Commons Sitting of 29 February 1912

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Taff Vale Railway Bill.

Midland Railway Bill.

Great Eastern Railway Bill.

Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
Metropolitan Electric Tramways Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
Keighley Corporation Bill (by Order),
Sheffield Corporation Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Newry, Keady, and Tynan Railway Bill (by Order),
Dover Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

KING'S SPEECH.

  HIS MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Captain F. E. Guest)reported to the House, That His Majesty, having been attended with their Address of the 23rd instant, was pleased to receive the same very graciously, and to give the following answer:—
  I have received with great satisfaction, the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I have opened the present Session of Parliament.

CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND).
Return presented 28th February; to be printed. [No. 52.]
PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (ELECTORS, ETC.) (UNITED KINGDOM).
Return presented relative thereto [Address 22nd February; Major Morrison-Bell]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 53.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Persia.
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the total amount of British and Indian claims now outstanding against Persia; and what steps are being taken to secure their adjustment?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE-for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who usually answers these questions on Thursdays, asks that you will excuse him to-day in consequence of his being engaged in connection with the coal strike. The total amount of British and Indian claims against the Persian Government is, so far as I am aware, about £75,000. The detailed claims are, however, filed at His Majesty's Legation at Teheran. In the event of any considerable loan being raised by the Persian Government, which would include in its objects the payment of their creditors, His Majesty's Government will press for the payment of British claims.
  Colonel YATEasked what is the gross value of the whole of the British and Indian trade involved in connection with the trade routes of Southern Persia; and what it was four years ago?
  Mr. ACLAND: The figures which are not quite complete are very detailed, and I will therefore send them to the hon. and gallant Member separately; but the rough totals of the available figures of imports and exports together, from Great Britain and India, are for 1907–8, £1,920,000, and for 1910–11, £1,860,000.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked whether the Secretary for Foreign Affairs will communicate to the House at once the text of the communication made to the Persian Government on behalf of His Majesty's Government based on the instructions given to our representative at Teheran on the 7th of September last, for the purpose of explaining the Anglo-Russian Agreement, and also the text of the acceptance by the Persian Government of the terms of this communication?
  Mr. ACLAND: It was considered unnecessary to lay the communication, because it was in identic terms with the instructions which are given on page 48 of the first Persian Blue Book of 1909, except for two slight alterations which are of no importance. The Paper can, however, be laid if desired. No answer was returned to it by the Persian Government.
  Mr. MORRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this dispatch or Memorandum was communicated?
  Mr. ACLAND: Immediately after the instructions had been given to our representative.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Were we not informed that the Persian Government had accepted this communication?
  Mr. ACLAND: The fact that they accepted it and made no comment was taken as acceptance.
  Mr. MORRELL: How long is the Persian Government required to treat this as a confidential communication?
  Mr. ACLAND: I must ask for notice of that question.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked whether there are at present any Russian officers in the Persian Regular Army, excluding the brigade of Persian Cossacks; can the Under-Secretary state the number of Russian officers at present serving with the Persian Cossack Brigade; and what is the number of foreign officers serving in the Persian Regular Army, exclusive of the Persian Cossack Brigade, before the conclusion of the Anglo-Russian Convention and also at the present date?
  Mr. ACLAND: According to the latest information in my possession, there are no Russian officers in the Regular Army. The number of Russian officers with the Persian Cossack Brigade is five. I am unable to state how many foreign officers were employed before the conclusion of the Anglo-Russian Convention, and I have no information that there are such officers serving with the Regular Army at present.
  Mr. FLETCHERasked the date and amount of any advance by way of loan made by the British Government to Persia; whether such advance was made from Indian or from Imperial funds; can the hon. Gentleman give particulars of any similar loans made by Russia to Persia; and can he state the rate of interest both on the British and the Russian advances?
  Mr. ACLAND: In 1903, His Majesty's Government advanced to the Persian Government, through the Imperial Bank of Persia, the sum of £200,000 at 5 per cent. In September, 1904, a further sum of £100,000 was similarly advanced at the same rate. In both cases the money was paid from Indian funds, but His Majesty's Government agreed to share with the Government of India in equal moieties any loss through failure of the Persian Government to meet their obligations as regards repayment. In 1900, the Russian Bank made a loan to the Persian Government of 22,500,000 roubles (about £2,500,000) at 5 per cent.; and in April, 1902, a further loan of 10,000,000 roubles (£1,000,000) at 5 per cent. was made from the same source. There may also have been smaller amounts advanced by the Russian Bank on other occasions.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked whether any representatives of British commercial interests in Persia have made representations protesting against the appointment of M. Mornard as Treasurer-General for Persia; and, if so, whether, before the acquiescence of His Majesty's Government in the permanent appointment of M. Mornard to that post was given, its effect on British interests was considered?
  Mr. ACLAND: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the 21st inst., when he stated that reports from His Majesty's Minister at Teheran are favourable to M. Mornard, and that his appointment at present is temporary.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Persian Government protested against the appointment of M. Mornard?
  Mr. ACLAND: I must have notice of that question.

  Italy and Turkey (Sinking Turkish Warships).
  Mr. MARK SYKESasked whether the Foreign Secretary has any official information regarding the events which took place in Beyrut during and after the time Italian warships were engaged in sinking two Turkish warships in Beyrut Harbour; whether the action of the Italian warships endangered the lives or property of British subjects; and whether such action has had a prejudicial effect on the security of

  1517
  British residents and native Christians in Syria and Palestine?
  Mr. ACLAND: I am informed by His Majesty's Consul-General that, during the sinking of the Turkish warships, the Ottoman Bank, the Salonica Bank, the Customs House, and an hotel were damaged by shells. The buildings hit are on the quay near the harbour, and the damage done to them is entirely connected with the sinking of the Turkish vessels, which replied to the Italian fire. His Majesty's Consul-General has reported no injury to British subjects, and states that the civil and military authorities acted promptly to prevent disorder. His Majesty's Consul-General, who was consulted as to whether the presence of a British vessel was advisable, has replied that it is unnecessary and that the town is quiet.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether the attention of the Foreign Secretary has been called to the fact that four Turkish lighthouses on barren islands in the middle of the Red Sea, right in the track of vessels going to and from India, have, owing to the Italian war, been extinguished since October; and whether the right hon. Gentleman has made any and, if so, what representations to the Turkish Government on the subject?
  Mr. ACLAND: I am aware of the extinction of the lights in question. The question of relighting the Turkish lights in the Red Sea was interdependent with a proposal for the exclusion of those waters from the area of hostilities. His Majesty's Government endeavoured to facilitate negotiations between the two Governments, who were, however, unable to arrive at an agreement upon this matter. The lights have in consequence remained extinguished except during the passage of Their Majesties in the "Medina" through the Red Sea. His Majesty's Government have sought by all proper means to bring about such an arrangement as would enable the lights to be relighted, and have expressed the hope that this might be possible. But the Ottoman Government have, of course, the right to extinguish the lights in their territorial waters, if they consider such action necessary to guard their national interests and ensure their safety.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the Government continue to exercise what pressure they can?
  Mr. ACLAND: I will communicate with my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. HOLT: As the Turkish Government still charge English shipowners for these lights, can the Secretary for Foreign Affairs bring pressure to bear upon the Turkish Government by protesting against the charge?

  Brussels Sugar Convention.
  Mr. LOUGHasked whether the Brussels Sugar Convention reassembled on the 26th instant; whether any decision has been arrived at with regard to the application of Russia for permission to export an additional 400,000 tons of sugar westwards during the present season, which was brought forward at the special sittings of last October held for this purpose; what position His Majesty's representative has taken up with regard to this question and the renewal of the Convention; and when Papers will be laid giving an account of the proceedings at the adjourned sittings which commenced on 29th December and the present meeting?
  Mr. ACLAND: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the negative. The meeting has been postponed at the request of the Russian Government. The position taken up by the British delegate has been in accordance with the attitude of His Majesty's Government, as explained by the Prime Minister on 14th December and 19th February. As has been already stated, Papers will be laid shortly.
  Mr. LOUGH: Does this postponement mean that Russia will not get permission to export this extra quantity of sugar; and will the hon. Gentleman state what steps the Government are taking to keep the promise made in 1908?
  Mr. ACLAND: I must ask the hon. Member to give notice of that question.
  Mr. LOUGH: If this conference does not meet then how will this permission be given to Russia. That is my whole point?
  Mr. ACLAND: It is a purely problematical question which depends upon whether the conference does or does not meet again.

  Outrages (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that in February, 1906, a farmer named T. Pratt, who occupies a farm near Kille-naule, county Tipperary, was fired at; that on the night of the 11th May, 1911,

  1519
  two bombs were exploded outside of his house; that on the 1st October, 1911, shots were fired at him; that on the night of 11th February, 1912, when he was in bed in a room opening off the kitchen, a police patrol having just gone away, he heard a noise of something thrown on the kitchen floor, he got out of bed and was going to the door when his wife called him back, when in the kitchen a bomb exploded immediately followed by a second explosion; can he state the amount of the damage done; the reasons assigned for this series of outrages; whether any arrests have been made, and, if so, the nature of the sentences passed; and what precautions have been taken by the police to protect the man's life and property in future?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The police authorities inform me that Thomas Pratt alleged that on the night of the 17th February, 1906, shots were fired at him. On the night of the 6th March, 1911, two bombs were placed outside his house, one of which exploded. Pratt alleged that shots were fired into his yard on the 1st October last, but a police patrol that was in the neighbourhood at the time did not hear the shots. On the 11th instant two bombs were put in through the window of Pratt's house and exploded, doing considerable damage, for which he is claiming £150 compensation. The reasons for these outrages is a matter of opinion. One arrest was made in connection with the alleged case of shooting in February, 1906, but the man was acquitted. Constant protection by police patrols is at present afforded to this man.
  Captain CRAIG: Is that the right hon. Gentleman's idea of Home Rule?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Have the police formed any opinion as to the reason of these outrages?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Some have one opinion and some another.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state one of those opinions?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No; I would sooner not.
  Mr. C. CRAIG: May I ask why this man, who has to suffer all these outrages, is not put under constant police protection?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The police are quite alive to the gravity of this case and to the facts. If the police think he requires to
  1520
  be constantly protected he will certainly have that. My information is that he is satisfied and the police are satisfied that he receives all protection. Whatever protection is necessary he will receive it.
  Mr. MACKINDERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether on 20th January, 1912, a farmer named Pat Kavanagh was fired at near Kinvara when returning from Ennis market; and whether any arrests have been made in connection with this outrage?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that two gunshots were fired at Patrick Kavanagh on the occasion referred to. No arrests have been made.
  Mr. MACKINDERasked whether a shooting outrage was perpetrated at Gurtanumera, near Portumna, on 25th January, 1912, when a farmer's house was fired at and the windows riddled with shot; and whether any arrests have been made in connection with this attack?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that three shots were fired into the house of a farmer named Cornelius Heagney on the 24th January. No arrests have been made.
  Mr. MACKINDERasked whether, on 29th January, 1912, an attack was made on the house of a man named Denis O'Connor, acting as caretaker at a farm known as Mayfield, about a mile from the city of Cork; whether shots were fired through the windows of the house; and whether any arrests have been made in connection with this outrage?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that on 29th January a shot was fired into the house on the evicted farm of which O'Connor was caretaker. Two arrests were made.
  Mr. SANDYSasked whether on the 2nd January, 1912, an attack was made on the house of Michael Ryan, in the neighbourhood of Glanquin, county Clare; and that fifteen to twenty shots were fired into the room in which the old man, his wife, who was eighty years of age, and his children were sleeping, with the result that both the old people were wounded; and what steps he is taking to prevent such outrages?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The facts are practically as stated. Special arrangements have been made by the police to prevent similar occurrences. One man was arrested, and is awaiting trial at assizes.
  Mr. SANDYSasked whether on 8th January, 1912, a young man named Birmingham, the son of a process server residing at Killeenvarra, near Kilcogan, county Galway, was fired at through the window of his father's house and seriously wounded; what is the condition of the injured man; and whether any arrests have been made in connection with this outrage?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The facts are as stated. The injured man has completely recovered. No arrests have been made.
  Mr. SANDYSasked whether, on 11th January, 1912, the house of a farmer named Martin Creavin, at Cahernahoon, Torloughmore, was visited by a party of moonlighters, who fired several shots into the dwelling-house; and whether any, arrests have been made in connection with this outrage?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed that on 11th January six revolver shots and two gun shots were fired at the house of a farmer named Martin Creavin, one bullet going through the door. Two arrests were made, but informations were refused, and the men were discharged.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Arising out of the series of answers which the right hon. Gentleman has given, will he consider the advisability of placing some restriction on the possession and use of arms in Ireland?
  Mr. MOORE: May I ask who constituted the bench of magistrates in the case in which informations were refused—was it a Nationalist majority?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I must have notice of that question. I cannot possibly carry in my head the constitution of a particular bench of magistrates. With regard to the question of the right hon. Gentleman, I only wish I were in a position to restrain the free use and ownership of arms in Ireland, as well as in other parts of the country.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Why then did the Government drop the Arms Act?
  Mr. BIRRELL: That did not happen during my administration. There was a great deal of varied differences of opinion, including Lord MacDonnell and others, who: were actively engaged in this matter, as to the utility of maintaining the provisions of that Statute. Personally, I regret it was not retained.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the fact that all those firearms come from Birmingham?
  Captain CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government received warning from these Benches that if they dropped the Peace Preservation Act such cases as are now reported would occur?

  Ballynanny National School (County Down).
  Mr. MOOREasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that owing to a decline in the average daily attendance of pupils at Ballynafern national school, county Down, under Protestant management, it was amalgamated by order of the Commissioners of National Education with Annaclone national school (Roll No. 13603, Circuit 8b) on 30th June last, and the principal teacher of the former school transferred to the latter as privileged assistant; whether he is aware that application has been made by the former manager of Ballynafern national school for a Grant to a school at Ballynanny, and from which salary was (formerly withdrawn by the Commissioners; if he is aware that this school at Ballynanny is only one statute mile distant from Annaclone national school, which is healthily and centrally situated, and at which there is sufficient accommodation for all Protestant pupils in the locality; and if the Commissioners, having regard to Rule 179b, and in view of the disorganisation caused to other national schools in the district, intend to grant aid to the Ballynanny school, the majority of pupils, if not all, at which were prior to 1st July last on the rolls of the neighbouring national schools?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the facts are as stated in the first two paragraphs of the question. The school at Ballynanny, for which aid was sought is, the Commissioners understand, more than a mile distant from Annaclone school. The Commissioners have not granted aid to the school at Ballynanny, but they have suggested that a committee, consisting of equal numbers of Episcopalians and Presbyterians, be formed with a view of arranging for the establishment and maintenance of one central school in the locality.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. O'MALLEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if the Congested Districts

  1523
  Board has yet made any offer of purchase for the Berridge estate, Connemara; and, if so, whether the offer has been accepted; whether he will state the names of any other estates in Connemara for which offers of purchase have been made; whether any estates in that district have been actually purchased within the last twelve months; and, if so, will he state the names of such estates?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have made an offer for the Berridge estate which is at present being considered by the owner. The Board have recently made offers for several estates in Connemara, but no estates have actually been purchased there within the past twelve months.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether the Estates Commissioners have acquired the Blake estate, situate at Cormeen, county Meath; and, if not, whether he will state what negotiations, if any, have taken place?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Land Judge in whose Court the estate is the subject of proceedings, has intimated to the Estates Commissioners that he is prepared to accept their preliminary estimate of price for portion of the property, and the Commissioners hope to make a formal offer at an early date.
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked whether there are six tenants on the estate of Sir Morgan O'Connell, at Ballybeggan and Clash, Tralee, county Kerry, whose lands have not yet been sold to them; and whether steps will be taken to secure that these men will get purchase before the lands are declared an estate?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have no information as to the tenants referred to. The townlands mentioned are neither included in that portion of Sir Morgan O'Connell's estate which has been offered for sale to the Board nor are they on the portion of his estate near Cahirciveen, which the tenants had agreed to buy direct from the landlord, and of which the Board are at present considering the question of purchase.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: It is the Estates Commissioners, and not the Congested Districts Board.
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked whether, in the case of Mrs. Dunleavy, evicted tenant,
  1524
  Killterry, Milltown, county Kerry, the present occupant of the lands is prepared to give them up if compensated; and, if so, will steps be taken to have this done?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on this subject on the 27th November last, and to which I have nothing to add.
  Mr. DUFFYasked whether the Estates Commissioners have issued a formal proposal to purchase the estate of the representatives of H. Dolphin Turve, Loughrea; has it been accepted; and, if so, can the right hon. Gentleman state when the Commissioners expect to be able to deal with this property?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The Estates Commissioners inform me that the proposal has not yet been accepted.
  Mr. LUNDONasked if the vesting orders will be issued this year on the estate of Lord Carbery, at Bruff, county Limerick?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners anticipate that this estate will be dealt with during the ensuing financial year.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked whether any lands have been offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners known as the Howth estate, situate at Gravelstown, Carlanstown, county Meath; and whether any lands in the same district have been offered to them by Mr. Edward Mitchell?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The reply to both paragraphs of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that J. P. Farrell, of Cookstown Great, has applied for an advance to purchase a holding on the Nicholson estate, situate at Horath, county Meath; whether their attention has been called to the fact that he is only about seventeen years of age, and that at the time the holding was assigned to him by his father, David Farrell, of the same address, he was under fourteen years of age; whether it is in accordance with the spirit and intention of the Land Acts to make advances of public money to a minor who received an assignment of a farm from his father who had already received or applied for the maximum amount allowed to any one purchaser, and, if not, what action the

  1525
  Commissioners propose to take; and whether he will state the amount applied for J. P. Farrell, the amount of bonus payable, and the quantity of stock necessary to be issued to raised the amount applied for?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This estate is the subject of proceedings for sale direct by the owner to the tenants. An agreement signed by J. P. Farrell, applying for an advance of £4,536 for the purchase of his holding, has been lodged with the Estates Commissioners, and inquiries are being made into the circumstances of the case. The Commissioners are not at present in a position to express any opinion on the other matters referred to in the question.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked whether David Farrell, of Cookstown Great, Kells, county Meath, applied for and obtained advances to purchase several holdings, one on the estate of Captain Charles A. Tisdall, situate at Atgaine Great, also a holding on the estate of the Venerable J. G. Scott, at Cookstown Great, and another on the estate of Captain Edward R. Taylor, situate at Cortown, all in the county of Meath; whether he will state the amount applied for and advanced in each case together with the amount of the bonus payable, and if he will state the quantity of stock issued or to be issued to raise the necessary amount of cash; and whether the Commissioners are aware of any other advances applied for by the same gentleman?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that David Farrell appears to have obtained advances under the Land Purchase Acts of £4,462 for the purchase of his holding on the estate of Archdeason Scott, and £2,538 for the purchase of his holding on the Brabazon estate, both in county Meath. The advances in both cases were made in cash. The Commissioners cannot find that David Farrell has applied for, or obtained, any other advances under the Land Purchase Acts.
  Mr. LUNDONasked whether the vesting orders had yet been issued on the estate of Lord Langford, in the county of Limerick; if so, was any report made on the farms of James and Geoffrey Walsh, at Clonbrien, Drunacomer, Kilmalloch, who refused to sign purchase agreements because of the exorbitant price agreed on; and, as their rents were nothing less than rack-rents, would some steps be taken by the Estates Commissioners to bring about a settlement?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the advances have been made and the holdings vested in the majority of the purchasing tenants. Geoffrey and James Walsh appear to be second term judicial tenants, but no agreements signed by them for the purchase of their holdings have been lodged with the Commissioners. The estate is being sold by the owner direct to the tenants, and the terms of purchase is a matter of agreement between the parties.
  Mr. HORNERasked whether the Return relating to the sales under the Irish Land Purchase Acts which was promised to the hon. Member for South Tyrone was yet ready for presentation; and, if not, when it might be expected to be presented?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This Return is in course of preparation, and the Estates Commissioners hope that it will be ready for presentation to Parliament within the next fortnight.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked whether the Estates Commissioners have yet made an offer for the estate of the Countess De Kervegnen, situate at Clonsilla, county Meath; and, if not, whether he will state the cause of the delay?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have recently communicated to the owner their estimate of the price they will be prepared to offer in this matter.

  Bridge Construction (County Kerry).
  Mr. BOLANDasked whether, in view of the original undertaking by the Congested Districts Board to contribute half of the expense of constructing a bridge over the Behy at Coomasaharn, and of the subsequent action of the Kerry County Council allocating the remaining half, steps will now be taken to have the work put in hand?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This matter will be considered at the next meeting of the Congested Districts Board, but the Board are not aware of any such undertaking as that mentioned in the question.

  Dublin Police Tax.
  Mr. NANNETTIasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it is the intention of the Irish Government to take any steps this year to deal with the question of the Dublin Police Tax; whether he is aware of the feeling among the ratepayers of Dublin that this tax should be put on a more

  1527
  equitable footing; and whether he is prepared to deal with the matter, which each Chief Secretary has promised to deal with, and which would be utterly uncontentious?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There is no intention of dealing with this matter at present.

  Clanricarde Estate, County Galway.
  Mr. DUFFYasked the Chief Secretary whether he can now state the result of the negotiations which have gone on for some considerable time past between the Congested Districts Board and Lord Clanricarde for the purchase of the Clanricarde estate; has an offer for the purchose of the estate been made, and with what result; and will he explain what steps the Congested Districts Board have taken to acquire compulsorily this estate in pursuance of repeated promises made to the tenants?
  Mr. BIRRELL: A final offer has been made to the Marquess of Clanricarde and a requisition under Section 61 of the Irish Land Act of 1909 has been issued by the Congested Districts Board. The remaining steps will be taken by the Land Commission under the compulsory Clauses of the Act.
  Mr. DUFFY: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate or give us any idea as to when those steps will be taken?
  Mr. BIRRELL: They will be taken as quickly as can be.
  Mr. DUFFY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an Act was passed in the year 1908 for the purpose of having the evicted tenants on this estate reinstated, and is it the fact that this landlord has frustrated its provisions?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member put his question down?

  Secondary Education (Ireland).
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary when he proposes to give the Intermediate Education Board of Ireland further powers and more money to deal satisfactorily with secondary education; what financial assistance does he propose to give; what steps does he propose to take as regards salary, registration, training, and pensions of teachers; whether powers will be given to the Board to test work done by a school otherwise than by
  1528
  written examination; and whether knowledge of modern languages will still be tested by written examinations without any oral tests?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am at present engaged in considering the question of secondary education in Ireland, more especially as regards the teachers in secondary schools, whose status I am very anxious to improve, and I had a long conference in Dublin during the recess with the representatives both of teachers and headmasters, and I hope soon to be in a position to make proposals. The matter referred to in the last paragraph of the question would appear to be entirely one for the Intermediate Education Board.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: May we expect a Vote to be placed on the Estimates this year to deal with this subject?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It depends on how far I can get with my arrangements.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: With regard to the latter part of the answer, is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Board are more than anxious to change the system of examination, but they are not able to do it?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I quite agree, and I will assist them in every way that I can.

  Deductions from Grants (Kerry).
  Mr. FLAVINasked the Chief Secretary whether he could state the amount deducted from Grants-in-Aid to the Kerry County Council for each year 1904 to 1912, giving in each year the heading under which the deduction was made, as also the amount deducted; whether he could give for a similar period the amount refunded to the Kerry Council, giving also the heading under which refund was made as well as the amount of refund; and whether he could now state the net amount of money due to the Kerry County Council, and when it would be refunded?
  Mr. BIRRELL: With the permission of the hon. Member I will circulate a statement with to-night's Votes.—[See Written Answers this date.]
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any money has been kept from the Kerry County Council other than what is due under the Land Act of 1903?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I hope not.

  National Schools (Ireland).
  Mr. NANNETTIasked the Chief Secretary, whether he would grant the Return asked for by the Member for the College Green Division of Dublin, relating to the National Schools (Ireland) (Instruction in Irish) on the Notice Paper for this day. [Mr. Nannetti,—National Schools (Ireland) (Instruction in Irish),—Return showing how many national schools there are in each junior inspector's district in the counties of Waterford, Cork, Kerry, Clare, Galway, Mayo, Sligo, and Donegal (a) in which the pupils or any number of the pupils can speak Irish, or (b) which are situated in districts in which Irish is spoken by the adult population; and which will also show (1) in how many of these schools the teachers are competent to give instruction through the medium of Irish; (2) in how many of these schools instruction is given through the medium of Irish; (3) in how many schools in such Irish-speaking or semi-Irish-speaking districts Irish is taught as an extra subject; and (4) in how many schools in such Irish-speaking or semi-Irish-speaking districts Irish is neither used as a medium of instruction nor taught as an extra subject.]
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, Sir. The preparation will take some considerable time.

  Home Rule Meeting (Belfast).
  Mr. HORNERasked how many police were on duty in Belfast on 8th February last; how many of these were extra police brought into the city; from what counties were the extra police drafted, and how many from each county; and by whom, or out of what funds, were the costs of the extra police paid?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No extra police were employed on duty in Belfast on the 8th instant. The only police on duty in Belfast on that date were the local force, consisting of 1,028 sergeants and constables.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked whether any of the members of the mob who assaulted Lord Pirrie at Larne when embarking on board ship there, pelting him with eggs and calling him opprobrious names, had been identified; and, if not, what steps had been taken to trace them, with a view to their prosecution, in accordance with law, for this outrage?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The incident appears to have been exaggerated in the newspaper reports. There were few police present—
  1530
  about six or seven—and the opportunity of identification was slight, and none of those who flung missiles from the back of the crowd could be seen by the police. In these circumstances it would not be possible to sustain a prosecution.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Is the throwing of rotten eggs at people in a political matter of this kind peculiar to Larne? Is it not a very ordinary way of expressing one's political opinion?

  Appointment of Magistrates (Ireland).
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Chief Secretary whether the practice, which was not enforceable either by Statute or common law, prevailed whereby the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, in appointing gentlemen to the commission of the peace for the various counties in Ireland, consulted the county lieutenants of the respective counties for which the appointments of magistrates were contemplated as to the character, qualifications, and fitness for the office of candidates not recommended by the county lieutenants but by representative persons in the localities in which accessions to the magisterial bench were needed, while, in accordance with this practice, the Lord Chancellor appointed, as a matter of course and without further inquiry, any person who might be recommended to him by the county lieutenant of a county to the magisterial bench of the county, or whether any, and, if so, what steps could be taken to put an end to this practice?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is the practice of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, following that of his predecessors, to communicate with the lieutenants of counties in respect of the appointment to the magistracy of persons recommended as indicated in the first part of the question. It is not and never was the practice of the Lord Chancellor to give effect to recommendations received directly from lieutenants by appointing the persons nominated as a matter of course and without further inquiry. In both cases such independent inquiries as the Lord Chancellor thinks proper to make take place, and it is for the Lord Chancellor, on a consideration of the full facts that come to his knowledge, to determine on his own responsibility whether or not any particular appointment should be made.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: In view of the recent action of the Duke of Abercorn and Lord Londonderry, will it be necessary for the Lord Chancellor to ask their

  1531
  advice in reference to magistrates, having regard to the proclamation approved by one and issued by the other?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is not necessary to consult or to ask the advice of the lieutenants of counties, whatever their antecedents may be; but it is the practice, and the Lord Chancellor intends to continue the practice, to communicate with them upon the subject of magistrates within their jurisdiction.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Will the Lord Chancellor communicate with Lord Londonderry as to the proclamation?
  Captain CRAIG: Is it not the fact that when the recommendations of lieutenants of counties have been carried out, respectable, decent people have been appointed, and that when the Lord Chancellor has taken the matter into his own hands the very worst class of men have been appointed?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot take it upon myself to decide between the two classes.
  Mr. MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that when the customary inquiries are made of the police by the Lord Chancellor, and the police certify against the proposed candidate, such person shall not be appointed, as has been the case?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member addresses me as if I were the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. I am not.

  Deputy-Lieutenants (Ireland).
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that a lieutenant of a county in Ireland might appoint such persons as he thought fit living within the county to be his deputy-lieutenants on certifying the names of such persons to the Lord Lieutenant, when informed by the chief secretary or undersecretary of the Lord Lieutenant that His Excellency did not disapprove of the granting of such commissions; and whether, having regard to some recent appointments to the position of deputy-lieutenant by county lieutenants in Ireland, steps would be taken by the Irish Government to secure that its non-disapproval of persons as deputy-lieutenants was not merely formal but founded on investigation into their character and antecedents, completely independent of the recommenda-
  1532
  tion of the county lieutenants, whose appointments were subject to the sanction of the Crown?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am aware that the Militia Act, 1882, gives the lieutenant of the county the power of appointing deputy-lieutenants subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant. In the case of every proposed appointment the Lord Lieutenant causes such independent inquiry to be made as he deems necessary as to the qualifications and fitness of the persons nominated by the lieutenant of the county.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware whether the Lord Lieutenant made inquiries as to the fitness of the hon. Member for North Armagh, who has been made a deputy-lieutenant?

  House of Lords (Appeals).
  Mr. MULDOONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention had been called to the fact that the House of Lords, sitting in its appellate jurisdiction, was frequently composed of an even number of Law Lords who were equally divided in opinion on the hearing of appeals, with the result that in such cases the appeal was dismissed; and whether, in view of the inconvenience and expense to the parties involved, he would take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to see that the court should be composed of an uneven number of judges?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna) (for the Prime Minister): The Lord Chancellor informs me that the cases of an even division of opinion in the House of Lords are rare, and when this happens the decision of the Court below is affirmed. When practicable, an uneven number is to be preferred, and is at present arranged if it can be done.

  House of Commons (Procedure).
  Mr. LOUGHasked the Prime Minister whether it was brought to his notice last year that over 200 Members of the House were in favour of returning to the former practice by which the Members who succeeded in the ballot should be enabled to bring forward their Motions before any general statement was made by the Minister in charge on going into Committee of Supply; and whether he could see his way to arrange that this course would be followed this year?
  Mr. McKENNA (for the Prime Minister): I do not think that the evidence submitted to me by my right hon. Friend shows such a preponderance of opinion in favour of the change as to justify at present a departure from the settled practice of recent years; but, as I said last year, this is a matter for the House itself to decide. The Patronage Secretary will place himself in communication with the different parties in the House on the subject.

  Financial Relations (Great Britain and Ireland).
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister (1) whether he would publish the recommendations of the Committee on Irish Finance before the forthcoming convention of the Irish Nationalist party in Dublin at Easter; and (2) whether any Member of the House outside the Government was shown the recommendations of the Committee on Irish Finance?
  Mr. HORNERasked the Prime Minister whether the findings contained in the Report of the Committee upon the Financial Relations between Great Britain and Ireland were unanimous; and, if so, whether the Government were going to adopt them in the forthcoming Home Rule Bill?
  Mr. McKENNA (for the Prime Minister): I have nothing to add to previous answers as to the publication of this Report. In the meantime I can say nothing as to its contents or as to the procedure of the Committee, or as to the persons to whom the Report has or has not been shown.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a specific reply to the question, "Has any Member of the House outside the Government been shown the recommendations of the Committee? That question has not been specifically answered before.
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer is: In the meantime I can say nothing as to the persons to whom the report has or has not been shown.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Then we are to assume that, while it is refused to the House, it has been shown to other people?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member must not assume that as a consequence of my answer. All I say is, that I can say nothing as to whom it may or may not have been shown.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to deny it?
  Mr. McKENNA: That would be saying something as to the persons to whom it may or may not have been shown. I can say nothing.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I was not asking to whom it has been shown, but whether it has been shown, to anyone?
  Mr. McKENNA: I can say nothing.
  Mr. HORNER: May I ask whether, although these recommendations have not been actually shown—[Several HON. MEMBERS: "They have been shown"]—they have been either directly or indirectly communicated to persons outside the Government?
  Mr. McKENNA: I can add nothing to what I have said.

  Home Rule Bill.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked when the Home Rule Bill would be introduced; and how many days would be allotted for the First Reading?
  Mr. McKENNA (for the Prime Minister): I must ask the hon. Member to wait for the statements which will be made in due course dealing with both these points.

  Public Accounts Committee (Report).
  Colonel WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister when he could give the promised opportunity for the discussion of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee of last Session?
  Mr. McKENNA (for the Prime Minister): An opportunity will be given as soon as a suitable occasion can be found, but I cannot yet fix a definite date.

