Commons Sitting of 23 July 1912

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

  STANDING ORDERS AMENDED.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley)moved certain Amendments to the Standing Orders relating to private business.
  In Standing Order 26 b.—(Deposit in case of Bill affecting banks, etc., of river in Scotland or Ireland.) To leave out the words, "in Scotland or Ireland."
  Mr. WHITLEY: Perhaps I may be allowed to state the effect of this and certain subsequent proposed alterations. There are only two points involved. The first one relating to Standing Order 26 b is to assimilate the rule in England and Wales to that at present existing in Scotland and Ireland, namely, that where any Bill proposes any work on the banks of a river the plans shall be submitted to the Conservators of that river, if there are any. The other proposed Amendments are all part of the one proposal, the object of which is to facilitate the consideration of private Bills in the early part of the Session in order that Members may not be called upon for their services so much in the months of June and July. It is done in this way: by assimilating the procedure on company Bills to that on other Bills and putting all the Bills on one level, namely, that what are called the Wharncliffe Standing Orders will have to be complied with before the Bill comes before the Committee, instead of as now, before it comes before the House on Second Reading.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: Sub-section (2), leave out the word "or" ["or if the river is in Ireland"].
  Sub-section (3), leave out the word "and" ["and if there be a Board"].
  Standing Order 62.—(Meeting of Proprietors in case of certain Bills originating in this House). Leave out the words,
  950
  "within five weeks of the date on which the petition for the same was indorsed by the Examiner."
  Standing Order 63.—(Meeting of subscribers of companies, etc., in case of certain Bills originating in this House.) Leave out the words, "within five weeks of the date on which the petition for the same was indorsed by the Examiner."
  Standing Order 67.—(Provision as to Railway Bills charging payments on local rate in Ireland.) Leave out the words, "within five weeks of the date on which the petition for the same was indorsed by the Examiner."
  Standing Order 197.—(Bill deemed to be read a first time.) Leave out the words, "or referred to the Examiners, as the case may be."
  Standing Order 204.—(Time between First and Second Reading.) Leave out the words, "unless any such Private Bill has been referred … as the case may be."
  Standing Order 208.—(Private Bills to stand referred to Committee of Selection, General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills and Divorce.) At end thereof to add the words, "Provided that a Bill which is referred to the Examiners after Second Reading shall not be committed until the Examiners have reported that any Standing Orders not previously inquired into are not applicable thereto, or that any such Standing Orders as may be applicable have been complied with, or the Standing Orders not having been complied with, the Select Committee on Standing Orders have resolved that such Standing Orders should be dispensed with, and the House has agreed with the Select Committee in such Resolution."
  Standing Order 211.—(Time between Second Reading and Committee.) Leave out the words, "Second Reading" ["Second Reading of every Private Bill"], and insert instead thereof the word "Committal."
  Leave out the words "Second Reading" ["between the Second Reading and the Committee"], and insert instead thereof the word "Committal."
  Mr. WHITLEY: I beg to move, "That Standing Orders 220 (Lords Amendments to be printed prior to consideration, etc.), and 246 (Notice of consideration of Lords Amendments) be suspended until the Adjournment of the House for the Autumn Recess:
  "That, as regards Private Bills returned by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments shall be considered on the day on which the House shall next sit:
  "That, when it is intended to propose any Amendments thereto, notice of such Amendments shall be given at the Private Bill Office on the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the Lords."
  This Motion is usual at this period of the Session to enable unopposed private Bills to have rather more rapid progress, and obtain the Royal Assent before the Recess.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I just ask the right hon. Gentleman as to the word "shall" in the Amendment? Does it make it obligatory to consider the Amendment on the day on which the House shall next sit, or does it only empower the House to do so: it looks obligatory?
  Mr. WHITLEY: If it is set down and no objection is taken it will go forward: if any hon. Member takes objection, the consideration will be deferred.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That the Standing Orders, as amended, be printed.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Lanark County Tramways Bill,
  Resolved, "That, in the case of the Lanark County Tramways Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 82, 211, and 237 be suspended, and that the Committee on the Bill have leave to sit and proceed upon Thursday."—[Mr. Whitley.]
  Llanelly Rural District Water Bill [Lords],
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  London Trust Company Bill [Lords],
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Midland Railway (London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Purchase) Bill [Lords],
  As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
  West Riding of Yorkshire Asylums Bill [Lords] (by Order),
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday.
  Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords],
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  Bordon and District Gas Bill [Lords],
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
  Report [17th July] to be printed.
  Kent and Bela Fisheries Provisional Order Bill,
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  Nottingham Mechanics Institution Bill [Lords],
  Ericht Water and Electric Power Bill [Lords],
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
  Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill, Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill, without Amendment:—
  Amendments to—
  Swanage Gas and Water Bill [Lords],
  York United Gas Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Arbroath Corporation Gas." [Arbroath Corporation Gas Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 18S2 to 1909, relating to certain burghs and parishes in the counties of Linlithgow, Stirling, and Dunbarton." [Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [Lords.]

  ARBROATH CORPORATION GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
  Ordered (under Section 7 of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 287.]
  TAXES AND IMPOSTS.
  Return ordered "showing (1) the rates of Duties, Taxes, or Imposts collected by Imperial officers; (2) the quantities or amounts taxed; (3) the gross receipts derived from each duty; and (4) the net receipts and appropriations thereof in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1912; and (1) the aggregate gross receipts derived from all such Duties, Taxes, or Imposts, under the principal heads of revenue; (2) the aggregate net receipts; (3) the charges of collection; and (4) the produce after deducting these charges in each of the ten years ending the 31st day of March, 1912; and Notes to show any changes in the Taxes, Duties, or Imposts, consequent upon the acceptance of the Budget proposals of 1912 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 262, of Session 1911)."—[Sir Daniel Goddard.]
  INDENTURED LABOURERS (CROWN COLONIES).
  Address for Return "showing the number of Complaints since January, 1906, made by employers of labour in British Crown Colonies against Indentured Labourers, and the number of convictions for offences against the labour laws in such Colonies during the same period, and the total number of sentences under those laws which result in hard labour or in the extension of the indentured period of the immigrant."—[Mr. Douglas Hall.]

  EDUCATION (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration Tomorrow, and to be printed.

  CRIMINAL AND JUDICIAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented of Criminal and Judicial Statistics of Ireland for the year 1911. Part II. Civil Statistics [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Copy presented of Return of Advances under the Irish Land Purchase Acts during the month of May, 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
  Copy presented of Forty-first Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1911–12. Part II., (a) Public Health and Local Administration; (b) County Council Administration; (c) Local Taxation and Valuation [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
  Accounts presented showing the interest accrued in respect of the securities standing in the names of the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt to the credit of the Post Office Savings Banks Fund for the year ended 31st December, 1911, and of the fund for the Banks for Savings and the Fund for Friendly Societies for the year ended 20th November, 1911 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed
  CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
  Copy presented of fifty-sixth Report of the Commissioners, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented of Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 23rd July, 1912, providing for Grants-in-Aid of Educational Expenditure approved by the Scotch Education Department under Section (16) (1) (f) of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Turkey and Italy.
  Mr. PETOasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, as representing the captains and officers of the British merchant service, has caused urgent representations to be addressed to him regarding the dangers presented by the extinguishing of the navigational lights in the Red Sea by orders of the Turkish Government; whether these lights are still extinguished; and, if so, whether, in view of this continued menace to the safety of British ships, which preponderate in the navigation of the Red Sea, he will now consider the desirability of cooperating with the German and French Governments to bring further pressure to bear upon the Turkish Government in order that these lights may once again be exhibited?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): Representations were made by the Guild in a letter dated 6th October last, to which a reply was returned defining the attitude of His Majesty's Government in accordance with statements since made in this House in answer to questions on the subject. Since that date I have received no communication from the Guild. So far as I am aware the lights in question have not been relit, but for the reasons already given. There are no further steps that His Majesty's Government could take without a departure from neutrality; nor is there any reason to suppose that the attitude of France and Germany differs from our own. We are of course anxious to see the lights restored and would not neglect any favourable opportunity of bringing that about.
  Mr. PETO: Has the right hon. Gentleman been in communication with the
  956
  Governments of France and Germany on the question?
  Sir E. GREY: No, Sir, I do not think we have been in communication. We have no reason to suppose that they take any different view to our own.
  Colonel YATE: If these islands in the Red Sea are perfectly worthless could not some negotiations be entered into with Turkey to acquire them?
  Sir E. GREY: We had negotiations with Turkey in the earlier stages of the war, and we found that unless there was some agreement that the war should not be prosecuted in the Red Sea the Turkish Government would take objection to restoring the lights; and it was not found possible to come to any agreement for the neutralisation of the Red Sea.
  Colonel YATE: Could any arrangement be come to to acquire these islands?
  Sir E. GREY: I think that is absolutely out of the question. A war is proceeding between two other Powers. We are absolutely neutral, and for us to make any proposal to acquire territory belonging to one or the other is impossible.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he can make any statement with regard to the closing of the Dardanelles; and what action His Majesty's Government intends to take in the matter in order to prevent a repetition of the holding up of British ships and merchandise which has caused so much inconvenience in the past?
  Sir E. GREY: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member for West Staffordshire. There seems no occasion for the present to take any action.
  Mr. MORRELLasked whether any negotiations are now in progress for the termination of the war in Tripoli?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no information on the subject from either of the Governments concerned.

  Putumayo District, Peru (Rubber Collectors).
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked what was the first date on which he had reports as to the ill-treatment of natives in the Putumayo district?
  Sir E. GREY: My attention was first drawn to this matter as a result of the articles which appeared in "Truth" in September and October, 1909.
  Mr. KINGasked whether the crimes charged against men in the employ of the Peruvian Amazon Company and the charges against the methods of the company's administration on the Putumayo have been considered with a view to ascertaining how far the directors of the Peruvian Amazon Company, who had been on the Putumayo, were personally cognisant of the crimes disclosed in Sir R. Casement's Report; and whether any charge will be preferred against the directors or officials of the company?
  Sir E. GREY: When the matter was first brought to their notice the British directors made it clear that they had no knowledge of the state of affairs; they appointed a Commission, which was evidently sent in good faith to inquire on the spot. I am not aware of any ground on which His Majesty's Government could take action respecting them.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Why was there not included in the Blue Book which was issued any correspondence between the company and the Foreign Office?
  Sir E. GREY: Because we did not think that the correspondence which took place between the company and the Government was really material to the main point at issue, which was the treatment of British subjects, Barbadians, who were in the Putumayo, and the general state of affairs in that district.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Were they not officers of the directors who perpetrated these cruelties, and is not the principal responsible for his agents?
  Sir E. GREY: They were agents of the company who were there.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Has the company's Commission reported to the company, and, if so, have the Foreign Office seen the Report?
  Sir E. GREY: Yes, Sir, I understand that the company's Commission did report to the company.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Have the Foreign Office seen that Report?
  Sir E. GREY: I am not quite sure that we have seen the Report, but in any case
  958
  the Report of Sir Roger Casement, who was instructed by us, is the document to which I attach the most importance.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Is there any conflict of opinion between the two Reports, the Report sent in to the Foreign Office and the Report by the Commission appointed by the company?
  Sir E. GREY: So far as I recollect the Reports were to the same effect. Of course, the one for which I take responsibility is that of Sir Roger Casement.
  Mr. KING: May we take it that the directors fully recognise the validity and truthfulness of Sir Roger Casement's Report?
  Sir E. GREY: Oh, yes. So far as I am aware the directors have never disputed the state of affairs which was disclosed. What they have contended was that they were entirely ignorant of the state of affairs before Sir Roger Casement's and their own Commission went there.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the right hon. Gentleman if, in view of the impossibility of checking the methods of collecting rubber by a company more or less of an English character, he could, either with or without the assistance of the American Government, appoint a Consul at Iquitos, with instructions to forward regular reports of the treatment of the Indians?
  Sir E. GREY: A salaried British Consul has recently been appointed at Iquitos His instructions will be found on page 160 of the Blue Book. The United States Government have made a similar appointment.
  Mr. MORRELLasked (9) whether any of the persons whose names were brought by him before the Government of Peru in March, 1911, as being guilty of gross atrocities in the district of Putumayo have yet been arrested and punished; (10) whether he has any information showing that the system of forced labour in the district of Putumayo, as described by Sir Roger Casement in 1910, has since been modified or abandoned?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no information at present beyond what is contained in the Blue Book. The instructions to our Consul are to send a Report, and until he has been able to visit the district and send a Report, I shall have no further direct information.
  Mr. HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are any British subjects among those who have been tortured?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot give more information than the Blue Book, which explains that there were Barbadians in the district when Sir Roger Casement went there, and that he attended to their complaints and their condition, and, I think, brought some of them away.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Is the Consul British?
  Sir E. GREY: Yes, he is a British subject.
  Mr. MORRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Report of the British Consul may be expected?
  Sir E. GREY: No, Sir, I cannot say that definitely. He has not yet been able to visit the district of Putumayo. I am instructing him that he should concert with his United States colleague, who is there with the object of visiting the district, as soon as that can conveniently be done—the district is not easily accessible —because I want to have a Report as soon as he can conveniently send it.
  Mr. KING: Will the district visited by the Consul at Iquitos comprise other tributaries of the Amazon besides the Putumayo?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a very long way from the question on the Paper.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked what steps have been taken in reference to the atrocities reported from Peru, in connection with the Amazon Rubber Company; and whether this is a British company?
  Sir E. GREY: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the recent Blue Book. The answer to the second part is in the affirmative; the company is now, I believe, in voluntary liquidation.
  Mr. W. REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House and the public any assurance that pending the negotiations which he told us are taking place with the Peruvian Government, and the inquiries which are being made, that none of these atrocities are still continuing, and whether any steps can be taken to put an end to them?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot give any more direct information about the state of affairs in the district until I have received the further Report from our Consul. It must be borne in mind that the district is one in which we have no jurisdiction ourselves, and in which we do not intend, and obviously it would be impossible for us to intend, to incur any responsibility for its administration. I thought it right, when I heard that there were Barbadians there, to send a British Consul to inquire into the state of affairs. Having got the information which that inquiry produced, I thought it ought not to be kept to ourselves, and it has been published. Beyond that I cannot promise any definite steps.
  Mr. W. REDMOND: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he is without knowledge as to whether these atrocities are still being continued, and can no steps be taken to secure that an end shall be put to them pending inquiries?
  Sir E. GREY: I should not put it in that way. I should say with regard to the administration of the district, for which we are not and cannot be responsible, I cannot undertake the responsibility of making a statement as to what is actually going on there, except when I happened to have direct information on the subject.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: When did the British Consul get to Iquitos, and how long has he been there?
  Sir E. GREY: He got there early in this year, and he has been there for some months. He was not well on his first arriving there. He has already made one journey to the neighbouring district. The instructions to him now are, as soon as he can conveniently do so, to go to Putumayo. I have also told him to concert with his United States colleague, who has been sent there, we believe, for the same purpose of getting information.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Is it not a fact that one of the directors, who was a member of the Board when the atrocities were committed, holds office under the Crown?
  Sir E. GREY: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me notice of that question.

  Congo State.
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked whether the Government has any official information that the Reforms Decree of

  961
  March, 1910, applicable to the third area of the Congo on 1st July of this year, has come into operation; and whether a British Consular representative will visit this area before the end of the year and report on its condition; and will the House be placed in possession of that Report when received?
  Sir E. GREY: The Reforms Decree came into operation automatically in the third area of the Congo on 1st July. The answer to the other questions is in the affirmative.
  Sir G. PARKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Belgian Government has officially confirmed the assurance given by the Belgian Minister in London on 2nd January, 1912, that Belgium has formally renounced the system adopted by the Congo State of working the products of Congo lands; whether he has taken note that the Belgian Colonial Council throws doubt on the permanence of the change, and apparently disputes the inherent rights of the natives to harvest and barter natural products; and whether representations have been made?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. It is not necessary to make representations to the Belgian Government in regard to opinions expressed in the Colonial Council.
  Sir G. PARKER: Do I understand from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that the Colonial Council has no responsibility in this matter in regard to the Congo?
  Sir E. GREY: The only responsibility we recognise is that which rests with the Belgian Government.

  Southern Nigeria, Gold Coast and Congo.
  Sir G. PARKERasked what were the imports of Southern Nigeria and the Gold Coast, respectively, for the year 1911; and what is the population of Southern Nigeria and the Gold Coast, respectively; and what were the imports of the Congo for the year 1911, and what is its population?
  Sir E. GREY: The figures as regards Southern Nigeria are: Imports, £5,681,000; population, 7,858,689; and as regards the Gold Coast: Imports, £3,651,000; population, 1,503,000. The imports in both cases include bullion and specie. The figures for imports into the Congo State are -available for only the first six months.
  962
  They are £839,612, and include merchandise only. As regards the population, no census has been taken, but I understand that it has been estimated in a recent Belgian official publication at 15,000,000.
  Sir G. PARKER: Would it be possible to separate the specie from the other imports of Nigeria?
  Sir E. GREY: I will inquire whether that can be done.

  National Rifle Association.
  Colonel BATHURSTasked the Secretary of State for War how many of the prize competitions at the annual meeting of the National Rifle Association at Bisley are fired under service conditions and on principles absolutely consistent with the musketry regulations, with service regulation targets and rifles as issued for service?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The Queen Mary's Territorial prize competition and the three other competitions based on it are the only competitions which fully comply with the conditions stated in the question. Other competitions nearly comply with these conditions.
  Colonel BATHURSTasked what is the number of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Regular Forces detailed for duties connected with the annual meeting of the National Rifle Association at Bisley, and the length of time occupied by these duties; whether the whole of these men were taken from a single brigade at Aldershot; to what extent have the arrangements for brigade training in that command, and to what extent has the brigade or musketry training of the officers and men, been affected in consequence of their withdrawal?
  Colonel SEELY: The numbers detailed are as follows:—Seventy-seven officers, 342 non-commissioned officers, three buglers, and 801 privates. The majority of these were employed for twelve days, but a few men of the Royal Engineers, Army Service Corps, Royal Army Medical Corps, and Army Ordnance Corps have to remain at Bisley for one month. To reduce the dislocation of the training programme, officers, non-commissioned officers, and men detailed from the Aldershot Command were changed after the first week for a party of similar strength. No one brigade furnished the

  963
  whole of the men, but a considerable number came from the 5th Brigade. In many cases, field practices have been postponed and will, be carried out at another time.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Have non-commissioned officers and men got extra pay for this work?
  Colonel SEELY: I should like notice.

