledgments.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

ISLE OF MAN HARBOURS BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
ISLE OF MAN HARBOURS BILL.

  CLAUSE 6.—(Amendment of provisions enabling duty to he charged on passengers.)
  (1) The power under Section two of the Isle of Man Harbours Act, 1883, to impose a duty on passengers carried for hire is hereby extended so as to include a power to impose, as respects vessels holding a Board of Trade certificate for the conveyance of passengers, a duty on passengers whether carried for hire or not.
  (2) One shilling shall be substituted for threepence as the maximum duty on a passenger under proviso (1) to Section two of the Isle of Man Harbours Act, 1883, as respects passengers embarked or disembarked at a harbour on Sunday between the hours of eight o'clock in the forenoon and five o'clock in the afternoon.
  Mr. MOONEY: I beg to move to leave out Clause 6. I do so in order to get from the Parliamentary Secretary some expla-
  2210
  nation of Sub-section (2), which authorises the Commissioners to charge a sum of 1s., instead of a sum of 3d., for every passenger that may be landed in any harbour of the Isle of Man on Sunday between the hours of eight o'clock in the morning and five o'clock in the afternoon. As I understand, this increased charge has been proposed to do away with what is considered to be an influx of trippers on Sunday. I have no objection to make from that point of view, but I have an objection to the Clause, as it enables a charge of a shilling to any person embarking or disembarking on Sunday. This Sub-section is not governed by the words of the first Sub-section with the result that a passenger landing or embarking could be charged the quadruple rate. For instance, a person coming in a yacht or driven into a harbour through stress of weather would be liable to be charged the quadruple amount. I do not think that is intended, but I would be glad, if my interpretation of the Subsection is correct, to have an assurance that words will be put in that this quadruple charge is only to have effect on passenger-carrying boats. The other point I desire to refer to is the provision in the next Clause that a debt of £700 may be compounded. That Clause is extremely vague. It provides that the Commissioners may accept any smaller amount in full discharge of the debt. Surely it would be better to state what amount is to be accepted in place of £700. I very much regret that the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) is not here, because last night he took exception to the Public Works Loans Bill on a particular matter, and here is a remission of a debt of £700, and we have not been told how much is going to be accepted in consideration of that amount.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  9.0 P.M.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Tennant): My hon. Friend has put two questions to me; one with regard to the compounding of a debt. I am not really aware what actual sum is contemplated, but the Harbour Commissioners do not think it would be reasonable to exact full dues for this vessel. I imagine that they would make a considerable reduction—the exact amount, I suppose, will depend on the condition of the finances of the Harbour Commissioners. With regard to the other point, to which I imagine he attaches more im-

  2211
  portance, I should like to remind him that the charge of one shilling is a maximum amount. It is not to be exacted in all cases. When he asks me to insert words to differentiate as between passengers coming on a steamer and passengers coming on a yacht I think the House might have something to say against that as one law for one class and another for another class. All these matters are within the discretion of the Harbour Commissioners. We only give power in the Bill for the maximum duty. Therefore, it will be perfectly within the competence of the Commissioners to say that on certain classes of vessel they will charge higher rates than on other classes. I do not imagine, and I am informed so, that they contemplate having to make the full charge of 1s. They hope to be able to effect the object they have of limiting the number of trippers by a considerably smaller sum than 1s. Ninepence or 8d. would probably effect their object. I will communicate with the authorities of the Isle of Man to see if they can agree to what the hon. Gentleman suggests with regard to yachts. I would remind him that it is only within certain hours that this maximum will be chargeable. I will communicate the result of my inquiries to the hon. Member, and if the authorities are agreeable to the insertion of other words I will see that that is done in another place.
  Sir W. BYLES: There were considerable objections raised in the Grand Committee to this proposed increased charge. I am not so solicitous of the interests of the yachtsmen, as I am of the interests of the trippers who go from Manchester and Sal-ford to the Isle of Man. We appreciate the Island very much for its natural beauties and the facilities it affords us for an easy and healthful excursion. It will come very hard upon poor families in that district who make trips to the Isle of Man if they are charged 1s. instead of 3d. per person on landing. The authorities may not impose the full charge, but they will have the power to do so. If a man with a family of three or four has to pay 1s. each on landing—and I am not sure whether he will not have to pay 1s. each to get them away again—it will add very much indeed to the cost of the holiday. What is the object of the Isle of Man authorities in asking for far-reaching legislation of this kind? The charge is limited to passengers who land between eight in the morning and five in the afternoon on Sundays. It is evident
  2212
  that it is not a tax for revenue. It is a tax for Sabbatarianism and nothing else. The inhabitants of the Isle of Man no doubt, have some claim to enjoy their homes in peace on Sunday, but I think it is going a very long way to shut out on the whole of Sunday the great population who use the Isle of Man as a playground, Sunday probably being the only day on which many of them can take a holiday at all.
  Mr. MOONEY: May I point out that the Clause to which I have referred has reference to the remission of an existing debt of £700. If it is an existing debt, the promoters of the Bill must have known what sum they were going to take in respect of it. I object to the loose way in which the Clause is drafted. It would enable 2d. or 3d. to be taken for a debt of £700. If a company or corporation are to be allowed to forego a legal liability which they have incurred, Parliament ought to insist on the consideration for the waiving of the liability being embodied in the Bill. I protest very strongly against the slipshod manner in which these Bills are drafted. Nearly every departmental Bill which we have considered in the last three months has been drafted in a manner which would be a disgrace to an apprentice in a solicitor's office.
  Mr. TENNANT: Any amount which is agreed upon will have to pass the Court of Tynwald in the Isle of Man.
  Clause agreed to.
  Bill reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.
Ordered, "That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers' Foundation for the year 1911–12 be approved." —[Dr. Macnamara.]
ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved. "That the House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
Adjourned accordingly at Twelve minutes after Nine o'clock.