Commons Sitting of 31 May 1911

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the clock.

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE.
The Clerk at the Table (Sir Courtenay Ilbert) informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker from this day's Sitting:—
Whereupon Mr. Emmott, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Corporation of London (Bridges) Bill,
To be read the third time upon Wednesday, 14th June, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Enfield Gas Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Tamworth Gas Bill (by Order),
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 5) Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Employment of Children Act (1903) Amendment Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 15th June, and to be printed.
Dundee Harbour and Tay Ferries Bill [Lords].
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—
Sligo Corporation Bill, without Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate with amendments
1046
the Acts relating to the harbour of Dundee and the Tay ferries; to reconstitute and reincorporate the trustees; and for other purposes."—[Dundee Harbour and Tay Ferries Bill [Lords.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. Bill, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.
RAILWAYS BILLS (GROUP 4).
Sir Francis Lowe reported from the Committee on Group 4 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday, 4th July, at half-past Eleven of the clock. Report to lie upon the Table.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Land Drainage Act, 1861, in the matter of a proposed Drainage District in the parishes of Billingborough and Birthorpe (detached), in the county of Lincoln," presented by Sir EDWARD STRACHEY; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.
TOUNHEAD STREET (SHEFFIELD) BAPTIST CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
"To confirm a scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the Charity consisting of the Particular Baptist Chapel Burial Ground and Trust Property in Tounhead Street, in the city of Sheffield," presented by Mr. CHARLES ALLEN; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 14th June, and to be printed.
BRIDGE AND CAUSEWAY (GLOUCESTER) CHARITY BILL.
"To confirm a scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application and management of the Charity in the city and county of Gloucester, consisting of the yearly sum of eighty pounds applicable towards the reparation of the Bridge and Causeway lying between the said city and the village of Over," presented by Mr. CHARLES ALLEN; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 14th June, and to be printed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Coronation.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the ship chartered for the use of Members of the House of Commons at the Coronation naval review will be included amongst the vessels who will be permitted to follow the Royal yacht when the inspection takes place?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The ships chartered by the Admiralty for the use of guests will steam through the lines before taking up their berths. There will not be sufficient turning space to permit of their following in the procession.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Do we understand that only the Royal yacht will go down the line?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Royal yacht, the Admiralty yacht and the Commander-in-Chief's yacht—they are all comparatively short vessels.
  Mr. FALLE: Could not shorter vessels be set apart for Members?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not think hon. Members would find the same comfort in smaller vessels.
  Mr. FALLE: You might have two small ones instead of one large vessel.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is it not the fact that on the last occasion the vessels set apart for hon. Members did go down the line?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, but then there was more turning space. That space will be much more restricted on this occasion.

  H.M.S. "Bellerophon" and "Inflexible" (Collision).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked for details of the collision between His Majesty's ships "Bellerophon" and "Inflexible"; what is the extent of the damage to the latter vessel; and when it is expected her repairs will be completed?
  Mr. McKENNA: Pending the result of inquiry, the details of the collision between the "Bellerophon" and "Inflexible" cannot be given. The damage will necessitate the renewal of about eight plates with framing. It is expected that the repairs will be completed before the naval review.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: Will the result of the inquiry be communicated to the press?
  Mr. McKENNA: Of course information will be subsequently given, but until the inquiry is completed, and until we know whether or not court-martial proceedings will take place, it would be obviously unfair to make any statement.

  Naval Airship "Mayfly."
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked why the naval airship "Mayfly" has been rehoused without flight; and when it is expected she will really be available for effective service?
  Mr. McKENNA: Naval airship No. 1 was taken out of the shed in order to carry out certain experiments which could not be done inside. The ship will not be ready for service until she has been accepted from the contractors.

  Japanese Naval Construction.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked how many armoured vessels are under construction, have been ordered, or are projected for the Japanese Navy; what are their types; and where are they to be built?
  Mr. McKENNA: There are building for Japan:—Two battleships in the naval yards at Yokosuka and Kure; one armoured cruiser at Messrs. Vickers and Sons, Barrow; a similar armoured cruiser is to be built at Yokosuka as soon as the extension rendered necessary to the slip is completed. We have no official information as to Japan's further programme.

  Royal Navy.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether provisional dates have yet been fixed for the launch of the capital ships "King George V.," "Centurion," "Audacious," "Ajax," and "Queen Mary?"
  Mr. McKENNA: The actual dates have not yet been fixed, but it is expected that the ships will be launched in the following months:—

  "King George V."

  …

  October, 1911.

  "Centurion"

  …

  November, 1911.

  "Ajax"

  …

  December, 1911.

  "Audacious"

  …

  January, 1912.

  "Queen Mary"

  …

  February, 1912.

  Mr. FALLE: May I ask whether the "Queen Mary" is called after Queen Mary, in which case the nickname of the sailors on board the ship will be easily guessed, or is it after the gracious Consort of his present Majesty?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That question does not arise.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether it is intended to strengthen the anti-torpedocraft armament of the battleship "Dreadnought" during her present refit; and whether, in the armoured units at present under construction, a gun of a larger calibre than four inches will be included in the minor battery?
  Mr. McKENNA: There is no intention of altering the anti-torpedo boat armament of the "Dreadnought" during her present re-fit. It is not desirable in the public interest to furnish the information asked for in the latter part of the question.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked on what date the Vice-Admiral commanding the Third and Fourth Divisions of the Home Fleet was appointed to that command; in what ship was his flag first hoisted when taking over the appointment; and in what vessels, and of what classes, has his flag since been flown?
  Mr. McKENNA: The reply to the first part of the question is 24th March, 1911. The flag was first hoisted in the "Cæsar" and, as is customary, transferred to another ship on the following day, 25th March, namely, to the "Bulwark." The flag has since been flown in the battleship "Irresistible," the scout "Forward, battleship "Africa," protected cruiser "Juno," the armoured cruiser "Hogue." The flag has been shifted as necessary when the ships in the Nore command have been sent to sea in rotation for various exercises.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is this sort of travelling about in the fleet usual with the Admiral?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is not only usual but necessary. Each ship is sent in its turn to carry out the necessary exercises, and if the Commander-in-Chief is not taking part in the exercises he must transfer his flag to another ship. It is the usual and necessary practice which is followed.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: Are we to understand that the Commander-in-Chief goes out in more than one ship at a time?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is just the reverse. When the ship which was up to that time the flagship of the Commander-in-Chief goes out to undertake the necessary exercises, the Commander-in-Chief does
  1050
  not himself go but transfers his flag to another ship.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, if a man serves his time for pension as a chief armourer, he receives Os. 3d. a day, including badges, and if he takes on another five more years 6s. 9d. a day, while if he is selected for warrant rank he can only get 6s. 3d. a day; whether this inequality prevails in the other ratings in the Royal Navy; and will he consider the advisability of at least securing to the warrant officer the same pay as he received as chief armourer?
  Mr. McKENNA: The maximum rate of pay and badge pay for a chief armourer is 6s 3d, a day. If allowed to re-engage after completing time for pension, an addition of 6d. a day is allowed in exceptional cases. The rate of pay for a warrant armourer on promotion is Os. 6d. a clay. The matter is now under the consideration of the Board.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the. First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the services of hired boys or boy writers who remain in the dockyard as men are counted from sixteen years of age, whereas the service of ex-dockyard apprentices do not begin until they have completed their apprenticeship, that is from twenty to twenty-two years of age; that when the late Lord Tweedmouth was First Lord of the Admiralty he promised that a uniform method should be adopted governing all classes; and whether, in view of the dissatisfaction prevailing owing to this promise not being carried into effect, he will consider the possibility of taking some steps to remedy the inequality?
  Mr. McKENNA: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am not aware of any such promise as is alleged in the second part of the question. The Admiralty have, however, long been of opinion that the matter is fully deserving of consideration, and it is at the present moment under review in connection with the petitions presented from the Royal dockyards.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will kindly took at Lord Tweedmouth's memorandum on that point?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes; I do not know whether the hon. Member wishes me to

  1051
  look at it again, but I should have thought he would have inferred from the reply which has been given that it has been looked up.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I did infer it.

  British and German Fleets.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked how many armoured ships were under construction for the British and German Fleets respectively on 31st March, 1904, and how many on the same date in the present year?
  Mr. McKENNA: The figures asked for are:—Great Britain: On 31st March, 1904, twenty-one (excluding "Swiftsure" and "Triumph"); on 31st March, 1911, fourteen. Germany: On 31st March, 1904, eight; on 31st March, 1911, twelve.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Are we to understand that if we exclude the two ships which are being constructed our ships and those of Germany which are being constructed are on an equality?
  Mr. McKENNA:No; the hon. Member wishes to draw an inference which contains a fallacy. The hon. Member must remember that the British ships only take twenty-four months to build and the German ships thirty-six to forty, and, consequently, the fact that the same number are building does not mean that the two countries are only making the same naval preparations.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked how many completed battleships of 10,000 tons and over, and not more than ten years launched there were in the British and German navies, respectively, on 31st March, 1904; and what are the corresponding figures for the same date this year?
  Mr. McKENNA: The figures asked for are: Great Britain.—On 31st March, 1904, 30; on 31st March, 1911, 24. Germany.—On 31st March, 1904, 10, on 31st:March. 1911, 18.

  Naval Officers (Allowance of Spirits).
  Sir WILFRID LAWSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the privilege of allowing spirits to be embarked duty free for consumption by officers on board His Majesty's ships has been recently extended; whether the following amounts represent the maximum daily allowance of spirits that may now be embarked duty free under this concession—
  1052
  namely, flag officers, three pints per day; captains and commanders in command, one pint per day; lieutenants in command and officers in the ward-room and gunroom, one-third of a pint per day; whether the value of this exemption from duty in the case of a flag officer is equivalent to the rate of £100 a year; what is the reason for graduating the allowance per day in proportion to the rank of the officers; and whether any concessions are to be made to officers who do not use spirits?
  Mr. McKENNA: Until the recent change, the regulations did not admit of spirits being embarked duty free on board His Majesty's ships at home ports, though all foreign-going merchant ships were allowed this privilege. The effect of the change has therefore been to extend to the Royal Navy the facilities already given to the merchant service. The quantities referred to in the second part of the question are correctly stated. The money value of the extension cannot be estimated, as it has been the custom for His Majesty's ships when visiting foreign ports to obtain supplies of spirits for use in home waters. The answer to the fourth part of the question is, that officers in the higher ranks of the Service have greater claims made upon their hospitality, and the suggestion contained in the last part of the question does not arise.
  Mr. P.O'BRIEN: Is there any test put to these officers on their promotion as to whether their official capacity is equal to the quantity of drink put on board?
  Mr. McKENNA: No.

  Peruvian Rubber Plantations (Indian Labourers).
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Report of Consul-General Casement, on the treatment of Indian labourers in the rubber plantations of the Putumayo Valley, has been considered by His Majesty's Government; whether he will state what action they propose to take upon it; and when the Report will be published?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. T. McKinnon Wood): I have received the report of Consul-General Casement, which fully confirms the information received as to the ill-treatment of the natives. I am in communication with the Peruvian Government, who have expressed their

  1053
  determination to put an end to the present condition of affairs, and I am also in correspondence with the company, who are considering plans of reform. In the meantime, the visit of Mr. Casement and of the Commission has greatly improved the condition of the Indians; and it is hoped that this improvement may last until the reforms have been introduced. Many of the chief criminals have fled the country, and the Peruvian Government are endeavouring to effect their capture, although the inaccessibility of the country and the long distances render this a difficult task. I cannot yet say whether the Report will be published.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTON: After it is published will it be available in the Library?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Not at present.

  Ottoman Christian Subjects (Egypt).
  Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Secretary of State whether he will lay the Report on Ottoman Christian Subjects (Military Service) from His Majesty's Acting Agent and Consul-General at Cairo upon the Table?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not think it necessary to lay the despatch, in view of the fact—of which the hon. Member was informed in reply to a question on the 22nd instant—that there has been no reversal of policy. But I will show the despatch to the hon. Member, and place a copy in the Library, if he desires.

  Imperial Conference.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider the advisability of utilising the presence in this country of the Prime Ministers of the over-sea Dominions for the purpose of discussing with them what official meaning should be attributed throughout the Empire to the word Imperial; whether he is aware that in the Dominions oversea, as well as in the Crown Colonies, the Home Government is invariably referred to as the Imperial Government, a designation following the legislative union of Great Britain and Ireland; that on the occasion of the last assembling of the Conference, over which he is now presiding, it was decided to call that Conference the Imperial Conference, thus for the first time bringing into direct official conflict the word Imperial when applied to the Parliament of
  1054
  the home country, and to an assembly including representatives of the oversea Dominions?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I am afraid that it would hardly be profitable for me to discuss this matter with the Prime Ministers of the oversea Dominions, as proposed by the hon. Member. The designation "Imperial Government" has gradually become a customary expression, but is not, strictly speaking, an official term. The designation "Imperial Conference" was adopted at the Conference of 1907 to mark the association between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Governments of the self-governing Dominions. It does not appear to be possible to prescribe the use of the word Imperial or to stamp it with a rigid official meaning. It probably adequately represents the views of those who employ it.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be advisable in the interests of everyone that some official designation should be given of the word "Imperial"?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No.

  Canadian Emigration Agents.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked what was the number of emigration agents and sub-agents employed in Great Britain and Ireland by or on behalf of the Canadian Government at the present moment; and whether they are paid a fixed salary or by results?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I understand that there is no emigration agent or sub-agent employed in Great Britain and Ireland by or on behalf of the Canadian Government, except the following:—Mr. John McLennan, Liverpool; Mr. L. Burnett, York; Mr. Andrew O'Kelly, Birmingham; Mr. A. F. Jury, Exeter; Mr. M. McIntyre, Glasgow; Mr. W. D. Cumming, Aberdeen; Mr. E. O'Kelly, Dublin; Mr. J. Webster,. Belfast. All these officials are paid by a fixed salary, and not by results.
  Mr. RAFFAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the most efficient agencies for recruiting for the colonies in this country are the Scottish landowners, who are clearing the land of men in order to make room for deer?
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can the Secretary for the Colonies say whether the unofficial agents are paid any commission on the emigrants whom they send out?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No; I have no knowledge of the arrangements of unofficial agents.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask if in view of the great exodus from rural districts he will do all he can to try to keep the people in this country instead of assisting these people to take them abroad?
  Mr. HARCOURT: We will use every effort to get the people back to the land.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Would not the roost effective way to secure that object be to emigrate the landlords?
  Mr. CLYNES: Do these agents and subagents work under any printed instructions, and if so are they available for Members of this House?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The agents have no connection with the Imperial Government. Whatever agents there are, are employed by the Canadian Government for their own purposes. I have no information on the subject. For the purpose of answering this question I have obtained the regulations from the Canadian Office.

  Umtali Case.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now able to lay upon the Table of the House the Papers in connection with the commutation of the death sentence in the Umtali case, including the judge's letter?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir. I have nothing to add to my answer of the 9th of March to the hon. Member for Rugby.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he said he was not able at present to lay the papers on the Table? When will he be able?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I should think probably not at all. There are no papers.

  British East Africa (Masai Reserves).
  Mr. T. E. HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, when the agreement was entered into by which the Masai are recognised as owning their two present reserves in British East Africa; whether a pledge was given then, or at any other time, by or on behalf of the British Government, that they should not be disturbed from these territories; and, if so, whether negotiations have been entered upon to
  1056
  transfer the Masai from their good northern lands to less desirable territory to the south; and whether he will take steps to prevent such removal?
  Mr. HARCOURT: In accordance with the unanimous desire of the representatives of the northern section of the Masai tribe it has been decided to consolidate the two sections of the tribe in the southern portion of the Protectorate. A solemn and formal agreement abrogating the agreement of 1904, referred to by my hon. Friend, has been entered into between the Government of the East Africa Protectorate and the paramount Chief of all the Masai, his regents and the representatives of the Northern section, and has received my approval. The Papers which I propose to lay as soon as possible will show the nature of the arrangements made and the reasons for my action.
  Mr. T. E. HARVEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman delay the final approval until the House has had an opportunity of discussing the question?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No, I have given the approval already.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

    APPLICABILITY TO IRELAND.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will have the applicability or inapplicability of the National Insurance Bill to Ireland ascertained by Irish actuaries acquainted with the conditions of life in rural districts in Ireland as contrasted with those of the fully-employed and well-paid population of Great Britain?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The applicability or inapplicability of the National Insurance Bill to Ireland appears to me to he a social and economic rather than an actuarial question, and one on which the House of Commons would prefer to listen to the representatives of Irish Constituencies.

    CONTRIBUTIONS DURING HOLIDAYS.
    Mr. JAMES THOMASasked whether the employés at a works which is closed down for a week or more at holiday times, who are employed contributors under Part I. of the National Insurance Bill, will be exempt from contributions for such periods; and, if not, whether they will, to avoid falling into arrears, be required to pay the whole of the contributions due in

    1057
    respect of them or whether the employer's portion of such contributions will be recoverable from the employer?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Contributions can only be paid through the employer in respect of a period during which the contributor is employed. An employed contributor may miss practically 6 per cent. of his contributions without suffering any disadvantage, and may miss any proportion up to 25 per cent. without suffering a complete suspension of benefits.
    Mr. JAMES THOMASasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether workmen in insured trades who, by the closing down of the works in which they are employed for periods of a week or more at holiday or other times, are unable to provide for their maintenance will be regarded as being entitled to unemployment benefit under Part II. of the National Insurance Bill, although they are not specifically discharged from their employment and do not enter into a new contract of service on the reopening of the works; and, if not so regarded, will they be liable to pay contributions during such periods, although they are not in receipt of wages; and will the employer be liable to pay his portion of the contributions due in respect of such workmen; and what steps does he propose to take to ensure the collection of such contributions?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): Workmen who are unemployed in the circumstances mentioned in the question would be entitled to draw unemployment benefit provided that the other conditions entitling them to benefit are fulfilled in their case. I may remind my hon. Friend that benefit will not be payable during the first week of a period of unemployment. Neither work-people nor employers would be liable to pay contributions in respect of such periods as those referred to.

    APPROVED SOCIETIES.
    Mr. POINTERasked whether a superannuation fund established by an employer which only provides disablement benefit could become an approved society under the National Insurance Bill without also making provision for sick benefits?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. JAMES THOMASasked whether a trade union, not at present providing similar benefits to those specified in Part I.
    1058
    of the National Insurance Bill, but willing to establish a section for the administration of such specified benefits and having 10,000 present members desirous of making it their approved society, will be eligible for approval under the scheme, and, if approved, whether such trade union will be required to deposit such sums as may be required by the Insurance Commissioners under Clause 20 (1) from its funds accumulated for other purposes, and, if so, whether it will be permitted, as its accumulations for purposes of this scheme grow, to substitute for such deposits from other funds its accumulations under this scheme; and, if approved under such conditions, whether the Government audit and control of its funds and administration would extend to the whole of its funds and activities or only to such portion of them as are established in respect of its approval under the National Insurance Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: A trade union, in the circumstances described, will be eligible as an approved society, and for the purpose of giving security would not be restricted to the method of depositing the necessary sums. The Government audit, and control to be established by Clause 28 of the Bill will only extend to the funds provided for the National Insurance.

    RATES OF SICKNESS AND DISABLEMENT (IRELAND).
    Mr. CLANCYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether any Returns have been obtained, as respects Ireland only, regarding the rates of sickness and disablement in urban and rural districts, respectively, for the purposes of the National Insurance Bill; if so, whether they will be laid upon the Table of the House; and, if not, whether such Returns will e obtained and laid upon the Table before the Committee stage of the Bill is taken; and (2) whether any actuarial calculations have been made, as respects Ireland only, for the purposes of the National Insurance Bill; if so, whether they will be laid upon the Table of the House; and, if not, whether he will cause such calculations to be made, based on the actual rates of sickness, disablement, and unemployment in Ireland, and to be laid upon the Table of the House before the Committee stage of the Bill is taken?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: With regard to Part I. of the Bill, the proportion of the Irish population already insured against sickness is so small and so confined to purely industrial areas that it is to be

    1059
    feared that the data available for the calculations indicated by the hon. Member would be of little value. So far as Part II. is concerned, there is no reason to suppose that the unemployed rates in the insured trades would, on the whole, differ seriously from those applicable to the United Kingdom.

    MEDICAL FEES.
    Mr. CLYNESasked whether any extra fees, in the nature of mileage, will be allowed in respect to doctors who have to travel long distances in order to visit their patients?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This would be a matter for the doctor concerned to arrange with the society or health committee, subject to the arrangement being to the satisfaction of the Insurance Commissioners.
    Mr. PIKE PEASEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was aware that the conditions of the National Insurance Bill, in regard to medical treatment, have roused dissatisfaction amongst the general medical practitioners throughout the United Kingdom; whether, in view of the fact that their cordial support is essential to the success of the scheme, he would consider changes in his proposals likely to satisfy the medical profession; whether he had sought the information or advice of those who justly claim to represent general medical practitioners; and, if so, with what result?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: With regard to the first and second portions of the question, I think I made the position clear in my speech during the discussion on the Second Reading last Monday. With regard to the concluding portion, I have seen representatives of the British Medical Association twice—once before and once since the introduction of the Bill. I have also seen representatives of the General Medical Council, and I have consulted from time to time other representatives of the medical profession. Moreover, I have carefully perused the able report of the British Medical Association on contract practice.

    MATERNITY GRANT.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his intention that health societies in administering the maternity grant under the
    1060
    National Insurance Bill will make provision for the services of qualified midwife nurses; and whether, in the event of the employment of a midwife, the 30s. grant is supposed to cover her services and those of any doctor she may have to consult?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The maternity benefit of 30s. is intended to cover the cost of doctor and midwife where necessary.

    REDUCED SICKNESS BENEFITS.
    Viscount WOLMERasked whether a man at present normally earning £1 a week, who belongs to three friendly societies, so that when ill he receives 30s. a week, would under Clause 27 of the National Insurance Bill only receive £1 a week during sickness; and, if so, would he be entitled to claim the return of some of his payments made in the past?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In the case described the man would not be entitled to any sick pay under the National Insurance which would bring his total receipts during sickness above £1 a week. He would not be entitled to a return of contributions on this account.
    Viscount WOLMER: Am I to understand that ho would be entitled to the privileges for which he had paid himself, but would receive no assistance from the State or from his firm?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The State makes provision for persons who would otherwise be distressed owing to sickness or unemployment. If the provision is so adequate as this it is obviously undesirable that the contributions of the State should be used for the purpose of encouraging malingering.
    Viscount WOLMER: Am I to understand that a man's benefit which he has paid for himself in the old society will not be interfered with? Will he still be allowed to receive the benefits he has been paying for in the past?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We do not interfere at all with the other societies. It is a matter for him and the other societies. We have only to deal with the funds raised under the Bill to which we contribute.

    SUPPLY OF DRUGS.
    Viscount WOLMERasked how small chemists can benefit under the National Insurance Bill if health committees are to buy drugs wholesale and give them out to doctors and patients?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have no reason to believe that health committees will buy drugs wholesale and dole them out to doctors and patients.

    EXTRA MEDICAL PAYMENTS.
    Mr. SPEARasked if the health board proposed to be set up under the National Insurance Bill will be at liberty to pay 2s. 6d. out of possible available funds in addition to the 6s. to the doctors for attending friendly societies' members, or will such extra payment be confined to the Post Office insured?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Insurance Commissioners will have power under the Bill to ensure fair conditions of payment to medical practitioners for their services to insured persons. If the 6s. turns out to be insufficient, the surplus of 2s. 6d. per member provided in the finance of our scheme can be drawn upon.
    Mr. SPEAR: Will they have liberty to make that extra payment both to the members of friendly societies and those insured under the Post Office?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have already explained that with regard to the Post Office insured the 6s. does not come into account at all. Inasmuch as it is an insurance on a bad life it is obvious that 6s. would not cover the medical attendance in those cases.

    PAYMENT DURING TRADE DISPUTES.
    Mr. ALBERT SMITHasked whether unemployed benefit will be paid under the National Insurance Bill under the circumstances of a section of workpeople at a particular mill having a grievance which the employer refuses to redress, and as a consequence all the other workpeople employed at that mill giving in their notices in support of the aggrieved section, and in retaliation all the other employers in the town locking out their workpeople, who have no dispute or grievance; and will the latter portion of workpeople be entitled to unemployed benefit?
    Mr. BUXTON: If, as I gather from the terms of the question, the workpeople referred to are directly affected by a lockout, they would be precluded by Clause 63 of the Bill from receiving unemployment benefit while the lock-out lasts. It is, however, very difficult to give a general reply to a hypothetical question without reference to all the circumstances of each particular case.

    IRELAND.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question, of which I have given him private notice—whether, in view of the fact that the National Insurance Bill itself recognises that a distinction is necessary between the case of Great Britain and the case of Ireland, and that in the opinion of the people of Ireland further such distinctions must be made to render the insurance scheme equitable as between the two countries, he considers it possible and desirable that the case of Ireland should be dealt with separately in the Bill, and if so will he agree to deal with the necessary modifications for Ireland by Amendments to Clause 59 and such other Clauses as affect Ireland specifically?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: When I came to frame the Bill I found that the conditions as to labour, medical attendance, and in a few other rather important respects, were very different in Ireland, especially as to organisation. There were very few societies there, and I had to frame separate Clauses to deal with Ireland; therefore I should have thought it would be very convenient when we come to consider the Bill that all proposals with regard to Ireland should be dealt with in connection with the Irish Clauses in the Bill. If that suits the convenience of hon. Members, certainly it would be convenient to the Government as well.

    Super-tax.
    Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in the computation of Super-tax an allowance is made for tithe in the case of land let to a tenant by the proprietor, but in the case of land in the occupation of the owner no such allowance is made; and, if so, whether he is prepared to take steps to treat both cases in the same way?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Tithe is allowed as a deduction in both cases. In the case of land in the occupation of the owner, the basis for the Super-tax is the assessment to Income Tax, Schedule A; and in arriving at this assessment the tithe has, as a rule, already been deducted.
    Sir HENRY KIMBERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a hardship is put upon partners in private firms as compared with partners in firms incorporated as limited companies

    1063
    by the working of the Income Tax Act in regard to the Super-tax, which does not appear to have been intended by him; is he aware that according to the statement 2/ST, sent out by the Commissioners as a guidance, partners in private firms have to base their return on the amount upon which the Inland Revenue Commissioners have assessed the business, and which is in all cases more than the actual profit made, and greatly in excess of the profit distributed; and could he see his way, so far as the Super-tax is concerned, to remedy this hardship by putting partners in private firms on the same footing as shareholders in limited companies, who only have to return the actual amount received in dividends and not base their income upon the amount upon which the Inland Revenue have assessed their company?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The point which the hon. Baronet has brought forward was fully considered during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill of 1909; and I do not consider that any alteration of the law is necessary.

    Licence Duty (Optional Facilities).
    Mr. GIBBSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can see his way, by regulation or otherwise, to extend the optional facilities afforded by Section 49 (3) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, so that they should apply to licence holders whose Licence Duty is under £60?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As I informed the hon. Member for South Ayrshire on Monday last, this matter is under consideration.

    Increment Duty.
    Mr. PRETYMANasked if it is intended to impose increment Tax on an occasion when it is found that the site value is a minus quantity?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, Sir, if on the occasion increment is revealed.
    Mr. PRETYMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the fact that when the original site value is a minus quantity the 10 per cent. allowance will increase instead of diminishing the duty, he wilt insert a clause in the Finance Bill amending the law in this respect?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not aware that the provisions of Section 3 (5) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, will in any
    1064
    case have the effect of increasing the amount of duty payable; and I do not consider that an amendment of the law is called for.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It is obvious that if two minuses are added together they will increase the unit. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into that point and take advice upon it?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should have thought that two minuses would amount to nothing.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman then going to charge a duty on nothing?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On the contrary, we are going to charge the duty on the increment, and if there is a real increment in value, of course we shall charge the duty.

    Land Valuation.
    Mr. PRETYMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, seeing that the Valuation Department has obtained through Form IV. particulars of the agreements showing the term for which any agricultural land is let, demands for Undeveloped Land Duty have been served upon owners of occupations entitled to exemption under Section 17 (5) of the Finance (1909–10) Act; and whether he will issue instructions that such claims shall not be made in future?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The particulars asked for and given on Form IV. are in general insufficient to enable it to be determined to what extent the exemption contained in Section 17 (5) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, applies. Where the title to exemption is clear, no claim for duty is made; and therefore I do not think it necessary to issue any instructions of the nature suggested.