  Army Hospital (Larke Hill).
  Captain FABERasked whether any hospital is to be built in the flying sheds at Larke Hill; and whether a doctor is in attendance during flying hours, seeing that the late Captain Loraine had to be conveyed some miles to the nearest hospital in an ordinary cart?
  Colonel SEELY: It is not intended to build a hospital at Larke Hill, as the distance from the sheds there to the hospital at Bulford is only two and a half miles; moreover, the military flying establishment will be moved from Larke Hill after the conclusion of the competitions which are about to take place. A medical officer is always in attendance at Larke Hill whenever flying is going on. The hon. Member will understand that when extended flights are taking place it is impossible to ensure that there will always be adequate medical assistance in the immediate vicinity of any accident that may unfortunately happen.

  Enniskillen Regiment.
  Captain FABERasked when the Enniskillen regiment, now stationed at Wei-Hai-Wei, is likely to go to India, seeing that a year ago they were sent to Wei-Hai-Wei for a few weeks only, whilst their families were sent to India to await their immediate arrival?
  Colonel SEELY: It is probable that the 1st Battalion Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers will leave North China for India about the 9th November and arrive at Madras about the 4th December.

  Aviation. Accident (Sergeant-Major Wilson).
  Captain FABERasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can recommend that a money Grant be given to the parents of Sergeant-Major Wilson, who was lately kilted during aviation,
  964
  seeing that they were largely dependent on him for their living?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): There is no power under Regulations to make such a Grant, but I will consider if I can do anything as a special case when the necessary particulars are available.
  Mr. FELL: Do not the circumstances of the case make it very special, the parents of the man being dependent upon him?
  Mr. BAKER: That may or may not be so.

  Special Reserve.
  Mr. HUNTasked whether the Special Reserve is to be used for oversea service as complete units, or whether the men and officers are to be sent separately to reinforce the Expeditionary Force abroad?
  Colonel SEELY: The Irish Horse and the twenty-seven Extra Reserve battalions would be sent abroad as complete units. The remainder would furnish drafts as required.
  Mr. HUNT: Will not these drafts come to an end very soon?
  Colonel SEELY: No, it will depend on the number of men available and the number of drafts required.

  British and Colonial Aeroplanes Company.
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether the British and Colonial Aeroplanes Company, of Filton, Bristol, are supplying the War Department with aeroplanes or other flying craft; and, if so, whether he is aware that this firm is paying from 5s. to 10s. per week less than the standard rate of wages to a number of artisans employed by the firm; and whether he proposes to take any action in this case?
  Mr. BAKER: No complaint has been received, but if the hon. Gentleman will furnish precise particulars of any infringement of the Fair-Wages Clause the matter shall be inquired into.

  Lance-Sergeant Cowan, 5th Devons (Accident).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can make any statement as to the recent accident to Lance-Sergeant Cowan, 5th Devons, at Bisley Camp?
  Colonel SEELY: The cause of this accident is being investigated. I am not yet able to make a statement on the matter.

  Railway Engineer Battalion, Crewe.
  Captain CLIVEasked if any organisation has yet been formed to take the place of the disbanded railway engineer battalion at Crewe; and, if so, what?
  Colonel SEELY: As I explained to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in reply to a question put by him on 4th July, there is no intention of forming any organised unit. The men required will be specially enlisted in the Army Reserve.

  Quartermaster-General to Forces.
  Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked whether it is proposed that the late Quartermaster-General to the Forces should proceed on a tour of inspection to Cape Colony, Sierra Leone, and the Mauritius; whether any of these places, and, if so, which, were included in any recent tour of inspection by the Inspector-General of Oversea Forces; whether the Inspector-General of Oversea Forces is considered competent to report on all military questions affecting countries and stations visited by him; if so, why it is necessary to send another general officer to inspect them; what is the estimated cost of that general officer's tour, and will he be accompanied by a staff officer; and what does the Inspector-General of Oversea Forces cost the country annually in pay, travelling, and other allowances, including passages on men of war?
  Colonel SEELY: Lieut.-General Sir H. Miles, accompanied by a staff officer, has been sent on a special mission to carry out a complete examination of the administrative arrangements in the commands concerned with which the Inspector-General was unable to deal in detail in his inspection, and which are largely connected with the Quartermaster-General's department. He is empowered to give decisions on behalf of the Council in those matters. The late Quartermaster-General is pre-eminently fitted to undertake this work. The various points raised in the question do not therefore arise.
  Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last two paragraphs of the question?
  Colonel SEELY: I have said it does not arise, because it is assumed it is not worth
  966
  while to send this officer. Our opinion is that he will perform a most valuable service, and the savings he will be able to effect without reducing efficiency will far more than cover the cost of the tour.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is it to be assumed that Sir Ian Hamilton is unable to conduct this inquiry?
  Colonel SEELY: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a question on the whole point if he wishes it fully explained. Sir Ian Hamilton's principal duties do not concern these administrative details of Army expenditure which Sir H. Miles has gone to report about.
  Sir R. POLE-CAREW.:. May I still ask the right hon. Gentleman to give me a reply to the last part of the question?
  Colonel SEELY: I can get the exact figures for any one year if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a question.

  Grass Farm (Witley).
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the date when the grass farm at Witley of 150 acres was presented to the Government for 21 years at a peppercorn rent, and the number of horses which are now kept on that farm for military purposes; and what is the total number of horses which the Government expect to accommodate on grass farms before October next?
  Colonel SEELY: The grass farm in question was presented on 17th July, 1911. There are now ninety-nine horses on the farm. The grazing arrangements are for Cavalry horses only, and it is expected that about 650 Cavalry remounts will be accommodated on grass by next October.
  MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: Where are the other grass farms which the Under-Secretary alluded to the other day?

  Mark VII. Rifle (Accident).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to an accident with the new Mark VII. rifle at Pirbright on or about 15th July last, whereby a corporal of the 3rd Worcestershire Regiment was injured in the right hand, and the rifle jambed with a bullet in the barrel; whether a full inquiry has been held, and what steps have been taken to prevent the repetition of such accidents in the future?
  Colonel SEELY: It is presumed that by the expression "the new Mark VII. rifle" is meant a rifle resighted to fire the new Mark VII. ammunition. The rifle with which the accident occurred is now at Enfield, and a full investigation is being made to ascertain the cause of the accident. Until this is completed it is not possible to state the steps which may be necessary to prevent the repetition of the accident. Many millions of Mark VII. ammunition have been fired without any accident which could be attributed to it.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman let me know when he is able?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, I will send the hon. and gallant Gentleman notice.

  High Court (Patna).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Undersecretary of State for India whether the Lieutenant-Governor of Bihar and Orissa has been consulted regarding the establishment of a new High Court at Patna; whether the Government of India contemplates the establishment of such a Court; and, if so, at what cost to the taxpayer, who is at present served by the High Court in Calcutta?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. At the present stage I am not in a position to give any reply to the second and last parts.

  Pilotage Certificates (Aliens).
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked whether there has been any alteration in international circumstances, or in our treaties with foreign Powers, since a statement was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1906 that, after consulting the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether any international difficulty would be caused by discontinuing the grant of British pilotage certificates to alien shipmasters and after careful consideration, the Government had decided that they could deal with future applications; and, if there has been any such alteration since that statement was made, whether it necessitates the repeal of Section 73 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1906, by which the grant of British certificates to aliens was prohibited for the future?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. But as has been already stated in reply to previous questions in this House, persistent remonstrances and representations have since 1906 been addressed to the Foreign Office by certain foreign countries and especially by France, whose contention was based not on any specific claim that British pilotage certificates must under treaty be granted to French shipmasters and mates, but on the general ground that French shipping is entitled to enter British ports without paying higher charges than those imposed on British shipping in the same ports. As the effect of Section 73 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, had, according to the French contention, been to impose on certain French vessels higher charges than those imposed on British vessels in the same circumstances, it was in their view necessary to endeavour to find some practical method of redressing this inequality. After careful examination of the question through a Joint Commission, His Majesty's Government considered that the case would probably be best met by the enactment of a frequency exemption applicable to British and foreign vessels alike which trade regularly with the same port, and a clause for this purpose was inserted in the Pilotage Bill introduced last year. I understand, however, that this proposal though in accord with the recommendation of the Pilotage Committee, and acceptable to the French Government as a solution of the international question, raised unforeseen practical difficulties for the pilots; and I do not think I am wrong in saying that the pilots as a body would greatly prefer the more strictly limited and carefully guarded exemption embodied in Clause 19 of the present Bill, although in form this Clause introduces a limited exception to the operation of Section 73 of the Act of 1906. There is no question of the repeal of Clause 73.
  Sir G. PARKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider in that case the redrafting of the Clause so that those who are concerned may more clearly understand what it means?
  Mr. BUXTON: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly put a question to-morrow?

  St. Helena (Defences).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he

  969
  can give any information as to the number, calibre, and present condition of the guns at St. Helena; and when were they last fired?
  Colonel SEELY: It is not considered expedient to publish information regarding the armaments of forts. These defences have been handed over to the charge of the Admiralty.

  Territorial Force (Horses).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the fact that hitherto the same horses have been employed in several Territorial mounted corps, either of Yeomanry or Artillery; and whether he will consider the necessity of taking effective steps to put a stop to this practice?
  Colonel SEELY: It is understood that the same horses are sometimes used by more than one corps at the annual training at camp, but this practice is limited to a considerable extent by the fact that the camp periods of mounted units overlap. For instance, twenty-eight Yeomanry units were up for training simultaneously at the end of May. I am not aware of any scheme which would obviate this practice without involving considerable additional expenditure.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: If the horses' hoofs were marked, would not that put an end to the practice?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think that would put an end to it.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that method?
  Colonel SEELY: I will consider any suggestion that comes from the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

  House of Commons (Members' Salaries).
  Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he proposes to draw up regulations to define more precisely the terms under which the payment of salaries of Members are now made, and to redress the anomalies which now exist?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I do not think that any such regulations are called for, but if the hon. Member will bring to my notice the particular points which he has in mind, I shall be glad to have them investigated.
  Mr. FELL: May I ask if we will have an opportunity of discussing these payments? If so, I shall be able to bring a case forward.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a matter which is not in the hands of the Minister. It is in the hands of those Members of the Opposition who make arrangements for the Votes put down for discussion.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration whether directors of half-a-dozen companies should, while drawing fees from those companies, be paid a salary of £400 a year as Members of this House?

  Peruvian Rubber (Shipments).
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the number of tons of indiarubber that were shipped to this country through the Iquitos (Peru) Custom House for the six years ending 31st December, 1910, and the approximate sum realised by the sale of such rubber on the London market; whether he is aware that firms registered in this country have acquired monopoly rights for the collection and production of India-rubber over large territories in the Republics of Peru and Brazil; and whether, in view of the enhanced profit consequent on such monopoly, it is his intention to place any tax on ascertained profits derived from the sale of indiarubber in this country?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade the inquiries made in the first part of the question. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

  Gooseberry Mildew.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture in what counties gooseberry mildew has been most prevalent during the present season; and whether recent official Returns indicate, after comparison with those of the previous three years, that this disease is on the increase in Great Britain?
  Mr. MONTAGU (for Mr. Runciman): American gooseberry mildew has unfortunately been prevalent during the present season in most of the counties in which gooseberries are grown, and a larger number of cases have been brought to the

  971
  knowledge of the Board this year than in the previous three years. The increase in the number of cases reported is partly attributable to the exceptionally unfavourable season and partly to the more general observance of the requirements of the law as to the notification of the disease.

  Vaccination (North Borneo).
  Mr. BENTHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that at the half-yearly meeting of the British North Borneo Company, held in London on 11th July, the chairman stated that a widespread system of vaccination was to be introduced amongst the natives; under what powers are the company permitted to introduce such a system in the territory in which their operations are conducted; will such a system be compulsory; and, if so, will the Government intervene, in view of the loss to British prestige which will follow even the indirect introduction of compulsory vaccination?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The powers of the company are derived from their charter, which my hon. Friend will find on pages 192–199 of Cd. 3108. They are entitled to administer their territory as an independent State, except as is otherwise provided in the Charter or in the Treaty of Protection. I am not aware whether it is intended that vaccination should be compulsory, but, in any case, I am not prepared to intervene in the matter.

  Indentured Labour.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why British subjects are allowed to enter into indentures of labour which practically amount to slavery and are deported to countries like the Putumayo district of Peru, where they are treated in the manner referred to in the Casement Report; and whether, in view of that Report, he will take steps to prevent the recruiting of British labour for Peru and all places outside the British Empire?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I am not aware that British subjects are ever allowed to enter into agreements which practically amount to slavery or that they are deported. In practically all the British West Indian
  972
  Colonies there are laws to regulate the engagement and emigration of labourers. A list of the laws then in force will be found in Cd. 3827, and since the date of that Paper other laws have been passed where circumstances have required. The laws differ in accordance with varying local conditions, but, speaking generally, the principle is that the Government should have power to prevent the recruiting of labour for any foreign country, and that recruiting for countries for which it is permitted should be subject to safeguards, such as the execution of the contract before a magistrate. In addition to securing a law in 1907, giving the Governor in Executive Committee power to prohibit recruiting for any foreign place, the Government of Barbados has issued warnings against accepting employment in South America, which, I understand, have been effectual. Similar action in respect of any foreign territory can be and is taken in any other British West Indian Colony in which there is reason for it.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if indentured labourers working in our Colonies under Regulations sanctioned and approved by the present Government are placed under special laws never explained to them, in a language they do not understand, imposing criminal liability for the most trivial breaches of contract in place of civil liability, liable to imprisonment with hard labour, in some cases to three months, for negligence, carelessness, and even for an impertinent word or gesture to the manager or his overseers?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The hon. Member will find full information as to the terms upon which indentured labourers are employed in those Colonies which recruit such labour in the Report of the Committee on Emigration (Cd. 5192), which was laid before Parliament in 1910. In the course of that Report the subject of the penal provisions of the labour laws was fully considered and explained, and the recommendations of the Committee are receiving attention.
  Mr. FRED HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that a proper way to treat labourers who have not got the Parliamentary vote?

  Land Values (Scotland).
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has

  973
  been called to the number of representations made by rating authorities in Scotland in favour of the passing this Session of the Land Values (Scotland) Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for the Trades-ton Division of Glasgow, and to the fact that that measure is based on the Bill of the same name which was introduced by the Government in 1907 and 1908 and passed through all its stages in this House in each of these years; and whether he can give facilities for it in this House during the present Session?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood, for the Prime Minister): I understand that a considerable number of representations have been received from rating authorities in favour of the Bill. I fear it is not possible to give facilities for its discussion before the Adjournment, but I will consider whether they can be given at a later date.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    REPEAL OF ACTS.
    Mr. HORNERasked the Prime Minister whether, if the Government of Ireland Bill becomes law, the Irish Parliament will have power to repeal or alter the Companies Act, the Sale of Goods Act, the Bills of Exchange Act, the Factory and Workshop Acts, and the Shops Act?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Generally speaking, the Irish Government will have power to alter or repeal these Acts as regards purely Irish matters.

    POWER TO LEVY TAXES.
    Mr. HORNERasked whether, if the Government of Ireland Bill becomes law, the Irish Parliament will have power to levy in Ireland a land tax, inhabited house duty, and railway passenger duty, from which Ireland is now exempt?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The answer is in the affirmative. The Irish Parliament will have power to impose in Ireland any independent tax not substantially the same in character as an Imperial tax levied in Ireland.

    LORD LIEUTENANT.
    Mr. HORNERasked whether, if the Government of Ireland Bill becomes law, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in his dual capacity created by the Bill, will exercise some of his powers and prerogatives on the advice of the Imperial Government
    974
    and others on the advice of the Irish Government; and, if so, on whose advice will he act when the advice tendered to him by the Imperial Government conflicts with the advice tendered to him by the Irish Government?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Lord Lieutenant will exercise the executive power as respects Irish Services on the advice of the Irish Government. In other matters he-will be guided by the instructions of the Imperial Government and will not be bound to consult his Irish Ministers. The difficulty suggested in the last paragraph of the question can, therefore, hardly arise.

    FINANCE COMMITTEE (REPORT).
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister what is the total number of signatures of Members of this House, exclusive of duplicates, which he has received to the two memorials asking him to approach those witnesses who gave evidence before the Committee on Irish Finance for their consent to the publication of that portion of the evidence in respect of which no pledge of secrecy was made or is now insisted upon?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The signatures attached to the two memorials were 277.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself stated that if any body of Members of this House desired the evidence to be published it would be done?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am answering on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Whether he knows what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said I do not know.
    Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer was that it would be done if any considerable number of Members desired it? Does he think 277 Members of both sides out of 670 are a considerable number? Will he put the point to the Prime Minister?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I will ask my right hon. Friend whether he considers that number considerable.

    Land Valuation.
    Mr. HORNERasked approximately how many copies of Form IV. have been sent to owners and occupiers in Ireland

    975
    since the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, came into operation; how many provisional valuations have been issued in Ireland; and how many of these provisional valuations were issued in respect to tenements about which no information was derived from Form IV.?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): Two hundred and fifty-three thousand Forms IV. have been sent out in Ireland, and 13,000 provisional valuations have been issued. In all cases where a provisional valuation has been made Form IV. had been issued.

    United National Assurance Company.
    Mr. LUNDONasked when the United National Friendly Assurance Company, Limited, Glasgow, was founded; whether it was formed for the purpose of acquiring the business of another firm which had failed, or if it began business on its own account; what were the names of the promoters; what was the capital of the company; how much is now paid up; was any deposit made by this company to enable it to carry on life assurance business; can he state its present financial position, and say whether it has ever paid a dividend on its share capital; and, if so, when and how much?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No society is registered under any Act administered by the Registrar of Friendly Societies under the exact name given in the question, but two are registered under similar names. I am circulating a detailed answer.

    Telephone Service
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked the Postmaster-General whether he will arrange for telephone subscribers and others, who occupy premises where the telephone service has been installed for not less than one year, to be allowed to renew contracts by the quarter in order to meet the case of those whose tenancies do not continue for the whole year?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The ordinary form of agreement used by the Post Office for telephone exchange lines provides that the agreement may be terminated by three months' notice at the end of the first year, or at the end of any period of three months thereafter, the payment being made proportionate to the period of use. This seems to meet the cases which the
    976
    hon. Member has in view. The ordinary form of agreement used by the National Telephone Company provided for termination at the end of the first or of any subsequent rental year on six months' notice; but I propose in all ordinary cases to treat these agreements as being terminable under the easier conditions of Post Office agreements.
    Mr. W. GUINNESS: Will an incoming tenant who has taken premises for three months be entitled to extend the existing scheme without paying for installation?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I should like to have notice of that.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked whether, in the case of persons accepting the insertion of an indicator word in their abbreviated telegraphic addresses, inland telegrams will continue to be delivered where the indicator word is omitted by correspondents not aware of the change?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The answer is in the affirmative; but such telegrams cannot be delivered as promptly as if the indicator word were inserted in the address.

