Commons Sitting of 10 April 1912

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Annfield Plain and District Gas Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Dunstable Gas and Water Bill,
As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Egremont Urban District Water Bill,
Fleetwood Gas Bill,
Windermere District Gas and Water Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Leatherhead Gas Bill [Lords],
Sidmouth Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill (by Order),
Swansea Corporation Bill (by Order), Second Reading deferred till to-morrow.

PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Copy presented of Draft of Rules proposed to be made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, under the Prisons Acts, 1877 and 1898, with respect to the constitution of the Visiting Committee of Aylesbury North Prison [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (PENSIONS).
Copy presented of Return showing the names of all Constabulary Officers now in receipt of Pensions, of all Head Constables, Sergeants, and Constables, and of all Widows and Children, to whom Pensions have been granted since the Constabulary Estimate for 1911–12 was prepared, with the amount and date of Pension in each case, including also Returns (1) of all Special Pensions to Constabulary
1274
Widows, (2) of portions of Pensions chargeable on the Constabulary Vote, and (3) of all Civil Service Pensions similarly charged [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
Copy presented of Annual Report of Proceedings of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries under the Tithe, Copyhold, Inclosure, Commons, Land Drainage, and other Acts for the year 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Report of the Rural Education Conference Courses in Agricultural Colleges [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

ALIENS (NATURALISATION).
Address for Return "showing the names of all Aliens to whom certificates of naturalisation or re-admission to British nationality have been issued and whose oaths of allegiance have, during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1911, been registered at the Home Office, giving the. country and place of residence of the person naturalised or re-admitted, and including information as to any Aliens who have, during the same period, obtained Acts of Naturalisation from the Legislature (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 87, of Session 1911).—[Mr. Griffith.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY.

    MARINE INSURANCES (GOVERNMENT RISKS).
    Mr. BOOTHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many marine insurance companies are on the approved list for underwriting Government risks; what is the date of the last addition to such list; whether amount of premium, income, strength of reserves, standing, and reputation of a company in the marine market are taken into account by the Admiralty in coming to a decision; would he say if any marine insurance companies not domiciled in London are on the approved list; and whether any memorandum has ever been issued stating the requirements to be complied with in order to obtain approval?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): There are twenty-nine marine insurance companies and corporations whose policies are accepted by the Admiralty. The latest addition to the list was made in 1906. The position of a company is fully considered in coming to a decision. All the companies on the Admiralty List have offices in London. No such memorandum as that referred to in the last part of the question has been issued.

    NEW CONSTRUCTION.
    Mr. FELLasked how much would be spent in the course of the financial year on the construction of a battleship, a first-class cruiser, and a destroyer, respectively, if the order were given for their construction on the first day of May next?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: In the case of contract-built ships it is very difficult to give with precision the information required, since the earnings depend on the particular amount of progress made by the contractors responsible for the supply of the various parts. But I may give the following as the approximate estimate of amounts that could be spent during the financial year on construction if the orders were placed on the 1st May next:—

    £

    Battleship

    831,000

    First-Class Cruiser

    861,000

    Destroyer

    48,000

    If these ships were laid down in the dockyards, the approximate expenditure for the same period would be roughly the same.

    Welsh Disestablishment Bill.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he was aware that by the Statute 51 Geo. III., c. 49, the Bishop of Bangor was enabled to enclose certain common lands in the parishes of Penrhos and Abererch, in Carnarvonshire; and whether the Welsh Disestablishment Bill will provide for the restitution of public rights or for compensation for their loss in respect of these enclosures; (2) whether he was aware that the Statute 6 and 7 Vic, c. 14, gave power to the Bishop of Bangor to enclose lands in the manor of Gogarth, at Llandudno; if so. how much land was so enclosed; find how the rights over that land will be affected by the Welsh Disestablishment Bill; and (3) whether his attention had been called to the acreage of lands which have been enclosed under various Acts of
    1276
    Geo. III. and subsequent reigns on manors belonging to the Welsh sees; whether he had formed any estimate of the present value of rights thus taken away from the public by Parliament; and whether he will provide in the Welsh Disestablishment Bill that rights of public and monetary value now held by the Church shall as far as possible be restored to the nation?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): As I informed my hon. Friend last Wednesday, considerable powers of enclosure were given at this period under various Acts of Parliament to bishops, amongst others. The estates of the bishops have, however, since that date passed over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It would be impossible without prolonged inquiry to give any estimate either of the acreage or present value of the rights which accrued to Welsh sees in consequence of these enclosures, though a considerable amount of information may be gathered from the Volume of Appendices to the Report of the Royal Commission on Land in Wales and Monmouthshire (1896, Cd. 8242, pages 208 to 213). I can only repeat that it would be premature to state what the effect of the Bill will be in regard to these lands.

    Motor Drivers' Licence Badges.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the fact that licensed motor drivers, conductors, and other licensed men are obliged, when appearing in courts of justice, to wear their licence badge as if on duty; and whether he will consider the possibility of amending the regulation which compels this to be done by making it optional to wear the badge and compulsory to show it when called upon to do so?
    Mr. McKENNA: This is a statutory requirement in London, of nearly seventy years' standing. So far as I am aware, no proposal has been made in recent years for its amendment, which would of course require legislation.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider an application from the organisation representing these men to bring in a short Bill to make it optional?
    Mr. McKENNA: I will certainly consider any application of the kind, but it must not be considered that I am giving

    1277
    any pledge as to being able to legislate upon the subject in the present crowded condition of business.

    Beckwith Street School, Birkenhead.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether, on 12th December, 1911, the Board intimated to the Birkenhead local education authority that the Beckwith Street school could not be reopened without the usual three months' notice, and that it must be regarded as a new school; whether the Hoard of Education has now withdrawn from that position; and, if so, what reasons can be given for this change of attitude?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The premises of the Holy Trinity school at Birkenhead were recognised up to the 1st April, 1911, for 696 children. In December, 1911, a proposal was made to the Board to enlarge the school by the provision of additional accommodation for ninety-eight children, the extra places to be obtained by moving the infants' department into premises in Beckwith Street, referred to by the hon. Member, in which a Wesleyan school has been conducted until July, 1909. This enlargement amounted, in the opinion of the Board, to the provision of a new school, and notices were accordingly required under Section 8, Subsection (2), of the Education Act, 1902. In February of this year a revised scheme of enlargement was forwarded to the Board showing a proposal to provide fifty-eight additional places only, instead of ninety-eight, as proposed in December. The Board did not consider this enlargement to amount to the provision of a new school, and accordingly waived their requirement that notices should be issued under the Section above referred to.
    Mr. KING: Am I to assume from that reply that it is only the question of whether there were ninety-five or fifty-eight new places which makes all the difference whether it is a new school or not?
    Mr. PEASE: Yes, it is necessary for the Board of Education to accept some rule-of-thumb as to the percentage required to create a new school. We think that 10 per cent may, as a rule, reasonably be taken as an addition which does not create a new school, whereas, if an additional number of places over and above 10 per cent, are required, we may reasonably consider that that does create a new school.
    Mr. KING: Has this rule-of-thumb ever been laid down anywhere except by this question and answer?
    Mr. PEASE: No, Sir. We have to judge each case on its merits, and, roughly-speaking, 10 per cent, is generally allowed in cases of this character.

    Territorial Force (Pay of Brigade Majors.
    Major HENDERSONasked the Undersecretary of State for War what additional pay is given to officers of the Regular Army and officers of the Army Reserve, respectively, when acting as brigade majors to Territorial brigades; and whether the duties in both cases are identical?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The officers of the Regular Army appointed to be brigade majors in Territorial Force brigades receive a consolidated rate of pay of£500 a year. Retired officers receive £100 a year, and during training acting staff pay of 10s. a day, together with the usual allowances. They also retain their retired pay, if any. The duties are generally identical. The present policy is to confine the appointments to officers on the active list.

    Royal Flying Corps.
    Mr. FELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how much was to be spent this year on the construction or purchase of dirigible airships for use with the Army; how much on the training of the crews to navigate them; and if his attention was being directed to the increasing numbers of these airships constructed on the Continent and to tie use that was being made of them by the Italian army in the operations in Tripoli?
    Colonel SEELY: The airship "Delta" will be completed, and a new one will be constructed at the Royal Aircraft Factory. It is proposed to train about 120 officers and men in airship work, but the actual cost of such training cannot be definitely stated. The developments of the employment of airships for military purposes are being carefully watched.
    Mr. FELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the part of the question in reference to the amount to be spent on construction?
    Colonel SEELY: I said that we could not estimate the cost of training. I do

    1279
    not know that I could state the actual cost of the airships, because we do not know how far we can get. If the hon. Gentleman puts down a question I will ascertain the amount if it is possible.
    Mr. FELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he would state the condition of the Clément Bayard airship at Aldershot, and whether it made flights from time to time; if so, was it capable, or were any of the War Office airships capable, of making an extended flight; and, if so, why they did not prove their capabilities by visiting London or some other large city?
    Colonel SEELY: This airship has been dismantled, as it was considered wholly unserviceable. With regard to the other parts of the, question, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the replies I gave on Tuesday of last week.
    Mr. FELL: Why has the airship been dismantled at Aldershot, and why is it unserviceable under War Office control, seeing that it was navigated by Frenchmen from Paris to London and on to Aldershot?
    Colonel SEELY: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the airship is unserviceable now. The envelope leaks badly and there are other defects.

    Imperial Trade Commission.
    Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Prime Minister whether salaries were to be paid to the members of the Commission to inquire into the trade resources of the Empire; who were to be the personnel of the staff, and what salaries they were to be paid; and whether their whole time was to be given to the services of the Commission?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): No salaries will be paid to the United Kingdom Commissioners, but their travelling expenses will be paid, and they will have a subsistence allowance when absent from the United Kingdom. The secretary of the Commission will be Mr. W. A. Robinson, of the Colonial Office, who was Assistant Secretary to the Imperial Conferences of 1907 and 1911. Other arrangements are still under consideration.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: Are the Governments of the Oversea Dominions
    1280
    to contribute at all to the expenses of the Commission?
    Mr. HARCOURT: In accordance with the offer made by the representatives of the Dominions at the Conference, they will pay the whole of the expenses of their own Commissioners, and contribute a proportion of the expenses of the Secretariat.
    Sir GILBERT PARKERasked whether Lord Inchcape, a member of the Imperial Trade Commission, would retain his position as a Suez Canal director while serving on the Commission?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Lord Inchcape holds his appointment as a director of the Suez Canal from the company. I am unable to say whether his colleagues on the board will give him the leave of absence required to enable him to carry out the public duty which he has undertaken, but I understand it is customary in such circumstances to grant the necessary leave.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: Has the Government satisfied itself as to the members of the Commission representing the greatest experience and impartiality—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.
    Mr. FELL: Will the members give their whole time to the Commission?
    Mr. SPEAKER: This question relates to only one member.
    Mr. FELL: Will he have to give his whole time?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That has been answered.
    Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Prime Minister if he could state what the terms of reference to the Imperial Trade Commission would be; when the Commission was to start; and at what point in the Empire they would begin their inquiries?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The terms of reference proposed, with which all the Governments concerned have concurred, are as follows:—
    "To inquire into and report upon the natural resources of the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, and the Colony of Newfoundland; and, further, to report upon the development of such resources,

    1281
    whether attained or attainable; upon the facilities which exist or may be created for the production, manufacture, and distribution of all articles of commerce in those parts of the Empire; upon the requirements of each such part and of the United Kingdom in the matter of food and raw materials, and the available sources of such; upon the trade of each such part of the Empire with the other parts, with the United Kingdom, and with the rest of the world; upon the extent, if any, to which the mutual trade of the several parts of the Empire has been or is being affected beneficially or otherwise by the laws now in force, other than fiscal laws, and, generally, to suggest any methods, consistent always with the existing fiscal policy of each part of the Empire, by which the trade of each part with the others and with the United Kingdom might be improved and extended."
    The Commission will commence its labours as soon as the preliminary arrangements can be completed, and with no avoidable delay. It will itself decide the third point raised in the question.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Are fiscal laws to be excluded so far as the Mother-country is concerned?
    Mr. HARCOURT: That was the decision of the Imperial Conference.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: Considering the careful selection of the Members of the Commission by the overseas Dominions, does the right hon. Gentleman think that those members chosen by this Government are the best suited by impartiality and experience to inquire into the subjects included in the terms of reference?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I certainly think that the members selected to serve for the United Kingdom are the best fitted by impartiality and experience that could possibly have been obtained.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: I beg to give notice that at the earliest opportunity I shall call attention to the composition of the Commission.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why India was omitted from the terms of reference?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Because the Commission was constituted by the Imperial
    1282
    Conference to inquire only into the resources of the Dominions represented at that Conference.
    Mr. HEWINS: Does the decision of the Imperial Conference authorise an alteration of existing fiscal legislation?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The intention of the Conference was well known to the Prime Minister and myself, who were members of the Conference, and we have drafted, in consultation and concurrence with the Dominions, the reference, which follows as closely as possible the terms of the Resolution of the Imperial Conference.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: Are we to understand that inquiry may be made into the fiscal relations between separate parts of the overseas Dominions, though not between the overseas Dominions and this country, in relation to the development of the resources of the Empire?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I think I cannot—certainly without notice—go beyond the terms of reference.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: It is a question of interpretation.
    Mr. HEWINS: Arising out of that—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We have already had six or seven supplementary questions; any others should be put down.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    NURSING ASSOCIATIONS.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the work of county nursing associations and other organisations providing out of voluntary resources district and village nurses and midwives, and of the fact that these were largely maintained by workmen's contributions which were likely to be partially or wholly withdrawn in the future, the Health Insurance Commissioners would instruct their lecturers to point out to the executive committees of approved societies the fairness and desirability of making contributions out of their funds to such organisations under Section 21 of the National Insurance Act?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): It is the duty of the official lecturers to explain Section 21 with the other provisions of Part I. of the Act, but it would not be desirable that they should give such advice as the hon. Member suggests on a matter which

    1283
    is left by the Act to the discretion of societies and insurance committees themselves.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: How will the societies concerned have knowledge of the provisions of the Act relating to nursing associations unless their attention is called to them by the lecturers?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will consider whether any steps should be taken, but I do not think it is part of the official lecturers' duty to do it.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Have any steps at all yet been taken by the Commissioners to prevent these voluntary nursing associations from being dissolved?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have already stated that I had no knowledge that any such steps for dissolution were being taken, and I asked the hon. Member, if he had any such knowledge, to bring the facts before me.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: But have any steps been taken?

  NOTICES OF MOTION.
    INDUSTRIAL UNREST.
    Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS: I beg to give notice that on this day four weeks I will call attention to the present industrial unrest, and move a Resolution.
    FAIR-WAGES RESOLUTION.
    Mr. HODGE: I beg to give notice that this day month I will call attention to the Fair-Wages Resolution, and move a Resolution.

    GENERAL ELECTION (POLLING).
    Mr. KING: I beg to give notice, that on this day four weeks I will call attention to the desirability of having all the polls at a General Election on one day, and move a Resolution.
    Mr. CROFT: May I ask, Sir, why the box for the ballot was moved from the Lobby some ten minutes or a quarter of an hour ago; the consequence being that some Members could not get their names in?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The box was taken away in order that the ballot might be taken.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Is there any particular time at which the box has to be removed?
    1284
    Several times before this we have found that it has been removed before 3.30.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It all depends on the number of Questions on the Order Paper. The hon. Member will see that there are very few to-day, and a good deal of work to be done. The preparation of the names and numbers requires some little time, and it is necessary to take the box away in good time, so that the House shall not be kept waiting. The best way is for hon. Members to see that they get their names in before three o'clock.

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 5—(Amendment of Section 145 of Army Act).
The amount which may be deducted from the pay of a soldier in respect of a bastard child under Sub-section (2) of Section one hundred and forty-five of the Army Act shall be increased, in the case of a non-commissioned officer who is not below the rank of sergeant, to sevenpence, and in the case of any other soldier to fourpence, and accordingly the words "in respect of a bastard child sevenpence" and "in respect of a bastard child four-pence" shall be substituted in that Subsection for the words "in respect of a bastard child sixpence" and "in respect of a bastard child threepence" respectively.
Mr. KING: I beg to move to add to the Clause the words, "This Section shall apply to orders made before as well as-after the passing of this Act."
In order to make the meaning of this Clause quite clear I desire to move my Amendment—if it is necessary. If a member of His Majesty's Forces is the father of an illegitimate child his money can be stopped, and the rate is now being increased from 6d. and 3d. a day to 7d. and 4d. for non-commissioned officers of the rank of sergeant and above, and below that rank respectively. We desire to make it clear that this change is retrospective as well as prospective.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): My hon. Friend was good enough to send me notice of his Amendment, but I got it only this morning. I have made inquiry of our legal advisers

1285
as to whether this Clause will be what my hon. Friend calls "retrospective" as well as "prospective"—meaning, I assume, not that arrears should be made up on the new scale, but that from the passing of the Act the amounts of present orders should be increased. Our legal advisers are not quite clear—though I should have thought it was clear—that the Clause will be retrospective in its character. There remains the further question as to whether it can legally be made retrospective, as we intended. I should explain at once that the War Office and the hon. Member are entirely at one in this matter. If it is legal, and if there is any doubt as to the meaning of the Clause, I will undertake that an Amendment shall be put forward. I could not accept the precise form of words that the hon. Member suggests, but I can assure him that it is our intention that in future, not only to children born after the passing of the Act, but to children now being provided for, that this additional penny should be paid.
Mr. KING: In view of that satisfactory reply, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. KING: I beg to move, that the following new Clause be read a second time:—
(Amendment of 44 and 45 Vic, c. 58, s. 4).
"In Section four of the Army Act 1881, for the words 'shall on conviction by court-martial be liable to suffer death or such less punishment as in this Act mentioned ' there shall be substituted the words 'shall on conviction by court-martial be liable to be kept in penal servitude for life or any shorter period (not less than three years), or to such less punishment as in this Act mentioned.'"
I have a large number of Amendments on the Paper, and the speech I intend to make in support of them will not take up nearly so long as the reading of the Amendments themselves. The Amendments are in the form of new Clauses which would amend the Army Act in respect of the very severe punishments which are now set for offences in nearly all cases under the Act. Offences chargeable under the Act by courts-martial or otherwise are now punishable by such very severe penalties that they are quite out of touch with what I may call the better spirit of the age. They are a relic
1286
of the past, and one that it is time we dropped. There is no necessity to-day to have these really terribly severe penalties in any form on the Statute Book. The discipline of the Army is steadily increasing, and the loyalty of the troops was never higher. Moreover, we practically alone among the nations of the world have volunteer forces, and by that means are guarded against possible dangerous offences which may be even common in other armies. In view of the state, not only of public opinion, but of our Army in particular, I venture to say that offences under the Army Act might well be met by lighter penalties than at present. I do not intend to press this matter to a Division, but I seriously and earnestly suggest to the Under-Secretary for War that the time has arrived when for these various offences the penalties might be reduced. If the right hon. Gentleman will give me as sympathetic an answer as he gave me a few minutes ago I shall only be too ready to withdraw my Amendments.
Colonel SEELY: Perhaps I had better deal with all the Amendments of my hon. Friend at the same time, as he has done in his opening speech, in so far as I am in order in doing so. What my hon. Friend desires to do in this series of Amendments is to reduce the penalties for various offences by one degree in each case—to reduce penal servitude to imprisonment, and to reduce imprisonment from long to short periods. In so far as my hon. Friend desires to see that the Army is ruled not by severe penalties but by better methods, I am entirely at one with him, and so is every Member of the House upon both sides. The answer I have to give is this: It is quite true that many of these penalties appear to be extraordinary severe, but, in point of fact, the penalties imposed are never anything like so severe as those mentioned, nor have they been in the past, nor will they be in the future. Let me take one technical point which my hon. Friend Has overlooked. If he will look at the King's Regulations, paragraph 583, he will see there that instructions are given to courts-martial to deal with these various offences, and that whereas the sentence which might be imposed for such and such an offence is penal servitude for a long term of years he will find in this section of the King's Regulations the actual punishment recommended to be administered is reduced to so many days' detention. I
do not propose to deal now with the specific points

1287
raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Keir Hardie) in his Amendment, nor those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). I think we had better now confine ourselves to the questions of the scale of punishments, and whether they should be slightly reduced or not. I do not think I can give the same kind of answer to my hon. Friend now that I did on the last Amendment. Then I met him completely; I cannot now meet his demand completely because, although no one in any part of the House wishes to see the Army governed by brutal penalties or to go back to the bad old days of the last century, when flogging and brutal penalties were the rule rather than the exception, at the same time I think the soldier is amply safeguarded now against such penalties by the practice that prevails. Not only is there this section of the King's Regulations, but there are in addition two further safeguards.
Supposing the court-martial does impose a very severe penalty which my hon. Friend would question, and which probably most Members of this House would think to be too severe, the sentence of the court-martial goes up to the Judge Advocate-General himself, a lawyer and not a soldier, and the Judge Advocate-General has power to reduce the sentence and even to advise the Secretary of State for War to remit the sentence altogether. There is this further safeguard, that in all cases where serious penalties are imposed the Judge Advocate-General sends all the papers to the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State, or as in my case, the Under-Secretary of State, who is responsible to this House, has to study these papers and the whole of the circumstances of the case and to decided upon them. In point of fact, during the past few years the number of serious penalties imposed have been very few. I said on the introduction of the Army Estimates, that there was a very satisfactory reduction in the number of crimes in the Army as shown by the figures, and nobody is more glad to see that than those who, like myself, have learned to admire and to love the soldier. In cases of what are called serious offences during the past few years, there have been hardly any at all. Cases of mutiny in the past few years there have been none at all, and therefore, one fact upon which the hon. Member lays great stress, namely, the death penalty in cases of mutiny, does not arise, because no such
1288
cases have occurred recently or are likely to occur.
Mr. KING: Then why not drop the penalty?
Colonel SEELY: I thought my hon. Friend would say that. I do not agree that we should drop all these penalties. It is true that the British Army is not always on active service, but nevertheless the British Army is dispersed throughout the Globe, and although not technically on active service, yet in many parts of the world it is practically on active service all the time, and the danger to the whole community in cases of insubordination on the part of anybody in the Army is so great that it is necessary to have a code of laws to deal with it. I am not referring now to offences that may be dealt with by the ordinary law and are dealt with by the ordinary law. I am dealing with purely military offences.
Sir W. BYLES: Does my right hon. Friend say that all the judgments of courts-martial are reviewed by the Judge Advocate-General?
Colonel SEELY: Yes, and in many serious cases they come forward to the Secretary of State, and I do think that is a real safeguard. In view of all the considerations advanced I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment. I can promise that so long as I have the honour of holding my present position every care will be exercised to see that no hardship is done, but I do not think the time has come in this country, nor in any country in the whole world, to abolish or reduce those penalties, which might be necessary in times of great trouble, although in reality these are not applicable to the Army at the present time.
Mr. J. WARD: I agree with a great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I would like my hon. Friends to understand that we are now discussing and have a real opportunity of raising the whole of the questions that have been raised in this House with reference to the employment of the military in case of civil disturbances. We are now discussing the question of punishments to be inflicted upon the soldier for mutiny, and that being the case the whole question of the recent agitation and opposition to soldiers being used for the purpose of suppressing civil disorders can be discussed at the present moment. I thought probably the right hon. Gentleman would at