    Bathing in Serpentine.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the hon. Member for, Southampton, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he would arrange for schoolboys to be allowed to bathe in the Serpentine during the summer months at any hour in the day instead of in the early mornings and evenings only?
    The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Dudley Ward): The First Commissioner regrets that he cannot go so far as my hon. Friend suggests, but

    1065
    he has for some little time been considering the general question of the bathing hours, and has decided to make some alterations which will come into force at once, before the Whitsuntide holidays. The new hours will be as follow:—

    MORNING—5.0 to 8.30.

    EVENING.

    January, February, November, December

    4.0 to 5.0

    March, April

    5.0 to 6.0

    October

    6.0 to 7.0

    May, September

    6.0 to 8.0

    June, July, August

    6.0 to 8.30

    The First Commissioner has also asked for a sum of money in the Estimates to lay down a stone path for the benefit of bathers, who have complained of the sharpness of the gravel.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Would my hon. Friend state whether the amended hours are not simply a grant of an additional half-hour?
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD: An additional half-hour in the morning and an additional hour in the evening.
    Mr. NOEL BUXTON: May I ask whether any complaints have ever been received on account of the bathing, although the hours have included a large section of daylight?
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD: Yes, a certain number of complaints, but not many.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he will give a statement of the difficulties which prevent bathing taking place in the morning and afternoon?
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD: I would like to have notice of that question.

    Designs for Public Buildings.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked whether in future the designs of architects other than the official architect will be invited when public buildings are contemplated; and whether the approval of the House will be obtained before the selected plans are carried out?
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD: A large number of public buildings are always in course of erection in the great towns throughout the country; and it is found to be easier, better, and more economical that they should be designed and carried out as
    1066
    part of the regular work of the Office of Works. The practice has, however, not been uniform in the case of the most important buildings. It has been the custom hitherto to lay before both Houses of Parliament the plans of public buildings of national importance, whether prepared by the official architect or by an architect in private practice. There is no intention of departing from this custom.
    Mr. WATT: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether there is one official architect for the whole of the United Kingdom, or whether there is one each for England, Scotland, and Ireland?
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD: There is more than one for England.
    Mr. WATT: Oh more than one for England.
    Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the hon. Member for Southampton, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will state the names of the architects responsible for the new War Office and the new offices of the Local Government Board and the Woods and Forests Department; whether designs were invited from other than the official architect to the Commission of Works; and whether the approval of Parliament was obtained before the plans were put out to contract?
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD: The new War Office was designed by the late Mr. William Young, F.R.I.B.A. On his death the work was carried out by his son, Mr. Clyde Young, in association with Sir John Taylor, K.C.B., of the Office of Works. The Local Government Board Offices were erected on plans of the late Mr. John Brydon, F.R.I.B.A., and completed by Sir Henry Tanner, of the Office of Works, with the approval of an advisory committee of eminent architects consulted by the First Commissioner of Works. Both Mr. Brydon and Mr. Young were selected from a panel of architects submitted to the First Commissioner by the Royal Institute of British Architects. In both cases their plans were exhibited at the Houses of Parliament before execution. The Office of Woods was not built under the direction of the Office of Works. It was designed by Mr. John Murray, the architect usually employed by the Commissioners of Woods for buildings in London.

    Sites for Public Monuments.
    Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked whether the First Commissioner, in view of the increasing demand for public statues and for large monuments in London and the decreasing space available for them, will consider the rearrangement of Hyde Park Corner on a more rectangular plan, such as has proved a success at the Marble Arch, and the utilisation of the spaces so formed for statues or monuments; and whether he will arrange for a schedule to be made of places available for statues in London, so as to preserve some proportion between the ultimate number and the frequency of permits granted for erecting new statues?
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD: The First Commissioner is afraid that there would be some real difficulty in making the space at Hyde Park Corner rectangular, but would be glad to receive from my hon. Friend a more detailed suggestion which could be entertained in its relation to the traffic and other considerations. As regards the last part of the question, few such sites are under the control of the First Commissioner, but he would be ready to assist the various local authorities of London in compiling such a schedule.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman see that steps are not taken to turn London squares and streets into bad editions of Siegers Allee, Berlin?
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD: Yes, Sir.

    Financial Relations (Great Britain and Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister if he will say when he proposes, in preparation for his promised measure of full self-government for Ireland, to have the work of the Financial Relations Commission continued to the present time by a similar Commission, fairly representative of the two countries; whether Irish Members of this House will be consulted before the members of the Commission intended to represent Ireland are appointed; and, if no such Commission is to be set up, how it is proposed to ascertain the actual financial relations impartially as between the two countries?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): No such Commission is in contemplation. The Cabinet are taking such steps as they consider necessary to inform themselves on the subject.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether the Government assume the 2 millions net excessive taxes found by the majority of British members of the Financial Relations Commission to have been taken from Ireland in 1893–4 as an average annual excess which may justly be multiplied by the number of years since the Union to find the total excessive taxation of Ireland; whether any independent effort will be made to ascertain the actual excess in each year; and, if so, about what time will Members of this House he able to obtain the figures and the data on which they are based?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot give the hon. Member any information as to these points.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the excessive taxation of Ireland, as contrasted with that of Great Britain, was found as a fact by all the members of the Financial Relations Commission, and admitted by all the witnesses, including the Treasury witness, who alone suggested that excessive taxes were partially compensated for by extravagant expenditure on the government of Ireland; and whether any but Treasury witnesses are to be examined by the Treasury committee now investigating this subject for the benefit of the Cabinet?
    Mr. BIRRELL: It is not the case that only Treasury witnesses will be examined.
    Mr. GINNELL: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the keen attention with which the Irish people are watching him in regard to this incident?
    The HON. MEMBERfurther asked the Prime Minister if, to allay anxiety in Ireland, he will say whether the Government adopt as established the findings of the majority of British members of the Financial Relations Commission, or whether the terms of reference are intended to enable the committee now sitting to go behind those findings?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I must decline, as I have more than once declined, to discuss the matters referred to in this question. The duties of the committee have been sufficiently described in my previous answers.
    Mr. GINNELLasked, having regard to the uniform administration of old age pensions in Great Britain and Ireland in accordance with age and poverty, and the

    1069
    abnormal proportion of pensioners in Ireland in direct consequence of British rule, whether that consequence is treated by the Government as increasing or diminishing, or affecting in any way, the claim for full restitution of the excessive taxes found by all the members of the Financial Relations Commission?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am not prepared to discuss the causes or effects of the large proportion of old age pensioners in Ireland.

    Estimates Committee.
    Mr. HOLTasked the Prime Minister when he proposes to give the House an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the proposed Estimates Committee; and whether he can give either the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire or the hon. Member for the Hexham Division an opportunity of moving the Resolution on this subject of which they have given notice?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): After Whitsuntide we shall find time for the discussion of one or other of the Resolutions to which my hon. Friend refers.

    Natural History Museum.
    Sir WILLIAM ANSONasked the Prime Minister whether he has received a memorial signed by 600 members of learned Societies, and by others, urging the maintenance in its integrity of the site assigned to the Natural History Museum at South Kensington in]899; and whether he will cause this memorial to be printed and circulated, together with any other memorials which lie may have received from persons or societies qualified to express an opinion upon the issues involved?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, I will arrange to have this done.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will at the same time cause to be circulated the memorial addressed to the President or the Board of Education with regard to the site of the South Kensington Museum, and also the answer which the President of the Board of Education gave to the deputation that waited upon him in regard to the subject?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I believe that has already been circulated as a Parliamentary Paper. I think it is highly desirable that anybody who reads the one Report should also read the other.

    House of Commons (Payment of Members).
    Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that various Members of Parliament have recently declared their intention of distributing their proposed salary in subscriptions to charities in their constituencies; and whether he will take steps so to restrict the amount payable in charitable subscriptions by Members of Parliament as to make such indirect influencing of constituencies impossible?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I was not aware of the fact alleged by my hon. Friend. I will consider his suggestion, but I cannot at present express any opinion as to whether its adoption would be practicable or expedient.
    Lord BALCARRES: If it is found to be practicable or expedient, would its adoption be possible without legislation during this Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Well, I should think not.

    Development Commission (Sea Fisheries).
    Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked whether proposals for schemes to be laid before the Development Commissioners have been received from local sea fishery committees; whether the Board will publish these proposals; and whether the Board has laid its own proposals before the Development Commissioners for the assistance of inshore fishermen?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): Applications for advances from the Development Fund have been made by four sea fisheries committees. It will be the duty of the Board to report to the commissioners respecting them, but neither the applications nor the reports will be published at the present stage. The reply to the concluding inquiry is in the affirmative.

    Heavy Stud Horses.
    Captain BAGOTasked whether the Board of Agriculture have yet made any report on the application made by the Westmorland County Council on the 8th April last for a grant for heavy stud horses for service in the county under Part I. of the Development and Road Improvement Act, 1909; and whether any grant for the purpose will be available during the current financial year?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: It is not possible for the Board to report upon the application to which the hon. Member refers until their proposals with regard to the encouragement of heavy horse-breeding generally have been formulated. Enquiries are now being made for this purpose, and one of the Inspectors of the Board will put himself into communication with the Westmorland County Council.

    Register House, Edinburgh (Clerks' Salaries).
    Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the salaries of clerks in the Register House in Edinburgh are unattachable by arrestment, that in several instances recently the courts have granted warrant to arrest, that these warrants have been defied by the keeper of the Register of Sasines, and that the sheriffs who grant the warrants say they are unable to enforce them; and, if so, will he say what steps he proposes to take so that these clerks may be equal with others before the law?
    The LORD ADVOCATE(Mr. Ure): As the law at present stands, the salaries referred to, like other Civil Service salaries in Scotland, are not attachable by arrestment. The question whether the Bankruptcy Law should be amended in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend will be considered in any legislation following upon the Report, issued last year, of the Committee appointed by the Secretary for Scotland to inquire into the Bankruptcy Law of Scotland and its administration.

    Conviction of Harold Philip Trevor.
    Mr. PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Harold Philip Trevor, who was only five weeks at large after serving a sentence of penal servitude, and who was recently convicted and sentenced to four years' penal servitude, declared that in the five weeks' liberty he committed over one hundred serious crimes; and, if so, whether he can say how he evaded police surveillance for the commission of so much crime?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): Trevor was not under police surveillance. He was released on a licence which expired after one week, and he was then free from all control. There can be no doubt that he committed a considerable
    1072
    number of crimes, most of them of rather a paltry character, before he was traced and arrested, but I do not think any special credence is to be attached to his boastful statements as to their number.

    Aerial Navigation Bill.
    Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in the case of the Aerial Navigation Bill he is prepared to consider the possibility of inserting Clauses bringing abetment within the scope of the Bill, so that the organisers of an aviation meeting may be held responsible in case of accident due to the absence of reasonable precautions for safeguarding the public, increasing the penalty in the case of any person who navigates an aircraft recklesly or negligently, in a manner which is dangerous to the public, when such person is not a holder of a certificate of efficiency delivered by execution of the Royal Aero Club, or such competent authority as may from time to time be determined, and allowing no navigator of an aircraft to hold a certificate of efficiency unless he is previously guaranteed in a sum to be determined, say £1,000, such guarantee being available for compensation in the case of an accident due to neglect or want of skill on the part of the navigator?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: As I explained in answer to the questions put to me by hon. Members on 24th May, and in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, the Bill now before the House is of an interim character pending general legislation on the subject of aerial navigation. The points raised in the hon. Member's question will be carefully considered before general legislation is proposed.

    Mines (Inspectorships).
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the number of Scottish candidates for examination for the posts of inspector and sub-inspector of mines and the expense to which they are at present put in having to travel up to London for examination, he will consider as to making arrangements for their sitting for examination in Scotland?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: As my hon. Friend is aware, a certain number of the new sub-inspectorships of mines are to be allotted to each division. The scheme of appointment provides for the holding of a separate examination in each division,

    1073
    including Scotland, at which men working in the division will be nominated to compete. The same system could not be adopted in the case of the higher appointments, as the candidates come from all parts of the country, and are not selected for appointment in any particular division. I may remind my hon. Friend that candidates for other high appointments in the Civil Service are in precisely the same position.

    Trade Unions (No. 2) Bill.
    Mr. PETOasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the rule referred to in Clause 3 of the Trade Unions (No. 2) Bill, by which a member who is exempt from the obligation to contribute to the political fund of a union shall not be excluded from benefits, is intended to alter the existing law which prevents a member of a trade union suing for benefits; and, if so, will he be willing to introduce words on the Committee stage making it clear that Section 4 of the Trade Union Act, 1871, could not be pleaded against a member who might be excluded from benefits on account of his refusal to contribute to the political fund of his union?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is intended by the Bill that a member of a trade union shall have a right of action against the trade union if it acts in contravention of the part of Clause 3 referred to in the question. If in the Committee stage it appears that there is any doubt, as to whether the Bill carries out this intention, I shall be quite ready to insert words to place the meaning beyond dispute.

    Feeble-Minded.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give a date for the introduction of the measure ho proposes to introduce making provision for the care and control of the feebleminded?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that I cannot give any date. I can only refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to questions on this subject on 24th April and the 1st May.

    Workmen's Compensation.
    Mr. CLYNESasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that a workman who is certified to be disabled from following his
    1074
    employment through an industrial disease scheduled in the Compensation Act, and who is medically advised to submit to amputation of limb because of suffering from such disease, is disqualified from the benefits of the Compensation Act unless the disease was contracted in an occupation named in the table of trades in the schedule of the Act; and, if so, whether he can take any step which will provide for a compensation claim being effectively made when a disease named in the schedule is contracted?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The right to compensation in respect of industrial disease is not limited to persons employed in the processes or occupations mentioned in the second column of Schedule III. to the Workmen's Compensation Act and of the Orders made thereunder. Any workman, whatever his occupation, who is suffering from any industrial disease mentioned in the first column is entitled to compensation, if the disease is due to the nature of his employment. The second column only relates to the question of proof, i.e., in the case of workers engaged in the processes or occupations mentioned therein it is assumed that the disease is due to the nature of the employment, unless the certifying surgeon certifies or the employer proves the contrary; in the case of workers engaged in other processes or occupations it rests with the worker to prove that the disease was due to the nature of the employment.

    East India Wool Sorting.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked whether any women are employed in the sorting and mixing of East India wool; whether he is aware that these processes expose the sorters and mixers to the risk of inhaling dust which may contain the spores of anthrax; whether the special rules for the protection of such workers are applicable to factories and workshops, and whether they are generally observed; whether the Department has new special rules under consideration; and, if so, when they are expected to be issued?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: As this question was only put on the Paper yesterday, no detailed inquiry has been possible, but I have ascertained that in two important districts, Huddersfield and Rochdale, the sorting, of which there is very little, and. the mixing of this wool is done by men. I understand that this is true also of the Bradford district. The regulations which

    1075
    apply to all factories in which East India wool is used have been in operation since the 1st January, 1909, and are, I am informed, well observed. I have recently received the reports of special inquiries made with regard to mixing and other processes in the manufacture of felt, and the Factory Department is in communication with the manufacturers regarding them, but I cannot yet say whether any further regulations will have to be made.

    Post Office (Wood-Work Staff).
    Mr. H. W. FORSTERasked the Postmaster-General if a number of men employed in the wood-working department of the Post Office service have received notice of discharge; what is the reason of this reduction, and what is the number of men who have received notice; how many of these men have secured other places; and whether he can do anything to secure employment for the remainder?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I would refer the hon. Member to an answer given to a question on the same subject by the hon. Member for North Islington on Wednesday last. The number of men affected is twenty-seven. All of these have been offered good situations.

    Eastbourne Post Office.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Postmaster-General (1) what additional annual expenditure would be involved by restoring the Sunday postal arrangements to those which existed in Eastbourne before the recent alteration; and (2) whether his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction which has arisen, and the complaints made by schoolmasters, doctors, and those engaged in business in regard to the reduction in the hours of; service in the Eastbourne post-office on Sundays; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to remove such complaints?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will answer the hon. Member's two questions together. A reversion to the arrangements in force at the Eastbourne post-office on Sundays before the recent alteration would cost about £70 a year for staff. Various complaints have been made concerning the reduction in the hours of service on Sundays, but, as I have already stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member on 7th February, the amount of
    1076
    business transacted was not sufficient to justify the exceptional hours of attendance which formerly obtained.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: May I ask, in view of the facilities granted in other towns, if we are not entitled to postal arrangements on Sunday similar to those which we have enjoyed until now?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Eastbourne is merely put on the same footing as other towns of similar status throughout the country. No powers of opening on Sundays in Eastbourne were exceptional.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: Is it not a fact that there are other towns smaller than Eastbourne which have much greater facilities?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There are one or two still left. They are all gradually being brought into line.

    Census (England and Scotland).
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSONasked the President of the Local Government Board, in view of the fact that the complete preliminary Report of the Irish Census Returns has already been issued and in the hands of Members of this House, will he say when the similar Reports for England and Scotland may be expected to be issued?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I hope the English Report will be ready within the next fortnight. The Scottish Report will, I understand, be circulated to-morrow.

    Exports from United Kingdom.
    Mr. CROFTasked what is the total value of exports from the United Kingdom to British possessions in 1910?
    Mr. BUXTON: The total value of the exports of the produce and manufacture of the United Kingdom consigned in 1910 to British Dominions, Colonies, Possessions and Protectorates was £147,303,000.
    Mr. CROFTasked what is the value of goods per head of estimated population exported from the United Kingdom during 1910 to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, France, and the United States?
    Mr. BUXTON: The total value of th3 produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom consigned in 1910 from this

    1077
    country to the Dominions and foreign countries in question per head of the estimated population of those Dominions and countries, was as follows:—

    £

    s.

    d.

    To Canada

    2

    12

    5

    To Australia

    6

    4

    3

    To New Zealand

    8

    3

    9

    To Germany

    0

    11

    4

    To France

    0

    11

    5

    To the United States of America

    0

    6

    10

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. GREENEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether certain old age pensioners in the Hackney district have been unable to obtain their pensions recently owing to the non-issue of new pension books; and, if so, what action he will take in the matter?
    Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): I am making inquiries in regard to this matter, and will communicate with the hon. Member when they are complete.

    Elementary Teachers (Salaries).
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Education (1), whether, in order to obviate the hardship suffered by many head teachers of elementary schools by the reduction of their salaries in consequence of the decreased average attendance at their schools, he will make it obligatory upon local education authorities when re-classifying the schools in their areas to require a margin of 15 per cent. above or below the average attendance required for the class before the class of any particular school is raised or lowered; and (2), Whether, in fairness to the head teachers of elementary schools, he will make it obligatory upon local education authorities not to reduce the salary of any such teacher who has served at least ten years as a head teacher within their area, notwithstanding that the average attendance has fallen below that required according to the scale?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): I propose to answer these two questions as one. The Board have no authority to impose any obligation on local education authorities restricting the right of the authorities to control their expenditure upon the schools for which they are responsible. I have every sympathy with teachers who, through no fault of their own, suffer hardship from the operation of graded salary
    1078
    scales. I cannot, however, regard it as unreasonable that the salary of the head teacher should bear some relation to the size of the school for which he is responsible. I think that most authorities endeavour to mitigate, so far as possible, any ensuing hardship, but I must remind the hon. Member that as a result of the existing law, under which local education authorities exercise only a partial control over the staffing of a number of schools in their areas, the simplest remedy— namely, promotion from one school to another, is not, as a rule, open to them.

    Army in India.
    Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether a reduction of the Army in India is to be proposed?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The hon. and gallant Member is aware that the Financial Member of the Government of India, speaking in January last in the Governor-General's Legislative Council on Mr. Cokhale's motion regarding the increase of public expenditure, announced that the Commander-in-Chief was about to institute an inquiry with a view to the reduction of all unnecessary military expenditure. The Government of India's recommendations in pursuance of this inquiry have not yet been received by the Secretary of State. His Majesty's Government do not contemplate any reduction of the British forces serving in India, but they are fully prepared to consider favourably the proposals that the Government of India may find it in their power to make for effecting such readjustments in the native Indian units, with a view to economy, as could be carried out without loss of efficiency to the Army in India as a whole.

    Evicted. Tenant (Kenmare).
    Mr. BOLANDasked whether, in connection with the negotiations for the purchase of the Palmer estate, in the parish of Kenmare, regard will be had to the claim of Jeremiah Riordan for reinstatement in Ashgrove farm, in the townland of Gortalinny South, from which his father was evicted?
    Mr. BIRRELL: If the Congested Districts Board purchase the estate referred to, the case of Jeremiah Riordan will be considered, provided the holding from which his father was evicted is still untenanted.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked whether the attention of the Congested Districts Board has been called to the resolution passed at a public meeting of the tenants on the F. G. Williams estate, at Mastergeehy, near Waterville, on the 21st instant; and whether the Board will take steps to give effect to the resolution by purchasing the estate on such terms that the grazing lands may be divided?
    Mr. BIRRELL: A copy of the resolution referred to has been received by the Congested Districts Board, and they have communicated with the owner asking whether he is willing to negotiate for the sale of his estate through the Board.
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants of Sir Morgan O'Connell, in the townlands of Ballycarberry, Kimego, and Killelan, near Caherciveen, have frequently taken steps to complete purchase negotiations but without success; can he state at whose request and by what authority, without the consent of the tenants, a valuer named Mr. Green was sent to inspect the estate; whether the Estates Commissioners have any report on the subject; and what value, if any, was fixed on the land by this valuer?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Proceedings have been instituted by the owner for the sale of this estate direct to the tenants, and purchase agreements signed by the tenants have been lodged in respect of some of the holdings. The estate was inspected in order of priority by one of the inspectors, and the Estates Commissioners have communicated to the owner the sums which they are prepared to advance in the case of outstanding holdings, and they have asked for purchase agreements at such prices.
    Mr. LYNCHasked whether, in regard to the property of Mrs. White, Caherlean, Killard, West Clare, of which the agent is Mr. R. J. Stacpoole, of Ennis, and respecting which the tenants, numbering twenty-seven, have made application to the Congested Districts Board, he can state what is the present condition of the negotiations?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have been in communication with the agent, but so far they have not succeeded in arranging for negotiations for sale.
    Mr. LYNCHasked whether, in the case of the estate of R. J. Stacpoole, Farrihy, West Clare, the tenants having, after the enactment of the Land Act of 1909, written to the landlord and offered him more than his yearly income out of the property, and the landlord having declined to sell on the ground that there was no money available for payment in cash, and the tenants having thereupon applied to the Congested Districts Board, the Chief Secretary can state what is the present situation in regard to this property; and whether prompt steps will be taken to give relief under the last Land Act to the tenants, numbering about one hundred and twenty?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have no means of knowing what passed between the owner and his tenants. I understand that the Congested Districts Board are making inquiries with regard to the estate. Pending the result of these inquiries, the Board are not in a position to enter into negotiations for its purchase.

    Territorial Force.
    Colonel BURNasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the authorities would grant permission to Territorials who cannot attend the annual training with their own unit to be attached to a Regular or Territorial Regiment engaged during the Army manœuvres in September, allowing them to count that service as the regular training; and would these men be granted the pay and allowances of their rank, though not actually doing their training with their own unit?
    Colonel SEELY: For efficient training it is considered essential that men should be instructed by their own officers and non-commissioned officers, and carry out their training in the squadron, battery, or company to which they belong. The training at Army manœuvres is of too advanced a nature to serve as a substitute for the annual training of Territorial units, nor could Regular officers during manœuvres spare the time to give the Territorial soldiers the special attention which would be necessary to make the training of any value to them.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Are we to understand that the answer is practically negative?
    Colonel SEELY: I think it would almost amount to that.

    Military Establishment, Kilkenny City.
    Mr. PATRICK O'BRIENasked the full strength, including women and children, of the military establishment in Kilkenny City on the dates of taking the Census in April 1901 and 1911, respectively?
    Colonel SEELY: I regret that there are no statistics available at the War Office to enable me to give the hon. Member the information he requires; the returns for 1901 having been destroyed?

    Hampshire Regiment (Thomas Chant).
    Mr. FALLEasked whether Thomas Chant, No. 1687. Reservist, Hampshire Regiment, was called up in 1900 and served till 1902; that he applied in 1910 for the bounty money, amounting to over £15, due to him and that that bounty money was refused him on the ground of delay in application and lapse of time; if there have been cases where an equal delay, due as in this case to ignorance, has met with a different result; and, if so, will the Department give favourable consideration to this case?
    Colonel SEELY: Inquiries are being made into this case, and I will see that the hon. Member is in due course informed of the result.

CORONATION (STANDS IN PALACE YARD).
Mr. WEDGWOOD: I desire to ask the hon. Member for Southampton a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether the journalists of the House of Commons paid £250 for a stand in Palace Yard from which to view the Coronation procession; whether they have now been informed that there is no room for them in Palace Yard, and that seats will be found for them elsewhere; why this change was made, and will the money be refunded if the new position is less satisfactory to those who have paid?
Mr. DUDLEY WARD: The site in Palace Yard is primarily for the use of Members of the House of Commons. No specific position was promised to the journalists, and it has not been found possible to provide for them the position they desire. A good site will be provided within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. The money can be returned if the position does not meet with the approval of all the parties concerned.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that when the original arrangements were made, and the money payment arranged for, the Press were told that the seats would be in Palace Yard?
Mr. DUDLEY WARD: No such statement was made.
Mr. WATT: Are we to understand that the Press ask for the best seats it is possible to have?
Mr. DUDLEY WARD: Very nearly.
Mr. BYLES: Is it not more important that the Press should have the best site than that the House of Commons should?
Mr. DUDLEY WARD: That is a matter of opinion.
Mr. HAYDEN: Is it not the fact that the Press stand was in Palace Yard last time.
Mr. DUDLEY WARD: Yes, Sir.

HOME SECRETARY AND JUDICIAL BENCH.
Mr. KEBTY-FLETCHER: I desire, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to call attention to the observations made by the Home Secretary last night with regard to the conduct of his Majesty's judges, and, in view of the fact that such remarks might constitute a precedent, to ask you, Sir, whether they are consistent with the terms of the Standing Order. May I just read the passage from Sir Erskine May's book:—
"Unless the discussion is based upon a substantive motion, drawn in proper terms, reflections must not be cast in debate upon the conduct of the Sovereign, the heir to the throne and members of the Royal Family, the Viceroy and Governor-General of India, the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, the Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means. Members of either Houses of Parliament, and Judges of the Superior Courts of the United Kingdom, including persons holding the position of a judge, such as a judge in a Court of Bankruptcy and of a County Court. Nor may opprobrious reflections he cast in debate on Sovereigns and Rulers over countries in amity with his Majesty."
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has read a passage from May which deals with the rule of the House with regard to this particular matter. It is not a question of the Standing Orders. As the hon. Gentleman has read the passage there is not any need for me to do so. Again, there is no question about what the law and practice of our House is in regard to the matter. It is correctly stated in Sir Erskine May's book. I will

1083
be quite frank with the House. I looked at Sir Erskine May's book last night, and I was not quite sure whether there had been a case in which general language in regard to judges had been ruled out of order, or whether the decisions had been entirely confined to attacks upon particular judges named. I find, however, according to old rulings it is equally out of order to make an attack upon the general body of judges. With regard to what was said last night by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, I understood that his argument practically was that the judges, owing to their training and social surroundings, were unconsciously biassed, or liable to be unconsciously biassed, in regard to certain class questions. A great deal depends upon the force of the words which the Home Secretary interpolated, that they are "unconsciously, no doubt, biassed." No appeal was made to me at the time, and I expressed no opinion upon it. If I were pressed, or I had been pressed, for an opinion. I should have been inclined to say that I regret observations which are on the border-line of what is in order in regard to a matter of this kind. I think it is most important that our rule against attacking judges should be kept up. They are not here. They cannot be here to answer for themselves, and they ought not to be attacked except on a substantive motion.
Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: In reference to the speech which was made here last night, I have refreshed my memory by reading it this morning. I venture to put it to you that, giving full weight to the word "unconscious" which the Home Secretary used, the clear effect of what he said was that the judges had given decisions upon matters of class, upon party matters which came with the utmost surprise to the greatest lawyers in this country. I submit that that is a direct imputation on the competence of the Courts of Justice in this country, made without notice in a general form and in such a manner that no one was able to answer on behalf of the judges, and it was also behind the backs of the judges. I say further, giving full weight to the word "unconscious" which the Home Secretary used, that that is a distinct imputation upon the judges that in matters of class or what the Home Secretary calls "party issues," the judges are incompetent to divest themselves of partiality, and I submit
1084
it would be only right that the right hon. Gentleman, who persisted in not withdrawing those words—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We cannot go back on the incident of last night. I ought to have said that in the first place; I am not giving any judgment on the incident of last night of such a character as to lead me to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he should withdraw anything. If an appeal had been made to me last night. I should have decided on that appeal, and last night was the right time to make such an appeal. I therefore cannot go hack on the incident or order the Home Secretary to do anything with reference to what occurred last night.
Mr. A. LYTTELTON: May I most respectfully say that I was not asking your ruling on the matter, but by leave of the House I was putting it—[HON. MEMBERS "No, no."]
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I wish to ask you whether, if the right hon. Gentleman is allowed to proceed with the remarks that he is now making, it will be open to other Members of the House to do so after him?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We must consider this incident closed. I understood the remarks from him were on a point of Order.
Mr. BALFOUR: May I ask, not with a view to in the least suggesting that you should reverse that decision, whether it would be in order to raise the matter in Debate on the Adjournment Motion for the holidays?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think it could be raised in that form.
Mr. KEBTY-FLETCHER: Before the incident closes, and I do not want to go back on last night, but just to say—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order. I have given my decision.
Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: On the other point of Order which was raised by the Leader of the Opposition, and I do not wish to go into the original point of Order which I regard as past, may I respectfully ask whether it is not in order, on the Motion for Adjournment, to raise any question which is under the responsibility of any Minister, and therefore I ask whether it would not be in order to raise

1085
the question whether a Minister should or should not in a speech make certain remarks about certain people?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not see any way in which it could be relevant.
Mr. CHURCHILL: As this question has been raised, I would just like to say that—[Interruption.]
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It would be by leave of the House.
Mr. CHURCHILLrose. [Interruption.]
Mr. W. R. PEEL: I rise to a point of Order. [Interruption.]
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to put to me a point of Order?
Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes; I wish to ask whether I am entitled to point out that the right hon. Gentleman has misrepresented the words that I used, and to read the exact words to the House. As he has put a point of Order to you and has placed the facts wrongly before you, I submit I am entitled to do so.
Mr. KEBTY-FLETCHER: I resent that.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right bon. Gentleman can only make a personal explanation.
Mr. CHURCHILL: It is a monstrous misrepresentation.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  COUNTY AND BOROUGH COUNCILS (WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the capacity of Women to vote on the election of members of the council of a County or a Borough," presented by Mr. HILLS; supported by Mr. Goulding; to be read a second time upon Monday, 19th June, and to be printed.
  COUNTY AND BOROUGH COUNCILS (QUALIFICATION) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the qualification of Men and Women for election as members of the council of a County or Borough, including the London County Council," presented by Mr. HILLS; supported by Mr. Goulding; to be read a second time upon Monday, 19th June, and to be printed.
WHITSUNTIDE ADJOURNMENT.
Ordered: That the Debate on the Motion for Adjournment over the Whitsuntide Recess be not restricted by the rule against anticipation.
WHITSUNTIDE ADJOURNMENT.