    Wick Post Office.
    Mr. MUNROasked whether, looking to the difference of opinion which exists regarding the suitability of the stone from the Eday quarry for the construction of the Wick Post Office, he will take advantage of the offer which has been made to him to have an independent report made on the quality of the stone by an expert?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The First Commissioner does not think that an independent report is necessary. The quality of the stone is not the only point which has to be taken into consideration.

    Radiotelegrams to Ships.
    Mr. PETOasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the official notices to mariners issued by the Board of Trade that, for the benefit of eastward-bound ships in the North Atlantic, the Central Meteorological Bureau of France dispatch a meteorological message by radiotelegrams from the Eiffel Tower, Paris, each day immediately after the time signal at 11 a.m.; and whether, having regard to the fact that similar weather reports are sent out free of charge by way of radiotelegrams from Canadian and

    977
    American wireless stations, he will now consider it advisable, in the interests of safety of life at sea, to adopt a system similar to that which is now in vogue in France, so that merchant ships approaching dangerous coasts may understand that at a certain time of the day weather reports will be officially sent out by means of radiotelegrams, particularly in view of the probable still wider adoption of wireless apparatus on merchant steamers?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. There has been no demand for such a service from the shipowners of this country, and in the circumstances I do not propose to institute one.

    Delivery of Irish Mails in London.
    Mr. LARDNERasked if the Postmaster-General can state what is the cause of the delay in delivering letters in London which have been posted in the town of Monaghan before six o'clock p.m. on the day previous; whether he is aware that up till about two years ago such letters were always delivered in London in the forenoon, but that during the last two years these letters are not delivered until late in the afternoon; whether he will cause inquiries to be made with a view to discovering what is the cause of this delay; and whether he will take steps to prevent a recurrence in future, as the delay has been the cause of annoyance and trouble to merchants and others in the town of Monaghan corresponding with persons in London?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Letters for London posted in Monaghan before 6 p.m. were formerly sent by the 6.12 p.m. train to Portadown for dispatch viâ Greenore, and, except on occasions when that train arrived too late at Portadown for it there to make a connection with the 6.50 p.m. train, were delivered in London the next forenoon. On the 11th March last the 6.50 p.m. train from Belfast to Greenore, which was not under the control of the Post Office, was discontinued, and letters from Monaghan cannot now reach London in time for morning delivery unless they are posted before 2.35 p.m., in which case they fall into the first delivery. I am informed that the railway company has no immediate intention of restoring the 6.50 p.m. train, and I regret that I am not in a position therefore to improve the existing arrangements.
    Mr. LARDNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at present the 6.50 p.m. train is running?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, Sir; I have information to the contrary.
    Mr. LARDNER: It is a fact.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will make further inquiry.

    Removal of Dead Swine (Ireland).
    Mr. LARDNERasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) what the effect of the Diseases of Animals Act is in reference to the removal of dead swine in Ireland; is he aware that several of the dead pork markets in the North of Ireland have been seriously prejudiced by the action of the Royal Irish Constabulary in certain districts interfering with the owners of swine and preventing the removal of the carcasses to market; whether he will furnish a copy of the instructions issued by his Department to the Royal Irish Constabulary; and will he at once take steps to have the police instructed as to their rights and duties in such cases?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL(Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): Under the Diseases of Animals Acts the Department have power to prohibit or regulate all movement of carcasses of swine or other animals. They only think it necessary, however, in present circumstances that the police, as a measure of precaution, should exercise a discretion in regard to carcasses of animals authorised for slaughter which are in transit within or from the scheduled area, exclusive of infected places, so as to be able to report with a view to veterinary inspection in cases where they consider they have reasonable grounds for suspecting existence of disease. This procedure need not involve any serious inconvenience where no such grounds exist; and it is the least inconvenient course which could be adopted. The Department have confidence in the discretion as well as zeal of the police in this matter, who have throughout been giving them the most valuable assistance in dealing with the difficult situation which has arisen in connection with foot-and-mouth disease.

    Fogarty Estate (Ireland).
    Mr. DELANYasked if the right hon. Gentleman has received a copy of a resolution passed unanimously by the Mount-mellick Rural District Council calling

    979
    upon the Department of Agriculture to have all the arable lands of Baureagh and Castleconnor divided amongst the people of the district, as there is barren land enough on which to plant trees; and can be say what course he proposes to adopt in this matter?
    Mr. RUSSELL: A copy of the resolution referred to has been received by the Department. The Department propose to retain for forestry, which is the purpose for which they are most suitable, all the lands at present in their possession at Baureagh and Castleconnor. These lands formed portion of the Fogarty estate, and, prior to their acquisition by the Department, were offered to the Estates Commissioners, who declined to purchase them, as they were unsuitable for their purposes?

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
    Mr. LARDNERasked whether the four counties originally scheduled are still under restrictions; and, if not, will he now state what area is at present scheduled; and when he proposes to finally revoke the Order scheduling this area?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The Department have issued a new Order (The Mid) Leinster Foot-and-Mouth-Disease Order, 1912 (No. 2), reducing the area scheduled under the previous Order to a district comprising the administrative county of Dublin, the county borough of Dublin, and part of the administrative county of Meath. No statement can at present be made as to when it will be feasible finally to revoke the Order now in operation.
    Mr. LARDNER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is in a position to make any statement as to the prosecutions within this area?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I am afraid if I were to attempt to make a general statement I should trench upon the time of the House.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked what is the result, if any, of the inquiry of his Department into the origin of the original outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease on premises at Swords, in county Dublin; and whether any proceedings have been or are about to be taken, under Sections 4 and 52 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, against the person or persons occupying or working upon the said premises, who, although knowing of the existence of the disease, failed to notify it to the
    980
    local authorities with all practicable speed?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The Department's inquiries as to the the origin of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at Swords are not yet completed. The Law Officers have now advised that proceedings should be taken against the person who was in charge of the cattle first found affected, and proceedings are being instituted accordingly.

    State Loans for Fishermen.
    Mr. MUNROasked whether the Secretary for Scotland can indicate the date by which the Report of the Departmental Committee, now sitting to consider the question of State loans for fishermen, may be expected?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As I said in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland, on 15th July, the taking of the evidence by that Departmental Committee is not yet completed, and I am therefore unable to say when the Report will be issued.

    Illegal Trawling (Scotland).
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the number of prosecutions for illegal trawling in Scotland since 1st January, 1912; the number of convictions; the amount of fines; and the number of imprisonments in lieu of fines?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The figures since 1st January, 1912, are as follows: Prosecutions, 18; convictions, 16; fines imposed, £785; fines paid, £507 6s. 8d.; cases in which offenders, not having paid fines, were imprisoned, 4.

    London Police in South Wales (Liability for Cost).
    Mr. FFRENCHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Law Officers of the Crown have yet decided whether the cost of the London police who were occupied in South Wales during the labour troubles is to be paid by the Treasury or the ratepayers of Glamorgan?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): The matter is not before Law Officers of the Crown. As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. and learned Member for Thanet on the 25th June in reply to a question, the sum of £33,800 has been repaid to the Metropolitan Police

    981
    Fund from the Votes for Police, England and Wales, 1910–11 and 1912–13, in respect of the expenses of the Metropolitan Police sent to South Wales in November, 1910. No part of this sum has so far been recovered from the local authority; the claim has been deferred until a kindred question in a case now pending in the Courts has been decided.
    Mr. W. THORNE: In the event of the Crown getting non-suited, who pays then?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I do not contemplate that contingency at all.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    BRITISH SOLDIERS (INDIA).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Undersecretary of State for India if he will state under what authority deductions are made from the pay of British soldiers serving in British regiments in India, which is provided by the Indian Government and the Indian taxpayer as pay, in order to satisfy the demands of the National Insurance Commissioners; whether British soldiers are given any option in this matter; and whether the results on former occasions of forced deductions from the pay of British soldiers have been duly taken into consideration?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The authority for the deductions is Section 46 of the National Insurance Act. British soldiers have no option in the matter while serving on their first engagement. Those men, however, who have already or may hereafter reengage with a view to serving on for pension have the option of subscribing or claiming exemption.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is India an independent financial unit, and, if so, how will it be proper to divert money provided for the payment of wages to other purposes in which the Indian taxpayer has no interest? Will the right hon. Gentleman also answer the last sentence of my question?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The answer to the first part is that a Statute passed by both Houses of Parliament and receiving the Royal Assent applies to British soldiers serving in India according to the terms of the Statute. With regard to the last part of the question, I did not answer it because I am not aware what deductions the hon. Gentleman refers to. If he will give me that information I will make inquiries.

    UNGRAMMATICAL NOTICES.
    Captain FABERasked whether some of the notices sent out by the National Health Insurance Commission were undecipherable and ungrammatical; and, if so, what action the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to take in the matter?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I shall be happy to make inquiry into the matter if the hon. and gallant Member will send me any specimen deficient in the respects indicated.

    CASUAL WORK ON FARMS.
    Captain FABERasked whether, when a workmen contracts with a farmer to hoe a field of roots for a certain sum, without any time being taken into consideration, they are both liable to the Insurance Tax?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the workman referred to is employed under a contract of service he will be an employed contributor, and both he and his employer will pay, not an Insurance Tax, but their respective shares of the contribution laid down in the Act. Whether the man is employed under a contract of service is a question of fact which can only be determined satisfactorily after consideration of all the circumstances of the employment, but if the farmer has the right to give the workman directions on matters of detail arising in the course of the work, there can be little doubt that a contract of service exists. With regard to this and similar questions, I would, however, refer to the replies I gave to the hon. Members for Eastbourne and South Herefordshire on 15th and 22nd July. Procedure is established by the Act under Section 66 for dealing with these and similar questions, and any of the parties concerned can apply to the Commission for a judicial decision through the local officer of Customs and Excise.

    EXEMPTION INQUIRIES.
    Mr. NEWDEGATEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the event of a woman who earns about £21 per annum herself applying for exemption from the provisions of the National Insurance Act on the plea that she is mainly dependent on her father for her living, it is in accordance with the provisions of that Act that the Excise officer should visit the father and require him to communicate the value of such living for the purposes of assessing it in a form to be forwarded to London, at the same time

    983
    suggesting that £1 weekly would be about the value; and whether it is his intention, in the event of such exemption being allowed, to add the net income of the daughter to the business profits of the father for the purposes of taxation?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: A claim to exemption from the provisions of Part I. of the National Insurance Act must be substantiated to the satisfaction of the Commissioners. If the hon. Member has in mind a case in which he considers the information asked for to have been unnecessary, I shall be happy to investigate it on his sending me the particulars. As regards the last part of the question, the same income, within the meaning of the Income Tax Acts, would not be chargeable in the hands both of the father and the daughter.

    PRUDENTIAL COMPANY'S OFFICIALS.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state how the Government can guarantee that the officials employed by the Prudential Company for their approved society will not be employed for the profit-making part of the company?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Regulations allow an approved society to spend what is needed on management within a certain sum per member. Any illegitimate expenditure would necessarily come under review by the Government auditors, and if it appeared that expenditure had been incurred in remunerating officials in respect of work done for some other body than the approved society, it would of course be challenged by the auditor.
    Mr. HUNT: If these men are employed by approved societies as well as by insurance companies, is there anything to prevent them from being paid in both capacities?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If they are paid for the work they do for an approved society, there is nothing illegal under the Act in their being paid out of the funds of the approved society. There is no reason why men should not be doing work for an approved society and for an insurance company.
    Sir HILDRED CARLILE: May I ask how it would be possible to say what part of the pay should be charged against the insurance company and what part against the approved society?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The auditors will have to be satisfied that the money given for administration has been rightly spent in the administrative work of the approved society.

    INVESTMENTS.
    Mr. FELLasked if the approved societies will be allowed to invest their share of the funds under the National Insurance Act in investments which may prove difficult to realise, except at a loss, although such investments may be classed as trustee investments and have been the securities in which they have hitherto invested their funds?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The powers of approved societies in regard to the investment of funds paid over to them for investment under the National Insurance Act are defined by Section 56 (2) of the Act, from which it will be seen that the choice as between different trustee securities rests with the society.
    Mr. FELL: May I ask if they will be allowed to invest in the form of real estate —in land?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman should give notice of that question.

    CANDIDATES FOR APPOINTMENTS.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked whether it is intended to call upon established Civil servants who are candidates for positions under the National Health Insurance Commissioners (Wales) to undergo the test of a written examination, notwithstanding that Form 64 issued to such candidates by the Commissioners distinctly states that officials transferred from other public departments will be exempt from such examination; and whether all Civil servants appointed by the English Commissioners have been transferred without a written test?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer is in the affirmative. The Welsh Insurance Commission do not propose to fill any of the appointments upon their outdoor staff by direct transfer of Civil servants from other Departments. Applications from Civil servants are being considered by them along with those of other candidates, and the final selections as between qualified candidates for positions on the Chief Inspector's staff will be made by competitive examination in the manner recommended in the Report of the Interdepartmental Committee. The English

    985
    Commission are filling a certain number of the corresponding appointments upon their staff by direct transfer from other public departments. Where the latter procedure is adopted the necessity for further examination exists only in the cases referred to in my reply to a question by the hon. Member for North Monaghan on the 16th instant.

    DOMESTIC SERVANTS (DISMISSAL).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that lodging and boarding-house keepers, who can only afford to pay wages of £10 or £12 a year, are dismissing their servants and engaging immature girls under 16, whom they will in turn dismiss when they reach that age in order to escape the Insurance Tax of 13s. a year, which cannot be deducted from small wages without hard ship; and, seeing that such employers are quite unable to pay an additional tax of 26s. a year for each servant they keep, will he say what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not aware that any such dismissals are taking place in connection with the payment not of an "Insurance Tax," but of contributions to the National Health Insurance Fund. If the hon. Member can inform me of any such case which has been brought to his notice, I shall be glad to inquire into the matter. I am informed that the demand for work boys and girls under sixteen greatly exceeds the supply, and that no appreciable reserve of children of that age exists which could be absorbed into domestic service, with or without an Insurance Act.

    MEETINGS OF FARMERS.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether mass meetings of farmers have been held at Peterborough, Long Sutton, Newbury, Burton-on-Trent, Limerick, Gloucester, and in different parts of Banffshire, denouncing the National Insurance Act as it affects agricultural interests; whether mass meetings have been called for the same purpose in Northampton, Hunting don, Cambridge, Lincoln, and Rutland; and, if so, what action the Government proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. JOYCE: Before this question is answered may I say—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better wait to hear the answer.
    Mr. JOYCE: On a point of Order—
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will wait, he can raise his point later.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no information on the subject beyond vague and imperfect reports in certain newspapers. I have no evidence that any serious intention or organised resistance to the law exists among any class of employers, but if the contrary should be true the Government will take all necessary steps to protect the interests of insured persons.
    Mr. JOYCE: Has any mass meeting of any kind been held upon this question?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have never heard of any.
    Mr. LUNDON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the meeting referred to was held in the tap-room of the "Royal George," and that the people who were associated with it were the understrappers and agents of the Unionist landlords of the district?

    NUMBER INSURED.
    Mr. LARDNERasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state the number of persons who have insured under the National Insurance Act, Part I., up to the present date, and if he can give any estimate as to the number of these persons who have insured with friendly societies, insurance companies, trade unions, and in the Post Office, respectively; and will he further state how many county societies have been formed in Ireland by the county councils?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Wilton on the 15th July. I am making further inquiries, and may be in a position shortly to give a more detailed estimate. There will be no deposit contributors until October. Fifteen county councils in Ireland have submitted schemes for establishing county societies, of which nine have so far been approved.

    PAYMENTS AND BENEFITS (ENGLAND AND IRELAND).
    EARL of KERRYasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state in the case of men servants and women servants, respectively, who are employed six months in England and six months in Ireland, the amount of the face value of the stamps necessary to be affixed to the insurance cards under the National Insurance Act, and the proportion to be borne by employer or employé whether a man or

    987
    woman who has contributed six months in England is entitled to sick benefits when in Ireland, and, if not, what becomes of the proportion of the face value of the stamps which is apportioned for sick benefits paid in England; whether, if cards are taken out in the first instance in Ireland, the amount payable will entitle the servants to sick benefits if they are taken ill in England; and whether he will issue a few circulars dealing with this complicated case for the information of those who are constantly changing occupation between the two countries?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Contributions are payable at the English rate during employment in England (i.e., in normal cases 7d. a week for men and 6d. for women, of which 4d. and 3d., respectively, may be deducted from wages), and at the Irish rate during employment in Ireland (i.e., in normal cases 5½d. a week for men, and 4½d. for women, of which 3d. and 2d., respectively, may be deducted from wages). The distribution of these contributions between employer and contributor is as set forth in the Second Schedule to the Act. Insured persons in Ireland are not entitled to medical benefit. If an insured person resident in England goes to Ireland he pays a reduced rate of contribution, and ceases to be entitled to medical benefit while in Ireland. If an insured person resident in Ireland goes to England he pays a higher rate of contribution, and becomes entitled while in England to medical benefit or a money equivalent. The necessary financial adjustments will be made by the Insurance Commissioners, and instructions will be issued in due course to the various persons concerned.
    EARL of KERRY: Does it apply equally whether the insured person is a member of an English or an Irish approved society, and does it apply equally irrespective of the proportion of the year during which he has been resident in either country?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: While in Ireland he pays the Irish rate and gets the Irish benefit, and while in England he pays the English rate and gets the English benefit.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean to-day by medical benefit?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That is not relevant to this question at all. It is defined in the Act. Medical benefit or a money equivalent is promised by the Act.

    TEACHERS.
    Mr. BECKETTasked whether principals of private schools are responsible for the employer's contribution under the National Insurance Act in the case of teachers during the periods of vacation, but who are resident in school term?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the teachers receive remuneration in respect of the holidays the employer will be responsible for contributions during holiday time.
    Mr. BECKETTasked who is responsible for the payment of the employer's contribution under the National Insurance Act in the case of non-resident teachers in private schools who are employed in two or more of such schools during the week?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The first employer in the week is liable unless the various employers agree to pay contributions in rotation under an arrangement authorised by the Regulations of the Insurance Commissioners. A form of agreement and book for use in such cases, of which I am sending a specimen to the hon. Member, may be obtained on application to the Commissioners. Private agreements (not affecting the legal responsibility) could also, of course, be arranged between the different employers for sharing the employers' contributions.

    DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY.
    MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: I wish to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether if the Advisory Committee on Forestry recommends the immediate setting up of a Department of Forestry under the Board of Agriculture he will immediately act upon the same and carry out their advice; also what sum has been spent by the Board of Agriculture in Scotland this year upon forestry and how much do they intend to spend before the end of the year?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Advisory Committee on Forestry has not yet made, and, indeed, has not yet had time to make, any recommendation. Any recommendation which it may make will have careful consideration, but it is obvious that I cannot promise to give effect to a recommendation until I know what that recommendation is. For the reason above stated no estimate can be made at present, and the only money as yet allocated is for education in forestry given through the agricultural colleges.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  POET OF LONDON (STRIKE).
  Mr. ALDEN: I wish to ask the President of the Local Government Board a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether any application has been made by the London County Council for permission to feed the school children of East and South London during the holidays, and, if not, whether, in view of the distress caused by the strike, he will favourably consider such an application?
  The PRESIDENT Of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns): No application, so far as I know, has been made to the Local Government Board. In the event of the London County Council applying for sanction to spend money in feeding children in the altogether exceptional circumstances of the present time the Board will be prepared to sanction reasonable expenses whilst the emergency lasts.

  MOTION FOE ADJOURNMENT.
  Mr. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the deadlock that has been reached in the transport trade of the Port of London, owing to the refusal of the masters to negotiate with the men's representatives, or to refer the matters in dispute to arbitration, and to the further fact that the Commissioner appointed by the Government has reported that in five items out of seven the men have proved their case against the employers for breach of agreement, he will grant sufficient time to enable this House to pass a Bill amending the Port of London Authority Act so as to enable the Board of Trade to set up a Port Board consisting of representatives of the federated employers and the men's organisations, to which all questions of wages, hours, and conditions of labour shall stand referred, or alternatively whether he will give facilities for the passage of the Industrial Agreements Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for Leicester?
  Mr. BUXTON: The Prime Minister, who is unavoidably prevented from being present, has asked me to answer this question on his behalf. I am advised that any Bill amending the Port of London Act, as suggested in the question, would necessarily be subject to the procedure relating to
  1008
  private Bills, which would involve November notices and representation of interests by counsel. It would not, therefore, be practicable, even if desirable, as an immediate step. I have not seen the text of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Leicester. I understand it has not yet been circulated. I may add that since the recent discussion on my hon. Friend's Motion, for which the Government were glad to give special facilities, every aspect of the question has been and is engaging the earnest attention of the Government whose good offices are always available should the parties concerned desire it.
  Mr. O'GRADY: In consequence of the unsatisfactory reply given by the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House on a matter of definite and urgent public importance, namely, the refusal of the London Port employers to allow the men to return to work on the agreements in existence prior to the dispute, which were signed by the Right Hon. John Burns, the Right Hon. Winston Churchill, the Right, Hon. Sydney Buxton, C. F. G. Master-man, Sir George Askwith, and others, thus causing suffering by starvation of a large number of women and children in the East End of London, and involving the ruin of many businesses not connected with the dispute.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for East Leeds (Mr. O'Grady) asks leave to move the Adjournment—"on a matter of definite and urgent public importance, namely, the refusal of the London Port employers to allow the men to return to work on the agreements in existence prior to the dispute, which were signed by the Right Hon. John Burns, the Right Hon. Winston Churchill, the Right Hon. Sydney Buxton, C. F. G. Masterman, Sir George Askwith, and others, thus causing suffering by starvation of a large number of women and children in the East End of London, and involving the ruin of many businesses not connected with the dispute." Has the hon. Member the leave of the House?
  The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called oh those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a Quarter-past Eight o'clock this evening.

  VETERINARY OPERATIONS (ANÆSTHETICS).
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to make further provision for the protection of animals from cruelty."
  I hope that hon. Members when they realise its object may allow this Bill to become law this Session without opposition. The Bill seeks to impose penalties on anyone performing or causing to be performed certain operations on horses and dogs without anaesthetics. The Bill only deals with horses and dogs on the face of it, because all those who have experience know that horses and dogs undoubtedly feel far more pain than other domestic animals. The Bill seeks to give power to ths Board of Agriculture to make Regulations extending and altering the Schedules if necessary, after, of course, they have been laid on the Table of the House. Under the Cruelty to Animals Act of 1876, no operation for the purposes of vivisection is allowed without anæsthetics if it is more serious than the cutting of a vein just under the skin. It has always struck me as a great anomaly that Parliament when it dealt most rightly with this question of cruelty involved in vivisection left quite untouched the very much greater amount of cruelty which undoubtedly at the present time exists owing to the unchecked veterinary operations which are performed without anæsthetics. The advance of medical science has not brought the same alleviation of suffering to animals as to human beings, and, in fact, it has in many cases led to more, because surgical operations are now performed on animals which were not thought of before, and they have not yet had the benefit of anæsthetics in those more complicated operations which every human being naturally demands. Veterinary surgeons have told me that they are positively ashamed of the kind of operations which they are sometimes expected to do without anæsthetics. They are placed in a very difficult position. They cannot refuse to operate without anæsthetics because if they do very often the owner goes to a horse doctor, who is less squeamish, and inflicts very much more suffering. No doubt many owners see that the horses get anæsthetics, but I believe many more would take this course if this Bill came into operation. I showed this Bill a few days ago to a Member of this House who for many years was a very
  1010
  successful Master of a well-known pack of hounds. He told me he quite agreed with everything in the Bill except the inclusion of the operation of castration. He told me that in the castration of a horse very little pain was involved, because the horse was cast and the legs tied in such a position that it could not move, and that the whole thing was over in a moment. That may have been the case a few years ago, but the position is now changed owing to the fact that owners object to having their horses cast, and it is now usual to perform the operation while the horse is. standing.
  Under the best of conditions this operation must be painful, but I would ask the House to imagine what it must be now, when, as a veterinary surgeon expressed it to me it is no longer a question of surgery, but of gymnastics, owing, to the fact that the horse is moving about, and to the necessity of the operator of avoiding kicks. The operation is either done with a hot iron, a clamp cautery, or an ecraseur or crusher. Everybody knows that in the case of a human being if a limb is lacerated or torn by a machine, owing to the fact that the blood vessels are crushed and mangled the bleeding ceases quicker than in the case of a clean cut by a sharp instrument. This operation is performed with this ecraseur or moving chain which mangles and crushes the blood vessels, so that very little flow of blood takes place. I have not described the ojjeration to cause a feeling of horror to the House, but simply to enable Members to realise the changed practice in this respect, and because I fully recognise that if there is any opposition to this measure it will be on the ground of the inclusion of castration. I am sure if hon. Members agree to the inhumanity of castration without anæsthetics they will far more agree to the other provisions of the Bill. I believe enlightened public opinion will now support a Bill on those lines, because I have taken the trouble to consult a good many horse owners on this matter. The House will see that the Bill has got the support of a large number of Members with a practical knowledge of horses, including the hon. Member for New market (Sir Charles Rose), who in a very special way, represents those who are interested in horse breeding and horse owning. It has long been recognised if a horse is unfit for work that no financial

  1011
  considerations shall absolve an owner from liability to a charge of cruelty if he chooses to work it. I say that it is therefore not too much to ask that where owners for their own convenience and profit subject animals to surgical operations that they should pay the necessary five shillings for the use of an anæsthetic. For those reasons I earnestly ask the House to allow this Bill to pass and thus put a stop to what I believe results in a vast amount of unnecessary cruelty to animals which is a standing reproach to our humanity.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Walter Guinness; supported by Dr. Addison, Mr. Baird, Sir Frederick Banbury, Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck, Mr. Butcher, Sir Reginald Pole-Carew, Mr. Greene, Colonel Lockwood, Mr. Mills, and Sir Charles Rose. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 286.]

  ROYAL SCOTTISH MUSEUM EXTENSION BILL SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Ordered, That Mr. Charles Price be discharged from the said Committee;
  Ordered, That Mr. Hogge be added. —[Mr. Gulland.]

SUPPLY.— [EIGHTEENTH ALLOTTED DAY.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1912–13, Progress; CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1912–13
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. WIIITLEY in the Chair.]

  Class 4.—PUBLIC EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, 8. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,539,425, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for Public Education in Scotland, and for Science and Art in Scotland, including a Grant-in-Aid."— [Note.—£950,000 has been voted on account.]
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: On a point of Order. I would ask your opinion on a question raised in the House yesterday as
  1012
  to the order of Debate in Committee. Will a general discussion be permissible, or do you propose to take each Vote according to the matter it contains?
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: In giving your decision, will you take into consideration the altered aspect of affairs, owing to the fact that a Motion for the Adjournment of the House has been fixed for this evening?
  The CHAIRMAN: I have found that there is not a general agreement with regard to taking a general discussion on the Secretary for Scotland's salary. I might also point out that, in my view, it would not be for the real interest of private Members that that course should be adopted, as it would take away from them the opportunity for pressing home and taking the sense of the Committee upon some specific criticism that they may have to make against His Majesty's Government or the particular Department concerned. The old practice of the House in regard to the Estimates is designed in the interests of private Members and should be maintained.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland would have thought it well to open the Debate with a statement of policy. It is rather difficult to enter upon a discussion of the administration of the Department without the general statement which I think on every previous occasion has been made. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO."] However, I shall endeavour to refer to a few points upon which I think it necessary to call for some explanation. As the Committee are aware, I have, for the best of reasons, avoided anything like captious criticism of the Department. It is quite plain to Members from Scotland why that unwillingness should appear on my part. It would be improper on a subject of this sort to raise any question of political import or to make the education of the country a question of political acrimony or political discussion. I have, however, to criticise some features of the Department's administration, and, although I may have to cross swords with the right hon. Gentleman, I hope there may be no rancour imported into the discussion and no bones broken on either side. Whilst avoiding as far as possible anything like captious or party criticism of the Department with which I was for so long

  1013
  connected, it is my duty in the interests of education to point out where I consider certain flaws have arisen. I am not going at any length into the question which has been so frequently raised with regard to the distribution of the Grants. On that point I am glad to be, as I have frequently been before, on the side of the right hon. Gentleman. The difficulty of allocating this fund would tax the powers of the Archangel Gabriel himself. It is utterly impossible to satisfy one authority without dissatisfying and giving reason for criticism to many others. But I wish to advert to a singularly inept contribution to this discussion made by the hon. Member for South Lanarkshire. The hon. Member has thought fit to give his newly acquired knowledge to the public in a letter which he has contributed to the newspapers. He has told a number of people what everybody acquainted with the circumstances knew long ago, but did not think it necessary emphatically and publicly to state. The hon. Member reminds one of those enfants terribles with whom we are all acquainted in the domestic circle, who will blurt out precisely those things which in all the circumstances it is more expedient perhaps to pass over in silence. I do not envy the Secretary for Scotland or his official colleagues their task when next they have to go to an obdurate and hard-hearted Treasury, who will be able to quote against them the very damaging statements in this over-candid letter.
  I want to call attention to the last paragraph of the letter. Possibly the hon. Member finds that the claims upon the Treasury which he has made in season and out of season are not so well substantiated as he thought they were. However, he has a method which he thinks is consummate for dealing with all the difficulties. He says:—
  "In my opinion, the proper ground for school board managers to take with regard to the Scottish Education Department is one of inflexible opposition to any and every proposal which is put before them which would in any way increase the cost of education."
  I am not quite sure that the hon. Member will find the whole of the Scottish Members or the whole of Scotland in agreement with him in this policy of absolute niggardliness towards education. No doubt there may be extravagance. I have often pointed out, both when I was in official life and since, that it would be prudent to look forward to see what expenditure was really necessary, to take
  1014
  stock of it, and to take account of the time when the taxpayers and ratepayers would begin to be tired. But it is useless to think that all our evils are to be cured by absolutely opposing any and every proposal for educational expenditure. That is not the proper remedy. I am convinced it is not the remedy that the right hon. Gentleman himself would propose. The remedy is to be found in adjusting the financial relations between the central Exchequer and the local authorities. There are only two grounds on which you can or ought to adjust your Grant. The first is that the Grant ought to be made in proportion to the educational work done. That is a sound criterion and will carry you a long way. In the second place, Grants must be made—and this is an entirely different question—in proportion to the ability of the different localities to supplement them from their own funds. That is not an educational question at all. It is a financial question. It deals with the far larger question of the adjustment of Imperial and local burdens which has been far too long delayed. It is all very well for one Ministry after another to come down and say that such and such a question must be put off until they have adjusted the relations between local and Imperial taxation. That is a question which ought to be settled without delay, otherwise some part of your local administration is bound to break down, and that part is more likely to be the educational part than any other, because the burden of education is unquestionably and incomparably greater than that of any other form of local contribution. Besides that, the work of the Education Department and the work for which that expenditure is paid is, more than any other local work, of Imperial importance, and it ought to get a larger subvention from the Imperial Exchequer. I acquit no Government of delay in dealing with this question or of a certain degree of guilt for the present state of confusion. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to be guided solely by these two considerations—first, the amount of educational work done, which is the only thing of which the Education Department is properly fitted to be the judge; and, secondly, the ability of the different localities in proportion to their wealth, the state of their population, and their rateable resources to raise the necessary additional revenue.
  Many hon. Members are apt to speak as though the proper proportion were that proportion which arose on one occasion, and

  1015
  was invented only for a special emergency, namely, the eleven-eightieths. The sooner hon. Members disabuse their minds of any lingering belief in that proportion the better it will be for the financial stability of education It was accidentally taken up in the year 1890, when Mr. Gosehen's Local Government Taxation Bill was first brought forward. It was taken up because for the moment there was no other course to be pursued. It has been repudiated over and over again by the Treasury; it has been, and ought to be, repudiated by the Scottish authorities as well. The danger of this is seen precisely when we come to study the letter of the hon. Member for South Lanarkshire. His endless and tiresome comparisons of the exact proportions between England and Scotland are absolutely wide of the mark. We ask to be paid for what we have done educationally, not by any comparison with England. If we have earned twice as much as England, we still put forward the claim which I trust the right hon. Gentleman will advance on our behalf. We have earned it by our educational work and by the peculiar circumstances of the localities which call for special help. I will not enter upon a further question which I understand will give rise to some perturbation on the Government Benches. I refer to the transfer of the Education Department to Edinburgh. It will amuse us to watch the differences of opinion which may express themselves as the Debate proceeds on the benches opposite. I will only say what is my plain opinion in the light of common sense. Whatever you may do with regard to Home Rule, you cannot have a Department separated from the Minister. It is all very well to say that letters may be sent up, that there may be constant communication, that you may write and receive the approval of the Minister from Edinburgh. That to any man who really knows the working of a Department is absolute nonsense. You must be in touch with your political chief. You must meet him and discuss every point with him. It is not a matter of this letter or of that letter being seen. You must be in daily and even hourly intercourse with him in official life, so that you may see that you are working in accordance with his views, and show that you understand his views, which it is your business to the best of your ability to carry out, and that he understands fully the general lines which you, as the permanent head of the Department, are
  1016
  acting upon. To separate the official part of the Department from the Minister responsible for this House would, I can assure hon. Members opposite, only result in a lowering of their influence. Parliament will, in fact, cease to have any hold over the Department at all, and if it is situated in Edinburgh the Department will, sooner or later, establish itself as an independent Department, which will be very slightly interfered with by the Parliament here.
  Mr. PIRIE: Could the influence of the Scottish Members either one way or the other be lower than it now is?
  Sir H. CRAIK: I am surprised that such a question should be put. At any rate, I should have thought whatever influence there was it would be on the side of hon. Members opposite. But I wish to point out to the Committee what such a proposal as this really means. There are to my certain knowledge 100 to 150 letters to be dealt with every day. You cannot put them off, and it is only by constant intercourse that you will be able to make sure that you are dealing with the question in the spirit in which the responsible Minister wishes them to be dealt with. The hon. Member for Aberdeen reminds me of an amusing anecdote the origin of which has been attributed to me. It was to the effect that I had said that if a Board of Education was to be established in Edinburgh it should be only over my dead body. How a story grows in picturesqueness as transmitted from one mouth to another is illustrated in this case. What occurred was this. I told the hon. Member that I was once asked by a distinguished Member of his own party at that time—I am not speaking of anyone responsible for the Government—whether there was a Board of Education in Scotland. I replied in the negative, and he answered, "I have to deal with the Irish Board of Education; take my advice, only allow a Board of Education to be established in Edinburgh over your own dead body."
  There is a question of which I am beginning to hear a good deal. It has been brought before me very strongly and with so much urgency that I cannot allow myself to be silent upon it. There are doubts and difficulties as to some of the features in the curriculum prescribed for certain schools by the Department. I am not in any way anxious to decide adversely against the Department. I study annually and with increasing interest the Report on