  Nominations of Vice-Lieutenants (Ireland).
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that it was the practice when a county lieutenant in Ireland became physically or mentally incapable of exercising the privilege attendant to that office of nominating magistrates, and being consulted as to the fitness of candidates for the magistracy to be recommended by him, to nominate a vice-lieutenant to exercise this privilege; whether the vice-lieutenant so nominated was held to have a claim to the office of county lieutenant when such office became

  1535
  vacant; and, if so, whether there was any, and, if so, what, legal foundation for the acknowledgment of such a claim?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Under the Militia Act, 1882, the lieutenant of a county, with the approbation of the Lord Lieutenant, may appoint any deputy-lieutenant to act for him as vice-lieutenant during his absence from the county, sickness, or other inability to act. The vice-lieutenant so appointed has no claim to the office of lieutenant when it becomes vacant, and no such claim has ever been asserted or admitted.

  Abor Expedition.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is able to give the House any information as to the progress of the Abor expedition; whether upwards of 100 Abors have now been killed in avenging the death of Mr. Williamson; whether the object of the expedition has now been accomplished; and what it is estimated to have cost up to the present time?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Government of India report that, so far as can be judged at present, the political and military objects of the Abor expedition have been attained, and that the expedition will shortly return. Fines were imposed on the villages directly concerned in the massacre of Mr. Williamson's party, and were readily paid. Five of the suspected ringleaders in the massacre were captured and are awaiting trial; two others were killed during the operations. Abor casualties are stated to have been thirty-nine killed and twenty-two wounded. A memorial tablet to Mr. Williamson, with a cairn, was erected, with suitable ceremony, in Komsing at the scene of the massacre. Punitive measures against the Abors ceased some time ago, and since their cessation the column has been engaged in carrying out the surveys mentioned in No. 19 of the White Paper of November last. I am unable to state the cost of the expedition up to date, but the total estimated cost is Rs.23,85,000 (£159,000).
  Sir W. BYLES: Can Papers be laid?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I do not think that there are any further Papers that can be laid at present. When the expedition returns there will probably be other Papers?
  Mr. KING: In what language is the inscription on this monument?
  Mr. MONTAGU: If the hon. Gentleman will give me notice I will inquire.

  Colonial Appointments.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether here are any, and, if so, what appointments in the medical department of the Government of Ceylon which are reserved for Europeans only?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I am not aware that any posts are exclusively reserved for Europeans, though it is considered desirable to have a certain (comparatively small) number of European officers in the medical department.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I take it then that there are no individual posts which are exclusively reserved for Europeans?
  Mr. HARCOURT: That is my impression.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in the Royal Proclamation of 1858, upon the occasion of the assumption of the government of India by Queen Victoria, it is declared that ft was the Sovereign's will that, so far as might be, Her subjects, of whatever race or creed, should be freely and impartially admitted to offices the duties of which they may be qualified by their education, ability, and integrity duly to discharge; whether he is aware that at that time the Straits Settlements were under the Government of India, and that the terms of the Proclamation applied to them as well as to India; whether he is aware that the people of the Straits Settlements regard the recent action of the Colonial Office in excluding from the civil and police services all persons who are not of pure European descent on both sides as a breach of the civil rights guaranteed to them in that Proclamation; and, if so, will he state what action he proposes to take in this matter?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Without discussing the applicability of the Proclamation to a Colony which ceased to be under the Government of India some forty-five years ago, I would draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the limitation introduced into the passage to which he refers by the use of the words "so far as may be." In

  1537
  the interests of good administration it is necessary to adhere to the existing Regulation, which, as I have already pointed out to my hon. Friend, has been in force for a number of years. I hope that the people of the Straits Settlements do not hold the erroneous views attributed to them by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the words "so far as may be" in the Proclamation to which he refers compatible with the absolute and total exclusion of persons not wholly of European descent on both sides?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he proposes to extend to the Legislative Assemblies of the Straits Settlements and Hong Kong the colour bar which he has erected by excluding from the civil and police services of these Colonies all persons who are not of pure European descent on both sides?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir; I have repeatedly pointed out that the restriction was not introduced by me. My action has been confined to removing any possible ambiguity in the wording of the Regulation.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Why, if a person is not of pure European descent on both sides is not disqualified from serving in the Legislative Council, is the same person disqualified by his race and colour from serving in the civil and police services?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I think I am entitled to notice of the conundrum.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Legislative Assembly for the Straits Settlements was consulted before the Colonial Office altered the regulations governing entry to the public service of these Colonies so as to exclude from the civil and police services all persons who are not of pure European descent on both sides?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir; but I have no doubt that that body would by a large majority support the policy of His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Assembly was consulted?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Then, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it desirable, before effecting a change which diminishes the status of British subjects in that Colony, which were guaranteed to them by the Crown, to ascertain the views of the Legislative Assembly of that Colony?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir. I think not, but that is a matter of opinion.
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman take a referendum of the Colony?
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the changes in the regulations whereby all persons who are not of pure European descent on both sides are excluded from the civil and police services of Hong Kong, the Straits Settlements, and the Federated Malay States, have been published in the Gazette; and, if not, what steps have been taken to prevent British subjects in these Colonies spending time and money in preparing themselves for the public service only to find, when they present themselves for examination, that they are excluded by the colour bar?
  Mr. HARCOURT: So far as I am aware, the regulations have not been published in the Gazette, but they are printed in the Civil Service Lists of both the Colonies and of the Federated Malay States and are therefore readily accessible and well-known to the public and to intending candidates, who naturally make themselves familiar with the regulations before sending in applications. No candidate can present himself for examination without having some months previously filled in an application form, in which attention is specially directed to the qualifications required. I may add, that as the regulation to which my hon. Friend refers has been in force, in the case of cadetships, for seven years and, in the case of police appointments, ever since the examination was instituted, there is no reason to suppose that any unqualified person, who is now within the age limits has expended time or money in preparing himself for examination.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman still adheres to his previous statement that this disability was imposed upon natives in accordance with the wishes and desires of the natives themselves?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I do not think my previous opinion was said in exactly those words; but I adhere to my previous opinion in the words in which I gave it.
  Sir W. BYLES: If the right hon. Gentleman was not responsible for the imposition of the colour bar, has he any power to remove it?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I am not quite sure that I understand my hon. Friend?
  Sir W. BYLES: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was not responsible for the imposition of the disability to which my hon. Friend has referred. I want to know whether, apart from that responsibility, he has any power to remove that prohibitive regulation?
  Mr. HARCOURT: If my predecessor had power to impose it, I should think I would have the power, if I thought it desirable, to remove it.
  Sir W. BYLES: Do you not think it desirable?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the natives of that Colony were absolutely ignorant of the fact that this change in the regulations had been carried out until the matter was raised in Parliament?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No, I was not aware of that.

  Ceylon Company and Pearl Fishers.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Ceylon Company of Pearl Fishers has applied for a remission of any part of the rent due by them under the lease granted to them by the Ceylon Government of Ceylon Pearl Fisheries; and, if so, on what grounds; and whether he is aware that Sir Thomas Southwell, the Deputy-Director of Fisheries under the Bengal Government, who was formerly scientific adviser to the company, has declared that the barrenness of the pearl banks was due to the devastations of the company itself?
  Mr. HARCOURT: In 1910 the company asked that payment of part of the rent might be deferred, and that they might be released of some of their obligations under the lease. The request, which was refused, was based on the inability of the company to bear the expenses owing to the fact
  1540
  that no fishery has been possible for some years. I have no information as to Sir Southwell's present views. From reports which he made in 1910 it appeared that he ascribed the barrenness of the pearl banks not to the devastations of the company, but to those of predatory fish.

  Aliens Act.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what number of convicted aliens have had orders for deportation made against them during the year 1911; whether the practice of the Courts in regard to such orders is now more uniform; and whether he has issued any memorandum or recommendation on the subject since the Debate on the abortive Aliens Bill of last year?
  Mr. McKENNA: In 1911, 380 expulsion orders were made against convicted aliens. Since the Debates in this House in April last the Annual Statement in regard to the expulsion of aliens for the year 1910 has been published and circulated to all Criminal Courts. It sets out the facts which lead to the conclusion that the action of the Courts in this matter had been lacking in effectiveness. A similar statement for 1911 is now in preparation, and though I am not in a position yet to form a definite opinion, I have some reason to think that the Courts have made greater use than before of their power of recommending expulsion.

  COAL STRIKE.

    TROOPS IN SOUTH WALES.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the event of a miners' strike, he will, before sanctioning the sending of troops to the Aberdare or Merthyr valleys, ascertain whether the inspector of police in the former and of the chief constable in the latter place is of opinion that soldiers are needed for the preservation of order or the protection of property?
    Mr. McKENNA: Troops would be sent to Aberdare or to Merthyr or any other place only on a requisition from the magistrates, who, before making any such requisition, would, in ordinary course, consult the responsible officer in charge of the police in the district. I trust, however, that no necessity will arise for sending troops to South Wales. Though they are ready to be sent if real necessity should arise, they will not be sent if peace is maintained and the law observed.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large proportion of the magistrates in these two places are either coalowners or officials of the mines. Whether, therefore, it is not desirable to take the advice of the chief of police instead of magistrates who are personally interested in the dispute?
    Mr. McKENNA: I can assure the hon. Member every care will be taken that troops shall not be sent until after ascertaining the facts upon which the demand was based as to whether troops should be sent. They will not be sent unless their presence is necessary.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the last dispute at Aberdare Valley imported police were sent in defiance of the wishes of the superintendent of police?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question. The right hon. Gentleman was not Home Secretary then.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the readiness of the South Wales Miners' Federation to support the Government in maintaining order in the event of a strike?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes. I understand the executive of the South Wales Miners' Federation have passed a resolution calling upon all their members to do their best to preserve order.

    Spa Fishermen (Tralee).
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), what steps have been taken to assist the fishermen at Spa, Tralee, in marketing their oysters; whether he has any official information showing that these oysters are freer from contamination or pollution of any kind than those of any other part of the Kingdom, and if properly protected and marketed would form a valuable industry for the fishermen of the district; and whether he will have a competent man sent to report as to the best methods of dealing with the matter?
    The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE (Ireland, Mr. T. W. Russell): The Department have on many occasions brought the oysters from the public beds in Tralee Bay to the notice of oyster merchants, and have themselves purchased considerable numbers
    1542
    for experimental marketing. It appears that under existing size limit regulations these oysters comprise too large a proportion of small oysters to admit of sale at satisfactory prices. The Department have repeatedly advised the fishermen to apply for a public inquiry with a view to the size limit being raised, and understand that they are about to do so. The condition of the Tralee Bay beds in regard to contamination is dealt with in the Report of the Local Government Board for Ireland on Shell-fish layings on the Irish Coast as respects their liability to sewage contamination (Cd. 1900), 1004, pages 25 and 106. A competent bailiff has been employed by the Department for a number of years to protect the beds.
    Mr. O'DONNELL: Has any departmental inspector been sent down to report into the fishing industry. Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I will inquire.

    Hunting Carted Deer.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can hold out any hope of introducing during this present Parliament any legislation for the abolition of the practice of hunting carted deer?
    Mr. McKENNA: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Peterborough on Monday last.
    Mr. GEORGE GREENWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the answer given by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman to a similar question on 13th December, 1907?
    Mr. LYNCH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to dignify, by the name, of sport, a cruelty which is as mean as it is abominable.

    Lifts (Inspection).
    Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked whether any regulations are in existence for the inspection of lifts on business premises and in offices; whether the regulations under the Factory and Workshops Act relating to lifts apply also to these premises and in offices; whether he is aware that such regulations are in operation in other countries; and whether, if there are no such regulations, he proposes to take any steps to safeguard the public using such lifts?
    Mr. McKENNA: There are not, so far as I am aware, any statutory regulations in force in this country in regard to the safety of lifts in offices, nor do they come under the inspection of my Department. I am informed that in some foreign countries regulations on the subject are in operation. Office premises are outside the provisions of the Factory Act, and I am afraid I have no power to take any action in regard to them.
    Sir H. CARLILE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the matter into consideration with a view to formulating the necessary regulations?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, I will consider the point, but I could not promise legislation this Session.

    Vagrancy Act.
    Colonel YATEasked whether, in view of the fact that 1,620 men were convicted under the Vagrancy Act as incorrigible rogues by quarter sessions during the past three years, and also the fact that there is no immediate prospect of legislation being proposed to deal with the habitual vagrant, steps will be taken to discourage the habitual rogue and vagabond by making more stringent use of the powers already conferred under the Vagrancy Act?
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask him is he aware that the principal provision of the Vagrancy Act is for allowing the cruel and revolting infliction of flogging?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. That is not the principal provision, and it is a provision not frequently made use of. I am fully aware of the difficulties of dealing with this question, but I fear I cannot take any step in the direction suggested by the hon. Member. The experience of the Home Office is that the justices in quarter session do generally make stringent though not excessive use of their existing powers.
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: Could not the right hon. Gentleman bring in a non-controversial Bill embodying the chief recommendations of the Poor Law Commission Reports, both Majority and Minority, in reference to vagrancy?
    Mr. McKENNA: I cannot in this Session. Time is already fully allotted.

    Offensive Songs.
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department
    1544
    whether by executive order or intervention he has any power to check the use in plays or songs at theatres and music halls of language of insult to princes and chiefs in India in alliance with the British Government?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Lord Chamberlain has ample powers of checking the use of insulting language in stage plays given at theatres and music halls, and the county council can intervene in the case of songs at music halls.
    Mr. ARNOLD WARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the language complained of occurs in the play called the "Sunshine Girl," and refers to the Gaek-war of Baroda? Is he also aware that since objection has been taken the passage complained of has been altered, and that the song is now sung in its altered form?
    Mr. McKENNA: I was not aware of these facts. I thank the hon. Member for informing me.
    Sir J. JARDINE: Why did not the Censor take notice of this before the question was put down?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have no responsibility for the Censor. I have not been informed.

    Anthrax.
    Mr. JOWETTasked whether another death has occurred from anthrax, contracted at the firm of Messrs. Campbell and Harrison, woolcombers, of Shipley, a branch of Woolcombers, Limited; and, if so, what he intends to do in the matter, having regard to the frequent loss of life from this cause at the firm in question?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have received full reports of this case. The man was employed in card grinding—a process which is not dealt with in the regulations and which until recently has not been regarded as presenting specific danger of anthrax. It is evident, however, from the circumstances of this case that measures will be necessary for protecting the workers against any dangerous dust which may be given off during the process, and I am advised that the use of appliances similar to those now being generally installed in the carding rooms of Lancashire cotton mills should form an effective safeguard. Instructions will be given to the inspector to take up the matter at once with the firm in question.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: In view of the steady increase in this fatal

    1545
    disease amongst birds and farm animals and human beings, will the right hon. Gentleman direct an inquiry to see what is the best and most effective disinfectant against its spread?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not sure whether that question should not be addressed to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture.

    Captain Tapper's Speech (Cardiff).
    Mr. OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary of State if his attention has been called to an incendiary speech, made on 21st February, at Cardiff, in which a person, styling himself Captain Tupper, directly incited to riot and murder; and what steps he intends to take in regard to this matter?
    Mr. McKENNA: My attention has been called to the speech referred to. The words used by Captain Tupper go far to justify the interpretation put on them, but I understand that Captain Tupper strongly repudiates any intention of inciting to violence; and as it is possible that the speech may be so read as to support his contention, I do not propose as at present advised to take any action against him.
    Mr. O. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is it not an offence to masquerade as a captain when, as a matter of fact, a man is an undischarged bankrupt?
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is this Captain Tupper a Privy Councillor, or a county lieutenant, or a leading lawyer?

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    MANAGEMENT EXPENSES.
    Mr. GILLasked the amount of money which will be allowed to the approved societies per member per year for management expenses under the National Insurance Act; whether such amount will be under their own control, or whether any deductions will be made for the expenses of the local insurance and advisory committees; and, if so, the amount of such deductions?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The limit to the sum allowed for administration expenses will be fixed by Regulations under Section 35 (2) of the Act, and I cannot in an answer to a question anticipate these Regulations. With regard to the second part of the question, deductions will be made under Section 61 (2) for the expenses
    1546
    of the Insurance Committees (amounting to 1d. for each insured member, or to 2d. in certain special cases where travelling expenses are required), and under Section 15 (6) for the cost of administering medical benefit, the latter deduction being fixed by agreement, or in default of agreement, by the Commissioners. There will be no deduction in respect of the expenses of the Advisory Committee.
    Mr. GILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Regulations will be made?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I could not name a definite day, but we are pressing them forward as fast as we can.

    LECTURES.
    Mr. CASSELasked whether any and, if so, what instructions have been issued to the lecturers on the National Insurance Act as to what answer they ought to give to the question whether the benefits mentioned in Acts other than additional benefits are guaranteed?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is among the duties of the official lecturers to explain that if a deficiency is disclosed at a periodical valuation of any society the members of that society will be called upon to prepare a scheme for extinguishing the deficiency, either by reducing the benefits or increasing the contributions of its members in accordance with the provisions of Section 38 of the Act, subject to the special provisions in Section 39 of the Act as to the partial pooling of risks in the case of small societies.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked whether, for the use of Members of this House and others, he will supply from time to time lists of the times and places at which the official lectures explaining the National Insurance Act are given?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It would be difficult to supply beforehand a list of all lectures and conferences; but I will gladly inform any Member of the House of the place and date of any public lectures which he would care to attend.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked whether, having regard to the fact that nearly all persons, either as employers or employed, are interested in and affected by the National Insurance Act, he will arrange that any person giving his name and address may be admitted to any of the official lectures now being delivered by lecturers paid out of public funds?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Commissioners will raise no objection to the admission of persons not members of the organisations concerned by the organisers of the conferences in question; but they are not prepared to compel such organisations, who have paid the expenses of the conference, to admit on every occasion all outsiders who apply, to the possible exclusion of their own members.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Is it not a fact that these lectures are paid for out of public funds, and, if so, what objection can there be to admitting any member who furnishes his name and address.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot imagine that there will be any objection to a member, but the arrangement for the conference is that while we send the lecturer the conference pays for the hall and the advertising of the meeting out of their own funds.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for one of these lectures to be given in one of the tea rooms of the House?

    INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS (OFFICE ACCOMMODATION).
    Mr. FELLasked on what items of expenditure economies amounting to about £13,400 have been made that enable office accommodation to be supplied for the Insurance Commissioners without a Supplementary Estimate being presented?
    Captain F. E. GUEST: The term "economies" does not quite represent the source from which this expenditure has been defrayed. It has not been found possible to carry out all the works contemplated under the Vote for Public Buildings within the current financial year, and money has consequently become available for the accommodation of the Insurance Commissioners. Funds being available, it would not have been possible to present a Supplementary Estimate.

    FARM SERVANTS (LOWLANDS OF SCOTLAND).
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that in many districts in the Lowlands of Scotland a new term of engagement of farm servants, men and women, begins on Whit-Sunday, and that in some parts the farmers have announced their combined intention to make engagements by contract in writing, because of the incidence of the Insurance Act, and to abolish the present practice or custom whereby the farm servant gets full
    1548
    wages during sickness for a period of six weeks every year; and if he is now able to state what arrangements have been made in the county of Roxburgh to supply farm servants with information regarding the Insurance Act in the period before the new term begins?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I was not aware of the proposed action of the farmers in the Lowlands to which my hon. Friend refers; literature is now in preparation which it is hoped will give such farm servants the information they require about the National Insurance Act.
    Sir J. JARDINE: Can the hon. Gentleman give the dates on which the information will be given, seeing that the time is so close that the farm servants are between somebody and the deep sea?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I shall be glad to bring the point before the Chairman of the Scotch Commission.

    CIVIL SERVANTS APPOINTMENTS.
    Captain CRAIGasked whether, in the case of persons already employed in other branches of the Civil Service being appointed to established positions under the National Insurance Act, such persons will carry the salary they may be in receipt of at the time of transfer, and whether their previous service will count towards pension?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: In the case of ordinary transfers the answer to the former question is in the affirmative, but in cases in which the transfer has involved promotion to higher duties an increase of salary proportionate to the increased responsibilities has been granted. Persons who are already established Civil servants who are appointed to pensionable posts under the Insurance Commission will be allowed to count their service as continuous for superannuation purposes.

    Stationery Office (Supply of Paper).
    Mr. NANNETTIasked the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether he is aware that His Majesty's Stationery Office is endeavouring to control the supply of paper to be used by solicitors for probate engrossment in Ireland; and whether, with the view to prevent interference with free competition among stationers and in the interests of the public, he will direct the Stationery officers not to interfere as to where solicitors purchase their engrossing

    1549
    papers, so long as they are in accordance with the Law's requirements; (2) whether, since the recent change from engrossing on parchment to paper, which change was made at the instance of the Treasury and against the protest of the Irish Incorporated Law Society, several firms have laid in stocks of the recognised character of this paper; whether on a recent occasion, when a form was sent in from a private firm to the registrar at Waterford, he wrote to the effect that according to the minute of the judge the paper to be used for engrossment of wills must be purchased at Thom's, as it must bear the imprint of the Government printer, and that he would accept the engrossment in the present case; and whether he will say if such a practice is carried on in London by the Stationery Office officials?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It was decided in November, 1910, by the Probate Court that all probate forms for use in Ireland should be on loan paper, instead of parchment. It then became necessary, in order to ensure that the paper on which the forms are printed or engrossed should be of the high standard of quality required by the Court, to insist that any official prints of the forms, sold in the ordinary course through the official sale agents, Messrs. E. Ponsonby, Limited, should be accepted by the Probate Court. All recognised booksellers may obtain the forms from the official sale agents on the usual trade terms, namely, 25 per cent. discount from the published selling price. A similar arrangement has been made, in practice for many years, in regard to the corresponding English forms.

    Government Clothing (Contracts in Ireland).
    Mr. NANNETTIasked whether the Government, when making contracts for clothing and other materials for public servants in Ireland, will see that when, in the matters of quality of materials, price, and other conditions, Irish firms offer as good value as British firms, and all things being equal, a preference will be given in placing orders to Irish manufacturing firms?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the hon. Member will be so good as to give me particulars of any case where in the circumstances described a preference has been given to a British firm, I shall be glad to make inquiry into it.
    Mr. NANNETTI: When I put a question on this subject the other day I was told it was done by the direction of the Treasury.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I said if the hon. Gentleman would approach me I will go into the matter. I do not think it is done.

    Income Tax and Death Duties (Ulster).
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether the hon. Gentleman can give any estimate of the average amount of true revenue contributed by the province of Ulster in respect of Income Tax and Death Duties for the last three years for which the information is available, and the proportion which it bears to the whole true revenue of Ireland from similar sources?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I regret that sufficent data are not available on which to enable an estimate of the nature asked for by the hon. Member to be framed.

    Industrial and Provident Societies.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked what is the last year available for affording information as to the number of societies registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893; what were the respective aggregates of members, capital, turnover, and profits of such societies; and what proportion the volume of trade done by such societies with non-members bore to the total volume of their trade?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The latest year for which the figures are available is the year ending 31st December, 1909. The hon. Member will find most of the information he desires in Part B of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies' Report for that year (House of Commons Paper 171, II. of 1910). I have no information with regard to the last part of the question.

    Telephone Trunk System (Carlow).
    Mr. MOLLOYasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists in Carlow owing to the delay in extending the telephone trunk system to that town, in view of the fact that it is; more than two years since the required guarantee was given by the urban district council; if he can now say when the work will be carried out; and whether the system will be extended to the town of Tullow and Bagenalstown?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I am glad to say that the Treasury have now authorised the extension to Carlow, which will be put in hand at once. The question of further extensions to Tullow and Bagenalstown will be carefully considered.

    Post Office Contracts (Standard Kate of Wages).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Automatic Exchange Company, Limited, of Edge Lane, Liverpool, who are executing large contracts for the Post Office, are paying the joiners in their employ 1½d. per hour less than the standard rate of wage; and whether he will take steps to compel this firm to comply with the Fair-Wages Resolution or remove them from the list of Government contractors?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No complaint has been made to me of any failure of this company to carry out the Fair-Wages Clause of its contract. If the hon. Member will furnish me with further particulars I will have inquiry made.

    Telephone Numbers as Telegraphic Addresses.
    Sir WILLIAM PRIESTLEYasked if the right hon. Gentleman has further considered the practicability of allowing telephone subscribers to use their telephone numbers as their telegraphic addresses?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Telephone numbers can be used as telegraphic addresses, and public notices calling attention to the arrangements and explaining the procedure have been prepared for immediate issue to subscribers and to the Press.

    Telephone Posts and Wires (Consents and Wayleaves).
    Mr. BENNETT - GOLDNEYasked whether similar consents and wayleaves are required by the Post Office for the erection of, or continuation of, a line of telephone posts and wires on or over common lands or lands forming a part of the waste of a manor as were required by the National Telephone Company; if such posts and wires are subject to the same conditions of removal as those which prevailed under the National Telephone Company; and if he will say in what respects the rights of the Post Office differ from those of the old telephone company?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The position of the Postmaster-General in this matter differs from that of the National Telephone Company. The company's wayleave rights, apart from rights delegated under the Telegraph Act of 1892 depended entirely upon the common law, but the rights and obligations of the Post Office are defined under the Telegraph Acts, 1863–11. It is difficult therefore to give a general answer to the hon. Member's question, but if he will communicate to me the particulars of any specific case he has in mind, I will endeavour to give him the information he desires.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BONAR LAW: I desire to ask the Home Secretary whether he can make any statement in regard to the business for next week; and I should be glad to know if the fight hon. Gentleman has any further information with regard to the coal strike?
Mr. McKENNA: On Monday we shall move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Army Estimates, and afterwards we shall take Vote A and Vote I., and also some non-effective Army Votes. The discussion of these Votes will be continued on Tuesday and Wednesday.
On Thursday, we shall take the Vote on Account for the Civil Service.
With regard to the coal strike, the conferences are still continuing, but there is nothing further to say.
Mr. BONAR LAW: In regard to the business for Monday, is it not obvious that a much longer time will be required for the discussion on the general state of the Army on which, I imagine, a great many hon. Members on this side of the House desire to speak.
Mr. McKENNA: The right hon. Gentleman will see that the general discussion on the Votes is to be continued on Tuesday and Wednesday, and I think it will be better to wait and see how the Debate develops.
Mr. BONAR LAW: If the right hon. Gentleman means that he will be guided by the desire of the House on that matter I shall be quite satisfied.
Mr. McKENNA: Every regard will be shown to the wishes of the House as a whole.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the Financial Secretary to the Treasury state for what period the Vote on Account will be taken, what number of months. Will it conform to the precedents of the last two years?
Mr. MASTERMAN: Some four or five months will be taken. The old precedents will be followed.

METROPOLITAN POLICE RATE BILL.
Mr. WALTER LONG: Will the Home Secretary inform us what the Government intend to do with regard to the Metropolitan Police Rate Bill? I think the right hon. Gentleman realises that there is no intention of opposing it, but there is a desire to take part in the Debate, and certainly a period of two hours is insufficient. We should like to know at what time the Government propose to take this measure?
Mr. McKENNA: We are hoping that the Debate on the Supplementary Estimates will conclude about nine o'clock, and that would leave two hours in which to debate the Police Bill. I think that will be sufficient time.
Mr. LONG: Supposing the Debate is not concluded, will the Bill be taken or will it be postponed to a later day?
Mr. McKENNA: As this is the fourth day on the Supplementary Estimates it is hoped that the Debate will conclude in sufficient time to allow adequate discussion.

BELFAST UNEMPLOYED (COAL STRIKE).
Mr. DEVLIN: I desire to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland a question of which I have given him private notice, whether his attention has been directed to a public statement made by the Lord Mayor of Belfast that 30,000 unemployed men in Belfast would gladly go to work in the Welsh mines with or without police or military protection; and whether, owing to the fact that by direction of the Lord Mayor of Belfast a sum of £1,000, to which Belfast was entitled for the aid of the unemployed, was withheld from that city on the ground that there was no unemployment in Belfast, he will now exercise his good offices to get that sum immediately allocated for portion of the 30,000 unemployed?
Mr. BIRRELL: My attention has not been called until this moment to the observations referred to by the hon. Member, but I do not think they would form a very sound basis for a successful issue for the application for the £1,000 which it is desired to obtain.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

  NATIONAL HEALTH COMMISSION.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: Can the Financial Secretary to the Treasury possibly answer my question No. 135—
  "Whether he has seen a circular letter from the National Health Commission stating that certain action had been taken by them in accordance with instructions received from him; whether it is to be understood that the Commissioners are in the position of ordinary Government Departments acting under the instructions of a Minister who takes responsibility to Parliament for all their actions and decisions; and whether the Commission have therefore, before taking any important decision or action, to ascertain, and then to carry out, the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary to the Treasury as the responsible Minister, and are not free to form and to act upon their own views as a Commission?"
  Mr. SPEAKER: Questions cannot be taken out of their order, and the time has passed for putting questions to-day.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. MOORE: I ask the permission of the House to make a personal explanation relating to a criticism which was passed on my conduct yesterday during my inevitable absence, and without any notice whatsoever to myself. The hon. and learned Member for South Donegal (Mr. Swift MacNeill) is very friendly with me in the Lobby, but when he proceeded to attack my conduct in this House I think at least I should have had elementary notice from him, in which case I would certainly have been in my place. It was suggested yesterday by the hon. and learned Member that I had put a question down for the purpose of attacking some friend of his, and that, when the question came on to be asked, I had had it postponed, and, having had it postponed, I had then strangled it before its birth, and never put it down again. The hon. and learned Member said that it was a grossly unfair thing—I am not

1555
quoting his exact words—that anyone in this House should use his position as a Member of Parliament for making an attack of this sort, and then running away from it. He complained that I had got this question postponed, and had not put it down again for an answer subsequently. I may say I cordially concur, and if these had been the facts I would have deserved the censure which, upon that hypothetical statement, you, Mr. Speaker, passed in saying it was unfair that a man should so abuse his position. I therefore wish to make a personal explanation of what really happened, and I am perfectly satisfied that when the House hears the whole facts of the matter, hon. Members, on whichever side they may sit, will see that I am the person with a grievance, and not the other man mentioned in the question or the hon. Member for South Donegal. I put this question down after having made full inquiry, and believing absolutely the statements which were in it, as I still do. I put it to the Chief Secretary, and I do not conceal from the House that I intended to put some supplementary questions arising put of it, as I felt quite sure the Chief Secretary would profess sublime ignorance of the whole situation, which, as subsequent events proved, he did do. I had intended to ask him would he make inquiry of the Chief Commissioner of Police in Belfast, who could give him the information in two hours.
The question was put down for a Thursday, which, as hon. Members know, is the only day when one can be sure of getting an Irish question reached. It was early in the list, but, to my disappointment, the Chief Secretary was not in his place, but was represented by a subordinate Minister. The subordinate Minister was useless for my purpose. I say it without offence, but he is in charge of a Department which begins with the turnip fly and ends with the foot-and-mouth disease. Therefore, I asked to have the question postponed until the Chief Secretary was in his place. The same evening I was obliged to go to the country, and I am sure the House will accept my assurance when I say I had every intention to put the question down on the following Monday to be answered on the succeeding Thursday. But on Friday morning, to my intense disgust, I found that the Irish Office, although I had postponed the question, had circulated the answer with the Votes. I thought that was a very unfair way of doing me out of
1556
my supplementary questions, but, whether it was fair or unfair, the question was answered by the Irish Office, saying, "We know nothing about the alleged Privy Councillor." The result would have been, if I had put the question down again, that either Mr. Speaker would have told me that the Irish Government had already stated they knew nothing of the matter or the Chief Secretary would have said, "I can only refer the hon. Member to my previous answer." The fact remains that the answer was circulated with the Votes, and that will be found in the "Official Debates." On Monday the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Harold Smith) asked me if I intended to put the question down again, and I told him I should not, as the Government had already answered it. Then, without a single word to me, the hon. and learned Member for South Donegal comes down here on Thursday, not having read his "Official Debates" and not having communicated with me, and charges me with a breach of the etiquette of this House and with abusing my position, because, having postponed a question, I had not put it down again. I think that was a very unfair misrepresentation of what happened, and on this occasion the hon. Member has discovered not a mare's nest but a blind nut. I have always, if I put a question affecting an hon. Member, given, him some intimation of my intention to do so, and if the hon. and learned Member had only notified me I would certainly have been here to give my explanation. I venture to say any other hon. Member of this House would have taken the same course as I did.
Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL rose—
Mr. SPEAKER: I think we had better pass to the next business.
Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I am sorry. I should have liked to reply.
Mr. SPEAKER: It is not necessary.

BILLS PRESENTED.