1289
least have held out some hope that whilst the death penalty is possibly the natural result of open mutiny on active service, and I cannot see for the life of me what other penalty you could impose upon a man who by wilful act or by insubordination not only risked his own life, but that of the whole of the people for whose service he was supposed to be employed. I do not complain of the severity of that punishment in the least degree, but I think the Solicitor-General will support me when I state that the Clause we are now discussing does not merely deal with mutiny on active service, but also with open mutiny in case a soldier refuses to fire upon the civil population. I believe it would, as a matter of fact, apply to mutiny of every possible description. I hope my hon. Friend will not be allowed to withdraw his Amendment until there has been an adequate discussion upon this subject. We are really discussing the whole question of what is the responsibility of the soldier not merely on active service against the enemies of the King outside the King's territories, but also the alleged enemies of the State within the territories of the King. While these severe penalties may be justifiable when a soldier is upon active service during war, there should be some indication that when soldiers are ordered to fire upon their own kith and kin within their own territory a breach of discipline of this description should not be visited with the death penalty as is the law at present. Those who advise soldiers to mutiny should understand what a terrible responsibility they are undertaking in advising a man to commit an offence for which he may lose his life.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is really going too far. The question before the Committee is an Amendment to Section 4 of the Army Act, 1881, which deals with the offence of soldiers on active service. It begins:—
"(1) On and after the commencement of this Act, where a soldier on active service is guilty of an aggravated offence," and so on.
Mr. JOHN WARD: May I draw your attention, Mr. Whitley, to the statement of the Under-Secretary for War and the Mover of this Amendment on this point? The Mover said he would withdraw the whole of his Amendments if he received a satisfactory answer, and the right hon.
1290
Gentleman, in his reply, said he would give a general answer. That being so, I understood the whole matter was under discussion.
The CHAIRMAN: It will not be convenient to discuss the whole question on one Amendment. It is true that the Mover of this Amendment took his first proposal as typical of the whole of them, and to that extent the discussion is permissible. The hon. Member was going into detail upon another question which really comes up on a subsequent Motion by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil.
Mr. JOHN WARD: So long as we are not losing a most important opportunity I do not wish to carry this discussion any further. I. think the right hon. Gentleman might have given us some indication that while this Code should be applied to ordinary offences on active service there should at least be some mitigation in the case of soldiers breaking the rules of discipline during civil disturbances.
Mr. RAWLINSON: Does the word "enemy" apply to civil disturbances?
Colonel SEELY: We can discuss the points which have been raised much more conveniently on more than one of the Amendments standing in the names of hon. Members below the Gangway. On the general question of reduction I hive already replied.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I quite agree, out does Section 4 apply to cases where the military are called out in civil disturbances?
Mr. KING: I think the Under-Secretary might give some indication that he is willing to consider the whole subject, and that is what I pressed him to do. To urge as he has done, that the operation of courts-martial and the action of the Advocate-General mitigate these harsh penalties is not sufficient, and I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to give some undertaking that before next year he will consider this matter sympathetically.
Question put, and negatived.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to move that the following new Clause be read a second time:—
(Amendment of 44 and 45 Vic, c. 58, s. 6.)
In Section six of the Army Act, 1881, for the words "shall, on conviction by court-martial, be liable, if an officer, to be

1291
cashiered or to suffer such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned, and if a soldier, to suffer imprisonment or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned" there shall be substituted the words" shall, on conviction by court-martial, be liable to suffer imprisonment or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned."
For certain offences the punishment is applicable equally to officers and men, but there are some offences set forth in the Act in regard to which there is a distinction drawn between the officers and the men. This question has often been raised in this House in former years, but I have never yet heard any satisfactory explanation as to why there should be this distinction between the officer and the common soldier. When I raised this question on the Motion for the Adjournment a short time ago, an hon. Member opposite denied my statement that there is a distinction drawn between the private soldier and the officer in regard to these punishments, and I understood at the time that the Under-Secretary for War agreed with the hon. Member who made that assertion. If that be the case, why this distinction between the two? I move this Amendment, first, in the hope of hearing an explanation why the wording is as it is; and, secondly, in the hope that between now and the appearance of this Bill next year the Clauses of which I am complaining will be amended, so that the officer and the soldier will stand on perfect equality in the eye of the law, both for punishment and for the method of carrying the punishment out.
Colonel SEELY: When I spoke the other night I was referring to another point, and not to this. I did not say there is no distinction between the officer and the soldier. Of course, there is, I fully admit, a difference, as I shall presently show. My hon. Friend proposes that the officer and soldier shall, in respect of certain offences, be exactly on the same footing, and I understand his view is that the officer at present is having the best time of the two. That, I presume, is his case: that the penalty in the case of the officer is less—
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: No; I did not say that.
Colonel SEELY: That makes it very difficult to deal with the Amendment,
1292
because I had assumed my hon. Friend supposes that the officer was not suffering so great a penalty as the soldier. In any case, what my hon. Friend wishes to do is to put them on an absolute equality. Let us take one offence, and suppose anyone strikes a soldier when he is acting as sentry. That is one of the few cases under Section 6 referred to in this Amendment, which may arise equally well in times of peace. He proposes that the officer and soldier should both be liable to imprisonment, and he thinks that would put them on the same level. It would not do so at all. If he will turn to page 32 of the Act, he will see that an officer is cashiered when he is sentenced to penal servitude or imprisonment. If the Amendment were accepted, the officer, therefore, would be punished twice over; and, what is more, his consequential punishment, the cashiering, would be infinitely more terrible than the imprisonment itself. If a soldier strikes a sentry he is liable to various penalties; but, on referring to the King's Regulations, it will be seen that he will in fact get twenty-eight days' detention.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: A soldier when sentenced to penal servitude or imprisonment may, in addition, be discharged with ignominy. Why is ignominy to attach to the soldier?
Colonel SEELY: That point arises under another Amendment. The officer must be cashiered, if he has been imprisoned, whereas the soldier may not, often is not, and would not in the case with which I am dealing be dismissed the Service. If he struck the sentry he would, of course, be sentenced to twenty-eight days, but he would then continue in the Service; but, supposing I accepted the Amendment, if "Captain Jones" struck the sentry he would not only be imprisoned, but he would be cashiered. What does cashiering mean to the officer? We must take the world as we find it. It may be there ought to be no distinctions, but there are as regards the consequences of their acts. The cashiering of an officer is a penalty so terrible that, were you to ask a thousand officers which they would prefer, to be imprisoned or to be cashiered, I know quite certainly the whole thousand would say, "Give me the imprisonment." There can be no doubt whatever of that. If the hon. Member doubts it, let him ask any officer he pleases whether cashiering is not the

1293
more severe penalty of the two. It involves, as the hon. Gentleman no doubt knows, dismissal from His Majesty's Army, losing all material right, such as pension and wearing of uniform, expulsion from every club and from the society of every decent man. He is a social outcast, and the only thing the poor man can do is to leave the country or, possibly, the world; and that is what does happen. If the hon. Member thinks cashiering is not so bad as imprisonment, he is quite in error. Every officer who saw this before him would jump at the opportunity of having imprisonment without cashiering instead of cashiering. If the hon. Member wishes to leave the Act as it is and make the officer liable to imprisonment, the answer is that would subject him in addition to be cashiered, and he would be punished twice over; and, if on the other hand, he says, "Oh, amend the Act and let him be imprisoned, but not cashiered, then I say that would be unwise, because the deterrent imposed upon officers in the Army would be so greatly reduced. I have every desire to see fair play between officers and men, and indeed it is most desirable, on active service; but the Amendment would not achieve the hon. Member's desire, and I do not think we can, therefore, accept it.
Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member is so obsessed with the idea that everybody must be on exactly the same footing that he has brought down an Amendment which is perfectly absurd and ludicrous. It will not carry out what he desires. Under the Act as it stands, an officer is dealt with much more severely than the private, because, although it is not a pleasant thing for the private to be dismissed the Service, yet he gets work, and probably in a few years it is forgotten he was ever in the Army, or at any rate the reason he left is forgotten. It is entirely different with the officer. To be cashiered means disgrace and ruin for life for him.
The hon. Gentleman is under the impression apparently that the officer is being better treated, and he comes down and moves an Amendment which would give to the officer what would be far and away preferential treatment. That is, as I understand it, exactly what the hon. Member does not want to do. Really, he must see that there is a difference between the officer and the private soldier in this matter. He thinks they are exactly the same in every way, but there
1294
is a great difference. The private soldier is a very deserving man who has done great service to the country; no one has greater respect or admiration for the private soldier than I have, but it is not the same thing for him to be dismissed the Service as it is for an officer to be dismissed the Service. In the case of the officer, his whole career is blighted. He has gone into the Army in order to make a career, whereas the private soldier goes into the Army to learn habits of discipline, which in my opinion are very good for him, and then he drifts away, but the officer does not drift away. The hon. Member suggests that in the case of breach of discipline the officer is to be relieved of the punishment of dismissal, and I can only conclude that he does not really understand the Army or the Army (Annual) Act. He has carried his love for equality so far that in this case it has led him astray, because if the Amendment were carried what would really happen would be that the officer would be put into a preferential position as compared with the private soldier. I have not had the good fortune to have served in His Majesty's Army, but I have a good many friends and relatives who have served in it, and there are many of my Friends around me who have also served in it, and I venture to say that not a single one of them would agree that this Clause ought to be altered. As it is, it is a good Clause, as good as can possibly be conceived for the object for which it was put into the Act, both for officers and men, and I am glad the right hon. Gentleman the Undersecretary for War has taken up the position which he stated in his speech. If the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil would accept my advice—I am afraid he will not, but it is given in a kindly and friendly spirit—he would avoid interfering with the Army, of which he knows nothing and understands nothing.
Mr. J. WARD: There was one reference made by the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for War, and also by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Frederick Ban-bury). I think both of them made too much of the position of the officer who was cashiered as compared with the position of the man who was dismissed. I quite agree that for the officer it means social ostracism, which the officer thinks is of great importance and naturally so, but both the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that there was no ostracism attached to the

1295
private soldier when he was dismissed in disgrace. That is a most absurd and unheard-of suggestion. Everyone knows that, as a matter of fact, it is a most difficult position for the private soldier.
Colonel SEELY: I would not like the hon. Member or the Committee to think that I made any such suggestion as that there was no disgrace attaching to the private soldier in this matter of dismissal. But that is not the point we are dealing with. What we are comparing is the cashiering of the officer and the imprisonment of the man and not the dismissal of the man, which will come up on another Amendment. We are not discussing the dismissal of the man on this Amendment; we are comparing the cashiering of the officer and the imprisonment of the man.
Mr. J. WARD: I would venture to suggest that the two things are upon a par, the question of dismissal, which is practically cashiering, in the case of the man, and the cashiering in the case of the officer. What I rose to point out was that there was a great deal of odium attached to both punishments, and that in the case of the man it is real punishment; it is not as has been suggested, merely like the passing of a resolution in the case of the man and something terrible in the case of the officer. It is a thing which follows a man for the rest of his life, or, at any rate, for so long as he remains in this country.
Mr. LANSBURY: I did not quite understand the right hon. Baronet's statement, but I may tell him that I have known of a gentleman who had been a British officer and had been cashiered having a good time in the Colonies with money which his outraged friends had provided him with in order to make a new start, but the private soldier never gets any such chance. I am going to vote for this Amendment because I want the officer and the private soldier to be treated precisely the same for the same offence. Whether it is to the advantage of the present officers or not does not concern me. I want to give every man who commits an offence in the British Army, whether he is general or private, exactly the same discipline and the same punishment. It does not affect me in the least that the officer would rather have imprisonment than be cashiered. I should be very sorry to give him the chance. Those who commit this kind of thing—we all know the kind of people they are—do not bother
1296
very much about those social distinctions, but they would bother about a couple of years' penal servitude; they certainly would not like it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may not agree with me, but this is a matter of opinion, and that is my opinion, and no hon. Gentleman on that side can say with certainty any more than I can what such men would like. I hold to my opinion, and what we stand for is absolute equality of treatment. Another thing I would like to see in connection with this is the taking away of the mere cashiering of an officer and giving him some real punishment. Despite what the Under-Secretary for War says, I do not consider it is a real punishment, because it means letting his friends provide for him in another and perhaps easier way. I would prefer if you give imprisonment to the private soldier you should give it also to the officer, and I repeat that it is not a question of wanting to do what the officer wants or does not want; it is simply a question of having the same discipline for the officer and for the private soldier throughout the Army.
Major STANLEY: The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) has told us that he wants the same discipline for officers and men throughout the Army, and that the officer ought to have imprisonment when the man got it.
Mr. LANSBURY: No, I did not say anything of the sort. What I said was that whatever punishment was meted out to one for a particular offence should be meted out to the other. If I had my own way I should wipe all those things out.
Major STANLEY: I apologise to the hon. Member, and I quite understand now that what he means is that if a private soldier is to be imprisoned for any offence the officer should be imprisoned also. I think he missed a very important point in that particular matter. Supposing an officer got six months' imprisonment and was not cashiered, he would come back having served a term of imprisonment and would still be an officer in His Majesty's Army. I think that would be intolerable, and I do not think that the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley would desire to see that take place. Then, take it this way: If an officer is convicted by the civil power and suffers imprisonment, he is ipso facto cashiered, and, if the hon. Member had his way, the officer would be punished twice and far more severely than the private soldier.
4.0 P.M.
Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil insists upon equality and thinks everything would be right if he had it; but let me point out what would happen. Suppose the Amendment were carried, and an officer had done something under the Act and a private soldier had also done the same thing, the private soldier would get three months' imprisonment, and, according to the hon. Member, the officer should be given the same penalty, instead of which he is cashiered, but the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley says, "Oh, that is not a serious penalty," because he saw a man in the Colonies who had been cashiered, and who was much better off he thinks than he would be if he had remained in the Army, and was having a pleasant life with money provided for him by friends in England. I do not doubt the hon. Member's accuracy, but I suggest that that was probably an exceptional case, and I think if the hon. Member could have seen inside that man's heart he would have found that he would much rather have remained in the Army than be ostracised and have to go abroad, even if he did receive certain pecuniary assistance in the Colonies from his friends in England. Supposing the Amendment were carried, and the illustration I have given were to take place, what would happen to the soldier at the end of three months' imprisonment? He would go back to his regiment. He would not, perhaps, be so well received by his companions, but, after a certain time of good conduct, would be forgiven. How would an officer be treated after having had three months' imprisonment? He would not be received by his fellow officers, or by his equals in life. He could not remain in the Army after having done three months' imprisonment; he would be obliged to retire. Therefore, leaving out of account the Regulation which my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Stanley) has read, which provides that an officer cannot be imprisoned if he has once been cashiered, the effect of this Clause would be that he would be imprisoned, and would by necessity have to leave the Army afterwards. I think the hon. Member (Mr. Lansbury), after a little more consideration, will see that perhaps for the first time in his life he has made a mistake, and he had better not vote for the Clause—not that I believe for one moment that the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Keir Hardie) will go to a Division.
Mr. O'GRADY: I think we are arguing this case from two standpoints, and therefore we shall never see eye-to-eye upon it. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F Ban-bury) argues from the point of view of the men who take up the Army as a profession, but who are well enough off so far as the affairs of this life are concerned. He thinks little or nothing of the young soldier who has suffered imprisonment. That man cannot get out of the Army unless he commits some other offence, and for the rest of his period of service his life is a veritable purgatory. Anybody who knows anything about these matters knows that when a man is dismissed with ignominy it is almost impossible for that man to get employment from employers.
The CHAIRMAN: The question of discharge with ignominy comes on with the very next Amendment, and I think it had better not be raised upon this Amendment—any way, on the point as to an officer not being cashiered, but being imprisoned instead.
Mr. O'GRADY: I quite agree that to cashier an officer is a very strong punishment, but it is not quite the class of punishment as is made out by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury). Everyone knows that, although it moans ostracism from public life in England, in the Colonies that kind of treatment does not count for much. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] After all, brains count there—and must do. There are many stories of young officers who have been subjected to that kind of treatment, and who have gone to the Colonies and made names or made positions for themselves there. I agree with the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) that there ought to be equality in this treatment. I do not think there is equality. Let the result be what it may to the private or to the officer, there should be equality before the law in this matter.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I do not profess to speak as an expert on this question. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury) is very severe upon those who are not experts, and who have not the same full knowledge of military questions as he has himself. I presume he speaks as an expert, because he has told us so.
Sir F. BANBURY: On the contrary, I was careful to say that I never had the honour of holding His Majesty's commission.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: But the hon. Baronet told us what were his qualifications. He said he was entitled to speak as an expert, because he had relatives in the Army. When he puts forward that qualification to speak upon the subject, he ought to go a little more into detail; he ought to tell us exactly what position these relatives occupy, because it is manifest that if they are subalterns, or majors, or generals, their qualifications will differ, and the expert knowledge of the hon. Baronet will differ in degree with the positions held by his relatives in the Army. He made another omission. He did not tell us whether they were privates or whether they held commissions. If they are privates, of course he is entitled to speak with expert knowledge about the position of a private; but if they hold commissions, then he is entitled to speak only with regard to laws as they affect officers. Therefore I have failed to get any instruction from the hon. Baronet's remarks. I feel that, so far as he indulged in comparisons, he was only entitled to take his stand upon the position of the officers or of the privates, according to whichever position his relatives hold.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I shall ask leave to withdraw the proposed Clause.
Before doing so, may I say that I leave the Under-Secretary and the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury) to compose their differences in regard to the feeling of officers about this Amendment. The Under-Secretary assured us that 999 out of every 1,000 officers would vote for this Amendment, but the hon. Baronet said the direct opposite. The short discussion we have had justifies the bringing forward of the Amendment. It has revealed an amount of class feeling; it has given us an insight into the kind of social boycott that obtains in what is called society, which when preached by the working classes become dangerously akin to sedition. I maintain that the common soldier has as high a code of honour as any officer in the Army, and that being dismissed is as much a social disgrace to him as it is to the officer.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. W. THORNE: I beg to move that the following new Clause be read a second time:—
(Amendment of 44 and 40 Vie., c. 58, s. 44.)
The words "Discharge with ignominy from His Majesty's Service," in Section
1300
forty-four of the Army Act, 1881, shall be left out, and the words "Dismissal from His Majesty's Service" shall be substituted.
In moving this new Clause, I should like to draw attention to the Army Act, 1881. I should say without hesitation that if all the recruits about to enlist read the Regulations, it is a serious question whether you would have many recruits join at all. I desire to draw attention to Section 44 under the heading "Punishments," Paragraph (E). It says in conection with officers, "Dismissal from His Majesty's Service." Paragraph (L) in connection with the private soldier, says: "Discharge with ignominy from His Majesty's Service." I understand from what has already been stated by the Under-Secretary that he is almost inclined to accept this Amendment, in order to place the officer and the soldier upon the same footing. If that is so there is nothing more to be said on the matter. I think it is generally understood that the soldier has many more causes to break the Regulations than the officer. I have heard in conversations with the soldiers that some of the officers are most tyrannical, and punish for the least offence, such as looking to the back or front, or to the right or left. It would only be fair to put the soldier on the same footing as his officer.
Colonel SEELY: The Amendment of my hon. Friend is in the same words as that of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Jowett). They both aim at eliminating the words "Discharged with ignominy," from Section 44 of the Army Act. I am not quite clear whether they wish to eliminate these words because they think there is a difference here, as in the previous Amendment, between the officer and the soldier, as the last words of my hon. Friend seem to imply. If he thinks there is a difference between the officer and soldier because the fifth penalty in the case of an officer is dismissal from the Service, whereas the fifth penalty in the case of a soldier is discharge with ignominy from His Majesty's Service, I say at once that if that were the case I would, of course, with the full approval of the Army Council, and of everyone in this Committee, take steps to remedy what would be an obvious injustice. But I can assure my hon. Friend that is not in the least the case. The lists given in the Act are not corresponding lists. It is not the case, for instance, supposing an officer commits

1301
a crime, such as crime (A), and is dismissed, that the soldier committing crime (A) is discharged with ignominy. This is a list of the things which may be done to an officer and the things which may be There is no relation them in the way in I am glad to make because I remember, when I read this same Army Act when I first became a Member of the House, I took the same point that my hon. Friend now takes, and thought it a great injustice. But it is not so. There is no difference between the officer and the soldier in the matter, because the officer can be dismissed with ignominy just as much as if the phrase is "cashiered," or "dismissed, His Majesty having no further requirement for his services," or "dismissal by court-martial" All three amount to dismissal with ignominy. He can be dismissed more easily than the man with ignominy, and we can undoubtedly say that the officer stands in greater peril than the man does. The soldier can frequently get off with a small imprisonment where the officer is dismissed.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Why is there different language?
Colonel SEELY: If the point is not that the officer gets off lighter than the man, then comes the question whether the soldier ought to be subject to be "discharged with ignominy "while the officer is only to be "dismissed from His Majesty's Service." The answer is again what I have been trying to explain. "Discharged with ignominy" corresponds with cashiering.
Mr. W. THORNE: That is for a graver offence.
Colonel SEELY: No. I see my hon. Friend has fallen into the trap which I fell into eight years ago. He thinks it is for the same offence for which an officer is dismissed from His Majesty's Service that a man is discharged with ignominy. It is not so.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Why does not the Act say so?
Colonel SEELY: It does say so. If you assume that A refers to one set of crimes and H to another, and "B, penal servitude," refers to one set of crimes and "J, penal servitude," to another, it would be so; but a cursory glance at the
1302
Act shows that it is not so. You can very easily see that by beginning at the other end—"G, reprimand or severe reprimand" for an officer, and "forfeiture, fines, and stoppages" for the soldier. They are quite different offences, as must be apparent.
Mr. W. THORNE: Which is the severest word, "reprimand or "forfeiture"?
Colonel SEELY: Of course, reprimand" or "severe reprimand" is much more severe than "forfeiture" or "fine." Obviously one will carry future consequences of a severe nature and the other not. But if we are to consider, as we must, only whether there should be retained this phrase, "with ignominy," I say, in the interests of the soldier, it is very desirable that some such phrase should be retained. Soldiers can be discharged for a great many causes. If you do not retain some phrase like this for these very rare cases—there have only been single figures in the last few months —there is a very real risk, and all those whom I have consulted and who know the soldier best, agree on this point that all men who are discharged for any fault, however trifling, may be tarred with the brush of the "discharged with ignominy" Clause. Again, I ask my hon. Friend to look at the Regulations, paragraph 390, which contains a long list of circumstances under which soldiers can be discharged. There are only a few very grave cases where this penalty of discharged with ignominy applies. If you strike it out, as is proposed by the Amendment, I believe the soldiers will not thank you. Of course, a soldier who is about to be discharged with ignominy will be very much obliged, but how many are there? Probably one or two. But how many are going to be discharged from other causes? Hundreds. Therefore, in the interest of the soldier, I cannot accept the Amendment, though I honestly believe it would have exactly the opposite effect to that suggested by the Mover. If he says the soldier ought never to be discharged with ignominy, we are at issue. Even as the officer ought to be cashiered for real crimes, so ought the soldier to be discharged with ignominy if he commits a grave offence of the nature described in the Act. But, fortunately, we are discussing things of little practical interest. The number of officers cashiered, and still more the number of men discharged with ignominy, is so small that it does no