  1017
  secondary education, and I must say that the Report for the present year is one of the most interesting—I state this in no spirit of flattery—is one of the most interesting educational Reports that has been issued in any country for a very considerable time. The Department defends its position with its usual ability, but I am bound to say that there have arisen, especially from the Northern parts of Scotland, very considerable complaints as to the effect which this too strict prescribing of the curriculum is having on certain people of the traditional educational style. I am perfectly frank. I am by sympathy and tradition and by my firm and conscientious belief in favour of some of the older forms. I am perfectly certain no one can say that during the twenty years I formed a certain element in the Department there was any opposition whatever shown on my part to advance on the widest lines of scientific education. I felt it was urgent beyond all things that if education was to advance there should be no preference given to one feature of it over another, and I also felt that I could not allow my own personal sympathies to bias me in favour of one system rather than another.
  But we must remember what education in Scotland means. You cannot train our young men in Scotland for merely our own borders. We have to train them for export. What is necessary? Not a specialised system of education, but an education that will give mental capacity and every possible adaptability and facility for turning itself to different occupations. It must be an education that is a training of mind above all things, the adaptation of the faculties to suit themselves to any possible circumstances that may arise. After all, whatever may be said of the older forms, traditions and lines of education, if the proof of the pudding is to be found in the eating of it, it must be admitted that there is no country that has exported so many trained men, who have proved that their minds have been trained in the right way for service all over the world. I am quite sure that the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presides is not anxious to unduly discourage this form of education. But the suspicion is too widespread for me to be silent about it altogether. The suspicions arise chiefly from the fact that a certain, perhaps over-comprehensive, curriculum is rigidly prescribed for all pupils under the intermediate stage of education. There are certain aspects of that which would be very useful, but it is a dangerous feature
  1018
  for the Department to press too hard. There are many boys who, long before they reach the age of fifteen, have developed their tastes, know their own predelictions, and are able to state the lines upon which they prefer to follow, and it may be for many of these boys a tyranny and a hardship to be bound too hard by this scientific problem. I think I have done quite enough in calling the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this fact. Many hon. Members must be aware from the complaints which have reached them that certain suspicions have been aroused. I know that the Department is quite alive to the great advantages of this training in the older subjects so traditional in Scotland and so beneficial for use in Scotland, and I only ask the right hon. Gentleman to beware that he does not carry too far this scientific phase, which some people in Scotland think the Department are now doing.
  Before I sit down I want to refer with more particularity, and, perhaps, with a little more emphasis, to one particular feature of the administration relating to a single school, and that is a school with which I believe the right hon. Gentleman is pretty well acquainted—the school at Fordyce. I should like to explain very briefly the precise difficulty which has arisen in regard to that school. Fordyce is one of the oldest, one of the most characteristic, one of the most famous schools in the North of Scotland. It has existed for generations. It has educated many very able men whose names are firmly established in the roll of fame. It is proud of its existence and of its traditions, and it is anxious to continue those traditions in the future. What is the difficulty that has arisen? There has been a desire grown up that this school should be rooted from its present foundations, that it should be relegated to a much inferior position, and should no longer be the principal school in the district. I am not going to enter into a long discussion on the merits and the disputes between Portsoy and Fordyce. I only want to take some of the salient features, and show where my objection arises. The people of Portsoy may be right, and the people of Portsoy may be wrong, but that is not the point I am discussing to-day. What I wish to draw attention to is this. After the question had been fully discussed, after a lawsuit had taken place in which the Fordyce people had the best of it, after there had been a school board election, from that time onwards the conduct of the parties has been

  1019
  open to very considerable animadversions. At the school board election a majority were returned in favour of retaining Fordyce School where it was. A new school was admitted to be necessary, but the centre of educational activity was to rest at Fordyce. There may be, in the abstract, right or wrong on either side, but surely if anything had been discussed and settled by the local representatives at that election it was the point whether the school should remain where it was. The Department can do excellent work, but I think the one thing the Department has no right to do, and never can have a right to do, and which no official organisation has a right to do, is to put off time in the hope that some change may arise in the feeling in the district. That is a very serious charge to bring. It is not one that absolutely condemns the Department, but I do think that there are features that would make me, if I were a member of the local authority of that locality, considerably indignant at the action of the Department. The Department can object to anything distinctly wrong in the proposals of the school board; and, of course, if the Department, instead of making its correspondence succinct, short, definite, and to the point, indulges in long rigmaroles in letters, extending over many folios, raising new questions, urging new points, then I think undoubtedly it would have a bitter effect in the long run on any local organisation, and, speaking as an old official, I think that such a system is carrying the wiles of officialism a good deal too far. What are the points involved? The school board have submitted their plans, and these plans are now in the office of the Department. They are ready to alter them if need be. I do not believe there are very serious alterations necessary; but the Department proceeds to raise a point and to say: That the specifications are not really nearly right, and that they are convinced the work will cost a good deal more than is shown in the contractors' estimates. I think the Department takes upon itself a work of supererogation. It is not the business of the Department to examine the contractors' estimates. They raise difficulties that ought not to be raised on their side, and, at all events, the responsibilities should be thrown upon the school board, and they should be told plainly, "You must act upon your own responsibility." That would be a fair course to
  1020
  take, but it is not fair to simply raise new questions. The Department again raise this difficulty, which is quite a new one, as to the sanitary arrangements and the water supply. But, after all, Fordyce is in existence for many years. There are many houses there. It is not proposed to remove this school from Fordyce; but there is to be a higher school, and water must be supplied in the higher department, and the boys in that department will not be in any greater danger than those in the lower department; and if they are not anxious about the poisoning of four hundred boys in the lower department, how is it that they are so extremely anxious about a handful of boys in the upper, and refuse to sanction a school for them because, as they allege, it cannot be kept in a sanitary state? The general sanitary arrangements in this district are not in the hands of the Department, or the school board, they are in the hands of the sanitary authorities. The school board can, of course, take advantage of anything done. If anything is wrong with the action of the sanitary authorities they can be put right, but do not make this a new cause of delay and pretence to put off businesslike proceedings, to settle this long controverted point which is now going on for two or three years.
  What is the third point the Department raise? The Department says, "we must know all you are going to do before we can sanction this scheme. We have the contractors' plans, we cannot enforce the point about the sanitary authority, but we want to know exactly what you are going to do at Portsoy, and what would happen in two or three years. You are going to transfer boys from one school to another." The matter is concerned with the transfer of thirty or forty boys from a particular department. Any school board could decide it. Are you going to alter the size of a school for four or five hundred children because there may be twenty or thirty, more or less, transferred from one department? Let me beseech the right hon. Gentleman: let him act straight and instruct his Department to act straight, and let this controversy be settled. It is too long that educational divisions and quarrels are going on. They have been going on now for the last two or three years, unsettling and exasperating all connected with educational work. The Department may be right, and the school board may be wrong, but let us get the matter settled, and do not complicate it under a cloud of

  1021
  words. I have tried all I could in the last two or three years to smooth down this difficulty and to reassure the people of the North of Scotland by telling them that I was quite sure the Department only desired to do what was best, but the thing has now become an absolute scandal, and I am compelled to say when I look at the correspondence it has been to a great extent carried out in a way in which I think official correspondence should not be carried out. Take the letter of the 1st of May, 1912, and I should say no official letter ought to occupy more than a page and a half or two pages, and the whole genius and intellect of officials ought to be employed in compressing correspondence into the smallest space possible; this letter actually takes up a whole column of small print when it is reproduced in a newspaper.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is this an example of the advantage of close association with the Secretary for Scotland?
  Sir H. CRAIK: I am discussing a particular question, and I ought not to be interrupted with those half jests. The Board appear to think there is a great majority outside the school board who do not believe in this scheme, but there has been an election and the people have returned school board representatives in favour of the Fordyce scheme, and is this to go on until the Day of Judgment? Here is what the letter says:—
  "If the petition really represents the mind of the majority of your board's constituents, further heavy outlay on intermediate and secondary education seems inevitable in the near future, unless your board can conciliate opposition by handling in a statesmanlike fashion the extremely difficult problem with which they are confronted."
  That is official language gone mad. What is the use of talking to a country school board about handling matters in a statesmanlike manner. Why not put into a short space in plain language what you want these people to answer? Tell us what it is you are doubtful about, and what you want to do? I may remark that the Department always refuse to tell us what they want to have done. Their intention is to criticise, and they think the school board should say what they want done. The school board has said it clearly, and if the Department want it stated more clearly let them say so without talking about statesmanship in a letter a column long. They encourage the very fault which they should condemn by these long, prolix epistles. I advised the school board for all I was worth to curtail their
  1022
  letters into a page and a half. Let the Department follow their example, and tell us plainly what they wish to confine this controversy to, and let this controversy end, instead of persisting in this long discussion and prolixity in raising new questions every week. I have spoken strongly, but not more strongly than the communications that have reached me. I tried, and the Department knows perfectly well, to act as a pacificator, as an amicus curiæ, to smooth down the offended withers of those concerned. I was first assured that the Department was only anxious to learn. I am beginning to doubt it now, and the length and prolixity of their letters have convinced me that is the case. I have in my hand a letter in answer to a remarkably short letter written by my advice by the school board on 22nd June. That letter is almost as long as the others, raising new questions, and starting an immense number of new imaginary difficulties. Let the right hon. Gentleman urge upon his officials to be a little more succinct. I will give one or two sentences from this letter:—
  "The Department have some reason to think that the report of their architect would be useful to your board in their further deliberations, and, should your board so desire, a copy of it will be forwarded accordingly."
  If the Department wanted the board to see the report of their architect, why not send it on? Why waste language in saying that it may be useful? I hope the right hon. Gentleman does not think that I have urged anything that is not right. I only urge what has been pressed upon me, and I think that in this matter officialism, has got on its high horse, and that it might as well come down again to the ground and act with common sense and get to a settlement of this difficulty.
  Mr. PIRIE: I beg to reduce the Vote by £100.
  I shall not follow the example of the hon. Gentleman opposite, whom I may congratulate as the apostle of what is succinct, which he has shown himself to be in a speech which has taken up one-fifth of the time which Scottish Members have for the discussion of these questions.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: He is quite entitled to do so.
  Mr. PIRIE: He has taken up one-fifth of the whole of the time which we Scottish Members will probably get. The fact the Motion for the Adjournment of the House has been carried to-day must make hon. Members regret very much indeed that it would be impossible to give effect

  1023
  to the kindly consideration shown when it was agreed to by both sides that hon. Members should speak upon any matter on the discussion of the salary of the Secretary for Scotland. Objection to that course did not come from Scottish Members; objection came from English Members who wanted apparently further discussion on the Home Office Vote. I think Scottish Members ought to take notice that our rights are often curtailed as to practicability and efficiency by those objections raised by Englishmen. The only question I wish to discuss to-day is this question of the transference of the Scottish Education Department to Edinburgh. I still hope that there may be some concession made as to the very serious request put before the Secretary of State in this matter by a very influential deputation. Before I touch upon that point I wish to call attention to three points which have come up in the course of this Session as regards the Scottish Education Department. In the first place, there is the evasiveness of many of the answers given to hon. Members in this House by the Scottish Department. In the second place, there are the examples of what I call the autocracy of that Department; and thirdly, there is the mystery of who "my Lords" are. This matter was put before the House two or three days ago by the hon. and gallant Member for Banffshire (Captain Waring). It was a very simple question, merely asking that in view of the amalgamation which has been suggested, steps should be taken to make the Report public which had up to that time been treated as secret. What was the answer given to that question. It was an answer occupying half a column of the OFFICIAL REPORT evading every single point which my hon. and gallant Friend had put. The answer was, "It seems to me that this simple procedure provides ample safeguards for every interest." How do you provide ample safeguards, when hon. Members, who are the only people who could have control, are by the secrecy of the reports of the Education Department denied the opportunity of having that control. My hon. and gallant Friend asked that the Report should be made public, and all we got was an evasive answer. There was a supplementary question put by the Noble Lord opposite as to who finally settled this matter, and I supplemented it by asking who were really the Education Department. The Secretary for Scotland took the occasion, I suppose, of bringing home
  1024
  to his countrymen that he was really and truly a Scotchman by saying that a quotation from a speech made eighteen months ago by the Lord Advocate about Sir John Struthers was a jest. I would like to know if the Lord Advocate still thinks it is a joke. Perhaps it was a Scotch joke, and perhaps the Secretary for Scotland proves his nationality by saying that he has only just discovered what it meant after an interval of eighteen months. This is only typical of many instances showing the evasiveness of the answers and the autocracy of the Scottish Education Department in keeping these Reports secret and refusing to make them public. What we urge is that the Permanent Secretary of the Department should be principally, although not entirely, in the capital of Scotland, in Edinburgh. In receiving a deputation on this subject, the Secretary for Scotland said:—
  "He had representations made to him by Scottish Members that they would be very sorry to lose the convenience, while performing their Parliamentary duties, of visiting Dover House, and seeing Sir John Struthers. They said they would not be able to serve their constituencies so well if they were deprived of that opportunity."
  With all respect to hon. Members who take that opportunity, I cannot help myself seeing the selfishness of that argument, because hon. Members are placing their personal opinions before the interests of the school boards who wish to have communications between the Permanent Secretary and the principal of the Education Department in Scotland. Admitting the force of this argument the Secretary for Scotland might obviate the difficulty while Parliament is sitting by allowing the Permanent Secretary to be at Dover House during the first week of each month or once a fortnight. We do not ask for the entire transference of that Department. What are the arguments for the transference? The real duty of the Scottish Education Department is one of supervision, and it ought to be in close touch with Scottish education opinion, and ought to be accessible to the richest as well as the poorest school board in Scotland. Another argument which I advise the Secretary for Scotland to be rather suspicious about is that some people do not approve of this change because it tends to Home Rule. That is a very curious argument which can be used on both sides of the House. There are hon. Members opposite who do not believe in Home Rule, but for hon. Members on this side to say that they will not approve of this transfer until we get Home Rule

  1025
  seems to me a bad argument, because you cannot have it both ways. No less than forty-seven out of sixty-seven hon. Members for Scottish constituencies are asking for this change, and those forty-seven Members include five Privy Councillors with over twenty years' service as Scottish Members of Parliament. Lord Haldane, the Lord Chancellor, wrote very clearly on this question in a preface to a book entitled "Scottish Education Reform," in which he says:—
  "In educational affairs administration is probably the most important element. Of this proposition it is a corollary that the seat of this administration ought to be in close relation to those concerned. If this be true, the further proposition is self-evident, that this seat ought to be in Scotland, and not at Dover House, hundreds of miles away in England."
  Mr. Caldwell, who wrote a letter to the Scottish papers the other day, was equally emphatic. I do not think it is respectful to the opinion of hon. Members who have served Scotland for so long to ignore such a request, for if those hon. Members do not know the opinion of Scotland, then representation here becomes a farce. We should be wanting in self-respect if we did not press this matter home as strongly as we can. We are ready to accept anything in the shape of a concession, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give some attention to this matter. What I should like to see as regards the whole question of education in Scotland is that the right hon. Gentleman should not content himself simply with the transference of the Education Department, but also appoint an advisory council for Scottish education. There is a growing feeling of discontent in Scotland that all is not well with Scottish education, and there ought to be a Commission of Inquiry appointed to go into the effect recent legislation has had on Scottish education. These are points which ought to be inquired into. There is the evil of over centralisation, which is very much felt in rural districts and in the North of Scotland, and the expenses are prohibitive to the poor people. Scottish education, instead of becoming more democratic, has become undemocratic in every way. I have alluded already to the evils of constant day railway travelling which over centralisation brings about. It is admitted that railway travelling daily for young children, especially for boys and girls under fifteen years of age, is most detrimental to their character. I will not dwell on the evils of this system.
  We are only allowed a few hours to bring forward these questions, and when we ask for information by questions and answers,
  1026
  we only get evasive replies. It is high time an inquiry was held into these all-important and serious questions. Another point is the lowering of the status of rural schools. On this matter I am not quoting my own opinion, but I am giving the opinion of the highest education authorities in Scotland, men who have given all their lives to educational questions, whose names are household words in every educational centre in Scotland. The question of training colleges ought to be inquired into, as well as the effect of the Carnegie Trust, which, although it was brought into existence for an excellent purpose, is not apparently doing the work which its founder intended. Then there is the question of allocation of bursaries, which ought to form the subject of a general inquiry. The Recess is coming on, and I know the right hon. Gentleman cannot give us a final answer this time. I admit this is a big question, but let him take the Recess to think it over, and see whether he can by next October do something in the way of appointing a Commission of Inquiry. If he will do that, he will be doing what those who understand Scottish education questions, and who have spent their lives in Scotch education, desire, pending what I hope will eventually come, namely, Scotch Home Rule. I think that in Scottish education generally the tendency has been levelling down instead of levelling up. In my military days there used to be a maxim in regard to the Cavalry that the pace had to be according to the pace of the slowest horse in the squadron. We are levelling down now in education in Scotland to the least intelligent boy, and we are not giving the most intelligent boy the chance he ought to have. Those are all important questions which I beg to call the attention of the Scottish Education Department to.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. HARRY HOPE: I desire to give expression to a very wide feeling that prevails in Scotland at the present time that the Scottish Education Department are administering educational affairs in a far too high-handed and domineering manner, and public educationists in Scotland are in open revolt against the Scottish Education Department. What is the effect of this? Not only are rates going up and expenditure enormously increasing, but you find amongst the school boards a general feeling of apathy and hostility to all the doings of the Department. I believe the Secretary for Scotland, if I may be allowed

  1027
  to say so, is far too able a man to allow that state of affairs to continue if he only knew it. I can assure him the opinion throughout Scotland at the present time is very much in earnest on this matter. By the Act of 1872, the school boards, which are of course small areas, parish areas, were vested with the power of administering education under central guidance from the Department. Nowadays that central guidance has grown into what we might call inspectors' domination. Inspectors tell school boards they must do this and they must do that. One man says a new kind of form must be bought, and another man says some other alteration must be made, and, if the school board does not do just what the first inspector says, when the next man comes that way they find the new inspector does not carry out what the previous inspector wanted done. He starts a new fad of his own. This starting of fads and insisting on fads by inspectors is doing a great deal of harm indeed. I am not a Scotch Home Ruler, but I say, if the present administration of Scottish educational affairs under the Department here in London is the best that can be done, then bring it to Scotland. I do not think it is possible to have our education administered worse than it is being done at the present time by the Board up here. There is just one other point to which I want to give expression, and that is the way in which the moneys for secondary education are being handled. In the small county of Bute the sum varies to a very great extent. Two years ago we got £1,720, last year £1,640, and this year we are down to £975. How can the county education committee do right? How can they carry on any policy of continuity when the sum they have to dispose of goes up and down by leaps and bounds by hundreds of pounds? I say a system under which the moneys vary so much as that is a bad system, and I only hope the Secretary for Scotland, when points of this sort are brought to his notice, will do something to amend them. I have much pleasure accordingly in supporting the Motion for the reduction of this Vote.
  Mr. EUGENE WASON: I want to say a few words on this very thorny question of education, and I am bound to say I wish the hon. Member who initiated the Debate, the Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir Henry Craik), when he advises correspondents to compress their
  1028
  letters into a page and a half, would compress his speeches into the same length. I think we might possibly have a better chance then of a reasonable discussion of this question. I have the good fortune to represent two counties in Scotland, Clackmannan and Kinross, but at times I find myself in a certain amount of difficulty. If I please Clackmannan I do not please Kinross, and if I please Kinross Clackmannan is up in arms. Against the will of Kinross, Kinross is joined to Fife, and I am quite sure my hon. Friend the Member for St. Andrews Burghs (Major Anstruther-Gray) will have had, as I have had, letters from the secretary of the Fife Education Committee with reference to the allocation of the Grant. It is only necessary to go back a brief period, to the Education Act of 1908. I do not know how many schemes the Board of Education have had. The first scheme pleased Clackmannan immensely, but with the second scheme they were disgusted. Kinross got a Grant because she was worse off under the money which she was going to be allocated than she would have been if no> money was given at all. The Board of Education, therefore, in their wisdom, was kind and generous enough to make a special Grant in respect of education, and she was well pleased. All of a sudden, and absolutely against the wish of Kinross, she was joined to Fife for secondary education purposes, and she has never been happy since, and my life has been a burden. If the first and second scheme were right, then this scheme is all wrong. Under the last scheme Fife and Kinross are worse treated than any county in the whole of Scotland. They get less under this scheme than they got last year by £5,348. Of course, we know perfectly well a large portion of that is due to the superannuation burden, and we are not grumbling about that. We are quite willing to pay our fair share, but we are down by a larger proportion than any other county in Scotland. I have received several letters, and I think I may read one to show exactly the position. They say:—
  "With reference to the allocation of Grant to Fife and Kinross. Kinross was amalgamated with Fife because Kinross had insufficient funds to pay their way."
  I pointed that out. They wished to be left alone and to carry on their own way. They would have been able to have done so if they had only been given a little additional Grant:—
  "Had Kinross remained separate the new Minute would have provided sufficient funds for Kinross. In