  WEEKLY BEST-DAY BILL.
  "To secure one day's rest in seven for all workpeople, to make the first day of May a bank holiday throughout the United Kingdom, to secure a week's holiday for workpeople, and to secure payment of wages for public holidays." Presented by Mr. LAXSBUBY; supported by Mr. Pointer, Mr. William Thorne, Mr. Keir

  1557
  Hardie, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Adamson, Mr. John Taylor, Mr. Tyson Wilson, Mr. Gill, and Mr. Crooks; to be read a second time upon Monday, 25th March, and to be printed. [Bill 53.]

  EIGHT HOURS WORKING DAY BILL.
  "TO limit the hours of employment to eight per day." Presented by Mr. WILLIAM THORNE; supported by Mr. Tyson Wilson, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Wilkie, Mr. Clynes, Mr. Jowett, and Mr. George Robertson; to be read a second time upon Friday, 8th March, and to be printed. [Bill 54.]
  REGULATION OF RAILWAYS BILL.
  "To amend the Railways Regulation Acts, and for other purposes relating there-to." Presented by Mr. MORTON; supported by Mr. Esslemont, Mr. Robert Harcourt, Mr. Leicester Harmsworth, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. MacCallum Scott, Mr. MacVcagh, Mr. Munro, Mr. Charles Price, Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Watt, and Mr. Wilkie; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 55.]
  ASYLUM OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  "To amend the Asylum Officers' Superannuation Act, 1909." Presented by Sir CHARLES NICHOLSON; supported by Colonel Lockwood, Mr. Crooks, Mr. Millar, Mr. Harris, and Mr. Nannetti; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 56.]
  SUPERRNNUATION (ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS AND QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY) BILL.
  "To amend the Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Superannuation) Act, 1865, and the Queen Anne's Bounty (Superannuation) Act, 1870." Presented by Sir CHARLES NICHOLSON; supported by Mr. Stuart-Wortley; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 57.]
  HOURS OF LABOUR (BAKEHOUSES) BILL.
  "To restrict the hours in Bakehouses to eight hours per day, and not more than forty-eight hours per week, and to regulate the same." Presented by Mr. WILKIE; supported by Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Gill, Mr. Barnes, Mr. James Haslam, Mr. William Thorne, Mr. Nolan, and Mr. Chiozza Money; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 28th March, and to be printed. [Bill 58.]

  SEA FISHERIES REGULATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To provide for the suppression of illegal fishing by trawl vessels." Presented
  1558
  by Mr. MORTON; supported by Mr. Harry Hope, Mr. John Hope, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Munro, Mr. Sutherland, and Mr. Watt; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 59.]

SUPPLY.

  CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1911–12).
  Considered in Committee.
  [The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean) in the Chair.]
  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)

  CLASS 8.—INSURANCE COMMISSIONS (UNITED-KINGDOM).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £31,590, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Insurance Commissioners in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, and of the Joint Committee."
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: This Estimate is modest looking in its proportions, as it only affects £31,590, but, if looked at well, it will be seen it really deals with a much larger sum. Salaries, wages, and allowances amount to £18,890. That is for a short period of the year. It is not even for a full three months, seeing a large number of the appointments have been made for a much smaller period. I reckon the annual cost of salaries, wages, and allowances is at the rate of £100,000. Included in this Estimate is £12,200 for special inquiries and travelling. That sum is practically entirely for the expenses of the official lecturers who have been sent about the country. I am going, to submit that expenditure, at any rate, is entirely wasted expenditure. They have been sent on the impossible task of endeavouring to explain the Act, which no man can explain until the regulations of the Commissioners have been published and until the actuaries have at least made their preliminary report so as to enable anyone speaking on the Act to explain the alternative schemes which are based upon the actuaries' calculations. In addition to that we find a note on the Estimate that there is an expenditure on stationery and offices included in other Votes. In answer

  1559
  to a question in the House, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has told us that stationery expenses to the extent of £10,000 have been incurred, and that office accommodation has already cost £13,400. The first question I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is, What is the total estimated expenditure for a complete year? Giving us the figures piecemeal like this does not enable us to come to any conclusion as to the real estimated expenditure on what one might call the head office of administration of the Insurance Act.
  A White Paper has been issued by the Government explaining the steps which have been taken to bring the Act into force. The Paper tells us that two sets of regulations have been issued, and that a large number of committees and subcommittees have been appointed. Throughout there is an obvious desire to parade the activity of the Department. In addition, there has been a large number of lecturers appointed, some ninety-six, who are being paid salaries of from £3 10s. to £6 6s. per week. In addition to those direct payments, they are being given travelling expenses and also hotel or maintenance expenses while they are away from home. I want to ask why these two sets of regulations have been made, and why these committees and lecturers have been appointed before the advisory committee, which was to be constituted as one of the first steps to be taken, has, in fact, been appointed? The Committee will remember that Section 58 of the Act provides—
  "that the Commissioners shall, as soon as may be after the passing of the Act, appoint an advisory committee for the purpose of advice and assistance in making the regulations."

  What the Commissioners have done is to make the regulations first and delay the appointment of the advisory committee. The answer, no doubt, will be that they are taking steps to appoint the advisory committee, and the White Paper does, in fact, give some information upon that point. I would ask the Committee to consider, having regard to the specially wide powers that are given to the Insurance Commissioners, whether the House, when it passed this Act, ever intended that the Insurance Commissioners should exercise those powers unchecked by any advisory committee. I remember it being stated in the Debate that, although these powers were very wide, they could only be exercised in conjunction with an advisory committee which was to be fully representative
  1560
  of all interests—the workmen's interests, the employer's interests, and every interest, and that it was safe to give these wide powers to the Commissioners. They have been making regulations without any advice from the advisory committee; they have been appointing lecturers and a large number of officials, and I venture to think, if the advisory committee had been appointed, as it ought to have been appointed, as the first step after the passing of the Act, then certainly the mistake of appointing these lecturers would never have been perpetrated.
  I will deal with the lecturers first. On 21st February the Financial Secretary, in answer to a question, said the engagements of the lecturers were, of course, non-political. There is some ground for saying that at least all of the lecturers are not non-political people. Whether they were appointed in the belief that they were non-political, and whether it is purely accidental that they have developed political proclivities since I cannot pretend to say, but I would ask the Government to consider at any rate the action of some of the lecturers with a view of seeing whether they cannot put an end to their temporary appointments. Before I do that, I would like the House to consider for a moment the instructions given to the lecturers. They were issued to the lecturers on 27th January, and I would like the Financial Secretary to say whether any meetings addressed by these lecturers were held before these instructions were issued. I have a strong suspicion they were. By 24th February, 539 lectures had been given up and down the country. The first course of instructions to the lecturers was not held till 19th January, and it seems to me these lecturers must have been extraordinarily active if between 27th January and 24th February they had managed to hold 539 meetings. In these instructions to the lecturers some very good advice has been given. I will just call the Committee's attention to one or two portions of them. The, lecturers are told:—
  "No political statement or allusion is allowed and no reference to politics or to politicians must be introduced."
  In another place the lecturer is told:—
  "All suggestions for amendment of the Act must be put aside as beyond the province of the lecturer."
  Then directions are given as to answering questions. They are to be answered apparently out of a book called "Questions and Answers for Lecturers," or from other publications the Commissioners may be going to issue. I think these questions

  1561
  and answers would be extremely useful to Members of the House, if they could be issued to them and even to a wider public. If these are correct answers given to ordinary questions, then they ought to be published very widely indeed, and, if they are not correct, then they ought to go through the ordinary check of public discussion before they are put into the hands of lecturers who are officially explaining the Act. A list of lecturers has been appointed, and, if one examines that list and tries to see what qualifications are possessed by those lecturers, one finds there is very little information at all. I amused myself this morning in taking an occupation test to see whether the lecturers appointed are from their previous occupations likely to be able to explain such an intricate Act. Lawyers, accountants, and other professional gentlemen might, of course, be able to explain the Act, but there is also a builder, a retired Excise officer, a compositor, a coach maker, a miner, a quarryman, a saddler, and a carpet planner. There is not much to be got from the occupation, so one must ask the Secretary to the Treasury for some further information with regard to the lecturers. Care has been taken to make the identification of the lecturers extremely difficult. Frequently, a common name is given with merely an initial, and it is extremely difficult to identify the particular man.
  If one takes the list of Irish lecturers, I can show the House the difficulty there is. I do not pretend to have any personal knowledge of any one of these gentlemen, but there is a very well-informed article in the "Times" of 20th February, on which I am going to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to kindly answer some questions. There is a lecturer, S. J. Bolton, who is described as "S. J. Bolton, accountant." I would like the Financial Secretary to say whether he is the same person as Samuel Bolton, accountant in the office of the "Freeman's Journal." There is another gentleman, D. Edwards, described as "a writer on social and insurance subjects." I should like the Financial Secretary to say whether this is the same gentleman as Mr. Dudley Edwards, who is secretary of the Dublin City and County Liberal Association? Then there is J. Grey. Is he the same gentleman as J. Grey, secretary of the Ancient Order of the Hibernians in Cork? There is W. Walker, described as "organising secretary of the Carpenters' and Joiners' Society in Belfast." Is he the same gen-
  1562
  tleman as the leader of the Labour party in Belfast? There is a gentleman called M. Doyle, commercial agent and lecturer. Is he the same person as Michael Doyle, lately Nationalist Lord Mayor of Dublin, and is he the same gentleman who is reported, when delivering a lecture in county Wicklow, to have said this:—
  "Referring to the servants' question, I am surrounded with instructions, but I may use my discretion in regard to this. The servants question has been used by a section of the Press in a very peculiar way."
  And, in reply to a vote of thanks, he added:—
  "I am precluded from saying anything about, politics, but I will say this: I remember one Act of Parliament which it was said would beggar a considerable section of the merchants of this country. That was the Budget. It was said it would ruin a great many people, and it has turned out it did not ruin them at all. As a matter of fact, they are getting extra profits."
  If that is one of the official lecturers, and if that is the M. Doyle referred to in the list, he seems to have taken a quick opportunity of breaking one of the regulations in his instructions. The directions were that—
  "No political statement or allusion is allowed. No reference to politics, even by way of illustration."
  I do not now what the meaning of his reference to the Budget was, but, assuming it was by way of illustration, even in that case he broke the rules laid down for him. I ask the Secretary to the Treasury what steps he is going to take in connection with Mr. Doyle? This meeting, and most of these meetings, were private. I have one or two reports of meetings which have been held, and these reports go to show that these lecturers have broken their instructions. The bulk of these 500 meetings have been private, and it is impossible therefore to give any sort of account of what has taken place at them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite angry with me because I asked the Financial Secretary whether I thought that those lectures were required for the purpose of creating an atmosphere which was likely to be favourable to Liberal measures. We say that this lecturer, Mr. Doyle, at any rate, was doing his best in that direction. It is quite true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer immediately said that the speech in which he spoke about a political atmosphere was not in any way referring to these lectures. I know he said that on 2nd February; but I ask hon. Members just to try to put themselves in the position of the public for one moment. Mr. D. Edwards is in the Irish list as an official lecturer. He goes to a meeting having been well known in his locality as Mr. Dudley Edwards, the Secretary of the

  1563
  local Liberal Association. How on earth are the members of the public whom he is addressing to know whether he is creating an atmosphere as Mr. Dudley Edwards or is there only as an official lecturer tied down as Mr. D. Edwards. I personally should expect that it would be very difficult for the public to draw this nice distinction.
  With regard to Scotland, I want to ask the Financial Secretary whether F. A. Hamilton, compositor and printer's reader, Edinburgh Town Council, and ex-president of the Trades Council, is the same gentleman who is reported to have made a speech in Edinburgh as an Insurance lecturer? He is reported to have said:—
  "There is one thing I wish to point out and it is that I am quite willing to answer any question regarding the Act. But if any argument springs up I have got instructions to refuse to argue the question with you. Ton are simply to take my statement as being correct, and if you don't, well, I cannot help it."
  He was following instructions, and his words were greeted with laughter in brackets. He went on:—
  "At the same time, I have also to inform you that any statement I may make with regard to the provisions of the Act you have got to take with a grain of salt, even although I am the official representative. In the same way, it must not be taken for granted that whatever statement I make will be exactly the attitude which the Commissioners will take up, but, just as the lawyer does, we think we know the law just as well as Commissioners do."
  There was further laughter at that point. I ask the Committee seriously to consider what is the value of lectures given by a man who is hedged about in every statement he makes in the manner described in this case. He is in the position of a lecturer who is in an indefinite position, and who is unable to give a plain and straightforward description of the Act or unable to answer a question, or, at any rate, to answer the intimate questions which the questioner really wants an answer to, and he will continue to be unable to do so until the Regulations are published and calculations are made by the actuaries. With regard to Scotland, again, there is in the list another gentleman called Mr. Mackenzie. He is described as "a retired Excise officer." I want to know whether he is the same person who has been notoriously very very active in electioneering work for the Liberal party in Ross-shire. At the last Election, and the Election before he practically ran the campaign. I think it must be the same man, because I have a report of a speech which he made, and I am going to ask the House to consider it for a moment. I have two reports: The first speech he made was to
  1564
  the Easter Ross Farmers' Club, and the second was at Keith. He did not have a nice time in the first case, and on the second occasion he opened the meeting With prayer, and that is really all that is reported of that meeting. I will deal with the first meeting, of which there is a longer report. First of all, the president of the Easter Ross Farmers' Club said, one of the things that we have to do was to hear a delegate from the Insurance Act Commissioners to explain the Act. In asking for that, the club went on the assumption that the Commissioners were to be equal to what they had forecasted and that they were not to send a party to discuss the Act with any political bias. But instead of that they had sent into their midst a gentleman who was well-known as an organiser in their district, and it was for them to say whether they would hear him or not. If they were to bring politics into the club they would never agree. There was a discussion as to whether he should be heard or not, and finally it was resolved that he should be heard. Mr. Mackenzie then proceeded to address the meeting. He said it was quite true that he was a politician, but he could take part in anything that was for the welfare of the country. The chairman, a little impatiently, said:—
  "We do not want any speech, we are here to consider the Act."
  Mr. Mackenzie then proceeded to refer to a Mr. Byars, which seems to have given some offence. Next he proceeded to read a paper on the Act, explaining the contributions made by different people affected, and then proceeded to deal with the benefits. The president then asked him whether he was going to touch upon anything connected with agriculture and Mr. Mackenzie replied:—
  "I have nothing in particular, the Act applies to every kind of employé. All that I can say is that power is given to the Commissioners. No Act has been passed where so much power has been given to the Commissioners. I must confess to you that we are in a measure at sea. I would wish to have printed instructions. There are certain things I dare not touch because the Commissioners are at present dealing with them now. If they as farmers found it better to pay once in six months, the Commissioners would accept that and would do anything to make the Act work smoothly. If they had any scheme or suggestion they thought would work out better, all they had to do was to submit it to the Commissioners who were anxious to meet the wishes of everyone as far as possible."
  Finally, some one asked a question of Mr. Mackenzie whether he had any authority to represent the Commissioners in what he had said, and he very properly said he had no authority to bind the Commissioners. There was one further question

  1565
  by a Mr. Munro, who said he understood the lecturers were to meet with the Commissioners, be instructed in the Act, and sent out to explain it, and Mr. Mackenzie said:—
  "That is the case, and you cannot possibly understand it unless you have heard these lectures. I was a week in London and a week in Edinburgh."
  Then Mr. Scott wanted an amendment, and this is what I complain of in Mr. Mackenzie. Mr. Scott asked:—
  "In the event of agricultural districts generally protesting against the casual labour Clause, do you think there is any chance of the Commissioners deleting it. If that could be done, it would put a stop to much opposition."
  To that Mr. Mackenzie replied:—
  "That was before the Commissioners in London and it was left with them to form rules in connection with it. I think within a few days the Commissioners will send off their decision on that point."
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Will the hon-Member say what paper he is reading from?
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is the "Ross-shire Journal" of 9th February, 1912.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: That is a Tory journal.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I had not the slightest notion whether it is or not. I am not aware of having seen it before until it was handed to me this morning. If the hon. Gentleman has got another report of this meeting which differs from this I shall be very glad to collate the two editions and see whether the points I have been referring to are not referred to in it. This gentleman, Mr. Mackenzie, seems to have clearly broken his instructions referred to in the White Paper. He tells the farmers that if they wanted the Act amended what they have got to do was to make representations to the Commissioners, and he gives as well as he can a promise that the Commissioners will consider their representations with a view to removing the Clauses to which they particularly take exception, namely, the classification of casual labour in the Act, while his instructions were not to discuss any question of Amendment, if indeed he had any instructions, and I am inclined to doubt whether he had at that time. I ask the Financial Secretary to say—the date of the report is the 9th, and it referred to the previous Friday, which must have been the 2nd February—whether they had instructions at that time or not. He will notice what was said by the lecturer, that it would be better if he had written instructions.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Is that a meeting of the Ross-shire Farmers' Club?
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes. I will lend the hon. Member the paper from which I am quoting. Of course we have only been able to find very few reports of these meetings, because most of the meetings have been private, but I doubt very much whether, after even those reports that have come to my knowledge, the Prime Minister would be able to repeat his statement that not one halfpenny of public money had been used in connection with any agitation or meeting held for the explanation of the Act. Clearly these meetings, those to which I have referred at any rate, are not meetings merely for explaining the Act as it now stands. One lecturer dealt with a reference to the Budget which is clearly a political matter, and the other dealt with a proposed Amendment which the lecturer practically pledged the Commissioners to consider. With regard to the English appointments I cannot say I have very much specific knowledge, although there is one gentleman who was asked to apply for a lectureship, and did apply for a lectureship, and, having been asked to go, he went before two of the Commissioners, and the first question that was put to him at that interview, to use his own words, "The first question they asked had reference to my previous political work." He happens to be a well-known lecturer and a well-known speaker in the Conservative interest, and three days later he received from the Insurance Commissioners a statement that he was not going to be appointed because they had already sufficient lecturers appointed in that district. That might have been a pure coincidence, but if it was it was extraordinary. If there was no question of politics in the appointment it is extraordinary that the first question that was put had reference to the nature of his previous political work.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Are you reading from a letter?
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes; I do not want to give the name. I do not want to advertise the man who has not been appointed. The letter says:—
  "I am a Conservative, and known as such in local politics. On February 26th, on the invitation of the National Health Insurance Commissioners, I attended at their offices in Whitehall with a view to appointment as lecturer. I was interviewed by two Commissioners."

  1567
  (Their names are given.)
  "The first question they asked had reference to my previous political work. Three days later they informed me that they had already a sufficient number of lecturers in the district.
  "P.S.—My expenses were paid by draft on the Treasury."
  Then one other point to which I want to call attention is the use which the Government has made of one of their salaried officials, Mr. Alfred Watson, the actuary. I am not desirous of saying one word in any sense against Mr. Watson. I do not believe a better appointment could possibly have been made. It is not anything he has done nor is it any reflection on his capacity that I want to make. What I object to is the use which was made of him by the Government. The moment he has been appointed he has been turned into a party instrument. On 16th February he was instructed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to write a letter for the purpose of controverting certain statements which have been made by the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil). That letter is addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it begins, "In accordance with your instructions," and every paragraph practically begins with the name of the Noble Lord, and is directed specifically to some statement which the Noble Lord had made in a controversy which he had been carrying on with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think it is an abuse of public officials that they should be employed for the purpose of newspaper controversy, and lay themselves open to the criticism which all men engaging in newspaper controversy are bound to lay themselves open to. My criticism is not directed against Mr. Watson, but against the Chancellor of the Exchequer for employing a man paid out of public funds for the purpose of agitation and controversy in connection with the Insurance Act.
  I want now to turn back to the White Paper. One of the important duties, especially of any lecturer who is dealing with groups of domestic servants or of hospital nurses and is asked to explain the Insurance Act to them, would be to give them full and proper information as to Section 13, under which very different benefits can be given, and which was introduced as the direct result of the servants' agitation. As the position stands to-day, there is no one who is able to give any information upon that subject. The Commissioners themselves cannot give it. I have here a letter from the Commissioners in reply to a letter asking whether schemes could be ap-
  1568
  proved under Section 13, and the Commissioners say in reply, quite correctly, that until the Government actuaries had got out the figures in connection with the reserve values it was impossible for anyone to submit for approval any scheme under Section 13, because any calculations must necessarily be based upon the reserve value table. That table is not yet published. No schemes, therefore, can be formulated under Section 13, and the lecturers are going about the place advising people to go into societies for the purpose of benefits without being able to put before them the alternative benefits that they might get if they waited a little longer. Instead of spending so much public money on lecturers it would be infinitely preferable if some money were spent by the Commissioners in getting out the calculations which are necessary in order to enable nurses, servants, clerks and others to make up their mind which form of benefits are most suitable to their case, and if some assistance could be given in the formation of these new societies. At present the servants have no funds, they have no actuary, no organisation and no office, and it is almost impossible for them, to start a society, however much they may wish to do so. Rather than use the funds in payment of lecturers, who cannot possibly explain the Act, because it is not complete, it would be far better to spend some of these funds in providing machinery for the starting of new societies.
  In this White Paper we are told that model rules for approved societies have been published, and we are told that pamphlets are going to be published, that arrangements have been made and that all pamphlets should be approved, though it does not tell us by whom. I should like to ask whether all these model rules, all the pamphlets, all the questions and answers and instructions given to the lecturers can be laid on the Table, or otherwise put at the disposal of Members of Parliament, because all of us are being bombarded with questions from our con-stituenies or societies that we know as to what steps they ought to take. We ought to be instructed just as much as the lecturers ought. I should like the Financial Secretary to give us an undertaking that we shall have these various documents sent to us as soon as they are published. I wrote myself to the Insurance Commissioners on 14th February asking whether they desired me to apply for each specific document, or whether they would put me on the list so that I got all the documents

  1569
  which were published from time to time. No doubt they are very busy. They sent me a formal type-written answer, but I have had no further reply.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman)made an observation which was inaudible in the Gallery.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think other Members will probably like to be treated in the same way. If their names were put on the list, with instructions that all these documents should be sent to them, I think it would add to the convenience of the House. I am not going to move any reduction, but I hope I have, with moderation, tried to raise some point upon which this side of the House, at least, requires further information.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I should not have intervened had it not been that the hon. Member (Mr. Worthington-Evans) went out of his way to cast a stigma upon the Insurance Commissioners, and upon one gentleman in particular, Mr. Murdo Mackenzie. I have known him for a long time. His attitude in life has always been clear and decisive. I do not for a moment deny that he has been all along a Radical of a somewhat extreme but very honest sort. When Mr. Mackenzie was in London, at the request of the Commissioners, I went to see him, as became me, being his Member of Parliament here, and when I called upon him I found a most extraordinary combination. I found this extreme Radical having sweet communion with an extreme Tory, Mr. Byles Black, also a lecturer under the Commission. He has already fought twice in Scotland, and has been beaten by a Liberal candidate. Those two gentlemen came from Scotland at the request of the Commissioners, and heard their lectures, and went back to lecture in the various districts to which they were appointed. I do not know what the fate of Mr. Byles Black has been, but I was extremely disappointed to see that in my county of Ross-shire there was such a remarkable degree of intolerance as was exhibited by the farmers' club. The facts are very simple. Mr. Mackenzie was asked to go to the Highlands of Scotland, firstly, because he is a man who is respected by every person who knows him, secondly because he is a man who has been accustomed to tour the north of Scotland speaking on various political subjects and especially upon temperance, and, thirdly, he was one of the
  1570
  few men in the north of Scotland who could speak on so complicated a subject in the Gaelic language. Mr. Mackenzie was for many years a resident in the eastern part of Ross-shire. Most of the farmers' clubs in Scotland are largely Tory, and I understand that the farmers in the east of Ross are largely Tory also. These gentlemen were asked to receive a lecturer to explain to them, as agriculturists, how the Act affected them. Mr. Mackenzie went to Ross-shire, and was sent to lecture to the farmers' club. He was informed, I am told, and I think this paper bears me out, that his name was on the agenda paper in order to lecture to the farmers' club. He attended the meeting of the club at the request of the farmers. I gather from the report, against which I have nothing to say—I know the editor of the "Ross-shire Journal," and it is a well-conducted paper, and I have no doubt the report is perfectly accurate—that he was present during the time they discussed whether he should be heard or not. Any more unpleasant or uncomfortable position for a gentleman to be in I cannot imagine. We find that when the question was put to the vote, twelve men in the club voted that he should be heard and ten voted that he should not. If the report of this meeting in this Tory paper were circulated to Members of the House, I think they would take a very different view of these proceedings from that which they would have taken if they were to rely solely upon the extracts which the hon. Member has read. It is my duty, I think, to read certain extracts. This is what happened. The report is headed "Will Mr. Mackenzie be heard?"
  "The President said one of the things they were to do that day was to hear a delegate from the insurance Act Commissioners explain the Act. In asking for that, the club went on the assumption that the Commissioners were to be equal to what they had forecasted—that they were not to send a party to discuss the Act with any political bias. Instead of that they had sent into their midst a gentleman who was well-known as an organiser in their district, and it was for them to say whether they were to hear him or not. If they were to bring politics into the club, they would never agree.
  "Mr. J. Young, Cadboll, moved that they do not hear Mr. Mackenzie, the lecturer. They had nothing against Mr. Mackenzie, but owing to his strong feeling on politics, he moved that they do not hear him, and that they request the Commissioners to send up an un-biassed gentleman to explain the Act."
  Mr. Mackenzie was present, and he got up and asked:—
  "Might I make a remark?
  "The President: No, not at this stage.
  "Mr. Scott moved that Mr. Mackenzie be heard. It did not matter, he said, what his political views were, but, like respectable farmers, they ought to hear him. He thought that until Mr. Mackenzie touched on politics they should hear him.

  1571
  "Mr. J. H. Budge seconded Mr. Scott's motion and stilted that if they did not hear Mr. Mackenzie they would be taking up an intolerable attitude.
  "The President said they had nothing against Mr. Mackenzie, but the question was whether they thought the Commissioners dealt fairly with them in stating that they would send up someone without any political bias. It was by way of protest he thought it should be put to the meeting.
  "A vote was then taken, when, by twelve votes to ten, it was agreed to hear Mr. Mackenzie."
  Now the fun begins:—
  "Major Cuthbert said he lodged his dissent, and left the meeting, and one or two members followed him.
  "Mr. Mackenzie then proceeded to address the meeting. He said it was quite true he was a politician, but he could take a part in anything that was for the welfare of the country.
  "The Chairman: We do not want any speech. We are here to consider the Act.
  "Mr. Mackenzie proceeded to refer to a Mr. Byars who had come to the county.
  "The President: If you cannot take the Act, you must sit down. We must have the Act or nothing at all."
  That was after Mr. Mackenzie had only spoken two sentences.
  "Mr. Mackenzie for the nest few minutes proceeded to read a paper on the Act. He explained the contributions to be made by the different people affected, and then proceeded to deal with the benefits.
  "The President: If you could touch upon anything which affects agriculturalists it would be preferable. Have you anything to say from an agriculturalist's point of view?
  "Mr. Mackenzie: I have nothing in particular. The Act applies to every kind of employé. ….
  "The President: We are here as farmers. We only want to hear about the clauses affecting agriculture.
  "Mr. Mackenzie: Very well, I had better ask you to put questions."
  Could anything be more reasonable than that? The lecturer thought there was no better method than the Socratic method of question and answer. That showed that Mr. Mackenzie would prefer to leave out anything in the nature of political feeling.
  "The President: Are we to take your statements as authoritative? Are you talking with the sanction of the Commission?
  "Mr. Mackenzie: I have been sent out by the Commissioners, but I am not authorised to make any promises on their part. If you find that I have said anything contrary to fact then you should report it."
  Then Mr. Mackenzie went on, and answered any questions that were asked. I think, if I might say so with all respect, the reception Mr. Mackenzie got from the farmers of Easter Ross is typical of the reception which hon. Gentlemen opposite and their friends in the country are willing to give to the lecturers who go to explain the Act. There is no doubt at all that an objection was taken to Mr. Mackenzie on political and not on personal grounds. Those who know him know that there is no man more honest and anxious to fulfil the duty entrusted to him, and the fact that he
  1572
  refused to discuss the Act with any political bias shows that to be the case. But what would happen if the Tory candidate were asked to go to any constituency and address a trade unionist meeting, most of the men being Liberals. I am perfectly satisfied that every single one, whatever his political views were, would give that man a fair hearing, especially if, as was the case with Mr. Mackenzie, he was sent on the special invitation of the trade union whose members were anxious to hear the Act discussed. There is no excuse for the action of the Easter Ross Farmers' Club, and still less excuse for using this case as one where party feeling had been shown for the purpose of making an attack upon His Majesty's Government. This is quite a typical illustration of the action of the Commissioners. Two men, holding diverse political opinions, were asked by the Commissioners to come and prepare for lecturing on the Act. I think, also, it is typical of the action of the Government in desiring that the principles and objects of the Act should be understood. I am extremely sorry that Mr. Mackenzie's name should be raked up in this way. I think the Government have shown wisdom in choosing such a man to go to the North of Scotland—a man who is able to explain the Act to the people in the Gaelic language. Unless the intolerance which is being evidenced on every occasion by hon. Gentleman opposite ceases, the failure of the Act will be to their discredit, and their discredit alone.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I think the speech we have just heard shows how difficult it is to have an impartial discussion of anything in regard to the Insurance Act. I do not want to attack anybody, but I believe the position of the Act and of public opinion in regard to it make it impossible that the lecturers will in any way carry out the instructions issued by the Commissioners. I put it on the ordinary grounds of human nature. You cannot expect nice impartiality with respect to a matter which is full of acute controversy and full of disputed points. It is no good sending down a lecturer into the country and telling him that he is merely to give the meaning of the Act and nothing more. He cannot do it. The moment a lecturer deals with a matter of this kind he is bound to give his own colouring and his own view as to what the Act really is and what it means. Let me give an illustration. Suppose you send the lecturer down into a country district and he is asked