1303
seriously merit the attention of the Committee except as a technical point. Therefore I beg my hon. Friend not to press the Amendment, for it is one we could not possibly accept.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The right hon. Gentleman has made his reply rather in the spirit of the pettifogging lawyer than of the straightforward soldier. We are not arguing as to whether the officer or the private should receive the greater punishment.
Colonel SEELY: The Mover said so.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: We are told that cashiering is in some cases equivalent to discharge with ignominy. Why, if that is so, do not the words "with ignominy" follow "cashiering" in Paragraph (B) of the first part of the Clause?
Colonel SEELY: There is no reason why they should.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: That is our contention. We want it made perfectly clear in the wording of the Act that there is no special treatment being meted out to the officer as compared with the soldier. We do not say that that is the case, but simply that the common private is to be discharged with ignominy, whereas the officer is to be cashiered without any reference to ignominy at all.
Viscount VALENTIA: An officer cannot be cashiered without ignominy.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Of a certain kind. Can the soldier be dismissed without ignominy? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] How can he? Does not ignominy attach to dismissal? Is not one case the same as the other? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Why not? If the officer has been discharged in consequence of some breach of this Act, ignominy attaches to it. If a soldier is dismissed for disobedience or anything else, the same ignominy attaches to the fact of his being dismissed. What we are contending for is that the wording of this Act shall be equal in regard to both officers and privates. We do not say whether the punishment is unequal or not—that is no part of our contention— but the language here is such as to attribute special ignominy to the private for certain offences which does not apply to the officer. If I understand the right hon.
1304
Gentleman to say he had no objection to the words "with ignominy" appearing after "cashiering" as applied to officers, that, of course, meets our point equally well, but whatever form of words applies to privates must apply to officers if you want to preserve that appearance of fair play for both, which I honestly believe it is the object of the right hon. Gentleman to secure.
Colonel SEELY: Of course, as I said, there could be no harm in having the words "with ignominy" after "cashiering," but every officer in the Army would laugh at the phrase, because the word "cashier," I can honestly say, is dreaded by every officer, because it is such a terrible disgrace, carrying with it such terrible consequences. If the sole object of the Amendment is to show that there is no distinction between the officer and the man, and that it is only when they commit disgraceful crimes that they are ignominiously turned out, whatever the phrase used, I think we have had a very useful Debate, because I can assure the Committee that that is so. Whether it is an officer or a man, it is only when he commits. absolutely disgraceful conduct that he is ignominiously turned out. It has been the custom, for I do not know how many years past, to describe a gazetted officer as "cashiered," which has to my mind a more terrible sound than the words "discharged with ignominy." I think we are only arguing about words.
Sir F. BANBURY: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what meaning is given in the dictionary to the word "cashier"? I have not a dictionary here, unfortunately, but my belief is that the meaning would coincide with what the right hon. Gentleman says and with what the hon. Member (Mr. Keir Hardie) desires. The right hon. Gentleman thinks it stronger than "discharged with ignominy," and I think so too. Might I suggest that the hon. Member should look at a dictionary and see what the meaning attached to the word is, and if he finds it is not strong enough he can bring the Amendment forward again next year, and meantime withdraw it.
Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 13; Noes, 152.

Division No. 67.]

AYES.

[4.25 p.m.

Bentham. G. J.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Wardle, George J.

Glanville, Harold James

Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Hardie, J. Keir

Snowden, Philip

Lansbury and Mr. W. Thome.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

O'Grady, James

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Goldsmith, Frank

Nuttall, Harry

Acland, Francis Dyke

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Alden, Percy

Hackett, John

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles Peter (Stroud)

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

O'Doherty, Philip

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Ogden, Fred

Balcarres, Lord

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

O'Malley, William

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Henry, Sir Charles

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hewins, William Herbert Samuel

Pringle, William M. R.

Benn, W. W. (T. Hmts, St. George)

Higham, John Sharp

Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Hills, John Waller (Durham)

Radford, George Heynes

Black, Arthur W.

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Boland, John Pius

Hogge, James Myles

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Reddy, Michael

Bull, Sir William James

Hope, John Deans (Maddington)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Remnant, James Farquharson

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. sir Rufus

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Campion, W. R.

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Joyce, Michael

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Cassel, Felix

Keilaway, Frederick George

Sandys, G J. (Somerset, Wells)

Chancellor, Henry George

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Scanlan, Thomas

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

King, Joseph

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Clough, William

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Seely, Rt. Hon. Col. J. E. B.

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Lewis, John Herbert

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Lewisham, Viscount

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W.)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

Summers, James Woolley

Cotton, William Francis

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

Croft, Henry Page

Lyell, Charles Henry

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Dalrymple, Viscount

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Tennant, Harold John

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, north)

Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Thynne, Lord Alexander

De Forest, Baron

Macpherson, James Ian

Valentia, Viscount

Denniss, E. R. B.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Verney, Sir H.

Dewar, Sir J. A.

M'Callum, John M.

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Donelan, Captain A.

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Doris, William

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

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Doughty, Sir George

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

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

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Malcolm, Ian

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Menzies, Sir Walter

Worthington-Evans, L.

Fell, Arthur

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Younger, Sir George

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Mooney, John J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Gardner, Ernest

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Gulland and Mr. G. Howard.

Gilmour, Captain J.

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to move that the following new Clause be read a second time:—
(Amendment of M and 43 Vie, c. 58, s. 80.)
At the end of Sub-section (1) of Section eighty of the Army Act,1881, the following Sub-section shall be added:—
(2) The general conditions of the contract to be entered into shall include an option as to whether the recruit is willing to take duty in aid of the civil power in connection with a trade dispute, and, unless this has been signed in the affirmative
1306
by the recruit, his refusal to undertake such duty during his period of service shall not constitute an offence under this Act or of any rules or regulations connected with service in the Army.
It is not a question of words this time. We have now reached a matter of real substance. The meaning of the Sub-section is clear, I hope, on the face of it. When recruiting sergeants are seeking to induce men to enlist the argument they put forward is that men enlist for the defence of King and country, and the wording of this Act

1307
we are now considering—the Army (Annual) Act—is that the Army is maintained for the safety of the United Kingdom and for the defence of the Dominions of the King overseas. I am quite certain that if young men of the working class who join the Army when they are sober, and when they are not starved into doing it, were to be told that part of their duty would be to be called out, not to suppress a riot, but for duty during a trade dispute, simply because it was a trade dispute, very few indeed would respond to the appeal to become soldiers. The difficulties of getting men to recruit are considerable as it is. I want to say quite frankly to the Committee that, so far as I am concerned, and I think I speak for my colleagues in this matter, we shall take care that it is made known to men of the working class when they enlist that part of their duty will be to fire upon their own colleagues and villagers during a trade dispute. The amount of confidence which is placed in the working class during these disputes is best seen, perhaps, by what has just been taking place in the coal fields with respect to numbers of young colliers belonging to the Territorial Force. These men, because there was a dispute going on, have had their rifles taken from them—so I am informed—and rendered useless, and the ammunition has been removed from the districts, or so securely guarded as to be inaccessible. These young men who join the Territorial Force do so honestly believing that they are thereby aiding in defending the homes of the country against foreign invasion, but the moment a big dispute breaks out the means of enabling them to defend the homes of the country are taken from them, and not only so, but they see their comrades of the Regular professional Army drafted into their districts for what they know to be the purpose, however it may be disguised, of aiding the employers to win the dispute.
It is said that the soldier is never called out to aid the civil power except in case of riot, or when life and property are in danger. But what about the railway strike in August last? The Government did not wait then until there was even threatened disturbance. Before the strike was declared the Army was mobilised as though for a state of war, and turned out all over the country. The use for which the Army was turned out is best illustrated by what happened at Llanelly in Wales, where a train was stopped. It was
1308
found by the officer in charge of the soldiers, after it had been stopped, that the blackleg engine-driver was drunk. There had been some little stone-throwing—so little that only one person was hit—and in the whole of the train that was standing, and which was supposed to be held up by rioters, only one pane of glass was broken. Because of that, the command was given to the soldiers to fire, and two men were shot dead who were not taking any part in the riot, or in such riot as was alleged to be taking place. They were not even strikers. They were standing in the gardens behind the houses where people live. That is a typical illustration of the uses to which the military can be put during times of trade disputes. There was no more justification for calling out the soldiers during the last railway dispute than there has been during the present miners' dispute.
Mr. RAWLINSON: Had not the train been held up some six or eight hours, and is it not the fact that the firing occurred some four hours afterwards—twelve hours-after the train was held up?
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: No; the train was-slopped, not by the crowd, but because someone had forgotten to open the gates of the level crossing. The officer in charge of the soldiers approached the engine-driver to get him to clear off and go on with the train. The officer's own statement at the inquest on the two men who were shot was that he believed the engine-driver was drunk.
Mr. RAWLINSON: What! The officer said so?
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: At the inquest the officer said that he asked the driver to goon with the train, and that the driver mumbled something which he could not understand. In reply to a direct question put to him, the officer said he believed that the engine-driver was under the influence of drink. That statement made at the inquest was reported in the public Press. The train was not stopped by the mob. The driver could have gone on, but did not. Despite these facts, and despite the fact that the train was filled with passengers, none of whom was molested, the order to fire was given, with the result I have stated. I repeat, then, that there was no more justification for the presence of the military, and the calling out of the military during the railway strike than there was during the miners' strike which

1309
is just coining to a conclusion. Railway men are no more rioters than are colliers. The point, then, is this: A man wants to enlist in the Army, and does enlist, and he subsequently finds a strike, either on the railways or the mines, in his own district, then some little trumpery outbreak arises, very often as the result of a drunken frolic, whereupon the colliery owners, who are for the most part magistrates, request the military to be sent, and the military usually are sent. Warned by the lesson of what took place during the railway strike, the Government on this occasion refused the request that came from a number of mine owners, with the result that there has been no rioting. Had there been military sent, and had there been a strange force of police brought in as before, there probably would have been rioting. A young soldier enlists and finds that his former employer is able to memorialise the Government to send him down to help in shooting at his comrades and fellow workers, and, it may be, his own relatives. I venture to say that if when enlisting the lad had known that, he would not have been so ready to take the King's shilling. This new Clause proposes that when a man offers himself for enlistment he should be given the option of saying whether or not he is willing to be called out for duty in aid of the civil power during a trade dispute.
The Attorney - General admitted the other evening in this House, in reply to a query by myself, that the soldier has no more civic responsibility to aid in suppressing a riot than has the ordinary citizen. According to the law, every citizen is bound, if called upon to do so by the civil authority, to aid, but the soldier is under no more legal obligation than is the ordinary civilian to respond to that appeal. He is under no more and no less. The point is this: Why should a young man who enters the Army to serve his King and country by protecting this country against invasion be compelled, under a penalty, it may be of death itself, to go out on strike duty at the bidding of his commanding officer? The ordinary citizen has no commanding officer. He may be appealed to and may refuse. The soldier should be in the same position. He should have no compulsion brought to bear upon him to do this thing unless he is so minded. Otherwise you place the soldier in a most invidious position as compared with the ordinary civilian. If the soldier's duty in suppressing a riot is neither more nor less
1310
than that of the ordinary civilian, why is he to be liable to pains and penalties when, he is specially called upon without the civilian being appealed to? The assumption is, all round, that it is part of the duty of the Army to do this thing especially. I say it is not, and therefore the recruit, when enlisting, should have it clearly pointed out to him that he may be called upon by his commanding officer or by the Government to go upon strike duty, and that when he is so called upon he shall have the option of either accepting or refusing the strike duty, and if he refuses no martial law penalties, no penalties under the Army Act, shall be imposed upon him in consequence of his refusal, but the same penalty that applies to the ordinary citizen who refuses shall apply also to the soldiers. But the assumption that the soldier, qua soldier, is under compulsion to be called upon by the civil authorities at any time or at all times is one that will not bear examination and should not be possible.
I hope that there will be a general consensus of opinion of all parties in this House that the soldier should only be called upon as the very last resort, and that, therefore, the calling in of the soldiers should not be made too easy. How many of the recent so-called disturbances connected with trade disputes could not have been left quite safely to the civil authority? But because of the assumption that part of the duty of the Army and part of the special duty of the soldier is to be called out on such occasions, practically no efforts are made by the civil authorities to cope with disturbances, but the appeal is at once made to the soldiers to come in with their arms of precision and death. Therefore, in moving this Amendment, I do so not as a form of words, but as a question of the gravest import to the civil life of the nation, and, as I believe, although this does not commend it to me, making it easier for a good type of recruit to be got in the future than will be the case if the military law remains in its present condition. When the prospective recruit knows on entering the Army that he is not ipso facto to be called upon to turn out during trade disputes, he will do so more freely than he does now. with the feeling growing upon his mind that his first duty may be to go out to shoot down his old workmates, and even his own relatives. Therefore I beg to move the new Clause standing in my name.
Colonel SEELY: I will reply only on the Amendment itself, and as far as possible from the military aspect. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is present, as is also my right hon. Friend the Attorney General, who will have a better right to deal with many of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman with regard to the general policy of calling out soldiers in cases of disturbance arising out of trade disputes, but I must beg of—
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I must deprecate any suggestion of a general discussion of Home Office policy.
Colonel SEELY: I humbly apologise for indicating that my right hon. Friends could possibly break the Rules of Order, but I know that if they did you would promptly rule them out. I was endeavouring to make some suggestion that replies could be made to the remarks of my hon. Friend below the Gangway, which I regard as entirely erroneous. In reply to the actual words which were used by the hon. Member I wish to protest most emphatically against his assumption in his opening remarks that soldiers are called out not to suppress riots, but that they are called out in a trade dispute simply because it is a trade dispute.
Mr. JOHN WARD: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will confess that the military were called out in the case of the railways before even the strike had broken out.
Colonel SEELY: Surely my hon. Friend will permit me to finish my sentence. On that I say, if the suggestion is taken in connection with the concluding words of the hon. Gentleman's speech, that the British soldier has been constantly called out not to suppress riot, but in a trade dispute because it is a trade dispute, and with his weapons of precision and death as a consequence has caused grave suffering to the persons engaged in the trade dispute and to the strikers, I think the Committee will agree with me that that would be unfair. For those reasons I wish to say here and now that not one single striker engaged in a trade dispute has been shot by the British Army since the South African war. My hon. Friend said that they were strikers, and let us therefore understand this question. I beg the Committee to accept the statement which I have made, because it would be a cruel thing to do to try to make people
1312
outside, and the soldiers themselves, and the recruits imagine that they were entering an Army which was engaged in shooting down strikers. I do appeal to the Committee, and to my hon. Friend, to dispel that gross illusion, that gross distortion of fact, if it has ever been made, seeing that in point of fact ever since the South African war, and I suppose for long before that—but it is only to that period that I have been able to extend my inquiries—not one single striker has been shot by British soldiers. The Amendment of my right hon. Friend would be in effect to put the soldier outside the law. The soldier is subject to a special code of law of his own. He is also for certain purposes subject to the ordinary law. The hon. Gentleman proposed that certain soldiers should be exempt from the duty, in so far as military purposes are concerned, which rests upon other people, to assist the civil power if called upon to do so.
Sir WILLIAM BYLES: Do these military penalties rest upon other people?
Colonel SEELY: No, but other penalties rest upon them.
Sir W. BYLES: And will continue to do so?
Colonel SEELY: Surely my hon. Friend ment we are dealing with creates two classes of soldiers, one of whom would be amenable to ordinary law and the other would be amenable to military law. Therefore those who are only amenable to ordinary law would have an advantage over those also who are subject to military law, and in evading the primary duty of a citizen they would be in a better position than the others. If the recruit A enlists under this Amendment and is not liable to penalties if he does not assist the civil power he is plainly in a better position than recruit B, who has enlisted in the ordinary way. Therefore recruit A is to be put in a specially privileged position when he is called upon to do an act which any citizen is liable to perform. I suggest to the Committee with great respect, and to my hon. Friend, that this is a fantastic proposal. Soldiers are only called in in order to prevent and suppress serious rioting. That has been laid down over and over again, and it has been the policy of every successive Secretary of the Home Department upon whom this responsibility rests. Take a very simple case which is yet a possible case. Suppose a

1313
body of roughs—for as the hon. Gentleman truly says strikers hardly ever come into conflict with the soldiers—attack a mine down which men are actually working. Say that they attack a pit-head, and endeavour to destroy the pumping machinery. That is a thing which is very possible to happen, and a thing that I believe has happened. Every one about will know perfectly well, except those who are engaged in this transaction, who are not the strikers but are roughs or belong to the criminal classes, or are persons who have taken drink— everyone except them will realise that if they succeed in their purpose hundreds of men down below will be doomed to a horrible death and that nothing will save them. Supposing that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr were himself standing by and happend to be armed, and if the civil power called upon him to help, and he knew that unless he did help the hundreds of men below would be doomed to this horrible death, I venture to suggest to him—and he will deny what I say if I am wrong—that he would be the first to shoot with his weapon the ringleader, if he knew that by so doing he could save the lives of hundreds down below. So of course would the soldier. But would my hon. Friend in view of that fact seriously suggest that you must have one class of soldier who should be encouraged to evade his obvious civilian duty by having a comparatively mild penalty while there, should be another class who would be in a far less favoured position? I cannot believe that in this vital matter of the duty of all citizens of this country it can "be seriously proposed that you should create two classes of persons differentiated as proposed in this Amendment. I could deal with the more strictly legal aspect of the matter at greater length, but I wish to avoid trespassing on your ruling, and the Attorney-General is present to deal with the more strictly legal aspect of the words proposed. But to differentiate in this way the primary duties of citizens would be contrary to good policy, and I am convinced that it would be resented by the hon. Gentleman himself.
5.0 P.M.
Mr. LANSBURY: I understood the Under-Secretary to say that if we gave a recruit this option proposed by the Amendment, we would put him in a more favourable position than the ordinary civilian, who is liable to be called upon to assist the authorities.
Colonel SEELY: No, what I said was that one class of soldier would be in a different position from another class—that soldier A would be in a better position than soldier B, and that soldier A would be liable under one set of services, while soldier B would be liable to the whole.
Mr. LANSBURY: I was coming to that. I certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman, and he will see it in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, that what we were really wanting was to put the soldier who had this proposed option in a better position than the civilian who might be called upon to assist. I understand that a soldier who is now called upon by the policeman to assist him would, whether he had taken the oath to do so or not, be in exactly the same position as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil or myself if called upon under similar circumstances. Therefore, we need not bother about that argument, or about whether we should, if we saw men attempting to flood a mine, by any means in our power endeavour to prevent that. That question does not arise, though the Under-Secretary for War spent a good deal of time about it. The point, as I understand, which he does make against us is that we want, by this fantastic Amendment, as he described it, to have two sets of people in the British Army—one set who would be obliged on pain of death or on pain of penal servitude to take up arms against their own parents, their own brothers, their own relations, if called upon to do so, and the other set would not need do that.
That is really where we stand. We really ought to have that position faced. We want to prevent the British Army from being used in any manner different from that in which ordinary civilians can be called upon. We recognise, at any rate I do, speaking for myself, that the people who wish to use the Army in the present way, in connection with trade disputes, really want to see force exercised to compel people to do something that they do not want to do. The right hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his speech was rather warm with us because, as he said, we were insinuating that the Army might be used or would be used to put down strikes. I repeat what I think the hon. Member for Merthyr tried to get the House to see earlier in the discussion. Last year, on the mere threat of a railway strike, nearly 100,000 troops were moved all over the country, or let me say, 70.000— you can have whatever number you please

1315
—and we all know that at station after station in London there were sentries with weapons, and so many rounds of ball cartridge, which are murderous things, I understand. These soldiers stood at the different termini with fixed bayonets. Will anybody deny that? Will anyone in this House tell us what they were there for? Perhaps during the discussion the learned Attorney-General or the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will tell us why they were sent there. I know that the Home Secretary was not responsible at that time.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I think the hon. Member is trenching on a subject which is not relevant to this particular Debate.
Mr. LANSBURY: I would respectfully call attention to the fact that this has been the burden of the Debate up to the present moment.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member, as I understood, was proceeding to argue the merits of the dispute last summer, and bringing in the question of the administration of the military forces. That is out of order.
Mr. LANSBURY: I would very respectfully submit that the object of the Amendment is to allow a recruit on enlisting to have the option of saying that he shall not be used if he does not wish to be so used as a soldier in a trade dispute, and I was endeavouring to show that last year, in answer to the Under-Secretary for War, that soldiers were put on sentry duty at the railway termini in London, as though all the great railway stations in the Metropolis were in a state of siege. The men were armed with ball cartridge, and had bayonets fixed, and I was arguing that this was done for the purpose of using the military to intimidate and control the strikers. It is with the object of preventing the use of the Army in that fashion in future that we are moving this Amendment. There may be something to be said for an Army when you have got something to defend, though for my part I do not want an Army at all; but, if you have an Army, obviously you ought to use it, not for the purpose of supporting capitalists or the landlords or any other set of vested interests in this country, but to defend yourselves against people from across the North Sea, who appear to have got on
1316
your nerves, or against other peoples. The whole object of the Amendment is to prevent the kind of thing that happened last year. I would ask the Under-Secretary for War whether there is any difference in shooting two civilians who did not happen to be strikers, but who were shot in connection with the strike in South Wales? He made a very great deal of the fact that no strikers had been shot or killed since the South African war. I think some people were killed in Liverpool, some in Belfast, and some at Llanelly.
Colonel SEELY: Rioters.
Mr. LANSBURY: No; I deny altogether that they were rioters. The people who were killed in South Wales were not rioters.
Mr. W. THORNE: They were sitting on a wall.
Mr. LANSBURY: After all that is a matter of opinion, on reading the evidence. The fact is that they were not shot in the act of rioting; that is perfectly certain. These people were killed, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has any right to claim as a great score that no actual strikers were shot. Personally I do not know whether they were strikers or not but I do know that they were human beings and lost their lives. In my opinion, which I give not as a soldier but as an ordinary civilian, in what was done in South Wales there was no need to use shot at all. I read the whole of that evidence, and all that was wanted was to get the train through. The train might have stopped another couple of days, or might have gone through when the people had become tired; anyhow, that would have saved people from being killed. Here, it seems to me, that the shooting of a few people does not matter, yet you tell your constituents that they are very important and very valuable people. The right hon. Gentleman said that not one striker had been shot since the South African war, and recorded that as something to the credit of the British Army. The mere fact that people were killed at Liverpool, Belfast, Llanelly, and a string of places shows that the Army is used in a murderous manner when the capitalist class become alarmed. I had a cutting from a Croydon newspaper the other day showing that a celebrated councillor—I am not sure he was not a