  1029
  the new method of allocation has this been considered? Fife should have its own allocation, and Kinross should also have its allocation, and this added on to Fife. Otherwise the allocation to the two counties would be less, as Kinross has a low rate and is sparsely populated."
  That is my case, and it is a great grievance which the Kinross people feel. They beg me to express to the House their strong disapproval of the way in which this money has been allocated. I want to make an appeal to the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate. Every Scotch Member, whether he sits on this or that side of the House, is deeply interested in this question of education. No people in the world care so much about education, I believe, as the Scotch people. We are sick to death of this perpetual wrangling in Scotland as to whether one county gets more or another county gets more, or as to whether one burgh gets less or another burgh gets less, and we ought to get some reasonable and decent settlement of this question, by which we should not have this perpetual wrangling between the different counties. I would not fight for either of my counties if I thought they were wrong, but surely it ought not to pass the wit of man to be able to devise some fair and generous scheme, under which we should cease this perpetual wrangling, and by which the Scotch Education Department, whether it is located here, or, as I hope and believe it surely will be some day in Scotland, will be able to do justice as between the different parts of Scotland.
  Mr. CLYDE: I want to say a word with regard to the same matter as that with which the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has dealt. I am personally particularly interested, as he said, in the county of Kinross, combined now with Fife, which is out and away the worst treated county in Scotland under the new scheme; and I am also connected particularly with regard to this House with the city of Edinburgh, which is out and away the worst treated burgh under this scheme. I am afraid in one aspect of the personal matter I am in even a greater difficulty than the right hon. Gentleman himself. He says he finds Clackmannan pulls him one way and Kinross pulls him the other. I am interested in Clackmannan, Kinross, and Edinburgh. I was born in Clackmannan, my home is in Kinross, and I earn my daily bread in Edinburgh. I want to confine my attention to the two cases—Fife and Kinross on the one hand and Edinburgh on the other. The drop in the case of the
  1030
  counties is £5,000 odd as compared with last year, and the drop in the case of the city of Edinburgh is, in round figures, £7,000 as compared with last year, but it is only fair to say that these figures, if we take them in themselves, exaggerate the true result, because one has to allow for the superannuation burden. Allowing for the superannation burden, however, the main facts remain unchanged. Fife and Kinross are out and away the worst treated county—perhaps I should not say the worst but the hardest treated county— and Edinburgh is out and away the hardest treated city. The figures, if you make the necessary allowance, are £2,300 for Fife and Kinross, and £3,700 in round figures for the city of Edinburgh. These two cases, one a county and the other a burgh, are the only cases in which the new scheme involves a loss of anything like £2,000. If I remember the figures correctly, there are only one or two other cases—I cannot be accurate exactly—in which the drop is at or about £1,000, and, on the other hand, there are only three or four cases in which the rise exceeds four figures. I can quite understand it is difficult, I suppose it is impossible, to make a scheme while proceeding upon some definite principle which will do anything like justice as between the various localities. One can easily see that must be exceedingly difficult, and I suppose, when you come to a Department scheme, it must be based on some logical principle or else you lay yourself open to another kind of attack.
  I agree with the last speaker that Scotland is sick of the wrangling on this question. I am not going to raise the general question again; but I am going to put two points to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary, and the first of them is this: It is not to base any request that I am going to make, but what I am going to say is a reason for asking consideration of the kind I am going to ask for. So far as I can see myself from an examination of the figures the most potent—I am not saying the only cause, for that would not be true—but the most potent cause producing these few—for there are not many —very large and very striking variations up and down is the apparent difference in the different localities really due to the different standards of valuation that prevails in the various localities. I cannot help thinking—perhaps I am quite wrong —that this question has to some extent escaped the observation of those responsible. It is easy to assume that you may

  1031
  measure the burden on a locality or measure the extent to which a locality discharges its duty by looking at the rate and seeing what it spends, whether big or not. If the valuations were all made by the same people, or if the valuations were all standardised on some definite basis of information as to value that would be a perfectly fair ground to proceed upon, but it is notorious that in Scotland the valuations in the different localities are by no means equally standardised, on the contrary, they are very various.
  It is apt to be invidious if one makes comparisons, and I shall only make one, and I have no invidious idea at the back of my mind in doing so. If you were to compare, say the valuation of similar property in Glasgow and Edinburgh you would find, on the whole, and it has been so for some years, and increasingly so, that the standard of valuation in Edinburgh is very much higher than in Glasgow. I do not say that that reflects upon anybody. I do not think it does. The reason is that the valuation tends to be screwed up in a locality which is not progressing and extending rapidly. It does not tend to be screwed up to the same extent in a locality which is progressing and extending as rapidly as Glasgow is, because after all the burden of expense in these days increases at about equal ratio in both cases. Where the rates tend to become very high, there is the inevitable tendency to raise the valuation, and that has undoubtedly happened between Glasgow and Edinburgh. Anybody really familiar with this question, and its business aspects, would not, I think, differ from what I said. The difficulty in raising any criticism upon that ground is that one cannot expect these schemes to go on being altered any more. There has been too many of them already. I should rather expect the right hon. Gentleman would consider that his only safe policy is to say: at least we have got a third scheme and I am not going to upset it in favour of any other based on some different principle. I do not question his new scheme, but what I want to point out to him is this: If he is going to stick to this last scheme as the one finally to be adopted, and as the best that can be made, there is absolutely no reason why it should be brought into full operation in its full-pledged perfection immediately. There is on the contrary every reason why, where the variations are very wide up or down as compared with what has been
  1032
  received in the last few years—there is every reason why, what he regards as the best scheme, namely, his third, should be approached by degrees.
  It is not fair to submit an education authority to a sudden drop of £3,000 in the case of this county, and nearly £4,000 in the case of this borough. It is not fair if it can be avoided, and it can be avoided. Because if the right hon. Gentleman would take into account the fact that there are, after all, only three or four cases where the leap upwards is as big or bigger than one thousand pounds, and only three or four cases in which the leap downwards exceeds a thousand pounds—and of these only two where the descent reaches figures of three or four thousand pounds— it must be perfectly clear that without doing any injustice, without taking away anything from those authorities which are more highly benefited than before, but on the contrary by only allowing them to come into the full amount of this very large rise after say, two or three years' gradual approximation to what he thinks the best scheme, he can enable two, three, or four cases which are hit very hard to fall softly from the position which they occupied last year to the position in which they will have to be content under the scheme ultimately, if the right hon. Gentleman makes up his mind to stick to it. Therefore what I venture to ask his consideration of is this. I do not ask him to throw his scheme aside, or to attempt to frame a new scheme. I do ask if he cannot see his way to allow the new scheme to come into operation gradually over, say, three years—two, if three years be too many—and so give an opportunity for those localities which are so exceptionally hardly hit to accommodate themselves over this two or three years to the new conditions. It is not an unusual thing to do when money for public purposes is to be either greatly restricted or greatly increased. Because, after all, if it is restricted, the money, if it has got to be spent, has to come from the ratepayers' pockets; and it is not an unusual thing to make it comparatively easy for the public purse to accommodate itself to new demands, or, rather, to the demands in a new form—at any rate, in the form of rates you did not have. Therefore, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will see that the claim which I venture to press upon his consideration is not an extreme one. It is a very moderate request. It is that, without disturbing his scheme, he should,

  1033
  in the case of these localities which are on the one hand exceptionally benefited by the new scheme, and in the case of those which are exceptionally disadvantaged under the new scheme he should make some reasonable and practical provision extending over two or three years to give them time to adjust themselves to what, in his opinion, and I suppose we must take it now is to be regarded, as the best and permanent scheme.
  Mr. HOLMES: It has been a very great pleasure to me to listen to this Debate, because it makes one proud of one's native land. We have always in Scotland regarded education from a non-partisan point of view. It has been treated in that way to-day. We must come to the conclusion, after listening to the speeches from both sides, that all is not well, as one hon. Member has said, with education in Scotland. There is a kind of unrest in the educational world at the present time. It may be due to the prevalent unrest in the country, for this generation seems to be extremely restive under anything which savours of autocratic control. From a wide knowledge of the provincial Press of Scotland I have come to the conclusion that there is hardly a single school board that has not got a grievance of some kind. To read the reports of these school boards— there is what I may call a lack of affection existing between them and the central authorities. It is a fact that the relationship between the school boards in Scotland and the Educational Department is unduly strained; is strained to such a pitch as to make the harmonious co-operation of these two exceedingly difficult to maintain. We have all heard of a certain Memorial that was handed to the Secretary for Scotland not long ago, signed by forty-seven earnest and observant men. The object of that Memorial was to bring before the Government the fact that the existence of the office for controlling Scottish education was four or five hundred miles from the seat of operations, and such a position could not be any longer practically defended. There is a growing irritation in Scotland over that anomaly. No explanation has ever been given of it except the fact that since the headquarters of the Education Department are in London it is very convenient for hon. Members here to stroll in occasionally in their odd moments for an instructive conversation with some of the gentlemen in that office. I should be the very last to
  1034
  minimise the value of that privilege. But it does not go very far towards soothing the frayed nerves of our constituents. We think, and, in my opinion, we think rightly, that modern education is so complex an affair that it cannot be managed from a distance. The nation itself is ever giving the Department some hints on the matter.
  It always seems to me a very pathetic spectacle to see these continuous deputations from Scotland to Westminster of honest men neglecting their work in order to do what would be infinitely better done at home. The necessity for these deputations is an outrage upon the national sentiment of thrift. It is so very rare, too, in my opinion, to see any of these deputations going home happy. The school boards for Scotland are, I think, very well qualified for their duties, but they have a good many grounds for complaint. They have no initiative. Their functions are almost entirely limited to carrying out the demands and directions of a mysterious band of anonymous potentates known as "My Lords." Scottish people are not so superstitious as they used to be and they have not now the same veneration for these phantasmal gentry as they had thirty or forty years ago. They have come to the conclusion that "My Lords" have neither "the hearing ear nor the understanding heart," and as was said of Mrs. Harris, "There never was no such person." The activity of the Education Department is mainly brought before us by the promulgation of an extraordinary amount of official stationery. Every hon. Member receives bulky Blue Books containing the Report of Inspectors and the advice of experts. These books are written, I must say, in very good English. They are written on a high level, in an almost Ciceronian style, but they really make no impression upon anyone; because the Members of Parliament to whom they are sent have not the courage to read them, and the teachers for whom they are intended never see them, and even if they did would regard them with a fine mixture of scorn and amusement. It seems to be forgotten by the Education Department that the teacher is born rather than made. [An HON. MEMBER: "Like the poet."] Like the poet, as an hon. Member reminds me. You cannot produce a good teacher by any amount of official stationery. Hon. Members, I am sure, will agree with me when I say from recollection of early years—I do not

  1035
  wish to stir up any unpleasant souvenirs— that those teachers who influenced them most were not the hide-bound slaves of routine and pedantry, but were those who brought in the human touch who gave a stimulus to the student's enthusiasm, and felt it their duty to teach not for examination but for life. I think one of the best things that could happen to Scottish education at the present time would be to stop all examinations for a period of five years, and allow the teachers to go on their way rejoicing.
  I am sure that the inspectors of the schools do not enjoy writing these reports any more than we enjoy reading them. If I were asked to say what is the good that has come to Scotland from the Education Act, 1872, I should say better schools and better conditions. For many a long year the education given in our board schools was not at all equal to the education that was given by the old parochial schoolmasters. I think these old schools were splendidly instituted and carried on, and it is only in recent years that we have reverted to some of the old freedom. The main advantages gained are physical and material benefits. I believe with John Locke that health in childhood is the first concern, and that we must make sure of the child's physique before we dose it with parsing and analysis. It is a matter causing grave thought that so many bairns every morning go to our schools underfed and badly clothed. The responsibility which the State is now displaying towards the children of the land is one which gives us good many reasons for thinking of the future with something like disquietude. We have free education, and now we have medical inspection in schools, which is a very expensive affair in some ways, especially as doctors are not merely required to notify diseases, but to prescribe remedies. As the most obvious remedy is a sufficient supply of nourishing food, we come to the prospect of the communities, who are severely enough tried already, feeding these bairns whose parents are unable to fulfil that office. The worst of it is that all these humanitarian schemes fall upon the honest and thrifty citizen, who is very sorely tried as it is at the present moment. The time will come when we shall have to equalise the burden of our education, and probably have an equal rate all over Scotland. In that way the burden will be shifted from one locality to another. What is certain is that the pleasure's of modern civilisation are being
  1036
  sadly alloyed by these growing responsibilities. Larger schools, a greater supply of teachers, breakfasts for the bairns, pensions for the instructors, are the items with which our school boards are being overwhelmed. I think there is a need for a national council in this matter, and for national advice to be given and taken.
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: I do not propose to follow the last speaker in his dissertation on education in general, and other things in particular. I noticed the very mild way in which the hon. Member I for North Aberdeen (Mr. Pirie) criticised the Secretary for Scotland with regard to his decision as to the transfer of the Education Department from London to Edinburgh.
  Mr. PIRIE: I was hoping for a mild answer.
  Sir G. YOUNGER:I dare say the right hon. Gentleman will answer him quite mildly, but I hope he will answer him just I as firmly as he did the deputation which I waited upon him at the Scottish Office. We on this side of the Committee think that the Secretary for Scotland took the proper course on that occasion. With regard to the distribution of the Grant, which has occupied so much of our time today, the county in which I am personally interested feels the grievance very deeply, and has sent me long telegrams on the subject. I am not surprised that there should be a grievance in the matter. It appears to me that the Education Department is in a very great difficulty in this matter, and that we must not judge them too harshly. Members of Parliament, in discussions of this kind, are very apt to blame other people for their own mistakes. There can be no doubt whatever that when the Scottish Education Act was passed in 1908 very few of us realised the heavy burden we were placing on the Education Fund in regard to the superannuation of teachers. Most of us were too willing to believe that the Treasury would come to our assistance, and we are all partially to blame for the difficulty that has occurred. It is only fair that that should be said. What has happened? The Education Fund is having imposed upon it a very large charge for teachers' superannuation. Counties, with high valuations, appear to be suffering very greatly, because the poorer counties, which show not a surplus, but something very different, have to be assisted by the richer counties in order to help them over the stile, and in proportion as the valuations of such places as

  1037
  Edinburgh, Ayrshire, and Fifeshire are high—and they are very high—they suffer, or appear to suffer, in the necessity which is placed upon the Education Fund of assisting poorer counties by means of Grants. That cannot be helped. There is only one way of getting out of the difficulty, that is to induce the Treasury to give a little more money towards the Scottish Education Fund than it does at the present moment.
  Everyone realises the great difficulty which meets the Secretary for Scotland whenever he approached the Treasury. We cannot say we are badly treated in Scotland in the way of Grants. We are not entitled to say that we get less in proportion than our neighbours. So long as that state of affairs exists, all we can do is to go on making our complaints, and to press upon the right hon. Gentleman some such suggestion as was made by my hon. Friend below me (Mr. Clyde), namely, to make this reduction as gradual as possible, and as easy as we can. I join in the hope that that may be so until the situation is altered in some sort of way. I am sorry to say I do not see how the Education Department can act differently from what it is doing in connection with this Grant. Of course, I sympathise with the disappointment which the school board authorities feel in the matter. I would remind hon Members that when the 1908 Act was passing through Parliament many Members on that side of the Committee were always wanting to add to the obligations put by that Bill upon school boards, while we on this side of the Committee repeatedly protested against driving the school boards too far, because the rates would inevitably be greatly raised by those compulsory provisions, and eventually there would be a revolt against the cost of education. That is happening all round now. Rates have gone up enormously, and very grave complaints are being made about the burden of the rates, and in Scotland generally there is a great deal of unrest upon this question. Parliament is largely to blame for that. It is very well to blame the Education Department and say that it is an autocratic Department. That does not relieve these people from the obligation which has been placed upon them, deliberately and intentionally, and which Parliament ought to have known would cost money. I join with my hon. Friend (Mr. Clyde) in hoping that in some kind of way the apparent loss will be eased to these counties as much as possible. In asking that we are not asking anything
  1038
  unreasonable or unusual, and we are doing all we can in the present circumstances to meet the difficulty.
  Sir JOHN BARRAN: I want to plead the cause of another Scottish county in which I am interested. One hon. Member referred to the county of Fife as being more hardly treated than any other under the present scheme for the allocation of the education Grant. I have looked carefully through the list, and I think the county of Selkirk, on behalf of which I wish to speak, is being more hardly treated than Fife, and certainly much more hardly treated than any other Scottish county. Under the present proposal Selkirk is to have no less than £1,018 shorn off its previous Grant of £2,906—that is, about one-third of its Grant is to be taken away. It is not necessary to point out what a serious matter that is for a comparatively small and poor county like Selkirk. My plea therefore is, not that this third scheme should be disturbed. I say that partly because another county in which I am interested, Roxburgh, is satisfied with the third scheme, and better satisfied with it than with the other two. Therefore I do not ask that the scheme should be reversed, but I put in a very strong plea on behalf of this small and poor county that is being so hard hit, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to see whether he cannot make some special provision, which I believe is quite within his competence, whereby the county of Selkirk may be relieved from this inordinately heavy and crippling burden by the reduction of its Grant by so large an amount. I put in this plea in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give sympathetic consideration to it.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: As Fife has loomed so largely in the Debate, I should like, very briefly, to add my protest against the reduction from which it is suffering. It is no less than £5,318. When you consider that Fife, judged by population, is the second largest county in Scotland, I think a reduction which amounts to something like 2s. 8d. per pupil is a very serious thing. I do not suppose that at this late hour the right hon. Gentleman can alter the scheme any more. It has been altered three times already, and I think it would be hardly reasonable to urge him to alter it again. I think he had better stand to his guns, but if he can by delaying it or in any other way ease it, I think he ought to do so. At