  1573
  whether the flat rate principle imposes a heavier tax on the poorer people of the community, what is he to answer? Is he to answer "Yes" or "No"? The answer must be in accordance with the opinion he holds. If he answers accurately, he must tell them that the effect of the flat rate is to put a heavier tax on the poorer people. But is he likely to answer in that way? Can anyone suppose that a lecturer in these circumstances can answer by the card without giving further illustrations as to what the Act really means?
  So far as I am aware, this principle of appointing lecturers paid by the Treasury to explain an Act after it has been passed is entirely without precedent, and I should like to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite this question: Suppose that after the Unionist party passed the Education Act of 1902 they had proposed to appoint lecturers, to be paid by the Treasury to explain the Act in all parts of the country, what would have been said by hon. Members opposite? It would have been said that it was a most monstrous form of political corruption. Then, again, supposing that after the passing of the Licensing Act we had appointed at a heavy cost to the country lecturers to go about explaining the provisions of the Bill, what would have been the outcry on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and, I think, quite properly? Why! they would have said, "It is nothing less than political corruption, because you are using public funds for party purposes." You may say what you like about the instructions given to the lecturers in the present case. I have read them, and anything more absurd could not be imagined. You may say that the lecturers are to be men without political bias one way or the other, but no man can go about explaining the Act without becoming an apostle of it, and without becoming a lecturer in favour of the Government, supporting the Act for which they are responsible at the present moment. If we once embark upon the principle of paying lecturers with Treasury money for such purposes, I think we shall have gone a long way towards the degradation of public life in this country.
  I have a very strong opinion that when a lecturer's remarks or the records of them come up before the Commission in London, the amount of remuneration will very much depend upon whether he showed himself in favour of the Act or not. That is human nature. The lecturer has to send up a report which is to be short and strictly to the point. Supposing he
  1574
  sends up a report which shows that, although he has been trying to be perfectly impartial, he is really not in favour of the Act, is he likely to be continued as a lecturer? It is to disregard ordinary human nature to suppose that anyone can be quite impartial in regard to a matter which at present is the subject of so much controversy. Every lecturer who tries to take up a most unbiassed position will be the one who will have least employment in future. The lecturer who seeks to support what the Commissioners have to carry out, and endeavours to make the Act a success, will be the lecturer who will have increased employment.
  I would not mind if this was done at private expense instead of at the expense of the Treasury, but we are now officially sanctioning by this Vote, for the first time, the payment out of public funds of what are really political lecturers for party purposes. Do not let us, when considering the merits of one lecturer or another, give the go-by to that. I should have said the same thing if this had been done in regard to any Act passed by the Unionist party. It is demoralisation from whatever party a principle of this kind comes. In my experience it is a unique demoralisation, and we ought on the earliest occasion, in the interest of political purity, to protest to our utmost against degradation of this character. I would ask whether it is necessary to have these lecturers. I think this is a very important question when dealing with matters of Government legislation in this country. If the Act had been passed without the guillotine the case would have been different. It is the floor of the House where it ought to have been threshed out in order that the people of the country might have a chance of understanding it. That is the object of Debate in ordinary representative Government. We do not pass legislation until the country has had an opportunity of really knowing what is being placed upon them. Here we had a purely bureaucratic system. We had a Bill introduced before the subject had been discussed in the country—a Bill which involved a very large amount of additional taxation. When the Bill came into Committee it was dealt with in such a way that three-fourths of it was neither understood nor explained.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not relevant to the subject now before the Committee.
  5.0 P.M.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I will not pursue that matter. But surely it is relevant to ask whether it is necessary to have these lecturers. I say it is, because, instead of the Bill being discussed as it ought to have been discussed, the Government adopted a bureaucratic method of passing it first and making it understood after.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Debate must be confined to the administration of the Act. We cannot go into how the Act came to be passed.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I submit to your ruling, but, on the point of Order, suppose we are dealing with a question of administration as to whether lecturers were necessary or not, am I not in order in saying that the lecturers ought not to be necessary if the Bill had been passed in the ordinary way, apart from bureaucratic methods?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot agree with the hon. Member.
  Sir F. BANBURY: As this is not a Supplementary Estimate, but a new Estimate, would it not be in order to discuss anything which it is in the power of the administrators to do without legislation, or which they have done without legislation; and has it not been always the rule that free discussion is allowed on an Estimate provided you do not bring in something which a Minister in charge cannot do without introducing fresh legislation?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not understand that that is a point which I have ruled. The point in which I ruled was that it is not in order in this Debate to refer to the proceedings under which this Act became an Act. That is a matter of past history, and is not open to discussion in this Debate. The Debate must be confined, however wide its limits, to the administration of the Department and the Estimates now before us.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not in any way question your ruling, I only ask whether my statement was not correct, with the view that Members who are going to join in the discussion might know what they might discuss?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: On the point on which I am ruling I have to adhere to the ruling which I have made.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: Surely, when dealing with a question of administration and an Estimate which is being discussed for the first time, we may deal with all matters affecting the administration if we do not
  1576
  deal with matters of legislation. Suppose I put it that a question affecting administration is whether this Act had been understood or not at the time it was passed, I submit, without going into past history at all, that it has a distinct bearing merely on the question of administration, and on nothing else. Of course, if I am going to be ruled out of order on that, I bow to your ruling at once, but it was only in that way that I was dealing with the matter, and to that extent.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must not have made myself clear. It is not in order in this Debate for reference to be made or arguments used as to the methods of procedure under which this Bill became the-Act which we are now discussing. It is open, of course, to the hon. Member to criticise the appointments of the Administration and to say, as he has already said, that lecturers might not be necessary, but he was going into, as I understood him, a discussion of the Time Table under which the Bill was passed, and, of course, he knows this is not open to discussion.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I am much obliged for what you have said now. As regards your ruling, it is certainly not my intention to go into the Time Table of the passing of the Act, nor, as far as I have gone, do I think I was going into it. Without going any further into what took place last Session, I am going to put this: It seems to me to be quite inconsistent with the notions of representative Government, which means a full discussion, so that the electors may have knowledge of what is done, that it should be necessary in particular cases to appoint lecturers in order that the people of the country may ascertain what the nature of the legislation is. That seems to me to be a very strong point. Suppose, in this case, you are going to justify the appointment of lecturers paid by public money, how can you refuse an appointment in any other case where we have new legislation? And, more than that, when the new legislation is of a complicated character, as this undoubtedly is, when it is of a character with reference to which there is a great difference of political opinion, and when the matter is one in reference to which there is acute controversy at the present moment, and belongs to the very class of legislation in reference to which there ought to be no political bias as regards either the administration or its explanation. If a precedent is set now, is there any Act which may hereafter be passed by either political

  1577
  party in reference to which you may not, on behalf of the Government or the Treasury, have political emissaries sent all over the country under the name of lecturers? I say that this scheme of lecturers who merely make known what the Act is is impossible. No one, without talking absolute nonsense, could go down and lecture on those lines. Directly you leave that standpoint and give explanations in the true sense of the term, you must give your explanations in a biassed form, and I protest, on the grounds of political morality, against this, as the first attempt to use the Treasury for nothing more than political party purposes.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I wish to say one word in reference to a passage in the speech of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans). He mentioned some Irish matters as to which in ordinary circumstances myself and my Friends would wish to have something to say, but in the circumstances of this Session we do not desire to enter into any controversy about Irish administration, or to do or say anything in reference to this purely British action for which we have no responsibility. As the matter has been mentioned by the hon. Member I feel bound to make clear that our abstaining from any part in this discussion must not be taken as constituting in any way an approval or condemnation of the administration of this Insurance Act in Ireland or the appointment of the Insurance Commissioners or organisers. The whole question will have to be investigated from top to bottom hereafter, and for the present I refrain from embarking on any comment on the subject.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ross-shire (Mr. Macpherson) has left the House, because I would have liked to point out that from the description he gave of the meeting of the Ross-shire Farmers' Club all that the Ross-shire farmers did was to say, "Can you give us an explanation upon what really interests us. That is as regards the question of agriculture?" Mr. Mackenzie said that he could not say anything on that, and when he said that they apparently did not want to hear him, and I must say that seems to me to have been sound judgment on the part of the farmers of Ross-shire. I would like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he really believes in the advantage, from the point of view of the nation, in the expenditure of this sum of money upon these lecturers? My hon. and
  1578
  learned Friend (Sir A. Cripps) has said that this is a new principle, and that on no other occasion has any Minister or any Government appointed lecturers at the expense of the Treasury to explain an Act of Parliament. I think I am right in saying that the practice of the Government hitherto has been much stronger than that. I have always understood that when an Act was passed the interpretation of that Act was left to the Courts of Law. It is only about a month ago I had a letter from a constituent of mine who wrote indignantly that he had written to the Home Office asking the Home Office to explain to him a certain thing in the Employers' Liability Act of 1906, and they refused because they took up the attitude which I have always understood to have been the attitude of all Governments, that this is a question for the Courts of Law and not for the Department.
  This constituent of mine wrote a very indignant letter asking me to ask a question in the House, and to take the matter up. Being, I hope, strictly constitutional in my ideas, I replied to my constituent to this effect, that the Government were only following the precedent which all Governments had always followed, and that if he desired information upon this point he should apply to a solicitor. That was, I think, the proper course to have taken. Judge of my astonishment when I find that under this particular Act the Government are doing exactly what they refused to do only a month ago under another Act. Here is the letter which they wrote to my constituent:—
  "Home Office, Whitehall,
  "9th February, 1912.
  "Gentlemen.—In reply to your letter of the 24th ultimo on the subject of the Workman's Compensation Act of 1906, I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that he regrets he cannot undertake to advise private persons on questions of the interpretation of the Act."
  Is not that exactly what has been done here? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Are not the farmers' club private persons? Did they not ask to be advised upon the interpretation of the Act, and did not this gentleman at first say he could not give any interpretation, and if they asked him questions he would see what he could do? Is not that advising private persons on the interpretation of the Act? If they did not do that what they were doing was giving a political lecture, though it arouses the ire of hon. Gentlemen opposite when we say that that is what is going on. The letter continues:—
  "Which can only be authoritatively determined by the Courts of Law."

  1579
  And now I would like to ask hon. Gentlemen how we can reconcile the action of the Home Office in replying to my constituent in that form with the action of the Treasury in appointing these gentlemen to go wandering about the country advising private people upon the interpretation of an Act of Parliament? If the hon. Gentleman will turn to page 20 of the Supplementary Estimates he will find that what we are asked to do is to provide one chairman, who is to have £2,000 a year as a maximum, one deputy-chairman, six Commissioners, and one secretary. Then there are allowances to the secretary for acting as legal adviser—professional charges outside the ordinary appointment; and there are eight principal clerks, who commence at £550 a year and rise to £700. My point is—if the hon Gentleman will give me his attention for one moment—that we jump from the secretary to a principal clerk. The White Paper which was circulated to-day or yesterday regarding the operation of Part I. of the Act, on page 8, makes mention of the assistant-secretary, Mr. Brock. There is nothing in the Estimate about an assistant-secretary. This is a new post which has been made, and which is outside, as I understand, the Vote which we are asked to sanction. The salary for this new post is not a salary commencing at £550 and rising to £700, but a salary of £850. If my information is correct, and I believe it is, this gentleman has been appointed to a post with a salary of £850 when he was very nearly at the bottom of the names sent in by the Admiralty. When he obtained this appointment he produced to the Commissioners a private letter from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, whose private secretary he was.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Does the hon. Baronet mean that he was a private secretary to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty apart from the Civil Service?
  Sir F. BANBURY: No; he was acting in the Civil Service as private secretary to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty—[An HON. MEMBER: "Dr. Macnamara."]—and he obtained the letter from that gentleman. I do not know whether that can be considered as properly appointing an official to a post, but as to that I must leave the Committee to judge. There is the further point that this new post is not in the Estimate, and the post for which this gentleman applied was
  1580
  the post of secretary. These questions are not pleasant ones to bring forward, but one has to do one's duty, and if the funds of the country have to be used for these purposes, I think it is only right that the attention of the Committee should be drawn to the fact. Nothing would delight me more than if the hon. Gentleman could assure me that I am wrong in what I state.
  Mr. JOWETT: I wish to ask the Secretary to the Treasury for an explanation with regard to three appointments which are notified on page 8 of the White Paper that has been issued to-day. Members of the Committee will recollect that during the latter part of last Session, in answer to various questions put by Members of the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave explicit assurances, regarding the appointments that had been made under the Insurance Act, that there would be safeguards against any such thing as appointments made apart from merit. I myself asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 11th December, last year, if he was able to say that no applications for posts under the proposed National Insurance scheme would be invited or considered or any appointments made by the Insurance Commissioners until the particulars of the posts to be filled up had been published, and information regarding the duties and qualifications as could be given had been publicly announced as being available, on request, to intending applicants. The reply was that there would be issued in a few days' time a White Paper giving information regarding such preliminary arrangements as could be decided at that early stage. I then put a supplementary question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether he would undertake that no appointments should be made in the meantime, to which he replied that no important appointments would be made: perhaps two or three clerks for immediate purposes, but no really important appointment. That seemed to be entirely satisfactory, having regard to previous experience concerning the appointments made under the Labour Exchanges Act. One needed to be careful, and the reason I put questions so explicitly was with a view to receiving a definite and categorical reply.
  The replies to which I refer seemed to be quite definite and satisfactory, and the only thing which remained for one to do was to wait until the White Paper was issued. A White Paper was subsequently

  1581
  issued, bearing the date 14th December. On the back page of that White Paper, signed by Sir Robert Morant, a definite pledge was given on behalf of the Commissioners, and signed by them, to the effect that, in the case of any particular posts, should it be necessary for them to have applications from outside the Civil Service, announcements would be made from time to time in the Press. Judge of my surprise—and I take it that Members of the Committee will be equally surprised if they follow the facts—when I find that there are no less than three appointments mentioned on page 8 of the White Paper issued this morning of gentlemen who have been appointed from outside the Civil Service, and without any such particulars or announcements as were explicitly and definitely promised. First, there is the principal clerk, Mr. E. Hackforth, who, at the time the selection was made, was secretary to the Brighton Education Authority, and formerly in the Civil Service under the Board of Education. There were two other first-class clerks in the persons of Mr. J. R. Brooke, a journalist, and Mr. B. W. Devas, a barrister, appointed. It appears to me, and I think that what I say will have the approval of Members of the Committee, that in these appointments there seems to be a distinct breach of the promise that was made. The consideration arises as to the most difficult position in which Members of this House have been placed because, in acting in conformity with the pledges given across the floor of the House, they are put at a disadvantage if those pledges are to be departed from afterwards and without their knowledge. We have all, or most of us, given positive and definite assurances to those who have applied to us in regard to these posts that there was no possibility of our giving them assistance as Members of the House of Commons. We further told them—at least I have done so over and over again, to one after another—that the pledge was in existence, and that before any appointments were made full particulars were to be given in the Press. Announcements were to be published as being the only way by which everybody would have a fair and open chance to obtain an appointment if he were fitted to do the work. Unless it is subject to an explanation, which I cannot conceive to be possible, I must enter my protest against these appointments in the face of the definite and clear announcements that have been made.
  Mr. W. PEEL: There are one or two points that I desire to comment upon in
  1582
  regard to the appointments that have been made. In the first place, I think the whole system of appointments of lecturers would never have been thought of if the Government had not been losing a considerable number of by-elections, and that was the origin of the whole thing. It is therefore necessary to scrutinise rather carefully under what circumstances some of these appointments have been made. The hon. Baronet has already referred to the appointment of Mr. Brock, and I desire to ask one or two further questions on that appointment. I may observe, in passing, that it is a splendid thing to be private secretary to a Minister now-a-days. I only wish I had a son old enough to be private secretary to a Minister, he would get a post in the Civil Service in a couple of years at the most. There have been a good many instances lately of private secretaries being promoted in India and elsewhere to all sorts of advantageous and very lucrative positions. It is of some interest to know whether this gentleman—who, I am informed, is getting £850 a year and whose salary does not appear upon the Estimate, though I suppose it will appear there on some future occasion—really was private secretary to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. I want to know whether it is or it is not a fact in regard to these posts that offers were made to the heads of the Admiralty and of the Army to nominate a certain number of persons suitable for positions of this kind at a salary rising from £500 to £700 a year. Is it true that this particular post was refused because the salary was not high enough, and that afterwards the post suddenly received an income rising from £800 to £1,000 a year, and that this was accepted by the private secretary to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. Is it further the fact that there are two gentlemen among the principal clerks who, instead of getting the comfortable salary of £850 to rise to £1,000, get a minimum of £550 to rise to £700? Is it also the fact that these two gentlemen, Mr. Wynne and Mr. Richards of the Admiralty, are both of them far senior to this gentleman who has got the post above them, and that in doing this work of the Commissioners they have been put below a man who is much their junior, and who has only been at the Admiralty some four or five years. I really think, in the interests of the purity of administration and of straight dealing and of the Service, that this matter should be cleared up. The next point I desire to

  1583
  mention brings in another private secretary of a Minister, but only incidentally, and it is in connection with the action of the Welsh Commissioners. The protest I am going to enter this time is as an English Member, because Englishmen are so much trampled on by the surrounding nationalities, who are getting far too powerful in my opinion, that I think the slightest encroachment ought to be resisted vigorously by the race to which I happen to belong. The Welsh Commissioners sent round a circular in Welsh. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] Owing to the weaknes of human nature I think I had better read it in the English translation. I may frankly confess my Welsh is somewhat indifferent and my accent might not be very clearly recognised. The circular states:—
  "The Commissioners are anxious to give every possible help and every information in their power to meet the convenience of the Welsh people of Wales."
  The passage to which I wish particularly to call attention is as follows:—
  "For the first time in the history of public administration, a Government Department has been established in the Principality. The Commissioners therefore will have an opportunity to be of service to the Welsh people in a more effective manner than has hitherto been possible."
  That circular was sent round to a number of persons in the county of Shropshire, and, among others, to an English clergyman. The excuse offered was that it was in the diocese of St. Asaph, which, it is well known, encroaches into Shropshire in its ecclesiastical boundaries. Almost all the people speak English there, and even those who do speak Welsh also speak English. Surely the circulars and orders of these Commissioners ought to be confined to the Welsh counties, and we ought not have this encroachment on our English counties. The only way in which the private secretary comes in is that among the Welsh Commissioners I note the name of one of the late private secretaries to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a keen Welsh Nationalist, and it may be that that gentleman is doing what he can to put forward the boundaries of Wales and to impinge and infringe on the limitations of our English counties.
  I have examined with some care the instructions which are given to lecturers, and I think they are very remarkable, because they exhibit an almost morbid terror and anxiety lest any of those lecturers should deal with any political question. The instructions are so close
  1584
  and so nervous and so morbid that I fail to see how it is possible almost for anybody to give a lecture, or any consequential lecture, and comply with the conditions. First of all, I think the authority of the lecturer must be a good deal diminished if he has to announce at the beginning that nothing that he says will bind the Commissioners. When that is announced, I do not think the information on the working of the Act is of very much value. The lecturer has got to make no political allusion, and no reference to politics must be introduced even by way of illustration. Just think how enormously that curtails the eloquence of those gentleman; the whole range of political activity, even by way of illustration, is cut off. How very dull those lectures must be. I cannot help thinking that some of the persons going to these non-political lectures will go across the way where another lecture is being given by some members of the Liberal Insurance League. I do not think there will be any want of political allusion there, but rather that the lectures will be filled with such allusions and their whole object will be that. This clearly suggests that those cold, uninteresting, non-political Government lectures are established in order that people may be so bored by them that they will go to the more interesting, fascinating, Liberal lectures on the other side. We are in this difficulty: we have got to try and somehow distinguish between what are political and what are non-political lectures.
  I wish to ask the Secretary to the Treasury a question about the training of the lecturers. On page 5 of this White Paper it is stated that the Commission undertake to send officially trained lecturers to meetings of the executive committees, and I see also that fifty-three persons are now on the books of the English Commission as officially trained lecturers. It takes a good deal of time to make a lecturer. I know something about the training of lecturers on other subjects, and I do not understand how in the short space of four or five weeks you could have produced so large a number as fifty-three officially-trained lecturers. I cannot help thinking that there must be in the public mind very great confusion and difficulty in distinguishing between those official lecturers and the lecturers sent down by the Liberal Association. It is most curious to note the coincidence of time, no doubt accidental, between the establishment of the association and of the Government lecturers. It was only a few weeks ago since we had the very remarkable speech of the

  1585
  Patronage Secretary to the Treasury, who, by his statement, seemed to have forgotten all the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the assistance that had been received in the Act from Gentlemen on the other side. The Patronage Secretary said that for the future the Liberal party were going to shoulder the whole responsibility of the Act. Whether that is done from a nice discrimination of party interests, or other reasons, I leave to those who are acquainted with the ways and systems of the Liberal party. Anyhow, at that time it was felt most necessary in other ways, apart from those official lecturers, to establish what was well described by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as an official atmosphere. I should have thought that the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been sufficient to explain the Act without any further lectures. It seems, however, that this refreshing fruit requires a special temperature in which it may flourish. Therefore you have these lecturers in order to produce the special atmosphere.
  There is, I think, bound to be great confusion in the public mind between those two sets of gentlemen, and I cannot help feeling that there must have been some intention in the Liberal mind to produce that sort of confusion, because it is impossible, when you have in the same town on the same evening two sets of lectures, one of which is to produce an atmosphere and the other of which is to have no political allusion, that the people will distinguish between one and the other. One gets the idea that public money is being spent for Liberal propaganda, and that may do a great harm, not only to the people, but, I am afraid, to the Liberal party itself. I should have thought that the Act was so wonderful that it needed no introduction. "Good wine needs no bush," and I should have thought that the working of the Act would have been enough assistance without any of those misconceptions of which we hear so much in the Liberal papers. I should have much preferred that some sort of explanation should be given to agricultural labourers, because they are going to come off very badly in those organisations, and especially those small societies, many of which are now being wound up because they do not like the terms on which they have to unite with other societies. I hear that the big societies are going round recruiting as hard as they can among the agricultural labourers, so that, instead of the agricultural labourer being able to take advantage of
  1586
  his extra health, and to get larger benefits, he is going to be pooled with the less vigorous inhabitants of the towns, and thus will lose the advantages which he gets from residence in the country, while the extra something will go to the benefit of the town inhabitants. Some of those matters might have been explained. This whole scheme of lectures is advertising the wares of the Liberal party, and it is an advertisement which, I am afraid, will severely fall on the heads of those who instituted the system.
  Mr. WALTER ROCH: There are one or two points with regard to the Welsh Commissioners as to which I desire to obtain some information from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It is rumoured in Wales in the Press, with regard to the future patronage which is now in the hands of the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, that an advisory board is going to be created. Personally, I think that would be very desirable, and I should like to hear it confirmed. Beyond that it is rumoured that that advisory board which is already in the air, is contemplating the creation of a set of regulations to guide them, and that they are going to lay down two classes, and to restrict one set of appointments to university graduates, while the other set is going to be left open. That has created a good deal of feeling throughout the whole of Wales, and I should be glad to hear whether that is confirmed or not. With regard to the Welsh Commission, complaints have reached me from various sources that posts are being filled up without due notice being given to people who may think they are fit to apply. I know that advertisements have from time to time appeared in the Press, but I would like to have it from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that before any other posts are filled up, publicity will be given to the fact that they are open, so that anybody who feels that he is fitted may have a due opportunity of applying for them. I hear also that some of the appointments which are going to be filled are to be restricted entirely to the Post Office. I do not say whether that is desirable or not, but I should like to have it confirmed, because the people who are applying may be saved the trouble of sending in their testimonials, while at the same time the Commissioners have made up their mind that the positions are to be filled from the Post Office. I think that is almost in the same category as the matter of advertising.

  1587
  I do wish that the Financial Secretary would impress on the Commissioners to say what they are going to do, and to advertise and make it as public as they possibly can. Those are the points of detail as to which I should like a little more information. In referring to the question of patronage generally, I wish to say at once that I make no charge of any kind against the Welsh Commissioners. All that I would like to impress on them is this: Wales is a small country, and however good your administration may be, when you have patronage in the hands of private individuals it is dangerous anywhere, and it is undesirable anywhere, but it is infinitely more dangerous over a small area. I hope that the Financial Secretary will indicate that this private patronage, particularly in Wales, but also over the whole country, is going to cease in the personal way, and that in connection with the appointment of officials some Civil Service examination or some standing committee or permanent body will be set up, so that these questions of personal patronage will cease altogether under the working of the Act. I am not saying that it has been exercised unfairly or in a corrupt manner, but men who apply for appointments for which they think they are fitted and do not get them always attribute their failure to the fact that they have not had strong enough personal backing. That is a grave matter in the administration of the Act, and I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to give some such assurance as I have suggested.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: It seems as if it were destined that every page in the history of the National Insurance Act should be cursed by the radical vice of its origin and enactment. As it was rushed in legislation, so it is being rushed in administration. It was said of Joseph II. that he always took the second step before he took the first. It seems to me that in connection with this matter the Government take half a dozen steps before they take the first. It is really the rushing of the matter to which I wish to draw attention, particularly in connection with the appointment of the jobbing staff under the Act. All these jobbing staffs are open to grave objection, and it is inevitable, when you have jobbing work of this kind, that you should have a suspicion of jobbery about it. The last thing you want in connection with this Act is a suspicion of jobbery. I contend it is very hard
  1588
  on the men who are going to be employed. It is absolutely impossible to lecture with fullness of knowledge or any pretence of real benefit upon an Act which is itself only a framework. The best university lecturer could not do any good with this Act until the regulations are made under it and the vast blanks filled up. I will take one point, and not in any party spirit. These lecturers will have to deal with the medical benefit. In what spirit are they to deal with if! They cannot really explain what is contemplated, because the Insurance Commissioners have not, and it is doubtful whether they ever will, come to terms with the medical profession. Are they to take the anti-professional line? Apart from questions of party politics, there is the question of professional interest. Are they to follow the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his denunciation of the medical profession as guilty of the meanest conduct ever known in the history of the country? That point will come up. It is a very serious thing that lecturers should be asked to deal with the claims of the doctors to further recognition without knowing in what way the question will be met. Many of us hold, no doubt, that unless the co-operation of the medical profession is secured the Act cannot be worked. Are the lecturers to explain that? Or are they to say, "Follow the practice of existing friendly societies, and beat the doctors down to 4s."? This is a point which is not directly political; but, personally, I cannot understand how a body of men with the knowledge of the Commissioners can have referred to politics as if it simply meant party politics. This Act must be partly political. It affects the body politic, and in that sense it is political as well as economic. It is impossible to avoid politics. I suppose they meant party recriminations in the way in which the term is sometimes used and abused here and on the platform. But in some way the Act must be political. It cannot avoid dealing with politics.
  Take the case of difficulties arising under Section 13. As the Committee knows, additional benefits may be given for the same purposes as substituted benefits. Are the lecturers to deal with that from the point of view of the criticism that was offered by the organisations which were working whilst the Act was under the consideration of the House? They must take some notice of the claims made on behalf of domestic servants and different classes of labourers. Without that there can be

  1589
  very little profit in their lectures. Supposing a lecturer goes down into the East End of London. He is face to face there with the difficulties of the casual labourer. Is he to point out that the Act is defective because, whilst it provides for something below the flat rate judged by the wage per day, it does not deal with the question of the wage per week, and therefore bears very hardly on those who are employed at a somewhat high rate but only for a few days in the week? These difficulties must crop up, and it seems to me that it is almost a scandal that, without any of these points having been solved or dealt with, a large staff of men should be taken on for jobbing work of this kind, with the certainty that they cannot do any real good, and that they can only deal with it on the same general lines as a Second Reading Debate in this House. Until the details are filled up you cannot properly explain the Act. I have been present at several great conferences of friendly societies in London, particularly those of the Manchester Unity and the Hearts of Oak, and these questions came up and were discussed. When the lecturer is expected to give information he will have to say he has no information to give, and that he is forbidden by the regulations to trench on what might have the colour of party politics about it. Therefore it seems to me that the very vice of which we complained in the legislation is being intensified tenfold now by this hurried appointment of men to rush the Act through anyhow.
  Surely the case alluded to by hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) also bears upon this point. We have Estimates submitted to us which do not correspond with the information in the White Paper as to the appointments to the higher offices. This question is much more than a personal one. I do not doubt for a moment that the Civil servant who has been private secretary to the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty is a very capable person, who will well discharge the duties of his office. But surely it is a grave thing that, when it was sought to obtain the most capable members of the Civil Service who were willing to come forward to put into action a measure of great social significance, the terms of service were not fully made known. Circulars were sent round to the offices inviting men to come forward for appointment at certain salaries. After the names had been sent in, as I am told, a new post was created with a different grade of
  1590
  salary, and one who has no doubt done very good service is called to the post. That seems to me symptomatic of the whole of the administration of the Act, and again bears the mark of this extraordinary hurry which will certainly not do the Act any good in operation, and will cause it to be viewed with suspicion in the Civil Service as well as outside. If ever there was a case where the Government ought to have been metriculous in the observation of the proprieties, it is this Act. It has been ruled that we cannot go into the conditions under which the measure was passed in this House, but we know that there are difficulties in the administration in this case which are not common in regard to Acts of Parliament. I do not care if there have been some precedents for the appointment of lecturers. You can find precedents for anything in this country. The tin kettle is said to be a precedent for the steam-engine. You can always find a tin-kettle precedent. But what you wanted in regard to this Act was that you should have a clean sheet from the very first, and that in the mind of the public as well as of the Civil Service, in its administration it should be above suspicion. I think we are beginning very badly and unfortunately, and I only wish that the exigencies of party had not entered so largely into the administration. There was no necessity to rush this in the way the Government have done. They might have taken their time. If they had done so, the Act, in the long run, would have had a better chance. The Commissioners themselves cannot have digested it properly in the few weeks they have been in office, and as to the gentlemen who have been appointed to serve under them for varying periods, their plight is the most hopeless of all. It is in their interest, in the interest of the jobbing staff of the Commission as well as of its permanent servants, that I protest most earnestly against the manner in which the Act is being treated now that it is on the Statute Book by those who are responsible for its administration.
  Mr. E. F. WOOD: I wish to associate myself with everything that has fallen from my hon. Friends, more especially from the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. H. Lawson) as to the absolute impossibility of securing impartial or open-minded lecturers on this subject. I think it has been proved absolutely clearly that, on a subject of this kind, which creates at once prejudice and enthusiasm, it is almost

  1591
  impossible for anyone to preserve an open mind. If a man has an open mind on a subject like this, the chances are that it has nothing in it. Anybody who has studied the Act is bound to have a strong and decided opinion upon it. I wish to ask the Secretary to the Treasury how long these lecturers are likely to be continued in office. I am well aware that it is stated in the White Paper that the lecturers have been warned that their appointment is only temporary, and that they must not be surprised if they are not reappointed. I think the Committee may fairly claim to be told what the Government expect will be the length of time for which the services of these lecturers will be necessary. The answer will probably be that it depends on the ability with which the lecturers discharge their task, and upon the rapidity with which in consequence the country is educated. Looking at the instructions given to the lecturers it is somewhat unpromising that in the first paragraph the Commissioners refuse to allow the lecturers to pledge their authority upon any of the points about which they are asked. If a man is supposed to be explaining the policy of the Government, and is told before he begins that what he says may, and very likely will be thrown overboard by the Government he is supposed to represent, you are asking such a man to discharge an impossible task. There is no reason why on these terms the education of the country should ever be completed.
  6.0 P.M.
  I wish also to call attention to a further mistake in the figures submitted to us. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that my Noble Friend (Viscount Helmsley) felt it his duty yesterday to draw attention to a similar point, and to show that on these Estimates there was a mistake of something like £30. It is a small matter, but it shows the careless and hasty manner in which the Estimates are framed. If the hon. Gentleman who represents the Treasury will be kind enough to look at Subhead II. (a) he will see that the figures dealing with salaries, wages, and allowances show a total of £18,890. If he will carry his mind to page 20 and onwards, which show the details of that sum, he will see, first of all, that England accounts for £9,750, Wales £2,230, Scotland £2,655, Ireland £2,110, and, lastly, the Joint Committee £2,055. If the hon. Gentleman does not mind doing a little mathematics, he will see that these sums add up altogether to
  1592
  £18,800, not, as on the Estimate, £18,890. I do not pretend to be a mathematician, but I have done this sum six times within the last ten minutes, and I have been unable to find myself in fault. If the hon. Gentleman can enlighten me I am sure I shall be extremely pleased. I am bound to say that on the face of it it looks as if these figures had been carelessly framed, and I think that the gentleman who added up the figures, having said that five and five make ten, has forgotten to carry one forward. That may be the explanation of it. If so, then the gentleman who added up the figures has my sympathy.
  Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD: With two points raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) I find myself in agreement. The first was that that referred to a book that may, or may not, have been issued, entitled "Questions and Answers under the Insurance Act," by the National Insurance Commissioners. The second point is in reference to a letter written by Mr. Watson to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and used in the public Press. As to the first point relating to the book, if the Commissioners have published this book it becomes a semi-official publication, and I submit, with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Colchester, that every Member of this House and every member of the public have a right to that book. I am bound to say that I do not think the Commissioners would be well advised to issue such a book at the present time, because there are many questions in connection with the Insurance Act that no one would like to specifically, definitely, and finally answer. But if the book is issued I want my book! In reference to the letter written by Mr. Watson, I take the same position in this matter that I took in connection with the book published by General Sir Ian Hamilton, that no Minister has a right to use a communication from a Member of his Department unless he signs that communication himself and takes the public and ministerial responsibility.
  So much for my agreement with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Colchester. In reference to his criticism of appointments under this Act, I wish to say that with all his care, and with all his acknowledged capacity in reference to this Act, and with all the use no doubt of the drag-net of semi-opposition, he has only found seven names out of all the names connected with the administration