  COLONEL MORGAN'S APPOINTMENT.
  The PRIME MINISTERmoved: "That this House, at its rising on Friday next, do adjourn until Tuesday, 13th June."
  Captain CLIVE: I take this opportunity of bringing before the House a case about which I more than once have asked questions, namely, the case of the appointment of Colonel Morgan.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: On a point of Order, I wish to ask you whether the Motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule has been moved.
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is not moved.
  4.0 P.M.
  Captain CLIVE: I wish to bring before the House the case of Colonel Morgan, who has received a responsible post at the War Office. I may remind the House that he occupied various positions as an Army Service Corps officer during the South African War. His conduct was the subject of litigation on more than one occasion, and it was the subject of very adverse comment by the Committee presided over by Sir William Butler. I do not wish to dwell on the Report of that Committee, because that Committee was not thought to be of a sufficiently judicial character to justify action on its Report. As a result of the Report of that Committee, it was thought right to appoint a more judicial body to go into the charges brought by the Butler Committee against various officers. For that reason a Royal Commission, presided over by Mr. Justice Far well, was appointed in 1906. Whatever may have been thought of the previous Committee, there can be no question that the Farwell Commission was thoroughly well equipped for the work it had to undertake. It was presided over by a judge of the Supreme Court, and included amongst its members Field-Marshal Sir George White, who had been Colonel Morgan's chief during the siege of Ladysmith; Sir George Taubman-Goldie, Sir Francis Mowatt, and Mr. Samuel Morley. That Commission reported in 1906, and I must ask the indulgence of the House while I read certain

  1087
  passages from the Report with special reference to Colonel Morgan. My first extract will be recognised as being wholly in favour of Colonel Morgan. It is no part of my case to suggest that Colonel Morgan came away from the war a richer man than he went to it. As far as my private information goes, I believe that that is not the case. The Farwell Commission, though they made various adverse comments upon his conduct, exonerated Colonel Morgan in that particular. They state:—
  "It is, perhaps, not surprising that Sir Wm. Butler and his colleagues in a report made by them as a Departmental Committee to the Secretary of State should have thought the circumstances connected with Col. Morgan and his brother and Meyer and the general conduct, of business in the Director of Supplies' office so suspicions, as to justify them in suggesting possible dishonesty on the part of the commissioned officers in charge. But no evidence of dishonesty was adduced before us."
  Therefore I think it right to make it clear to the House that I bring no charge of that sort against Colonel Morgan. There are, however, in this Report ample reasons for suggesting that Colonel Morgan cannot be considered qualified for reappointment under the War Office. I will take, first, a question which occupied the attention of the Commission a great deal, and upon which they took a lot of evidence—namely, the question of local contracts during the war. It was a question of what was to be done after the war was over, how the remaining troops were to be supplied, and how the remaining supplies in charge of the various departments of the Army were to he dealt with. Colonel Morgan committed himself strongly to the system, which came to be known as the system of local contracts, and he did so in spite of protest from home. The War Office and the Quarter Master-General at home were against the system, details of which I need not go into for the purposes of my argument:—
  "The War Office had already given a reluctant approval to local contracts when Lord Kitchener returned home, but it is to he regretted that a question of such magnitude he was not invited to discuss the matter with responsible authorities…Meanwhile, however. General Lyttelton on July 1st, on Col. Morgan's advice, had telegraphed 'strongly recommending' the new system."
  The new system was adopted, and the Farwell Commission found that it was practically on the ground of the adoption of this system, on the recommendation of Colonel Morgan, that a loss to the country was incurred of anything between £750,000 and £1,250,000. That is an error of administration which should in itself make any Department hesitate to reappoint the
  1088
  officer responsible at this Or at any other time. But that is only an error of administration. There are at, least two much graver charges brought against Colonel Morgan in this report. The first is that known as the Meyer contract case, in connection with the giving of a contract for oats and hay to a firm known as Meyer, Limited. Again let me quote what is said in favour of Colonel Morgan:—
  "We find no evidence to show that any fraudulent conspiracy between Colonel Morgan and Meyer and Frank Morgan ever existed. While dismissing this serious charge, we are constrained to say that Colonel Morgan's conduct in arranging for his brother's employment at a large salary, and in bringing him out to South Africa, is open to great comment. Colonel Morgan was Director of Supplies, and was well acquainted with the character and ways of South African contractors. He might have known that £1,200 a year was a large salary for a man of Meyer's means to grant."
  What happened was this. As soon as Meyer got a very large contract, Colonel Morgan telegraphed to his brother, who was in Egypt, telling him that he had a good post for him, the post being that of managing clerk to the contractor to whom he had just given this contract.
  "He (Colonel Morgan) might have known that £1,200 a year was a large salary for a man of Meyer's means to grant. He must have known that even in South Africa such a sum was an excessive remuneration for a managing clerk of untried capabilities. Colonel Morgan may well have been conscious of his own integrity, and confident that he would not grant any undue advantage to Meyer by reason of his brother's employment, but he cannot have failed to realise that Meyer, at least, expected to benefit by the relationship of his managing clerk to the Director of Supplies.
  "The dates suggest the truth. When Colonel Morgan was Director of Supplies, and local contracts were probable, Meyer was willing to give Colonel Morgan's brother employment at £1,200 a year, nominally as managing clerk, but in fact for the performance of services of a more mechanical kind. But as soon as Colonel Morgan was recalled and left the country, his brother's employment ceased by mutual arrangement, and F. C. Morgan received a hill for £300 at three months. F. C. Morgan did not, in fact, do any work for the firm of Meyer, Limited. The Company having only come into existence on September 30th, the day before the supply tenders were put in; and the letter of November 12th, purporting to show a formal resignation as from November 1st, is at variance with the truth, and was probably intended to conceal the previous employment by Meyer."
  The Commission's comment on that was:—
  "We are of opinion that this arrangement with Meyer for the employment of F. C. Morgan was contrary to the spirit and letter of the King's Regulations.
  "Although no evidence has been given to show that. any loss occurred therefrom, we find good gr und for believing that the very small number of tenderers at Pretoria and other stations is to be explained by the general knowledge that F. C. Morgan was in Meyer's employment, and the suspicion so easily engendered in the atmosphere of South Africa that no tender would have a fair chance against theirs. Some idea of the importance of limiting the number of tenders may be gained from the fact-that Meyer thought it worth while to pay Arthur May and Company, a substantial firm. 2½ per cent. on the value of all goods he might supply in consideration that they should abstain from tendering.

  1089
  "We also have evidence that Meyer's success was regarded as certain, and not least by Meyer himself. In the absence of proof of corruption we can only attribute this general belief to the above-mentioned cause—the presence of F. C. Morgan as an employé of the partnership…In concluding this part of our inquiry we feel compelled to add that Colonel Morgan Can hardly complain if his conduct in these matters has given rise to grave suspicions."
  That I believe is what the right hon. Gentleman, in reply to a question the other day, described as a breach of the regulations. I would ask the House to agree that that is a very meagre description of such conduct. It seems to suggest that there was something purely technical about it, that it was unimportant, and that on that account it might easily be condoned. But it is far more serious than that. That when such an important Commission say:—
  "Colonel Morgan can hardly complain that his conduct in these matters has given rise to grave suspicions."
  I contend that the matter must be more serious than a mere breach of the regulations. I must apologise for quoting at such length, but I wish to make as little comment as possible myself, and to leave the House to judge for themselves from the Report of the Commission whether this officer is worthy of re-employment. The other case is the oats case. That also I will give as far as possible in the words of the Commission:—
  "Eloff's Farm is near Pretoria, and like many other farms bad been worked at the public expense during the war…After the declaration of peace this was discontinued by order, and Colonel Morgan at first proposed to utilise the farm for the supply of dairy and other produce to the Pretoria garrison, the Field Force canteen advancing £5,000 for the purpose. The War Office, however, objected, and Colonel Morgan then suggested that it should be conducted in the interests of the Garrison Sports Club, a private club, formed by members of the Army for their own benefit and carried on at their own expense."
  This suggestion was approved early in September, 1902, and Colonel Morgan became manager of the farm on 13th September. The farm went into various transactions, on the first of which they lost money.
  "The money loss to the farm resulting from the failure of the potatoe crop was considerable, and sufficient to throw doubts on its ultimate solvency. Colonel Morgan was no more personally liable for losses incurred in the working of the farm than any other member of the Garrison Sports Club, but his reputation as an administrator was involved, and it would doubtless have been unpleasant for him to have to present to his fellow soldiers a balance-sheet showing a heavy deficit."
  Therefore he went into this still further speculation, which is known as the Oats Case. Colonel Morgan, in his capacity as Director of Supplies, sold to the farm, of which he was manager, oats at a low price, and the farm of which he was
  1090
  manager was enabled to re-sell them at a greatly enhanced price, and thereby to turn the deficit which was likely to accrue into a profit."
  "Colonel Morgan describes the condition of these oats as very bud, and attributes the increased price of 8s. to the fact that they had been sorted and cleaned…But it nevertheless remains true that oats were sold at a low price by Colonel Morgan, as Director of Supplies, to the farm of which he was manager, and thence resold at a greatly enhanced price. Both the sales in question—"
  One of which I have not gone into—
  "appear to us to be of an objectionable character. Colonel Morgan, whose duty it was to protect the public interest by selling at the best price obtainable, sold to the farm of which he was manager, for the purpose and with the effect of making a profit for the farm by re-sale.
  "Colonel Morgan's explanation is that the matter did not present itself to him in that light at the time, but he does not seek now to justify his conduct."
  These are, without any embellishments on my part, the facts as discovered by the Farwell Commission, and I think the House will he prepared to agree that they are perfectly sufficient to justify the action of Lord Haldane in 1906 in asking Colonel Morgan to resign his commission and in allowing him to retire on full pension. I think it will be agreed that Colonel Morgan was certainly generously treated at that time. I ask the House to agree that the facts are so grave and so serious that it cannot be for the good of the public service that Colonel Morgan should be reemployed in any capacity whatever.
  May I go shortly into the various defences which the right hon. Gentleman representing the War Office has brought forward? I will take the last one first, because to that he seems to attach great importance. I refer to the letter from Lord Robson in favour of Colonel Morgan. There is one point about that letter which certainly requires explanation, but I do not know what the explanation is. The letter begins:—
  "My dear Seely—."
  Lord Robson, I gather, was not the counsel for the defendant in the libel action successfully brought by Colonel Morgan. [An HON. MEMBER: "There was more than one libel action."] So far as I know, there was only one libel action successfully brought by Colonel Morgan, and that was against Mr. Walter in April, 1905.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): There were others.
  Mr. MORRELL: Were they heard in court?
  Colonel SEELY: There was more than one. I do not want the hon. and gallant Gentleman to continue his remarks under a misapprehension. I am anxious that there should be the fullest discussion, but there was more than one action in which Lord Robson was concerned.
  Captain CLIVE: I am, of course, open to correction, but I have searched, and I can only find one action successfully brought into court by Colonel Morgan, and that was the case Morgan versus Walter, the proprietor of" The Times," on April 8th, 1905, in which Lord Robson was not one of the counsel. The counsel then, as reported in "The Times," were Mr. (now Sir) Rufus Isaacs, the present Attorney-General, and Mr. Norman Craig for the plaintiff, and Mr. Eldon Bankes and Mr. E. Pollock for the defendant. Perhaps when the right hon. Gentleman answers he will tell us what case it was which Lord Robson refers to. The letter of Lord Robson, I contend, in no way replies to the charges that I have read out that were brought by the Farwell Commission. The main contention of it is that Colonel Morgan was a very capable and efficient officer. I have never attempted to deny that. It is a matter of common knowledge that Colonel Morgan is a most able organiser, and a very clever man. But that does not in any way reply to these charges as to his personal conduct during the war, which I have gone into from the Farwell Commission. I cannot find the action to which Lord Robson refers, but it is part of his contention in the letter that he can dispose of the charges in consequence of having acted against Colonel Morgan. The other case is a well-known one, where Lord Robson and Colonel Morgan found themselves on the same side. That is the case of the Imperial Cold Storage Company against the King, on a Petition of right, 1909. By that action the Imperial Cold Storage Company claimed £250,000 for breach of contract on the part of the War Office during the war. And I shall put it to the right hon. Gentleman on the information that I have—which, of course, I cannot verify without access to official documents—but what I am informed is this—that during the prolonged negotiations which preceded this case the War Office at one time thought so badly of their case that they offered a large sum of money to the Imperial Cold Storage Company not to bring it into Court, and the Imperial Cold Storage Company thought so well of their case that they refused.
  1092
  Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will interrupt me again if I am under a misapprehension, but my contention is that what turned the tables was simply and solely the obtaining of Colonel Morgan as a willing witness for the Crown. Of course he could have been subpoenaed as a witness. But the whole case turned on the way in which he gave his evidence. I suggest, and I think the House will agree, that it is difficult to find another reason for the extraordinary conduct, the extraordinary forgiveness of the War Office which tempts them to overlook the grave charges which have been proved by the Farwell Commission. I suggest that the reason why they have done what they have done is the result of some bargain by which they were able to obtain the service of Colonel Morgan as a willing witness in the important action to which I have referred. Perhaps in that connection I may be allowed to read from the speech of Mr. Scrutton, counsel for the Imperial Cold Storage Company. He said:—
  "He was not going to accuse anyone of deliberately telling an untruth, but he submitted that Colonel Morgan had given his evidence, not as a witness, but as an advocate. There was a certain class of clever witness who tried to think what counsel was trying to get at when a question was put to him, thought as quickly as possible how to give an answer which would destroy the effect that he thought counsel was trying to produce."
  I should like the House to consider what inducement there could be for Colonel Morgan to give this evidence, which was strongly commented upon by the counsel for the other side. Colonel Morgan had recently been dismissed from the War Office, on whose behalf he was now a witness. I suggest that he could only have given his evidence, that that evidence could only be obtained in the form it was by a promise, and that the War Office are now endeavouring to fulfil the promise to reappoint Colonel Morgan to a post, and so are taking a step which will reinstate him in public opinion.
  The next line of defence, which has more than once been advanced, is that Colonel Morgan cleared his character by the action which he successfully brought against "The Times." On that I have two points to raise. One is that the action brought against "The Times" was prior to the report of the Farwell Commission, and that therefore it could not be said in any way to clear him from the accusations which I have just read. Secondly, I suggest to the House that £250, which is the amount of damages he obtained for this libel, is not a very large sum at which to put a man's honour in a case of this sort.

  1093
  In these days, the tendency is to give very heavy damages for proved libel of this sort, and £250 damages must be looked upon as a very small matter, and taken in conjunction with the fact that the jury retired for over two and a-half hours, seems to me to suggest that the jury were doubtful as to whether he had wholly absolved himself from the charges that "The Times" was said to have brought against him.
  The right hon. Gentleman has more than once, in answer to questions, contended that Colonel Morgan is the best man. As regards sheer ability I do not deny it. But I suggest it is an insult to every member of the Army Service Corps, who is possibly as well qualified for this particular appointment, to suggest that Colonel Morgan, with this stain upon his character, is a better man for the job than they. There are serving officers, officers still in the profession, and Colonel Morgan has retired—was invited to retire on account of his conduct. Again, Colonel Morgan is to be appointed at the salary of £300 a year for this post, which I suppose is a post on the general staff; this post of messing adviser for the whole Army. This seems to me to be rather a sordid arrangement. It seems to me that the War Office are presuming on Colonel Morgan's anxiety to clear his character to offer him a wholly inadequate salary, or to get the job done on the cheap. Then comes the question, which has not yet been settled, as to how many of the directorships that Colonel Morgan now holds he is to be allowed to retain. The right hon. Gentleman has repeated more than once that Colonel Morgan is to give his whole time to the service of the War Office. In one of the companies of which he is a director he is described as "secretary and managing director." The "secretary and managing director" would be, I should have thought, one who would give pretty well his whole time to the work.
  Colonel SEELY: This is not a controversial point. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what company he now refers to?
  Captain CLIVE: The Army and Navy House Furnishing Company. I have only access to the public records of these companies. I think, in answer to questions, the right hon. Gentleman rather suggested that Colonel Morgan might be allowed to retain one or two particular directorships The right hon. Gentleman also contends that the House or public opinion would not surely wish the War
  1094
  Office to be vindictive in this matter. But surely, too, this is a wholly new theory as regards officers, even though you admit that they are only asked to retire for a breach of the regulations. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how many other officers there are who have been retired or asked to retire for a breach of the regulations who have been treated vindictively, and have not been offered further appointments? I doubt if he can give me a single instance, over a certain number of years, of a man who has been brought back again after having been asked to retire. There are a good many other officers who were retired at the same moment as Colonel Morgan, and as far as I can see, in looking through the report, they were found to be no more culpable than Colonel Morgan himself. There was Major Walton, Captain Forsyth-Grant, and Captain Limond, and I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is going to be vindictive in the case of these officers, or whether he will find new appointments for them?
  The whole case reflects no credit on the War Office. Certainly is an insult to those officers who have been passed over in favour of this retired officer. In conclusion, I would like just to put it to the hon. Gentleman opposite that in years past Colonel Morgan was part of the stock-in-trade of the Liberal party in their attacks on us for mismanagement, during the South African war. I should like to ask those who have not so far protested against this appointment what their view is, and what their reason is for the change which must have come over their opinions that they do not offer any protest against his wholly improper appointment? I must apologise for having taken up so much of the time of the House, for I know that there are other matters which hon. Members wish to discuss, but I contend that it is very ridiculous to say that this appointment is inspired by any sort of high-minded forgiveness such as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. It is, to my mind, the War Office side of a bargain, an unworthy bargain, and one that no public office ought to have made. I hope the protest from all parts of the House may be strong enough to render it impossible for the War Office to carry out the appointment.
  Mr. PIRIE: I did not know the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite was going to bring this matter forward and make it the subject of Debate to-day, otherwise I

  1095
  should have taken more time to prepare myself upon the subject, because it is one in which I have taken an interest, as the House knows, and on which I have put questions before now. Now that the matter has been brought before the House, and since we have unmistakable evidence that it excites great interest, I desire to say a few words as one who served the Army, and as one who hopes to take a more fair and generous view of the case than some other hon. Members have taken. I really welcome the action of the Government in the ease of Colonel Morgan, because, to my mind, it is an indication to some extent on the part of the War Office that they desire to follow the attitude which the Navy take up when dealing with officers found guilty of some error of judgment. I consider the practice in the Navy of trying officers by court-martial for breaches of discipline or other offences is an excellent one, and one that could not be too often followed in the Army. What is it that occurs in the case of an officer tried by court-martial in the Navy and found guilty and sentenced for some neglect of duty? They are not prevented for the rest of their lives from obtaining Admiralty appointments. Because a man is guilty of one or more errors of judgment is he to be condemned for ever, and is all his previous service to be wiped out? I think such a course would be very wrong, and I welcome the action of the War Office in reinstating Colonel Morgan, because it shows they are starting upon new lines.
  I am not here simply to defend Colonel Morgan. I merely say he was liable to be tried by court-martial if there was a real case against him, but he was not tried by court-martial. I look upon this as something above the party point of view, it is really a question of justice; there is no worse court for trying either naval or military questions or trying whether an officer is guilty or not guilty of some charge than the House of Commons. Every time in the past when questions affecting the conduct or character of naval or military officers came before this House they resulted in wrong being clone to the individual concerned, because the House of Commons is the least capable tribunal to judge. [Laughter.] The proper tribunal to judge the conduct of such a man, let me tell the hon. Member who sneers from the Back Benches, is a court-martial.
  In this action of the Government in the appointment of Colonel Morgan I see a
  1096
  step in the right direction. I think it is quite unfair to try a man twice over for the same offence. Colonel Morgan brought libel actions and defended his honour, and I think the Government are perfectly right in reinstating him. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite did not read the whole of the late Attorney-General's letter. There are two sentences I think well worth recalling, and it must be remembered this letter was written by Lord Robson when he was Attorney-General. He says:—
  "It then became perfectly clear to me that instead of there being relations between Colonel Morgan and the contractors of a kind inconsistent with his duty, lie was always a most vigilant, unsparing, and, so far certainly as the latter years of the War were concerned, a highly effective guardian of the public interests against the contractors"
  And again he says the evidence fully disposed of the allegation that Colonel Morgan was ever under the influence of the contractors. He goes on to say:—
  "His conduct showed a bias in the opposite direction."
  Captain CLIVE: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that this letter of Lord Robson is to be taken as superseding the evidence I read?
  Mr. PIRIE: I do not say anything about superseding. I say it is equally important with the evidence given, and I say the result of the libel action is more important than the evidence which the hon. Gentleman quoted. I think the House will admit that nothing could be more far-fetched than the reasons which the hon. and gallant Gentleman brought forward for impeaching the action of the War Office. A man tried once and acquitted ought not to be tried again by the House of Commons, the worst tribunal for such a purpose in the country.
  Colonel HICKMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who opened this Debate said he desired to make a protest against this appointment, but I would like to make my protest against hunting an officer down and not giving him the chance of making his living. Here we have a very distinguished officer, who did great service to the State, and in proof of what he did he was rewarded by several decorations, which shows, at all events, that the authorities at the head of the War Office were distinctly aware of the distinguished services of this officer. It is quite true he fell under a cloud, but this officer, as the Under-Secretary of State for Wax showed most distinctly, cleared his character by the only method which was in his power,

  1097
  by taking libel actions against newspapers and by winning his actions. I think he might safely have been left to the officials of the War Office, who know more about this matter, and who are more conversant with the details than any of us can be. There is no use for us setting ourselves up as judges. We do not know the actual facts of the case, and we have not by us all the literature on the subject. The Under-Secretary of State has these things, and he, with the Noble Viscount at the head of the War Office, are the proper persons to judge what should be done in the case of this officer. There is no doubt in my mind, at any rate, that so far as the Under-Secretary of State and the Secretary of State are concerned they think this officer is the best man for the job, and I think that ought to be sufficient for the House of Commons.
  Mr. MORRELL: There has been imported into this Debate an idea, and the terms have been used that we are inspired by personal vindictiveness in what is called hunting this officer down and not allowing him to earn his living. A more unfair way of dealing with this case I can hardly imagine. I have never known Colonel Morgan, I have had no sort of relationship, direct or indirect, with him. I never saw him in my life, 'but I have taken the trouble to read the evidence of Sir William Butler's Committee, and still more the evidence given before the Royal Commission on Cold Storage, and I desire most emphatically to join in the protest made upon the other side of the House against this recent appointment. I am sorry to say I think my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for War occupies a rather unfortunate position in this matter. He was not at the War Office at the time the appointment was made, and he is not in any way responsible for the appointment.
  Colonel SEELY: I am absolutely responsible now.
  Mr. MORRELL: Yes, but you were not at the time.
  Colonel SEELY: I am absolutely responsible now.
  Mr. MORRELL: If my memory serves me right the right hon. Gentleman at the time of this appointment was one of the politicians here who was most eloquent in denouncing jobbery and corruption. I do not, want to review these matters at this moment, but that I want to keep the main land of this question before the
  1098
  House. Here is a new appointment, a very important administrative post involving the control of large expenditure, and one would have thought that the War Office would have gone out of its way to pick up a man who was above suspicion, and whose record had the approval of every man. What are we to say about Colonel Morgan? He was condemned unhesitatingly by the Committee over which Sir William Butler presided. That was regarded as unsatisfactory so a Royal Commission to whitewash him was appointed, presided over by Mr. Justice Farwell. That Commission did not very effectively exonerate Colonel Morgan. On the contrary, it stated there was a total preventable loss to the home tax-payer during the twenty-two months after the end of the Boer War of something like from three-quarters to one and a quarter millions sterling, and that for that total preventable loss Colonel Morgan was largely at all events responsible.
  Then we have the fact of Colonel Morgan being referred to by the Lord Chief Justice of England as a man whose story could not be accepted in a court of law. That was in the trial of the Cold Storage Company v. the King, and finally we have the fact that on October 16th, 1906, he was called upon by Lord Haldane to retire from the Army altogether. Now what is the defence that is made of this appointment? The defence made over and over again until one is almost tired of it is that Colonel Morgan cleared himself in a court of law. My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for War did not hesitate even yesterday after I had exposed the misleading nature of that defence to repeat it. First, I thought it was unintentional, but when one hears the right hon. Gentleman again repeat this old story about clearing his character in a court of law I begin to think it was not unintentional. What are the facts? Colonel Morgan brought a libel action against "The Times" as a result of something published in "The Times" from evidence produced from South Africa on 8th April, 1905, before the publication of the first Report of the Committee presided over by Sir William Butler. Colonel Morgan got £250 damages, and Lord Robson was so impressed by the difficulty of shaking the man in cross-examination that he wrote him a testimonial showing what an able man he was. My right hon. Friend dissents from that, but is it not a fact? Was not Lord Robson

  1099
  cross-examining him on that occasion? I was told yesterday he was counsel against Colonel Morgan. At any rate, the fact remains that the libel action which Colonel Morgan brought and which went against "The Times" was on 8th April, 1905.
  He brought another against the "Daily News," but I do not think that came into court; but as a result the "Daily News" paid £250 damages, and there were some other actions also for the publication of the same statement. On 7th June, 1905, came the publication of the Report of Sir William Butler's Commission, which imputed dishonesty to Colonel Morgan and others. After that the "Daily News" published other statements, and a leading article, commenting on the late Mr. Arnold-Forster and incidentally upon Colonel Morgan and these transactions, of which Colonel Morgan was accused. Colonel Morgan's solicitors wrote a letter to the "Daily News." They said:—
  "Our attention has been called to your leading article headed 'The Case of Mr. Arnold Forster.' On behalf of our client, Colonel Morgan, we desire to point out that the article is grossly libellous."
  They went on to say—
  "We are instructed by our clients to commence proceedings fur libel against you. These we shall commence without further notice."
  Those are Colonel Morgan's solicitors writing to the "Daily News" with reference to the publication of Sir William Butler's report. The "Daily News" published that letter in full, with a large two-column heading above it, and stating they would be glad to receive a writ for libel at any time, and from that day to this no action has been brought against the "Daily News," and yet we are told that Colonel Morgan has cleared his character in a court of law in regard to the charges made against him without proper evidence before the report of this Committee was published. Since the report was published, every sort of charge of corruption and mismanagement has been made against Colonel Morgan, not only in public papers but upon public platforms, and not an action of any sort has been brought by Colonel Morgan to clear his character. I think it is time that all this talk about clearing his character in a court of law was done away with. We are told that Colonel Morgan is the only man who is fit for this post. An hon Member has said that we ought to consider the honour of the Army, and that we are not entitled to criticise any appointment in this House. I do not think any one who has
  1100
  criticised the appointment of Colonel Morgan has said anything so derogatory to the British Army as has been said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his Friends. When you have a new and important post created for the first time, and you say that you cannot find a better man to fill it than a man against whose character, rightly or wrongly, so many charges have been made, I say we have a right to criticise the appointment. We ought to have had a man appointed who is above suspicion for a new post of this sort, and nobody can say that of Colonel Morgan. I believe this appointment will do great damage to public confidence in the appointments of the Liberal Government, and I think it is a great blow at the integrity of the public service. I sincerely trust that even now the War Office may be induced to reconsider their position in this matter.