1317
justice of the peace—said the proper thing to do with men who in any way attempted to intimidate their fellow men was to shoot them first and try them afterwards. He is one of the men who may have the duty to call for troops to put down what he may be pleased to call a riot. It is a very fine thing that a magistrate should be able to use the Army in that sort of fashion. I would not trust such men to look after rabbits, let alone human beings, under similar conditions. I do not think myself that in asking that men joining the Army should have this option we are demanding anything which is extreme. The class from which these soldiers are drawn are the working class in the main, and always when there is a fight between capital and labour the interests of the higher classes are against the workmen. There is no use blinking the fact.
Magistrates, justices of the peace, and those people who have power to call on the Army are all people who do not want the strikers to win, and they are all perfectly ready to use whatever force they can to intimidate and overawe the men on strike. What was the real object last summer? It was to make the railway men feel that they were committing a crime in even talking of going on strike. The whole object of that overwhelming show of force was to show that the Government and the power of the classes were against them. As I said, I do not want an Army at all. I do not want any one to defend me. If I cannot defend myself, well, I will go under, and I think everybody else here ought to do the same. But if you are going to have an Army, then let the men at least have the right to say that they do not want to be used to kill their own flesh and blood, and that at least they shall not be called upon to help the capitalist to starve the people into surrender, for to call out soldiers, to give them so many rounds of ball cartridge, and get them to stand with fixed bayonets, is for the purpose of overawing men of the working class in an economic fight. If there be any rattening from the class represented by hon. Gentlemen on the other side, or if anyone of their number comes over to this side, we at once see how they detest such action as an unpardonable sin against their one Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost of the aristocracy.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I really think the hon. Gentleman must know he is going quite beyond the limits of the discussion.
Mr. LANSBURY: If the aristocracy of any country really object to one of their own class going over to the other, then equally you have no right to enlist men on the chance of their being used to kill, it may be, men of their own class. That is the point I wish to make, and, having made it, I support the Amendment which has been moved.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: This Amendment, I think, obviously arises out of the use of the military during the railway strike and out of the recent prosecution of certain persons for inciting to mutiny. While I agree with much that has been said on the benches below me, and with many of the criticisms that have been made, I feel that I ought to explain why it is I cannot support this Amendment. I agree, and agree absolutely that the military ought not to be used in trade disputes. The military ought not no be used to break a strike. The military ought not to be used to secure the victory of the masters against the men. I agree with that absolutely; I doubt if there is a person in the House who disagrees with that view. I am certain that the occupants of the Treasury Bench agree absolutely and whole-heartedly with that doctrine. The military ought to be used and should be used only to suppress riot and disorder, violence and outrage which it is beyond the capacity of the civil authorities to deal with. It may happen that the persons who are guilty of riot and outrage and violence and disorder are also strikers. That does not seem to me a good reason why the military should not be used. Because a person who is guilty of violence, disorder and outrage happens to be a striker, that seems to me to be no reason why that person should be absolutely absolved from the law of the land, and from the penalties which any other person who was not a striker and who was guilty of violence and outrage would incur. Therefore, I think we are on common ground in saying that the military should not be used to take part in a strike or even in connection with a strike as such, and that they should be used only to suppress violence and disorder.
Then it may be said, and it has been said, about the railway strike six months ago, were not the military there used in connection with the strike. I agree with the criticisms which were passed upon the use of the military in connection with the railway strike. I think the military were used prematurely; I think the military

1319
were used when there was no occasion for them being called out. I think in particular that the military ought not to have been called into Manchester without the application of the local authorities. It is true we incur certain risks, but those are risks which we have got to take in a democracy. We have got to take the risk of violence and outrage, and we have got to take the risk of the civil authority with the police force at its disposal being able to deal with that, and it is only when those civil authorities with the police forces at their disposal have been shown to be incapable in fact of dealing with riot and disorder that the military should be called in. It is part of the price we have got to pay for being a democracy. It is possible some damage may have been done before the military are called in, but better even that damage should be done, and that we should remain a free nation, not Army-ridden under a military routine. The military could be called in quite soon enough to save this country from ruin and destruction, although damage and disorder is done to begin with. I agree with the criticisms that were passed about the use of the military, but I do not agree that the military were called in to finish the strike. The military standing with their bayonets at the stations in London were not there to bayonet the strikers as such. They were not there to force any striker back to his work. They were there because the authorities—
Mr. LANSBURY: Of London.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Because the Government anticipated in view of other occurrences elsewhere, that there was a possibility of riot and disorder, which is not incidental to a strike but which may occur, and they were taking precautions. I think they took precautions too soon. I think those are risks which in a country like this we are bound to take We are bound to have riot and disorder actually in being, and the police forces actually incapable of handling that riot and disorder, before the military are called in. I do maintain that the military were not used to break the strike, but were used for the purpose of dealing with disorder which was anticipated. I therefore hold it is not necessary to insert these words in this Act. We do not need to provide that the military should not be used in connection with trade disputes. They cannot be used as it is, and it would be illegal to use them in connection with a trade dispute.
1320
Any Minister who so used them would be liable to impeachment and ought to be impeached. They can only be used in connection with violence and outrage. If we are going to insert words at all that the military should not be used in connection with trade disputes, why not go further and specify other things in connection with which they should not be used? Why not say that they ought not to be used in connection with church meetings. We all agree with that, and why not put that in also?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think it is in order in discussing this Clause to argue the general question as to whether the military should or should not be used. The terms of the Clause are perfectly clear, and I would invite the hon. Member to deal with them.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The part of the Clause to which I was speaking proposes to give the recruit the option as to whether he is willing to take duty in aid of the civil force. I say why should he not be given an option in connection with church meetings. It is not fair that the military should be used to suppress church meetings. Why not have the option in connection with Freemasons' meetings or Orange Lodge meetings? We all agree that the military should not be used in connection with those assemblies, and if we are going to specify everything in which we are all agreed, and in which, as a matter of fact, by law they cannot be used, then there would be no end to the number of pages which this Act might take up. I think that in this Amendment the hon. Member for Merthyr has done a thing which he did not desire to do. He has gone very much further than the words of his own speech; he has, in fact, made it legal, or attempts to make it legal, for the military to be used in connection with trade disputes. At present the military cannot be used in connection with trade disputes as such, but this Amendment actually provides that the option should be given to the soldier to go on service in connection with trade disputes. For the very first time it would be made a matter of law that the military, if they so willed, should be used in connection with trade disputes, a most reactionary and dangerous proposal. I hope I shall never see the day when a band of military or pseudo-military shall be organised, either under private auspices, as some people are proposing to do, or under Government auspices, in which the men will be under

1321
an obligation, if they have exercised the option, to serve in connection with trade disputes.
Mr. RAWLINSON: This is a far more important question than the question we were discussing previously, namely, as to the meaning of the word "cashiered." I desire particularly to answer what the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Keir Hardie) said about the occurrences at Llanelly last August, because he gave an account of those disturbances which appeared to me to be absolutely misleading and contrary to the facts of the case. The real facts as to what occurred there were that a train which was going—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to go into the facts of the dispute of last year.
Mr. RAWLINSON: If that is so, I will not deal with the question; but may I take this opportunity, as a full description was given of those occurrences by the hon. Member for Merthyr, to say that I disagree with that account entirely, and I should be sorry if that version went forth as an accurate account. I refreshed my memory from the evidence at the inquest to which he referred and the account in the "Times," and I have got the results here. In view of your ruling, I content myself by stating that I absolutely differ from what the hon. Member said.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: My complaint was not taken from the "Times" account, but from those of the South Wales newspapers, which extensively reported the subject.
Mr. RAWLINSON: Mine was taken from an eye-witness, Major Blake, who wrote in the "Times," and from the sworn testimony given at the inquest.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: This Debate is of a very important character, and it is the first time this question has been raised in the British House of Commons. The real point at issue at the present time is whether the British Army is to be used exclusively against foreign Powers or is to take up a new role of dealing with the working classes of this country in connection with trade disputes. You may talk around the question as much as you like, but this is the real point: is the Army to be used to interfere in trade disputes or not? The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. MacCallum Scott) did not seem to me to be so logical as his speeches usually are. He began by
1322
emphasising the fact that he was opposed to using troops in trade disputes, whether to shoot the strikers or to overawe the strikers, or to take any part whatever in trade disputes. Then he proceeded to say that they never did take part in trade disputes except to protect property. The whole point we have to make is that the troops have been used in connection with trade disputes, and not in connection with the protection of property. The Member for Bridgeton said that they may legally only be used in connection with violence and outrage. I noticed that the learned Attorney-General nodded, and said that that was the law that they could only be used in connection with violence and outrage. In that case, why were they used as blacklegs in Ireland? They were used to run trains in Ireland, and the threat was held over the railway workers of this country that if the food supplies ran short the troops would be employed to run trains in this country too. It was made perfectly clear to the whole country, as well as to the railway workers, that troops would be used to run the trains. That is using them in connection with trade disputes in this country, and to blackleg the workers is to use them in connection with trade disputes. If they are to be used, as in Ireland, to act as blacklegs, then I think it is quite time we should make it absolutely clear to the Government if it is illegal it ought not to be adopted by them when these trade disputes occur.
The whole question comes up as to whether the troops are the right people to use in connection with riots in this country at all. This new Clause prevents their being used in riots in connection with trade disputes. It puts the soldier in the position of the ordinary citizen. It is left to him just as it is left to the ordinary citizen to decide whether the use of a rifle or violence is necessary to prevent damage to property or life. Without this Clause the troops are in a very different position; they are under the same law with regard to firing on their own fellow-countrymen as they are with regard to firing on foreigners. We want to prevent their being in connection with trade disputes under the same law an in connection with disputes with foreign Powers. Our ground is not only that it is wrong that people should fire upon their relations. I think it is wrong that they should fire upon their enemies; but that is not the main point. The question is whether troops are the best weapon the

1323
State has for protecting property and life in times of trade dispute or riot. I maintain emphatically that they are not, and that if the State attempts to use them, it is using a very dangerous weapon indeed. Everyone knows that it is extremely difficult to get troops to fire on people who are not shooting at them. I have had some experience of the Army, and I speak with knowledge when I say that it is most difficult to make troops carry out military executions. You have a platoon of men firing over and over again at criminals; they discharge their rifles, but the prisoners remain untouched, simply because the men will not—and we should not ourselves—shoot the other men, if by holding the rifle an inch or two higher they can avoid it. Anyone who knows the facts in connection with the Franco-German War, or the Civil War in America, will know that it is difficult to get troops to shoot men condemned to death. It is infinitely more difficult to get troops to shoot down unarmed working men in this country. What happened at Llanelly? If the troops had fired on the crowd with modern weapons of precision they would have shot hundreds at every discharge. Instead of that, they killed two people in the background, sitting on a wall in a garden. That means that the troops did not fire on the people—they fired over their heads.
Colonel SEELY: On a point of Order. It is really very awkward. Definite statements were made with regard to Llanelly by the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Keir Hardie), and during your absence it has been ruled that those were out of order. I do not question the ruling, but they are now being repeated. They are at variance with the information in my possession, but it appears that we cannot controvert them. I would respectfully submit either that there should be no repetition of the statements or else that we should be permitted to reply to them.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): The position is this. The hon. Member for Merthyr, in moving his new Clause, referred to certain cases as illustrations, his object being, as I understood, to attempt to prove that it was not necessary in the case of riots that the military should be called in. I permitted him to use those cases as illustrations. I am afraid I was not observant enough to know whether the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was keeping to that line. My
1324
ruling is that it is not in order on this new Clause to deal with the question of policy in the employment of the military, but it can be dealt with as an illustration, and, as a matter of fact, bearing directly on the question before the House.
Mr. RAWLINSON: The illustration given by the hon. Member for Merthyr was the Llanelly case, and, subsequently, it was ruled that I should be out of order in putting before the Committee the facts in my possession in reference to that incident. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman is in the same position. All we ask is either that no further reference shall be made to the matter or else that we shall be allowed to put the other side.
The CHAIRMAN: I think that that is correct. It was right that I should allow the hon. Member to put his illustrations before the Committee; but clearly, if the Debate runs on those lines and the facts are not given merely as illustrations, I shall be obliged to admit a reply, and the Debate will travel very far from the question actually before the Committee.
Dr. CHAPPLE: If the illustrations given contain details which are incorrect, is it not competent for any Member to correct them?
Mr. BECK: There was a grave charge of drunkenness, and it seems unfortunate that that cannot be contradicted.
Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member for Merthyr made certain assertions as illustrations. My hon. and learned Friend says that those assertions are incorrect. Is it not possible for him to bring forward proof that those assertions were incorrect? Otherwise the illustrations will go forth as having been agreed to by this Committee, whereas my hon. and learned Friend says that the hon. Member has, no doubt inadvertently, made statements which are not correct.
Mr. J. WARD: Before you give your ruling, may I ask, seeing that it is proposed that an option should be given to a man on enlistment to say whether or not he was willing to be employed in certain proceedings in which at present he cannot be employed, is it not in order to call attention to occasions on which he has been so employed, and to do so to show their degradation or their irksomeness to the men, and for the purpose of illustrating the necessity of granting this option?
The CHAIRMAN: I think that as illustrations and as matters of fact, the references are permissible; but if I allow them I must allow contrary statements showing that the alleged facts are not correct. The proceedings must not develop into an argument on the question of policy.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: I understand your ruling, but I do not think that it really applies to my speech. I was simply using the Llanelly case as an example showing how impossible it is to trust troops to fire on rioters at the present time. They are armed with such deadly weapons, that if they fired their rifles at the crowd the bullet would go through seven or eight people before it stopped. If a platoon of twenty or thirty men fired on a crowd every discharge must be so disastrous that there would be a regular holocaust. That is not what the Government wants. It would have the effect not merely of checking the riot, but of annihilating the rioters, which is not the desire of the Government. If troops are used in future for disputes of this character, or for riots of this character, if that term is preferred, you must expect that more and more the troops will refuse to fire on the crowd. They will let off their rifles over the heads of the people, to the great danger of persons at a distance from the scene of riot. It was perhaps all very well to use troops in such cases when the trajectory was very different from the flat trajectory of the present day, and when the bullet stopped at the man that was hit; but it is impossible to use modern rifles without extreme danger to everyone. In this new Clause we suggest that men who are enlisting should have the option of saying whether or not they are willing to be used in connection trade disputes. Obviously a man who stated that he was not willing to be used in connection with trade disputes would be able to refuse to go to Llanelly, or to fire on the people, or if he refused to fire he would be merely liable to the penalties of the ordinary citizen instead of to the penalties of the soldier. That would mean that practically the whole of the British Army would sign on as ordinary citizens instead of as men under military law so far as trade disputes are concerned. We maintain that that is an eminently desirable thing.
We do not want to absolve the troops from their duty as private citizens to protect life and property, if it is in danger; but, let it be their duty as private citizens, and not their special duty as soldiers. This
1326
new Clause makes that point clear. No doubt everyone joining the Army would take advantage of the option. There would be no question of a privileged man getting off as an ordinary citizen and an unprivileged man being punished by death as a soldier. They would all be in the same category; they would be relieved of the very unpleasant duty of having to fire on unarmed men, and, if they used their weapons properly, of killing an enormous number of people with each discharge of their rifles. It is far more important to my mind, however, that we should free soldiers from the odium of being used as blacklegs in connection with trade disputes. The real danger of the future is that when the transport workers, the railway workers, or the Post Office employés go on strike, the troops will be used to fill their places, as they have been in France. Is that legal or is it not? The Attorney-General gave us the idea that it was not legal to use troops in that connection. I think we ought to have it definitely in the OFFICIAL REPORT whether or not it is possible to use troops in that way. If it is possible, it is right that every British citizen should have the option on joining the Army of saying that lie desires to be excused that odious duty. Nowadays with the working classes to be a blackleg is the same thing as to be a cardsharper or not to pay your debts of honour in the upper classes. If a man acts as a blackleg he is as much condemned for life as if he were cashiered from the Army.
Sir F. BANBURY: It shows that he has a little courage or pluck.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: No; it shows that he is a traitor to his class, and it throws an awful stigma on the man. That has been one of the influences at work on the miners. They have this feeling of honour. They regard blacklegs in the same way that hon. Members opposite regard men who cheat at cards. You ought not to be able to force your Army to discharge this odious duty—to make them drive trains, deliver letters, drive carts, or work ships, in times of trade disputes. If that is to be done, let it be done by a special body, but not by the British Army. Keep the Army for the purpose for which it was originally intended; do not drag it into these trade disputes in a way that is abhorrent to every right-minded member of the working classes. That can only have the result of keeping the best people out of the Army. We do not want to deprive the State of its defence against foreign

1327
Powers, but if the Army is to be used for internal purposes of this sort, whether as blacklegs or as policemen armed with rifles, you will do the worst service to the British Army and to the British State. Only one thing will achieve our end, and that is the new Clause before the Committee. If that Clause is carried it will shortly be impossible for troops to be used in this way, because everybody on enlisting will take advantage of the option, and thereby be absolved from military law in connection with trade disputes. They certainly will not blackleg then. If this Amendment is carried the British Army will be saved for its proper purpose. If things go on as at present, if the labour unrest gets more and more critical, and strikes get more and more dangerous to society, you will find in the first place that your Army will not fire and will become untrustworthy; and in the second place you have not got that security for society which you might have if a different weapon was employed to that of the ordinary soldier enlisted for entirely other purposes.
Sir W. BYLES: It is not necessary to agree with all the arguments which have been put forward by my hon. Friends who support this Amendment; but I may say that I am very strongly in agreement with the general desire of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr Tydvil, to draw the attention of the Committee to the inadvisability of employing the armed forces of the Crown in the case of civil disputes. I expressed that opinion rather strongly last year when the soldiers were brought into my own borough. I daresay all my Constituents are not in agreement with me, and no doubt many hon. Members will be in disagreement. It is for that reason that I desire to explain why I so very strongly disapprove of the introduction of the military in civil disorders. A great deal has been said about the Amendment itself. It addresses itself to the question of using the soldiers to put down strikes. A great deal has been said in this Debate about the soldiers being used against strikers and so forth, so that it must be clear to the House that the impression at any rate, whether it be actually so or not, has got abroad, that the authorities have introduced the Army on the side of capital as against labour—
The CHAIRMAN: That is again opening up questions that cannot be allowed. The question is the option of the man that enlists.
Sir W. BYLES: I agree, Mr. Whitley, but surely the question of using the military to put down the strike is raised in the effective words of the Amendment itself: I put that to you on a point of Order. I also suggest that most of the speeches, have been directed to that aspect of the case. I was only going to say whether it be so or not, there is obviously the impression abroad amongst the working classes of this country that when the military are employed in cases of riot it is generally on the side of capital as against labour. What are these Syndicalist trials? How have they arisen? It has only been because the writers of the Syndicalist newspapers, and Tom Mann in his speeches have especially referred to the use of the soldiers for putting down strikes. It is because of that impression that I want to base upon it the argument that it is extremely undesirable—and I am quite sure that every hon. Member will agree with me—that there should be any unpopularity to the Army arising from this cause. The Army ought to be—if we have an Army at all—respected by all classes. It ought not to be regarded as belonging to one class as against another.
The Amendment suggests that the recruits should have an option. You put out gay bills asking for recruits for the Army. When a man goes in response to that invitation surely he ought to be able to know what he is being enlisted for and what are his duties. [An HON. MEMBER: "He does know."] Well, he ought also to know what he has not to do. I am quite sure the recruit does not in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred think for one moment that he is going to engage in such duties as have been referred to. I do not understand, anyhow, what we want with 186,000 soldiers. If I were offering my services as a recruit I should want to know what the duties of these 186,000 men were. But I am not going into that—I would only ask that I should be told what I might have to do in regard to civil disorders. That, I think, is a reasonable thing for a recruit to ask. I have been in Ireland many a time when large masses of soldiers have been used. They are treated now very differently to what we are here. We all know over there of the very powerful magistrate in charge of the resident magistracy telegraphing down to Youghal to the officers there to say: "Do not hesitate to shoot." That is the spirit that I do not want to see in this country. I went into the Lobby the other day when the discussions were on concerning the coal crisis,