  1593
  of this Act which he can criticise at all. Of those seven, five are Irish lecturers and two are Scottish lecturers. There is not a single one of the Commissioners for England, of all the clerks for England, of all the officials for England, or of the lecturers for England with which the hon. and learned Gentleman can find any fault at all—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or Wales"?]—or even poor Wales. A list that can stand such a scrutiny by such an acknowledged master of the National Insurance Act, is a list that is the best testimony to the purity of the appointments under this Act. It seems that one gentleman whom the hon. and learned Gentleman specially called the attention of the Committee to is an ex-Lord Mayor of the City of Dublin. It was suggested by one of the speakers that because this gentleman had been Lord Mayor of Dublin he was not fit to be a lecturer under the Act. I feel like condoling with any Lord Mayor who has come down from such a mighty pedestal to be a humble speaker under the National Insurance Act. [An HON. MEMBER: "He may not have come down."] If he has not come down he has declined in importance in leaving the chair of the great city of Dublin to be a lecturer under this Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, that is my opinion. I heard with amazement the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Buckinghamshire say that these lecturers were political emissaries. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] Yes, and that is a common view often expressed, although not so often in the House as out of it: that everybody under this Act, from Sir Robert Morant downwards, is a strong Radical, and has received his appointment because of his Radicalism. Some men can say things like that, and no one pays much attention to them; but when an hon. Gentleman like the Member for South Bucks makes such a statement, I think it is going just a bit too far. It is a monstrous thing that a statement like that should be made by him, and by others not so important as he, when he cannot put his finger on any single appointment in the White Paper of which it can fairly be alleged. Can any evidence be produced satisfactory to this Committee that men have been appointed because of their political tendency? I repeat that no doubt the greatest scrutiny has been given to all these lists, and if it were possible to show that a single man had been appointed because of his political leanings that man would be held up as an example of the unrighteousness of this Government.
  1594
  The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London referred to the appointment of Mr. Brock, a Civil servant, recently the private secretary of the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, that his appointment as assistant-secretary was full of suspicion, and ought to be inquired into. He said what to me is an amazing thing, that that appointment was made by reason of a letter written by the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty to the National Insurance Commissioners. What I want to know is: if such a letter was written, how does the hon. Baronet the Member for the City know anything about it? Even if such a letter were written, is it not a well-known fact that these Civil servants should—at any rate, in the main—represent the best in character and the best in capacity that this country produces? Is it not a fact that these men are frequently transferred from one Department to another because of their great efficiency? The whole bogey of seniority is properly not allowed to interfere with the promotion of well-known and well-proven Civil servants. I think the hon. Baronet the Member for the City spoke very unworthily indeed when he tried to show that a private letter from one Department to another Department was the cause of the appointment, and when he tries to throw a stigma not only upon the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty but to throw a stigma, undeserved though it might be, upon a Civil servant whom personally I do not know. As a Member of this House I am prepared to support our great Civil servants under the National Insurance Act or under any other Act, because I believe ours is the best Civil Service we could possibly have. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down regretted that there was an element of suspicion surrounding the administration of the National Insurance Act. Who raised that cloud of suspicion? Who has made the charges of political patronage against the Government? Who to-day brings charges under the head of political emissaries, jobs, and other unworthy words, without producing a single case, unless we take into consideration the seven of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Colchester?
  Mr. HORNER: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
  I do so in order to call the attention of the Committee very briefly to the administration of the Act in respect to

  1595
  Ireland. As we are aware, there is a separate Commission for Ireland. This Commission at the present time is sitting in London. If the hon. Gentleman turns to page 5 of the Memorandum of the Steps Taken Preliminary to the Operation of Part I. of the Act, he will find that the English Commission, which also sits in London, has held conferences with many of the officers of the greater friendly societies, dividing societies, trade unions, industrial insurance companies, and also with organisations and societies of women whose members are affected by the Act. These were conferences at which questions connected with the setting up of the first local insurance committees and other matters were discussed. So far as the Irish Commission is concerned it is sitting in London, and there is no communication whatever between those in Ireland who are interested in the working of the Act and the Commissioners.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Did the hon. Gentleman say that the Irish Commission was sitting in London?
  Mr. HORNER: So I am informed.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It is sitting in Dublin.
  Mr. HORNER: At the present time?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Always.
  Mr. HORNER: Then I am misinformed. I was under the impression that the Irish Commission was sitting in London. At all events, at the present time the Act is in a most hopeless confusion in Ireland; in fact, in a state of chaos. In Ireland we have got no such thing as great friendly societies. The only great friendly societies, so far as I know, are branches in Belfast of societies in Manchester and other English centres. We have got no society, except the Ancient Order of Hibernians, which in reality is a political organization—
  Mr. KEATING: There are the Foresters.
  Mr. HORNER: The Foresters are a branch of the English society. May I also draw attention to the appointments which have been made in connection with the lecturers. I find of the appointments that have been made in England that many of the ladies and gentlemen are graduates of universities, members of the learned professions, and so on. In Scotland more than half are graduates of the university,
  1596
  four are advocates, and so on. In Wales about half are graduates of universities and the others are members of the legal profession, but when I turn to Ireland I find there is not a single graduate of any of our three great universities, with the exception of one gentleman, who is a dispensary medical doctor. I make no personal attack upon any of those fortunate individuals who are now lecturing upon the intricacies of the Insurance Act, but they are not the type of people who have the confidence of any class in Ireland. Amongst those giving lectures in Ireland I do not find any selected from the ranks of the legal profession, either solicitor or barrister. To my own knowledge there have been members of my own profession in Ireland who have been writing upon this Act as it was passing through this House, and who have a most intimate knowledge of the Act and of the country. Why were they passed over? I find also, with regard to the amount of money these wandering gentlemen are allowed and pocket, that in Ireland £1,400 has been devoted to these people for travelling and other expenses in connection with explanatory lectures, while in Scotland only £1,000 and in Wales £900 has been allowed. Travelling expenses and subsistent allowance in Ireland amounts to £1,800, as against £500 in Scotland and £550 in Wales.
  On Tuesday last the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that in Ireland the Commissioners have sanctioned Sunday lectures upon the Insurance Act, which have been presided over by parish priests and, at least in one place, by the bishop of the diocese. In Wales and Scotland no Sunday lectures have been held. First of all, I object on principle to public money being spent on Sunday lectures, and I object to public money being spent on Sunday lectures for another reason. There are a great number of Protestants in the south and west of Ireland who, as a matter of course, will not go to lectures given upon Sunday simply because they are given on Sunday, not because they are presided over by the parish priest or the bishop. I move this reduction because I want the Irish Commissioners to sit permanently in Dublin; secondly, because the class of lecturers should be altered, and a better class of lectures given; and, thirdly, in order that these lectures may not be given upon Sundays.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I have frankly to ask the indulgence of the Committee, as in

  1597
  the circumstances I am afraid I am speaking under some physical disadvantage, but I will do my best to answer the various questions, and I think my task will be rendered easier by the fact of the moderate and comparatively non-controversial nature of the discussion. It will, I hope, enable me to avoid as far as possible purely controversial matter. At the same time I should like to make the reservation that if it is desired I should deal with the more controversial nature of the subject I shall be glad to do so. The Debate to a very large extent has turned upon the advisability of the policy adopted by the Commissioners of all the four countries in making special efforts in order to give information concerning the Act. I may say, and I hope this will not be regarded as controversial in character, that the charge concerning these lectures has varied from day to day, and almost from hour to hour. It is very difficult, even at the end, to know what it is really that hon. Members object to. The first charge was that we were financing out of the Insurance Commissioners' funds the work of the Liberal Insurance Committee. That of course is quite inaccurate. When that charge was disproved it was said that although our lectures were ostensibly under the auspices of the Government Department, they were in fact, and in character, political in their nature. That charge was immediately disproved by the general instructions which had been issued to lecturers, and which one hon. Member opposite said were almost morbid in their determination that no kind of political allusion should be allowed. When I announced that the lectures were in the main going to be private lectures at the invitation of organisations, suggestions were made, I think by the hon. Member for Colchester, of all sorts of secret political influences being used, and of these private meetings being converted into efforts to insure the apotheosis of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I replied to the hon. Member that the privacy of the meetings were because they were private at the desire of the organisations themselves, and not at the desire of the Commissioners who had no wish for privacy at all in the matter.
  Then when I said that in Scotland the lecturers had been largely in public, especially in the districts where there were no friendly societies I was furiously attacked for having spent public money in giving information to insured persons which would help them in the choice they
  1598
  would have to make between now and next July. Before I gave the names of the various lecturers engaged by the Commissioners I was told that they would be party hacks and mostly Liberal agents, but when I announced as a demonstrative example—and I can assure the Committee the Commissioners themselves cannot tell me the politics of the great majority of their lecturers—that I knew two of them were ex-Unionist candidates for Parliament, I was then denounced as having inquired from Civil servants what their political opinions were, and when finally I was asked to give the occupation of the gentlemen who are appointed to these temporary appointments, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester attacked me on account of the occupation of some of them, with what I am quite sure was not intended to be a sneer, but which looked like one, because some of them were members of the working classes.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? I did not really sneer. It was not intended, nor in fact was it a sneer, to say a man was a member of the working class.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I said the hon. Gentleman did not intend it to be a sneer. I hope that from the very beginning one may lay down the principle that because a man is a saddler or a coal miner, that that is not an unsuitable occupation for a lecturer to be drawn from.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: What I said was that from their occupations their was no indication of special ability to lecture, and I then said we must inquire further, and I said I had an informative article from the "Times" of the 22nd February from which I would ask questions in pursuance of further inquiries. I am in the recollection of the Committee as to what I did say.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I fully accept the explanation of the hon. Gentleman. This system of conducting information through Government Departments has been attacked with some vehemence this afternoon. It is said there is no precedent for a Government Department using public money to convey information concerning Acts of Parliament to people affected by these Acts. The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) contrasted the refusal of the Home Office to give information on delicate legal points with giving information concerning a new Act which, he said, was never done by any Government Depart-

  1599
  ment. If there was no precedent I should be quite prepared to defend our action in this case. I know of no Act in which such important changes are to be made by people affected by this Act in a comparatively short space of time. If you realise that 14,000,000 of insured persons have got to choose to join approved societies unless they sink into the ranks of Post Office contributors, that all the big friendly societies have to go through some sort of reconstruction, that many of the smaller societies have to make plans for amalgamation, and that a large number of the population have to choose whether they desire alternative benefits, I think there is a case, even if there was no precedent for making special efforts.
  As a matter of fact, in spending money to explain a new Act of Parliament we are following almost the invariable principle followed in connection with all new Acts dealing with complicated social legislation. Leaflets and books have been distributed by all the great social Government Departments in connection with all Acts of Parliament of recent years immediately after these Acts were passed. When I was taken away from my position as Under-Secretary at the Home Office I was actually preparing a pamphlet explaining the Coal Mines Act, which the House passed last year, to the population affected by that Act. The Board of Trade distributed leaflets setting out how employers and employés would be affected by the Trades Boards Act. Leaflets and circulars were sent to employers calling attention to the advantages of the Labour Exchanges Act passed by the Government. The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries have always adopted this plan. They have over 200 leaflets, and they circulated over 1,250,000 of them giving information. In connection with agriculture circulars are sent to the persons concerned. I see among the total leaflets "How to get a small holding," published after the Act of 1908, and showing how to create an atmosphere, as one hon. Member styled it, favourable to the working of the Small Holdings Act. These were paid for by the Government.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Were there lecturers?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I will come to that in a moment. The criticism was made that these kind of leaflets and explanations should not be sent out. I have seen long pamphlets setting forth the terms of the
  1600
  Workmen's Compensation Act to which the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) referred.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any precedent for these?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I shall give precedents from the Government of which the hon. Baronet was so great a supporter for six years. He mentioned the Workmen's Compensation Act. There was issued from the Home Office in 1906, certainly following a precedent in connection with the Factories Act, passed by the previous Government, a long and comprehensive memorandum which adopted a very similar principle to that used by us. That is to say, it told persons affected what the explanation of the Act was; and it strongly advised them also to read the Act itself and to make themselves familiar with all its provisions. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say, "That is all very well as regards-pamphlets, but were there any lecturers, or have meetings been held, public or private, in connection with similar Acts of Parliament?" In connection with social Acts of Parliament which affect the working classes, the various Government Departments involved have always endeavoured to bring people together and inform them how they were affected by these Acts. Under the Labour Exchanges Act the Board of Trade sent down lecturers from the office to call big meetings together which were announced by bills and posters paid for by the Government, and addressed by officials of the Board of Trade. In the case of the Trade Boards Act, 1909, the same policy was adopted. I have here a sample advertisement of a meeting, printed by the Stationery Office, which announces
  "a mass meeting of workers engaged in ready-made and wholesale bespoke tailoring will be held in the Great Assembly Hall, Mile End."
  Amongst the speakers announced were Mr. G. R. Askwith, the head of the Labour Department of the Board of Trade, who was in the chair, Mr. W. B. Yates, J.P., of the office of Trade Boards, Mr. T. E. Harvey, M.P. (Warden of Toynbee Hall), Mr. W. A. Appleton (Secretary of the General Federation of Trade Unions), and the Hon. H. W. Lawson, M.P. I have no doubt that was a selection of speakers which gave great satisfaction. An hon. Member opposite interrupted and said that this kind of thing had only been done by the iniquitous Liberal Government.
  Mr. PIKE PEASE: What is the date of that meeting?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: 25th April, 1910.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Yes, that meeting was summoned by the Board of Trade officials, and Mr. Yates and I were asked to be present to explain points or make criticisms.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not object to the criticisms, because I think that is a satisfactory method of giving information. There are plenty of other examples, but, as I have already explained, I do not want to weary the House with them. I can give others in connection with the work of Government offices. Here I have the Annual General Report of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland. It says:—
  "It is felt that correspondence alone would be an inadequate means of explaining a new and complicated Act, and of working out a highly technical scheme with bodies who are under no obligation to adopt them. The department has consequently, in the person of their representatives, been ready to visit the local authorities and confer with them on the spot."
  That was not found sufficient, and a series of pioneer lecturers to give all the information possible as to the Act for a reason which is a perfectly good one "in order that local authorities and the public generally, and especially the working classes," should understand what the Act was going to confer upon them. That was by the Unionist Government in 1900. That seems an entirely analogous case to the Insurance Act. I do not want to make a party score out of this. All I want to show is in each case the complicated details of a complicated Act had to be brought before a large number of people who would have to make a choice in a comparatively limited space of time. If there had been a Government Department to administer the Insurance Act, we should have used the permanent officials, but there was no such Government Department to administer the Insurance Act, and a department is now being made. If this work had to be done at all I am quite sure the Insurance Commissioners took a right view when they regarded it as part of their duty. Necessarily it had to be done by new men.
  The Insurance Commissioners were very reluctant to take into their employ permanently a large number of new men, and therefore the only other alternative was to obtain the best men possible for temporary work, many of whom had had experience in insurance work and in public lecture work and who were willing to carry on the work under those conditions. I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite who have insinuated political and other forms of corruption in this matter will believe me in the
  1602
  statement I make, but I say without a word of hesitation that so far from that being the case, the possibility of that charge arising in connection with these temporary lecturers has always been before the Insurance Commissioners, and they have gone out of their way to try and induce men who were not known to be Liberals in politics, and men who were Unionists in politics, to take on this work, believing if they did take on the work they would do it loyally and in the spirit laid down by the instructions. Many of them have come in and done so. I have no intimate knowledge of the case referred to by the hon. Member for Colchester, but I say quite frankly, if any attempt was made to find out the political opinion of that gentleman it was with a view to obtaining a gentleman of a political persuasion opposite to that of the Government.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: May I draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that we are now discussing a Motion to reduce Item A by £100, and the speech of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is now dealing with Item D?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: May I make an appeal to the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone to withdraw his Amendment until I have answered these questions, and probably he can move it again afterwards?
  Mr. HORNER: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: In Ireland there is often very great controversy concerning appointments as to whether they are Protestants or Catholics. In accordance with the basis of population may I point out that the appointments in Ireland would have been something like twenty Catholics to five Protestants? As a matter of fact, under this Act, the Irish Commission have appointed to these temporary appointments ten Protestants and fifteen Catholics, which is twice the number to which the Protestants would naturally have been entitled upon the basis of population. I am quite sure the Commissioners made those appointments in order that they might be able to deal with the details of the Act in a way that would appeal to men of all politics to assist in the working of the Act, reserving their right to propose amendments when the proper time comes. I will proceed seriatim with the various questions which have been put to me.

  1603
  The hon. Member for Colchester asked me what the expenditure for the year would be, but I cannot answer that question till the estimates come in. The hon. Member will recognise that we have, in an unprecedented manner, tried to meet the wishes of his Friends and himself by giving full details of these Supplementary Estimates. I have not been able to give every detail of every appointment because they are being made from day to day, and the staff is working twelve or thirteen hours a day, and consequently I am anxious to get more appointments made. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the bottom of the Supplementary Estimates, he will see at the end a detailed account for the salaries of those who have been appointed under "provision for additions to staff in the remainder of the year, £2,500." Since the Estimate was issued there have been additions to the staff, and one is the gentleman whom the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London spoke about in the early part of this Debate.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Apparently there is no provision for this salary in the Estimate.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes, that is exactly what there is. It is the item "provision for additions to staff for the remainder of the year."
  Sir H. CRAIK: On what page is that?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Member will find it on page 20, and it includes appointments which are being made from day to day. The Insurance Commission is getting a staff together from various other Government Departments, and not a week passes without some more additions being made to the staff. It is in order to provide money for that purpose the Committee is now being asked to vote. £2,500. In the Estimates themselves, which I hope will be published very soon, there will be full detailed accounts of every position that is required.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I ask the hon. Member whether it was known by the Civil Service that the appointment of that grade was to be made?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot answer that question off-hand. What happened was that all the Civil Service were asked to apply if they wished to serve under the Insurance Commission. Various Members have applied, and the Insurance Commissioners selected from them. They may have selected from those who did not apply.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Was it not announced to those who did apply that the highest posts offered would be those running from £550 to £700 per annum, whereas since that time one gentleman who has been recommended—the private secretary to the Secretary to the Admiralty—has been appointed to a higher grade at a salary of £850 to £1,000?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am informed that no such announcement was made, but I will inquire. The hon. Member for Colchester asked me why we had made regulations before the advisory committee was appointed. The only regulation which has been made is one which necessarily had to be made before any advisory committee could be appointed. By the definition in the Act the advisory committee has to include representatives of approved societies, but no unregistered society could become an approved society until we issued the regulations laying down the character of the constitution by which it could be made an approved society. Therefore, that regulation must of necessity be issued before the advisory committee was appointed. I can assure the hon. Gentleman every step is being taken to hasten the appointment of the advisory committee, and it is to my very great regret that the announcement of it has not been made weeks ago. The advisory committee has not in the main to be appointed by individual selections of the Insurance Commissioners—it would be comparatively easy to appoint it rapidly if that was the case—but it has to be appointed by selections from representatives of the great organisations of employers, of approved societies, of trades unions, and others. Those are communicated with, but their replies are not always easy to obtain rapidly in the selection of names. I hope very shortly, however, to be able to announce the appointment of the advisory committee.
  The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) asked me if any meetings were held before the printed instructions were issued. I am told none were held in Ireland or Wales before these instructions were issued as printed instructions. Ten were held in England and four in Scotland before the Joint Committee had approved of the instructions, but the substance of those instructions were given verbally beforehand to the lecturers concerned. He has asked me as to the names and number of lecturers. I cannot tell him whether the names are the same as the appointments

  1605
  which have been announced in the newspapers, because I am not sure whether the names which had been announced in the newspapers are correct or not. I know some of them are the same. I know, for instance, Mr. Walker, whom he mentioned, is the Mr. Walker who occupies a high position among the trades unions of Belfast, and who, I believe, is a confirmed Unionist in politics. I think the hon. Gentleman is correct in his identification of name with name, but I cannot give any information with regard to the identification with occupation which the "Times" newspaper has alleged. I think the question of the lecturer specially engaged to speak in the West of Scotland has been already dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson). The quotations given by the hon. Member for Colchester demonstrated to all who heard them the very great care of the lecturers not to deal with political matters and not to make the meetings of a political character for the aggrandisement of the Liberal party. I think the hon. Member for Colchester should take care not to assume that the printed reports of lectures are always correct, because I am informed, for instance, that the printed report as given in an Irish newspaper of the lecture to which he alluded, I think of Mr. Doyle, bears very little relationship to what actually took place. The allusion to the Budget was an interpolation from a member of the audience. There are, unfortunately, certain people, maliciously-minded people, who are endeavouring deliberately to put difficulties in the way of working this Act. Therefore I utter that word of warning to my hon. Friend. I know nothing is further from his thoughts than any desire to do that. It is shown that, instead of extending political propagandism, the lecturers have been carrying out the instructions given to them loyally—sometimes in Scotland with humour; but I don't know that they're any the worse for that.
  The only charge that can be really advanced is that the mere fact of giving information and explanation concerning an Act passed by the Liberal Government must of necessity redound to the credit of the Liberal Government, but that is not our fault. It is not our fault the Insurance Act has been made recently a party measure. You may say no lecture ought to be given, and that this lecturing work ought not to proceed when one great political party has said, if it comes into power before the Act gets into operation, it will repeal it. But when this lecturing
  1606
  began no one knew that this was to be the policy of the Conservative party, considering that neither on the First nor the Second nor on the Third Reading did they divide against it. And even if that was the policy, so important is it that people should be informed what the Act is that really the Government in power had no alternative, especially in view of the amazing misrepresentations which have been carried on, than to communicate to the people authentic information concerning the Act, and I am sure there is no single one of the Supplementary Estimates on which I have more reason to believe the people approve of the measures which have been taken. I have here a long series of letters which we have received from various organisations which have held meetings, and from persons who have been at those meetings, expressing gratitude to the Commission for the steps they have taken, and showing that the statement of one hon. Gentleman opposite that it is impossible to give information concerning the Act until the regulations are completed is really putting it too high. It is quite easy to give a large amount of necessary and accurate information concerning the Act without waiting for the regulations which have to be completed. Here, for example, is a letter from the secretary of the Northumberland and Durham Miners' Association:—
  "I beg on behalf of our management committee to express our gratitude and appreciation of the assistance rendered to us at our delegate meeting by your worthy representative. His speech and his ready answers to all inquiries were instructive, interesting and convincing. By his help we were able to come to a decision much sooner and at less cost than could have been done otherwise."
  That is the decision to apply to become an approved society, which is exactly what everyone in this House wants every trade union and every friendly society to do. Here is another one from Galgate:—
  "We should be glad to avail ourselves of the help of one of the appointed lecturers, as there appears to be so much misrepresentation of the Act in this part. We should be extremely glad to have someone who is able to put the true facts of the Bill to the members. There are several societies about here who are contemplating winding up, and, unless we have someone who is able to explain the Bill thoroughly, I am afraid our society will go the same way. An early reply will oblige."
  An hon. Gentleman this afternoon challenged me on that, and said societies were being dissolved as a result of the passing of the Act. Why are they being dissolved? Because they are being told that the money which they have accumulated is going to be grabbed by the Government. In every way the disadvantages of the Act are being placed before them and the advantages of the Act are being concealed.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman give us some quotations to prove that?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I will give a quotation to show the influence on the mind of a member if the Committee will pardon a story which is perhaps a little irrelevant. The chairman of the Scotch Commission told me he was interrupted in his labours by an old woman who climbed up his stairs and demanded an interview with him, and who insisted on not going away until the interview was granted. She said she wanted a plain and specific answer to a question from a Government authority. She was in two friendly societies, and she wanted to know if it was true Mr. Lloyd George was going to grab the money she had accumulated in her societies. Of course, there has been a by-election in Edinburgh, but I am not using that as any accusation against any specific political opinion. I say that whilst that opinion is about you cannot blame societies for dissolving and trying to get the money, and, therefore, it is essential the Government should tell them the true facts through their lecturers.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: The hon. Gentleman made a specific charge and implied that hon. Members on this side of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]—had at all events given their countenance to the statement, if they had not actually persuaded people, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to grab the money in their friendly societies. I ask you, Sir, whether that accusation should not either be substantiated by a quotation or be withdrawn?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I made no specific charge at all against any Member of the House. I say these things are being said, and everyone knows they are being said. I said that where meetings have been held to explain the Act—it has happened in my own Constituency in Bethnal Green—this point has been brought up again and again, and large numbers of the societies believe it to be true, and they are told it is true. I never suggested for a moment they were being told by Members of this House.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Will the hon. Gentleman give the names of anyone who made these alleged statements?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Here is another example of the kind of letter being
  1608
  received every day. It is from the Ancient Order of Foresters, "Duke of Argyle" Lodge:—
  "The result upon those of our members who attended the lectures has been highly satisfactory in the direction of removing the doubts caused by the numerous misrepresentations advertised and insisted upon all over the country. I am desired to tender to the Commissioners the grateful thanks of those members who attended the lectures for the opportunity of becoming acquainted with the true meaning of the Act."
  I can give case after case in which great employers of labour have asked that lecturers may be sent down to explain to their men the operations of the Act. I can give case after case in which the chairmanship of the meeting has been taken by well-known Conservatives and Tariff Reformers.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: How are we to know the "true meaning" is explained?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not quite understand the purpose of that interruption. If the Noble Lord can bring me any case where the lecturers have not explained the true meaning—
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The expression "true" begs the question. In a matter of controversy when some persons, as the hon. Gentleman says, explains the disadvantages, it is not the business of the Treasury out of public money to explain the advantages. That is partisanship propaganda.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The lecturers are not explaining the advantages of the Act.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Yes, they are.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: You can see the instructions which have been given to them, and I believe they are abiding by those instructions. Their instructions are to give information concerning the Act, which is the law of the land, without extolling the Act, on the one hand, if they happen formerly to have been Liberals, and without depreciating the Act if they happen formerly to have been Conservatives; and I believe, until I have any evidence to the contrary, that is being complied with.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what accurate information the lecturers give in regard to the medical benefit?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I have already said that in the reply I gave to the hon. Member for the London University. The hon. Member for Colchester suggested Mr. Watson had gone entirely outside his duty

  1609
  in a letter recently written "Times."
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I particularly did not make any sort of attack on Mr. Watson. I did not say it was outside his duty. On the contrary, I said he was following instructions, and I complained of the instructions having been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Of course, I do not wish to misrepresent what the hon. Gentleman said, but he complained of the letter which was sent, under the instructions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by Mr. Watson. What actually happened? A controversy arose concerning a certain society in this House, and the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Hugh Cecil) took an opposite view to that adopted by my right hon. Friend. In the course of the controversy the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised the House that an actuarial report should be laid on the Table by Mr. Watson. That report was accordingly laid, and it was attacked by the Noble Lord, who said it was an incorrect statement. What Mr. Watson did was to prepare a memorandum for the press to show that his report was not incorrect, and that the Noble Lord must have misunderstood it. I submit that that was a perfectly proper thing for Mr. Watson to do, and for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to instruct him to do. The Member for Colchester asked me if I could promise to provide all the literature issued from time to time by the Insurance Commissioners. If it is the wish of Members of this House that they should receive this literature in the same way as they receive Blue Books, I shall be very glad to make arrangements for it, because, certainly, the Insurance Commissioners are only anxious that the literature should be fully brought before the House of Commons.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Including the questions?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: At the moment I do not see any objection at all to that, and if the hon. Gentleman will put down a question I will give him a reply. Now I come to what I regard as an important question by the hon. Member for West Bradford (Mr. Jowett). He complained of what he thought was the violation of a promise made in December by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that all appointments made outside the Civil Service
  1610
  should be advertised. I think if he looks at the promise and at the White Paper he will see that he is not quite exact, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the White Paper reserves the right to the Commissioners, in special cases, of appointing me a whom they thought fit. On the whole, I agree it is desirable that appointments made outside the Civil Service should be advertised and brought to the notice of those interested, and bearing in mind the manner in which hon. Members of this House are pestered with letters every day, asking them to use their influence in regard to appointments, I cannot imagine any better policy. The fact remains that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the promise he made to the House, reserves to himself the power in making emergency appointments to go outside the Civil Service for that purpose.
  Mr. JOWETT: What I complained of was that after the White Paper of 14th December was issued, containing a definite pledge that Press notices would be issued regarding any appointment made outside the Civil Service, those appointments to which I have referred were actually made.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think if the hon. Gentleman will refer to the White Paper and to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he will see that there was no such definite pledge. But that is no part of my case. These three second-class clerks were chosen immediately the Welsh Commission was appointed in order to cope with the actual physical conditions of the office at Cardiff where there was a mass of correspondence to be dealt with. They were appointed, in the first instance, on emergency appointments. The later appointment of Assistant Secretary was widely advertised. Then there is the question of appointments in connection with the English Commissioners. They come under the same head. Legal Gentlemen had to be appointed at once to deal with the matter, and the journalist whom the hon. Member objects to was, I think, first selected as secretary to the Chairman of the English Insurance Commission, to deal immediately, before December 14th, with the work which required to be done. He was a distinguished writer on the "Morning Post" and had a special knowledge of insurance work. But all these appointments were anterior to the arrangements now referred to, an arrangement which I hope will be maintained.