  1039
  present there are only three counties in the whole list that gain anything at all. The largest gain is only £689 for Argyll-shire. All the other counties and burghs suffer heavily. I am sure that any consideration that can be given by way of delay would be welcomed by every hon. Member, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see if he cannot do that.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: The Debate up to the present has ranged over two subjects, one the attack upon the Scottish Secretary and the Scottish Department, and another with reference to general education. I was pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Younger) with reference to taking on our own shoulders a large share of the blame for the present somewhat confused state of Scottish educational matters. The Education Act of 1908 effected some very important alterations in our educational system, and among other things it took away from the school boards throughout the country of Scotland those small bursaries which many of thorn had enjoyed for many a long year. That is one of the main grievances which have been alleged against the Department by the many school boards in my own Constituency, and I have no doubt in many others. The Department is not to blame for that, but the House itself is to blame for passing the Act. We did it knowing what we were doing, at least we hope so, and it is not fair to attack the Scottish Education Department as it has been attacked this afternoon with reference to a variety of matters. The principal matter on which our educational system may be found not to be so satisfactory as it might be, is the allocation of the Scotch Education Fund. Hut that is the fault of this Government and of previous Governments which never attempted to fix it on a fair and reasonable basis. It is a most difficult and complex matter to find out how our educational fund in Scotland is arrived at. Ever since 1872, and especially after that, in the time of Mr. Goschen, who handed over to the Scotch Education authorities a certain amount known as whisky money, the whole system has been in a somewhat confused state. The hon. Member (Mr. Pirie) attacked the Scotch Education Department because of its policy of levelling down, and he said they did not give a bright lad a fair chance. When I was at school, more years ago than I like to think of, the directly opposite system was
  1040
  in vogue. A boy who was dull and stupid did not get any chance, and the whole strength of the school was devoted to promoting the interests of one or two of the cleverer boys at the top, and if the policy of the Scotch Education Department is to give every boy in the school a chance I am entirely in accord with it. The object of moving a reduction in the Vote is not with any idea of cutting down the right hon. Gentleman's salary, but in order to pass a vote of censure upon him for not using that executive power which I presume he has of moving the Education Department in Scotland. I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will do nothing of the sort, and will remain firm in his attitude. A good deal has been made in the course of the Debate, especially in the exceedingly pleasant speech of the hon. Member for Govan, who alluded to the forty-seven stalwarts, honest men and true. But why was that Committee not called together and consulted over this thing? [An HON. MEMBER: "They are not any good."] Perhaps that is the reason why the Chairman and Secretary of the Committee did not call them together.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): That is a very possible subject of Debate upstairs, but it is irrelevant to this Vote.
  Mr. C. WASON: On several occasions it has been pointed out to the Secretary for Scotland that the forty-seven members, instead of doing as I suggest they might have done, have had a discussion over the matter themselves and presented a requisition to the Secretary for Scotland, praying him to exercise his power. I want to persuade the Committee that that is not altogether a satisfactory way of getting the opinion of the Scotch Members. The hon. Member for Aberdeen came to me the other day with a petition and said "Will you sign this?" And I said, "No; I do not want the thing." He was very pressing, so I said, "Well, if it pleases you, I will sign it." It was not the petition about removing the Education Department to Edinburgh. It was another petition entirely, in which I had no interest. I have no doubt many hon. Members signed the petition for the removal of the office to Edinburgh simply to please my hon. Friend. I am exceedingly interested about the removal of the Scottish Education Department to Edinburgh. We have got the Fishery Board and the Local Government Board there, and they are

  1041
  absolute autocrats. We Members of Parliament cannot get near them, and cannot bring any influence to bear on them. We cannot go to the Secretary for Scotland and get the chief offender up before him and say what we want and give our reasons for it. We have two Gentlemen we can submit it to, and if we have a good case we shall very likely get something done; but if we move our Education Department to Scotland it will infinitely increase all the difficulties of Scottish Members of Parliament. The hon. Member (Mr. Pirie) has not much respect for it now, and I do not think his respect would be increased if this matter was taken away from us. We have no control over the Fishery Board or the Local Government Board, and the Secretary of State has very little more control either, except sometimes when he gets them up here. I sincerely hope the Motion will not be agreed to, but will be negatived by a large majority.
  Sir W. MENZIES: I should like to say a word in reply to the hon. Members (Mr. Clyde and Sir G. Younger) with regard to the present allocation. These hon. Gentlemen have suggested that the new allocation should be granted gradually. It is too great a burden upon Edinburgh and other parts to stand the loss of revenue which they will have on this allocation. The loss which those counties have had in previous times has been very much greater than the loss which Edinburgh and Ayr Burghs have to bear now. The loss to the county of Lanark at present upon that allocation is £7,200. The loss for these three years has been something like £10,000. On the first allocation it should have been £53,000. It was only £42,000, and it has gone on at that rate until now. I acknowledge that the Department of Education cannot alter this and bring it back to the Act all at once. They must do it gradually, and therefore as long as that alteration is made gradually so that Lanarkshire ultimately gets back what it should get back under the Act, I will not force the Department in any shape or form. The hon. Member (Mr. Clyde) suggests that it is a great fall for Edinburgh, but the fall is not yet great enough for Edinburgh. There is only one method of allocation of that balance of the Scottish Education contribution which will be satisfactory to every county, and that is that it should be divided per head of the pupils in average attendance. There is no other way. I grant that there are counties
  1042
  which are very sparsely populated, and before the whole sum is taken and divided between the pupils in average attendance there should first of all be a sum of £20,000 or £30,000 given to these counties which are sparsely populated, and in which for other reasons educational matters are different. That appears to me— and I have held so from the beginning of these disputes—the only way which will ultimately satisfy everyone. I have no wish to say anything in regard to what fell from the hon. Member (Sir H. Craik) with regard to a letter which I had in a public print, except that the hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about education; probably far more about education and the methods of the Education Department than any other Member of the House; but he must not complain if another hon. hon. Member thinks he might like to enlighten the people of Scotland as to the actual position with regard to Grants. I have no doubt at all that if we get more money, and I hope we shall, we cannot get it on the ground of our population or of our pupils in attendance. We might get it on the needs of Scotland, but we certainly have no right to get it on the ground of population or on the number of pupils in attendance. We are at present getting more than our share.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. FALCONER: So far as the allocation of the education money is concerned I differ entirely from the last speaker. To divide that fund merely according to the number of children in attendance would seem to me to be a very unfortunate method to adopt with regard to any fund provided for education in Scotland. I should like to see it divided so as best to promote the efficiency of education and encourage those who are giving better education to the children rather than merely dividing it among the different school boards or authorities according to the number of children in attendance. My complaint against the scheme which the Secretary for Scotland proposes to adopt now is that he has not sufficiently given attention to that principle. I agree with what was said by the hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Craik) that the main purpose which Scotland serves, so far as its country districts are concerned, is the raising up of a class of men and women fit to take a part in the work of the world wherever they may go. Anyone who is acquainted with the people who are brought up and trained in the counties, knows that you must give every encourage-

  1043
  ment to the school boards and to the secondary education committees if you are going to make the most of the excellent material that you have there. What I would have liked to see the Secretary for Scotland doing was to give more attention to the spending of this money and the improvement of education in particular districts, so that school boards and secondary committees would have got most of the money, and you would have had the best possible results. I protest against the principle of dividing it among school boards according to the number of children at school. It is a vicious system altogether foreign to Scottish methods of thought and Scottish methods of education to merely to reduce the rate for elementary education. The spending of the money in that way would be quite a waste of the great opportunity given by the Act of 1908, which provided different facilities for improving education. As to the question of the transfer of the Education Department to Edinburgh, I am bound to say that, in my judgment, is purely a business proposition. My judgment is entirely in favour of the system we have at present. It seems to me that as long as you have the representative system with the Secretary for Scotland as the Parliamentary head of the Department, it is necessary that he should be in constant touch on the question of education with the gentleman at the head of the Department.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Why did the hon. Gentleman sign the memorial?
  Mr. FALCONER: I was going to explain w7hy I did so. There is a great deal at first sight in favour of the view that the head of this Department should be planted down in Scotland, where he would be in constant touch with the education authorities, and, as some suppose, shaking hands with the school board members all over Scotland. They are to have access to him, and all are to be a very happy family. But when the question was put to me within the first few days I was in this House whether I would sign a memorial in favour of the change, I saw that quite a number of people who had a great deal more experience than myself had signed it, and I was taken in by this idea.
  Mr. PIRIE: The hon. Member attended two deputations since then in favour of the change.
  Mr. FALCONER: I was taken with the idea for the reasons I have described.
  Mr. PIRIE: You were taken in and got at too.
  Mr. FALCONER: When I had time to consider both sides of the question, which I suppose I was entitled to do, and, as a business man I was entitled to change my mind, I became satisfied that the real change which was needed was the transfer to Edinburgh not only of the permanent head of the Department, but of the Secretary for Scotland, who is the responsible head. I thought that truly the right thing to do in the interest of Scottish education was to have both there on the spot,—the Secretary for Scotland and the head of the Department, working together in close touch with the school boards of the country. Besides Educational matters are so complicated that I have frequently found it necessary to go to the Education Department for information in order thoroughly to understand questions affecting my Constituents. I do not pretend to read and remember every minute and regulation that comes from the Scottish Education Department, because if I did so I would have no time to do anything else. When a question comes up, and I have to take action in this House, to whom am I to go for information except the representative of the Department? One can see that if the head of the Department were in Edinburgh, a Member of this House, on going for information to the Secretary of Scotland, would get the answer, "I cannot tell you. Sir John Struthers is in Edinburgh. If you will write a memorial I will send it to him, and get his reply." That would not enable me to discuss the matter at once. On these grounds I have come to be in favour of the view that as long as the head of the Scottish Education Department is sitting in the House of Commons it is necessary that the permanent head of the Department should be in London.
  Sir JOHN McCALLUM: It is difficult to say anything this afternoon which has not already been better said by others, because this question of education is always dear to the Scottish heart. If we look at the question from the time when the Education Act was first put in operation in Scotland, and compare our position today with what it was then, I think it will be agreed that no part of the British Isles has made such progress in education as we have done in Scotland. Even

  1045
  this year the large increase of £149,818 is clear evidence that there must be the right spirit prevailing in regard to education. I rejoice to think that hon. Members opposite have been so tolerant, and that many of our friends on this side have been able to look at the matter from the same point of view. I am perfectly certain that if the Conservative and Liberal parties in Scotland would adopt the policy of following the line of least resistance we should be able to accomplish all we are aiming at. This Ishmaelite spirit does not reflect the Scottish character. As a rule we believe in being slow to move, sound in judgment, and wise in action. But we ought to meet on both sides and discuss the position of Scottish education in a friendly spirit. If we did so, I am certain, judging by what we were able to do last night when we voted about £1,000,000 for the Navy, it would not be difficult to get another £100,000 for Scottish education. I think it is worthy of note that America spends as much on education as we spend on the Army and Navy yearly, and that we spend as much on education as America spends on its army and navy. Surely, these are facts worth looking at. If we reflecton what has been done in Scotland during the last 40 years, we find that we have reason to be proud of the steps we have taken. If our schools boards would be as generous in adding a penny or twopence to the rates, and in this way grant to the children the inheritance to which they are entitled, then in return the Education Department might get from the Treasury a similar advance. Then all our difficulties would fly as chaff before the wind, and we should see in future Scotland ahead of England, Wales, and Ireland, and we would lead the world with the exception, perhaps, of the country of which I have just spoken. I hope we shall have less talk and more devoted action in connection with Scottish education. I think the outlook is entirely hopeful. I see no reason to be so pessimistic. While we have the head of the Education Department in London we are more likely to be able to grapple with these difficulties than if we have to go to Edinburgh every now and then.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: May I ask why the hon. Member signed the memorial?
  Sir J. McCALLUM: I signed it for a given purpose, and that was that we might be able to discuss this question. The hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs knows full well that I have hitherto maintained
  1046
  the position, that until we have Home Rule in Scotland, it is better that the head of the Department should be in London.
  Mr. A. F. WHYTE: I am entirely in agreement with the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel) and against the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Cathcart Wason) on the question of the transfer of the Education Department to Scotland. I think we are able to claim the hon. Member for For-farshire (Mr. Falconer) as a secret supporter, if not an open fighter, in the cause. I wish to ventilate one small grievance which, though of less importance than some of those to which reference has been made, affects a number of teachers whose case deserves consideration. I refer to the position of those teachers who have spent part of the years of their educational service in England, and who in consequence are about to suffer in their position under the new superannuation scheme. I would ask the Secretary for Scotland to reverse the judgment which has been come to by the Scottish Education Department that service in another country cannot be counted as recorded service for the purpose of the superannuation scheme in Scotland. This is a small thing to ask, from the point of view of the money involved, in so far as regards the burden thrown either on the local rates or the Imperial Exchequer, but it is a very great question for that small band of teachers who are suffering under that grievance at present. Having laid this matter before the Secretary for Scotland, I am sure he will give it his best attention.
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The hon. Member for the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen (Sir H. Craik), in a speech marked by the usual sympathy which he extends to the Scottish Education Department, referred to one or two points as to which he uttered some words of criticism. One of these was a purely local question, though, no doubt, it is of importance to the people connected with the secondary school at Fordyce and to the school board that controls the educational affairs of that district. This is a very old question, and different decisions have been arrived at by two successive school boards. The position of the Scottish Education Department can be shortly and clearly stated. I am sorry I have not been able to refresh my memory in regard to what is

  1047
  contained in the papers on the subject, for, according to the desire of my hon. Friends, they are at Edinburgh. The hon. Member did not give me notice of his intention to bring up the question, and I have not been able to get the papers from Edinburgh in time. The position of the Education Department is simply this: Although a majority of the school board—a majority I think of one—are in favour of a particular scheme, there are very strong representations from the ratepayers against that scheme. The architect has advised that the estimate is not sufficient. All that the Department want is to get definite information as to the expense and other matters, and then they are willing to put the question before those who are interested in it, and who are responsible for the educational work in the district, with the view of arriving at a settlement. But the Department have a perfectly definite duty in the matter. They have to sanction the loan before the money can be raised by the school board, and it is their duty, seeing that the neighbourhood is about equally divided, to know whether they are sanctioning a proper scheme or not.
  Another point which was referred to by the hon. Member was the question of the curriculum. He said, and I quite agree with him, that it is not desirable to have too rigid a curriculum. I do not think when you look at them that the requirements for science teaching for the intermediate certificate can be said to be too onerous. Only three hours a week are required for that purpose, and I may point out to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeen, who was interested in the subject, that no expensive outfit or laboratory is required. All that is necessary for instruction in physics and chemistry can be provided by an outfit procured for about five guineas. When we are speaking about what has been done in recent years for education in Scotland I do not think it is fair to say that there has been very little done. There has been an enormous advance, and men like Professor Chrystal look upon it as an enormous advance in secondary education in Scotland. There has been a remarkable increase in the efficiency of the universities. Some years ago, when I was in Scotland as a young man, the junior classes of the universities were nothing but secondary schools, and boyswentthere—yes, and they were not very advanced secondary schools either. That is notorious. Now the age
  1048
  has been raised, and the instruction given in the universities is of a much higher standard. All this has been brought about by the Education Department. We have widened secondary education, and we have a better university education, and though I sympathise with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeen, and should be sorry to see any obstruction put in the way of advances in the teaching in the primary schools, still I think that we have made a very considerable advance upon the whole on this question, and that there is no ground with regard to our secondary education in Scotland to consider that we are behind our ancestors.
  The question of the allocation has been discussed, I think, in a very fair and reasonable spirit. Even the Members who represent parts of Scotland, boroughs or counties, which have not fared so well in this division as they fared in previous ones, have taken a very fair view, and have recognised the limits of the Department, and made suggestions only for a gradual alteration. I have carefully considered the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Clyde) and considered it sympathetically, if I may say so; but, of course, it is a very difficult thing to do. It is a question in the case of Edinburgh of something like a½d. rate. The suggestion is that it might be spread over two or three years. It is very difficult to see how you can do that without upsetting the scheme and reducing the values which other people receive. Then I am afraid we shall have trouble in other quarters. The fact is, I am afraid we shall have to take this scheme, which has been prepared after a great deal of consultation among the educational authorities of Scotland, and which is satisfactory to the larger number of such authorities, and deal with it as a settled matter. But I think I have some words of comfort to give hon. Members. After all, the education authorities are not doing so badly. What has caused all the trouble now, or at least a very great deal of the trouble, is this: Unfortunately, when this scheme was put into force the superannuation scheme was not also put into force. The education authorities have for two or three years enjoyed the benefits of the fund without the fund being obliged to provide for superannuation, and they think they are losing money because they are not getting as much as they were in 1909–10, for example. The fact is, they were not spending money as they ought to have been spending then on superannuation, and I do not think that