1329
and I met a Noble Lord who used to be in this House, with whom—
The CHAIRMAN: I would ask the hon. Member to keep to the Amendment.
Sir W. BYLES: I am glad, Mr. Whitley, that you have saved the Committee from a very interesting reminiscence, which, however, I believe they would have found very much to the purpose. I want to mention one other reason why I think we ought not to use the military in civil disputes. I do not say that circumstances may never occur when the military may not be used. Perhaps there is wanton destruction of valuable property; human life may be in danger; a state of things may occur which may be called civil war; then perhaps the soldiery may be used against the enemies of the King whether they are civil or otherwise; but it should only be in very extreme cases, and cases far more extreme than have lately arisen. My other reason against the employment of the soldiery is that the soldier himself is such an unsuitable weapon for the purpose. If you get the police to restore order when it has been broken the police have the means to do it, the training to do it and the proper arms to do it. The soldier has not. The soldier is trained and armed for one purpose only: that is, to kill his fellow-man. That is the only thing he can do; the only thing he is taught to do. We do not want him to do that in civil disputes. We do not want him to kill riotous strikers, or even hooligans. We do not want him to turn his weapons upon a mixed miscellaneous crowd, all unarmed, many of them perfectly innocent, and with no riotous in tent—some of them being engaged in a dispute with their employers. It is, I say, most improper, and a dangerous thing, to turn a regiment of soldiers with deadly weapons into such a crowd. The soldiers cannot move the man on. They cannot arrest a man. They cannot manage a crowd like the police. They cannot move a disturber from the kerbstone, or else where, like a policeman, nor can they summon a man. They can only kill men. I know some of my hon. Friends say: "What are you to do. Surely you must do something in a case of riots?" Yes, and if I am not out of order, I should like to suggest what ought to be done, but I am rather afraid—
The CHAIRMAN: I can save the hon. Member that. All the latter part of his speech has been directed to a question of
1330
policy, the thing I was deprecating only a few moments ago. Clearly a whole debate might arise on the subject which he is just now putting before the Committee.
Sir W. BYLES: Very well, I will endeavour to keep within the bounds of your ruling, but I do certainly think that this Amendment raised, was intended to raise, and was so understood by the Government and all present, the whole question whether the military were properly used in putting down civil disorder. If I am wrong in that interpretation I will leave it now entirely. I may, however, perhaps, be permitted to mention that I ha\e received—no doubt other hon. Members have also—a circular signed by the Duke of Abercorn, the head of a volunteer police force organised for the very purpose of making it unnecessary to use the military. That at any rate points to methods by which we can meet the difficulties that confront us without the use of the military. There are various other ways to which I will not refer. It is a wrong idea of society, and a wrong view of our social system, to think that the. Army exists to put down civil disorder. The function of the soldier is to defend the nation against external and internal enemies. After all, we are a self-governing nation. We have no control whatever over the forces of the Crown. We ought to confine ourselves to using all the methods and the persons who are under our control, who are able to maintain our security, and who will not invade and threaten us.
6.0 P.M.
Mr. J. WARD: I would just like a few words on this subject, especially after the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member of the Bridgeton Division. He drew attention to the phrasing and the motive underlying this Amendment, and suggested that it was almost impossible to imagine that we should seriously put it forward as a solution of the difficulty that we are now discussing. I quite agree. If I were basing my position here and the attitude that I shall adopt when the Division takes place on the Amendment; if I were to take it as a serious contribution to the discussion, I should most certainly vote in the opposite direction. But I take it for granted that it is not so much the Amendment we are discussing, though we are pinning ourselves entirely to it. The idea of giving the soldier an option and having two sorts of soldiers, one to be used in civil disputes and one not to be used in civil disputes—and, I

1331
suppose, letting the authorities pay extra to those who will allow themselves to be used—actually to hold out an inducement for them to be used for that purpose— well, I certainly could not support a proposition of that description if I thought there was any chance of it becoming law. There is no doubt we are discussing the matter from an entirely different point of view—the point of view as to whether the soldier should be given an option, or whether the soldier should be used for this purpose at all. The Attorney-General has said that the soldier when assisting the civil power is in exactly the same position as the ordinary citizen. I have never been able to see where that comes in, either in law or in fact. For Instance, when a magistrate is in difficulties, when he finds disorders that it is impossible to overcome, he does not telegraph to the leading citizens in the town whom he knows by name or reputation, and ask them to come to his assistance. Nothing of the kind. He wires to the officer in command of His Majesty's forces in the town to come to his assistance, and I believe the Attorney-General will admit that the moment the civil power asks the aid of the military the military from that moment are on active service.
The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)dissented.
Mr. J. WARD: I venture to suggest that is the case. Look for instance at Section 189. It counts "service" as applying to persons subject to military law and to persons engaged in operations against the enemy. Then looking at another section, you will find a definition of "enemy." As a matter of fact, I used to have something like this actually read to me when I was in the Service. Looking at Section 190, Part 20, you will find that when the soldier is called out against the "enemy" he is on active service, because the "enemy" includes all form of mutineers, rebels, rioters, and pirates.
An HON. MEMBER: Armed rioters.
Mr. J. WARD: As a matter of fact rioters are always armed. You cannot riot with your hands, although I have done it once or twice, but it is too close a range by a long way for ordinary purposes, therefore you take it for granted that the magistrate does not ask whether a man is armed with a cutlass, a sword, or a weapon of any other kind. Stones or bottles are
1332
arms in a matter of this kind, and therefore all this talk about the soldier acting when called in to aid a civil power as an ordinary citizen is so much fudge. It may be a legal fiction, but we know as a matter of fact that when the soldier enlists he enlists to serve against the King's enemy, and the enemy is described as being either pirates, rioters, rebels, or mutineers. There is no getting away from that, and to talk about the soldier acting as an ordinary private citizen is not in accordance with fact. The attestation which he makes on entering the Service proves that. He has to act as a soldier, and when called out to suppress a riot he is actually on active service. The right hon. Gentleman who represents the War Office would not hesitate for a second to pension the wife and family of a man killed in suppressing a riot in this country, exactly as though he lost his life on active service.
It was said the other day that no one was ever convinced or altered his opinion by a speech delivered in this House. I must say the other night my vote was influenced by a speech made by the Attorney-General, but I am sure he will not persuade me on this occasion that a soldier acts as an ordinary citizen when he is marched out of barracks, shoulders his rifle, presents arms, and fires on rioters in the street. He does nothing of the kind in my opinion. Therefore I venture to suggest that all this talk of the soldier acting just as if he were an ordinary citizen on such an occasion is not true. On the other hand, I doubt if the policy suggested in this Amendment of giving an option of having two kinds of soldiers is right. I much prefer the suggestion made that the soldiers should not be used as a soldier for these civil disturbances at all. I suggest that there are ways and means which can be employed to use the soldier, if he is called out, different from that of commanding him to shoot down men with arms of precision, which should never be used in disturbances in civil life. The hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division would enact, if this Amendment became law, that soldiers could and should be used in connection with trade disputes, and he argued as if soldiers never were used in trade disputes. What we are attempting to do is not to legalise the use of soldiers in such cases, but to limit the existing civil and military practice. It is contended that we do employ military in trade disputes. There is not the slightest doubt about that. Turning to the interpretation Clause in the

1333
Trade Disputes Act as to what is a trade dispute, would anyone for a moment deny that the military have been used in trade disputes?
A trade dispute may arise between workmen and masters, and the workmen may give notice to their employers that they want an alteration of the working conditions either in the shape of wages or hours, or terms of employment or superannuation after a certain number of years of employment, and as a result there may be a stoppage of work because one side refuses to sell its labour to another until some sort of new bargain is arranged, and to take it for granted that there is a right then to call in the military to assist in regulating the business of one side to that dispute is quite wrong; yet that has been done. I myself was at Clapham Junction one morning when I saw the soldiers drafted in there although the strike had not actually occurred at that moment. It was going to occur I admit, but it did not actually occur until two hours later. There you had the military brought into a dispute two hours before the dispute actually took place. That policy was not applied in this recent strike. If it had, heaven only knows what would have happened, but luckily for the good order of the State that was not carried out, and the possibility of disorder was avoided. The hon. Member for Bridgeton in his speech said: If you mention trades disputes why not other things as well, and he enumerated a number of other things, but in none of them were the military employed. We mention trades disputes because it is only in these the military have been employed and have been allowed to interfere on one side. I go a great deal further than my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Sir W. Byles). I quite admit that civil disorder may be of such a character that it is absolutely necessary to employ the forces of the State to suppress it. It is as essential to maintain order inside your own territory as it is to attack your enemies outside, but what a confession it is for those who want to employ military in labour disputes. It is to admit that one side is the enemy of the State. That we utterly repudiate and deny. Workmen are entitled to use all the forms the State gives them the right to, for the purpose of obtaining amendment of their wages or working hours, and the military should not be employed unless it is to suppress what looks like an absolute subversion of civil order in the locality concerned. If the military had never been
1334
so employed and it was never thought of employing them on occasions of this description you would never have the Amendment we are discussing to-day brought before the House.
Mr. STEPHEN COLLINS: Like the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, I am no lover of armies, and, like him, I look forward to the time when they shall be dispersed, but I ask him and my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr, and other hon. Members below the Gangway, to endeavour to disabuse their minds of the idea that this Government is the enemy of trade unions. I think the whole history of the Government has shown how sympathetic they have been towards trade unions in all their legislation during the past six years, and I make bold to differ also from my hon. Friend who has just sat down. I do not say whether it is wse or not to call the soldiers out on such occasions, but I say that the action of the Government in bringing out the soldiers is not to attack trade unions or to stop strikes, but that it is, when the minds of men are inflamed with passion and excitement, to preserve good order. When the soldiers were brought to Clapham Junction, as mentioned by my hon. Friend, they were not brought there to stop peaceful pieketing, but they were there to prevent any attempt to disarrange the "points" and to prevent any attempt to upset trains and to endanger the lives of the passengers. The Government never brought the soldiers forward to interfere with the strike; they brought them forward to prevent irresponsible men, many of them the enemies of hon. Members on the Labour Benches below the Gangway, and many of them not belonging to trade unions at all, from doing wrong. There are plenty of men on such occasions who have nothing to do with trade unions, but who are always ready in times of excitement to enter upon mischief. Those kind of men are the enemies of working men, and well-ordered men, as the vast bodies of working men are. I want the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley to withdraw that statement in which he said this Government had encouraged the capitalist to overawe the men to surrender. I do not think the Government had that in their mind at all, because all along they have been most sympathetic towards trade unions, and this was undoubtedly so during the recent coal strike. The hon. Member for Newcastle-

1335
under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) said the soldiers were never intended to act as blacklegs. Let me take as an illustration the town represented by the hon. Member. I will suppose that the people in that town are being starved out owing to a strike, and that tens of thousands of people have no bread to eat. I will assume that the hon. Member and his wife and children are walking through that town and a train comes along driven by soldiers. Surely in such a case the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, and even the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, would thank God that the soldiers were there.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now arguing questions which are very wide of the Amendment before the Committee.
Mr. S. COLLINS: I am no lover of arms and I am a man of peace, but I do not want hon. Members below the Gangway to look upon the officers of our Army as bloodthirsty men anxious to drive the soldiers under their command to shoot down their fellow creatures. We are glad to know that although the troops were brought into London during the recent crisis no lives were lost. I saw the troops myself at Clapham Junction, and I remarked to one of them, "You are having a nice time of it." There the soldiers were lying about smoking their pipes and enjoying themselves, and long may they be able to do that. I hope hon. Members below the Gangway will disabuse their minds of the thought that this Government is the enemy of trade unionism, and that they want to bring out the soldiers to shoot down the people whenever a trade dispute occurs.
Mr. WARDLE: Will the Attorney-General state to the Committee what the law is with regard to the position of the soldier in a trade dispute. Some time ago a Committee was appointed upon an Amendment which I moved to the Army Estimates to inquire into the whole question of the use of the military in trade disputes. A Report was presented to the House, and I should like to know whether that Report is being acted upon at the present time, and whether, if any legislation is required, it could be put into the Army (Annual) Bill. I also wish to know whether, when the military are employed, instructions can be given to the soldiers
1336
on the order of any one magistrate after the issue of that report, or whether the Home Office has the power to order them about and send the soldiers here, there, and everywhere.
The CHAIRMAN: That question would probably be in order upon the Third Reading, but not upon an Amendment of this kind.
Mr. WARDLE: As the whole question has practically been debated I thought we could get it out of the way altogether if the Attorney-General would state the law with regard to this part of the Amendment. This Amendment raises the question whether the soldier who joins the Army shall be given an option in disturbances when a trade dispute arises. Soldiers have been employed in trade disputes. I was in Ireland not long ago and I saw them so employed. I have also seen them in England, and I have seen photographs of them acting as blacklegs learning to drive trains, and we want to know, if the Army (Annual) Bill is passed without this Amendment, whether the soldiers can be so employed.
Mr. LANSBURY: In reply to what the hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. Stephen Collins) said, I wish to point out that I did not say that this Government is any worse or any better than any other Government in regard to their action against trade unionists during a strike. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are worse."] Well, probably they are worse, but what I wanted to put forward was that there is such a thing as creating an atmosphere. Hon. Members who want to establish schools in which certain dogmatic religious instruction is to be given understand what the atmosphere of a school means. My contention is that the Government last summer created an atmosphere in London that the workmen were doing the wrong thing in talking about coming out on strike, and in order to create that atmosphere they brought out the troops, who were supplied with so many rounds of shot and were armed with bayonets, in order to overawe the men. That is what I mean when I say that the Government used the military against the strikers, and they definitely did that for a set purpose. I agree with what has already been said that the Minister who did such a thing as that ought to be impeached, but none of us understood how he could be impeached, and so the Minister got another job.
Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr, Keir Hardie) and
The Committee divided: Ayes, 23, Noes, 168.

Division No. 68.]

AYES.

[6.25 P.m.

Alden, Percy

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Bowerman, C. W.

King, Joseph

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Nelison, Francis

Wardle, George J.

Davies, E. William (Eifion)

O'Grady, James

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

De Forest, Baron

Parker, James (Halifax)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Keir Hardle and Mr. Lansbury.

Hadge, John

Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

Hudson, Walter

Snowden, Philip

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Glanville, Harold James

Mooney, John J.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Goldsmith, Frank

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Aitken, Sir William Max

Greene, Walter Raymond

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles Peter (Stroud)

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Nuttall, Harry

Balcarres, Lord

Hackett, John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

O'Doherty, Philip

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Ogden, Fred

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc, E.)

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Hayden, John Patrick

Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Henry, Sir Charles

Pirie, Duncan Vernon

Bentham, G. J.

Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Bird, Alfred

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Pringle, William M. R.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Higham, John Sharp

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Black, Arthur W.

Hills, John Waller

Radford, George Heynes

Boland, John Pius

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Booth, Frederick Handel

Hogge, James Myles

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Solelds)

Boyton, James

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Reddy, Michael

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bridgeman, William Clive

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Bull, Sir William James

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Rolleston, Sir John

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Ingleby, Holcombe

Russell Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Campion, W. R.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Joyce, Michael

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kellaway, Frederick George

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

Clough, William

Kerry, Earl of

Stanier, Beville

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Leach, Charles

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark West)

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Lewis, John Herbert

Summers, James Woolley

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Lewisham, Viscount

Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

Cotton, William Francis

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lundon, Thomas

Tennant, Harold John

Dalrymple, Viscount

Lyell, Charles Henry

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

Lyttelton, Hon. J. G. (Droitwich)

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Dawes, J. A.

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Valentia, Viscount

Denniss, E. R. B.

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Verney, Sir Harry

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Macpherson, James Ian

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Doris, William

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Duke, Henry Edward

M Callum, John M.

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

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

Williamson, Sir A.

Fell, Arthur

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Ffrench, Peter

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Malcolm, Ian

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queens Co.)

Yate, Col. C. E.

Fletcher, John Samuel

Menzies, Sir Walter

Younger, Sir George

Gardner, Ernest

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Gilmour, Captain John

Mond, Sir Alfred M.

Gulland and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Question, "That this be the Schedule of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

in the name of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury)—[After the word "Crown" ["for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of His Majesty's Crown"] to

1339
insert the words "and for no other purpose"]—I think raises the point with which we have already dealt. I understood it to be consequential.
Mr. J. WARD: I venture to say the discussion has not been general; it has been very much confined. One would have liked to have gone much further than one was able to do on the last Amendment. This Amendment raises the whole question of the purposes for which the Army may be employed.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: In framing the Amendments we had in mind the fact that on this Bill we cannot discuss policy. The policy can only be discussed when the Army Vote is under consideration. We did not, therefore, anticipate the general discussion.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: Were we not told the Attorney-General could not reply on the question whether it was legal to use these troops in trade disputes?
The CHAIRMAN: I said you could take that on the Third Reading.
Bill reported, without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Mr. J. WARD: I rise for the purpose of giving the Attorney-General an opportunity of replying to the criticisms that have been passed and to the questions that have been asked in Committee. I venture to suggest it would not be politic for the right hon. Gentleman to neglect this opportunity of at least giving some kind of reply to those who have passed honest and just criticisms upon the affairs of the Army and its employment during the last year. While the discussion has been very pointed occasionally, it has not transgressed the limits of fairness or gone beyond those questions on which the House is thoroughly entitled to have some explanation. I myself drew attention to the fact that, whatever lawyers may say, the soldier, when he is requested by his officer to go into the streets for the purpose of suppressing civil disorder, thinks he is acting as a soldier under military law, and is in fact told he is acting under military law. The Act declares active service to be when one is on duty against the King's enemies, and the interpretation Clause defines the King's enemies as
1340
either mutineers, those who are attempting to invade His Majesty's possessions, rioters, or pirates. The Attorney-General keeps referring to the word "armed." I do not suppose any officer has taken the trouble to inquire whether anybody in the crowd upon whom he has been asked to fire is armed or not.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I only pointed out that "active service" is defined as service against armed rioters.
Mr. J. WARD: My position is quite clear. I am not in the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley, who says that under no circumstances would he employ the Army in civil disturbances. I do not agree with him. I believe in all human society you must rely eventually for the enforcement of justice and of law and order upon force. My criticism therefore is not against the principle, but is against the conditions under which the military were recently employed. When one looks to see who the King's enemies are against whom the soldier may be employed on active service one finds they are those who are armed attempting to invade the possessions of the King, armed rioters, and those who are disobeying the King's law. We may therefore take it that when a soldier is called upon to go into the streets to fire upon rioters he is, as a matter of fact, upon active service. He is not in the position of an ordinary citizen, and it is useless to attempt to pretend he is anything of the kind. I dare say lawyers would be able to show quite clearly that a soldier is a citizen except when actually fighting against the King's enemies outside these realms, or in defending these realms against an enemy from without, but in actual practice one knows that when a soldier is called out for the purpose of assisting the police he has not the faintest idea but that he is acting as a soldier under military law. I doubt whether he would take the trouble to go at all if he had any option. I venture to say, if a soldier did refuse to go out to suppress armed rioters who were damaging property when he was asked to do so by the civil authority, he could, under this very Bill, be court-martialled, and I believe the penalty could be, though it would never be enforced, actually death. It may, perhaps, be talking according to law to say that the case of the soldier and the citizen is exactly the same in the event of civil disorder, but it

1341
certainly is not talking according to practice or common sense.
We have just gone through one of the greatest labour disputes the country has over seen, and we have gone through it with a perfect quietness which is a surprise to the whole of the civilised nations of the world. One has only to look in the rampant Tory Press, which is always against the worker and the striker, no matter for what he is striking, to see that the foreign newspapers are admiring the way English workmen conduct their disputes with such quietness. Why is it? It is simply because we have not had any military display. Once or twice a squad was called out at Cannock Chase to suppress some little local disturbance, but the soldiers were kept in the background, and it was taken for granted by those who were conducting the dispute that as long as the Government did not interfere to overawe the strikers, or to bring the weight of military prestige on the side of the employers, there would be no disturbance. There is another case which oue is sorry to remember where the military were not held off, as it were, for the mere purpose of defending the King's subjects and their property and for maintaining law and order, but where the Army was brought in by some Gentlemen on the Front Bench responsible for its manipulation and used to overawe the men even before the strike had occurred. I venture to say that was really courting disaster. This is unfortunate, because it brings the Army into disrepute, and the citizen thinks it is being used as an institution to prevent him properly, legally, and quietly enforcing his demands. Once the common workman imagines that is the purpose for which the Army is going to be used in the future, it is a moral certainty the Army's reputation will be considerably depreciated. I quite agree that in the recent dispute there was an entire change of policy, and I desire to give the Government all the credit possible for refusing to employ the military in the miners' strike, but I cannot forget it began with an entirely different policy last summer, and I am not going to allow it to be forgotten. I should like some answer to the questions put forward this afternoon as to the position of the military in civil disorder. Under what terms do they act when called upon by the civil authority to suppress riot and disorder, especially when connected with a trade dispute? I think this House, the country, and especially the
1342
workmen most concerned, are entitled to have some official answer on the subject.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am quite glad, to respond to the invitation of my hon. Friend and to state to him what is the position of the soldier when called upon to act in some civil disturbance. I do not think there is very much doubt about it. The matter has been inquired into on various occasions in recent years and I think it may be taken as clearly established now. First of all the duty of the soldier is one which arises because he is a citizen, and he is also bound, being a soldier, to obey the commands of his officer. These, as I said in a recent debate, are the two positions in which he is placed. He has both a civil and a military duty, and it is in that which he is distinguished from the ordinary person who has only a civil duty. To be quite frank with the House, I do not think any question can really arise with regard to it. The military forces may be called upon just the same as the ordinary citizen can be called upon to assist in the suppression of riot or in the preservation of the peace. It is the paramount duty of every citizen to assist when called upon in the preservation of the peace. He is bound so to act and equally the soldier is bound so to act. The soldier has this further advantage, and it is for the protection of the public also, that in cases of riot the soldier is a trained man, acting under discipline, and consequently there is less danger, with the soldier acting, than there would be if the ordinary public were called upon to fire or to use weapons. I have heard or e suggestion made by the hon. Member for Sal-ford in the course of this Debate which really startled me. He suggested that following the lines laid down by a Noble-Duke, whom he quoted, the persons concerned should be allowed to employ their own forces. I confess that, in my opinion, nothing could be worse in a labour dispute than to allow the capitalist to have a kind of trained army to assist in case of strikes.
Sir W. BYLES: I made no such suggestion. It may be due to my clumsiness of expression, but what I did wish to draw attention to was the case which we have recently seen in this country in which the Duke of Abercorn has started an independent organisation and is trying to establish a volunteer or civilian police force, or some sort of a special force to do away with the necessity of employing the armed forces of the Crown.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I was merely referring to the point, and the reason I referred to it was to draw the moral and show the inference that might be made if an attempt were made to cope with disturbances by means of this character. The necessary inference from that, if it took place, would be that we would have these volunteer associations formed by capitalists, and that they would be employed in trade disputes, and we should have them attempting to suppress disturbances, but rather I think helping to create them. I quite grasp what my hon. Friend says, but I only wanted to deal with the possible inference that might be drawn from his statement if it went without any explanation. Now another point which arises is this: It is said, "Why are the police not sufficiently strong to cope with the disorder." If you have a disturbance created with which the police can cope, nobody would dream of calling in the assistance of the military, and it has never been done. There might be an occasion possibly, I am not speaking of any specific occasion, but there might be a case in which a difficulty would arise as to whether the police would or would not be sufficient to deal with either a riot which was taking place, or was about to take place, and it might be that in such a case a specially timid local authority might requisition the assistance of the military. The military may be used for the purpose of suppressing riot or unlawful assembly or disturbances which have actually arisen, and they may also be requisitioned for the purpose of preventing a possible riot. It is not necessary there should be actual riot; that would be reducing the law to ridicule, if you are going to say that 100,000 men should be entitled to assemble in Parliament Square, and that until they had actually rioted or had committed some disturbance, you could not requisition any citizen or employ the military to enforce order or to disperse them.
Of course you could, and the military may be used for the purpose of either protecting life and limb or protecting property or preventing disturbance, and equally they may be used and requisitioned in anticipation of a possible riot. Not for the purpose of shooting. My hon. Friends, I am sure, will not misunderstand what I am saying in that respect. Nobody would order a soldier to fire; no Government would ever dream of that unless there was a real necessity for it, in order to prevent something that threatened to
1344
become, or something which had already become, a most serious disturbance of the public peace. It is only when a question of that kind arises that there is any order given to fire. It is said also in reference to this matter that soldiers ought not to be called upon to interfere in trade disputes. I see myself no magic in the words "trade disputes." I say there is no reason why a soldier should interfere in a trade dispute any more than in any other kind of dispute, but the whole principle at the root of this matter is that the soldier may be called upon for the preservation of the peace either where there is a riot or in anticipation of riot, and also that the soldier ordinarily can be requisitioned for the purpose of preserving life or in anticipation of some attack upon life or upon the community. In all these respects soldiers can be employed in the several instances I have given. He is doing his duty as a citizen, and, in addition to that, being a soldier, because he cannot separate his military duty from his civic duty, he becomes liable to do his duty both as a citizen and as a soldier.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask just one question? Can you force a soldier under the military law to act as a blackleg or to work in connection with a trade dispute, such as to drive a railway train, or to stoke a furnace, or to drive carts, or convey mails, or anything of that kind? Is it within the powers of the State to force soldiers to do that kind of work and to make them liable to punishment for indiscipline if they do not obey orders?
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I thought that from what I had said that the hon. Member would have gathered that it depends entirely upon the circumstances. In the ordinary course of things, of course not; but I am not going to lay down the proposition that in no circumstances would it be desirable or necessary to employ soldiers to do some work which otherwise they would not be called upon to do. I cannot tell: it must depend absolutely upon the circumstances that arise.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: I want to speak upon that point, because it is the kernel of the whole thing, whether the Army is to be used in order to facilitate the victory of one side or another in a trade dispute, or, still more, in order to preserve the food supply or the supply of raw materials. No doubt the preservation of the food supply or of raw materials is a most important thing to society; but the question is