  1611
  Then there is a personal question in connection with the appointment of a Civil servant. I am very reluctant to go into details of questions regarding the transference of a Civil servant from one Department to another. In all Civil Service Departments the right is reserved to choose men for places for the higher posts. As far as I know, in connection with this particular place, no priority or order was put forward by the Admiralty in connection with those who wished to apply for the appointment, and the Chairman of the English Commission assured me that they recognised that the gentleman appointed was one of the ablest young men in the Civil Service. The ordinary inquiry was made of the Secretary to the Admiralty, to whom he was private secretary as to whether he was suitable for the work. I think the Committee will realise that a detailed discussion on the transfer of a Civil servant from one office to another is undesirable, inasmuch as it may imply a quite undeserved stigma upon those who did not get the appointment, and that I think we would all be very reluctant to suggest. Then there is the inquiry by the hon. Member for Pembrokeshire (Mr. Roch). The Welsh Commission have been considering a scheme for future appointments on the lines so well expressed by the hon. Member, with a view to relieving themselves from the personal difficulty of being continually badgered to use their personal interest in the matter. This scheme includes the appointment of an advisory committee, representative of various bodies. It is now before the Civil Service Commissioners, and, in due course, will come before the Treasury for sanction. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that it meets his wishes.
  Mr. ROCH: Is there anything in the nature of a provision that these appointments shall be confined to university graduates, and, if so, will the House have an opportunity of discussing it.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I believe there is no condition laid down that the appointments to the first division shall be limited to university graduates.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: But is it not the fact that the persons appointed are university graduates?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot answer that without notice. Only four members who are appointed did not belong to the Civil Service. I do not know whether or
  1612
  not they were university graduates. One of the hon. Members for Yorkshire asked me how long the lecturers were to serve. They are all temporary appointments. I believe they are only continued from week to week, and I hope that, as soon as the requisite information has been conveyed to the great masses of persons who are interested, and especially to the members of trade unions, friendly societies, and other organisations, this money will no longer be required to be spent. But I cannot give any date when that will be. We had to-day an appeal from an hon. Member opposite to make special efforts in connection with remote rural districts. We are most anxious that agricultural labourers should receive full explanations and obtain a full knowledge of this Act, and should learn that they can, if they please, make approved societies or agricultural labourers. I thank the House for the patience with which it has listened to me. It would be very ungracious on my part if under the circumstances I entered on any note of controversy. I had the pleasure of listening to and applauding the very generous remarks made when this Bill was first introduced by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sevenoaks Division (Mr. Forster), who said:—
  "Speaking, if I may, on behalf of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, I will say that, believing as we do, yon are animated by the sole desire to confer a lasting benefit upon all classes of the community, so we will aid you in the perfection of the details of your scheme with all the zeal, all the ability, and all the good will that we can give."
  The hon. Member for Sevenoaks fully carried out that assurance, and again and again during the long Debates on the measure we had to thank him for the action he was taking and the suggestions that he gave. The Government have carried out their promise of last December that there shall be no interference on their part with the appointments of the Commissioners. They were appointed by a Commission of impartial Government servants, whose politics are certainly not Liberal, on the advice which they received after application to the university boards, to the working men's educational associations, to the trade unions, and friendly societies and all others who might be expected to know the special qualifications of these men. Is it really worth while for us to continue in this House to continue a wrangle of name against name, in which one is compelled to cap every name of a man supposed to be associated with Liberal principles with that of a man who is an ex-Unionist candidate or who may happen to have been a lecturer on the

  1613
  Tariff Reform League. If hon. Gentlemen opposite would really carry out the promise made by the hon. Member for Seven-oaks, they would not lose any party advantage by so doing. They would rather gain, and thereby they would help to make this Act, what many of their newspapers first called it, the greatest social reform this country has ever seen.
  Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: The hon. Member who has just sat down asked for a non-controversial treatment of this subject, and then appealed to the speeches of my hon. Friend, the Member for Seven-oaks (Mr. H. W. Forster). No doubt it is true that this Bill was received in a friendly spirit at first, and it was recognised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in August that the undertaking of the Unionist party had been fully carried out, and in that month he himself paid a most handsome tribute to the assistance he had received up to that time. We all know what happened afterwards. It was not the doing of this party but of that party that this matter passed into the arena of partisanship. We all know what happened in the election at Hull long before a single word of a controversial character had been uttered by anyone on this side of the House, long before the note of party was sounded. It was when we met again in October; and up to that time not a single word had been said by any Member of our party which could possibly have changed, or could reasonably have changed, that tone. Then, in October, the gag and the guillotine were put upon this measure, and all hope of treating it in that non-controversial and generous spirit to which the hon. Member has referred, all possible hope had vanished.
  HON. MEMBERS: What happened at Hull?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Members must not interrupt.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: I pass from that. Only a very few words were necessary to explain that it is impossible for the party for which I speak at the present moment, after the Act has been taken up by the party opposite as their own, to treat this matter as a non-controversial matter. There are only two matters upon which I wish to trouble the House, and both to my mind are matters of extreme public importance. I quite agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken that the really important point which is involved in this discussion is with regard to a Bill,
  1614
  such as this Bill, which in many respects has now passed into a highly controversial arena, whether it is right or in accordance with public principles that lecturers appointed by the Government should be employed to popularise a Government Bill. Let me remind the House of what are the plain facts of the case. A very large political organisation for the express purpose of popularising this Act in a party sense has been formed about contemporaneously with this organisation of lecturers who are paid by the Government. The Government lecturers are selected all over the community, they are trained for a very brief time at Whitehall, they are paid, many of them, at a rate which must be admitted to be a handsome rate for them. They are fully maintained at hotels and places where they go, and during their stay in London—and I say it is contrary to human nature to say that men paid by the Government, selected by the Government, and maintained by the Government in order to popularise and explain this Bill—nobody who knows anything of human beings would say otherwise—it would be absolutely impossible that the great majority of these men should not become partisans of the Bill itself. If you take the fact that these men have been so appointed, and that this organisation has been set up at the same time, and that there are lecturers of this great party organisation which itself sends them out throughout the country to give lectures upon the same subject, lecturers who say they are doing so in some cases not with any party object, how is it possible with this extraordinary confusion between these two organisations that the people of this country should not be persuaded that the party organisation is very often the Government organisation and the Government organisation is the party organisation?
  Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will say that that is a harsh view taken by me as a political opponent with regard to this matter. I submit to every man I address here whether it is not natural and inevitable that these lecturers, the great mass of them, so paid, so trained, so commissioned, will become partisans of this Bill itself; but I have an authority which no hon. Gentleman opposite will deny is a considerable authority in favour of that view. Nobody who is a constant reader, as I am a constant reader, of the "Westminster Gazette" will doubt the ability of that paper, and nobody can doubt that it fairly represents the views of hon. Gentle-

  1615
  men opposite. How has this organisation of lecturers by the Government struck the "Westminster Gazette"? I find the Lobby Correspondent of that paper says:
  "After careful inquiries I gather that the reduction of the Government majority in St. Rollox was due in the main to dislike of the Insurance Act. This dislike was not confined to the workers, but was shared to some extent by Liberal employers, and was, of course, fanned by the usual Tory misrepresentations on the subject. The fight was waged with great skill and determination by the Liberal organisation, and such a drop in the majority was hardly expected. But the trough of the wave has been reached so far as the Insurance Act is concerned, and there are now signs that it is being better understood. The moral of the election should seem to be the need of more lectures on the Act."
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite thought that I was pressing them harshly, but have I up to the present said anything half so harsh as this from their own political party newspaper? I say it is not creditable to this House, nor creditable to the Government, that the rough draft of a Bill should be cast out upon the country, not understood of men, and that political lecturers such as have been described, doing such work as this, should be employed at the public expense to popularise the Bill. The Members of this House are paid £400 a year each, and I do not think that this House is doing its duty, I do not think they are earning their salaries by turning out what are mere rough drafts of measures. I think it is discreditable when this considerable amount of money is spent on remuneration of Members of Parliament that another heavy sum should be spent in explaining and popularising this Act by a public lecturer.
  How has the hon. Gentleman dealt with this subject? He said there were ample precedents. I do not wish to say anything in the least unkind, I know he spoke under physical difficulties, but surely he does not think the reading of a few testimonials, perhaps from political allies, can carry the matter very much further. Still less, surely, does he think that precedents for this action are set up by those memoranda with which we are all perfectly familiar from the Local Government Board, the Education Board, or the Home Office, explaining non-controversial Acts which are difficult of construction, and which in those cases are explained upon the authority and responsibility of the Government Department itself. What earthly parallel is there between such memoranda as these giving legal advice, say, upon subjects like trade boards, a totally non-controversial Act, or Labour Exchanges, also totally non-controversial, or the agricul-
  1616
  tural Grant in Ireland, also non-controversial, what parallel is there existing between the memoranda sent out from the actual Departments themselves, which they issue on their own responsibility, and in which they stand by the advice they give to the public, and the lectures given by these men who are appointed in this way for whom the Department takes no responsibility, who, as they say themselves, cannot bind the Department by the advice they give in their lectures. I listened most carefully to the speech of the Secretary for the Treasury, and I never heard him attempt to answer either the Member for Tower Hamlets (Mr. H. Lawson) or the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) when, they pointed out how impossible it would be in the absence of regulations for these lecturers to perform their duties efficiently. These lecturers are appointed, and are doing the work in the manner I have described, and it is impossible to spend public money in remunerating them, to spend it efficiently, because the lecturers themselves are without the material with which they can make their lectures efficient.
  With regard to medical service, medical relief, hospitals, casual labour, and other matters, all is still left in blank, and if the lecturers were challenged on these points they could not give a satisfactory explanation. Not only is the appointment of these men undesirable, but it is also a hopeless waste of public money, because they cannot perform their duties efficiently. I suppose they would not be justified in quoting the famous ninepence for fourpence if they were asked what advantage was given by certain sections of the Act. It would not satisfy anybody, not even the most humble of their listeners. They would be under the greatest possible difficulty if they were asked to explain these matters to which I have alluded. I have left details alone, but I am bound to say that many of the points put by my hon. Friends have been left absolutely unanswered by the Secretary to the Treasury. But one very important matter of principle was raised early in the Debate. It is a matter which could have been answered if it was capable of an answer. Full notice was given. It was alleged most specifically, and I repeat the allegation on information I have from behind me, that an office was published as open at a salary of £550 to £700 a year, that no application was made by anybody whom

  1617
  the Government thought competent to take such a post at that salary and without further public notice at all in the Departments, and without any further notice to applicants, the salary of the office was raised to £850 to £1,000 a year, and a gentleman about whom I know nothing, I daresay he was perfectly competent, was appointed to the office without the public ever having an opportunity of knowing that an appointment at that salary was vacant, and without therefore ever having an opportunity of making application for it.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It is an appointment out of the Civil Service. It has nothing to do with the public at all. There was no necessity to advertise it to the public.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: It was offered in the first instance to two Public Departments at a certain salary. When that salary failed to secure an applicant whom the Government thought suitable, the salary was raised from £850 to £1,000 without any opportunity for the two Departments which had been originally consulted to make application for the office.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: These appointments were not offered by the Commissioners to Public Departments. The Commissioners appointed the men and take full responsibility for the men they chose, and they can choose any man they like, out of any Department they like, at any salary they please.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: No one disputed those very obvious facts. One must be very innocent to suppose that if it is known in two great offices, and the Government take care that it should be known, that
  there was a vacancy at £550 to £700 a year, and when these two Departments did not produce anybody, and when suit able men declined to offer for the post at that salary, it surely is very unfair to those two Departments that the salary should be raised without their knowledge, and that a man from another Department should be taken in at that higher salary. After all, the principle is the same, and ought always to be adhered to. Those people who are likely to apply for the post ought to be informed of what salaries they can expect in it. The Government ought not to withhold from any portion of the Civil Service the information that the salary has been raised from that which they originally tendered. Nothing can be more important in these matters, whore the Government has such enormous patronage, that that patronage should be most scrupulously used, and every possible public information should be given to all Civil servants who are concerned in the matter, and the information should not be partial and insufficient. By such means the most serious scandal would inevitably result unless these precautions were taken. I have not dealt with a great many matters of detail which have been brought before the Committee, but in substance those matters of detail have scarcely been dealt with by the Financial Secretary, and the many questions which have been suggested have been wholly unanswered.
  Mr. MASTERMANrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 218; Noes, 135.

  Division No. 27.]

  AYES.

  [7.35 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Devlin, Joseph

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Dillon, John

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cameron, Robert

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Alden, Percy

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Doris, W.

  Armitage, Robert

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Duffy, William J.

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Clough, William

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Barnes, George N.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Cotton, William Francis

  Ffrench, Peter

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Flavin, Michaer Joseph

  Boland, John Pius

  Crooks, William

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Furness, Stephen

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Bryce, John Annan

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Gill, A. H.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol)

  Gladstone, W. G. O.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Delany, William

  Glanville, Harold James

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Goldstone, Frank

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Rowlands, James

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

  Meagher, Michael

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Hackett, John

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Millar, James Duncan

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Molloy, M.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

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

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Mooney, John J.

  Sheehy, David

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morgan, George Hay

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morrell, Philip

  Shortt, Edward

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Higham, John Sharp

  Muldoon, John

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Hodge, John

  Neilson, Francis

  Snowden, Philip

  Holmes, Daniel Thomas

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Nolan, Joseph

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Hudson, Walter

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Tennant, Harold John

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O'Dowd, John

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Ogden, Fred

  Trevelyan, Charles Phillips

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  O'Grady, James

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Keating, Matthew

  O'Malley, William

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wardle, George J.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Waring, Walter

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Webb, H.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Lansbury, George

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

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  Pointer, Joseph

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Leach, Charles

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Lundon, T.

  Radford, G. H.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  McGhee, Richard

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Reddy, M.

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

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  M'Callum, John M.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  NOES.

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r)

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Chambers, James

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E)

  Hohler, G. F.

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Horner, A. L.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

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

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Jackson, Sir John

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Falle, B. G.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Fell, Arthur

  Knight, Captain E. A.

  Bennet-Goldney, Francis

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Gardner, Ernest

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

  Boyton, James

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Goldman, C. S.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. B.

  Butcher, J. G.

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownies

  Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Grant, James Augustus

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Cassel, Felix

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Cave, George

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  1620

  1621

  Moore, William

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Rawson, Col. R. H.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Newman, John R. P.

  Royds, Edmund

  Valentia, Viscount

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Nield, Herbert

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  White, Major G. H. (Lancs., Southport)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Stanier, Beville

  Younger, Sir George

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Earl Winterton and Mr. Astor.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Stewart, Gershom

  Question put accordingly.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 223; Noes, 108.

  Division No. 28.]

  AYES.

  [7.45 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Laren Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Glanville, H. J.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Alden, Percy

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Armitage, Robert

  Goldstone, Frank

  Meagher, Michael

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

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

  Molloy, M.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Hackett, J.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Bentham, G. J.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Mooney, John J.

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Morrell, Philip

  Boland, John Pius

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Muldoon, John

  Brockleburst, W. B.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Neilson, Francis

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Higham, John Sharp

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hodge, John

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Holmes, Daniel Thomas

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Nuttall, Harry

  Cameron, Robert

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  O'Dowd, John

  Clough, William

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Ogden, Fred

  Clynes, J. R.

  Jones, Edward R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Grady, James

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O'Malley, William

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Cotton, William Francis

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Joyce, Michael

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Crooks, William

  Keating, M.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Kilbride, Denis

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

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  King, Joseph (Somerset, N.)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Pointer, Joseph

  Delany, William

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lansbury, George

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  Radford, G. H.

  Dillon, John

  Leach, Charles

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Doris, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Duffy, William J.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Reddy, Michael

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  McGhee, Richard

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Elverston, Sir Harold)

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. I.

  Roberston, John M. (Tyneside)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Rowlands, James

  Furness, Stephen

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Tennant, Harold John

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Wiles, Thomas

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

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Sheehy, David

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Shortt, Edward

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Walton, Sir Joseph

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

  Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)

  Wardle, G. J.

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Snowden, Philip

  Waring, Walter

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Webb, H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  NOES.

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Ashley, W. W.

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Balcarres, Lord

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Harrison, Broadley H. B.

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'h B'ghs)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Rawson, Col. R. H.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hohler, G. F.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

  Horner, A. L.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Royds, Edmund

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Boyton, J.

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

  Butcher, J. G.

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts., Mile End)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cautley, H. S.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Cave, George

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (St. Geo., Han. S.)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Chambers, James

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., South)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Winterton, Earl

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Moore, William

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mount, William Arthur

  Goldman, C. S.

  Neville, Reginald J. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. R. S. Gwynne and Mr. Fell.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Newman, John R. P.

  Grant, J. A.

  Nield, Herbert

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit upon Monday next.

SUPPLY.—REPORT.

  CLASS 2.—CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1911–12.
  Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Offices of the House of Commons."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Captain CRAIG: When this Vote was before the Committee some of my hon. Friends beside me put a few questions to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury which were not, in my opinion, quite satisfactorily answered. Under Section D of the Vote a question arises with regard to the Official Reporters of our Debates, who under the new system, are to receive the sum of £2 each in respect of every sitting of the House above 150. I wish to know from the hon. Gentleman when this new scheme was first instituted—whether it came into operation at the time when the publication of our Debates was undertaken in the form in which they now appear, and when the daily record of our proceedings was sent to each Member, or whether this Grant was made prior to that particular date? I wish to know also whether

  1625
  this is strictly applied to each of the sittings that happens to be over 150, or whether it refers in any way to the later sittings of the House and the consequent extra, burden falling upon those who take down our Debates? That question was put to the hon. Gentleman when the Vote was before the Committee, and there was no answer given, so far as I recollect, or, at least, no satisfactory answer to explain when the increase took place, and whether it refers to each individual sitting or covers the long hours we are now almost always compelled to undertake later on in a Session.
  8.0 P.M.
  I would like also at the same time to have cleared up what, an actual sitting of the House means, because I think it is in the memory of the House that last year and the year before we ran into two days with our Proceedings. We went right round the clock twice. I wish to know whether, in these circumstances, £2 is the extra payment for the sitting? It seems to me rather a hard and fast rule for those who are engaged in the somewhat arduous and tedious work of taking down some of the speeches of hon. Members for the OFFICIAL REPORT, that they should be paid this sum of £2 when they have to work forty-eight hours on end, whereas a sitting of the House may on another occasion be a mere normal day, when the hours are only, say on Friday, from twelve to five. I need hardly say that I am making no objection in the world to the £2 extra per day to those hard-working officials. Yet I cannot help thinking that the pay in some instances might be much too great and in other circumstances too little. I wish to know also whether the fact of one of the officials having to be on duty on a certain occasion does not mean that it is a mere chance whether he is underpaid or overpaid? It is quite obvious to Members of the House that if there is a roster kept of the officials who have to undertake the work, it might press very hard on an individual who had to sit through the long Debates we are sure to have later on in the Session if he is only to be paid £2 for an inordinate number of hours work. Those points require clearing up, as they were passed over in rather a superficial manner in Committee.
  With regard to police and miscellaneous expenses, I notice that the increase is caused by the revised pay and the effect of the weekly day of rest. The answer on this also was unsatisfactory. The hon.
  1626
  Gentleman led us to believe that the increase was caused by the revised pay of the police in consequence of the passing of the weekly day of rest. On the other hand, this footnote seems to attribute the mistake of the under estimate of £300 to two causes. First of all the revised pay, whatever that was, and, in the second place, to the newly instituted and well-deserved day of rest. Did the police guarding these buildings get this day of rest prior to the passing of this Bill, or is this a new institution consequent on the passing of this Bill? My recollection is that passing the House of Commons on Sundays prior to the passing of the Bill there were very few constables in attendance here, and consequently I gathered that some of them at all events appeared to have a day off on Sundays. How is it, then, that according to this footnote we appear to be making an alteration, and adopting what I think every hon. Member believed to be an institution existing prior to the passing of the Bill. If the increase is due entirely to this weekly day of rest, then I think the wording of the footnote is wrong, and that it should be the increase caused by the revised pay of the police owing to the effect of the weekly day of rest. Another matter to which attention should be directed is the great discrepancy of £940, I am glad to say on the right side, in the matter of fees. As I understand Private Bills, from which these fees are derived, have to be lodged at the very beginning of the Session. We had an Estimate of £16,500 which, I presume, was easily arrived at, because there was full knowledge as to the number of Private Bills put down for the Session, and consequently they would be able, in making an Estimate, to know exactly how much to allow for them. Then the amount springs up to £17,440, and the question naturally arises how the extra amount is derived. Are Bills lodged continually during the Session or must they not be all lodged early when the House sits? I think those were the principal points which were neglected in the Committee stage, and the House will be obliged to the hon. Member for clearing them up.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that this addition to the remuneration of the reporting staff is made by the Government. It is made by the Commission which controls these affairs, a statutory Commission. This was done in December, 1911, when the Commission authorised Mr. Speaker to pay to

  1627
  each reporter an additional sum not exceeding £2 for each day beyond 150. I think that in the Committee stage all the House recognised that that was a thoroughly well-earned increase to the salaries paid to the official reporters. The cause of the increase in the Police Vote is two-fold, as I tried to explain in the Committee stage. In August there was sanctioned a general increase in the rate of pay of the Metropolitan Police. Besides that there has been an increase in cost due to the fact of the police getting one day's rest in seven. Therefore part is due to the cost of one day's rest in seven, and part is due to the general increase given in August to the general Metropolitan police. The police on duty in the House of Commons have not had one day's rest in seven under the old system, but they are now receiving the one day's rest in seven, beyond the ordinary Metropolitan police, who have not yet received it, and they are receiving it because we are voting the money, which comes out of our expenditure and not out of the general Metropolitan Police Rate.
  Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £11,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including certain Grants-in-Aid."
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Viscount HELMSLEY: This Estimate contains a good many sub-heads, and the amount of opportunity for discussion under each of these sub-heads is not very extensive, so that we have not the opportunity which we might wish for on the Supplementary Estimate for debating at large the whole question of agricultural policy. I notice that under sub-head (A) the additional sum required is put down as £500, additional salaries for staff required for work under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, 1908 to 1910, and in connection with the diseases of animals. It is rather unsatisfactory that the Board should not define more closely how much of the increased sum required is due to each of those two headings, because, though I approve fully of voting the money
  1628
  which is spent in connection with the diseases of animals, and I am very ready to give testimony to the efficient way in which the Board have taken steps to stamp out outbreaks of these diseases, I am very far from approving of the policy of the Board with regard to the extra Commissioners whom they chose to appoint under the Small Holdings Acts, and I regard those appointments as a scandalous waste of public money. The two appointments originally made were amply sufficient to administer the Act and to give assistance to the county councils when required; and to appoint six additional Commissioners was absolutely unnecessary, and indeed prejudicial rather than advantageous to the smooth working of the Act. I believe that the question will come up in Debate on a private Member's Motion later on in the Session, so I will not dwell on the matter now; but from what I have been told of their operations I am rather led to believe that in some cases they have interfered with committees of county councils who have been endeavouring to work the Act, rather than been of assistance to them. Certainly, I by no means approve of the extra expenditure which is asked for under that head.
  It is rather interesting to note that although the additional sum put down in the Estimate is £500, the real amount required is £2,500. Therefore the £500 does not in any way represent the real additional expenditure that is required, because we are told that there were savings under other sub-heads amounting to £2,000. If that £2,500 had not been required for these additional Commissioners, the £2,000 savings would either have gone to swell the national surplus at the end of the year, or the money could have been devoted to other purposes under the Board of Agriculture, which I for one would consider far more valuable. Coming to Vote (F. 1), agricultural research, I should like to know to what institutions and societies that money has been paid. When the Vote was first announced to the House I think it was allocated to different societies and colleges, and I thoroughly approved of that allocation of the money. It seemed to me that this money devoted to agricultural research would undoubtedly be very well spent. But I think we might be informed what Grants it is proposed to give or have been given, and to what colleges or societies exactly and in what directions the money is being spent. We should like to be quite satisfied that the Grants were

  1629
  being devoted to the best possible services. There have been rumours in the agricultural world of new agricultural research organisations, and if the President of the Board of Agriculture could give us further information on that point I am sure we would be very glad to receive it.
  All those who are interested in agriculture would also be glad if he could inform us what progress is being made by the Committee inquiring into the origin of the foot-and-mouth disease. In Vote (I), improvement of light horse breeding, we see that a sum of £10,000 is required for Grants-in-Aid to county committees for the encouragement of the keeping of brood mares, but that savings amounting to £9,995 are anticipated under other items of the sub-head. Therefore, a Supplementary Estimate of £5 only is put down. I think that the President of the Board of Agriculture knows very well that I have always been a great supporter of and fully sympathetic with the policy which the Board initiated last year for encouraging light horse breeding, and I am very glad to think that the scheme is on so very satisfactory a basis as I understand it is. Of course there are minor questions on which I think the Board might have improved the scheme, but I do not wish these questions to vitiate the value of the scheme as a whole. I would, however, like to know under what heads of the scheme the saving of £9,995 has been made. It is rather a large sum to have saved in one direction and to be spent in another, and it seems to me that it must involve some recasting of the Board's original scheme. I am not in the least saying that such a recasting of the scheme in some direction might not be valuable; in fact, in the first instance, when the scheme was brought forward, I made the criticism that too much was given in the case of stallions and that there was not enough encouragement given in the case of mares. If it is the case that the sum is now going to be spent towards the encouragement of brood mares I, for one, should not complain. I would like to know whether the Board of Agriculture have made any progress with the proposal that I believe was at one time contemplated, that arrangements should be made whereby thoroughbred horses of superior excellence should be reserved for this country and be purchased by the Board in order to resell them or let them out to private individuals. That was part of a scheme put forward at one time which a good many of us thought would be
  1630
  of very great value, in that it would help this country to preserve valuable blood which otherwise is only too apt to go abroad. If the Board has been able to make any progress in elaborating a scheme of that kind, and if this Vote represents any departure in that direction, I am sure the Committee will be very glad to hear of it from the right hon. Gentleman.
  Another point of importance is the registration of stallions. The Board have undertaken, as hon. Members are well aware, to establish a register of horses which are declared by the veterinary surgeon to be sound, and that register, I think, is likely to be of very great value to this country in the future. I would like to impress upon the Board the importance of seeing whether they cannot introduce a stringent regulation which would prevent unsound horses travelling the roads. No doubt it would be considered a great infringement of individual liberty to prevent a man from keeping an unsound stallion if he chose to do it at his own place and at his own risk; but I do think there is a good deal to be said for the argument that an owner should not be allowed to parade an unsound stallion or an unregistered stallion about the country, perhaps letting it at a cheaper rate than could the owner of a sound stallion, and thus tempt breeders into deplorable paths.
  Mr. SPEAKER: These matters cannot be discussed on a Supplementary Estimate. All those matters arise on the original Estimate, which included an item for light horse breeding. This sum is only required for the particular purpose of a Grant-in-Aid to county committees, and the Noble Lord must confine his observations to that particular sum and that particular object.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I may discuss under what head the saving of £9,995 has been effected in order to make the Supplementary Estimate for £5 only necessary?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly; I am not taking any objection to that, but the Noble Lord is going into all sorts of questions about stallions which really do not arise on this Vote.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I bow to your ruling, Sir, though I had thought I was perhaps entitled to go into the subject more largely. That being the case, I do not think I have any further observations to offer upon this particular point, but

  1631
  if the right hon. Gentleman can tell us what changes have been made in the scheme I shall be very glad to hear what they are.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: There are two matters to which I should like to refer the right hon. Gentleman, and both of them were touched upon to a somewhat small extent when this Intimate was previously under consideration, but neither of them from the point of view to which I wish to call his special attention. First of all, we criticise the appointment of these six extra Small Holdings Commissioners without sufficient reason being given by the Board of Agriculture for their appointment. It is a rather significant fact that in the course of last summer the Annual Report of the Small Holdings Commissioners was published, and in that report they point out that under the circumstances the rate of progress in carrying out the provisions of the Small Holdings Act was all that could be desired; that county councils were doing their duty satisfactorily, that there was every reason to believe that the normal demand was being gradually satisfied, that, in fact, the two Small Holdings Commissioners were doing the work properly, and that the Board was thoroughly satisfied with that work. Two months after the publication of that document—and I may tell the right hon. Gentleman we are studying these documents emanating from the Board of Agriculture as works of authority which we may trust to contain nothing but the truth relating to his Department—in consequence, apparently, of the agitation on the part of the extreme land party in this House, and without any explanation whatever, we are told that these extra Commissioners are to be appointed in order "to speed up the work," as the expression goes—advice which apparently means to put pressure upon the county councils in regard to this work.
  The policy of the Board appears to me to be wholly inconsistent in this matter. Either the appointment of these extra Commissioners was unnecessary, or the report of the Small Holdings Commissioners for the year was wholly misleading. I am entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain why, if the facts contained in that report were accurate, it was necessary to carry out this new policy, which would indicate that those facts were entirely false. The other question I want to raise has reference to the
  1632
  Grants which are now about to be made—of which we have the first example here—towards agricultural research. I fear very much that there is likely to be a serious waste of public money owing to overlapping. The right hon. Gentleman has assured us, and I welcome the assurance, that block Grants were intended by these Supplementary Estimates to be given to such institutions as were properly equipped for carrying out particular branches of agricultural research work. But we find in another part of the Estimate a sum for similar work to be given to the Department of Agriculture in Ireland, and before we embark upon a large national expenditure for carrying on the same class of work in exactly the same branches of agricultural research, surely we are entitled to ask that there should be something in the nature of co-operation between the two Departments which govern the fortunes of agriculture within these islands. I will go further, and ask that there should be some co-operation in these matters amongst all those who are carrying on similar work within the Empire. We heard from the right hon. Gentleman the other day that he proposed to carry out research work in connection with foot-and-mouth disease. I for one was very glad to hear it. Although I am not entitled to say at present what the Departmental Committee say on foot-and-mouth disease are likely to report, I think it must be common knowledge that we in this country are lacking very much in that specific technical knowledge which would enable us to trace with certainty the recent outbreak of that disease. We have also been told that a Grant for research in connection with swine fever has been given during the last few months to the Departmental Committee that sat in connection with that disease. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Department in Ireland has also told us that a Grant for this purpose is being made in Ireland. Surely this is quite an unnecessary duplication of work. It cannot be necessary to spend money on research as to swine fever not only in England, but for exactly the same purpose across St. George's Channel. The same right hon. Gentleman also told us that he was going to spend money for research into red water in cattle. It is not exactly in order upon this Vote, but we have reason to believe that there is money being expended in South Africa for this purpose. Surely that is evident that there is a great waste of

  1633
  public money through lack of concentration, and co-operation. The right hon. Gentleman told us, when we asked for particulars as to research work, that he also intended to have an inquiry into the diseases of plants. Within two days afterwards the Vice-President of the Irish Department tells us that he also in Ireland is expending money in research on the diseases of plants. Surely it ought to be possible to avoid the evident waste upon which we are about to embark in the matter of research. There is one other matter to which I desire to refer, and that is in connection with agricultural co-operation. The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us on Monday last as to whether any portion of this Grant towards agricultural co-operation was going to be devoted to agricultural credit banks. If no part is going to be so devoted I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman as to whether he does not consider that to be an essential part of the policy of agricultural co-operation in this country as it has been found to be in all Continental countries, and whether he proposes at an early date to assign a certain portion of the Grant from the Development Fund for this purpose.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next, 4th March.

METROPOLITAN POLICE RATE BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
This Bill passed through all its stages sub silentio in the House last Session, but it failed to pass into law owing to its fate in another place. The urgency of the Bill is, I think, understood on both sides of the House, but perhaps two or three words may be usefully stated in explaining why it is that the present limitation of the power of rating imposed by Statutes on the Home Secretary should be removed. Under the Metropolitan Police Act of 1829 and subsequent Statutes, the Home Secretary has within the limit of 9d. authority to impose a rate for the purposes of the police in the Metropolitan Police Area. The rate is imposed in London upon the borough councils, or, rather, is raised in London through the borough councils, and
1634
outside London through the parishes. Of that 9d., 4d. was in former years paid by the Treasury and 5d. was raised from the ratepayers. A rate of 5d. has been levied for very many years. It has been sufficient in the past, because the increase in the rateable value of London has been so rapid and continuous that the additional product of the rate year by year was sufficient to meet the increase in expenses on the police. Two circumstances, two evil influences, have recently affected the product of the 5d. rate. I speak of them as "evil influences," but only from the point of view of the Minister responsible for getting the money. In the first place, the rateable value of London has not been increasing of late, owing to a variety of causes, at anything like the same rapidity with which it increased in former years; and, secondly, what was the old Treasury 4d., and is now a contribution from the Exchequer contribution account, is no longer equivalent to a 4d. rate. For both those reasons the police revenue in the London Metropolitan area have been affected.
What is the actual condition to-day? What is the justification for the Bill which is now before the House? I will make a series of assumptions in order that the House may appreciate the exact financial position of the Police Fund at the present time. I will assume, in the first place, that in the coming year, and, of course, I am only giving assumptions, that there is no increase in the number of the police either to meet the growing requirements of the Metropolis or to meet the requirements for one day's rest in seven. I start with that as my first assumption. My second assumption is that there is no further decline in the contribution from the local taxation account due to the growth of expenditure on other services chargeable to the Exchequer contribution. My third assumption is that there are no special demands in the ensuing year upon the police for emergencies, such as labour troubles, and my fourth assumption is that no addition is made to the working balance, which has been depleted by the deficiency in previous years. I think the House will agree that I have there stated all the assumptions which, if accepted, would be the most favourable possible to the Police Fund, namely, that there should be no increase to meet the increasing demands of London, that there should be no additional recruiting in order to make good one day's rest in seven, that there should be no special demand on account of emergencies, and that there should be no

1635
making good of the already depleted working balance. I want the House to note the first figure which, upon these four assumptions, I have to name in regard to next year's revenue.
Mr. REMNANT: You do not refer to external demands?
Mr. McKENNA: External demands are not paid for by London, and I am assuming no exceptional emergencies in London. On these assumptions the payments in 1912–13 are estimated to exceed the receipts by £82,500. With this deficiency staring me in the face, I have had no alternative except to stop all recruiting to meet either the additional requirements of the Metropolitan area or the requirements of the one day's rest in seven, because it is upon the assumption that there is no such recruiting that I am already faced with the deficiency of £82,500 for the coming year. Am I justified in acting upon these assumptions? If the Parliamentary pledges are to be made good—and hon. Members opposite will not mind my reminding them, as it is to their credit that they have been quite as insistent upon those pledges as other Members have—and the police are to get their one day's rest in seven, it will cost in the ensuing year £30,000. That amount has to be added to the deficit of £82,500. If I am to recruit on the lowest estimate I can make—and I would remind the House that it is a lower scale of recruiting than has been customary in past years—I must provide for an additional 200 men, whose cost would amount to £10,000. These three items together give a total of £122,500. The remaining item for which provision must be made is the deficit in the working balance. The working balance has been reduced to such a point that for many months in the year we have to live on borrowed money. It is estimated that the requirement to make good the working balance for 1912–13 is £108,000. Happily, that is not a recurring expense. But for that money we have been borrowing in the past. If we are to restore ourselves, not to as good a financial position as we had formerly, but to a sound financial position, we shall have to raise next year an additional £108,000.
Mr. HAYES FISHER: To what figure is the right hon. Gentleman working when that sum of £108,000 is raised?
Mr. McKENNA: It varies at different periods of the year.
Mr. HAYES FISHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give some comparison?
Mr. McKENNA: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman roughly what it means. We still should not have enough money to finance ourselves the whole year through, but we should reduce our borrowing—I think I am right in my figures; if I am wrong I will correct them later—to two periods of about six weeks each in the year. In any case that is only a temporary matter. It is only for one year. But when I come to deal with the ensuing years hon. Members will see that the money will be wanted. Thus, making no allowance for special emergencies of any kind, and we ought to contemplate a requirement of that sort, the Police Fund will be short next year by no less than £230,500, which is roughly the equivalent of a penny rate. I have made no allowance for emergencies or for a decline in the local taxation account.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: But you include the balance.
Mr. McKENNA: I include the balance for 1912–13. It is obvious that in 1913–14 I should no longer have to raise that £108,000. That is for one year only. My working balance will be revised. Consequently, with the same penny rate, I start 1913–14 with £108,000. What additional expenditure have I to meet in 1913–14? I have to meet a further increase of £21,000, due to the cost of one day's rest in seven. I know that hon. Members opposite are experts on this subject, and they will remember that the cost of one day's rest in seven, which is very considerable, was not imposed all at once, but was spread over a period of four years, and 1913–14 is one of the years. I shall have to meet an additional expenditure of £30,000 in 1912–13, and a further £21,000 in 1913–14. I shall have to meet also for normal additions to the force a charge of £17,000, making a total of £38,000 additional, which leaves me with a balance in my favour, if the penny rate were raised, of £70,000. Consequently, I shall be able in 1913–14 to raise rather less than 1d. What happens in the year after? The one day's rest in seven will cost a further £3,000, and the ordinary increase of the police will add another £19,000, making an additional £22,000, and there are other heavy charges accruing in that year. Thus in 1914–15 almost the whole of the penny rate will once again be absorbed. When hon. Members remember that the penny that I have here named,