  PARKHURST MILITARY HOSPITAL.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: I would like to call the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the very serious state of affairs which has existed at the Royal Military Hospital at Parkhurst in the Isle of Wight, which has resulted in the lamentable suicide of two non-commissioned officers attached to the Royal Army Medical Corps stationed there. I would like to draw the attention of the Under-Secretary to what occurred at the inquest upon one of these unfortunate officers, Sergeant Stokes. This unfortunate noncommissioned officer committed suicide, and in a diary found upon his body there was a pathetic reference to the strain of overwork which caused him to commit this deplorable act. The coroner, at the inquest, pointed out to Lieutenant-Colonel Donegan, commanding the Military Hospital there, that the history of the staff seemed to be a very unfortunate one. The colonel said he had reported officially that he was under-staffed, and he had reason to believe the error would now be corrected, and that he gave the sergeant all the assistance he could. Asked by the coroner if the men were overworked, the colonel replied that he would like the question recorded, but preferred not to answer it. He also said that the widow of the sergeant had told him that her husband worked until 11.30 at night, starting early in the morning. Two non-commissioned officers of the Military Hospital attended as witnesses, and looked so thin and ill that the coroner commented upon their unhealthy appearance. They admitted, under examination, that they were

  1101
  in a chronic state of overwork at Parkhurst, working from seven in the morning until eleven o'clock at night seven days a week, and were then unable to cope with the work.
  I maintain that it is a scandal in any department under the control of the War Office and maintained by public money that such a state of things should exist. The unfortunate sergeant who committed suicide has left a diary, in which he practically attributed his suicide to overwork and worry. Colonel Donegan has repeatedly asked for more assistance in his hospital work for his superior officers, and this has been pooh-poohed and denied to him. This officer has been absolutely exonerated in this matter by the coroner's jury. If Colonel Donegan is not to blame, I think it is a very invidious and cruel thing that a man like him should have been removed from his post before the inquiry had taken place. It has been insinuated that this was done because this officer gave adverse evidence against the War Office, but I trust that is not so. No doubt throughout the Army Medical Service, and especially in this particular district, there is great discontent, and it is notorious throughout the Service that the superior officers do not care to forward to the War Office recommendations regarding the better organisation of the Army Medical Corps or complaints, because they are immediately "shut down" and pigeon-holed at the War Office. Although we all know that a Government Department tied by red tape takes a lot of moving, I think two suicides ought to be sufficient to move them.
  The first case was that of Sergeant Whipp, who committed suicide. At the inquiry held there after that sad event, the court advised the War Office that they should give more assistance in the hospital. What was done? Nothing was done in the matter, and evidently one suicide is not sufficient. Now they have appointed a Committee of Inquiry. This Committee was appointed six weeks ago, and up to now the War Office have not had time to digest the report of that Committee. Now that we are going to adjourn, I hope the War Office will be able to say what they intend to do to rectify this very serious state of affairs in the Army Medical Corps.
  Colonel SEELY: Perhaps the House will permit me to reply now to these criticisms. I will reply first to the question raised by the hon. Member for the
  1102
  Isle of Wight (Mr. Douglas Hall). We cannot clear that matter out of the way only for the moment, because much more remains to be done. It is unfortunately the case that two suicides have taken place at the Parkhurst Military Hospital during the last twelve months, one of them only six weeks ago. The hon. Member is in error in saying—so far as I have been able to gather from the papers, and I have carefully perused them—that both these suicides were due to overwork. The first was the sad case of the senior sergeant who committed suicide, but it was never alleged in his case that it was due to overwork. It was for other reasons, and for offences to which he confessed. The poor man is now dead, and the less said about the matter the better. He felt his position so much that presumably he decided to take his own life. There is no doubt from the evidence put before me by the responsible officers that all the officials in charge of the hospital were, to use a homely phrase, very much upset. Colonel Donegan had previously, according to the reports which I have seen, been lacking in sufficient power of control or direction of his staff. I admit that this officer has had a distinguished career, but it is possible to have that qualification and at the same time not to have that full power of direction of an organisation which is necessary.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: He was a distinguished officer, and he was considered to have enough power of direction to have charge of the hospital at Ladysmith.
  Colonel SEELY: I know he was a distinguished officer, but it is nevertheless a fact that he was somewhat lacking in the power to direct and control this hospital. A short time ago there was another case of suicide for quite different reasons than the first one already referred to. This sergeant had been suffering from neurasthenia, and there is no doubt that he ought not to have been appointed to that responsible post. There are two questions which the House will want answers to on this point. Admitting that this man was not fit for the work, and that he worked too hard when he was not fit, what steps are you going to take to see that it does not occur again? The second question is why has the colonel been removed to another command before the Court of Inquiry completed its work? I will take the former question first. Front the information I have here it, is quite clear that it is not necessary that these non-com-

  1103
  missioned officers and men should be over worked. I have here a table which I will send to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes, or to anybody else interested—it would take too long for me to read—showing a comparison between the hospital at Parkhurst and the hospitals at Winchester and Portsmouth. This comparison shows that there are quite as many officials to do the work at Parkhurst as there are at Winchester and Portsmouth, and there have been no complaints from Winchester or Portsmouth. This is a very full report, and it shows conclusively that the overwork from which this poor man suffered was due to his own ill-health and the lack of sufficient organisation at the hospital, and not to any lack of staff. I have satisfied myself on that point. I think the overwork from which this officer suffered was entirely due to those two causes, namely, an insufficient control by the commanding officer, and a lack of power on his part to direct the work. It may be said that we are prejudging the issue of the Court of Inquiry, but I do not think that is so, and should it be found in the course of inquiry that these defects in the officers' characters had been remedied nothing has happened to prejudice his case.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: But the Court of Inquiry has already reported.
  5.0 P.M
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, I have been reading the Report, but it has not been fully considered yet in all its bearings, and I should be sorry to pronounce an opinion upon it without considerable opportunities for further study. This poor non-commissioned officer was suffering from neurasthenia when he was first appointed, and there is no doubt he ought not to have been sent to this hospital in such a state. All I can tell the House is we will take special efforts, by sending circulars round, to ensure that these non-commissioned officers who hold responsible pests in our military hospitals shall never be sent to do this work unless they are in perfectly good health. These things occur from a desire to avoid penalising a man for ill-health. Sometimes, with a desire to appoint a good man, you may send him to do work which he is really not fitted to do, and so, whilst trying to be kind, you may in fact be cruel. I think there are special matters which require attention at Parkhurst, and I propose to give my personal attention to the matter in the course of the next few days by a personal visit. I am told by the
  1104
  Director-General, who is also giving close attention to this matter, that the principal medical officer does not live near enough to the hospital, nor does the senior noncommissioned officer. I will undertake that steps shall be taken forthwith to make arrangements so that the senior medical officer shall be able to live quite close to the hospital, and so that the senior non-commissioned officer shall actually live within the precincts.
  With regard to Colonel Donegan himself the point has been made that he was removed before the Court of Inquiry had concluded its findings and given its decision. After the fullest consideration, and after consultation with my military advisers, I may say at once I do not think the general officer commanding, in whose discretion it rested to remove this officer to another post or not, could have acted other than he did. Here was an officer of whom he had reports that, in spite of his excellent services in the past, he was lacking in that power of adequate control which is so necessary in a place like a hospital.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is it not a fact that Colonel Donegan was removed by order of the senior medical officer without the knowledge of the general officer commanding at all?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think it would be wise or right to go into the question who is technically responsible for an administrative order of that kind. The general officer commanding is the officer who is responsible for taking action of this kind, and I do not think we should do wisely by going into the question which particular officer took the action. My information is that it was on the authority of the general officer commanding. The question is, was that authority wisely exercised? The hon. Gentleman himself said it is now six weeks since the inquiry began. Would he suggest, when there have been two suicides under circumstances tending to show there was inefficient management, that during the whole time of the inquiry and during the whole time of the subsequent investigation, which must necessarily take a little time, the same senior officer should be there? No, I think the proper course to take was to remove him elsewhere and to send there a man in whom you had absolute confidence that he would avoid the dangers which had led to these deplorable occurrences. At the same time, I gladly give this assurance to the House. If the Court

  1105
  of Inquiry should find and we should be satisfied from the evidence put before us, that Colonel Donegan was not at fault—on that distinct understanding—the fact that he has been removed will not prejudice his future in the least degree. He will stand exactly where lie stood before. I trust that public pledge which I now give to the House of Commons will satisfy the House that the reason for his transfer was purely to avoid further trouble in the event of it being true that Colonel Donegan had not sufficient control over his staff. If it is found to the contrary, he shall not suffer in any way whatever.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Can you not tell us that now? You have had the report for a week.
  Colonel SEELY: I think it would be very unwise, when one has only received a report a few days, to come to a decision of that kind without full and careful inquiry. Once established that the officer shall not be prejudiced in any way by the ultimate decision, I think it is a case where full deliberation is wisest. I shall ha glad to give any further information on this matter. I am glad it has been raised, and I promise the hon. Gentleman it shall have full and careful attention. Now I turn to the ease of Colonel Morgan. One might have thought this was a very valuable plum in the Service offered to a political friend or to some person with a great hold on the Government. May I endeavour to dispel some of the illusions which have been created in the course of this Debate?
  Captain CLIVE: I do not think I ever made any such suggestion.
  Colonel SEELY: I never said the hon. and gallant Gentleman made that suggestion. I said it might be thought, and I think it might be inferred by any one listening to the speeches. Let us go back to the fact. What is the appointment? It is an appointment of £300 a year, and no more. It is not a very large matter. Why was this appointment created It was created because it was found, while that some regiments and some units were exceedingly well fed with the rations provided for them, that the men were comfortable and that the most was made of the money to be expended, in some other units the management not being so good, the men were far less better fed. The committee, presided over by General Clayton, comprised several commanding officers of Infantry regiments, and they unanimously
  1106
  reported in favour of some officer, whom they called a messing officer, being appointed, and who should be an expert in these matters. Accordingly, the question was who should be appointed? We clear away the question why it should be done. It was done on the recommendation of a committee. The next question is why Colonel Morgan was appointed. "Why do you single him out?" says the hon. and gallant Gentleman. "Why was Colonel Morgan selected when there were other officers equally well qualified?" I took down while he was speaking some things lie said about Colonel Morgan. I thought they were very much to the point. It is quite true I was not at the War Office when this appointment was made, but I said, in the course of an interruption, I am absolutely responsible, and I do not wish for a moment to shirk my responsibility. If I thought Colonel Morgan's appointment was, as has been described by an hon. Gentleman behind me (Mr. Morrell),I should, of course, at once resign my office. What did the hon. and gallant Gentleman say He said he was a most capable and efficient officer. I took that down. He said he was a very clever man, and for sheer ability he was the best.
  Captain CLIVE: I do not recognise those words as mine, but I quite agree I said nobody denies the ability of Colonel Morgan.
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think anybody is likely to deny that, and I do not think it likely I should have written down those particular words unless they actually fell from the hon. and gallant Gentleman's lips at the moment. That is what he did say. If that is a correct description by an 'hon. and gallant Gentleman who is opposed to Colonel Morgan, and has been foremost in attacking the appointment—I fully appreciate, for reasons which he thinks are in the interest of the Public Service—if he says lie was a most capable and efficient officer, a most able organiser, a clever man, and a man of sheer ability, is it unreasonable to suppose other people who have no special view either way, looking round, would pick out the man with sheer ability, a most able organiser, and a clever man as the man for the post.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Why did he leave the Service?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think the hon. Baronet has been present during the Debate, or at Question time on many occasions. It has been fully explained that

  1107
  Colonel Morgan left the Service because of a technical breach of Regulations. I wish to deal fully with this matter now in justice to hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House. Lord Haldane thought he was the best man. The question is: Was his past of such a character that he ought not to be appointed? That is the whole point. I think it would be well for the House to set aside the question whether he was or was not the best man, because, after all, Lord Haldane and his military advisers, and in a less degree myself, have a better opportunity of judging who is a good man and clever at this particular work than those who have not seen all the documents. We may be wrong, but there is the presumption, if so many officers thought he is the best man, that he is, if not the best, probably one of the best. Criticism, therefore, is not well directed towards his efficiency for the job. The question is: Has his past been such that he ought not to be appointed? In my judgment, what Lord Robson has said is conclusive proof that in the opinion of one perfectly impartial and fair-minded man—I think nobody will deny that—this officer has suffered a grave injury. Lord Robson's exact words at the close of his letter to me are:—
  "It is bare justice to a soldier on whose reputation there may still be some shadow that is not deserved."
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite devoted most of his speech, not to Colonel Morgan, but apparently to Colonel Morgan's brother. I put this to the House. If one and all of us in this House are, to use the words of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, not fit to be re-employed in any capacity whatever because ten years ago not we ourselves but our brothers committed a fault, where should we all be? I am sure not one of us would be here if we were supposed to be unfit because of a fault we committed ourselves ten years ago. I know I should not.
  Captain CLIVE: I really cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman, quite unintentionally I know, to misrepresent me. I never said a word against Colonel Morgan's brother. He only came in incidentally as a man whom the Commission said had been very improperly put into a post. It is Colonel Morgan we are attacking, and not his brother.
  Colonel SEELY: I listened very carefully to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He made several points, and I am now trying to deal with them. I think,
  1108
  when he reads his speech, he will find a good deal of his criticism was directed to the employment of Colonel Morgan's brother, and I again repeat I do not think we ought to pursue any officer or any man vindictively unless we have reason to believe he has been guilty of such wrong that he is not fit for the society of decent men, especially as his character is likely to be permanently stained. I do not believe in this digging up of the past of any man in the Army. Those who know most about the Army know what a cruel thing it is. A bad mark against a soldier may last a lifetime. Something has been done to amend that, and I hope more will be done. I do not admit for a moment Colonel Morgan has been guilty of any moral wrong. One must admit he was guilty of a technical breach of regulations. I think it is in the interest of the public service to say that no officer is employed in any capacity when he has been convicted of a breach of the technical regulations. I turn now to the very remarkable speech made by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell), who was good enough to suggest that I intentionally misled the House—
  Mr. MORRELL: If I did make that suggestion it is certainly a mistake.
  Colonel SEELY: Of course I say nothing more on that point. The hon. Member also said that he deprecated personal vindictiveness; but that came rather strangely from him, because yesterday he made the statement that this officer went to South Africa a poor man, and came back to this country a very rich man, and on that one could only place one interpretation, and that was that that officer had robbed the State of large sums of money. Does the hon. Gentleman repudiate that statement?
  Mr. MORRELL:I simply asked the question.
  Colonel SEELY: It is not often such statements are made in this House by hon. Members, who would be liable to action if they made them outside. I want to know what ground the hon. Gentleman has for making such an extraordinarily bitter attack on the honour of an officer of the Army. Can he now say one word in support of it? He cannot. I say the statement ought never to have been made, and I think the hon. Gentleman ought to take the very first opportunity of absolutely withdrawing such a disgraceful allegation, made without a shadow of foundation, on the honour of an unfortunate man. Had it

  1109
  not been believed that this was the case, would it have been possible for Lord Haldane, for members of the Army Council, and still less for myself to be defending Colonel Morgan? We have satisfied ourselves that his honour is absolutely clear. We have satisfied ourselves that he is an able man, and that he can fill this office better than any other man.
  The question of directorships was raised by the hon. Member opposite, and one or two of my hon. Friends, who take a strong view on this subject, will be glad to have that point cleared up. The rule of the Service is that an officer on the Active List may only hold directorships by leave of the Secretary of State. Such consent is occasionally given, and it has been given especially in cases where officers hold directorships under wills, and find it difficult to get rid of the obligation. But with regard to retired officers, we do not even inquire what directorships they hold. I do not say whether that is a good or a bad policy, but it is the rule of the Service. We employ an immense number of retired officers on these terms. There are remount officers, recruiting officers, and many other categories, numbering possibly hundreds, and we never ask them what directorships they hold. But in the case of Colonel Morgan, Lord Haldane did make that inquiry. This officer is, I am informed, quite a poor man. He has considerable ability and, not having a large capital, he has endeavoured to earn some income as a director of companies. We laid it down that he must not continue to hold any directorships which in any way interfere with his duties. I cannot say how many directorships he retains, but whichever they are, they can have no relation whatever to his duty as adviser to the War Office. In this respect I wish the House to understand that Colonel Morgan has been far more stringently dealt with than is normally the case with retired officers. I think I have said enough to satisfy the House that we have given careful attention to this matter and have convinced ourselves that Colonel Morgan is well qualified to discharge the duties of this office.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to say one or two, words—
  Mr. PRINGLE: The hon. Baronet was not in his place when I rose. On a point of Order. May I ask if it is in order to call upon an hon. Member who is not in his place when another hon. Member has already risen?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I did not see the hon. Member rise.
  Sir F. BANBURY: We did not raise the question as to the salary Colonel Morgan is to receive. That is not the point at all. The point is that Colonel Morgan was requested to retire from the Army as a result of certain investigations which were made by the South African Commission, whose report came before the Public Accounts Committee. I am well aware that the Commission reported that there were no charges made against the honesty of Colonel Morgan, but it was stated that he had been inept in his manner of dealing with large business transactions. I think if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would only look at the report of what took place before the Public Accounts Committee, he will not deny that there was a great want of business judgment shown by Colonel Morgan. I do not want to go into the question of the relationship of Colonel Morgan with any other Morgan, but there cannot be the slightest doubt that Colonel Morgan entered into large contracts in a very foolish and unbusinesslike manner. He having left the Army, why does the right hon. Gentleman seek to put him back in a place which requires those very attributes which he failed to exercise when he was in the Army before. Notwithstanding the fact he may have been foolish, the right hon. Gentleman is going to put him in a similar position to that which he originally occupied. I cannot see any possible justification even in Colonel Morgan's own interest for such a course. The argument advanced by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the salary is only £300 a year does not carry weight with it. It would be all the same if the salary were only £50 a year. Personally, I have never seen Colonel Morgan, I do not doubt his personal capacity. He may be an extremely excellent man, but I sat on the Public Accounts Committee, and I venture to say that the evidence we had showed that he did not display business ability. The last people we want to have in our Army are people who have shown in the past that they have no business ability. The present Government came into office pledged to economy, but can it be suggested, especially when one looks into the history of the hay contract, that there was economy shown. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider, is it worth while for the sake of giving Colonel Morgan £300 a year to arouse this feeling in the country. Would it not be

  1111
  much better in Colonel Morgan's own interest—the Royal Commission having passed no strictures on his honesty—that he should be allowed to occupy his time in looking after the ten directorships he now holds. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter.

  TARIFF REFORM.
  Mr. CROFT: I desire to call attention to a very critical and serious question in connection with the trade relations between the Mother Country and the Dominions—a question which has arisen in connection with the Reciprocity Treaty between Canada and the United States of America. I make no excuse for raising this question this afternoon, because wars have been frequently waged on far smaller issues than those that confront us at the present time. I think I can demonstrate before I sit down that this country is threatened by a great problem—one so grave that it calls for instant national action. If I may be permitted to say so, I raise this question in no party spirit whatever. It is a question which is far divorced from party, and some of the things that I shall have to say will, I am afraid, be quite as uncongenial to my own Friends as to hon. Members who sit opposite. But very frequently there comes a time when it is necessary, in the interests of the country, to say unpleasant things. I want to ask this House to turn its attention to the trade question as it affects the manufacturer, the working man, and the unemployed (with their starving wives and children), and the Empire itself. I should like to say at once that in my opinion in the past the Unionist party has failed to take advantage of many opportunities which were presented to it. It has undoubtedly been negligent with regard to those wider Imperial questions, although I frankly admit that when those opportunities have occurred they have been in times of great stress and great difficulty. But the masterly inactivity of the party to which I belong has been far outdone by the hideous and criminal blunders of this Government, which at the last Conference used language both insulting and uncalled for.
  I do not want to dwell on the past, I want to come at once to the crying needs of the present moment, and the situation which has been created by the policy of the last Imperial Conference.
  1112
  Since the Prime Ministers' return to the Dominions, we have found every country prepared to make trade treaties with Canada which the Mother Country alone has refused to countenance. The so-called sordid bonds which have so frequently been mentioned by hon. Members opposite have proved attractive to Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, and the United States, and we find all the countries of the world are entering into trade agreements with Canada. In fact, all the world is rushing in where the Free Trade angels of the Mother Country alone fear to tread. The result of this is that we see the fruits of the policy of Imperial Preference gradually being taken away and gradually being harvested by foreign countries, when if we had only lifted a finger we should have established still greater advantages for the people of this country than they enjoy at present. I want to call the attention of this House for a moment to the extremely valuable information as to the position of the Empire and of the Mother Country which has been given to the House this Session. We have been told that Australasia is buying from us at this time as much as the German Empire, and that New Zealand and Canada are buying practically as much from us as the United States of America; and when we consider these stupendous facts, surely it must make us look at this question from a different point of view, and surely we can no longer consider the arguments that were put forward that we may offend the susceptibilities of Germany and the United States, and last week it was said even of China, by adopting a different policy. Surely we need not consider this question any longer, when it is perfectly evident that the Dominions even at the beginning of their history are a mighty asset to this country, and that the establishment of closer trade relations with them must bring greater prosperity and happiness to the people of our country.
  I think the hon. Gentleman opposite who is interested in my last remark, if he had been here at question time to-day would have seen that the comparative position is advancing in an extraordinary manner, because the President of the Board of Trade informed me that the Dominions of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are buying £2 12s., £6, and £8 per head respectively per annum of the products of this country, while Germany and the United States buy only 11s. 5d. and 6s. worth. A few points of that kind

  1113
  show the extraordinary position that we are in with regard to our Colonies to-day, at the beginning of their growth. They have already established themselves as the great employers of our people, and they are assisting us to-day to a happier solution of our economic troubles in this country than we have ever known, for to-day we find that they actually employ millions of our people by the merchandise they buy, and to-morrow I believe they may solve nearly all the economic troubles under which we are labouring and the poignancy of which, I think, is admitted in this House. These great purchasing communities, these new nations, seem to have sprung up almost in a night, and we have only to look at the romantic history of Canada to see what Canada means to this country to-day, and what she may mean if only we apply the proper policy in ten years' time. The purchases of Canada from this country have risen in. fourteen years from £5,000,000 to £20,000,000 a year, and at the very lowest this means that £7,000,000 a year in wages is being paid to British workers as the result almost entirely of that preference which we have been told by the Prime Minister is the greatest political imposture of modern days.
  I can only say that when the working classes of this country begin to see how intimately this question affects them they will be inclined to resent those words. Take four of the Dominions, Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, which have a population of 20,000,000 of people. They are now buying from us year by year from £60,000,000 to £70,000,000 worth of goods per annum, and before the end of the century, if their population increases at the present rate and the comparative British position is maintained, we shall find that they are buying something like £350,000,000 worth of goods every year from this country. That means that we shall have an increase on our present position of £250,000,000 at least extra trade, or, in other words, £125,000,000 more wages are going to be circulated among the people of this country if we can keep our comparative position to the Dominions over seas. When we consider that, I think it will be admitted by the hon. Member, who smiles, that £125,000,000 increase of wages among the people of this country would do more than all the social reforms and more than all the palliatives of politicians which are going to be applied in this country can do for the working classes.
  1114
  I desire in this connection to point out that even at the present time if the mutual preference which the Colonies ask us for were given it would accrue enormously to the advantage of the British working classes. To-day the Dominions are buying £142,000,000 worth of goods from foreign countries. Much of that trade would come to this country, and our wages bill would be increased if we had the preference of which I speak. Therefore we must admit that the greatest insurance for the future that we have is the trade which lies within the British Empire. That brings me to a new phase of the Imperial question. Canada has tried for years to establish with the Mother Country mutual preferential trade, and in order to prove her good faith we have seen the great preference which she established to our great advantage, and to the great temporary disadvantage of themselves.
  Tired at last of endeavouring to make trade arrangements with the Mother Country, Canada has unfortunately been listening to the voice of the foreign charmer, who is only too ready to make business arrangements with her, and that is why we have discovered a great change of policy in regard to reciprocity which has closely followed the appointment of Mr. Bryce to Washington. Canadian statesmen, for good reasons, have repeatedly stated that as far as Canada was concerned there would be no more pilgrimages to Washington. In fact, I think it became generally understood throughout the length and breadth of Canada that it was the policy of Canadian statesmen to stand by those national ideas and the national policy which commended itself to Sir John Macdonald which made Canada what she is, and which alone can keep her what she is. The extraordinary change et policy, reversing all the national traditions of Canada, I think affords almost conclusive proof that the proposals must have come from Mr. Bryce, whose desire for closer political union has always been well known. What we do know is this, that the proposals certainly did not come from Canada, and that Mr. Taft deliberately told the people of the United States that reciprocity was the last chance of preventing Imperial union between the Mother Country and the Dominions, and that this would be the last opportunity they in America would have of preventing that. Then I say the irresistible conclusion we are driven to is that Mr. Taft,

  1115
  Mr. Bryce, and the Home Government, have been conspiring together in order to wreck the policy of Imperial union and to dish the party of Tariff Reform in this country.
  I have always been one of those who desired to see Anglo-American friendship, and long before the arbitration proposals were brought forward I always considered that the greatest ideal that we can have is Anglo-American friendship. But when we remember that we have been invited to discuss the arbitration proposals under a canopy of peace, whilst at the same time the United States has endeavoured to buy what they know they cannot possibly conquer, namely, the Dominion of Canada, I say that we in this country are living in a fools' paradise, and that if we want to maintain the freedom and independence of Canada we must act and act immediately. That is why I am asking this House to step in and asking hon. Members to advocate on this occasion a sane Imperialism and to establish even in some modified form preferential proposals which will show the Dominion Ministers that they still can wait with confidence for the people of this country, and which will, once for all, kill reciprocity with the United States, which must bring about the disintegration of one important part of the British Empire. I know that is a point of view which is not shared by some of my colleagues, but I think that, whatever the cost may be, whatever the dangers may be, if you really consider that a policy which has been advanced is not for the ultimate good of the Empire as a whole, it is criminal if you do not intervene and if one party does not express its own opinion.
  I consider that the Government has been guilty of a treasonable course, and that it is acting contrary to the interests of the whole of the Dominions throughout the Empire, and that what it has done is absolutely a betrayal of the trade interests of the people of Great Britain and Ireland and all the Dominions. If this agreement goes through, though I sincerely hope that is not probable, the Government have been sharing in an endeavour to allow the United States to give a preference to Canada against their own people, who have sent them to this House and whose confidence they are supposed to hold, and against the people who dwell in the other Dominions of the King in various parts of the world. That being
  1116
  so, it practically comes to this, that the Government, in order to be faithful to their ancient prejudices and ideas, have been assisting President Taft in establishing a Chinese wall, which will separate Canada and the United States, to the exclusion of commodities and goods from other British countries, which at present deal with those countries. I am afraid it may be said that I have spoken somewhat strongly and hotly upon this subject by those who sit opposite, but I can say deliberately that when Mr. Champ Clarke made that speech on annexation it was received with the utmost enthusiasm by those who listened to it, and that whatever diplomatists may say, it is the intelligent opinion of leading Americans at this moment. This is no new question, we have only got to look back in history. In 1888 Senator Sherman, chairman of the Senate Committee of Foreign Affairs, said:—
  "The way to union with Canada is not by hostile legislation, not by acts of retaliation, but by friendly overtures. This union is one of the events that must inevitably come in the future, it will come by the logic of the situation and no politician or combination of politicians can prevent it. The true policy of this Government is to tender freedom in trade and intercourse, and to make this tender in such a fraternal way that it shall be an overture to the Canadian people to become a part of this republic."
  Senator Sherman was expressing very politely, unlike some of his colleagues, at that time what was the opinion of nearly all the leading brains in America, of whose opinions I can produce as much evidence as any one will desire. From the day when Senator Sherman made that speech the annexation movement in the United States has been going forward. Year by year we have seen it strengthened until in 1891 the Continental Union Association was formed, with its New York League and its League in Ontario. The objects of the union were to extend the power of the United States to the Arctic Ocean in the same way as it had been extended to Mexico and the Pacific. Put briefly, they were to establish commercial union with Canada, and, following that, to annex Canada into the United States. I think we should ask ourselves whether these were small men who were considering this question, and I will read a few of those who were concerned in the organising of the continental union: Mr. Charles A. Dana, Andrew Carnegie, William C. Whitney, Orlando B. Potter, John Hay, Theodore Roosevelt, Elihu Root, Chauncey Depew, General Slocum, General James Wilson, Charles Francis Adams, Seth Low, and Bourke Cochrane. These