1345
whether society has the right to compel people to do this kind of work or to compel a soldier, because he is under military discipline, to do work which he objects to doing. I think the State has no right to compel a citizen to do a particular kind of work, and it has no more right to compel a soldier to do work which he does not want to do, work which he considers to be dishonourable. You have no right to compel a citizen to do it; but you have a perfect right to ask volunteers to do it. An hon. Member for one of the southern divisions of London has said that you could not possibly leave the people to starve. Quite so, but you must call upon volunteers to help you to prevent that, rather than compel a man to perform work which he may consider dishonourable or blackleg work against his will. You have a perfect right to call upon volunteers and induce them to do that work by giving them higher pay, but you have no right to compel the military forces to do that which they consider dishonourable. I understand that under this Bill you are taking to the Government a right to do that. You are taking to the State the power to compel 186,000 men to act as "blacklegs, even against their principles.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I said nothing of that kind.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: You have told us clearly that under certain circumstances it might be possible, and perhaps I might ask you under what authority it was done in Ireland? They were used there actually to drive trains. You would have power, under this Bill, to do that. You would have that power over these 186,000 men. Of course, it is vain to hope to prevent the Army Bill passing, but I feel certain that it will soon be found that the democracy of this country is against the State having power to compel citizens to act against their consciences, and that the democracy will not allow that law to be enforced in this country much longer.
Mr. LANSBURY: I should just like to point out that the very circumstances to which the Attorney-General has referred arose last summer, and that these soldiers were put to work upon Irish railways to act as "blacklegs" when the men were on strike, and if the men had refused to do it that being apparently a lawful order— the words of the Act are:
"disobeys in such manner as to show a wilful defiance of authority any lawful
1346
command given personally by his superior officer in the execution of his office, whether the same is given orally, or in writing, or by signal, or otherwise, shall on conviction by court-marital to suffer death or such less punishment, as in this Act mentioned."
Now I venture to say that the working people outside are quite unaware that that will be the law of the land when this Act is passed; that soldiers may be called upon to become blacklegs, and that those who refuse may be liable to be shot. That is a most monstrous proposition, one which goes down to the roots of democracy, and it is because I feel that this tremendous growth of the military spirit is against democracy, and certainly against progressive democracy and against every true development of the people, that I will shout "No" against the Third Reading of this Bill even if I am the only person to do so. Any society that in the last resort rests upon force to carry on its ordinary avocations, to carry on the business of production or distribution, is in a very bad way, and that is what we are rapidly coming to in this country. We commenced last year, and this year again we have had that spirit at its height in this House, and on both sides Members have been found to defend the military principle. It only proves how the military spirit has grown when apparently the only thing we can rely upon now is the power of the soldier. I believe the soldier is always on the side of the vested interests of the time, and I view that with a great deal of alarm, as I view also the growth of the notion that the Army must be used to defend the country from someone outside.
That is only part and parcel of the same kind of theory. You can see it in the hatred that is stirred up against other countries exactly in the same way as we have seen in the last few weeks the hatred that was stirred up against men who wanted to prevent blacklegs going to work, who wanted either to persuade them by peaceful picketing or otherwise. The whole theory behind that was that the striker was doing something he ought not to do, and that, as an hon. Member says, he was "injuring society." That is admitted, but for my part I am against the Army being used to enable you to force that principle upon the people who refuse to sell their labour, and I am also dead against the notion that society should rest merely upon force in that kind of way. May I respectfully point out to the

1347
7.0 P.M.
Attorney-General that part of the doctrine he has laid down this afternoon is entirely contrary, I am speaking from memory, to what I heard quoted in the debate last year, as to the doctrine laid down by Sir William Harcourt in the famous Mitchelstown Debate in this House. He laid it down definitely and distinctly, and he was supported by the late Mr. Gladstone, in opposition to the late Lord Randolph Churchill and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), that the military force ought never to be used until the civil force had actually been overpowered. That was laid down over and over again in that Debate. It shows how far we have travelled since then, and how far the Liberal party have travelled since then, that it was stated this afternoon that not merely can the military power be brought in to anticipate a riot, but that it may be brought in to break a strike, and to be used as blacklegs to defeat the men in their attempt to carry through their strike. It is no use saying, as may be said, that the only reason you do it is to keep open the food supplies for the people. We were told that last summer, and we may be told that again. I say that the proper way to keep open our food supply is not to intimidate the men who are striking for proper wages and proper conditions, but to compel those who employ them to give them proper wages and proper conditions, and so obviate the need for a strike or the bringing in of strike-breakers. I feel that in our country the force of the military power is uppermost. Even our London police are being militarised now; it has to have all sorts of military men to take care of it, and is organised as a military force. It is because a sort of fetish is being made of everything military; be cause I believe that any society that depends upon force to keep open the means of production and exchange is in a very rotten condition, and because I want to see substituted for force the law of order, and for the rule of the military I want to see co-operation amongst people and the getting rid of the causes that make people go on strike, that I am going to vote against the raising of 186,000 soldiers.
Mr. O'GRADY: The whole burden of the complaint from these benches has been in regard to the military force being used
1348
against the democracy and not against other people. If this force could be applied to the other side as well as to the working people one would not have so much to complain of. It would be fair, any way. But during the railway strike these men were used to intimidate the strikers. There is a case that happened last summer, which arose out of the railway strike. I believe that ten military gentlemen were engaged to do certain work in London. The result of the collapse of the railway strike was that they were out of work. Representatives were made to the Home Office, saying that the men had given up their positions, and that something ought to found for them to do. The Home Office found work for them to do. Clearly that was to prepare for the next strike of the transport workers in London. What did they do? They surveyed London, they took the numbers of all the cold stores and food supplies, and I believe that they went to the extent of sketching out where Gatling guns and troops could be disposed, so as to get food supplies from the ships to the people who wanted them. All these things were undertaken with a view to preparing for the next transport workers' strike. I submit that that is a form of intimidation which is not fair, and it certainly shows that the military force were being exclusively used upon one side. I think it ought to be made a criminal offence for mine owners to engineer the lock-out or strike that took place in the coalfields. After the Miners' Federation had receded very much from their original position in regard to the Schedules, and had placed an interpretation upon their Schedules which any reasonable business man could have seen could be carried into effect, the mine owners would not see the Miners' Federation or concede their terms. Dozens of questions were put in this House as to whether the time had not come for the troops to be brought into the streets. I say that if that force had been brought out, it would have been brought out to-intimidate the miners and not against the mine owners. These things ought to be taken into consideration, and until the law is amended, until this Act is amended so as to make it perfectly clear that it is going to be used against anyone who endangers the safety of the State. I am going to vote against the Third Reading.
Colonel YATE: May I just express on behalf of the soldier my thanks to the

1349
right hon. Gentleman for having raised the rates for breakfast, dinner and supper of the soldier as mentioned in the Schedule.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

PUBLIC OFFICES (SITES) BILL.
Order for Second Beading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): It is due to the House that I should explain, in a few words, the object of this Bill. It has one main purpose, which is to acquire a site for the purpose of erecting new buildings for the Board of Trade and other offices. The site referred to is bounded on the one side by the Embankment, on the other side by Horse Guards Avenue, on the other side by Whitehall Gardens, and on the other side by the grounds of Montague House. The Bill proposes to acquire the site in two portions, the northern and the southern portion. On the northern portion the main offices of the Board of Trade are already situated, at Nos. 7 and 8, Whitehall Gardens. It is proposed to acquire the southern portion first, to demolish the house on the southern site, to erect new buildings for the Board of Trade, and for other offices, and then, subsequently, to move them from their existing buildings into the new buildings, when the question will come up for consideration as to whether it is desirable at that moment to acquire the northern site, and, if so, what buildings are to be put upon it. The second purpose of the Bill is to provide for an extension of the Patent Office in Southampton Buildings, Holborn. That is a small matter relating to the acquisition of a court known as Took's Court. The third purpose of the Bill is to acquire land which borders on the Record Office, between Fetter Lane and Chancery Lane. The object of the acquisition of this land is to provide against the catching fire of any buildings which may, if they catch fire, endanger the safety of the Record Office. It is not intended that the Record Office extension, which has been contemplated for some time, should come on to this new land. It is being acquired as a safety girdle. These are the purposes of the Bill. Perhaps the House will ask what necessity there is for new offices, and how
1350
it is proposed to pay for the site. As to the first, I may say that at the present time the Board of Trade is housed in no less than twenty different places, which results in extreme difficulty in carrying on the work of the Board of Trade with efficiency. As to the cost, it is provided in the Bill that sixty half-yearly instalments will be paid for the site to the Commissioners of Woods, who are in possession of the land at the present moment. The instalments will appear from year to year on the Votes for the Office of Works. All private interests will be entitled to be represented before the Select Committee to which I am going to move that this Bill should be sent. In conclusion, I would urge the House to permit it to go upstairs for scrutiny on the ground that by gathering together scattered branches of a public office the Bill will do something to increase the efficiency of the public service.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: It will be within the recollection of some Members of the House that when this Bill was before the House, some Members, of whom I was one, took considerable exception to the very large amount of money that it appeared to us was being unnecessarily spent. Amongst other things we pointed out that there was on the other side of these buildings a considerable area of land that could be got at a very cheap price. I suppose it would be about one sixth of the price It was land in the immediate vicinity of the Houses of Parliament, upon which it would be possible to erect buildings for the accommodation of the Board of Trade. We were promised on that occasion that when one of the main offices, such as the Board of Trade, came to be dealt with by the House, that that point should be taken into consideration. I have listened very carefully to the observations of the hon. Gentleman in moving the Second Reading, but I did not hear any reference whatever to the most important question, namely, the cost of the site. It is quite true that there are a great many scattered parts of the Board of Trade at present. It is quite true that that is a very great nuisance, not only for the officials, but also for the public, because there are many people who have great difficulty in finding the particular branch of the Board of Trade they wish to get at. It would obviously be a great advantage for the Board of Trade to be housed altogether in a suitable building. One of the objections to the Bill that we

1351
have now is that it does not provide for that. Even when this new site is acquired, there will still be two or three pieces of the Board of Trade left in separate places. What some of us would like to see is a suitable building put up to house the Board of Trade on land which can be got quite as near to where we are sitting at present, at one-fifth of the cost. A large quantity of very small property has been pulled down, and there is now a series of extensive valuable sites, which will face the river, and have, between them and the river, the, continuation of the House of Lords Gardens. These will be suitable for public offices. One of the most important points is that the offices should be within a reasonable distance from this House. Why not go and look at such a site, and take it into consideration, and see whether an enormous outlay cannot be saved? If these buildings which are at present occupied by detached parts of the Board of Trade could be sold I have very little doubt that the cost of acquiring a new site in the position I have mentioned could be more than covered by selling some of these detached pieces. But what is proposed? In order to secure some sort of unity, and to cover all the district between here and Trafalgar Square on one side or the other with imposing public offices, a large sum of public money is going to be thrown away, in my opinion. We protested against the previous Act of 1908, and we were told on that occasion that we were really out of court because the plans had already been got out and arrangements had been made for pulling down the buildings in Delahay Street, and it seemed to us that it was a perfectly unnecessary piece of expenditure to pull down and remove the Engineers' Institute, a splendid building, which had cost some £90,000 to build, and which had not been in existence a dozen years. Here is another example. We hear answers given by the Treasury every day that they must save money here and save money there, and that they cannot afford a few pounds for various things which are suggested. Over and over again we have made representations with regard to our accommodation in this building, but we are told there is no money available for the purpose, and that economy must be the order of the day, and yet, when the public departments themselves are concerned, they think nothing of rushing in and spending
1352
hundreds of thousands of pounds in a perfectly unnecessary manner.
There is a most astonishing provision in paragraph (e) of Clause 2. As I understand the procedure of taking people's land off them for public purposes, when an Act of Parliament has been passed enabling the public authority to take the land it is competent to give the landlord notice that his land is required. Very few landowners can give full particulars as to their title and what they want for their property within the three weeks stipulated in the Lands Clauses Act. A man may be abroad, or there may be any number of circumstances which prevent him from sending in exactly what his claim is, but the Clause seeks to confer a novel power upon either the arbitrator or the jury before whom any matter of this kind should go to give costs against the landlord if he has not sent in his claim within the specified period. I have very little sympathy with property owners who seek to make outrageous fortunes out of public authorities taking their property, and if there was any suggestion that this was going to simplify procedure or to help to do justice as between the landlord and a public authority I would not raise any objection, but that is not the point. Under ordinary circumstances the landlord is only cast in the costs of the reference if the public authority makes him an offer of a specific sum, and the jury or the arbitrator find a smaller amount, but here the power is to be given to make the landowner pay the costs when he has not had any offer made to him of any sum whatever. I think the House ought to be very jealous of introducing novel Clauses into the general procedure with regard to such a matter as the Lands Clauses Act. If the Lands Clauses Act wants amending let it be amended, but to give a special power in an Act of this kind with the view of penalising people who happen to own some small interest of some kind or other in property which is going to be taken is a very reprehensible proceeding. My object in rising was mainly to call attention to the fact that we have had no figures from the Government; we have not been told what the original Estimates were; we have not been told how much is now proposed to be spent extra upon all these objects, and we have had no idea given us as to what amount will probably be involved. And I rose also to protest against proceeding with the erection of another big public office on the wrong side of this building, occupying land which might be

1353
sold for a very considerable sum of money, when a valuable and important site could be got for so much less on the other side of the House.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I think the House is entitled to more information in regard to one point in connection with this Bill. Until now most of us have found it quite impossible to gather from the Bill any accurate idea as to the sites which are dealt with. This Bill states that plans have been lodged with the clerk of the City of London and the County of London, but before the Second Reading of the Bill the House should at least have had the opportunity of inspecting the plans. I respectfully protest against the House being invited to read the Bill a second time in the absence of such material information. I desire to put to the Secretary to the Board of Trade this specific question. So far as I understood the explanation given on the Second Reading the site which was taken on the Embankment at present includes an amount of garden space. I ask for an assurance that it is not proposed to build on any open space until the House has had another opportunity of considering this very important principle. I do not dispute the need of the Board of Trade for adequate office accommodation, but we should give that office accommodation at a very dear price indeed if we gave it at the expense of one of the open spaces in this vicinity and, indeed, I cannot hope that, in view of past experience, the architectural beauties of the new building will atone to us for the loss of something much more precious.
Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: I do not want to challenge the necessity for further office accommodation for the Board of Trade or the other Departments, though I cannot help noting in passing that this is another step in the enormous growth in the bureaucracy which has taken place in recent years. No one really needs more cogent evidence of this than can be obtained by casually walking down Whitehall and Great George Street, and noticing the enormous palaces which it has been necessary to erect during the last few years—palaces which previous generations were able to conduct the administration of the country without needing. I agree that the Government are proposing to acquire, for the purpose of Government offices, one of the most valuable sites in London. I cannot help feeling that it would be perfectly possible for the Govern-
1354
ment, with equal convenience, to acquire far cheaper sites for the purpose they have in view. In another connection I have had to face very similar arguments about the impossibility of moving more than three-quarters of a mile away from Westminster for a public building. I refer to the choice of the site for the County Hall for the administration of London. I am glad to say that wiser counsels ultimately prevailed and we found it possible to move to the south side of the river without any inconvenience at all to the administration, and with great benefit to London as a whole. I think everyone who is interested in London will agree that it would be a great advantage indeed if some of these great Government buildings could be placed south of the river, where they would be in easy touch of this House, and not concentrated, as they are at present, in one small area round Whitehall.
My real object in rising is to ask the hon. Member in charge of the Bill if he could see his way to give an assurance on one very important point. Within the limits of deviation shown on the plan is included a very considerable area at present used as a garden and forming an important open space. If that space is built over, as it can be under the Bill, not only will London lose what is a very valuable and a very ornamental open space, but you will spoil the architectural effect of the Embankment. Everyone appreciates the magnificence of the Embankment, taken as a whole, and we must all regret that a little more foresight did not save us from having the view of the Houses of Parliament spoilt by allowing the site of St. Stephen's House and Scotland Yard to project beyond the rest of the Em ankment. If those responsible had had a little more foresight, St. Stephen's House and Scotland Yard might have been set back to a proper alignment, and we should have had a magnificent vista right up the Embankment, ending in the great architectural feature of these Houses of Parliament. We cannot rectify the mistakes of the past, but we can prevent similar mistakes being made in the present; and I think the hon. Member ought, in all justice, to give an assurance that the Government will not propose to build on what is now an open garden. I might also ask whether the Government could not see their way to throwing that particular piece of garden open to the public. I believe the matter has already been discussed by certain committees of the

1355
London County Council, which have expressed their willingness to pay for the maintenance and upkeep of these gardens if they were thrown open to the public. I hope, therefore, the hon. Member will be able to give an assurance on that point.
I wish to call the attention of the House to another point, namely, the collection of antiquities which may be found on the site. During certain negotiations which took place between the First Commissioner of Works and some local people interested in this question I understand the First Commissioner suggested that any antiquities or articles of archæological interest found on this site should be handed over to the London Museum. I do not think that is an altogether satisfactory solution of this question, because the London Museum, as hon. Members will recollect, is a purely private undertaking. It is in no sense an official museum, although it receives certain official sanction by being accommodated in one of the Royal palaces. It is a purely private concern which is under the management of privately appointed trustees. It is true that the London County Council themselves have put on loan a very large and valuable collection in that museum, but since it has been opened those interested in archæological matters have had very grave reason to criticise the manner in which the museum has been classified and is being managed. What we should like to see is that anything found on this site of an archæological or architectural interest should be, as has been the practice in the past, handed over to the London County Council, and that they then should give on loan to the London Museum such articles as are suitable, while other objects of interest would be put into their own local museum.
I would point out that this is not merely an academical question. It is of some practical interest, because at the present moment the London County Council have got a museum of prehistoric articles found in the course of rebuilding on sites in London. Some of these have been found on the sites of Government offices. It is not at all unlikely that a very large number of flint arrowheads and similar prehistoric articles would be found on this site. I may remind the House that this site is at what was one of the principal ferries across the river in ancient Roman days. The London County Council would
1356
like that class of treasure trove to be put into their own museum, to complete the lapses in their collection. There will be articles of architectural and more recent interest which they would also like to see in their museum, and which in all probability they would add to their loan collection at Kensington Palace. I hope the hon. Member will be able to give an assurance that he will adopt the same procedure as has been adopted in the past, and that articles of interest found on the site will, as heretofore, be handed over to the London County Council. I hope the hon. Gentleman will give an undertaking that the London County Council and other municipal bodies, like the City of Westminster, will be given the right to appear before the Select Committee in order that those who are principally interested in the maintenance of the open space to which I have referred may have full opportunity of being heard.
Captain MURRAY: No one will deny the necessity for collecting in one place the various offices which now constitute the Board of Trade. I once had the privilege of working at the Board of Trade, and it was with very great difficulty I was able to find out the various points at which many of the offices of the Department are now situated. Therefore, I think it is necessary that these various offices should be collected on one spot. I venture to say with all respect that I do not think the hon. Gentleman in the explanation he gave of this Bill advanced any satisfactory reason for placing the Board of Trade Offices on the particular spot it is proposed to place them. As has been pointed out by the hon. Gentleman opposite, it is going to cost a large sum of money, the amount of which we do not know, but which must necessarily, I think, be greater than would have been expended had some cheaper site been adopted. In addition to that, there is the very much more important consideration advanced by my hon. Friend (Mr. Whitehouse) and by the Noble Lord (Lord Alexander Thynne), and that is this: If, as I understand—and nothing was said to the contrary by the hon. Gentleman—the Board of Trade Offices proposed to be built are placed on this site, they will cover up a very valuable open space. I do think this House should be very jealous in regard to the open spaces which now exist in the Royal parks and on Crown lands. I think every opportunity should be given to this House to inquire into and