1637
though it is not the limit, allows me nothing for emergencies and nothing in respect of a decline, which we cannot fail to contemplate, in the local taxation account, I do not think it is unreasonable that I should ask the House to extend the existig limit from 9d. to 11d. Nobody recognises more clearly than I do that this is a somewhat exceptional power, given to the Home Secretary to impose a rate upon the Metropolitan Police district. It is a power many years old. It has never so far been quarrelled with. I quite recognise that it is a power which ought not to be exercised without an opportunity for criticism. When I came to the office which I now hold I found myself confronted with a deficiency. That deficiency had to be made good—there was no question about that. The Bill came on very late last Session. I had not been long in my present office at the time. I quite admit that it passed through this House on two evenings at a very late hour. [An HON. MEMBER: "In the morning."] Early in the morning. I am quite conscious of it. But no objection was raised. Had any objections been raised, no doubt better facilities for Debate would have been offered.
What happened subsequently? The Bill went up to the other place—I am speaking of matters which have been stated in the public Press and which are, therefore, matters of common knowledge. I am quite conscious that this power of rating should always be exercised by any Minister only subject to the opportunity of criticism by this House. I stated then, as I state now, that I cannot do without a penny, for reasons I have given. I undertook, as I undertake now, not to raise more than a penny without the House of Commons having an opportunity of criticising my proposal to raise any additional amount. But it would be unwise, very unwise, for the House to limit me to a penny. I might at any moment have a serious emergency occur—unhappily, we know that such emergencies can occur. I might have to raise more than a penny—and I might not have the opportunity of introducing a Bill again suddenly to raise a rate. With the assurance that I will not raise more than a penny, which is required now, without giving the House an opportunity of criticising an increased rate, I hope the House will be satisfied to give me the Bill, limiting an additional rate to 2d. I understand that it is common ground on both sides that this Police Rates Bill must be got through. I shall not now take up further the time
1638
of the House, but perhaps with the leave of the House afterwards I may be allowed to answer any points which hon. Members wish to raise.
Mr. HAYES FISHER: The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, has made one very valuable admission, and that is that this House of Commons ought to have the opportunity of criticising any considerable increase of police expenditure. [An HON. MEMBEB: "Hear, hear."] Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman did not give this House the opportunity last Session of criticising this very increase of expenditure which he is asking for to-night. That has been our great complaint. That was the great complaint of those who occupied similar positions to ours, or did, in another place; that there never had been any opportunity of criticising this demand on the part of the Government that the ratepayers of London should find another £460,000 a year for the police.
Mr. McKENNA: I am not asking for that.
Mr. HAYES FISHER: The Bill is to give you power.
Mr. McKENNA: Yes—power to the House.
Mr. HAYES FISHER: The Bill is to give power to the Home Secretary to ask for it, and when Home Secretaries have power to ask for expenditure of this kind they are not very long before they use it. At all events we did not get an opportunity, and if there has been any delay in this matter of recruiting it is not the fault of the party of which I am a Member. No, and it is not the fault of another place either. The fault really was owing to mismanagement at the Home Office. Why did they introduce a Bill of this kind on 6th December? They must have known the situation months before that date. Yet they only introduced their Bill on 6th December, had it circulated on the 7th, and they rushed it through the House of Commons at three o'clock in the morning of 12th December, and two o'clock on the morning of 13th December. The only body that can speak on behalf of the ratepayers of London, the London County Council, were not cognisant of this Bill until 8th December. They never considered it before 12th December. It was absolutely impossible for me and other people to be here at that time to debate this question. There is no wonder that the right hon. Gentleman says

1639
that it passed sub silentio through the House of Commons. We had no time whatever to get up the necessary information and the necessary figures to meet those figures which he would perhaps have givn if there had been debate, and which he has withheld from us till now. So I say if there has been any delay in this matter it is not our fault. Nobody wants to delay the passage of the Bill. We know that some Bill is necessary. We know that some demand is necessary. We know that the police require one day's rest in seven. That is the accepted policy on both sides of the House, and by nobody more than by my hon. Friend below me the Member for Holborn, who has always had this object so much at heart.
We all agree about that. None of us want to delay this measure for a moment. None of us want to put a single obstacle in the path of the right hon. Gentleman, in giving as soon as possible, the benefit of one day's rest in seven to the Metropolitan police. I say that the right hon. Gentleman must blame the mismanagement in his own office—very likely before he got there—for not having presented this Bill at a time last Session when it could have been discussed, and the questions which this Bill raises discussed. Even if defeated in another place it could not have been defeated by a mere handful, something like a score of those who assembled that night, had the Government supporters done their duty. The right hon. Gentleman should ask some of his colleagues on that! Three Members of the Cabinet at least who were there on that occasion thought so little about this Bill, or so little about the serious consequences of recruiting, that they went home to bed, and left the right hon. Gentleman to be defeated by a mere handful of those whom he was unable to conciliate because he could not come to terms with them. If the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues attached so much importance to this they might at least have ensured that highly-paid salaried Members of the Cabinet should have stayed up—it was not a late hour—and see that that Bill passed in another place, when the Bill did pass in this place where it was not discussed. The right hon. Gentleman, after all, has made a full and frank admission that the ratepayers, through the House of Commons, have a right to have a matter of this kind discussed. Surely they have cause for complaint.
1640
What does this Bill do? It imposes a new charge of £460,000 a year upon the police Metropolitan area. That is the first increase which has been made for forty years. For forty years the 9d. rate has found all the necessary expenditure for the police force in London, except for the police pension fund established by the Act of 1890. Up to the present the ratepayers have found that the limit of the 5d. rate is perfectly sufficient to find the whole of their charge, and the Government of the day, whatever be that Government, gave a Grant out of assigned revenues which was equivalent to the other 4d. That position went on very happily for a great number of years, and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, whilst the increased expenditure on police was necessary through an increase in the population, there was a growth going on at the same time in the rateable value of London which made the increase in the income more than compensate for increase in expenditure. Then, as the right hon. Gentleman said, evil influences came in. Yes, Sir, they did! Nobody knows it better than I do. First of all, the increase in the rateable value of London did not continue at the same rate as it had been going on. Indeed, it has stopped altogether now, because, for the first time in the whole history of London, the result of the quinquennial valuation in London shows not an increase but an actual decrease.
Then another influence came in. The Exchequer contribution began to fall off. The Exchequer contributions are falling off, and I quite agree, unless we have some great change, there is likely, it appears tome, to be a still further falling off in the Exchequer contributions. This falling off is of the greatest importance to the ratepayers, because they have to find the deficit occasioned by the falling off in the Exchequer contribution. Therefore the ratepayers have to find not only their own 5d., but they have to find that 5d. plus any deficiency in the 4d. rate hitherto paid by the Government which the Grant from assigned revenues is not sufficient to produce. No wonder the poor ratepayers groan, and this position is getting worse every single year. The whole position is going in favour of the Government and against the ratepayers, and this Bill, for the first time for forty years, alters the relative proportions of the expenditure upon this great police force, which is borne by the Exchequer and the local ratepayers.

1641
9.0 P.M.
For forty years, up to now, the ratepayers have found five-ninths of the expenditure, and the Exchequer the other four-ninths. Now the right hon. Gentleman brings in his Bill, which, when carried into law, will alter the proportion to the detriment of the ratepayers, and the ratepayers, instead of paying five-ninths of the total cost of the Metropolitan Police Force, will pay, I think, seven-elevenths, and the Exchequer, instead of paying four-ninths, will pay four-elevenths. The proportion is for the first time altered to the detriment of the ratepayers, and to-day the ratepayer is beginning at last to wake up and to make a few calculations on his own account. He is beginning to see that everything is going against him now that this Government is in power. That is not the only case. I will not dwell upon other matters, but for a moment we must look upon the effect on the ratepayers as a whole. In education and other matters the Government proportion has become distinctly less and the ratepayers' proportion aggravatingly more. The ratepayer does desire to have some means, at all events, of discussing expenditure of this kind. I am one of the very last people in the world to even come within measurable distance of advocating that the London County Council, or any other body, should have control of the Metropolitan Police Force. I believe it is absolutely necessary to keep that body under the control of the Imperial Parliament, but because I believe that, and all the more because I believe it, I say the ratepayer, who has to find the increased burdens of the expenditure, ought to know that whenever these accounts are presented or new demands are made upon him that the House of Commons, at all events, will be able to give more care and heed to the demands made upon him for the very reason that he has no control over that force. He has no way except here, in the House of Commons, to criticise any expenditure which is made and which he has to pay. I could bring to my aid what the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to a speech I made in the House of Commons on an Amendment to the Address, said in the most emphatic way. He said those who were responsible for expenditure should be made to bear the burden. That is a point to which I will shortly address myself.
It is absolutely necessary that the ratepayers should be heard upon these matters. The ratepayer is not an unreasonable person, but he wants to be heard, and to
1642
know when expenditure of this kind is to be put upon him, after forty years, that there is a perfect justification for it. The line I have always taken since I have seen this Bill, and, indeed, since I have been able to go into figures and accounts—and these figures are very difficult for us to follow because they are not within our full cognisance—is that the right hon. Gentleman does not really want more than a penny. He would have done very well if he had only asked for a penny and not asked for power to impose twopence. I think he is going on almost dangerous grounds when he assumes that there will be no increase in the police force in the future. He is very cheerful if he assumes that. He told us there would be no more police required for labour disputes. I do not know whether he means labour disputes in London or elsewhere. Are there to be no more Tonypandys? We all hope so, but we do not feel at all certain about it, and we should certainly like to know whether he had in his mind that he will not require a large extra police force to be used for the purposes for which the police were used at Tonypandy and elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman knows well that his predecessor took no less than 900 men of the Metropolitan Police force and sent them into Wales, and I think they were kept there three or four months. I have never been quite able to make out from any accounts I have seen where the money is going to come from to pay for that extra police force. The right hon. Gentleman assured me the other day, and I accept his assurance, that he is not going to put a farthing of that charge for extra police upon the London rates. I do not know where he is going to get it from.
Mr. McKENNA: From the Estimates.
Mr. HAYES FISHER: This is the first time we have heard that. As long as it is to come out of the Estimates the London ratepayers will pay their share in the share they pay of the Estimates. Are we to understand that the county of Glamorgan is not to be called upon to pay this money?
Mr. McKENNA: It is only primarily recovered from the Treasury, but it will not fall on London. It will appear on the Estimates, but that is entirely without prejudice to our claim against Glamorgan.
Mr. HAYES FISHER: If it remains oh the Estimates and is never recovered London certainly will pay indirectly. I want

1643
to make it clear that London will not have to pay for the policemen sent to Tonypandy, either directly or indirectly. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Why should London keep a police force to suppress a riot in Tonypandy in regard to something which we cannot possibly control? Let those pay who cause the riot and the disturbance, and do not put it upon us. The right hon. Gentleman says that the London ratepayers will not have to pay any of the direct charges, but then there are indirect charges. I am quite certain that it is necessary to keep a reserve police force in London. It is just possible that that reserve is larger than is necessary, and that while the war expenditure on that police force may be met by those who live within the area of the war expenditure the peace expenditure may have to be met by the London ratepayers. I think we ought to be satisfied on that point. The right hon. Gentleman's fourth admission was that no further depletion of balances would take place. The right hon. Gentleman said, given all these assumptions, he made out that in 1912–13 he would want a sum of £30,000 in order to meet the demand for one day's rest in seven; £10,000 for 200 new men, and £108,000 to meet the deficit and provide a working balance, making £230,500 altogether, or just a tiny bit under a penny rate. That is the case of the right hon. Gentleman, and that is our case.
But why take a twopenny rate this year? Why not content yourselves with simply asking for what you know you want? I am not going to question those figures, but why is the right hon. Gentleman not content with asking for a penny rate? By doing that he would secure for himself all he can contemplate wanting for this year. I should like to see the figures of the balance, because I do not think it is necessary to have £108,000 for that purpose. The balance has been up and down for some time, and those who managed this fund had to borrow money frequently, and all the right hon. Gentleman can contemplate is that he might want a fraction more than a penny, and then he could do with a less balance until he could again come to the House of Commons and give reasons if he could, and probably as good reasons as he will give to-night. If he did that no doubt the House of Commons would vote the other 1d. rate. On his own admission it is necessary that the ratepayers should be protected by having some control. The ratepayers have practically
1644
no control over expenditure by this House, and the House of Commons is losing control over expenditure because of the enormous powers given to Government Departments to create expenditure and force it upon local bodies. I have already quoted the great power possessed by the Board of Education. The Home Secretary, too, has great powers, and I think in this case he is using them unnecessarily. The right hon. Gentleman scarcely contemplates that he wants more than a 1d. rate this year, and he says that next year he actually wants less than a 1d., and for 1913–14 and 1914–15 he says almost the whole of the 1d. will be absorbed. Why cannot he run the risk this year of slightly exceeding the 1d. rate because it would only affect his balance? I still say it would have been better in the interests of maintaining the control of the ratepayers if the right hon. Gentleman had asked for a 1d. until he was in a position to come down here and prove his case, and show the actual necessity for levying a 2d. rate.
We are face to face with an enormous increase in the Education Rate, and by a stroke of the pen we are going to have a 4d. rate. Now the right hon. Gentleman comes down with another 2d. rate, which makes an additional 6d. rate in the Metropolitan area. This affects very much the industries of London and our domestic life, and therefore we ought to be very careful what we do. I know money must be spent on necessary things, but we ought to be very careful about these rates, and this House ought not lightly to vote away the ratepayers' money. These matters are really national services to a large extent, and the incidence of a rate is not as fair as the incidence of a tax. Personalty does not come in, although it has to be protected by the police the same as realty, and I do not believe that that is equity or statesmanship. Look what the ratepayers have to bear besides this increase. The Police Rate is to be increased from 9d. to 11d., the ratepayers finding 7d. and the Government 4d. Look at the deficiency in the Police Pension Fund arising out of the Act of 1880. Consider for a moment what that is going to cost the ratepayers. I know we all voted for those pensions, but when they were first introduced there was a surplus of £2,000. In the second year there was a deficiency of £12,000; in the year 1910–11 the deficiency amounted to £282,814, and now the deficiency in 1911–12 will take the yield of 1¼d. rate to meet it. The estimate I have had given to me is

1645
that the deficiency will ultimately and very shortly amount to £500,000 per annum, or equal to another 2¼d. rate. That is a very serious thing for the ratepayers. On the London County Council we have always wanted to discuss police finance with the Home Secretary.
We do not in the least aim at taking away executive power from the Home Secretary, but where these huge sums have to be raised from the ratepayers' pocket we ought to be called in at a very early moment, and we should have the opportunity of looking at all these figures in order to see whether we could suggest any economy or any possible readjustment of the burdens placed upon the ratepayers. The report of the Local Taxation Commission recommended that half this expenditure should be borne by the Exchequer and half by the ratepayers, but the proportion should not be altered to the detriment of the ratepayers, and when the Government impose these new charges they ought to bear their fair share of the charges forced upon the ratepayers for these great national and Imperial services. We should like to discuss such questions as the high ratio of the police force in London—what it means and where it is going—so that we ourselves may be able to defend it at Election times, which come in London once a year. We should like to discuss the question of the financial position of the pension fund, the question of the inadequacy of the Government Grant of 1909, and most especially we should like to discuss the proportion the Exchequer contribution now bears to the burden which is thrown on the ratepayers in London. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for, at all events, inviting us to discuss these matters. The London County Council has sent him a letter—I think it only went to him yesterday—suggesting that we should at least meet, and that the figures should be agreed upon between us so that we need not go on everlastingly disputing about them. As we largely represent the ratepayers of London, those figures ought to be known to us, and I believe when they are we shall have a more satisfactory basis for any discussion to which the right hon. Gentleman may invite us. Without in the least desiring to encroach upon the powers of the Home Office or of the right hon. Gentleman, all we wish to do is to see that no more money is taken from the ratepayers' pockets than is absolutely necessary, and that the money is spent wisely and well in the interests
1646
of the ratepayers of London, who have to bear the majority of the expenditure.
Mr. W. THORNE: This matter is of the utmost importance to the people I represent. The last speaker only referred to London. I would like to point out that there are other people who come into the discussion.
Mr. HAYES FISHER: I spoke of the Metropolitan area, which is different from London proper.
Mr. W. THORNE: I am glad to have that correction, because the people in West Ham and in Croydon are affected in exactly the same way as the people in London proper. It is not my intention to prevent in the slightest degree the police having one day's rest in seven. From the very first time I was elected to this House, I have made declarations to the electors that I would do all I possibly could to obtain for the policemen one day's rest in seven. I am sorry to say that up to the present that has not altogether been granted, the excuse given on one or two occasions being that there is not sufficient police. I am convinced in my own mind there are quite sufficient policemen now to give one day's rest in seven if there was a better distribution, because the information I have received from the police is that some divisions are overcrowded. I do not think therefore the extra police will be at all required. The Home Secretary stated that when he entered upon his present office there was a deficiency. I do not know whether that deficiency was caused by sending the police down to South Wales. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO."] I take it it helped to swell the difficulty, because I presume the police that were sent away were paid from this particular fund, and we have had no indication from the Home Secretary as to whether the whole of that money is going to be refunded. If it is not, it simply means that London will have to bear a portion of the expenses, even if it comes out of the Exchequer Grants.
This House, by all kinds of legislation, is simply placing extra burdens upon the local authorities, and I think the Imperial Exchequer should bear a greater share of these local expenses. The Home Secretary is really in this Bill asking for a 2d. rate. The present contribution from the Imperial Exchequer is 4d., and 5d. is contributed from the local authorities. He is now asking for another 2d.,

1647
which will mean that 7d. will be paid by the local authorities and 4d. by the Imperial Exchequer. That will make the rate for the Metropolitan Police higher than that of any other local authority in the country. In many municipalities where the local authorities have the control of the police, the wages and conditions are even better than they are for the Metropolitan Police, and yet we find that in Leicester the rate is 5.3d., in Newcastle 5.5d., in Derby 5d., in Sunderland 5.9d., and in Southampton 5.5d. As a matter of fact, in several other boroughs the rate is very much less than that. I admit, of course, there are one or two places, like Manchester and Liverpool and one or two other large towns, where the rate is over 5d. In some cases it works out at 6d. in the £.
This addition will make £11,000 difference to us. That means a 2d. rate. The rates are exceedingly heavy at the present time, chiefly because our education rate is one of the highest in the country, although we admit the Government have from time to time made handsome contributions to our local authorities, amounting, I believe, in some cases to between £50,000 and £60,000. We admit the Home Secretary wants this extra money, but to ask the local authorities—the Londoners and the people in places like West Ham, East Ham, Croydon, and the like—to bear the whole burden I think exceedingly unfair, because, as a matter of fact, the Metropolitan Police is semi-Imperial. They do many duties that other police authorities are not called upon to perform at all. The police, for instance, are sent from the Metropolitan area to Epsom and other races, when they are on. I will ask the Home Secretary if it is not possible to make a compromise on this matter, the Imperial Exchequer paying 5d. and the local authorities 6d. I believe if the Home Secretary would agree to that he would get the Bill through very much easier than perhaps he anticipates. I have been led to understand that when the Bill goes to Committee there is no possible chance of carrying out that suggestion. If that is so, one is placed in an awkward position. I do not want to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill, because I shall be charged with trying to deprive the police of one day's rest in seven. I do, therefore, ask him to see if it is not possible to make a compromise, getting 5d. from the Imperial Exchequer and 6d. from the local authorities.
Mr. REMNANT: I should like to supplement one or two things said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher). I think he clearly showed that if the Home Secretary had treated us at the end of last Session in the same way as he has treated us to-night much of the misunderstanding which arose would have been avoided and the Bill would have been passed into law. There is no doubt that at that time party feeling was considerably excited, due to the fact that the Bill was brought forward in the way it was in order to throw odium upon another place. The right hon. Gentleman has been a keen advocate of this all through. In fact, one may say that from the beginning all the sections of the House agreed—and have carried out that agreement with very few exceptions—to treat this as a non-party matter. It is one of the few questions on which we could have had the pleasure of acting on non-party lines. If that had been understood at the end of last year I think the right hon. Gentleman would have agreed that the contention of another place was right, and that if he had consented to take the penny, which is all that is justified, the Bill would have gone through. The right hon. Gentleman for the first time has given us a large number of figures, but they do not quite explain the situation. We are all agreed that we are going to pass the Bill, but we want to know more about this mysterious burden which is to be thrown on the Metropolitan ratepayers. It is only fair we should get fuller information than has been given to us to-night.
In 1907 the whole question of the cost of one day's rest in seven was very carefully gone into, and the Government, at that time, did not show any great keenness to incur the extra expense, which was put at £147,000 as the outside cost. Those who have studied this police question closely were convinced that it could be carried out for a very much less sum, and the discussions which have since taken place must have created in the mind of hon. Members an impression that the police force is not administered in as economical a way as it ought to be, and that much improvement in the administration could be carried out if the right hon. Gentleman had the time and his Department had the determination to undertake it. Now this expenditure of £147,000, or, with the pensions added, of £178,000, has, in great part, been already incurred. The police force are to-day in receipt of two days off every

1649
three weeks, and, deducting that from the original Estimate, I suggest the right hon. Gentleman cannot in any way justify the demand for £230,000—or a penny rate. He told us he wants £82,500 for the further expenses of the police. What are those expenses? Does he include the 1s. 6d. per week—the increase given by his predecessor just before he went out of office?
Mr. McKENNA: Yes.
Mr. REMNANT: But that was subsequent to this promise of one day's rest in seven, which was a pledge by the Government to redress a grievance that everybody admitted should have been redressed long ago. The one day's rest in seven arrangement should have been carried out before any subsequent agreement was given effect to, and for a very small sum it could have been done. The right hon. Gentleman the other day said, that if it had not been for the recruiting necessary for this one day's rest in seven he would have been able to make both ends meet. His words were that "it would not have required an additional penny to enable us to make both ends meet if we discontinued recruiting."
Mr. McKENNA: There was £82,500 short.
Mr. REMNANT: That is not what the right hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. McKENNA: I think it is quite clear from the words I used.
Mr. REMNANT: The words were "making both ends meet if we left off recruiting." The right hon. Gentleman will agree that that does not lend itself to his suggestion.
Mr. McKENNA: I did not say that.
Mr. REMNANT: "It would not have required an additional penny to enable us to make both ends meet if we discontinued recruiting." Those were the right hon. Gentleman's words. I think he is right. But I think his figures go to show that the penny which he could have got last year, and which he will get to-night would be quite sufficient to carry out all the present day requirements or possible requirements without asking for the larger sum of 2d. Why should not the Government pay part of this? It may properly be put down as an Imperial charge.
Mr. HOLT: It is a local charge.
Mr. REMNANT: It is an Imperial charge also, otherwise the hon. Gentleman does
1650
not agree with the present system, under which taxation is borne partly by the Imperial Exchequer and partly by the London ratepayer. Of course, I quite understand hon. Members who live outside the London area wishing to avoid any further burden in the shape of Imperial taxation. But the services rendered to the Imperial taxpayer by the London police are admitted. London already bears a much larger share of taxation than other places, and I submit that this share, which it is now proposed to put upon it, should be borne by the Imperial Exchequer. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman what part of the figures he gave us represents the deficiency on the Superannuation Fund, because, under the Bill we have before us to-day there is no question of repealing the Act of 1890, which does away with setting any limit on the rate to be raised for the purposes of the Superannuation Fund.
Mr. McKENNA: The deficiency in the Superannuation Fund is not included in the £82,500.
Mr. REMNANT: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman contemplates making up that fund out of the 2d. which he asks for to-day?
Mr. McKENNA: There is an independent power of rating in order to make up any deficiency in the Superannuation Fund. It is an unlimited power. I can only charge that rate against the Superannuation Fund. I cannot impose it on this charge.
Mr. REMNANT: And therefore the unfortunate ratepayers of the Metropolis, in addition to the 2d. we are asked for to-night, have the risk of several pennies being added, because in 1911, the deficiency amounted to £284,000. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is the same in the provinces."] This is not a party question. I would sooner sit down than that it should be treated in that spirit.
Mr. McKENNA: I am only quarrelling with the expression "several pennies." It is only a penny and one-eighth, and it will not go up.
Mr. REMNANT: At any rate, we have got considerably more than half way to 2¼d., and we have a huge burden thrown on the Metropolis. The hon. Gentleman opposite said quite truly that he had done his best to give the men this benefit, but that he objected to this huge extra tax

1651
thrown upon West Ham of £11,000, and I have a letter from Lambeth showing that it is another £16,000 there, and in Croydon it is a much larger sum. I believe the ratepayers of the Metropolis are perfectly willing to incur any large expenditure within reason if they get good value for it, but they feel that the Government have rushed this thing through in an unreasonable way, and they will be grateful to hon. Gentlemen who have given us this opportunity of seeing exactly where we are. We do see where we are; we are incurring this huge expenditure, and the Government will not do what all who understand the situation think they ought to do, and that is to bear a share of this huge expenditure. I am going to support the right hon. Gentleman in getting the penny, but I think he would be wise in his own interests and the interest of his Department if he would agree to take the penny to-night. He then might grant a Departmental inquiry into this whole question of local and Imperial taxation. An hon. Friend says "Split the difference." If the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to do that I think he would gain the support of the whole House.
Sir ALBERT SPICER: I want to raise my voice in support of some things which have been said by friends on the other side of the House. I am sure we London Members want to see these men get one day's rest each week as early as possible, but we have fair ground for protesting against London being called upon to pay the whole of the cost. Up to the present moment London has borne a certain proportion, and the Exchequer has borne a certain proportion, and it is surely fair when this extra charge is being incurred that the increased expenditure should be divided between London and the Exchequer in exactly the same proportion. I do not think it is right that London should be called upon to pay the whole of the extra charge, and as a London Member I ask the right hon. Gentleman to see whether he could in some way or other meet us in this matter. We do not want to go back to our constituents and say that our own Government treats London differently to what it treats other parts of the country. All we ask for is fair play between London and the Exchequer, and I do trust he will consider our position.
Mr. CASSEL: I think this discussion, at all events will have convinced the right
1652
hon. Gentleman that this was not a Bill which could have been carried through all its stages so late in the year as the 12th or 13th December without any opportunity for discussion, and that it was not a Bill that ought, in the first instance, to have been brought in on the 6th December and circulated on the 7th December without one word of pre-communication with the local authorities. He has told us to-day that he thinks the local authorities should have an opportunity for discussion. I ask him whether it was fair or reasonable to introduce this Bill without giving some warning to the local authorities of what he was going to do. When he attempts to blame the action of another place let him remember that in another place they were ready to give him one penny if he would give them an opportunity for discussion on the other penny. In answer to that he said he would only give an opportunity for discussion on his own salary. He knows perfectly well that that is a matter which would have to be treated as a party question, and could not be treated otherwise. I wonder if the undertaking to-night that he would give the House an opportunity for discussion of the other penny meant that he would do so on his own salary. I would like to hear what he has to say on that when he comes to reply. Like other Members who have spoken, I am going to support the Second Reading. None of us want to stand in the way of the Metropolitan police having that one day's rest in seven. There are three points the right hon. Gentleman dealt with. First, why did he not make it only the penny? His own figures have only justified the penny. The precedents for eighty years are against increasing the rate by more than a penny at a time. The rate began in 1829 with a limit of 8d., and for forty years remained at 8d., and then was increased to 9d.
I ask him to say whether there is any record in the history of the Metropolitan Police of any occasion upon which the rates have been increased by more than a penny at a time. The figures he gave went to show that, until 1915 at least, not more than a penny would be required. In connection with these figures, when he was dealing with the £82,500 deficiency, was he taking account of what we were going to get back on account of the cost of the strike at Tonypandy, and if so, how much? He told me that at present London was bearing the burden of this expenditure, but I understood that he was going to give back to London an amount equal to that

1653
expenditure; therefore the deficiency would be diminished by that amount. It is almost, impossible for us to deal with these figures on the spur of the moment. I would like to ask him also whether it is right that the local authorities should not have been consulted before there was any increase in the rates and not kept until the last moment when the expenditure had been incurred, and the only question was the making of the rate. Should they not be consulted when it was a question of adding to the expenditure? Then there is this extraordinary position, in which this matter differs from the case of any other local authority. They bear the whole expenditure. Any increase in the expenditure falls upon the local authority, and the local authority has absolutely no control.
An HON. MEMBER: It is the same in the provinces.
Mr. CASSEL: The position in the provinces is vastly different, because there the county councils have control. There is no case in the provinces where the Home Office has control. In this case the Home Office has full control, and I agree that it ought to have control in the special circumstances of the Metropolitan Police; but whilst the Home Office has the whole control, the whole of the expenditure falls upon the locality. It does not matter to the Home Office in the least whether expenditure goes up or not; they have not got to pay a halfpenny of it. Whether it be 1½d. for the Pension Fund or 2d. for the General Police Fund, the Imperial funds do not bear a halfpenny of it. The whole control of that expenditure is with the Home Office, and the whole of the burden falls upon the local authorities. The third point is that at least the same proportions ought to be observed as before, and we ought not to be charged with more than5–9ths of the whole expenditure, which is the amount which was recognised as the proper proportion for the local authorities to bear. If it was the right proportion in the past why is it not the right proportion now, and why should the whole of any additional expenditure now fall entirely upon the local authorities and no part of it upon the Treasury at all? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1910 admitted that this question of the increase of the rates was so serious a matter that it was arresting the whole of local development, and was stopping the local authorities from being able to carry out their own
1654
duties in the matter of housing and sanitation, and he promised that whoever stood at that box in 1911 would deal with the question, and Lord Crewe in another place also promised categorically that whoever stood in that box would deal with the question. Since then a Committee has been appointed, the scope of whose reference is so wide that the probability of their reporting for a considerable time is remote. Why should London have to pay more than the share that it paid in the past because the Government have appointed a Committee which is inquiring into the question of the rating of site values? Why should London be fobbed off with this Committee on a question, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted to be so urgent that it had to be dealt with at once, until a Committee reports on an entirely different question, and not be entitled to receive the same proportion as they did in the past? They suffer in two ways. They suffer not only from the increased expenditure, but also from the diminishing Exchequer contributions.
Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman has observed the general unanimity in all quarters of the House on this question, especially on the part of Members representing London constituencies. I am in the fortunate position of not representing a London constituency and yet, with my knowledge of London figures and the position of affairs as between the London Exchequer and the Imperial Exchequer, I cannot shut my eyes to the force of the contention advanced by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hayes Fishes). I should like to join the general chorus of congratulation to the right hon. Gentleman on his change of tone in this matter. If he had adopted the same conciliatory attitude last December we should not now be engaged in discussing this question. I do not wish to rake up what occurred last December, but I feel that in this matter, after the amount of capital which was made by certain hon. Members opposite, it is impossible for us altogether to let bygones be bygones. We have two great complaints in regard to what occurred last December. In the first place, we complain of the manner in which the whole question was rushed through the House of Commons, and we complain, in the second place, that the London County Council, the only body that is entitled to speak collectively on behalf of the ratepayers of London, was