  1117
  were some of the organisers of the Continental Union, whose ultimate object was the annexation of Canada. When Mr. Champ Clarke makes a speech in the House saying this will lead to annexation, whatever the promoters of the Bill may say, it is perfectly obvious that that feeling exists in the United States to-day just as strongly as it did then. If Reciprocity is established, Canada, as far as I can see, must gradually lose her nationality and her independence. How can 8,000,000 people withstand the economic pressure of the 90,000,000 who extend along a 3,000 mile frontier? Supposing Scotland belonged to the United States, and suddenly a tariff wall was pulled down and Scotland and the United Kingdom had Free Trade between the two countries. Obviously Scotland must either be ruined, just the same as Ireland was ruined by being brought into our Free Trade system, with no chance of striking out for herself, or else she must become part of the United Kingdom. It is perfectly certain that such would be the community of interests between Scotland and England that it would be impossible to prevent political union, which must come sooner or later, and that is what I maintain with regard to Canada and the United States.
  That brings us to the question of favoured nation treaties. I am sorry the Secretary of State is not here because I think perhaps this is the question which in the last fortnight has been exercising all traders in this country to an extent that no question has exercised them for many years past. The question we want to ask is what do the Government intend to do with regard to these favoured nation treaties? Did they consult any business men in this country before they made themselves a party to this arrangement and, through Mr. Bryce, encourage this policy What have they done to discover whether British in terests are going to be injured by this arrangement? They have either to denounce all these treaties which are shared in by Canada, or else it seems to me Canada must cease to be a part of the British Empire. Are they going to denounce these forty-four treaties upon which our Free Trade is built up? It seems to me that you must throw away our only weapon, and whatever happens—and this, I think, is the only ray of sunlight with regard to these reciprocity proposals—Free Trade is once and for all killed by the mere entry of this Reciprocity Treaty into our questions. What then can be done to
  1118
  save a situation which seems to me so grave, to prevent a disaster which must rob our country of so great prosperity in the future and which must deprive our manufacturers of the greatest market of the future? I believe it can be saved by seizing the opportunity of establishing preference now. I do not mind if the hon. Gentleman has not followed the replies which the President of the Board of Trade has given to us and still thinks that food is the objection. Let him establish the principle on any commodity, however small it may be. Let him show that the Government are prepared to consider this question in a sympathetic manner and let the question be introduced at the Conference now, so that we kill reciprocity at once and for all time. I should like to ask what the Government have to fear. The Unionist Party will troop into their Lobby as one man on any question of this description. This may be the most popular policy we have—it is the most popular plank we have in our party policy—but we would willingly forego any popularity if the Government were to adopt the principle and we would do everything we could to help them to bring about a solution of this difficulty. The dear food cry is absolutely killed by the Reciprocity Treaty. Mr. James J. Hill, who is one of those who are behind this movement, has told the farmers of the United States that under British Imperial Preference they would all have to accept less for their corn and the Official Report to the House of Representatives said that Canada was underselling American wheat in the British market, and that reciprocity would mean raising the price of wheat at Liverpool, or, in other words, the President of the Board of Trade and his colleagues are, by joining in this movement, handing over the people of this country to the tender mercies and the unrestricted gambling of the wheat kings in New York, who will bring Canadian wheat into the scope of their operations. It is interesting also to see that Senator Carter, in the Senate, speaking in defence of Reciprocity, said:—
  "The more influential we, the United States, become at fixing the price at which wheat, including American, is sold in competition with that of other sections of the world, the greater is the ultimate benefit to the producer of wheat in the United States."
  I maintain that through the advent of reciprocity the dear food argument is beaten to fits, and those who still maintain that wheat will be dearer under our policy have no longer a single leg to stand upon. If the agreement is ratified we may lose Canada, but most certainly our bread will

  1119
  be dearer, and I ask under these circumstances, are we such puny creatures that we cannot put aside our petty, party passion in regard to this question and raise our senses of the grander and wider problems which confront us at the present moment. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, before he left Canada, once more said that Canada was true to her original proposition, and was ready to extend her preference to this country. If the Government are again going to bar the door upon the Dominions then all their social reform, all the appeals which they have made to those who support them in the country, will be forgotten and obliterated because of the detestation of posterity in this country owing to the policy they have pursued. But on the other hand if they will frankly and fearlessly and fully establish the policy of Imperial Preference they will prove that they are a Government who are above party, and they will earn, in my opinion, the title of being one of the greatest Governments Which has ever held power in this country.
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members being found present,
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I want to raise a tariff matter very akin to the question which the hon. Member has raised and one which I understand comes under the Department of the Board of Trade. I wish to ask one or two questions with regard to the United Dutch tariff. My hon. Friend has pointed out that, thanks to the policy of the present Government, we are in danger of losing altogether the advantages of Imperial preference, and not only are we losing the possibilities of much further extensions in the Colonial market, but we are also, thanks to the fact that we have no weapon whatever whereby to fight hostile tariffs, in danger of losing some of those markets in foreign countries which we possess at present. The latest example of the weakness of our position, which I am afraid is going to affect our traders and our working men very seriously, is the question of Holland. Some weeks ago I asked a question regarding the new Dutch tariff. I pointed out, in connection with a particular trade in the constituency which I represent, namely, the chain trade, we have always enjoyed up to the present time free entry as regards chains and other matters into Holland, but that now a duty of 6 per cent. was being put on,
  1120
  and I asked the right hon. Gentleman what steps he proposed to take to try and use his influence with the Dutch Government to prevent these new burdens being put upon British industry. The right hon. Gentleman's answer was characteristic of the weak position we occupy in all these matters. All he could say was that he would circulate a translation of the new proposed Dutch tariff among the Chambers of Commerce, and ask them for their remarks, and when he had got them he would endeavour to see what influence he could bring to bear upon the Dutch Government. There is absolutely nothing else he could have answered, because we have no means of retaliating whereby to fight these hostile tariffs, and I am very much afraid, whatever remark might be made by the Chambers of Commerce or anyone else, the result would be just the same. The new tariff will go on, and as we are losing our Colonial markets so we shall lose another market on the Continent. The hon. Gentleman will probably remember the old lines written many years ago:—
  "In matters of business, the fault of the Dutch, Is giving too little, and asking too much."
  6.0 P.M.
  That was written in the days when we had a tariff. There is no doubt that now that we have no power of retaliation the Dutch will give us a great deal less than they did even then. I will point out the effect of the tariff on some of our trades. Hitherto chains have gone into Holland free. Under the new proposed tariff a duty of 6 per cent. is to be charged. That means that for every £ worth of chains sent into Holland the British manufacturer will have to pay 1s. 3d. I daresay Free Traders will state that the consumer will pay. I venture to say that the consumer will not pay, because as a matter of fact there is effective competition in chain-making in Holland, and if our manufacturers add the duty to the selling price, the only result will be that they will be shut out of the Dutch market altogether. Take the case of the galvanised hollow ware trade. The products of that trade have been admitted to Holland free up to the present time, but now a duty of 12 per cent. is to be imposed. Locomotives and rolling stocks have been free so far, but a 6 per cent. duty is to be imposed. On carriages and cycles the duty is 10 per cent., and on motor-cycles and motor-cars it is 12 per cent. I would point out to the President of the Board of Trade that every one of these duties is not merely for revenue,

  1121
  but is a protective duty, because in every one of those cases there are home manufacturers, and the result of the duties will be that our articles will be excluded and protection afforded to the home manufacturers. Therefore, so much less wages will be paid in our own country.
  I would ask the right hon. Gentleman what steps the Government propose to take in regard to this proposed new tariff. I am afraid our position is very weak, because we have no weapon with which to fight these proposals. It is becoming more and more obvious year after year that we shall be shut out of every market in turn unless we obtain that fighting power which has been absent from us up to the present time. In regard to Holland, Free Traders have pointed to that country as the one Free Trade country left, or nearly the only one. Holland is now setting up a protective tariff, and it is a very scientific tariff. I have worked it out, and it comes very much to this: On raw materials, such as coal, iron, and yarn, there is to be no tariff at all; partly finished articles are to have a tariff of 3 to 5 per cent.; articles in a much further finished state, 10 per cent.; and on completely finished articles it will be about 12 per cent. In other words, it comes to very much the sort of tariff that was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) for this country a few years ago.
  That is a scientific tariff, and the result of it can only be when those fully manufactured articles are charged at the very much higher rate of twelve per cent. to cause a considerably less export of these goods from our country to Holland. I cannot say, for my part, that I can blame the Dutch for the action they are taking. They are, after all, simply looking after the interests of their own people. They are giving themselves a weapon with Which to fight other hostile tariffs on the Continent, and at the same time they are protecting their industries against the competition of British goods. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has received any suggestions or comments from the various chambers of commerce in this country on the draft tariff which he promised to send round, and if there is any means whereby he can protect our traders against this new tariff. I shall be glad to hear any answer he has to give on that matter. From the correspondence I have received the matter has excited a great deal of attention in the country, and especially in the Midlands, where hard-
  1122
  ware goods are made, and where, if this Dutch tariff comes into operation, a serious blow will be dealt to that trade.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I regret that the Dutch Government are proposing to impose duties on goods going into that country, How far that proposal is likely to become law I cannot say. I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman opposite (Colonel Griffith-Boscawen) on the general question of Free Trade and Tariff Reform. That is a large question, which is hardly suitable for discussion on the Motion now before the House. The Bill was introduced to the Dutch Parliament on 1st April, and we had it at once translated and sent to about a hundred chambers of commerce. We have received replies from forty, and we are expecting replies from the others. When we have that information in our possession, we shall be in a better position to see how the new Dutch Tariff affects British trade. I think the hon. Gentleman will feel that before we make representations to the Dutch Government on this matter, we should have full information before us in order that we may see exactly to what extent these new duties are likely to be injurious to British trade. I assure the hon. Member that, having obtained the information, we shall make what representations we find desirable to the Dutch Government with reference to that Tariff. The hon. Member seemed to assume that if we had high protective duties here we should be in a better position to—I do not think he used the word retaliate, but that was what he had in his mind. He believes that we should be better able to parley with Holland on the subject. My experience has been that retaliations by one protected country on another have usually led to great dislocations of trade for considerable periods, and the results have not been satisfactory to either side.
  Mr. REMNANT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us one instance?
  Mr. BUXTON: If I bad known that this discussion was to be raised, I could have given the hon. Member a number of instances.
  Mr. REMNANT: Give us one.
  Mr. BUXTON: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question with reference to this matter, I shall give him the facts. One case was that of Austria and Switzer-

  1123
  land. I have not the particulars here, I have only general information with regard to that point. The latest instance we have had in this respect was that of France France the other day altered her Tariff, not against us, but against all the various countries with which she trades, and obviously if the proposition which I have stated is incorrect, we should have been left out altogether in the cold, while Germany, America, and other protectionist nations would have been able to obtain all they desired in the way of reductions of the French tariff. What happened? Broadly and roughly, this country came out of the French tariff revision negotiations as well as, or even better than, the protective countries which have tariffs of their own. That is the position which this country retains. It is a mistake to think that because we are a Free Trade country we have no means of obtaining favourable consideration. On the contrary, the mere fact of our being a Free Trade country brings us to start with into amicable relations with other countries, and they desire to give in this matter as much advantage and justice to British goods as to others, because we give them in return such advantages under our Free Trade system.
  Mr. REMNANT: We cannot stop these advantages under our present system.
  Mr. BUXTON: I am endeavouring to point out that broadly and roughly we, as a Free Trade country, in these discussions obtain as great advantages as protective countries which have tariff walls. Of course, these countries are anxious to retain our trade goodwill because we give them such advantageous terms. It must not be supposed that because we have not the power of retaliation we are necessarily placed at a disadvantage in these matters. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are obtaining the information which will put us in a position to make representation to the Dutch Government if it should prove necessary. I am sure that they will be met in a friendly spirit, and, though I am not able to prophesy, I should be surprised if we do not find that British goods, as compared with those from Germany and other countries, are not suffering more severely under the proposed new tariff.
  Mr. FALLE: May I ask if British goods are to get better terms than goods from protected countries?
  Mr. BUXTON: In some respects they get better terms.
  Mr. FALLE: In what respect?
  Mr. BUXTON: The hon. Member cannot expect me to carry all the particulars of the duties in my mind. The hon. Gentleman (Colonel Griffith-Boscawen) said that if we had protective duties here we should be able to make better terms when negotiating with foreign countries. My answer to that is that if the tariff which is proposed by the Dutch Government comes into force—if it ever does come into force—I shall be surprised if he will not find that British goods, speaking broadly and generally, have as good terms as those of any of the protected countries.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Have any representations been made yet to the Dutch Government?
  Mr. BUXTON: No. The Bill has only recently been introduced, and we are losing no time in obtaining information on the matter. Surely the hon. Gentleman will admit that it is much better that we should make our representations with full knowledge of the question rather than that we should make them generally before we have got the information.
  Captain TRYON: I propose to confine my remarks to the question which was dealt with by the President of the Board of Trade. The question is a very old and familiar one. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that we as Free Traders get as good terms as the nations which have tariffs. It is to that question that I propose to address myself. The whole question turns on the interpretation of the most-favoured-nation Clause. The usual interpretation is that if a country, say France, is negotiating and gets better terms for one of her products, claret, then, under the most-favoured-nation Clause, we enjoy similar privileges for our claret; as we do not produce any claret we gain nothing: but I can quite see the advantage that the argument gives to Liberal speakers on the platform as long as they state the case in general terms. That is the best case that can be put for the most-favoured-nation Clause, but. when you go into details the case is very different. When the United States negotiates and receives concessions they grant in return concessions which only apply to those from whom they have received advantages. At the present moment the President of the Board of Trade is making us familiar with the reciprocity agreement.

  1125
  between the United States and Canada. Under that agreement the United States is proposing to give Canada terms she does not give to England. She is deliberately doing so because she has nothing to receive from us. That is of enormous importance in this reciprocity question.
  It is not for me or for anybody to discuss in connection with reciprocity the action of Canadian Ministers. We wish in no way to interfere with the action of Canadian parties, but both parties in Canada were in favour of preference, and therefore we are not intervening between parties. Therefore, when we speak now, with the Colonial Conference approaching, with regard to this matter, it is because we hold, not the Canadians, but our own Ministers responsible for what has been going on up to the present moment. It is because the Canadians have a choice offered to them, the choice of open arms by America and the choice of the banged door by this country, that this reciprocity treaty is going through in its present form. I have not the least doubt that if the Government had not taken up this hard-and-fast attitude with regard to Colonial preference this reciprocity treaty would have been a very different problem for the Canadians to decide. On the question of how many shillings a quarter should be offered, we are told that we are offering 2s. a quarter, and that the United States are offering a preference of 8s. That is not the whole point. The point is this: Canada is asked to choose between two different systems. It is a question whether Canada is to remain part of the commercial system which our great self-governing dominions are building up, a system of commercial preference, or whether it is going to be drawn by the action of the United States, and by the refusal of His Majesty's Ministers, into a different orbit, into the position of a commercial satellite of the United States.
  I do not think that anything more astonishing has been heard for some time than the views of the Liberal party with regard to this question of the effect of the preference which the United States is going to give Canada. The reciprocity which is given by the United States is not a Free Trade movement. Ministers and others talk on the platform as if reciprocity were a grant of the principles of Free Trade. It is not. It is a grant of the principles which we in this country call Tariff Reform. If the United States is granting a preference to Canada for its wheat, it is doing so by adding a duty of 8s. a quarter
  1126
  against other countries. We have had from the right hon. Gentleman who was Under-Secretary for the Colonies a statement with regard to what would happen. He has told us that on this legislation for reciprocity going through the Canadians are going to get 6d. a bushel more for their wheat. It is very interesting to know that the Under-Secretary for War, who holds that the foreign producer cannot be taxed, admits that as a result of this import duty on wheat, duty at all events, to the extent of 6d., will be paid by the foreign importer. I wish now to refer to a question which is very important from the widest point of view. We have been told that the policy which we advocate must drive Canada away, and we have been told in the words of the Under-Secretary for War, that if the existing system was changed instead of setting up a fiscal bond, it would have shattered the Empire in precisely the same manner as we lost the American Sub-Continent by attempting to tighten the fiscal bond. That statement was made by the Secretary of State for War on the eve of a by-election at Bootle. To that statement I can give a direct contradiction. In the library, within a few yards of where we are now discussing, I turn up the Philadelphia Congress of 1774. I find that the representatives of the Colonies who were there assembled, drew up a long indictment, stating what they have suffered from the Mother Country. More especially they complained of taxes being put on them for revenue purposes. They made out this long indictment, and at this moment, when they were making these charges, when they were swayed by anger and when the bond was very nearly broken, they particularly excepted from their complaints against the Mother Country the preferential system which the Under-Secretary for War said was the cause of the separation.
  I cannot help thinking that these representatives of the original American Colonies, solemnly sitting in Philadelphia, were better guides to the Colonial opinion of that day than the Gentleman who was, after all, speaking as a party politician on the eve of a by-election. These Colonies claimed, they said, the right to participate in our council, but they said, from the necessities of the case, in regard to the mutual interests of both countries: "We cheerfully consent to the operation of such tax of the British Parliament as bona fide restrain the regulation of our external commerce for the purpose

  1127
  of securing the commercial advantages of the whole Empire to the Mother Country, and the commercial benefits of each respective member." In other words, the moment they were framing their charges they particularly excepted that very system of Colonial preference which, according to the Under-Secretary for War was the cause of the separation. I cannot help thinking that Ministers who have had responsible positions with regard to the Colonies might have made themselves a little better acquainted with this simple fact of our Imperial history before making such statements on a public platform. I believe that this matter is of the most vital importance. It is not a question of free trade or protection. It is a question of whether Canada is going to drift over to the commercial system of the United States or whether it is going to be retained in the commercial system of the United Kingdom and of its dominions.
  Colonel CHALONER: I must say I was very much astonished at the remark of the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, that this question was not of sufficient importance to be brought up on the adjournment of the House.
  Mr. BUXTON: I never said so. I said that you could not expect us to discuss the whole question of Free Trade against Tariff Reform on the Motion for Adjournment. I admit the importance of it.
  Colonel CHALONER: I am sorry that I so misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, and I am glad to withdraw what I have said. There was one other remark which the right hon. Gentleman made which also I can hardly follow. He stated that this question of tariffs produced almost invariably dislocation of trade. He was challenged to quote the industries in which this had occurred and he was unable to do so. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what has been the cause of the dislocation of iron industry in this country? Not so many years ago this country exported more iron and steel than any other five countries in the world put together, and to-day, according to the statement of Free Traders themselves, they admit that the iron industry in England has gone to pieces, and that both America and Germany have beaten it out of sight. If the statements of the right hon. Gentleman are true, surely the high tariffs of America and Germany
  1128
  would have dislocated the iron industry in these countries. I think this is one of the most important questions that can be brought up in this House. I admit the trade is better and employment is better to a certain extent in this country to-day than some time ago, but that is because there is a boom in trade throughout the world, and we are bound to get some share in that boom. But I venture to say that we are not getting anything like the share we ought to get in that boom, and if we had a tariff with which to negotiate with the various protected markets of the world we should be getting a very much larger share of it than we are doing. This question of unemployment is the most important that we can possibly deal with. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman opposite to introduce another unemployment scheme, but it would be far better for the Government to meet the necessities of the case not by putting their hands into somebody else's pocket and paying the money to the men who are out of work, but by increasing the trade of the country and so finding work and wages for them.
  We find that foreign protected markets are being lost to us rapidly throughout the world. In this very iron industry we are being beaten out of sight by protective tariffs, which have enabled Germany and America to obtain the markets which we used to get, and which we ought to be getting now. If it was not for our best customers, our own Colonies, I do not know where our manufacturers would be to-day. They take from us a large quantity of manufactured goods, and they give us in their markets a preference over the other nations of the world. How long is that going to last? What is the position? We have been told already that they buy £140,000,000 worth of manufactured goods. It must not be forgotten that that £140,000,000 is rapidly increasing. Every year their population and their wealth are increasing, and as they increase so the amount of manufactured goods they will require will increase in proportion. But to-day they are taking £140,000,000 worth of manufactured goods, and, unlike us, they possess a tariff by means of which they are able to protect that market—that is to say, they can offer their market for those manufactured goods to any nation they choose and close them to any nation they choose. On the other hand, they naturally want to obtain markets where their own products may obtain the best

  1129
  term that they can possibly get. When they go into the world to make their terms with different countries, they find that in England the market is free, and they have it for nothing, but in every other country worthy of the name, so far, they find a tariff wall against them, and they are obliged then, in order to get access to those protected markets to offer something in exchange; so though we are now getting a preference from them, we see to-day treaties have been asked for and obtained by the different political countries of the world, and what they are able to give in exchange for those protected markets will take away from us the share of the markets which we now get, and the result can only be if we go on under our present system that their trade with us will reduce and our trade with them will be reduced accordingly.
  This question of unemployment must naturally follow. The greater the demand for our manufactured goods the greater the employment in making those goods, and consequently the more money is paid for them and the spending power of the people is increased accordingly. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is driving landlords and all people who are possessed of any wealth at all to extremity by his endeavours to raise the money in order to meet the expenditure of the country. We want old age pension schemes, we want education, we want all these great reforms for our country, and I venture to say that if we continue taxing ourselves up to the hilt as we are doing to-day, it can only result in disaster. The system of the Free Trade party is to take money out of one pocket and put it into another, and as the other gets fat, they say, "Oh, how rich we are getting," entirely ignoring the fact Chat it has been at the expense of the people from whom the money was taken. The day must come when it will be impossible to go on taxing as they are doing without absolutely ruining the country. We have a chance now of accepting the right hand which is held out, and I venture to think it would be well indeed for the Government if they can get away from this shibboleth of Free Trade and address themselves to this great question of unemployment, so as to see if they cannot, by agreement with their Colonies, make an arrangement which will enable us to demand a share of all the foreign markets of the world, while at the same time obtaining a share of our own Colonial markets. We cannot do without the Colonies; we
  1130
  cannot afford to lose them. It is only comparatively recently that we had to call upon them for their men to come and fight for us in South Africa. We called upon them in our hour of peril, we received their aid and assistance, and we ought at least to do what we can to draw still closer not only the bonds of blood and relationship, but also the interests of trade and commerce. We have the opportunity, and I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to commit himself definitely to this worn out idea of Free Trade, but to give us some scheme by which the Colonies will be drawn towards us, and by means of which we shall be in a position to retain markets that will afford employment for our own workpeople while drawing closer the ties of Empire.
  The UNDER - SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I have listened with interest, to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, though he took us a considerable distance from the subject of the remarks of the hon. Member for Christchurch, who raised a point which more directly concerns the observations I am about to make. The speech of the hon. Member for the Abercrombie Division of Liverpool (Colonel Chaloner) seemed to me to show the nebulous character of the doctrine of preference. He suggested to us that we should put on a tariff, but that it need not necessarily be imposed. How a tariff that is put on need not necessarily be imposed I do not quite understand.
  Colonel CHALONER: I was referring to a tariff on foreign manufactures, and not on the Colonies.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: If we invented a tariff which was not imposed on foreign countries, what benefit would that be to Canada? That is a practical point to which the hon. Member does not seem to have directed his inquiry. The speech of the hon. Member for Christchurch was one of interest for this reason: that he stated for the first time explicitly what has been implicit in all the arguments against Canadian reciprocity. In all the censure of the Government for not interfering with Canada and killing reciprocity, as the hon. Member advised us to do, there was a very careful weighing of words, a nebulousness of phrase, and nobody, until the hon. Member spoke, ventured to say what really underlay the whole argument. It was

  1131
  that we should come forward and say to Canada, "We will not allow you to carry out this treaty." The hon. Member had more courage than his colleagues. He described his own speech, and said we shall probably say of it that he had spoken both strongly and wildly. I did not propose to use those phrases myself, but I accept them, for I think he spoke very strongly and very wildly. What did he say? He told us that if Reciprocity was carried Canada must lose her independence, and he used as an argument the extraordinary historical statement that it was because Ireland was connected with Free Trade England that her commerce was injured. I always understood that it was because the policy of England was Protectionist against Ireland that her commerce was injured. If we are to start with the doctrine that we are not to consider the vital interests of the Dominions, but, first of all, our own interests, then I think our great Empire will be in very considerable danger of dissolution. The hon. Member made another very wild statement. He told us, without a vestige of argument, and without attempting in any way to justify his wild assertion, that this Reciprocity agreement was made in a spirit of conspiracy—he used the word "conspiracy" —on the part of the British Government and of Mr. Bryce, our Ambassador, to put a stop to Tariff Reform. We do not need to enter into any conspiracy to stop Tariff Reform. Tariff Reform is at the lowest ebb at which it has been for many a year in the country. We have had three elections which settled that matter without the necessity of entering into any conspiracy.
  I think the hon. Member rightly described his speech as wild. What was his remedy? His remedy was that we were to step in immediately and set up a system of Preference, to put a duty on all foreign goods, and a little less on Canadian. I do not know how Canada would be blessed by that. The hon. Member also used the words, "Once for all let us kill Reciprocity." Now when the imperial Conference is sitting, hon. Members opposite the other day were pleading with us to open our minds to the delegates, and take them into counsel on foreign affairs, in all brotherliness and love. We have opened our minds to the Imperial Conference. We have taken them into our confidence about foreign affairs, and now the hon.
  1132
  Member for Christchurch asks us to drop this bomb into the Conference. We are to say to Canada: "Oh yes, we mean to work on. Imperial defence with you, but what was given so long ago as 1867 we take away. Your right to make treaties in your own interests is to be yours no longer." What sort of a spirit would you produce in the Imperial Conference if such a policy were adopted. The hon. Member said he did not suppose he would get the support of his colleagues, and among those who have spoken not one ventured to support him. The other day in the House of Lords they had a discussion on this question, and Lord Selborne said:—
  "He made no complaint of the action of the Canadian Government. Canada must workout her own salvation without having her elbow jogged by us, without any interference from us, or from anyone else."
  Yes, but Lord Selborne had some experience of the Colonies. He knows the value of the policy of not interfering with the National aims and development of Canada. What would be the view of the Dominions of a system like that of which the hon. Member speaks. This is a proposal which the Canadians have desired for a great many years, which a large party in Canada desire. It is a proposal that the Government of Canada is in favour of. One hon. Member, I think the hon. Member for Brighton, said that the United States was giving this to Canada because it was a protectionist country. I do not think that there is a word of truth in that statement. The United States is giving this to Canada because it suits the United States to give it to Canada—because it suits the United States and Canada in regard to those great natural products which are the principal articles concerned in the Reciprocity agreement, to have free trade. That is why they are doing it, because the whole population is feeling the burden of the cost of Protection. It is the most natural development in the world. I do not believe it has any political significance. I believe that the causes why Canada will remain loyal to the Imperial connection have no relation whatever with these trade questions. They are deeper and wider. I am not going to discuss them. We are satisfied with the loyalty of Canada. We do not believe for a moment that this Reciprocity agreement means any political rapprochement to the United States of America. We believe that in freedom is the security of this Empire; and it is because we as a Government believe in Free Trade, because we believe

  1133
  that Free Trade between the United States and Canada will be as good a thing for Canada as we believe Free Trade to be for ourselves—it is because we believe that it is by giving these great Dominions their freedom and not trying to check and cavil at them as the hon. Member would do, and by that means alone, that we shall retain their loyalty and maintain the interests of this great Empire.
  Mr. KING: I was rising all last night and I have been rising to-night in order to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, and I am only the third Liberal Member outside my very admirable Friends on the Treasury Bench who has been called upon, while on the other side of the House there have been speeches from eight Members to whom it has been my privilege to listen. I congratulate them on their success in catching the Speaker's eye. I also congratulate them on the fact that they have occupied 110 minutes of the time of the House, while the speeches on this side have only occupied fifteen minutes. I shall not endeavour in my remarks to make good the balance of time, though I feel I have sufficient indignation in my bosom to enable me to discharge that task. One question to which I wish to call attention has reference to the general disposition which we find in various Departments of the State to rely excessively upon the views of subordinate officials rather than on the point of view of the House or the public at large. We have had the question of Colonel Morgan raised to-clay, and I should have liked to add my quota to that interesting discussion. While I do not wish to bring it up again, there is one question that has not been asked nor answered on a very material point in connection with the Colonel Morgan incident. It is this: How was it that Colonel Morgan was ever thought of in this connection? Did he come and present himself at the door with an application for a job, or was his case set out by some friend in the office. I cannot for a moment imagine that he was sent for by the Secretary for War, or the Under-Secretary for War, or the Financial Secretary. I am certain myself that if we got at the bottom of this we would find that the whole of this unfortunate affair has arisen out of some friend's action, or I might say of some jack-in-office, who has put forward Colonel Morgan's claim. That is only one instance of this tendency to rely on subordinate officials. I might point out that exactly the same state of things existed in connection with the diffi-
  1134
  culties experienced about the magistracy. The Lord Chancellor was led, I believe, into his difficulties with the magistracy because he was too ready to take the word of the lord lieutenant. Undoubtedly that has been the case in many instances, but I shall only name one.
  Take the case of the Isle of Ely, the case which the hon. Member for Wisbech has shown up, and where it is admitted, I believe, that the Lord Chancellor took the word of Lord de Ramsay that he did not know the politics of the gentleman appointed. All this time Lord de Ramsay was president of the Conservative Association, and these gentlemen were vice-presidents, and yet in the simplicity of his heart, and trusting to the people who ought to be loyal to him, and who work with him, the Lord Chancellor was led into this totally untenable position. I call the attention of Ministers to the great danger they are in if they follow too readily the advice of subordinate officials rather than seek for guidance in the sense of the House of Commons, I venture to say that after all there is a great deal of wisdom left in the House. No doubt some Members are foolish enough even at the eleventh hour to dictate to the Colonial Conference; they seem to desire that the administration and offices under our able and advanced Radical Ministers should be kept up to the mark of administration in a proper spirit. I will now give one other instance. There is the Board of Agriculture. In my opinion if a forward policy had not been put into force in connection with the allot-men question we should be, electorally speaking, in a worse position than we are at present. Why was it that our request that more Commissioners should be appointed was first refused? It was, as far as I can understand it, due to the traditions of the office and the objections raised by the secretary and other officials. They are very respectable and very capable men, but they live on the old traditions of their positions. But, Sir, we are out to make this country the most democratic and successful Liberal country in the world, and that can only be done by carrying on the work of these Government offices in the proper democratic sense and having loyalty in the administration of the Ministers in office and a sense of loyalty to the party that support them, and not by excessive loyalty to the officials with whom they have to work.
  I wish to refer to one other instance, and that is the Holmes circular, which I

  1135
  am perfectly sure is exercising the thoughts and the attention of hundreds of people in the country at the present time. Let me point out that every family which has one of its members in the teaching profession is stirred to the very depths of its feeling by this circular. Every family which has a child that it wants to put into the Civil Service is up in arms against the spirit which it thinks, and perhaps rightly thinks, is there revealed. Every family that has a friend or relative in any department of the Civil Service is wondering what the Government is going to do, and I make no doubt, unless something is done, and done under thoroughgoing and business-like conditions, by-elections will reveal a certain amount of difference and difficulty to Ministers. Let me point out -what the Holmes circular really amounts to. It amounts to this: that superior officials in the office of the Board of Education—the Chief Inspector of elementary schools and the Chief Permanent Secretary of the Board of Education—put out of themselves a circular which they approve, but which they did not submit to their chief. Their chief, the President of the Board of Education, as soon as this was brought to his notice at once recalled it and at once signified his total disapprobation. Yet when the matter was brought up on the floor of the House of Commons by the hon. Member for Chelsea, who, I think, has done more service to the country than any other Member of the Tory party this Session, he is treated by the President of the Board of Education as if he had done something underhand in bringing it successfully to light.
  I want to make it perfectly clear to Ministers for whom I have a great deal of admiration, and they need not pretend they are not listening to me for I know they are, that I want to give them good and sound advice. I do not want them to make any reply to my remarks, but want them to read, mark, and inwardly digest that it is their duty to be loyal to this House and to be loyal to their party followers and to the public sentiment of the country before they are loyal to their permanent officials. If they will only go home and think over these remarks, I am sure they will have a very pleasant holiday, and if they think over them to some purpose when they come back, then we shall have a very successful time for the remainder of the Session.