1357
discuss the policy of the Office of Works when it proposes to build upon open spaces or to take land for such purposes.
Personally I think we should have from the hon. Gentleman who represents the Office of Works or from the hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Trade, who may be going to reply, although it is not in his province to do so, an assurance that the open space which at present exists between the offices of the Board of Trade and the Embankment is not going to be covered up by these buildings. I do not think we have had sufficient opportunity in this House to discuss the policy of the Office of Works. Very much more opportunity should be given for discussion, and very much greater consideration should be given to this important proposal than is possible at this hour. Open spaces in the great city of London are, to my mind, of the most valuable nature. I would be prepared to do whatever lay in my power to prevent the Office of Works, even in a case like this, building over any open space that now exists, cutting down trees, removing turf, or doing anything of a similar nature. I do hope the hon. Gentleman, in response to the appeals made to him, will give us an assurance to-night that if this Bill be passed into law, and new offices for the Board of Trade be erected, one of the results will not be to build over the open space that at present exists.
Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: By leave of the House, I should like to reply to the important points that have been raised. First as to what was said by the Noble Lord (Lord Alexander Thynne). I can assure him that this is not a party Debate in any way, and that the proposal in the Bill has nothing whatever to do with any legislation passed by this Government. The necessity for new offices for the Board of Trade results from the natural growth of the administration which goes on side by side with the growth of business in connection with the trade and commerce of the country. As to the antiquities which may be found on the site, I find myself in rather a difficult position, because the late First Commissioner (Mr. Lewis Harcourt) is a trustee of one Museum, and the President of the Board of Education (Mr. Joseph Pease) is a trustee of another Museum. It is very difficult for me, therefore, to make promises as to antiquities going to third parties. I am not so hopeful as the Noble Lord as to flint arrow-heads used by the Romans being found on the site.
Lord A. THYNNE: I did not say that.
Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: Well, the Noble Lord said they might be found at what was once a Roman ferry. Whatever the Noble Lord suggests will be very carefully considered. As to any antiquities that may be discovered, the First Commissioner has been in communication with the Clerk of the London County Council and others with reference to this matter. The hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Mr. Watson Rutherford) expressed the idea which he put forward on the last occasion when a Bill of this kind was before the House, namely, that the site chosen would affect the price. I do not know that he has ever produced any evidence on the subject. The question of the site has been considered by no less than three committees, and they have come to the conclusion that this is the best site for the purpose. I do not say that it is absolutely the cheapest, but taking into consideration the public convenience as well as the price, the committee consider it the best.
Lord A. THYNNE: Have they considered the possibility of a site on the south side of the river?
Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I do not know whether they considered that question, but I know that the matter of site has been very carefully gone into. It is estimated that the southern site for the new Whitehall buildings is worth£250,000, and that of course is a matter to be considered.
Lord A. THYNNE: That is the southern portion of the site.
Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: Yes, that is the southern portion. Of course, the precise figure will be determined in the way provided for in the Clauses of the Bill. It is estimated, roughly, on a rental of about 3s. 6d. a foot, at twenty-eight years' purchase. The hon. Member referred to Clause 2, Sub-section (1), paragraph (e). He thought quite rightly that this was a matter which should be left to the Committee. It is obviously unfair that the landowner should be able to avoid such portion of the costs as will otherwise fall upon him if the arbitration goes against him. The hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse) raised the question of the plans. The plans referred to in the Bill are deposited in the Private Bill Office, and are open to the inspection of any hon. Member. They have been open

1359
for some weeks for inspection by any hon. Member "who desires to see them. If the hon. Member thinks they should be put in the Tea Room, personally I have no reason to suppose that the First Commissioner would object to that. The only other point raised was the very important matter of the gardens, which at present are private gardens, but are included in the site to which this Bill applies. I may say it is the intention of the First Commissioner, if this Bill passes, to invite the cooperation of a large Committee, representing all parties in the House, with the view of considering what is the best way of disposing of the site and what kind of building will be best suited for the purpose intended. I do not know of any plan considered or thought of which contemplated advancing the frontage to the Embankment so as to take up the gardens which at present exist, so that I think the Noble Lord's fears on that point are not well founded. What its exact purpose will be will be a matter for the Committee to decide, and they will also consider whether it will be open to the public or not. All those matters must be discussed by the Committee, which will have the advantage of the considered views of Members of all sides of this House.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Do I understand correctly that it is not proposed to extend the building line on to any portion of the existing gardens?
Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I do not think I ought to give a definite pledge in terms. It is not generally contemplated to utilise those gardens for buildings, but the First Commissioner intends to invite the help of the Committee, who will decide this matter. After all, the Votes for this purpose will have to come before the House on the Votes of the Commissioners, and the matter will be open, but I do not think that hon. Members need have any fear.
Lord A. THYNNE: Can the hon. Member give us an assurance on the third point, that the City of Westminster and the London County Council will be heard before both the Select Committee and the large Committee?
Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I have no doubt that the Standing Orders as to private Bills, which apply to this Bill, do provide for such representation, but I cannot speak as to the actual case, as I do not know.
Mr. FELL: Can the hon. Member say anything as to the cost of the northern half of this site?
Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The Bill provides for the acquisition, in the first place, of the southern half. It is not proposed at present to take the northern half, but the northern half, if it is acquired, will probably be worth £200,000.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I fail absolutely to see why any exception to the ordinary Lands Clauses Act should be introduced into a Bill of this nature. The Sub-clause clearly will work great injustice to landowners, and personally I object strongly to any alteration of the general law in a Bill of this kind. If it does not find its way out of the Bill in its various processes in Committee, I hope to be able to oppose it. Meantime I would ask the Government not to press a Clause of this kind.
Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: It was in the Bill of 1908.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I objected to it then and I object to it now.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, Three to be nominated by the House and Two by the Committee of Selection.
Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented Five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents be heard against the Bill, and Counsel or Agents heard in support of the Bill:
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
Ordered, That Three be the quorum —[Mr. Wedgwood Benn.]

LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—[Mr. J. M. Robertson.]
Sir F. BANBURY: Clause 6 of this Bill requires some explanation. It empowers local authorities to guarantee interest on the capital of light railways, not only on

1361
debentures, but on ordinary share capital. Under the Act of 1896 the council of a county or borough or district already have power to advance money by loan to light railways, and therefore I cannot see what the object of this particular Clause is. The hon. Member may say that it is easier to guarantee interest than to provide money, but I cannot see any difference between the local authority borrowing the money and their guaranteeing to provide the interest if the company provide the money. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will say that this is an attempt to evade the provisions of the Act of 1896, which put checks and safeguards upon local authorities borrowing this money. That Act provided that the money must be obtained in pursuance of a special resolution passed in the manner directed by the First Schedule to this Act, and there are other provisos. Will the hon. Gentleman give me an assurance that these provisos are not done away with? There is another point on Clause 7 which apparently does away with proviso E of Section 24 of the principal Act. That proviso says that an amending Order may not be made without the consent of the persons owning the property. That is a very sensible proviso, and I do not understand why it was done away with in that particular Clause.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: This Bill differs from the last inasmuch as it is a general Bill, but in the case of both Bills we have not had the advantage of any memorandum of explanation. These Bills are brought forward without a word of explanation, and we are supposed to find out for ourselves in advance what they mean. If I understand the first Clause aright, the Board of Trade is to be empowered to try to get an Act of Parliament through to enable a particular light railway to be carried out. That is a most extraordinary idea. If the promoters of a light railway make an application for a light railway under the Light Railways Act they are sometimes told that under the particular circumstances they ought to apply for an Act of Parliament. The first Clause of this Bill says that if an application is thrown out when made to the Light Railway Commissioners, on the ground that it ought to have come before Parliament, then the Board of Trade is to have the power to submit the proposals to Parliament by bringing in a Bill. A more extraordinary proposal I never heard, and we ought to have some very good examples of
1362
where there has been a failure of justice before we empower the Board of Trade to come to Parliament to get Acts of Parliament for all kinds of undertakings up and down the country instead of leaving the promoters of these undertakings to do so in the ordinary manner. Clause 2 of this Bill is again a most astonishing Clause. It is proposed to include in light railways what is called the trackless trolley system. An ordinary tramway is not under the light tramways Order, and anybody who-wants to construct an ordinary tramway cannot come to the Light Railway Commissioners to get an Order under the Light Railways Act. If you want to construct a tramway on a public road you cannon do so under the Light Railways Act. This Clause proposes that what is called the trackless trolley system shall have some special privilege. I would like to know how the promoters, patentees, and owners of the trackless trolley system have managed to get hold of the Board of Trade? They have evidently succeeded in persuading the Board of Trade that they are it most important body, and that the trackless, trolley system is a marvellous invention and ought to have some special privileges. I would like to know on what evidence the Board of Trade have come to such a conclusion? I have had something to do with tramway matters. I was chairman of the Liverpool tramways, when we constructed about 100 miles of tramway, and we investigated a number of these matters at that time. Therefore, I speak with some knowledge of the subject, and I think that anything more objectionable than the trackless trolley system would be difficult to imagine. The idea is that you have along the roads wires, and hanging on those wires you have a kind of small trolley, and from that little trolley from the wires overhead you have a little string. This string is connected with a moving vehicle which is not on rails, but can go to any part of the road. If that string, which carries the electricity, comes into contact with another vehicle—a lamp-post, or anything at all that happens to be passing, there will be very considerabla difficulty, and I am informed that this trackless trolley system will be found in most cases to be a very inconvenient and very expensive experiment.
Mr. BOOTH: Is not the trackless trolley system in existence?
8.0 P.M.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: This Bill is to enable the trackless trolley

1363
system to be constructed under the Light Railways Act, and that is what I object to. I think that the promoters of the trackless trolley system ought to be subject, as they are to-day, to the same difficulties as the promoters of an ordinary tramway are. It is not fair to give such a system as the trackless trolley system special preference and great advantages over the ordinary tramways. Besides that, happily, by the great development of omnibuses, self-propelled with petrol, such as we see to-day in the streets of London, that problem has been very largely solved. When we have got an omnibus that can go anywhere on the road, and is not dependent on a long string, or on wires overhead and does not disfigure the road or cut up traffic or inconvenience other people, and which is very superior to anything in the nature of a fixed tramway or a trackless trolley, I regard this Clause as being decidedly retrograde. It is going back oh the experience of the present day. The only reason I can imagine why the Board of Trade put in this Clause is that some five or six years ago this trackless trolley system was thought rather an improvement. This Clause was drawn up, and apparently the right hon. Gentleman has inherited it from some predecessors connected with the Department, and he now brings it forward. There is almost as effective criticisms to be made on some other Clauses of this Bill, and I do protest against a Bill of this importance being brought forward in this way—thrown at the House, so to speak, without any explanatory memorandum of any sort or description—and our being asked to pass matters that might turn out to be of the greatest possible importance without any proper explanation whatever.
Mr. C. BATHURST: I do not wish to oppose any Bill which extends facilities to agricultural districts, realising as I do that the main development of agriculture is due to just such light railways as are contemplated in this measure; but I do wish to protest against the terms of Clause 6, which gives what I consider a most dangerous power to the lesser local authorities—namely, district councils. Under the principal Act district councils were authorised to undertake and to construct and work light railways, or, alternatively, advance money to light railway companies for such purposes. It is now proposed to give even
1364
a district council the power of advancing money, or guaranteeing the payment of dividends, on capital embarked by some local company in a light railway. I know something about district councils, and I am strongly of opinion that you will find in certain places, if district councils have these very large powers, that pressure may possibly be put upon them by some self-interested parties prepared to make a business out of the transaction, and they may enter into a guarantee which, not they themselves, but their successors some time thereafter, will have to make good out of the rates. It is one thing for a district council to embark upon the decision to advance a large sum of money which the ratepayers have to find forthwith, or, at any rate, of which they will have immediate knowledge, but it is quite another thing to guarantee the payment of money, which guarantee would not be made good for several years, and the incubus of which will fall not upon them, the responsible representatives of the ratepayers, but on somebody not yet in being, who will have to bear the onus hereafter. I think this a dangerous power to extend to the lesser local authorities, and I would like to sec that power of guarantee excised from the Bill so far as district councils are concerned.
With regard to Sub-section (2) of the same Clause, I should like to ask how it is going to work. Perhaps I ought to remind the House that under the principal Act the Treasury is empowered to make advances of one-fourth of the total amount that is required in the way of loans to local authorities taking advantage of the Act. It is now proposed, in the event of their guaranteeing the sum that may be necessary for such an undertaking, to allow that one-fourth still to be advanced, but not to the local authority that gives the guarantee, but to the company which is working or is prepared to work the light railway; that is to say, in return for the guarantee made on behalf of the ratepayers of the district, the advantages are going to be conferred, not upon the ratepayers or their representatives, but upon those who are going to derive some commercial benefit out of the undertaking. As regards Clause 7, I would like to know what is meant by the expression "any local or road authority." For the first time we have powers given to bodies which are not either the undertakers of the light railways in a commercial sense or local authorities as defined

1365
by the principal Act. There are these road authorities. It seems to me that they are either local authorities so far as the work of road construction and maintenance is concerned, or they are some central road authority or some body of that kind. If these powers are going to be given for the first time to a central road authority, or any other road authority that may hereafter be constituted, I think you are stretching the principal Act into a sphere which was wholly uncontemplated when the Bill was passed into law in 1896. Because the new road authorities want to have those additional powers of obtaining amended Orders after abortive Orders have been previously obtained, I do not know why the owners of the undertakings are no longer to be required to give their consent. It appears to me that for some reason or another, because new road authorities have come into existence, possibly the Road Boards, the owners are no longer to have a say as to what may seriously affect their commercial or proprietary interests.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): The question raised by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down was also referred to by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). It has reference to Clause 6, and to the extended powers which are given to the local authorities not merely to advance money, but to guarantee dividends in the case of light railway construction. The defence of that particular provision of the Bill may be taken in terms as the justification of the Bill as a whole. The Light Railways Act of 1896 has done a considerable amount of work, but has not done all that was expected of it. Some seven hundred miles of light, railway have been constructed under the Act, and that is good work; but it has been found that at several points the measure has been prevented from coming into operation by reason of certain restrictions in the original Act. It is intelligible that a local authority, as the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London himself suggested, might find it simple and more convenient to guarantee the dividends in connection with an undertaking than to go into the money market and undertake for itself the business of finding the money, with the cost that the finding of the money might involve. But I think the hon. Member will agree that it is merely a
1366
matter of giving special convenience to the local authority, and I can assure him that all the former restrictions on the action of the local authority still remain. The provision under Section 2 of Clause 3 of the original Act to which I referred will remain in operation, so that local authorities would be no more free to do dangerous things in that way than they were under the original measure. The kind of liability they incur in this way is not fundamentally other than the kind of liability they incur in the other way, and this Bill simply gives the local authorities another convenience in the matter of giving their assent to a particular scheme. In regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Watson Rutherford), I may here say briefly as to the provision to which he demurred, that the Board of Trade should have power to produce a Bill in case an Order is net sufficient, that again was on the ground of meeting the convenience of the promoters, who, under the new arrangement, would not have to come to Parliament and go over the whole business of promotion again. The object of the Bill is to facilitate these undertakings in the interests of agriculture, fishing and other forms of trade. Instead of having to undertake the burdensome process of coming to Parliament again, and to fulfil formalities, it is now proposed that the Board of Trade should do what is easier for them as a Department to do, namely, produce a Bill. The hon. Member opposite spoke about trackless trolleys, and he wished to know whether these undertakings would be subject to the same requirements as in the case of light railways, and whether the Light Railway Commissioners would make the same sort of inquiries and put the same sort of difficulties in their way. I may state that promoters of these undertakings will not be allowed to ride roughshod any more than light railway people in the past. The hon. Member suggests that the promoters of the trackless trolley system have captured the Board of Trade. If there is to be any capture, the people they have to capture will be the Light Railway Commissioners, because the Board of Trade only confirm the Orders. If it should be found, however, that the motor-omnibus is better than the trackless trolley, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, the motor-omnibus could in any case compete with the trackless trolley, and, if it prove the cheaper, it will drive the trackless trolley out.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: If the trackless trolley system is introduced into a city it might be in a position to always interfere with anybody else.
Mr. ROBERTSON: I do not think it is possible. I think the Light Railway Commissioners would take that into account. The hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. C. Bathurst) thinks Clause 6 is dangerous, but I have already referred to that subject. Again, as to the meaning of the expression "road or local authority," that seems to me a point better fitted for discussion in Committee, and if the hon. Member has anything to suggest on the point, it will receive most careful consideration.
Mr. C. BATHURST: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is intended by the expression?
Mr. ROBERTSON: It is very difficult on the moment to give a complete definition of the expression "road or local authority."
Mr. J. WARD: I wish to draw attention to Clause 2 of this Bill, and I should like some explanation on the matter. I venture to suggest that the Clause is an innovation which ought to be very seriously considered by this House before it is allowed to be passed. The Light Railway Commissioners at present have certain powers with reference to ordinary light railways, and private owners are able to appear before them for the purpose of as far as possible protecting their rights. I am bound to say that so far as I have any cognisance of the matter the Commissioners have taken very little notice of any public authority appearing before them for the purpose of protecting those rights.
And it being a Quarter past Eight of the clock, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

COAL MINING.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to move, "That this House, having regard to the vital importance to the Nation of economic power production, and recognising that the United Kingdom has a special relative advantage in regard to coal which needs to be carefully conserved, calls for the public control of the Coal-Mining industry and the establishment of a permanent Power Commission charged with the conservation, development, control, and distribution of power."
1368
I can hardly hope that the whole of the Resolution which I now beg to submit to the House will obtain acceptance, but I can be quite sure that its opening words will have the approval of every hon. Member where reference is made to the vital importance to the nation of economic power production. Although that is a subject which needs little explanation, I hope the House will allow me to dwell upon it for a moment in order to show upon what ground I move the Resolution which is obviously of a drastic character, and which seeks to make a fundamental alteration in the governing and conditions of one of the greatest, if not the greatest, of our industries. I should like to remind the House that we stand removed to-day but a very short space of time from a period when the United Kingdom was not only a poor country but a country which had few arts, decadent manufactures, and which, with the greatest difficulty in the world maintained a poor and struggling iron industry but which gave no sign then of the future industrial greatness which lay before it. Only about five generations, or about 150 years ago, we had reached a point where it seemed what poor industries we had would be lost to us. At that time we were chiefly exporters of raw materials and importers of manufactured articles. We had a poor iron industry, in the attempt to sustain which we had destroyed the magnificent British forests. There then came a startling change in the conditions of British industry. That change was caused by the discovery of the economic use of something which we had all along possessed, but which we did not know how to use and to get. I, of course, refer to our coal. The coal which had been neglected we began to use, and from that time forward there came the change in British industries.
If we divide, as Jevons suggests, our commercial and industrial history into two parts, one dated backwards from the middle of the eighteenth century and the other forward to the present time and the future, we have that great contrast between an agricultural country with few manufactures, exporting its raw material with that of an industrial nation, not only with great industries, but calling for material from all the world. Curiously, the very reason of our industrial development gave an extraordinary stimulation to British invention. It was, of course, the necessity for getting coal economically which led to the invention of the steam engine and the invention of the

1369
railway, and those in their turn reacted upon coal. So we arrive at that extraordinary phenomenon which has been justly called the industrial revolution. We ceased to be an agricultural people and became an industrial people. Our people were swept into the towns to meet the call for workers in industry, and the entire perspective of British industry changed, and changed perhaps for ever. Thus British industry made an uninterrupted advance till the seventies of the nineteenth century. Then two other countries, which also had possessed coal resources, began to use them. I refer to Germany and the United States. Germany, which for centuries had been held back, held in the leash by historical circumstances which are known to every hon. Member, was released, and became free at last to develop her magnificent coal resources. From that time forward, when the great German army kept peace within the great German empire and enabled Germany to develop her resources, another rival entered the industrial field. Germany began to make the certain progress which a people of such genius were bound to make, furnished as they were with such resources.
The great American nation, which, as Jevons pointed out long ago, were bound to become the chief iron nation of the world by reason of their extraordinary coal and iron resources, began to open up her great coal resources, and so there arose those three great industrial nations in the world, Britain, America, and Germany, each of them wielding industrial and commercial power by reason of the same thing, namely, the possession of enormous coal resources. I have dwelt upon these matters very briefly, in order to accentuate the importance of the proposition with which my Resolution opens, namely, the vital importance to the United Kingdom of her coal supply. My Resolution proceeds to speak of recognising that the United Kingdom has a special relative advantage in regard to coal, which needs to be carefully conserved. This particular point has been widely misunderstood. So widely misunderstood is it that during the past four or five unhappy weeks we have had article after article appearing in the Press of this country, and appearing in the most intelligent organs, consoling the British people over the coal strike by pointing out that there are other means of obtaining power. For example, one or two papers came out
1370
with the suggestion that if only the oil of the world were developed we should be independent of coal, and therefore independent of the coal miner, and that therefore we need not fear strikes in future. Other amiable suggestions of that kind were made. They were amiable, but they were not very sensible, for this reason, that our advantage in regard to coal is a relative advantage—that is to say, we possess in regard to the thing which is at present the great source of power an advantage so great that it is the largest known supply in the world, at any rate amongst the white nations and in Europe. As coal cannot be economically transported to any great distance for the purpose of industry, that means that the nation which has the greatest native supply of coal is in an unassailable position, other things being equal, for carrying on competitive industries.
So long as coal remains the great source of power in the world, so long we possess a relative advantage; but if any inventor comes along and dethrones coal that inventor will almost assuredly at the same time dethrone the industrial power of the United Kingdom, for the simple reason that it is extremely unlikely that, in regard to the new source of power, we should possess the same relative advantage which we do in regard to coal. The tides, for example, are a purely visionary subject. Engineers tell us so, and really the more clever and the more well-founded the engineer is the more he puts out of the practical sphere of the discussion any question of utilising the tides. All those suggestions as to utilising the tides and the sun may be put aside for the purpose of our present discussion. With regard to oil, I may point out that oil is coal. Mineral oil is nothing more or less than coal. There are some coal nations which have the good fortune to possess oil, which is so much the better for them; but we are not one of the nations. It is true that oil can be distilled from coal artificially, but that is using oil in the same way as using coal. There is the further, and really most absurd, suggestion that we might get assistance from pressing oil from vegetables, and thus obtaining vegetable oils. As a matter of fact, the cheapest oils are so much dearer than coal in that connection that you can put them aside. If they became so cheap as to be real competitors with coal we should lose our relative advantage, because we are not one of the countries which would