1655
given absolutely no opportunity even to form an opinion of the Bill before it was passed through its Second Reading stage.
I think we might also complain of the Bill being taken to-night at an unnecessarily early stage in the Session, because, while this is the 29th February, the Bill was only ordered to be printed on the 20th. Therefore the London County Council, the county of Middlesex, and the other authorities inside the Metropolitan Police area have only had nine days in which to discuss the Bill. I think the House ought to regard with a certain amount of jealousy the position of right hon. Gentlemen in this matter. There is no Minister of the Crown who enjoys to the same extent the power of taxing his fellow-subjects by an administrative act of his own without coming to the House for authority on each occasion. I am fully in agreement with the increase of pay which was recently accorded to the Metropolitan Police, but I take exception to the manner in which it is granted by an administrative act on the part of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who is able for that purpose to expend funds which have to be raised by representative bodies who are not consulted in the matter at all. The right hon. Gentleman Las the power of increasing the number of the police within very wide limits indeed; also, by an administrative act and also without consultation with the authorities who have to pay for the increased numbers. In the third place, this increase in numbers and in pay must ultimately react upon the amount of the deficiency of the Pension Fund, and as to the amount of deficiency which the right hon. Gentleman is thus able to place upon the local rates, there is under the Act of 1890 absolutely no limit at all. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the present figure of 1½d. in the pound. I think the correct figure is 1¼d.
Mr. McKENNA: Very likely.
Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: But he said it was not likely to arise.
Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member who was speaking said it was likely to rise to 7d. I said that was quite impossible.
Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: I understand it is to be 1½d. this year, and within a very short time it is going to amount to over £500,000. Anyone who has any knowledge of local finance in London, or in any other great city, knows that
1656
£500,000, although it is a small matter to Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench who are accustomed to deal in tens of millions, is a very serious matter for those engaged in local finance. The point I wish to make is that it is a very serious power that we are entrusting to the right hon. Gentleman, and we ought to make sure that even if we do not force him to consult the local authorities, who are going to stand the racket of these administrative acts, we ought to make sure that he is forced from time to time to come back to this House and receive its authority for his action. In the very illuminating correspondence which took place in the "Times" newspaper between the right hon. Gentleman and Lord Midleton, he suggested that a fitting opportunity for discussing a matter of this sort and enabling the House to keep a check upon him, was when the question of his salary came up for discussion. The question of a Minister's salary is always treated as a matter of confidence by the Government of the day, but quite apart from that, Members who have attempted to speak on these questions of reductions of Ministers' salaries, know that when a large and important Department like the Home Office is concerned, there are 101 questions which occupy the interest of the House. It is quite possible therefore that very important administrative acts of the Home Secretary in relation to matters affecting the Metropolitan area escape criticism on account of greater attention being devoted to the administration of the Factory Acts or other equally important subjects. I cannot help regretting that the right hon. Gentleman, at the end of last December, tried to make party capital out of the rejection of this Bill by the other Chamber. I think the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has furnished to the House today refute altogether his contention of last December that the rejection of the Bill by the other Chamber had stopped the granting of the weekly day of rest to the Metropolitan Police. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman, in the face of the figures furnished to the House this evening, will not attempt to justify the contention he put forward in his correspondence with Lord Midleton. I would point out that he has admitted to-night that the further sum required for the weekly day of rest is only £30,000. Everybody who has studied the figures knows perfectly well that for the current financial years that matter was assured, and that, as other Ministers have admitted, really the great part of the extra

1657
taxing power was required for wholly different purposes. I think under those circumstances the right hon. Gentleman was hardly justified in informing Lord Midleton that he and those who supported him must bear the full responsibility of deferring the grant of a further instalment of the weekly rest day. I think that is a most unjustifiable statement. The motive that prompted the right hon. Gentleman to try to make party capital out of the municipal grievance in this matter is still more unjustifiable.
10.0 P.M.
I would point out also that the right hon. Gentleman is departing from precedent and the promises made by his distinguished predecessor. The London County Council have on different occasions approached the Home Office and invited that Department to consult them in regard to the administration of the Metropolitan Police, and to keep them informed as to the details of expenditure. The present Lord Gladstone, who occupied the position which is now occupied by the right hon. Gentleman recognised our claim—our right to be so consulted and informed, and I regret that the right hon. Gentleman did not see his way prior to the introduction of this Bill to carry out Lord Gladstone's undertaking in this matter and to consult the London County Council, who represent the ratepayers, and who are responsible to them in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman, in his calculations, fully admitted that the extra penny which another place was prepared to accord him last December is fully sufficient for two years. He has furnished an elaborate calculation as to what may happen in the year 1914–15. I submit that he cannot, in the face of what has been said by the Minister in charge of the Bill in another place, take up that standpoint to-night. I should like to put to the House a very short passage from a speech by Lord Ashby St. Ledgers. He stated that a Departmental Committee had been appointed to go into the whole question of the readjustment of local taxation, and that the Committee is sitting at the present time. I think, therefore, that the provisions of this Bill may fairly be regarded as being temporary and provisional, and that this extra rating power was only asked by the Government last December to enable them to tide over that period until the whole question of local and Imperial taxation had been properly dealt with on the recommendation of the Royal Commission.
1658
In conclusion, I should only like to say that I do not altogether agree with my hon. Friend who preceded me. He said that he is prepared to maintain the proportion of five-ninths as the proper basis on which to divide expenditure between the Imperial Exchequer and the local authority. I would like to remind the House that the Royal Commission, so far as the rest of the country is concerned, have suggested a basis of half and half. If it is right and proper that the Imperial Exchequer should bear 50 per cent. of the cost of the police in country districts, and in other cities, surely in London they ought to bear a still larger proportion, because the Metropolitan Police perform a very large proportion of functions which are of a national and not of a municipal character. I would remind the House that per head of the population in London the police administration costs 7s. 9d. as compared with an average of 3s. per head of the population in the rest of the country. London is quite prepared to pay an additional sum for the privilege of being the Imperial Capital, but I think there are bounds to the satisfaction of that pride. I hope, when the right hon. Gentleman replies he will see his way to make some concession, seeing that both sides of the House are supporting the principle of the Bill, and that he will reduce the figure from 2d. to 1d., and come to the House again next year if it is necessary to raise an additional sum.
Mr. CHANCELLOR: I am able to agree with nearly everything that has fallen from the hon. Members who have spoken on the other side of the House. The Metropolitan Police is unique in that it exercises functions over an area, the inhabitants of which have nothing to do with the number engaged, the amount paid, or the administration of the force in any way whatever. Many of their functions are not local in any sense. They are an Imperial far more than a local force. The numbers are also maintained at a figure very much greater than is necessary for local purposes, and a margin is kept up which enables them to be drawn upon for service in other parts of the country. The reason why the cost is so great is because the numbers are larger than would otherwise be required. We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman that the whole cost of the duties performed outside their area by the Metropolitan Police is paid from outside sources. Is that true? I am told that in connection

1659
with the Investiture of the Prince of Wales at Carnarvon an expense of over £2,000 was incurred which was to be charged against the Carnarvon County Council, but that the charge was revised and reduced to the sum of £53. I presume, therefore, that the balance of that will have to come out of the pocket of the ratepayers of London, or I should like to understand from what source it will be derived.
The charge for the paying of the police in London is raised without any consultation of the people of London. They have no means whatever of fixing any of the conditions under which the Metropolitan Police perform their duties. They are taxed without being represented, and they are rated by Imperial authority, so that my hon. Friend from Liverpool, who is protesting against the protests of the London Members, has as much to do with the levying of this rate, but not the paying of it, as we who live in London. I sincerely hope that the Home Secretary may give us an assurance that even if he gets this Bill through in its present form some consideration will be made in future increases of the charge in London, especially seeing that London at present is worse treated than any other part of the country in regard to the assigned revenues. A few years ago there was a margin of something like half-a-million available for reduction of the London rates. That has entirely disappeared, not through extravagence in the administration of London, but through the increasing charges due to legislation proposed by both sides of the House from time to time, which has eaten up the whole of that balance. To-day the proportion of local expenditure borne by the National Exchequer in London is only about 15 per cent. of the whole, whereas county boroughs and counties throughout the country for the most part receive from 20 to, I think, 48 per cent. of their total expenditure from Imperial resources.
Considering the heavy burden of rates which falls, especially in some parts of London, like the part which I represent myself, I do think that we ought to have more consideration from the Government, whichever side is in power, than we have enjoyed in the past, and when these extra expenditures are incurred, expenditures with which we have every sympathy—because I consider that the granting of one day's rest has been far too long delayed—I think that, considering that the force is really not a local force, and that it per-
1660
forms Imperial rather than local functions, the whole of this additional expenditure should be met by a Vote on the Estimate, and not by an increase of the rates at all. Had that been done there would have been no necessity for a Bill of this kind. The Home Secretary would have been able to increase this force without consulting the people of London, and without raising any protest from them, to a sufficient number of men to enable him to give a day of rest and to get this matter through even without public discussion. I am glad, however, that the discussion has taken place, and I hope that the Government will realise that all the Members for London, on whatever side they sit in this House, think that London should be considered in regard to questions of rating, and the readjustment of local and Imperial taxation, about which an inquiry is now being made. The question is long over ripe for settlement, and we hope that the report will very soon come forward so that some proposal to readjust these burdens more fairly than in the past will come before the House.
Mr. DICKINSON: I congratulate my hon. Friends opposite on the skill which they have shown in running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. I hope that hon. Member's who have been expressing their anxiety that this Bill should pass, will not, if this Bill passes, appeal to the ratepayers of London for a verdict against the Government on the score of the expense that is put upon the rates. I listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel), and can point out to him a way in which this difficulty—for it is a difficulty—can well be met. He took exception to the fact that this proposal to put an additional charge upon the ratepayers was made by an authority that did not represent the ratepayers. That is perfectly true, and if he will join with us in demanding a remedy by giving the control of the police to the ratepayers of London, I can assure him that he will find us his most active supporters, and if the county council now even, as my hon. Friends have a majority on the council, will make such a suggestion as that, I believe it will not be impossible to carry it through. I take exception to the provisions of the Bill on one point only. I regret that my right hon. Friend has thought it necessary to ask for 2d. instead of 1d. Upon his own showing, 1d. is sufficient for the immediate necessities of the case, for at any rate, two or three years,

1661
and in view of the fact that the whole of this question of local taxation is now before Parliament, and must be reported upon in due course within a limited period from now, I regret very much that he should have asked the House to stereotype this 2d. on the local rates. There is no necessity for that extra 1d. and it may well be that when this question has been inquired into this House will find that it it not fair to put the second 1d. on the rates, and I think that the question ought not to be prejudged on this occasion.
I think that we shall be able to show that London Members who have claimed some special consideration for London have a case, but I do not think that this is the time and the moment at which this case can be settled. There are very grave difficulties in the fact of any such settlement as is suggested by my hon. Friend even on this side of the House at this moment, because precisely the same condition appears to apply to the provinces as applies to London. Prior to 1888 the cost of the police was met by the Government and by the local authorities. In the provinces the Government paid half the cost of the pay and clothing. In London the Government paid four-ninths of the total cost. That system was done away with altogether in 1888, and a system of assigned revenues took its place, and those assigned revenues were given to the local authorities. In every case the increase in the cost has had to fall upon local rates, and that can only be remedied by a full treatment of the whole case, and I do not very well see how we can justify any special treatment at this moment, inasmuch as even on this case of Sunday rest the local authorities in the rest of the country are, of course, paying the extra expenses necessary for that purpose; but that makes it all the more important that we should press upon the Government to accelerate the settlement of this question. I think it is really a disgrace, both to the last Government and to this Government, that this question was not settled long ago. When I was a member of the Progressive majority in the county council, and when Members opposite were sitting on these benches, I recollect that we prepared very lengthy reports, which were presented by deputations to Ministers, showing the iniquities which resulted from the system, and claimed that there should be a revision of that system. The circumstances are now reversed. We have now a Moderate county council badgering the Liberal Government to do the same thing. It has
1662
been far too long postponed, and I do sincerely trust that in the course of the next year or two we shall have this great question settled, and then these minor issues will, of course, be settled also. In regard to the day's rest, I think it can be granted for a much smaller amount than that which has been proposed. I earnestly suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the exigencies of the case can be perfectly well met with a penny rate, and the question of a further rate could be postponed until this larger inquiry has taken place—an inquiry which I feel convinced, after it has been held, will show that Londoners have a very much larger claim to consideration than some of my hon. Friends believe.
Mr. WALTER LONG: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken will forgive my saying that on this occasion, with all his great knowledge of this subject, he has never intervened with less success than he did to-night in endeavouring to show that hon. Members on this side of the House have desired to make a party attack. I have seen him unfortunate on previous occasions, but I have never seen him more unfortunate than he was to-night, because he was apparently oblivious of the fact that statements have been made, by no means on one side of the House, indicating that, with the exception of himself and one other speaker, every Member on his own side expressed their agreement with the views of my hon. Friends. Why on earth the hon. Gentleman thought it necessary to say that my hon. Friends were engaged in baiting the Home Secretary while they were establishing a good case passed my comprehension. If we had wanted to make a party attack, not only could we have easily done so, but we would have been abundantly justified in doing so. This Debate has lasted since half-past eight o'clock, an hour and three-quarters, not a very long time for the discussion of a question of vital importance not only to London, but to the taxpayers of the country. It is a question on which the ratepayers of the provinces have a right to hold their own views. On this occasion the Home Secretary has been very chastened in his manner. He adopted a most conciliatory attitude towards the Opposition, and he based his case on facts and figures to which we all listened with attention. But that was not his attitude at the end of last year. Hon. Gentlemen opposite really cannot be allowed always at their own pleasure to enjoy attacking us, and

1663
then expect us to abstain when our turn comes. Last winter the Home Secretary not only attacked the action which was taken in another place on this Bill, but he asserted that it was due to those who belong to the party with which I have the honour to be associated that the police day's rest could not be carried. The statement is shown to be absolutely without foundation by the Home Secretary's own speech to-night, and if we had desired to make a party attack he could not have made a better case nor one which more fully justified us.
The Home Secretary found fault with us for the loss of this Bill, but the House of Lords contains something like twenty-five or thirty Noble Lords who are Members of his party, and yet only nine of those were present when this Bill was discussed. Therefore, for the actual loss, not the party to which I belong, not even the private Peers of the House of Lords, but the Members of the Government themselves are alone responsible. But apart altogether from the actual causes of the Vote in another place, what are the facts as to the presentation of the Bill then and now? We have had a Debate of little over an hour and three-quarters, and nobody who has taken part in it will deny that it has been a Debate conducted on a very high level throughout, and, with the exception of the hon. Gentleman who preceded me, there has not been a suggestion of party bias. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen may say "Oh!" but surely they are not so faint-hearted as to cheer their hon. Friend when he attacked us and desire that we should not hit back. I am justified in saying that, with that exception, every speech has been on a high level. I do not hesitate to say that if we had time at our disposal it could be well occupied by hon. Members representing not only the Metropolis, but the provinces in dealing with this question. I venture to say that out of our Debate from amongst other facts there is one prominent fact, and that is that unless the House of Commons wakes up and pays a little more attention to these matters they will pass completely from outside the control of the House. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dickinson), after his opening sentence, thought it necessary to suggest to the Government that they are taking more money than they want. I entirely agree. He suggested that they should limit the demand to what the Home Secretary has shown he really wants—
1664
namely a penny. We are asked to concede the extra amount on the assurance, which. I am quite sure the Home Secretary would rigidly adhere to, that it would not be taken without appealing to the House of Commons and giving the House the opportunity of discussing it. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and if we give the Home Secretary now the money he actually requires and retain our control over the rest, we shall be securing to the House of Commons not only the opportunity for discussion, but for proper discussion, because the Government will not be able to get the money unless the House is given full time for discussion. It is not to be thought that I am imputing bad faith, to the Government. I am fully aware of the difficulties under which they are placed in those matters from time to time and the pressure made upon them, and it is almost inevitable sometimes that the House of Commons should be treated as it is being treated to-night, but I venture to say that the Government, owing to the exigencies, no doubt, of public business, are putting what I may call unfair pressure on the House of Commons to-night.
We are told we must have this Bill, because without it we cannot give the police one day's rest in seven, and because we cannot open recruiting, which is necessary for them to have the holiday. That is the position as put to us, and while every speaker who has taken part in the Debate has shown that this demand by the Government ought not to be conceded, and would not be conceded, as it is made if the House were free to deal with the question as it would like to do. Therefore, I say that to-night we have an example of the difficulties under which this House is often confronted, even when the Government is doing their best to keep their promise. We have got two and a half hours for discussion which would justify a whole sitting of the House. There is something more than that. Some hon. Gentlemen who have spoken touched very lightly upon the London difficulty, but it really is not only a London question. What is it we are now doing? We are giving the Home Secretary power to levy this rate, although it is admitted in every quarter of the House that London is being unfairly treated. It is true that one or two Members interjected remarks which I understood were intended to imply dissent, and I was surprised to hear them. I did not know that anybody doubted that London has a special burden and injustice of its own. I am amazed

1665
that anybody who has studied the question oven in the smallest degree should deny that that is so. Anybody who has gone back to the old days of the local taxation Debates must be familiar with the fact that it was found impossible in 1888 and 1878 to deal with this question of local taxation in any way by which any measure of reasonable justice was done to London.
In 1888 the injustice to London was not denied in any quarter, and the injustice then inflicted owing to the fact that we could not find a system that would treat London with real fairness has been growing ever since, not through the fault of either Government, or of either party, but owing to two simple facts: first, that the expenditure that London is called upon to incur is steadily increasing, and, secondly, that the contributions out of the Exchequer Grant fail to meet this expenditure in a greater degree in London than in any other part of the United Kingdom. It is not a question of party; it is not a question between those who advocate the taxation of realty and those who advocate the taxation of personalty; it is not a question between the town ratepayers as against the country ratepayer. It is the fact which has been established on the floor of this House times without number, that the London grievance is a real one, and is greater than that to be found in the rest of the country. Are those who deny that prepared to ignore the fact that London contains the Parliament Houses, the great centres of trade and commerce, and the Royal Palaces? Moreover, in connection with the Parliament Houses, those who are responsible for London have to look after hon. Members themselves, and for aught I know their presence in London may be a cause of anxiety to the Home Secretary and make it necessary for him to exercise his powers. At all events, London stands in a position different from that of any other city in the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] The hon. Gentleman who denies that statement will not deny that, great though Liverpool is, and I should be the last to suggest that Liverpool is not one of the greatest cities in the country, it does not possess Parliament Houses or Royal Palaces. Nobody can make any comparison between the conditions in the Metropolis and the conditions in any of our municipalities. The Metropolitan Police have to be a much larger force in proportion to the population than is the case elsewhere because of these special circumstances.
1666
In spite of the fact that a great majority accede to the views which I have put forward, we have the demand made that we should add to this burden. We have been told that there is a Departmental Committee. I have probably taken part in more Debates on local taxation than any other Member of the House, and I would assure hon. Members that if they allow this occasion to pass without any assurance from the Government that something will be done to arrest the growth of the burdens in connection with local taxation, the time would come when they will be unable to overtake the task, and it will be impossible to secure justice for our local authorities. Each time the same statement is made: "We are going to add this to-day; but the time will come when we shall have more money or greater leisure, and we shall then be able to put the matter right."
If the House goes on accepting these views whenever they are put forward, then with the House itself must rest the responsibility. It is no use hon. Members going to their constituents and saying that they are unjustly burdened, and that Parliament ought to relieve them. We do not propose—nobody, so far as I know, proposes—to offer any objection to this Bill. We cannot do it. I confess honestly if I could I would, because I believe a great injustice is being done to London. I believe if the circumstances are as urgent as they are that a better bargain ought to have been made. The Home Secretary can still make a better bargain. He could reduce the amount he is asking for from 2d. to 1d. Surely he will, in justice to London and to those who represent London here, in his reply tell us that he will reconsider the matter, and will endeavour to make such readjustment as will, at all events, maintain the ratio which has hitherto existed, and not take another step in the wrong direction by adding disproportionately to the burden. I ask him to make this concession, for I assure him—I think he realises it himself—that these questions are becoming graver and graver every day so far as London is concerned, and it is impossible much longer to postpone the time when the people of London will demand justice at the hands of this House.
Mr. RADFORD: I rise rather to join in the appeal to His Majesty's Government to observe the ratio which at present exists in the contributions of the Imperial Government and the local authorities. The hon. Gentleman the Member for St.

1667
Pancras has said that the delay in dealing with the readjustment of local and Imperial burdens in this matter is a disgrace to the Government and was a disgrace to the late Government. My experience of Parliament—not very long, perhaps—leads me to fear that this thing may continue to be a disgrace to the present Government, and also to the next Government. Meanwhile I think it is not untimely to appeal to the Government. Recently the Legislature, under the influence of a virtuous impulse, decided that the police should be entitled to one day's rest in seven. That was not only a virtuous act, but a wise one. It will increase the efficiency and the alacrity of the Metropolitan Police, and two parties, the Imperial Government and the local authorities, will benefit by that. I should like to think that that virtuous impulse is not confined to the Legislature, but is shared by the Government, and that when it conies to sharing the expense, that the Government will share it with the local authorities. I will not go into the question as to whether the proportion should be four-ninths or five-ninths. I am inclined to think, as a representative of London, that London already pays more than her share in respect of this particular burden. London's present rate has been accepted for many years, and I have heard no reason whatever why that ratio should now be disturbed or why His Majesty's Government, which certainly shares in the improvement which will be conferred by this beneficial measure upon the Imperial police, should entirely evade any responsibility for the increased cost and shelve the whole burden upon the people of London.
Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I do not rise with the intention of opposing the demand made by London Members to limit the increased rate to a 1d., but I rise for the purpose of pointing out the very great inconsistency with which they plead their case. It is said, political memories are proverbially short. Only a year ago one hon. Member opposite passed through this House, and also through the other House, a measure asking the provincial authorities to give one day's rest in seven to the police. We all supported it, but the difference between that measure and the one now proposed by the Home Secretary is this: There was no limit in the rate with regard to any cost that may be incurred in giving that boon to the provincial police. I have looked into the
1668
Act, and I do not find any provisions in it either for any assistance on the part of the Government towards the increased charge, nor do I find any limitation of the rate which will have to be raised by the local authorities, whether it is to be 1d., 2d., or 3d. I say if hon. Gentlemen are so very anxious to limit the rate for London to 1d., surely it should be fair for the provincial ratepayers also to have their rate limited to 1d.
Mr. REMNANT: I should be quite prepared to limit it.
Mr. J. SAMUEL: I understand the hon. Member to object to a probable increase beyond 1d. for London, but in his own measure there is no limitation of any kind. The other point is that the local provincial authorities, county councils, and borough councils had no say in the matter any more than the borough councils of London have. The provincial ratepayers have suffered in the same way as the London ratepayers have, and it is immaterial if a man in London has to pay 6s., 7s., or 10s. in the £ if a man in the provinces has also to pay 6s. or 7s. or 10s. in the £. There ought to be the same treatment for men in the provinces as for the London ratepayers. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand (Mr. Long) made the point that the House of Lords rejected this measure in the general interests of the ratepayers of London. If it was right for the House of Lords to reject this measure with a limitation of 2d. for London, why is it they did not reject a measure dealing with the provinces without any limitation whatever? There is no limitation, and as regards the other charge which has been made about the charging of the police, the provinces are in the same position. In the case of the county councils and the borough councils who are responsible for the police, if there happens to be a deficiency in the Pension Fund it must come on the rates. They have the same troubles and exactly the same charges as you have in London, and I ask the Home Secretary that any consideration or concessions which are made to the London ratepayers must also be made to the provincial ratepayers under this special Act. The provincial ratepayers have no option in this matter. I have looked into the Act, and I find that if they decline to put it into operation within four years the Government can, by Order in Council, compel every one of the local authorities to put the provision for one day's rest in seven

1669
into operation. I believe the provincial councils intend to put this law into force. I know complaints have been made about the excessive charges, but they are prepared even to meet those charges. When I see the demand made to-night almost universally by every London Member asking the Government to make this concession, and when we remember that in 1910 the same London Members placed these charges upon the local authorities, I contend that it is inconsistent.
Mr. NIELD: May I point out to the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. J. Samuel) that there is a difference in this matter, because in the case of the provinces the control of the police is direct?
Mr. J. SAMUEL: It is not direct under this particular Act.
Mr. NIELD: The total cost of the police is under the control of the administrators of the county, but in the Metropolitan Police area, although I represent a portion of it, I have not the privileges of the county of London, although I have to bear the enormous cost of housing a large population which gets its living in London. That is a very serious matter for the outlying districts of Middlesex, for we have to deal with what are called the dormitories of London. By the cost of the Poor Law and education, which follow a population brought; away from London by cheap trains and other means, abnormal charges are put upon us, and any accession of charges such as these is a very serious matter. The county council of Middlesex have a special grievance in regard to the Exchequer contribution. The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware of the case which we are pressing upon the Home Office as to the difficulties with which counties have to contend in the matter of that contribution, which is diminishing, while the burdens of the county are increasing, by reason of the passing of the population from London into the county of Middlesex. As we have no control over the expenditure upon the police, which is controlled by the central authority here, and as we have absolutely no voice at all in determining what these rates should be, I join in the chorus requesting the Government that they will indeed put some limit upon these burdens, which are becoming intolerable.
Mr. LANSBURY: I wish to join in the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. This is not a question of the House compelling
1670
an authority to do a certain thing, but it is really that the House wishes to give one day's rest in seven to the Metropolitan and other police throughout the country. Our contention is that the Government, which bears a share of the total cost of the Metropolitan Police, is not bearing its fair share of the cost of this one day's rest in seven.
Mr. J. SAMUEL: It is the same as in the provinces.
Mr. LANSBURY: The police in the provinces are under your control, and the Imperial Government do not pay a portion of the cost.
Mr. J. SAMUEL: Yes, they do.
Mr. LANSBURY: Not in the same way as it is done in London. Why is it that most people think it is a perfectly legitimate arrangement that the police in London should be controlled by the central authority, and that the central authority should pay a certain amount of the cost? It is because London is the capital of the Empire, has this institution, and has, I will say incidentally, suffragette raids which cost a good deal of money. The Metropolitan Police is for the benefit of the country, as well as for London. Great crowds of more or less desirable people are attracted to the Metropolis, with the result that we have to keep a larger number of police than would otherwise be necessary. Indeed, in these days we have to keep sufficient to be able to send down men to strike areas to be used in all kinds of fashion. We all wish to give the police one day's rest in seven—we think it ought to have been given years ago—and all we want the Government is to pay their fair share. The case of the provinces is not at all on all fours with London. I hope the Home Secretary will tell us they are going to reconsider the matter, and will at least help London out in this matter. I come from a district where the rates often come to 12s. in the £. If you put another penny on you will not be very popular.
Mr. McKENNA: After listening to the whole of the Debate, the one fact obvious is that nobody likes this Bill Everybody has recognised that either this or some other Bill is inevitable, but everybody naturally objects to pay. There are a good many hon. Members in the House now who were not here when I moved the Second Reading, and I should like it to be clearly understood that I asked only for a limit of 2d. and undertook not to raise more than

1671
the 1d. which is immediately required without giving the House an opportunity of discussing the propriety of imposing an additional rate.
Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: Only on the Vote on your salary.
Mr. McKENNA: I offered the Debate upon my salary because it was the only offer I could give with certainty, but, as the House knows, there are many occasions on which the question of the police rate can be discussed and, certainly, if the representatives on the other side were to ask the Patronage Secretary to put the Police Vote down he would certainly do it.
Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: The right hon. Gentleman would make assurance doubly sure if he only took 1d. this year, and came for the extra 1d. when he wanted it.
Mr. McKENNA: That is just the point. I require the penny this year, and in 1914–15 I stated I should require practically the penny—it would be rather more—but in making the statement, I have allowed nothing at all for emergencies and nothing for a decline in the Local Taxation Account. Several hon. Members who spoke from that side have admitted that a decline in the local taxation for police purposes is highly probable; not that the Local Taxation Account itself will decline, but other charges on it will increase, and there will be a lesser amount available for the police rate. I shall require immediately one penny without allowing anything for exceptional emergencies or for the decline in the Local Taxation Account available to meet the police rate, and in 1914–15 one penny will not quite cover our requirements.
Mr. HAYES FISHER: The right hon. Gentleman said he would actually want less than one penny.
Mr. McKENNA: Then I was wrong, I shall require £5,000 more than the penny rate. In 1914 the deficiency will be £240,000, or just over a penny rate. These are the best estimates I am able to give. Under these circumstances, would it be reasonable for me to ask for less than a twopenny rate, although I hope it will not be required? I have given an undertaking that I will not take it except under the condition that the House shall have an opportunity of discussing it. But why should I go through all the necessary proceedings
1672
for another Bill? A great deal has been, said about the peculiarly harsh treatment of London with regard to the police. I sympathise with London. I admit London has a grievance in regard to the local taxation contribution, which is on quite a different footing to the police. In regard to the police London receives special treatment. She gets a special Exchequer Grant of £100,000, because London has special Imperial charges. In addition to that the Government offices are in London; they are guarded by the police at the cost of the State, because these are peculiarly Imperial charges. It is alleged that London has to maintain an additional number of police in order to supply the requirements of Tonypandy and elsewhere. That is a complete delusion. The number of police in London is determined by the requirements of the Metropolis. From time to time when there is any special demand it lends its police to neighbouring counties. That is also done by Birmingham, Liverpool, Glasgow, and other great cities, and the supposition that London keeps up a vast supply of men for the purposes of the rest of the community is a complete mistake. As a matter of fact, when London does lend its men, it does not lose money; it makes money.
Mr. W. THORNE: Then it would pay to lend them regularly?
Mr. McKENNA: We have not an adequate supply of men at all times to lend them regularly. The pay and allowance of the men sent to Tonypandy would amount to £20,000, but London will not pay that £20,000. That will now come from the Exchequer, and London will gain that £20,000.
Mr. CASSEL: Will the deficiency of £82,500 be that amount less?
Mr. McKENNA: The £82,500 will have nothing to do with it. But for this £20,000 it would be £102,500.
Mr. REMNANT: When London lends men to places outside do they get the same rate of pay as in Tonypandy? Was that not a special case?
Mr. McKENNA: They would get the ordinary London pay if they were in London, and that would be borne by the London ratepayer, but when the men are loaned to another place London is relieved of that charge, because the place to which they are lent bears the charge. In the case of Tonypandy, London will actually gain

1673
£20,000 when the money has been paid by the Exchequer. London, in the first instance, bears the ordinary charge for the pay and allowances of the force, but when the police are lent out these ordinary charges are repaid, and that will be done in the present case. I hope I have said enough to satisfy hon. Members.
Mr. W. THORNE: Split the difference—that is what we want.
Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to the whole circumstances of the Exchequer contribution. There was a time when the Treasury undertook to pay four-ninths of the cost of the London police and at the same time, as an hon. Gentleman opposite has pointed out, the Treasury undertook to pay one-half of the pay and clothing expenses of the provincial police. That system has long since vanished. In lieu of that liability the Exchequer has handed over to the local authorities of the country certain revenues, and out of these revenues the local authorities, and London alike, pay a part of the cost of the police. There is no continuing liability on the Treasury to pay four-ninths of the cost of the police of London, which has been paid by receiving these revenues, but these revenues are now unfortunately exhausted. The various charges allocated to these revenues have exhausted the whole of the amount, and, so far from there being a surplus to go to London in relief of the local rates, there is nothing left to draw upon in order to relieve the London ratepayer of the additional charge for the London police. I hope I have said enough to recommend the Bill, and I trust the House will now give it a Second Reading.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
Ordered, "That the Committee of Public Accounts do consist of Fifteen Members:
Ordered, That Sir Robert Balfour, Mr. Barton, Mr. Brady, Sir Hildred Carlile, Mr. Courthope, Mr. Hazleton, Mr. Higham, Sir Clement Hill, Captain Jessel, Mr. Leif Jones, Earl of Kerry, Mr. Master-man, Mr. Sidney Robinson, Colonel Wil-
1674
liams, and Mr. Tyson Wilson be Members of the said Committee:
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
Ordered, That Five be the quorum."—[Master of Elibank.]

COAL STRIKE.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information to give us in regard to the coal strike?
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD Of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The Prime Minister with the colleagues associated with him, had further conferences to-day with the representatives of the Coalowners' and the representatives of the Miners' Federation respectively. Further conferences will take place to-morrow. The Prime Minister's speech to the miners' conference has been issued to the Press this evening, and will appear to-morrow morning. I do not think I can at the present moment usefully add anything to the information given to the House last night.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Might I not ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not give us, if there is anything new, the substance of what will appear in the papers to-morrow?
Mr. BUXTON: I have already given the House practically the substance of what will appear in the papers to-morrow. It is a mere recital of the conferences, the times they took place, and, I think, the respective members present, with the Prime Minister's speech to the miners' conference. I am sure that the House will not expect me to repeat the Prime Minister's speech to them now, which will appear to-morrow morning. Really there is nothing in the official report issued to the Press with the exception of the Prime Minister's speech.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Can you not give the substance of it to show if there is anything new?
Mr. BUXTON: I think the right hon. Gentleman can hardly press me to give the substance of the Prime Minister's speech. It is of the utmost importance, and to give a summary of it might give a wrong impression. I am keeping nothing back. The speech will appear to-morrow morning, and you will easily understand it would hardly do—that is our opinion at present—to state what occurred at these private conferences.
Mr. BONAR LAW: I only wish to say that, in a crisis like this, I do not press for anything which the right hon. Gentleman is unable to give. All I desire is to know if there is any substantial change in the situation brought forward in the Prime Minister's speech. We should have been glad to have it, if it was possible to give it to us to-night.
Mr. BUXTON: The right hon. Gentleman asks me to give the substance of the Prime Minister's speech. I would really prefer to leave it over for hon. Members to read the whole of the speech. There is one matter which I should like to refer to and which escaped my memory, and that is that the coalowners of Northumberland have accepted the proposals of the Government.
Adjourned at Five minutes after Eleven o'clock.