  ADMIRALTY AND FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE.
  Mr. BARNES: I rise to support the hon. Member who has just spoken, and to express my opinion that we are getting into a condition of things in which the powers of the officials are increasing and the power of the House of Commons is lessening, and Ministers are becoming mere gramophones, drawling out replies given to them by their permanent officials behind the scenes. I want to fix that particularly in regard to one of our Departments. I desire to raise a question in which the Admiralty are implicated. It is a question of some importance to workers, as well as to this House, if, as I assume to be the case, this House desires that its decision and directions will be duly respected and carried out by the Government Department. I do so with regret, and only as a last resort, because in interviews with Admiralty officials and with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who represent the Admiralty on the Front Bench, I have tried to get redress in regard to the administration of the Fair-Wages Resolution. I have tried to do so by correspondence, by interviews and by questions put upon the floor of this House, and all these methods have absolutely and signally failed to get any satisfaction whatever, and now, with what may be a forlorn hope, but in the hope, at all events, that the House of Commons itself might be induced to have more respect in the future than in the past to its own decisions in regard to the Fair-Wages Resolution, I bring this matter forward.
  Let me give the House the facts in regard to what ought to be the position of a public Department in the letting of public works. There are two Resolutions on the Journals of the House, one of them was adopted as far back as 13th February, 1891, and that Resolution set out the conditions under which public work should be let to contractors. I will not trouble the House with the full terms of it, because there is a great deal of it germane to the Sweating Commission, which had just concluded its labours, but the gist of it is this: that public works should be done only at such wages as are generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workers. That remained in operation until two years ago. Certain things were found to be unsatisfactory, and on 10th February, 1909, that Resolution was amended. Another Resolution was adopted improving the old Fair-Wage Clauses, and stipulating that in future this work should be let to contractors who paid rates of wages

  1137
  and observed hours of labour not less favourable than those only recognised by good employers, and failing that basis, or the absence of such recognised wages and hours those which in practice prevail amongst good employers. That was adopted over two years ago. I say with-out the slightest qualification or hesitation that that Resolution, as well as the earlier Resolution which I read has been flagrantly disregarded by the Admiralty officials during the whole of my experience in trying to have effect given to it.
  I have had cases during the last year or so in which I tried to induce the Admiralty to give effect to either of these two Resolutions. Three of these stand out in my mind in the last year. First, of all, I asked a question in regard to labourers in certain Glasgow workshops, and I was told to produce detailed information, and I did so, and gave the names and the amount of wages paid to certain workmen in these shops. I was asked for more information, and the whole thing was let slip through without anything being done. I had an other case from Motherwell, where work was being done for Rosyth. I gave the names of the men, and I gave, further, statements that not a single man in that shop was being paid in accordance with the Fair-Wages Resolution, and the upshot was that while I was giving the information, and while I was being bamboozled by the Admiralty officials, the whole work was done, and the matter slipped into the region of forgotten things.
  7.0 P.M.
  I want to fix the attention of the House on one case which came to my notice this year. My hon. Friends sitting near me May perhaps supplement what I say from their own experience of other cases. I want to fix the attention on this case which came within my own experience as an illustration of the methods adopted by the Admiralty in not giving effect to these Resolutions. In the early part of the year I learn that a certain shop in the west of London was full of Admiralty work. I knew that that shop was a notorious blackleg shop. That fact is perfectly well known to every man in London with any knowledge of the engineering trade. It is known not only to every workman but to every employer of labour as well. It is known to every man who has any knowledge of the engineering industry that that particular firm does not pay, and will not pay, the standard rate of wages, that it will not employ trade union labour, that it is not a member of the Employers' Federa-
  1138
  tion, and that it is altogether a blackleg shop, in which we cannot get a footing. That, I say, is perfectly well known to everybody with any knowledge of the engineering trade. Therefore, having failed to bring the Admiralty to book on the other matters to which I have referred, I thought to myself, "Here, surely, I have a case which is so absolutely clear that the Admiralty will not be able by any means whatever to wriggle out of it." Therefore, on the 1st of last March, I put down a question asking whether it was a fact that this particular firm had on hand Admiralty work, and whether one of the conditions in connection with giving them the work was that the firm would be expected or had subscribed to the Fair-Wages Clause. I was told that it was quite true that the firm had Admiralty work, that no complaint has been made in regard to it, and that the firm had subscribed to the Fair-Wages Clause. In the innocence of my heart I thought that that would refer to the Fair-Wages Clause adopted by this House two years before.
  I was told that no complaints had been made with regard to this particular shop. That threw upon me the onus of proving that this firm was not conforming to the conditions of the Fair-Wages Resolution, I submit that that was not fair. A statement by a Member of this House is surely of sufficient importance to warrant the Admiralty in making some inquiry as to whether or not the statement is true. I committed myself, as I now again commit myself, to the statement that this firm is a blackleg firm. Why should net the Admiralty, in view of such a statement, make some inquiry on its own initiative as to whether or not there is some truth in the statement? There is no difficulty in the matter. The Admiralty might have gone, for instance, to the War Office, who know perfectly well the conditions of labour and the rates of wages that ought to obtain. They pay those rates of wages themselves, or they observe conditions at Woolwich Arsenal, at Pimlico, at Enfield, and at Waltham Cross, all based on those rates of wages. Or the Admiralty might have gone to firms on the other side of the river, almost within sound of my voice, who work for them, such as Messrs. Siebe and Gorman, who make diving tackle; or to Messrs. Hills, who built a "Dreadnought" for them. They might have satisfied themselves in this way, or they might have gone to the Board of Trade. We have a Government Depart-

  1139
  ment that issues returns in regard to these matters. The First Lord of the Admiralty might have gone or have got one of his subordinates to go to the Library of this House, where he would have found set out in black and white the rates of wages observed by all decent and good employers throughout London in connection with this trade; and having done that, he could have sent somebody to Hammersmith to ascertain what wages were being paid by this firm as compared with the wages they ought to pay.
  The Admiralty did nothing of the sort. They put upon me the onus of proving that this firm were not paying wages of the standard that they ought to pay. That puts us in a very difficult position. We have no knowledge of these outside shops. They are in the outer darkness. We have no members there. Our members cannot get there. I am not saying anything against the men employed there, except that they are more or less dependent upon these employers. They are not members of any trade union; therefore it is extremely difficult for us to get evidence. But I did what I could. I sent to the executive of my own union, who, I believe, made representations to the Admiralty, pointing out this very difficulty, and asking the Admiralty to make inquiries as to what wages the firm were paying. Through my hon. Friend the Member for the Barnard Castle Division (Mr. Arthur Henderson) I got in touch with the local secretary of the Moulders Union, from whom I got a letter stating that he was willing to come and give all the information that the Admiralty required of him. I got at some risk to those involved—therefore I cannot say anything as to how I got it, except that it came from the shop itself—information of a detailed character, showing the wages paid to certain men, and the wages that ought to be paid in accordance with the Fair-Wages Clause. I submitted all that information to the Admiralty. I waited four or five weeks before asking another question on the floor of the House. I was then told that the information was not ready and that I must repeat my question later on. I did so a fortnight later, when I was told, to my amazement, that the information which I had supplied had been duly considered, that inquiry had been made in regard to this particular shop, that, in so far as my information was correct, it did not apply to the work being done for the
  1140
  Admiralty, and that, so far as the Admiralty work was concerned, it was being performed under the terms of the Fair-Wages Resolution.
  I knew that that was not true; but I did not know how fiat statement could possibly be put into the mouth of the hon. Gentleman who gave the answer. Therefore, I put other questions. I put a question detailing the particular contract that had been entered into between the Admiralty and this firm at the back end of last year. I asked whether that contract was subject to the terms of the resolution adopted by this House on 10th March, 1909. I asked by what means the Admiralty had satisfied themselves as to what the firm were paying, and also what they regarded as the district covered by the terms of their inquiry and in regard to which the conditions ought to have been imposed upon this firm. After some little time I was told again that the information was not ready. It was not until the day before yesterday that I received finally the answer to this detailed question. I now find how it is we have not got what we ought to have in regard to this particular firm. In the first place, the resolution adopted by the House two years ago is not yet in operation so far as this particular work is concerned. In the second place, I am told that the Admiralty officials have made inquiries as to what wages are being paid in the locality in which this firm is situated. It seems to me that that is a very easy way of evading the terms of the resolution. If the Admiralty officials make the locality sufficiently small they can justify any wages or any conditions that any firm like to observe. For all I know they may have gone 300 or 400 yards outside Messrs. Gwynne's workshop gate, and, having decided in their own minds that that was the locality which was to determine what Messrs. Gwynne were to pay, that would determine the current wages in that particular district. But, after all, there is surely a common-sense interpretation of Resolutions adopted by this House, and the common-sense interpretation of the Fair-Wages Resolution adopted two years ago is that the district covered by the employers' association and the workmen's association ought to be the district to which reference should be had in giving effect to the Resolution. That was not done; therefore the Admiralty justified this firm in paying practically any wages they liked.
  Even if the Admiralty had been disposed to give effect to the Resolution adopted

  1141
  twenty years ago, things would have been different. I understand that in regard to this particular firm, although more than two years have elapsed since we adopted the last Resolution, that Resolution is not yet in operation. If the Admiralty had given effect to the Resolution of twenty years ago this firm would have been obliged to toe the mark in regard to something like decent conditions. What is that Resolution? The Resolution of 13th February, 1891, lays it down that wages are to be paid which are generally accepted as current in these trades for competent workmen. Who regards the wages that this particular firm are paying as generally recognised as current for competent workmen? I gave to the Secretary to the Admiralty the names of men who were being paid certain rates of wages. Those rates are 2s., 3s., and in some cases 4s. or 5s. less than the wages perfectly well understood by the Board of Trade and by engineering employers and employed as being current in the trade. He knows as well as I do, or could know if he went to the Library, that the wages paid to moulders in London are two guineas a week, to a fitter or turner £2, to a blacksmith two guineas, and to a pattern-maker £2 4s. All these are starting rates of wages paid by every good employer in the London district. Yet these men, whose names I have given to the hon. Gentleman, are being paid 2s., 3s., 4s., or 5s. a week less.
  I have set out the facts; it is not necessary to do more. I think I have said enough to show that in this particular ease—and this is only an illustration of other cases—the Admiralty are setting at defiance and at naught the duly registered decision of this House in regard to competent workmen. I ask the Admiralty to turn over a new leaf. I go back to the time, a few weeks ago, when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite brought forward the case of Master Archer-Shee, who had been unjustly dealt with by the Admiralty. I am loth to believe that this House can only stand up for those who have rich and influential friends. On the contrary, I am willing and anxious to believe that this House is ready to see that decisions in regard to poor men as well as in regard to rich men are duly given effect to if the House will only carry its mind back to the occasion when the Archer-Slice case was brought on, and apply to the Admiralty, in regard to giving effect to the Fair-Wages Resolution, the same standard as it then applied,
  1142
  the Admiralty, and possibly other Government Departments as well, may be induced to give a more fair and square interpretation to the decisions of this House than they have yet done. I hope that that may be so.
  Sir WILLIAM BULL: I labour under the disadvantage that I did not hear the whole of the hon. Gentleman's indictment of the firm in Hammersmith, and therefore he will perhaps forgive me if I do not cover all the points. But there are one or two to which I would like to refer. I made inquiries some three or four months ago, and I should like to tell the House with what result in regard to the hours of labour and the rates of wages paid in the London district. I was assured by the heads of the firm that they do pay something over and above the rate of wages accepted in the London market. I was told that definitely by the head of the firm. Shortly after that one of lie employés of the firm wrote an anonymous letter to the heads of the firm saying that unless they paid £50 he would tell the Admiralty exactly the rates that they paid, and would cause them to lose their contract. They consulted me upon the subject, and it was a very serious matter. The result was that I applied for a warrant, and the man was arrested. He was charged at the West London Police Court and sentenced to nine months for blackmailing. He had a fair and square opportunity of proving his case, and of stating whether ho was right in regard to the particular questions that he brought forward. He did nothing of the sort. Immediately after that a round-robin, or petition, was signed by the workmen employed by the firm without any reference to the employers whatever. In this case they one and all stated that they were thoroughly satisfied both with regard to the rates of wages and the hours of labour. The question is one affecting constituents of mine—I frankly tell the House that I am their solicitor—and I thought I would like to make clear to the House what I knew, in reply to what the hon. Gentleman opposite said.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I think the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has not altered the position in the slightest degree. I take it for granted, even if the man had proved that the firm had been paying less than the London rate of wages, the despicable attempt to get £50 from them would have still got him nine months, and deservedly so. I take

  1143
  it, therefore, that the mere sentencing of the man for the attempt to blackmail is no proof whatever that the firm were not sweaters in any shape or form.
  Sir W. BULL: It could have been pleaded in mitigation?
  Mr. J. WARD: The man would have been sentenced if there had been mitigation. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Blackfriars Division has done the workmen employed both directly by the Board of Admiralty, and by the contractors, a great service in bringing the question forward. I am delighted to find that the skilled workmen of these departments are in exactly the same boat as the unskilled workmen, because as long as it was only the navvies and the labourers who were being sweated by the contractors of these Departments there seemed to be very little chance of getting any improvement. But now that we are going to enlist the skilled workmen for the purpose of denouncing the interpretation that has been placed upon the Clauses and resolutions of this House by the Board of Admiralty there is a chance of getting some solution of the difficulty. My hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division has stated what was the object of these resolutions, and not merely the resolution which was finally adopted. The resolution first proposed by my hon. Friend was amended by the proposition put forward on behalf of the Government by the President of the Board of Trade.
  I would like to make quotations from the speech of the President as to what the Government meant to do, and how they meant, to operate the Clause that t hey were then asking the House to adopt. I could take a quotation as to their intentions, how they were going to enforce this Clause, and then take the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division. The promises were all right. But they have never been performed! I think, if my hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars can take it from me, that unless there is an alteration in what he terms the official clique at the Admiralty that there is never going to be the slightest alteration with reference to the interpretation of this Department as to fair wages. I am not, of course, able to enter into the subject so fully as I should like, but if the Premier was here, as he was a moment or two ago, I should certainly have liked to have asked him
  1144
  for a day to discuss the methods employed by the Admiralty for interpreting the Fair-Wages resolution of this House. I feel certain that we should make such a case out, if it were only by deputation, that he himself would see that we have a great grievance, not merely on the Labour Benches, but the whole of the Members of this House on whichever side they sit£that it can be shown that there are deliberate attempts made by the permanent officials of the Admiralty to nullify the decisions of all parties in this House.
  Make no mistake these Resolutions were adopted unanimously. It is not the Resolution of the Labour party. It is not the Resolution of the Liberal Government. As a matter of fact, spokesmen on the other side of the House, both in the Conservative party and of the Irish party, supported the Resolution as an agreed proposition, that something ought to be done to make Government employment of the status at least of "the first flight of employers." Everybody agreed with that as a policy. Yet what is the fact? I have had the honour, through my hon Friend the Financial Secretary, of having an interview with, I suppose, the gentleman who really decides these questions, the Director of Works. What did he tell me? I referred to the case at Portsmouth, to the complaint there that the contractor employed by the Admiralty was paying a certain wage, 5d. or 5½d. per hour, whereas the local contractors, when they employed either navvies or labourers in cases of building, severing, or gas or water construction, paid the uniform rate of 6d. per hour.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): In the building trade?
  Mr. J. WARD: "In the building trade?" says my hon. Friend. It reminds me of the conversation which I had with the Director of Works. He told me plainly to my face, in the presence of the hon. Gentleman, that there was an entire difference in digging a yard of earth for the foundation of a building to the digging of a similar quantity if it was for the foundation of a wall for a dock. He told me—somehow or other—that it came up lighter. There was a difference in the law of gravitation as applied to it! If it is the same amount of work in the building trade—
  Dr. MACNAMARA: What I said was if there was an agreed rate between the building contractors—
  Mr. J. WARD: That is a fact, and a great deal more is the fact relating to this subject, as I think the hon. Gentleman will immediately see. I need not, however, enter into that part of the controversy. But it amounts to this: that when a dispute occurred the local civil engineer was instructed by the Admiralty to find out what was the proper wage. He wrote a letter, which is in the OFFICIAL REPORT in the discussion of the Fair-Wage Resolution, to the local Contractors' Association, asking what was the fair minimum wage for labourers and navvies. The Secretary of the Employers' Association replied, and said that the proper wage for navvies and labourers as a minimum was 6d. per hour. I daresay the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench will take that for granted, otherwise I will quote from the actual letter in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I say that the agreed rate that was current amongst all the best employers in the locality was then known, and it was 6d. per hour. If it was not the intention of the Admiralty to take the advice of the contractors at Portsmouth as right, why did they write to them? Why did they officially communicate and ask for the rate of pay? I never could understand until this or last week why it was that they did not at once accept the 6d. an hour as a proper rate. What, then, did I discover when I went to the Admiralty the other day to consult about this in relation to another question and another works?
  The Director of Works told me frankly that he got the letter from the Employers' Association at Portsmouth saying 6d. was the proper rate, but that, he was not satisfied. Therefore he wanted to find out what was the general rate in the locality. So he actually went all along the South Coast, down beyond Devonport, and Heaven knows where, to find out the lowest rate. He endeavoured to discover, as a matter of fact, the rate of wages of the lowest paid labourer along the whole of the Southern Coast of England, and found that it came out something like 5½d. per hour. He said to me, "Of course, directly I found that that was the rate, I fixed upon that rate." Eventually, after negotiations and questions in this House, the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty used his influence, his great power, and authority, and he succeeded in persuading the local contractors, in the overwhelming majority of cases, to observe the working conditions and the rate of wages Still, there are a
  1146
  number of cases at Portsmouth Docks today who do not get the proper rate from the employers, and who are obliged to work for the lower rate.
  Take the case of Rosyth. There was one case found there. Exactly the same principle applies. The Board of Admiralty have the opportunity of finding out what was the rate for navvies in the locality. Mr. Anderson, of Glenferry, reported that he never paid less than 5½d. per hour. Mr. Robinson, a contractor, at the present time pays the navvies that are working for him in the locality 5½d. and 6d. per hour; 5½d. is the lowest rate paid by Mr. Moseley, and 6d. the lowest rate paid by Mr. Martin. As a matter of fact, Mr. Martin goes on to say that no other rate than 5½d. or 6d. per hour has ever been paid in that locality until the Board of Admiralty had some contractors down. Wherever the Board of Admiralty gets a contract, down go the wages at once! Take your own roads and your own docks. Mr. John Baxter, the well-known contractor of the locality, was making roads at Dunfermline at the same time that the Admiralty let their contract, and he states that he never thought of paying a navvy less than 6d. an hour on that class of work. The Board of Admiralty let the contract to a Mr. McArthur to build the roads alongside where the ordinary contractors of the district are making other roads. The men want 6d. per hour, the, same as the other contract ors pay, and the Board of Admiralty allow their contractors to employ navvies at 5d. per hour—to work alongside private firms who are paying 6d. per hour. Then they say that is maintaining themselves as amongst. the "first flight of employers." It is a jolly rum machine they fly in, that is all I have to say.
  Let us take another case. These cases can be well understood. Let us take the difficulty which the Admiralty has got into in this case. This is all that I wish to say relating to the subject now, because what I am doing now is not so much to get any explanation, as that I am speaking with a view of a possible demand from our side that we shall have a day for the discussion altogether of Admiralty wages. It is quite clear that there is no chance of getting anything like a definite arrangement and proper pay unless we do bring the subject before the attention of this House in a proper and substantial way. What has happened. Even at the present time how can you explain that 5½d. and 6d. are paid by everybody in Dunfermline except by Government contractors easily explained.

  1147
  I go to the Board of Admiralty and I interview the Director of Works, whom I take to be the real villain of the piece, upon the subject. What does he tell me? He tells me that he looked through the papers and that he found out what was the wage paid at that place. He would not take the rate settled between the workmen themselves and the employers of the locality. No, that is 5½d. and he does not want his contractors to be compelled to pay that. He would not take the case of Grangemouth where the rate signed between workmen and master is sixpence, that would be too high; it would make the Board of Admiralty as employers of labour act as decent men. There is no doubt about it, that a little straight talk here is the best way of getting at this business. I state distinctly that the Board of Admiralty permanent officials do not want their contractors to pay proper wages. Most distinctly is that so, or such decisions as have been given by the Board could never have taken place.
  Let us take this ease a little further. The signed rate at Edinburgh is 5½d. per hour, the signed rate at Leith 5d. per hour; a little higher up and right opposite their men there is a signed rate of 6d., and a little higher up another rate of 5½d. per hour. There is no rate of 5d. in the whole district where their works are being executed. You would naturally think if they wanted to be in the first flight of employers, and if they did not fix upon the special rate at Grangemouth of 6d. per hour, that at least they would go no lower than the rate in the locality of 5½d. per hour. "Oh, no," they said, "men have worked in the locality for 5d." I asked them with whom, and they said McAlpine. But I said, "Surely McAlpine is your own contractor who is paying these men 5d." They say that has nothing to do with it, that he gets men at 5d. per hour, and that as long as men can be got to do the work for that the Director of Works says that the Resolution of the House of Commons is complied with. That is an entirely different view held by the Admiralty of what was the decision and wishes of the House of Commons from what mine is. I understood that if the Board of Admiralty knew decent fair good employers paid a certain wage to their workmen that the Admiralty would insist on their contractors doing the same. I do not want more, I only want that. But it seems to me as a matter of fact that the Director of Works is really a sort of agent
  1148
  to find out what is the lowest rate in any locality so that that might be fixed as the rate to be paid by their contractors. I have stated these facts to the House before, and no consideration was given to them. This Debate goes on, and I suppose it is quite an easy matter to get over to-day, and to let the thing pass by all right for a little while until it comes up again. Then you will have another half-hour's roasting, and you will go on again with no real intention of rectifying a single grievance of the men. Therefore I am only bringing the subject forward and supporting my hon. Friend, not for anything I am going to get out of to-day's Debate, but in order that we may ask the Whips and the Government for a day to discuss this subject to bring forward the pros and cons, and to deal with the absolute failure on the part of the Admiralty to give that interpretation in the frankest and fairest terms which we thought ought to be placed on the Resolution of the House of Commons.
  Mr. FALLE: The hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) made out a strong case which has been made stronger by the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. John Ward), and a case which I know myself and cordially support. The hon. Member for Blackfriars says that practically in all his endeavours to put this matter right he has failed, and more than that, he has practically been flouted. I would suggest that his remedy is a very simple one. He has only to vote against the Government. I do not ask him to vote against the Government so as to turn them out of office, but to vote against them in order to put the fear of the Labour party into their hearts. On every occasion when we thought we might have the support of the Labour party that support has been given to the Government. I think if another course had been followed all of us might be in a better position than we are. There would be less talk of insufficient pay in Government contracts and less talk of insufficient pay in Government dockyards. If the Director of Works had a fear of the Labour party, I do not think we would have heard the story of him going round after he discovered that the rate was 6d. to find out that it was 4d. When he found it was ed. he would have accepted that as not too generous a wage for hard labour. I am also very glad to hear the proposal to ask, which means to insist, on a day to discuss the whole matter. If that pro-