1371
produce coal cheaply. That is the real meaning of my introducing the words "relative advantage" in my Resolution. It is to remind the House, if I may, that in regard to coal we are in a special position, and that in regard to any substitutionary power it is exceedingly unlikely— indeed almost impossible—that we should be in the same relative position. In other words, British industrial greatness depends upon coal.
It is also necessary to realise that our relative advantage does not depend upon the quantity of coal in our mines. I remember that a little while ago a question was put on this very point to the Home Secretary by an hon. Member opposite. My right hon. Friend was asked about the coal reserves of the United Kingdom, and a reply was prepared, apparently at the Home Office, to the effect that not only had we the enormous amount of coal spoken of by the Report of the last Royal Commission—one of the most jejune productions ever brought forth by a Royal Commission, which is saying a great deal —but we had even more, because it was pointed out that there were unproved coalfields, and so forth. As a matter of fact, our relative advantage in regard to coal is not a question of how much coal we have, but of how much cheap and accessible coal we have—coal that can be got so cheaply and so easily as to give us a relative advantage. Let me give an illustration of what I mean. Canada is a great coal country, yet she produces only about 10,000,000 tons of coal a year—a negligible quantity. Why is that? Because a great part of the coal of Canada, although her coal areas are so great, is dear to get, so that for practical purposes she is a poor coal country. The same applies to Russia. The coal areas of Russia are enormous; they are larger than the coal areas of the United Kingdom. Why is it that Russia is not a great coal country? Because her coal measures lie too deep; they are too costly to get to be useful for the purposes of competitive industry. Therefore what matters to us is that smaller quantity of cheap and accessible coal, which would be much more rapidly exhausted than the other measures to which my right hon. Friend referred in the answer of which I have spoken. My Resolution speaks of that relative advantage being carefully conserved. Can that relative advantage be carefully conserved? Is
1372
it possible? Of course, if science produces a substitute for coal, I admit at once the subject is past the pale of discussion. If it is true that at any time scientists will make use of solar heat, or of the tides, or of the other things which have been suggested, Resolutions such as that I am submitting to the House would need no discussion—indeed there would be only a limited number of people left in the United Kingdom to discuss them. I therefore put them aside with the remark that they belong to the category of things as to which if a man disquiets himself he disquiets himself in vain. Statesmen cannot deal with such contingencies at all. Fortunately there is no sign of the early substitution of any other power for coal. It is true that some parts of the world possess exceedingly good water power, but those parts of the world are somewhat limited, and we can neglect them in the present discussion. We have to look forward to a considerable period during which coal will remain the great power getter of the world. That being the case, can we help ourselves at all in that respect? I submit that we can. We can and, further, we must help ourselves. At present the greater part of the coal that is got is wasted. Probably about 90 per cent, of the coal got with so much arduous labour is actually wasted, even in the best steam engines used, and I am afraid it can be said that only the minority of the steam plant of the United Kingdom is of the most efficent type known to engineers. It is certain that conservation is possible; indeed conservation has proceeded. The question is, can conservation be carried to such a point as to secure either for a longer period of time, or indeed indefinitely, some sort of relative advantage to the power of the United Kingdom. I submit that the importance of these issues is so great, that the issues are so transcendent in the national economy, that we have here a question which should surely be regarded as a national question. We have long passed the day when States considered it a proper thing to rely on private and individual enterprise for their armies or navies. There were such times, of course, when the soldier of fortune played a very considerable part in Europe, and the privateer also was a considerable figure. Those days have passed. We now think that such an important interest as the Navy must be under public control. I submit with perfect confidence that no

1373
defeat on land or sea could mean anything like the disaster for the United Kingdom that would be spelt by the loss of this relative advantage in power. No defeat that can be imagined would have anything like the diastrous consequences to our population that the loss of our relative power advantage would bring us. I submit, therefore, that here we have a question which stands out as one which should be considered as a national question, a national interest more vital than the maintenance of an Army or of a Navy out of public funds.
I also submit that it is too large and too far-reaching to be longer confided to private hands. The nature of the power developments of the future is no longer in doubt. Granted the continuance of coal as the great power getter of the world, the nature of those developments is no longer in doubt, and we know further that they are on a scale which demands that they should be controlled nationally. They are quite unsuitable for private powers to control. What is the probable, the almost certain, future of the use of power in the world? The answer is that it will be electrical. The answer is true, whether the power be water power, which is sometimes called white coal, or the ordinary coal upon which we have to depend. When it comes to considering the question of electrical developments we are faced with the fact that we cannot afford to allow them to spring up at the bidding of private exploiters in unsuitable localities, with controls varying in area and in importance, such as those which have already unfortunately sprung up in our country. We have, for example, in the Metropolis itself a number of quite uneconomic power centres. We have already allowed them to spring up; they have sprung up not only in the Metropolis but elsewhere. We are actually engaged now, at the beginning of the twentieth century, in permitting to spring up a power system which will be just as full of trouble to this House in the future as our railways are now because of the neglect of this House in the past. I submit that there was some excuse for Parliament in the early days of engineering, when railway engineering was in its infancy, and when men could not foresee as they can now the developments of the future. No one could tell what would happen in the "forties" and "fifties" in the way of railway development. We could find an excuse for Parliaments—I am not sure
1374
whether we can find full excuse—neglecting their duty. Still I may point out in. passing that the Parliament in Belgium was not so foolish, for they employed George Stephenson to construct the national railways of Belgium. I pass from, that, and I say that we are now allowing; to spring up a system, or a want of system, which will be fraught with great trouble-in the future because of its great lack of co-ordination, of its lack of delimitation? of the proper power areas of this country.
Let me point out what one of our greatest electrical engineers, a man who has had the honour of being president of the Institute of Electrical Engineers, Mr. De Ferranti, has suggested as a reasonable scheme for using the power of this country. He points out the folly of a great country like ours carting about the source of power instead of converting the coal into current at the pithead, and distributing it in the form of electrical power He points out, too, that if coal were converted into electricity at the pithead, instead of being simply used in individual purposes, you would get such an economic load for electrical plants that you would be able to reduce the cost of current very considerably indeed. We should be able to get it at a price now unheard of. He estimates that the work of the country now done by mechanical power—that we could produce that power for an expenditure of something like 60,000,000 or 70,000,000 tons of coal per annum, instead of the 150,000,000 tons and upwards. If that were possible we should prolong the life of that part of our coal which I have called the coal which gives us our relative advantages, the cheap coal, far beyond the period which would now see its exhaustion. We have, of course, to put against that fact—and I do not want to conceal this from the House, for, indeed, it is part of the chief consideration which we have to bring before the House—the fact that if we cheapen power in this way we increase the use of power.
By every farthing that you take from-the cost of electrical power you increase its use. Therefore it is true that while the conservation of coal, through its commercial conversion into cheap current, would conserve coal in one sense it would increase its use in another sense. I dc not think, however, we need face that contingency with any fear. After all we should have the consolation of knowing, even if the improved methods caused, say, the use of as much coal as before, that we were

1375
getting a proper economic value out of the use of the same amount of coal. I should think that probably, although the use would considerably increase, we should yet make a definite saving in the amount of coal used. The danger is that these things that I have mentioned may be thought by hon. Members who have not given attention to them dreams of a distant future. They may think they are mere suggestions and fancies. I venture to point out that some very great names indeed are connected with these ideas—Sir Oliver Lodge, Mr. De Ferranti, Professor Marchant, and many others. These all give their adhesion to this particular view.
We are living also in a century when things are moving in the world, and moving very rapidly indeed. We have only to look back ten years. We had not then wireless telegraphy, which was only just beginning. Signor Marconi was doubted when he stated that he had flashed the letter "S" across the Atlantic. Nobody believed him. Now wireless electrical communication has become a commonplace. In that decade aviation has passed from a pastime to a definite science, and already we are beginning to construct vehicles which can navigate the air successfully. It is therefore a thing to be feared that a nation like this, which has allowed itself—I say it with regret, but I am afraid I speak with truth—to fall behind in the sphere of scientific investigation and scientific advancement. There is a great fear that this nation, and the Parliament of this nation, may let these things slip by, may let the time go by that is theirs in which they can take advantage of the present position of power and present scientific attainments in order to make the very best use of the natural gifts which belong to them. Further in this connection I may point out that although it is true the other two great coal nations have not taken the step which is recommended in my Resolution, one of these nations, Germany, although it has not got a Power Commission, has got a National Railway Administration, and that National Railway Administration has taken steps which very assuredly will lead to the accomplishment of the programme within a very short period which is outlined in my Resolution. What has happened? The administration of the Prussian railways made an experiment at Magdeburg. The experiment has proved so successful that
1376
the Prussian Railway Administration has definitely recommended that the whole of the main line system should be electrified. It is pointed out that that electrification will not only improve the railway economy —as it must do—because it is in spite of articles which have been appearing in some of our newspapers as to oil engines, there is not the slightest doubt, that the most economical way of running railways is by means of electricity, and they have recommended that. Their recommendation will be carried out. There is no doubt during the next fifteen years that the whole German system will be electrified. The report further points out that this is not merely a railway matter. When great power stations are constructed in order to run the railways, those great power stations, by reason of the economic load which they will carry, will be able to supply current for industrial and for social purposes at a very cheap rate indeed. They point out that Germany will gain thereby industrially and socially, that the whole of German industry will be re-organised, and that German social life will be changed and improved. These are no idle dreams. They are things which will be accomplished in this world of ours in the very near future.
Boston has an electrical scheme in hand for bringing current from the Pennsylvania coal mines in order to carry on the whole work of Boston and its vicinity electrically. Undoubtedly these things will happen in the world in the very near future. What is going to be the relation of British industry, and what is going to be the relation of British social life to these things? Undoubtedly the world will not wait for us and by every step in this particular matter which Germany takes and other great coal nations take, in order to supply their industries with cheap power will be a further handicap to ourselves. It is perfectly true that the Prussian Government have not so far made any decided step in coal nationalisation, but certainly they have let slip no opportunity of getting an interest in the German coal syndicates. They own some mines which they now lease, in other mines they have a share and undoubtedly in time to come they will combine that policy with their railway administration policy, and they will then be in a position to wield the national powers of Germany as a nation never wielded them before. That is a very formidable contingency for any rival to Germany to contemplate. I submit to the House we cannot

1377
with equanimity face that contingency. Putting all questions of foreign rivals out of consideration, and if we were the only nation in the world I still submit it is our duty to make the best possible use of the power we have and I submit that the considerations involved are too great, and too powerful, for us to allow them to be longer wielded by private and irresponsible bands.
A full conservation of coal implies a number of things. It implies, for example, the continuous experiment in coal boring. It has been pointed out by the Geological authorities, by Professor Watts, that it is the duty of the nation to make closer enquiries as to what coal it actually possesses. How can that be done while the coal of the country is controlled by Royalty owners and private colliery proprietors? It is impossible to carry out a systematic series of boring in order to ascertain where and to what extent we can rely upon coalfields in our areas. It also implies continuous experiments in coal production and in transit. We have not made these experiments fully enough in the United Kingdom. It is a reproach to our railway system that they are not so enterprising in experiments as others, for example, the administration of the Prussian railways supply funds to enable it to make generous experiments in this connection. Then there is an important matter, the administration of the power areas. Power areas, of course, do not coincide with local government areas, and, therefore, the control of electrical powers and the control of its development are not subjects that can properly be confided to the hands of the local government. Many of the local government electrical enterprises are fully as uneconomic as those belonging to private companies. Then, the carrying out of such scheme of electrification demands a very large amount of capital. We should have to contemplate, if this proposition of mine were carried out, such an expenditure as the United States Government has put its hand to in the matter of the Panama Canal. We should have to face a capital expenditure of something like £900,000,000. That may seem a daring proposition in a Parliament which has even hesitated in the past to nationalise its railways or to approach the question of the nationalisation of the land. I venture to say that the future of work, not only In this country, but in the world, will increasingly witness the application of governing powers to such problems as these.
1378
Indeed, there is no other possible end for the control of such an important thing as power that we can contemplate bun its control by a Parliament.
If Parliament is content to leave such control to private hands, then obviously it resigns the greater part of government. When such a question arises as that which recently arose in the great coal strike in the last few weeks, we realise how impotent we are in this House, and, so far as the Government is concerned, how little we have to do with the actual governing of the people of this country. We realise that the power that governs the miner is not the House of Commons, but is the man who gives him employment and deducts his rent and other items from his fort-nightly wage. That is the real governor of the miners, and when it comes to a question of the controls of the very life blood of the interests of the country then I say, if the Parliament of the country seeks to resign the control of that power, it actually resigns the governing power, and cannot be said to govern the country at all. Involved in this question, increasingly in the future, will be the power to tax. I point out here, as in connection with railways, that if the House of Commons puts aside for ever the control of these public powers then the British Parliament will have one source of revenue, and one only, to rely upon, and that is the power of taxation. That is a very serious thing to have to face in the future. I doubt if there is any other country in the world so dependent upon taxation for the means of raising State revenue as the United Kingdom. There is a limit to the power of taxation, and if in the future we do not take up revenue-producing administration our powers of taxation will fail us. Let us consider the position of the German States. In Prussia, Saxony, Bavaria, what do we find? A very large part of the revenues they raise are not raised by taxation at all, but by profits, not undue profits, which are made upon this State revenue-producing administration. That means this to the German empire: that the German empire at this time is not only able to sustain the greatest army in the world, but also to sustain a navy which is within measurable distance of the dimensions of our own Navy. I say without fear of contradiction the German empire could not do that if it was not for the fact that the German State, for the most part, possesses such revenue administration which enables their Finance Minister to rely upon other sources of revenue than taxation.

1379
In time to come the revenue from power supply in this country will be enormous. It is for the House of Commons to decide whether that revenue is to go, as it now does, into private pockets, as in the case of railways, or into the pockets of the State. I submit there can be only one wise answer to that question; that merely from the point of view of revenue alone, if no other considerations were involved, it would be the duty of Parliament to put its hand to the control of power supply. It may be said that the proposition I make is a Socialistic proposition. That, of course, most obviously it is, but if we are to be merely afraid of words in this connection then, I am afraid, the outlook of the United Kingdom is very bad. We certainly have arrived at a time in the industrial development of the world when we must not be afraid of words or phrases. We have heard a good deal about the word "Syndicalism." but there is another word derived from the same root, and that is the word "Syndicate." An hon. and learned Gentleman opposite said the other day that he did not like the word "Syndicalism" because it was a foreign word; it happens to be exactly the same kind of foreign word as "Syndicate," but I never heard the hon. Member denounce the syndicates which we have got in connection with power supply and have had for a long time. If we are afraid of the doctrine of Syndicalism we must be afraid of syndicates. Under Syndicalism a body of men can obtain control of an industry, throw off the power of the State, and rule the industry themselves. Syndicalism is just the opposite to Syndicatism. Under the doctrine of Syndicatism a group of capitalists get control of an industry and govern it in their own interests, and of the two ideas I think I like Syndicalism the best. The hon. Member who moved a Resolution dealing with this subject the other night was almost moved to enthusiasm by his subject. It is clear that we have either to face in this matter of power supply the power of Syndicatism or we have got to show that Parliament intends to govern this country and govern our greatest industry. That is the issue before the House in this Resolution. It may be that my Resolution is of too far-reaching a character for a decision to be arrived at on a private Members' evening. I might agree to that proposition, but I earnestly hope no one in this House will hastily or lightly put this proposition aside. Let my Resolution, at any rate,
1380
have serious consideration. I do not pretend either to have exhausted the subject or to have dealt with it as worthily as it deserves, because I have been speaking with some physical difficulty to-night. This is a subject to which I have given a good deal of consideration and thought, and the more I have considered it the more I have realised that the time is ripe for us to acquire a greater control of what is the real basis and foundation of the industries of the country. I hope at least that this has been driven home to the minds of the country during the past few weeks.
I think the experience of the last month has perhaps been a greater education in the meaning of coal to the British people than it has ever received before. It is quite possible for a people to live and move and have their being without knowledge of the first condition of their own existence. All history has proved that. When we look back upon the progress and the rise and fall of empires and great nations in the past we can see, and wonder as we see, the causes at work undermining their greatness which were not visible to the people who were being undermined. We read with amazement how Venice at the time her prosperity was departing from her for ever, employed an alchemist to make gold, being blind to the real causes working mischief in the country. It was because of the lack of appreciation of the causes of its own greatness that Venice came to decline. In spite of the great lesson of the last four or five weeks the greater part of the people of this country are unaware of their real economic dependence upon power supply, and it is because of that that I have moved this Resolution to-night, and if it does not gain acceptance at the hands of the House, I hope at least I have said enough to show that it is a subject worthy of serious consideration.
Mr. KING: I beg leave to second the Resolution.
9.0 P.M.
I am sure hon. Members like myself who have foregone the temptation of dining have had a feast of intellectual riches in listening to the speech which has just been delivered. My hon. Friend has brought forward a question which is pre-eminently not only one of the future, but of the present. We cannot expect to maintain the great position of this country and this Empire unless we look well ahead, and I

1381
am sure, in bringing forward this most important question, with so much ability and eloquence, my hon. Friend has done a real service to this House and to the country I will only add one consideration to the very able and weighty speech he has made, and it is that other countries besides ourselves are at this time weighing and considering most carefully the conservation of their powers. The word conservation has in the last few years in the Uni ed States indicated the whole line of policy of thought and has suggested discussions, books, and lectures, and has in fact lent a new interest to politics, economics and industry. If we are good patriots and good politicians, I think we in this country must look forward to the consideration of questions like this which my hon. Friend has brought forward so ably to-night. I am sure there are many hon. Members anxious to take up the subject, and I will not further detain the House.
Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: I had hoped that we should have had a fuller discussion of this very important question which has been so ably put before the House by my hon. Friend the Member for East Northamptonshire. His speech deserved not only a larger audience but a fuller debate. My duty to-night is a very simple one. Like the rest of the House I have greatly appreciated the range of knowledge, the lucidity, and the vigour of the exposition of this subject in the speech of the hon. Member. The main case put forward by my hon. Friend is an unanswerable one as regards the absolute indispensableness of coal, the fundamental value of coal to this nation, and the immense importance of a more economic use of it in the future. Upon all those points the speech of the Mover of this Resolution is not open to criticism. Perhaps in his vivid sketch of our coal industry the hon. Member did not give quite enough prominence to the part played by water power. I am no suggesting that water power can conceivably come into competition with coal in our country. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is no use discussing oil. Oil may be a very important fuel in competition with coal for purposes of steamships, but as a factor to supersede coal in our industries I agree with my hon. Friend that it is not to be considered. He is scarcely entitled, I think, to say that whatever comes along to dethrone coal will make an end of our industrial position. He does not know what is going to
1382
dethrone coal, and, when one suggests to him that it might be that tidal energy would be utilised one simply means that Britain would still relatively have an advantage. I quite agree that tidal energy is visionary now, for the simple reason that the use of coal at present excludes commercial resort to tidal power.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: That is not the case. Engineers who have examined the subject have never seen any machinery which would not be destroyed by the very power which it is sought to utilise.
Mr. ROBERTSON: No engineer would deny that tidal energy is a power. We have seen springing into existence within a very few years many new forms of control of natural resources, and the limitations of present-day engineers should not be seriously put forward as excluding the possibility of any development in future. I quite agree that the relative cheapness of the power supplied is the vital point, but my hon. Friend did less than justice to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary some months ago. It is quite true my right hon. Friend spoke then of the amount of coal lying deeper than the present mines have gone, but he also spoke of the unproved coal, which is another matter, and, whereas he estimated the coal below 4,000 feet as only some 5,000,000,000 tons, he cited an estimate of unproved coal of as much as 39,000,000,000 tons. When he spoke of further resources of coal he was not alluding to coal necessarily uneconomically obtainable. The great question, of course, is how we can improve our economic, national, and industrial position, or how we can continue to maintain that relative advantage which, as the hon. Member justly says, we possess. The waste of coal in relation to its potential power under our present individualistic system is undoubtedly enormous. I suppose the estimate of 90 per cent, is not very far out. That the nation will in some fashion have to resort ere long to some economic use of its power by way of supplying current, as he suggests, to various forms of industry, and that it will in its own interests have to develop on those lines I really have no doubt. The difficulty arises when my hon. Friend suggests, and when his Resolution suggests, that the control of this power, meaning as I understand the actual coal supply, is no longer to be confided to private hands.

1383
There are two ways in which this probable development may be considered. There is a great deal to be said for the suggestion that the State in a nation such as our own should put its hand to power production by way of supplying power to industry at a far cheaper rate than it is being supplied by almost any power-supplying company at present. One can conceive—I do not put it higher—such a State as our own doing that. I agree that the municipalities can hardly do it, since the coal and power areas would not coincide with the municipal areas, but it is conceivable that in such a State as ours the Government might set up power centres in the coalfields where power could be produced in the most economical way. I am not saying whether we are going to be able to attain that, but that is far short of what my hon. Friend suggests. His proposal practically means our taking over control of the coal supply also, and that enormously complicates the case. I pointed out not long ago that between such forms of nationalisation as the nationalisation of the railways and the nationalisation of the coal mines there is really a vast economic difference. The step from the one to the other is enormous. In the same way, I would suggest that even the setting up of a State industry of power production by such a Government as ours is a very large order indeed, and is a proposition the nation has hardly yet contemplated, but the further suggestion that the Government should control the whole coal resources of the State is really going a very great deal further still. I can only therefore say that, while giving a general assent to all my hon. Friend's elaborate abstract arguments, I, of course, am unable on behalf of the Government to accept—and I think he foresaw it—the very sweeping Resolution he has put before us. He very frankly avowed that the capital expenditure would run into £900,000,000. I agree that all things move quicker in this age than in past ages, and in an age in which the development of physical science has been so rapid it is quite reasonable to suggest that the development of political and economic science will be more rapid than in the past. There, again, I assent to the abstract proposition, but, when it comes to committing this House and the Government to the expenditure of £900,000,000, I think my hon. Friend realises that the proposition is not practicable.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Oh, no, I do not realise that at all.
Mr. ROBERTSON: For the purposes of this House. I have indicated my general assent to the line of reasoning of my hon. Friend, and, taking his survey and argument as a kind of step in the evolution of society and of the world, I am not suggesting, as he said some hon. Gentlemen might suggest, that he is a mere dreamer of dreams; but I do say his Resolution is really the most extreme form which he could give to his ideas to-night. He asks the House to set up this permanent Commission to deal with these matters, and it is in regard to the impossibility of the House accepting that that I used the expression "impracticable." I would remind my hon. Friend that on 22nd February, again in reply to a question, the Home Secretary, using the same language as I have been using to-night, admitted the importance of an inquiry into coal supply and power, and stated:—
"I am considering whether a Government inquiry could with advantage be made in two directions: First, what measures are possible to prevent waste in the getting of coal—e.g.. by wasteful methods of working or by levying unnecessary barriers between royalties: and, secondly, what economies can be effected by stopping waste in the consumption of coal and by its more scientific use in the production of energy."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1912, col. 880.]
He was considering and inquiring into what goes a long way in the direction of the kind of information which my hon. Friend wants. That matter is still under the serious and earnest consideration of the Government. Beyond that I cannot go, and I am quite unable to advise the acceptance of the resolution.
Sir WALTER MENZIES: I am very glad to be able to join in the congratulations which my hon. Friend has received upon the speech which he has delivered in proposing the Motion. It has been exceedingly informing, and we have received what might be called a lecture upon what might happen if we continue to run our machinery in this country by coal power. He has also told us something about Syndicalism and Syndicates, and has drawn a comparison—
Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members not being present,
The House was adjourned at Twenty minutes after Nine o'clock till to-morrow (Thursday).