  1149
  position is brought forward they will find me in the same Lobby with them. Not merely are those men, in my opinion, very badly paid, but in many instances Portsmouth dockyard men are sent away in such a way that they lose the whole day from the hour at which they are so sent away. That means a very serious matter to men who can only earn the very small wage that those men can earn working the hours they are allowed to work.
  I desire to draw attention to a question which has been brought up here again and again, namely, the question of the engineer officers. I shall hope to-night that we will hear something from the Financial Secretary with regard to them. Those officers have been very badly treated, and, what is more, I am sure the Board of Admiralty know that they have been very badly treated, Their pay has been cut down about 6s. per day in face of regulations and promises that have been made to them, and I believe in face of all considerations of right feeling. I have not the faintest doubt that those officers would not be so treated by individual members of the Admiralty. No individual member would treat them as the Board of Admiralty collectively have done. It would not be possible for them to do so. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Blackfriars speak of the Archer-Shee case and express pleasure that poor men's cases were equally well looked after as those of the rich. I remember when we had the Horn case, which was the case of a very poor woman, that the Labour party went into the Lobby against us. The majority was something over forty, and even if that majority had been reduced to twenty that would have had a wonderful effect on the ways of the Admiralty. When I say the ways of the Admiralty, I do not mean the ways of individuals, but the ways of the Board of Admiralty. The last time we had a discussion on this matter it was promised that the Archer-Shee case and the Horn case would be looked into. At the same time, in the Horn case, there was a trifling matter, involving about £25, and it is almost time that we should have a decision on that point. This is the case of a poor widow, with seven little children, who may have to pay the solicitor in the case. It may be, and I know it is the fact, that the solicitor will not press the matter, but the fact remains that she is anxious to have the difficulty settled, and out of the small sum which she got of £250 the
  1150
  sum of £35 looms very large. I hope we will hear a satisfactory account of what is, being done in the Horn case.
  Mr. SUTTON: I think after what we have just heard from my two hon. Friends with reference to the Fair-Wages Clause that the Members of this House ought at least to be consistent and carry out that Clause when they give contracts to employers in this country. I have to make a charge against the Admiralty of not carrying out their Fair-Wage Clause in connection with a firm in Manchester, that of Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth, and Co. A question was put to the First Lord of the Admiralty on 25th April with reference to that firm not paying to their workpeople the standard rate of wages. The answer given to my hon. Friend who put the question was not a satisfactory one at all. I wish to say that Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth, and Co. are employing men, men who are termed handymen, in doing work that ought to be done by skilled workmen, and whose wages should be 38s. per week, which has been agreed between the Employers' Federation and the Workmen's Federation. The firm are employing the handymen at 24s. and 25s. per week. It was said, in reply, that an inspection has been made of Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth, and Co.'s works, and that they are satisfied. I want to say that the men have not been consulted so far as this inspection is concerned, and that a director of the firm has simply brought the inspector through the firm without any consultation at all with the men. That, to my mind, is most unfair. For many years I was connected with a public body, and when a charge was made that a firm was not paying the recognised rates of wages we used to summon the employers and the workmen to a conference and hear the two sides. I think it is only fair that the Admiralty should at least have the workmen there along with the inspector from the Admiralty and listen to the statements from both sides. But I am informed that that has not been done. I say that if the Admiralty allow contractors to do this kind of work it is unfair to those fair employers, especially in that district, who are paying to their workpeople the standard rate of wages.
  In the interests of the fair employers the Admiralty ought to see that the Fair-Wage Clause is carried out. They ought at least to be consistent, they ought to be model employers, not only with skilled workmen, but with unskilled workmen as

  1151
  well, as my hon. Friend here (Mr. John Ward) has pointed out. I know this particular firm has a body of unskilled workmen at a very small wage indeed. I should like to remind the Members of this House that in Manchester the Corporation has already established a minimum wage for unskilled labour of 25s. per week, and yet I believe that this very firm which is in Manchester pay their labourers about 18s.or 19s. per week, which is not a living wage. I therefore appealed to the Admiralty to see that these handy men are not started in this way while we have skilled workmen walking the streets unemployed. The Admiralty ought at least to be model employers, and it is unfair to a man who has served seven years apprenticeship to a trade that he should be pushed out by a handy man at a less wage. I think it is the duty of the Admiralty to push this matter forward.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) has charged the Admiralty with deliberately setting aside registered resolutions of this House. That is the gravamen of the charge which has been made. I can assure hon. Members that that criticism is not well founded. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) was very severe upon the permanent officials of the Admiralty, and went so far as to say that there appeared to be a permanent official clique, and that the director of works was the villain of the piece. In all these matters of administration the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Civil Lord and myself are responsible, and not the permanent officials, who can make no reply to these charges. I desire to say most frankly that the proposals of those permanent officials, when they come to us, are very carefully and painstakingly considered by us, and therefore we must be responsible.
  Mr. J. WARD: It is lucky for us that they do come through you.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I want to take full responsibility for this part of the administration. I make no complaint of the criticisms made by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow. He complains of the delay in reference to the fair wages resolutions of 10th March, 1909, getting into our contracts. My hon. Friend says: "Here you are, the new fair-wages resolution superseded the resolu-
  1152
  tion of 1891, and it is not yet in your contracts." The old Fair-Wages Resolution, as the hon. Member knows, was confined entirely to the question of wages. The new Fair-Wages Resolution not only includes wages but hours of labour, and it includes the phrase in regard to the conditions of employment generally. The new resolution is very much wider in scope, and its incorporation into our contracts so that it would have contractual effect is not a very easy matter. I am trying to explain that some delay is inevitable in incorporating into a contract to give legal and binding effect the new Fair-Wages Resolution, because of the extended scope of the ground it covers.
  It was passed on 10th March, 1909. In June, three months after the date of the passing of the resolution by this House, the Treasury appointed an Advisory Committee. In September, 1909, six months after the passing of the resolution, the Advisory Committee made certain recommendations as to the best means of giving contractual effect to the Resolution. The Fair-Wages Clause was inserted practically forthwith in all our annual contracts for the supply of stores and material, a very short time after the recommendation of the Advisory Committee as to the best way of giving it contractual effect. As far as shipbuilding is concerned I admit there was considerable difficulty in regard to the contracts. Legal advice had to be taken. It is one thing to pass a general resolution, and quite another thing to put it into a contract and see that it has legal and binding effect. The Admiralty Order which stated that the contract must be put in as from the date given was issued on the 16th of January this year, and I am bound to express regret that the process which I have described of giving legal and binding effect to this Resolution, more particularly in our shipbuilding contracts, necessitated such an absorption of time. From the beginning of this year, however, it will be in all our contracts. With regard to the Hammersmith firm in the West End of London the criticisms have been directed really against the terms of the resolution. The hon. Member for the Black-friars Division said that the Admiralty would have to see that this firm was paying a standard rate of wages.
  Mr. BARNES: I said nothing about standard rates. I read from the last Resolution, and from the Resolution of twenty years ago. I said that you were

  1153
  required to pay wages generally current in each trade for competent workmen, and I say this firm is not paying those wages.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I misunderstood the hon. Member. My hon. Friend says we have to see that firms conform to the terms of the Fair-Wages Resolution. A Clause was put into the contracts carrying out the Resolution of 1891. That Clause in the first instance was put in by the War Office, and it was afterwards adopted by the Admiralty. It was confirmed by the Select Committee of 1896 and it provides for wages "current in the district for competent workmen." We are dealing with the old Clause. I made a close personal investigation into this case, and I can assure my hon. Friend that so far as Admiralty work was concerned the firm undoubtedly was and is satisfying the terms of the old Fair-Wages Resolution, namely, that they pay the rate of wages current in the district for competent workmen.
  Mr. BARNES: Upon Admiralty work?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, for Admiralty work. Two men engaged by this firm gave evidence that that was so. I spent a very great deal of time in going into these matters, and I found that they were paying the wages current in the district for competent workmen.
  Mr. J. WARD: Does the hon. Gentleman know that every code of rules for workmen in London applies for twelve or twenty miles from Charing Cross?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am quite prepared to discuss that point with the hon. Member. The inquiry was confined to the wages current in the district, and in the case of this particular firm the rates appeared to be the same as those established by Messrs. Thornycroft when doing work at Chiswick. As far as I have been able to ascertain the rates which were established at that time in conjunction with those of Messrs. Thorny-croft appear to have been established and continued, or if they have changed at all they have changed in the direction of an increase. The only comparison we could make was with other similar firms in the district. We made that comparison, and let me say on behalf of this firm that they readily gave us every information. I may say that if they got a further contract from us my hon. Friends may take it from me that it will include the New Fair-Wages Clause, which will
  1154
  have to be strictly enforced. With regard to w hat the hon. Member for Stoke said about the Portsmouth case, that was again a criticism of the terms of the Resolution passed by this House, and we are not called upon to adjudicate upon that point. All we are called upon to do is to see whether these firms are paying the rate current in the district for competent workmen. What we did in Portsmouth some time ago was we took analogous work. We considered all the cases and ascertained as far as we could the rate of wages current in the district for competent workmen. My hon. Friend says we got something better, because we got 6d. per hour in certain cases.
  Mr. J. WARD: That statement clearly shows that the permanent officials decided upon the lower rate, as they always do, and it was only the intervention of the hon. Member that enabled the workmen to get justice.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That is not so. On the contrary, I decided upon the original rate. I pointed out that some of these men on the heavy work might very well be paid 6d. an hour, and the contractor agreed to it. But I doubt whether I could have enforced that in a court of law under the terms of the Resolution. With regard to Rosyth, I have got here all the lists down to April, 1911. At Rosyth they pay general labourers and navvies from 5d. to 5½d. per hour. In the contract at Leith for the new graving dock general navvies and labourers are paid 5d. to 5½d.
  Mr. J. WARD: Is that the agreed rate?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That is what is paid. That is the rate paid for competent, workmen in the district.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. J. WARD: Is not the agreed rate a minimum of 5½d. an hour? You are taking one of the lowest paying contractors in the locality.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Some of these contracts are not Government contracts at all. The new graving dock at Leith is not a, Government contract. I do not know what they undertake to pay, but they pay their general labourers and navvies 5d. and 5½d. My hon. Friend speaks as if Messrs. McAlpine's contract was with us. I am dealing with their contract for an extension of the harbour. I do not know what it is that they undertake to pay, or whether there is a Fair-Wage Clause or not; but I do know that they are paying 5d. and 5½d.
  Mr J. WARD: They are advertising for men at 5½d.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: At Newport there is a contract by Messrs. Gibb, who pay 5d. and 5½., and at Dunfermline 5d. and 5½d. is also paid. I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that all I desire to do, all the permanent officials desire to do, and all the members of the Board desire to do is to painstakingly and carefully administer the letter and spirit of the Resolution, and, if the hon. Member has any quarrel it is with the terms of the Resolution, and not with our administration, which is fair and judicial on the materials placed in our hands. With regard to giving a day, that is a matter for the Prime Minister, and not for me. If it is suggested I desire to hide or to obscure the administration of the Board in ascertaining what rate of wages will carry out the terms of this Clause, I may say that I have no desire of the kind, nor do I wish to evade any discussion. I am convinced the more fully the House goes into our detailed administration of this Resolution, the more it will see I am entitled to claim we do judicially and fairly take the contractual obligations, and see they are carried out.

  FINANCIAL RELATIONS (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
  Mr. GINNELL: The Government having made the over-taxation of Ireland a burning question in that country, it becomes my duty to submit a few views entertained by the majority of the people there, no more suitable opportunity having been given for that purpose. Important at all times, the subject is rendered urgent by the promise of full self-government for Ireland given by those having power to make their promise good. Separate nation-keeping, like housekeeping, cannot be wisely undertaken without realising and making available the means necessary for carrying it on successfully. Several things are necessary for this purpose, such as the inspiration of freedom, patriotism, public spirit, administrative ability, adequate financial resources, and the power and will to get in all debts due to us. It is impossible to touch Ireland without knocking against consequences of past evil legislation and evil policy. Those consequences are the existing facts of the situation which cannot be ignored, and no work of reconstruction in Ireland is possible without frankly grappling with and making provision for them. This has
  1156
  had to be done to a greater or less degree from Mr. Gladstone's first Land Act down to the latest Land Act. Current economic theories have had to be disregarded, and this British Parliament has had to deal with existing facts for which they inherit responsibility. Having forcibly planted in Ireland an evil system, and having maintained it there too long working destruction, your Parliament was forced to uproot it. In 1903 it so frankly recognised those peculiar facts that, in addition to providing for what was supposed to be free bargains between landlords and tenants, it voted twelve millions of public money over and above to be given as bonus to landlords for selling estates at more than their value. It has since increased that to a sum estimated by the Chief Secretary at eighteen million pounds, and this, while admitting that landlords were not essential to Irish life, and while, in fact, providing for the abolition of them.
  In the present instance the precise departure we want you to make from your usual practice towards Ireland is to become honest. The present condition of Ireland, a disgrace to its governors, is the result of your rule. In every part of Ireland, town and country, there are numerous purposes, national and local, urgently and desperately in need of money. I will not weary the House with even a list of them, but to illustrate them I may instance one or two that strike the eye of the most casual visitor. One is the almost complete absence of suitable or indeed any industries for the employment of the people, and the consequent continued emigration of the young and intelligent. Another is the flooding of wide areas, comprising many hundreds of farms, and the destruction of the crops that grow upon them by the overflow of rivers through long neglect. Local effort in present circumstances is wholly unable to cope with evils of such magnitude. The promise of full self-government means that for our urgent purposes, vast and small, Ireland is to be thrown upon her own resources. That will be the happiest event in her history, provided she gets her entire resources. In the deplorable condition to which you have brought Ireland, her entire resources to the last farthing will be absolutely necessary to enable her to enter upon that undertaking with any chance of success in competition with the more fortunate nations that have been long in the enjoyment of freedom.

  1157
  Under these circumstances, we have no choice, but are driven by necessity as well as by self-respect to insist at once upon the examination and closing of her long account with her oppressor and the restitution of every penny due to enable us to undertake and carry out the urgent works which have waited too long, and which self-government, to be anything like full, must comprise.
  If, as is the case, our money is not in our possession, but is due to us by the wealthiest nation in the world, the most urgent duty of all is to gather it in. Failure to do this would stamp us at the outset as incompetent for our undertaking, and unfit for freedom. The acquisition and maintenance of the essentials of national life is the first duty of nationhood. Neither individual nor nation, having a just claim and title to money, should beg or borrow, least of all from a debtor. It would be a crime against one's country to beg or borrow on her behalf from a debtor able to pay, but unwilling. Such a debtor attempting to grant or lend money to the creditor without first paying the debt would be dishonest and a knave. It is not I say that, but the facts. From such a debtor the whole debt with interest should be demanded promptly, unequivocally, and imperatively. The assumption that Great Britain, wealthy and self-righteous, would not pay her debt to Ireland in full, would he an insult to the Imperial Parliament and to the people it represents. No one now desires to go back to the beginning of the debt, or to go back further than the actual causes which live to-day in the conditions produced by them. Less than this no one could call just. This, however, brings us back further than some superficial people care to recognise. Any one who takes the trouble to study the subject, and no rational opinion can be formed of it without having done so, will find that Ireland's grievance against England and the ground of her claim for restitution go back a century and a half behind the Act of Union, or two and a-half cnturies from the present time. They go back to the industrial and commercial restrictions imposed upon Ireland from the middle—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. J. H. Whitley): The present Administration can not be said to be responsible for that. The Debate must be connected with something which has been clone or ought to be done by the present Administration.
  Mr. GINNELL: While always maintaining that the Act of Union was procured by iniquitous and indefensible methods, and was unjust in its operation, and while denying that Ireland really consented to that measure, so long as that Act is maintained, as it has been up to the present time against us, surely we are entitled to at least a fragment of that justice which is left to Ireland under it, and to the benefits of the Financial Relations Commission of 1895, as they may be modified by a similar Public Commission, thoroughly representative of the two countries, bringing the work of the first Commission down to the present time. The excessive taxation of Ireland arises from the unjust allocation of burdens under the Treaty of Union and the subsequent criminal efforts in violation of that Treaty to assimilate the taxation of the two countries. It is beyond the power of man to assimilate things that nature has made different. Every attempt to assimilate Great Britain and Ireland has aggravated the original evil. This Imperial Parliament, while attempting to assimilate the taxation in the two countries, has found it necessary in most of its other legislation to recognise and maintain the difference between the two countries. The Financial Relations Commission found that Ireland, as a fact, had keen overtaxed absolutely and relatively since the Union. If we are dealing with honest people, now is the time to prove their honesty by refunding the excessive taxation. According to calculations which have been made, and which are to be found in the Reports of the Commission, the excessive taxation taken out of Ireland since the Act of Union exceeds £320,000,000, with interest. The restitution of every penny of that debt is necessary to satisfy justice and necessary for our imperative requirements under full self-government. The money being unquestionably due, we do not desire and have no occasion to accept other people's money by way of grant or loan. The report of the Commission on Financial Relations, signed by eleven Members and agreed to also by two others who died during the inquiry, was as follows:—

  (1) That Great Britain and Ireland must for the purposes of this inquiry be considered as separate entities.

  (2) That the Act of Union imposed on Ireland a burden which, as events showed, she was unable to bear.

  1159

  (3) That the increase of taxation laid upon Ireland between 1853 and 1860 was not justified by the then existing circumstances.

  (4) That identity of rates of taxation does not necessarily involve equity of burden.

  (5) That whilst the actual tax revenue of Ireland is about one-eleventh of that of Great Britain, the relative taxable capacity of Ireland is very much smaller, and it is not estimated by any of us to exceed one-twentieth. The Special Report signed by Lord Farrar, Lord Welby, and Mr. Currie—

  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: How does the hon. Member connect that with the present Administration?
  Mr. GINNELL: I am endeavouring to show that the over-taxation of Ireland continues up to the present time. It continues to grow, and I hope you will see that this is a relative matter affecting the daily lives of the whole of the people of our country.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It might be so on a Special Motion, but this is a Motion for Adjournment, and on it the hon. Member can only discuss matters which have been done or left undone by His Majesty's present Ministers.
  Mr. GINNELL: I will endeavour to bring myself within your ruling. This trouble in regard to financial relations always has been and must continue to be one between Ireland on the one side and the British Treasury on the other. I want to urge that the present Government should appoint a similar Public Commission to carry on the same inquiries up to the present time. They have set up a one-sided secret ex parte Committee, selected by themselves and controlled by a Treasury official, for the purpose of finding a verdict to suit themselves. No upright man understanding the facts and circumstances would consent to serve on a Committee with such dishonest purposes, but would insist that the Committee should be public and representative of the two countries concerned. The Government do not deny the current belief that some of the most capable men in. Ireland declined to act on that secret committee on the ground that it would be dishonourable to do so. The members of this Committee, who are connected with the Treasury, like the officials who prepare the evidence for them, advocate only one side
  1160
  of the case. The other members, being Englishmen and Scotchmen, are naturally pro-British in matters in dispute between Great Britain and any other country. Under the circumstances, it is a packed Committee, with a bias against Ireland; its impartiality cannot be even pretended, and so indefensible did the Government feel their one-sided Committee to be that they conceived the brilliant idea of not attempting to defend it, but by some misrepresentation or other, inducing one Irishman, a Doctor of Divinity, to share the odium of it with them, and if necessary rekindled the fires of religious animosity, and while the attention of Catholic and Orangemen was diverted from the real business to squabbles on the score of religion, so that the Government might fleece both sides. That is the traditional policy of the British Government towards Ireland. For the credit of Ireland and of commonsense it is not going to succeed this time. Governments shall not trap us as easily as they seem to have trapped the officials. On them alone blame is concentrated by all classes in Ireland. Their dishonesty is too obvious in the fact that if they thought Doctors of Divinity the best material of which to compose their Committee they would have appointed to represent Great Britain an Anglican bishop and a Nonconformist minister. In this matter of pounds shillings and pence all Irishmen have common rights, and refuse to be divided into opposing camps on irrelevant grounds. Any man, be he Catholic or Orangeman, who co-operates with the Government in attempting to use religious differences in order to divide Irishmen on this purely business matter, that man is an enemy of Ireland. Any man who at the present time of change, when the financial arrangements about to be made will be permanent, who presents some unworkable arrangement and assists in the concealment of flaws which will lead to certain breakdown in the working, that man is unquestionably an enemy of Ireland. No man who is the friend of Ireland should obscure our claim for the restitution of our money taken from us in excess of taxes and tell us to depend, whether under Home Rule or British rule, on loans and doles from the British Treasury.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I ask you whether it is according to the rule and etiquette of this House that an hon.

  1161
  Member should read every word of his speech from a type-written or written document as apparently the hon. Member is doing?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is not in order to read speeches to the House.
  Mr. GINNELL: I have not been reading my speech. I have been strengthening my memory from my notes, with great respect, not to a greater extent than I have seen done without any remark from the Chair. On the other hand, any man who, when Ireland is about to start on her own resources, endeavours to free her from taxes for external purposes which do not concern her and free her front all loans and doles and insists upon Ireland receiving restitution to the full amount clue to her, that man is a practical friend of Ireland and of every cause and industry in Ireland that is stagnant or dead for want of this Irish money. We all, I believe without exception, regard the revival of industry in Ireland as a most desirable object. Such a revival is absolutely impossible without restitution of all this money. So far, Irish Unionists in this House have done themselves an injustice by remaining silent regarding this packed and secret Committee, partly in obedience to the masters of their party, partly because some of them aspire to office in the next Unionist Government, and partly from a fear that any recognition of the Committee would be regarded as an acknowledgent that Home Rule was coming. No doubt they will swing into line as soon as their constituents make it plain that they have as little taste for excessive taxation as anybody else. This question ought to have been raised and pressed to a settlement long ago irrespective of Home Rule, and if hon. Members recognise that and they decline to regard it as in any sense a party question they make no sacrifice of principle and do not commit themselves in any way, either for or against Home Rule, by demanding payment of an ascertained debt and thus averting the inconveniences and disgrace of bankruptcy. Unfettered Irishmen without distinction of class or creed will press, I hope, on all concerned that the over-taxation of Ireland is not, as the Chief Secretary suggests, a matter exclusively for the Cabinet, but that the Irish ratepayers have a right and will insist upon their right, to have an effective voice in it. We are promised full self-government by those who have the power to give it. Self-government to be full must comprise control of all Ireland's affairs and resources.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is again trenching upon the question of legislation which is not in order.
  Mr. GINNELL: If no account is kept of these excessive taxes drawn from Ireland that is a reason for pressing the claim all the harder, since a nation is no more entitled than an individual to escape payment of a debt by the easy method of keeping no account. This House has been aware during the last fifteen years on the most authentic authority of the existence, magnitude, and continued growth of this debt of Ireland. You in England alone have the control of the accounts. If you omit to keep a proper account of this debt the omission, as in the case of a private individual, could have been used for no honest purpose, and only adds an element of dishonesty to the previous tyranny in extracting the excessive tax.
  Mr. STEPHEN COLLINS: On the point of Order, Sir. I fail to see where the hon. Member has obeyed your ruling on either of the three occasions that you have called him to order. I do not want to stop the hon. Member, but I want to know whether he is obeying the ruling of the Chair by continuing his speech in the strain in which he is doing.
  Mr. GINNELL: I venture to submit that I have not disobeyed your ruling. This Committee is a living lie.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must say that I think the hon. Member has not been quite keeping to my ruling. He has been travelling, I hope unconsciously, beyond my ruling. It is not in order to discuss the financial relations between the two countries. The only thing which has been in order so far has been what he said with reference to the appointment of the Commissioners.
  Mr. GINNELL: I am keeping as close as possible to your ruling, Sir. Really, all I say has reference to this committee, which is a living lie. It is under the control of the Government, and affects the daily lives of the Irish people. In these cases of ascertained fraud committed by the protector on the protected the convicted stepmother cannot be allowed to assume the airs and functions of a judge, and to measure the amount of restitution she has to make to her victim. This is actually what the Committee is doing at the present time. In Ireland our knowledge of British Imperial greatness is

  1163
  limited so far as the mass of the people are concerned, to the magnitude of the British plunder out of Ireland. If the wealthiest nation in the world refuses to pay her debt—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I really must ask the hon. Member to observe my ruling. I think he must understand now from what I have said clearly what is in order. He must not pursue the general considerations, over which he has spent a good deal of time already.
  Mr. GINNELL: I will bring my remarks to a quick conclusion under your narrow ruling, to which I entirely submit. Every Member of the House must admit that it is ail extremely narrow ruling with reference to a real live matter oppressing the people. If we do not get justice when Liberals are in power, who say they desire and intend to give it—if their professions are sincere it can be had for the asking—when are we going to get it? Justice means full restitution of excessive taxes. Our claim for full restitution being based upon the plainest justice, refusal can be based only on power, and an evasion can be based only on fraud. We claim full restitution from a Government which we have steadily supported, in some cases against our principles and interests, even when that Government was increasing the excessive taxes of our country. We claim full restitution from a Government which calls itself Liberal and just, and professes friendship and sympathy towards our country, and which is pledged to restore us full self-government. We claim full restitution at the opportune moment, when this Liberal and friendly and sympathetic Government, so indebted to us, is wallowing in surplus revenue which Irish votes have helped them to acquire We claim full restitution at the last moment, when the long account between the two countries must be totted up and closed and the balance struck. We claim full restitution when one of the two countries has set up a secret committee to act behind the back of the other in order to manipulate the details upon which the amount of the balance must depend. We claim full restitution with the unanimous and irresistible support of the Irish people, so unanimous and so irresistible that whenever this claim can be brought to vote no Irish Member except an office holder will dare to vote against it.

  WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE.
  Mr. PHILIP SNOWDEN: I want, if possible, to elicit from the Government some further information in regard to the statement made a few days ago as to the future of the Women's Suffrage Bill now before the House. The promoters of the Bill are not satisfied with the decision of the Government to give no further time for the Bill during this Session of Parliament, but looking closely, at the terms of the Government's answer, we are encouraged to hope that it may be possible in certain circumstances to induce them to reconsider that decision. It appears that the reason why, as at present advised, they cannot afford further time during this Session is because of the pressure of other business to which the Government is committed, therefore the promoters of this Bill hope that, should it happen that some of the important measures now before the House are not to be proceeded with, we may have an opportunity of pressing upon the Government the question of reconsidering their present view in regard to this Women's Suffrage Bill. But if we are driven to abandon the hope of further facilities being given during the present Session, we want to know a little more clearly what is the idea of the Government in regard to the facilities promised for next year. So far as we understand the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is the intention of the Government to grant only a week for the Committee stage, the Report stage, and the Third Reading next year. That is based upon information which the Government was said to have received from those responsible for the promotion of the Bill. I have been very closely associated with the promoters, but I am not aware that we have ever given the Government any reason to believe that we considered a week of Parliamentary time sufficient for all the stages of Committee, Report, and Third Reading. We might under certain circumstances have thought a week for the Committee stage would be sufficient, but I want to know in the first place what the Government mean by a week. Do they mean a week for the Committee stage or a week for all the stages of the Bill beyond the Second Reading?
  I want to know also if the Government are prepared to give any assistance to those who have charge of the Bill for accelerating its passage through its various stages. With the facilities that there are

  1165
  for obstruction it would be quite impossible to get a highly contentious Bill like this through the Committee stage in four or five days, and I cannot imagine what reason the Government can have for offering a week of time next year unless they are convinced that that time is going to be sufficient to put the Bill through all its stages. It will certainly be tantalising to give them that further chance when there is no possibility of its succeeding. The women have been tantalised now for many years, and it is time that came to an end. I want to ask therefore if, by their concession with regard to next year, the Government mean that they will help the promoters of the Bill to accelerate its progress through Committee. Will they, for instance, allow a Minister of the Crown to move, if necessary, the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule, and will they also if necessary give the promoters of the Bill an opportunity to move a Resolution for the allocation of time? I should also like to raise this point. If the Bill passes through Committee will they give time for the Third Reading at such an early day in the Session as will enable it to be presented to the House of Lords during that Session? As we understand the Ministerial statement made on Monday, the Government are not prepared to give all the time necessary in this Parliament for passing the Bill, but they are quite prepared in this Parliament to give effective facilities for considering the Bill. We are not satisfied with that. The life-time of any Government is very precarious, and the lifetime of this Government is especially precarious, because they have not a majority of their own. They depend upon a combination, which may be dissolved at any time, and therefore I am speaking, not only for the promoters of the Bill, but for all the women in the country who are interested in this question when I say that it is not satisfactory to have to look beyond next Session for the carrying out of the Prime Minister's promise of full facilities to carry the Bill. I ask the representative of the Government to give those interested in the Bill some information on the point I have respectfully submitted.
  The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Joseph Pease): The hon. Member has put a series of questions to the Government which I think ought to be addressed to the Prime Minister himself. Representations were made to the Government, not very recently, but
  1166
  some little time ago, that those interested in the Bill thought a week would be a reasonable time to devote to the various stages of the Bill after the Second Reading stage, and the Government acted upon that representation. We ourselves thought that four days and a-half of Parliamentary time with this Parliamentary week should be ample to indicate whether this House is prepared to proceed with the Bill to a satisfactory conclusion. If the hon. Gentleman and his Friends are not satisfied with the promise that has already been given on behalf of the Government, I think a question had better be put on the Paper, and the Prime Minister will reply either before the adjournment for the holidays or immediately afterwards.
  Mr. JOSEPH PEASErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
  Question, "That this House, at its rising, on Friday next, do adjourn until Tuesday, the 13th June," put, and agreed to.

LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed,. "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): This is a supplementary measure which was prepared and settled and ready for becoming law last Session, but, unfortunately, events prevented it becoming law, as I had hoped it would do then. I now ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. It is purely supplemental and following entirely on the lines and adopting the principle of the Labourers (Ireland) Act of 1906, which was passed when my right hon. Friend, Mr. Bryce, occupied the office which I now hold. It was passed by common consent, and I will not enlarge upon the subject, as I might easily do. By common consent the erection of cottages under that Act has been one of the greatest benefits which Ireland has received for many years. Anybody travelling in Ireland, as it is my good fortune very often to have the opportunity of doing under the rapid method of motor cars, must have observed the change made on the whole face of the country. I think we must all agree that the labourers

1167
are deserving of consideration from the Imperial Parliament, having regard to the great advantages conferred by the Land Acts passed by different Governments. The Act of 1906 enabled the district councils to obtain advances up to the sum of £4,250,000 for the erection of cottages out of Irish funds. It is an advantage to them to take the credit of the nation, but, of course, the annuities are calculated at the same rate as land purchase annuities and, therefore, they have to be repaid in the ordinary process of time, which is taken to be 68½ years, although that period may vary a little, according to other conditions. But 68½ years is generally taken as the time at the end of which the advances will have been entirely repaid. The Act of 1906 also gave certain other advances out of certain funds whereby the charge upon the rates was very much reduced, with the result that, although there was a Labourers' Cottages Act prior to the Act of 1906, the speed of building has enormously increased, and cottages were erected under the Act of 1906, at three times the rate per annum at which they had ever been erected before. The sum of money set apart under the Act of 1906 has been exhausted, and this Act, which I call a supplementary Act, simply provides another £1,000,000 on the same terms as the £4,250,000 was pro vided under the Act of 1906. In the same manner we appropriate certain Irish funds to go in reduction of the amount charged upon the district councils.
I notice that there has been a mistake in some parts of Ireland in supposing that the provision in the Bill we are now reading a second time which lays hands on £36,000 cash of the dormant suitors' fund and another sum of £30,000 Consols from the same Irish money, does something which the Bill of 1906 did not do. That is a mistake, because under the provisions of the Bill of 1906, the sum of £150,000 was transferred from the Petty Sessions clerks' fund and the sum of £70,000 from the Ireland Development Grant. Then there was a sum equivalent to the reduction of the salaries of the Lord Chancellor and various judges. These were Irish funds, which I think were very usefully employed in the reduction of the rate charge upon the ratepayers of Ireland concerned in the building of these cottages. We follow that scheme in this Bill, taking from the dormant suitors £36,000 cash, and £30,000 Consols. Of course, the
1168
Treasury under the provisions of this Bill undertake to make good the money in the extremely improbable, I might almost say impossible, event of the dormant suitors' fund requiring the money which is taken from it for the purpose of enabling cottages to be built. Therefore no dormant suitor need be alarmed if he awakes from his long sleep. He will find that there is a solvent guarantor able to make good the sum. We leave balances of £112,198 and also £85,373. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who is the guardian of the funds, is satisfied that they may be very properly taken and applied in the same manner as these as well as other Irish funds were applied under the Act of 1906.
The case is really so clear that I do not know that I need enlarge on it any longer; but I should like to give the number of cottages built under the Act of 190G. I am not going back on the old Acts prior to that. Three thousand seven hundred and ninety-one cottages have been built in Ulster; 3,829 have been built in Munster; 2,992 have been built in Leinster, and 1,160 in Connaught. The number of cottages at this moment in course of erection is 894 in Ulster, 1,974 in Munster, 1,844 in Leinster, and 460 in Connaught. The total built under the Act of 1906, therefore, is 11,772, and there are 5,172 now in course of construction. The total number built under all the Acts—because they began at an early date in the eighties—is 34,370. We have now come to the end of the money set apart for our purposes by the Act of 1906. It has been a great misfortune that there should have been any arrest in this beneficent process, because the money is safe, it will be repaid, and the general condition of the people has been enormously improved, and in no respect more than in the care and loving attention bestowed by those in possession of these new houses. Some of them, I am sorry to say, are very ugly, while others are very pretty. I wish they were all very beautiful, but, so far as these cottages are concerned, beauty is expensive, and when anybody suggests that you should have a gable here and a window there, it is found that that will add £10, £15, or £20 to the expense of building a cottage. We have tried, very rigorously, though not always very successfully, to keep down the prices of these cottages, but we have had to pay a very high price for the land, and I may be permitted to say that all landowners are alike in this matter, the small landowners as well as the big landowners, that when the public comes along and wants to

1169
take a few roods for building cottages, the price demanded is rather higher than what one would expect or quite believe it ought to be.
9.0 P.M.
At the same time I am sorry to say that legal costs are very high and, unfortunately, although I have been very rigorous in that matter too, and, as an old poacher turned gamekeeper, have been rather successful in cutting clown the legal expenses in this matter, still, of course, you cannot say that legal expenses are necessarily small because the amount of land transferred is small. That depends on title, and title is a personal thing which affects a rood of land just as much as it does a great landowner's estate, but we have done the best we could to keep down the cost, and when this Bill becomes law the million of money which is provided for this purpose will build 6,000 more cottages, and bring the total up to a very satisfactory figure. The only observation I wish to make about it is this—that this is a Bill to build cottages, and it is not a Bill to add more land to existing cottages. It is not a small allotments or small owners Bill. It is money which Parliament votes for the purpose of getting rid of the scandal and disgrace of too many of the labourers' cottages in Ireland. We want 6,000 new cottages, and when we have got these, in the good time coming, when money is plentiful, you may adopt a new policy, and turn all these new cottages into demesnes. But as things are at present we want 6,000 more cottages. We cannot wait any longer for them, and I hope when the House has gone into Committee on this Bill that it will support, us in that contention.
There is another thing upon which I feel very strongly, and that is the necessity in many cases of destroying the insanitary and bad old cottages of a past time. I hope that that also will be carried out, because it very naturally happens that they say, "We want this for a pig, or a horse, or a cow," or something of that sort, just to keep simply as a stable, though even in such cases as that these houses are very often a danger to the community. But it sometimes does happen that when an inspector goes into that district again, he finds out that the cow has been evicted and that there are people living in these abandoned, discarded cottages. It is never an easy thing for a Chief Secretary to see that these places are not inhabited, and therefore it is best to remove them from the face of the earth.
1170
They exist in water-colour drawings and etchings, and the minds of men will be able to dwell upon them as picturesque and not unpleasing objects. But let them exist only on the walls in pictures, and let us rid them from the face of Irish soil. The only other remark I wish to make is that the Irish District Councils should be very careful in the employment of clerks of works. An enormous lot depends on that. The Local Government Board inspectors make inspections, but that is after the thing is more or less built. The inspectors are very clever men—all inspectors of the Local Government Board are clever—but it requires a man whom you cannot find either in Ireland or in England to check this work. It can only be done from day to day while the cottages are being built by astute, keen, and conscientious clerks of works. Some of the cottages have turned out not very successful, and I am sorry to say present some of those interesting features of extreme antiquity which certainly ought not to belong to them. The only way to meet that is to see to it that you have really a clerk of works who will look after these cottages and see that not a single hit of dishonest work is put into them. If that is carried out, I am sure that this Bill, which proceeds entirely on the lines of the Bill of 1906 and simply makes it go on for a year or so longer to secure the erection of 6,000 more cottages, will be only one of a very beneficent series of Acts of Parliament which have done a work which we have the satisfaction even in our own day and generation of seeing before our eyes. I beg to move.
Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: I would be a very poor Irishman, of course, if I made any proposition to-night which would prevent my fellow countrymen from getting any more money, especially as a portion of that money, at any rate, comes out of the Imperial Exchequer, and it is not my intention to make any such proposition or to oppose the Bill; but I desire to criticise it in one or two details, and I hope that the effect may be, when we come into Committee, that we may have Amendments made in the direction which I desire. When I say "I hope"—of course, hope springs eternal in the human breast—I do not know that I have got any very strong hope that it shall be clone, but, at any rate, I shall do ply best. Every Member representing an Irish constituency welcomes the Bill in so far as it provides another million of money for Ireland. My

1171
objection to the measure is that it does not do anything to remedy the state of things which exists in certain parts of Ulster. I know that hon. Members below the Gangway will object to those who sit above the Gangway on this side as Unionists stating that they represent Ulster, but there are certain counties in Ulster that we Unionists do represent, and in those counties they rightly consider that they have a grievance under the Act of 1906. This Bill makes no attempt to remedy that grievance, and it is on that ground I am compelled to make some reference to it. Before the Act of 1906, in the county of Antrim, the distribution of grants under the Labourers Act was made in a certain way. Whether that was right or wrong it is not my place to inquire at the present time. But the result of that distribution was that in Antrim we got, roughly speaking, £2,500 a year. Since the Act of 1906 that amount has been reduced to between £400 and £450.
That is a very serious loss. The Chief Secretary who was responsible at the time the Bill of 1906 was passed said that the future method of distributing the money would depend upon the number of cottages built in each district at the date of the passing of that measure. It so happened, I am sorry to say, that in my county of Antrim a comparatively small number of cottages had been built. Our contention was that that fact was not due to the labourers not desiring to have cottages, for after all the labourers are the people who were to get the benefit under the Act, but it was due to the fact that the district councils had not seen their way up to that time to put the Labourers Act in force. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I agree with hon. Members below the Gangway that there is no great substance in that particular point. I also agree that it has been always very unfair to make the labourers responsible for what the district council did, because, of course, in the election of that body the labourers had comparatively little to say. The effect of the Act of 1906 was to handicap and penalise the very persons whom the Labourers Act was intended to benefit. Because a small number of cottages were built up to that date does not at all mean that labourers cottages were not necessary. They were as necessary in the counties of Antrim, Down, Derry, and Tyrone, all of which have suffered under the Act of 1906, as in other counties of Ireland. Still, in
1172
spite of the demand of the labourers in those counties cottages were not built; but I submit that you ought not, therefore, to penalise the labourers because of the action of authorities over which they bad no power or control. Mr. Bryce, who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland, in Committee on the Bill of 1906, when an Amendment was moved to remedy that state of affairs, admitted that the labourers in those counties deserved cottages just as much as; the labourers elsewhere in Ireland: but, owing to the fact that cottages had not been built in those districts, in future the labourers employed there must suffer in regard to the distribution of money under the Act.
So that was the state of affairs under the measure of 1906, and instead of getting about £2,500 a year, we are now getting from £400 to £450 year. The county of Cavan, which is a smaller county than the others which I have named, gets £571 a year. The county of Cork gets £6,249; the county of Limerick, £3,793; Waterford, the constituency of the leader of hon. Members below the Gangway, £1,430—four or five times as much as. Antrim obtains; Kildare, £964. Kildare, I may mention, is a county largely in grass. It is not an agricultural county in the sense that Antrim is, and it therefore employs a very much smaller number of labourers compared with the county that I represent. Nearly every county in Ireland, with the exception of some of the counties in Connaught, where labourers practically do not exist, has got more than the counties of Down, Antrim, Derry, and Tyrone. The hon. Member laughs. I do not think that is at all right.
Mr. SHEEHY: It is due to your guardians.
Mr. C. CRAIG: I submit that these unfortunate labourers ought not to suffer for the fault of any authority. The Act of 1906 is now five years old. During that time we have suffered very considerable loss, and I think that the Chief Secretary, or whoever is responsible for this Bill, should at least consider the question of reinstating to some extent—I do not ask him to put them precisely in the same position as they occupied before—the labourers in those counties in regard to the distribution of this money. In Antrim in five years we have lost £10,000, which represents a very considerable number of labourers' cottages. Having lost that amount, I think the time has arrived when

1173
the system of distributing the funds under the Act of 1906 should be reconsidered. In the Local Government Board Report, for 1907–8 the number of cottages sanctioned in any particular county is given. In Antrim there were 142 houses and labourers' cottages sanctioned. The last, Report, that for 1909–10, shows that the number has been increased to 367. Hon. Members below the Gangway may not consider that a very large increase, where they are dealing with thousands of cottages. But I submit that it is a very considerable increase compared with the number built before the Act of 1906, and it shows that progress is being made in the building of cottages.
I think that the time has arrived when the Government might out of compassion, or decency, or from any other consideration of the kind, endeavour to put us on a more equitable footing in regard to the distribution of this sum of a million pounds which is provided under the Bill. The Bill does not make any alteration in the method of distributing the money, but after we have been penalised during a period of five years, and seeing that we are giving evidence of our desire to work this Act in the manner intended by the d House, I do ask the Government to do something for us by way of remedying the method of distributing this money. Although, perhaps, we cannot, expect much indication of I hat tonight Amendments will be moved from these benches in Committee on this Bill. I will not say now what direction those Amendments shall take, but I press the Government to consider those Amendments, remembering that we have been penalised for a considerable length, and that we have mended our ways and that we are now doing our duty by those labourers, which, I am sorry to say, we did not do before 1906. I hope when the time comes that the right hon. Gentleman will see that. some slight alteration will have to be made in the provisions of Clause 5, which I think is too drastic. That is a detail of small importance which I need not worry the House with tonight. I shall simply hope that the Government will see the justice of making a reference to the northern counties and introducing some reform at a later stage of the Bill.
Mr. JOHN DILLON: I desire, on behalf of the Irish party, to thank the Chief Secretary for moving the Second Reading of this Bill to-night, and to endorse every word he has said as regards the enor-
1174
mous improvement in the condition of the labouring classes that has been brought about by the Labourers Acts. The Labourers Act of 1906 has done as much in five years, I think I am right in saying, as all the preceding Labourers Acts did in more than twenty years. The whole code commenced in 1883. In the twenty-three years that elapsed before 1906 there was a considerable number of cottages built, but in the five years that have elapsed since the Act of 1906 I think the number of cottages has been as great, if not greater, than in the twenty-three years preceding. No Act that was ever applied to Ireland did more for the country and did more for that class of men who in the past had been so shamefully and horribly treated. I feel bound to say a word or two by way of reply to the criticism that has just been made of certain provisions of the Act of 1906 by the hon. Member who has just spoken. He complained that certain counties in Ulster were penalised by the Act of 1906. I protest against that statement. What happened? There was a certain Grant of £40,000 per year, which had been set aside for many years as Grant-in-Aid to the ratepayers who bore a large proportion of the cost of those cottages. Certain counties in Ulster built no cottages, practically speaking. They took no advantage of the Acts, and this money, which had been set aside by Parliament for this purpose, was piled up by those counties in Ulster. They declined to use it for the labourers, and the money was accumulated.
When the Act of 1906 came to be introduced what was the condition of things that was found to prevail? Whereas in Minister, and in Connaught, though not to the same extent, and in Leinster, and, let me add, in certain Poor Law unions in Ulster, where the Nationalist party had a majority, as for instance, Downpatrick District Council, they did fully take advantage of those Acts to such an extent that in some divisions a shilling in the pound had been added to the rates, while in Ulster they added nothing to the rates, and actually would not take advantage of the grant voted by Parliament, but allowed it to accumulate. Then the Government, imitating a historic example, said: "Since you have made no use of the money, we shall now redistribute that money in proportion to the use made of it throughout the country." I ask the House to say could anything he more just? In some districts of Limerick they had

1175
actually added to the rates more than 1s. in the pound in providing cottages. The contention of the hon. Member is this, though I quite admit that it was against his advice, and the advice of many other Members, that the district councils declined to build any cottages, that they should be allowed to pile up this money uselessly, and that ratepayers in other places who were bearing enormous burdens ought to be subjected to those burdens.
Mr. C. CRAIG: My request is that as we show ourselves willing to fall in with the spirit of the Act of 1906 our position ought to be recognised by the Government, and that we have proved the position, and that we ought to get a greater proportion of the grants.
Mr. DILLON: Allow me to observe that they did not show this willingness until the money was taken away from them. That is the whole question. They would never build any cottages, practically speaking, and the hon. Member admits it.
Mr. C. CRAIGexpressed dissent.
Mr. DILLON: Or hardly any cottages in those particular portions of Ulster until the Act of 1906 woke them up by taking away this grant. I think the argument points all the other way and that this thing has had an excellent effect and has induced the Ulster counties to build cottages. The hon. Member himself admits it. He says that under the Act of 1906 they have built more cottages than ever they did before. Therefore I think the Act of 1906 in its application to those parts of Ulster has been fully vindicated, and nothing could possibly ha more just. Let me remind the hon. Member of what occurred during the Debates of 1906. I represent a county which is very nearly as large as Antrim, and a very poor county—county Mayo. We built very few cottages, and we had a considerable sum accumulated under the old grant. We did not build cottages for different reasons, because we had not labourers. We are a county of small farmers who are really labourers themselves, and, except in certain parts, the necessity does not exist.
Mr. C. CRAIG: You did not feel the loss.
Mr. DILLON: Yes we did, and we wanted it more than Antrim. I can assure you I was subjected to considerable pressure to hold the money for Mayo and get
1176
it applied to some other purpose. I could not feel justified in doing so. I said that this was money set apart for building labourers' cottages, and I think it is just not to object to Mayo losing a part of it, and that those counties which have put large burdens on the rates for the purpose of carrying out the Acts should get a larger proportion. Although the Grant of 1906 hit Mayo just as hard as it hit Antrim, I supported that provision, and we in Mayo suffered that loss, although I was subjected to considerable pressure to preserve the money for Mayo, which was a poor county. I hope the Government will not listen to the plea put forward for the purpose of discriminating in the case of Antrim and other counties. I do not quarrel with the hon. Member, knowing that he and many of his colleagues have denounced the district councils for their conduct. I think they ought to rejoice that the Act of 1906 has aroused those district councils. I daresay they thought that by allowing the money to pile up they would get it for some other purpose. What was the object of leaving it? They could not use it for any other purpose, and they would not use it for the purpose for which it was granted, and so it was distributed to other parts of Ireland most justly. I press the Government to adhere to that principle of the Act of 1906. However, I do not wish to prolong the Debate. I will conclude by saying that this is a measure which every Irishman must enthusiastically support, and I rejoice that the Government have decided to give the small amount of time necessary for its passage.
Mr. ARTHUR O'NEILL: I think the hon. Member for East Mayo has been a little severe in his criticism of the remarks of my hon. Friend (Mr. C. Craig). After all, my hon. Friend fully admitted, in making his appeal for more money for Antrim and Down, that the reason we had not had our fair share was to a great extent the somewhat tardy action of our district councils as compared with those of other counties. I rise not to offer any opposition to the Bill but to welcome it very heartily in so far as it provides an increased grant of £1,000,000 for the provision of cottages. The Chief Secretary referred to the appearance of the cottages£their ugliness or their beauty as the case may be. We do not wish to increase the price of the cottages, but I believe that for the same amount of money a little more might be done for their appearance.

1177
In my part of the country the cottages which have been erected are extremely ugly. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give some consideration to that point. As he knows, there is not in Ireland the class of men that you have in England who will take a personal interest in seeing that the labourers' cottages are given some respectable appearance. Therefore, I ask him to take a fatherly interest in the matter, and to behave as if he were the landlord for the whole of Ireland, so far as taking an interest in the cottages is concerned and doing what he can to improve their appearance.
The first four Clauses of the Bill deal entirely with finance, and I do not propose to make any remarks upon them. Clause 5, which deals with the demolition of the old cottages, raises certain important points which have not yet been mentioned. A part of the Clause reads: "If they are satisfied that suitable house accommodation has been obtained or is obtainable by that labourer elsewhere." The words "obtainable elsewhere" raise a rather important point. You cannot pull down a man's cottage on the ground of being able to tell him that another cottage is obtainable elsewhere. The "elsewhere" is very important. I have been to see labourers in my own Constituency who have had certain difficulties in getting cottages erected for them. In one case a man had been more or less promised a cottage very adjacent to his present dwelling, but for some reason it was not built for him, and he was shown another cottage fully two miles away which he might have if he liked. But it so happened that the class of work in which he was engaged made it impossible for him to go that long distance. These are Committee points, but I think they ought to be mentioned. The Clause refers in some detail to the procedure under which the cottages are to be demolished. First of all, it is by the owner at his own expense. I do not know how that is to be explained. The owner is in most cases the farmer, but in some cases it may be the actual occupier. It would be very hard if the authorities came down and compelled a poor man at his own expense to demolish his old home. I hope we shall hear something further as to how the expense is to be met. If the owner fails to demolish the cottage, it is to be demolished by the council, again at the owner's expense. If the council fails to demolish the cottage, it is to be
1178
demolished by an officer of the Local Government Board at the council's expense.
I hope fair consideration will be given by the Local Government Board as to what cottages are to be pulled down. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be to the advantage of Ireland generally that many of these cottages should be demolished. But I do not think that that process should be ruthlessly entered upon; it must be proceeded with cautiously. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to these houses being in some cases used for chickens or horses, and no doubt some are quite fit to be so used, if they happen to be adjacent to the newly erected cottages. At present you frequently find poultry using a room as freely as the human occupants. You will find, as I have found, in one part of the room a newly born calf getting the full benefit of the kitchen fire, and in another part of the same room a goose sitting upon her eggs. From the point of view of sanitation, and the modern system of living, it would be better that these various birds and beasts should no longer continue to live with the human occupants. of the house, and should, where the chance arises, be housed in the old cottage instead of the old cottage being pulled down. May I say a word about a Clause which the Bill does not contain, but which I think might be added with great advantage? Those of us who are familiar with the Labourers Acts know what a long procedure has to be followed before a cottage can be built. First of all, a representation, signed by three persons with certain qualifications, has to be made to the sanitary authority. Secondly, the representation is considered by the sanitary authority, who, if satisfied, makes an improvement scheme, which has to be duly advertised in the local paper. Then the council has to present a petition to the Local Government Board for confirmation. After they have approved, the Local Government Board send down an inspector, and they may or may not confirm the scheme. The next step after that is after a certain necessary time has elapsed, for the Local Government Board to confirm, if they are going to confirm, the order of the inspector whom they have sent down. This may be, and possibly is, a necessary step, but it seems to me a very long procedure, and there is what we may call a good deal of red tape about it.

1179
I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that this means a long period of protracted anxiety for the poor man who is looking forward to getting his cottage. That brings me to what I call rather a grievance, not only under this Bill, but under previous Labourers' Acts in Ireland. What I wish to refer to is the following case. As I have said, after this very long procedure, we will say that the application is finally sanctioned for a particular cottage, the site is chosen, and the house started building. The labourer believes he is going to have this cottage. He watches it building, brick by brick, or stone by stone, and fully expects, as he has been given to understand by the rural district council, that that house is going to be for him. Then, without any adequate or good reason—I do not think anyone would call it a good reason, but it often happens—this particular cottage—for reasons which need not be followed now—is never given to the labourer, but is taken away and given to another man.
From whatever point of view it may be—it is human nature only—and human nature, and Irish human nature in particular—on any of these district councils is to be taken into consideration. It may be that the man's crime is that he has joined some Orange Lodge, or, on the other hand, that he has joined, say, the Ancient Order of Hibernians. Whatever it is I ask that some Clause should be inserted, that some steps should be taken in this Bill to make this state of things impossible. If the right hon. Gentleman would give these matters his full consideration we shall be glad and thankful, for it is one of the most important things that might be rectified under this Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman will consult with the Local Government Board in Ireland I believe the Government will support this suggestion which I have brought forward, and so mitigate the hardship arising in. many cases which ought not to arise.
Mr. MORETON FREWEN: I wish only to intervene for a very few moments. I agree with what my hon. Friend, who has just sat down, has said that we should appeal to the artistic and esthetic sense of the Chief Secretary in this particular matter. I think that the question of cottages in Ireland is of the utmost importance, but if Ireland is carved up without any relation to the aesthetic side of the matter, or of beauty, the country will lose a good deal of its charm. I have a
1180
certain amount of this cottage property myself. I speak for myself, and I believe for a very large number of Irish proprietors of these cottages, that they are the worst property possible from a commercial point of view. We shall be called upon, and we ought to be called upon, to pull many of them down; but if we are required to pull them down it would be a great thing, I think—I do not care what sacrifice we make of the site value of these cottages—when these cottages are pulled down that fresh cottages should be built on the same site; that cottages should not be dotted all over creation and so spoil the beauty of Ireland. I appeal particularly to the artistic sense of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh !"] I am certain I am saying nothing that is in the smallest degree offensive to my Irish Friends below the Gangway.
Ireland is an attractive country. So long as you have got a site to build upon, so long as you have got a cheap site in the village, build upon it. Put a pretty cottage upon it, instead of dotting cottages all over creation. The beauty of Ireland is one of her assets. It attracts an enormous amount of capital to Ireland each year. My suggestion is that it is quite possible without divesting Ireland in the smallest degree of her beauty to put these cottages where cottages have already existed. This question of housing is of the greatest importance. I find all over the world, and I am sure that hon. Gentlemen behind me will agree, that the Irish emigrant is rather inclined to say: "Well, I will not go back as often as I would like to Ireland because of the discomfort of the old house at home." Look at the position for a moment of the Italian who goes to North or South America in the spring. These Italians earn high wages, and they come back with their pockets full of wages in the autumn to vivify the life of their native villages. The Irish emigrant does not do that. If only the cottages in Ireland were better, if only the building grant was more substantial than the amount the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has suggested, I believe that there would be a great return of immigrants to Ireland each year. One of the most interesting economic factors today in the case of Italy is the enormous return of the emigrants in the autumn. The Italian emigrant knows, just as the Irish emigrant would know, if he had comfortable quarters to come back to.

1181
Considering the extraordinary severity of the winter in the United States and the cost of living which is prohibitive to the lower classes, the Italian knows that by going back to Italy he can make a better use of the money that he has acquired during the summer. The Irish work not for as low wages as the Italian, but they do work for low wages, and if it were possible to bring them back in the autumn and start them again in the spring, and money could be spent in Ireland during the winter months, it would be a good thing. [Laughter.] I am rather surprised at the laughter of Irish Members below the Gangway. It seems to be carrying party politics a little far. For I venture to think, if the Irish emigrants could do as the Italian, it would vivify the life of Ireland as it does the life of Italy. I should like to hear the views on economics of the hon. Gentlemen on the benches below at the present condition of things in Ireland. I say the Irish emigrant is a very great loss to Ireland, and I say that we should like to achieve conditions of emigration which would link-on the Irish emigrant, and nothing will so link-on the Irish emigrant as a home conditions which would induce him to come back to a comfortable cottage. For that reason I regard the housing problem in Ireland as one of great importance, and I have great pleasure therefore in supporting this Bill.
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: It was only from the concluding words of the hon. Gentleman's speech that I gathered what he intended to do and that he was speaking in favour of this Bill. He made a number of interesting observations in reference to the conditions of Italians in America and so forth, but they were absolutely all irrelevant to the Bill under consideration. The first part of his speech was occupied, as I thought, with some objection to the system of building labourers' cottages in Ireland. He seemed to think that the dotting of cottages "all over creation," as he said, was against the interests of Ireland, and it was interfering with the aesthetic beauty of Ireland which, he said, was one of our greatest assets. I respectfully give this piece of advice to the hon. Gentleman, that in any further speeches he makes upon the Irish question he ought not to arrogate to himself the right to lecture those who have laboured for thirty years in the cause of Ireland.
So far as the aesthetic view of Ireland is concerned, I know no more beautiful view to be seen in an Irish landscape to-
1182
day than that from which the old mud hovel has disappeared and its place taken by decent sanitary dwellings. The Chief Secretary spoke of some of these cottages as being ugly. There have been many thousands of them built in my own native county of Wexford, and these cottages, built by the thousand, where perhaps the design is not as beautiful as the Chief Secretary might desire, have since been covered with creeper and the porches have been lined with climbing roses, and each cottage has its garden of flowers, and order and cleanliness and evident happiness prevails, and I say where these things exist greater beauty cannot be seen in any Irish landscape. It is monstrous presumption for any hon. Gentleman who has come into Irish politics in the last, few days to come down here and lecture us because we desire to interfere, as he says, with the esthetic beauty of Ireland by studding the whole country over with these houses. I hope the country will continue to be studded by them, and I say any man who comes into this house and sneers at the creation of these labourers' cottages in Ireland is guilty of a bad act to the Irish people.
Mr. MORETON FREWEN: Who sneered?
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: That is a question of opinion. To my mind you sneered.
Mr. MORETON FREWEN: It is a question of fact. I did not sneer.
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: My opinion is that you did sneer. What did the hon. Gentleman mean by saying we were studding the whole of creation with these cottages and interfering with the æsthetic beauty of Ireland? I have really nothing more to say. I did not intend to interfere at all, but I really confess that my patience was exhausted by the speech of the hon. Gentleman.
Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
Mr. GULLAND: I beg to move, "That this House do now Adjourn."
Mr. AINSWORTH: On that Motion, I desire to ask the hon. Gentleman when the Government hope to take the House-Letting and Rating (Scotland) Bill? We are anxious that that Bill should be brought before the House, and that some

1183
progress should be made with it. It is a Bill which is demanded by the whole of the working classes of Scotland, and we should be very glad if it was proceeded with at an early date.
Mr. GULLAND: I shall report what my hon. Friend has said to the Prime Minister, and I think we may take it that the Bill will be set down for Second Reading at an early date.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Ten minutes before Ten o'clock.