  1049
  people have entirely appreciated that this superannuation scheme was some advantage to the school boards. They were giving money for superannuation, and undoubtedly would have had to give more and more, and there is something to take off on the credit side of the account.
  We have often had the figures given of the comparative expenditure of our school boards out of rates and the contribution that comes out of taxes, but I should like to give the Committee another calculation which will show them really what money the Government has given for education in Scotland as a whole. I take the last complete year, 1910–11, and I find that the contribution from the rates for education by the school boards was £1,644,000. The amount contributed by the taxes given to the school boards for educational purposes was £1,884,000, but you have got to add a number of other items before you see how much State money is bearing the cost of education in Scotland. Take the voluntary schools. In England the voluntary schools are largely supported by the rates. In Scotland they are not supported by the rates at all, except as regards the small item of the cost of the attendance officers, which I think may be put at a liberal figure at about £13,250. But while the expenditure on rates on the voluntary schools is estimated to be something a little over £13,000, the expenditure from taxes is £272,000. Then in Scotland the training of teachers is found out of State money. Over £116,000 is provided for that purpose. £94,000 is provided for bursaries; and various other amounts of expenditure by secondary education committees, grants to central institutions and other items, amounting to £105,000, must also be added to the £1,884,000 State money paid to the school boards. That makes a grand total of £2,472,000 as the State contribution to education in Scotland against £1,657,000 provided out of rates. Some of my Friends have been asking that the Grant for education should be half and half, but the figures which I have given show that the State is providing about 60 per cent, as against 40 per cent., and I find that the State contribution has been regularly increasing.
  I am giving these figures because the Scotch Education Department is criticised as if it had never got any State money for education in Scotland, and, therefore, these figures are important. I find in 1906, not taking local taxation money, the Vote for Education was £1,723,000, while in 1911 it was £2,247,000. That is the last
  1050
  complete year. That is the actual amount given, and if you take this year you will find that the State Grants in the Votes exceed the Votes of last year by £153,800, and the Grant of the State this year, not including the local taxation money, is £2,489,000. If we go on further and consider the Grant in aid of new expenditure since the Act of 1908, including the new superannuation expenditure, the Committee is aware that the Grant under the Act of 1908 was 3s. a head. That is estimated this year to amount to £116,600. Then there was a Special Grant for superannuation for Scotland, which was £25,000, and a Special Grant for medical treatment, which was £7,500. That brings one to a total in round figures of £149,000. Against that you have got the cost of medical inspection, which last year was £31,000, and is estimated this year as £32,000. You have got the expenditure under Sections 3 and 6 of the Act of 1908, such items as conveyance to school, provision of meals, provision of clothing, feeding of necessitous children, and matters of that sort, which in 1910–11 amounted to £8,600. That is estimated this year at £12,000. As to the cost of superannuation, I will not trouble the Committee with the detailed calculation. Allowing for the Treasury contribution of £20,000, and for the fact that the school boards in 1908 were paying nearly £20,000 for superannuation—and that was an amount that was growing, and has grown, though I cannot say exactly how far it has grown independently of the Act —yet taking that and giving the best possible figure against my argument, you have got a sum of £135,000. So it comes to this result, including superannuation, the new expenditure is about £179,000. The State has contributed about £149,000 to it. So in that case the demand of those who say that the proportions ought to be half and half, has been met and more than met.
  I ought to say that in this calculation no allowance has been made for the fact that the expenditure of the school boards on superannuation would have grown steadily if the superannuation scheme had never been introduced; and further, now that the scheme has come into force, this expenditure will diminish as the pensions under the old system expire, so I do believe that in the course of time this expenditure on superannuation, as far as the school boards are concerned, will be a waning expenditure. A great deal is being said about the action of the Education Department in putting expenditure

  1051
  upon the school boards and making requirements which they find irksome. I think the answer which has been given by some hon. Members who have spoken is a sound one. Parliament is responsible for the feeding of school children. Medical inspection and medical treatment are again duties imposed by Parliament, and a great deal of the criticism which is directed against the Scottish Education Department when you come to look into it will be found to be devoid of foundation.
  The hon. and learned Member for West Edinburgh spoke about the valuation of Edinburgh, and argued that the standard for valuation is higher in Edinburgh than it is in any other place. I cannot enter into that controversy, because it is a thing that has nothing whatever to do with the Education Department. We have no control whatever over the valuation in Edinburgh, Glasgow, or any other place. We have to take it as we find it, but I agree that it is a great pity that there should be these discrepancies between different towns. We used to find them here in the metropolis between different districts, and I think it would be very desirable, as far as I am concerned—I am only expressing a personal opinion—that you should have a valuation of a national kind, and that means should be taken to see that the different places were valued on an equal basis, because it has a considerable effect on matters of this sort, as has been pointed out, and also upon certain Imperial taxes. The reason that Edinburgh has lost is partly that Edinburgh is one of the more favourably situated places which, under the provision of the Act, were intended to receive less than the less favoured places. But there is a special reason—the necessary discontinuance of stereotyped Grants by which Edinburgh gained a sum of £6,000 or thereabouts. I quite agree that educational finance is very complicated in Scotland, as in England, and I shall look forward to the time to which the hon. Member for Glasgow University looked forward, when we shall get some readjustment and some fixed principles introduced into the relations between the central contributions and the local contributions, and we shall have some simple principles which are easy to be understood, applied in educational finance.
  There is only one other important subject to which I have not referred, and that is the question of the transfer of the
  1052
  Educational Offices to Edinburgh. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen began by criticising the poverty of the answers given to questions, and he quoted one of them as an example of impoverished replies, but he did not quote more than half of the answer. What was the point? It had reference to the question of the amalgamation of districts, where one school board says that another district or area should be added to its area. I can give you one case, though I will not mention any names. One school board pointed out that they educated all the children of another district, and that they had a financial arrangement for payment, but that in process of time it had become inadequate, and the other district would not pay any more. Obviously that would be a case where the two districts should be amalgamated. Of course, there is no doubt that part of the difficulty in Scotland in regard to finance is that in many cases you get great discrepancies in expenditure because areas are too small. Here was an instance where the one school board had an absolute case for adding another area to its area. The Act of Parliament says that in such a case a certain procedure shall be followed, and that the Education Department shall decide the question. My hon. Friend said that both parties should have agreed. Of course, the party which is getting its education 25 per cent, cheaper than the other was not likely to agree. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, in a case like that, say the procedure we have adopted is not a proper procedure?
  Mr. PIRIE: The Department give certain reasons, and we want to know why they should not be made public, so that this House might be able to criticise them.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My answer to that is that the whole inquiry was conducted with great publicity. First of all, the Education Department never moves until one school board applies to it. When that school board has applied to it, the Department puts the representations of that school board before the other Board, and hears what it has to say. Sometimes an agreement is arrived at, but sometimes an agreement is impossible. A public inquiry is then held; both school boards are represented in the way they desire; each school board puts its case publicly, and the whole procedure is as public as that of any Law Court. The only thing

  1053
  that is not published is the report of the inspector. I am sure the Committee will agree that this is a common procedure, a very common procedure, and a very proper procedure. The inspector makes a confidential report saying upon what grounds the decision should be, "Aye" or "No." I cannot see that there is any failure of publicity or any injustice. As for the argument put forward in favour of the removal of the whole Education Department, I should like to know why that should be done. One argument is as to the autocracy of the Education Department, but it is a curious remedy for this autocracy and for the poverty of answers to questions to sever a Minister from his Department. I look on this matter purely as one of administration. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen says: Education is a subject in which Scotland is so intimately interested, is so vitally interested, in which Scotland has a great historic concern, and in which Scotland is differently treated from England, that it ought to be entirely managed in Scotland. I am entirely with him. Education is a big concern, and this Education Estimate is the biggest item in our whole Budget. It is a question of expenditure of over £4,000,000 a year. Is it really thought desirable that we should remove all that from ordinary Ministerial responsibility, which means the control by the Scottish Members of this House? The Minister is really the servant of the Members. How is the matter managed? It is managed constitutionally. It is managed by Members taking action in Parliament, or action directly connected with the Minister. Will the Minister's control of the Department be increased if it is removed to 400 miles away?
  Of course we admit freely that there ought to be an Education Department in Scotland, and more than half the education staff is in Scotland at the present time; more than one hundred of the members of the staff are in Scotland, headed by the assistant secretary, who is a very capable official. No school board and no person interested in education need go further than Edinburgh to obtain all the information desired. What I want to put to my colleagues very earnestly and seriously is this: Are you going to improve your own control, the proper and only constitutional control of education which you exercise on the Minister of the day, by sending the whole of the rest of the Education Department to Edinburgh, and preventing the Minister from having that
  1054
  daily communication with his Department, which is the only means by which he can acquire information or by which he can influence his Department? I cannot understand how anybody who looks at this matter as a matter of administration can come to any but one conclusion under the circumstances. The constitutional principle is perfectly clear. The Minister has to spend nine months of the year here, and so have hon. Members, and it is necessary that the Department should be here, and that responsible men should be here who can carry on the administration in the manner following that policy which is the policy, after all, of the Scottish Members. I do not think I need add anything to that. There is only one argument upon this point, and I hope I have put it fairly. It is very easy for school boards in Scotland to hurl accusations of autocratic action and of expensive advice against the Scottish Education Department, but the country as a whole has come to have higher ideas, not only about education, but about the treatment of children. These are the things that have added to the cost. The Education Department is not specially responsible for them, and I think that Parliament must take the responsibility of its own action.
  Mr. MORTON: The reduction is moved in connection with the whole Scottish. Office, and the discussion has turned on the removal of the Education Department to Edinburgh. The Secretary for Scotland on that subject has certainly taken a different attitude from that which he assumed the other day when a deputation called upon him. He seemed to suggest then that it was a matter of the responsibility of the Minister. To-day he has announced that he is a servant of Parliament. I should like to say, with regard to the removal of the Department to Edinburgh, that it is truly a question for the people of Scotland, and if we do not represent the people of Scotland they can give somebody else the opportunity of doing so But what I want to impress upon the Secretary for Scotland is this, that I liked very much better his doctrine of the other day about the responsibility of the Minister. The late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and the present Prime Minister, in regard to the question of the Veto, said that the "will of the people must prevail." On this subject we have a right to consider the will of the people as to whether the office should be removed to Edinburgh, and the business conducted there in a

  1055
  businesslike and proper way. We have been told about "My Lords." Can anybody tell us who they are, when they meet, and what they do?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Committee of the Privy Council are: Lord Morley (president), the Secretary for Scotland, The First Lord of the Treasury, The Lord Advocate, Lord Haldane, Lord Shaw, Lord Reay, and Lord Elgin.
  Mr. MORTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me when they meet, and who attends the meeting?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am afraid I their meetings are very irregular; they do meet sometimes, but I think before we moved the Department to Scotland I would have to call them together.
  Mr. MORTON: I think I may gather that "My Lords'" business is a sham and a fraud upon Scotland. Practically they never meet, are never called together, and it would have been much better if the Secretary for Scotland, in answering the question, had told us he was "My Lords," and that nobody else was concerned in the matter. I should like to know for my own private information why the hon. Member for Paisley (Sir John M'Callum) and the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. Falconer) altered their minds within the last
  few days about the removal of the Department to Edinburgh?
  Sir JOHN M'CALLUMdissented.
  Mr. FALCONER: May I make it quite clear? I absolutely refused to sign a memorial this year. If my name has been attached to that memorial it is an entire mistake. Nobody has a right to put it there. The hon. Member for Aberdeen asked me to do so, but I refused.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: May I say that the hon. Member was not asked to sign this year because he had already signed in 1909.
  Mr. FALCONER: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs cannot be aware of the conversation that took place between me and the hon. Member for North Aberdeen. I stated quite definitely, in answer to a request to sign a memorial, that I would not sign it for reasons which I gave. Originally I was taken with the idea, but after knowing a little more about the business, I have come to the opposite opinion.
  Sir G. YOUNGERrose 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, 241; Noes, 48.

  Division No. 155.]

  AYES.

  [6.45 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Falconer, J.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

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

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Fell, Arthur

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Alden, Percy

  Clough, William

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Clyde, James Avon

  Firench, Peter

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Armitage, Robert

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Arnold, Sydney

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Cotton, William Francis

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Baird, J. L.

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Craik, Sir Henry

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Balfour, sir Robert (Lanark)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Barton, W.

  Cullinan, John

  Glanville, H. J.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  De Forest, Baron

  Goldstone, Frank

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

  Delany, William

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Boland, John Pius

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

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

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Donelan, Captain A.

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

  Brace, William

  Duffy, William J.

  Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Gulland, John William

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Cwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Burke, E. Havlland-

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Hackett, John

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Manfield, Harry

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

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

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

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

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Meagher, Michael

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Hayward, Evan

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Molloy, M.

  Sheehy, David

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., South)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

  Morison, Hector

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Hills, John Waller

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Hinds, John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Stanier, Beville

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Nuttall, Harry

  Summers, James Woolley

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sutton, John M.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Tennant, Harold John (Derby)

  Jardine, E, (Somerset, E.)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

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

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)

  O'Dowd, John

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Ogden, Fred

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Keating, M.

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid.)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Kelly, Edward

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Kilbride, Denis

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Webb, H.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Wheler, Granville

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.

  Leach, Charles

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Lundon, T.

  Reddy, Michael

  Winfrey, Richard

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Lynch, A. A.

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Rendall, Athelstan

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

  Macmaster, Donald

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Yate, Col. C. E.

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

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

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  MacCallum, Sir John M.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

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

  Rolleston, Sir John

  G. Younger and Mr. Mackinder.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  NOES.

  Adamson, William

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glass., Bridgeton)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Bentham, G. J.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hodge, John

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hogge, James Myles

  Touche, George Alexander

  Cassel, Felix

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Wadsworth, J.

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

  Crooks, William

  John, Edward Thomas

  Wardle, George J.

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Dawes, J. A.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Munro, R.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Esslemont, George Birnle

  Newman, John R. P.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Fleming, Valentine

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Rowlands, James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Pirie and Mr. Pringle.

  Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,539,325, be granted for the said Service."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 24; Noes, 281.

  Division No. 156.]

  AYES.

  [7.0 p.m.

  Adamson, William

  Fleming, Valentine

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Goldstone, Frank

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Cassel, Felix

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Munro, R.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Nield, Herbert

  Touche, George Alexander

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., lnce)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Whyte, A. F.

  Pirie and Mr. Holmes.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Falconer, J.

  MacGhee, Richard

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Falle, Bertram Godtray

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Macmaster, Donald

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Fell, Arthur

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

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

  Agnew, sir George William

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Alden, Percy

  Ffrench, Peter

  McCallum, Sir John M.

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

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

  Armitage, Robert

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Arnold, Sydney

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Malcolm, Ian

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Manfield, Harry

  Baird, J. L.

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Glanville, H. J.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Barran, Sir J. Hawick

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Molloy, M.

  Barton, W.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Greig, Col. J. W.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Morison, Hector

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

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

  Muldoon, John

  Bentham, George Jackson

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

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Boland, John Plus

  Gwynne, R. S. (Eastbourne)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hackett, J.

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Nuttall, Harry

  Brace, William

  Hancock, J. G.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Brunner, J. F. L.

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

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  O'Dowd, John

  Bull, Sir William James

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Ogden, Fred

  Burke, E. Havlland-

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Clough, William

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Phillips, John (Longford S.)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hills, John Waller (Durham)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hinds, John

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hodge, John

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Reddy, Michael

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Crooks, William

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Cullinan, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Joyce, Michael

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Keating, M.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  De Forest, Baron

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneslde)

  Delany, William

  Kelly, Edward

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  King, J.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Dillon, John

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

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Donelan, Capt. A.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Rowlands, James

  Duffy, William J.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

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

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Leach, Charles

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Lundon, T.

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool Exchange)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Sheehy, David

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  1060

  1061

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Winfrey, Richard

  Stanier, Beville

  Wadsworth, J.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

  Summers, James Woolley

  Wardle, George J.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

  Sutton, J. E.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Webb, H.

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Younger, Sir George

  Tennant, Harold

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Yoxall, Sir James Heury

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  White Patrick (Meath, North)

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

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Williams, Penry Middlesbrough)

  Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

  Mr. McKINNON WOODclaimed, "That the original Question be now put."

  Class 2.—BOARD or AGRICULTURE, SCOTLAND.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  29. "That a sum, not exceeding £99,580, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland." [Note.—£110,000 has been voted on account.]
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee that I should open this Debate, but I will do so as briefly as possible, and I hope the Committee will not suppose that the brevity of my speech is any indication of my view as to the importance of the subject. The Scottish Board of Agriculture has been in existence only between three and four months. It was constituted to carry on the work formerly carried on throughout Scotland by the English Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and the work of the Congested Districts Board, and to deal with the Small Landholders Act. I propose to speak first about the new work undertaken by the Board, and then to refer briefly to the policy which the Board has adopted in regard to the old work as far as it has had time to adopt a policy. I am glad to inform the Committee that the applications for small holdings have been not only numerous but satisfactory. Up to 13th July, 2,344 men have applied for new holdings, and S16 for enlargements, making a total of 3,160. The Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners have visited nine counties, namely, Caithness, Sutherland, Ross, Inverness, Peebles, Argyll, Renfrew, Ayr, and Dumfries, and
  1062
  their report is that five-sixths of the applicants are, as they put it, intelligent and industrious men. I think that is entirely satisfactory. They have interviewed about 700 applicants, so that they have taken a very fair average. It is quite true that a large number of applications have come from the Highland than from the Lowland counties. That is, I think, what one would have expected. The Highland counties are accustomed to the crofter tenure, while many of the Lowlanders who may be suitable have other occupations which prevent their making speedy application. But there is no doubt that interest in the subject is rapidly spreading through Scotland. While the number of the applications and the fact that so large a proportion of them are satisfactory is most encouraging, it makes those who are responsible think of the funds at their disposal. The majority of the Committee will probably agree with me that in apportioning the funds at the disposal of the Board of Agriculture we must not forget this important new duty of putting the small holders on the land of Scotland. As I said, in reply to a question the other day, I regard that as having a primary claim on the funds. The Board of Agriculture has other demands upon its funds. It has to carry on the work which the English Board has done. It has to carry on the work of agricultural education, but the funds for that will largely come from the same source as when it was in the hands of the Education Department.
  As to the old work of the Board, the new Board believes that by the closer touch with Scottish agriculture and the greater local knowledge which they will possess as compared with the English Board, they may be able to extend its useful activities. They have been considering carefully the question of improving livestock. Last year a Grant was given to the whole country by

  1063
  the Development Commission for light-horse breeding. The English Board is still administering that, but, of course, the duty will fall into the hands of the Scottish Board of Agriculture. They attach a good deal of importance to the breeding of Highland ponies, which are most useful for the small landholders. They also propose to deal with the breed of Shetland ponies. There is one subject of importance to all farmers, and that is the question of poultry, and for that they are hoping to get a Grant from the Development Commissioners. Then they feel that the breeding of pigs is a matter on which Scotland is not so advanced as England and Ireland, and they hope it may be possible to find money for that purpose. I am afraid, therefore, the demands for money are likely to be very extensive. There is also the question of the special education of the small landholders. I hope that that matter will appeal to the Development Commissioners. Then there is the question of research into various methods of agriculture, and, finally, there is a question which causes a great deal of interest among right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, that of forestry.
  I want to say exactly what we have done in that matter and how it stands. I have recently appointed an Advisory Committee to advise the Board of Agriculture on all matters connected with forestry, and I think it would be extremely improper if I were to try and sketch out a policy before this Advisory Committee has had an opportunity of expressing any opinion on the subject. I know it has been suggested we ought already to have made application to the Development Commissioners. Of course, those Commissioners are perfectly aware that if England gets a Grant for this purpose Scotland will want one also. But it is suggested we should have made formal application to the Development Commissioners and should have started a staff. That is, I think, an unreasonable view to take. As we have appointed gentlemen well acquainted with the needs of forestry, and who have taken an interest in the subject for many years, to advise us on the subject, it is only right that we should await their opinion. It is plain that if we are to have a satisfactory development of forestry in Scotland, if we are to have a demonstration area, the money cannot be procured out of the £200,000 a year which is granted for the purposes of agriculture. It is right I
  1064
  should say that definitely. I do not mean to convey the idea that nothing is to come out of that sum, but hon. Members must understand if there is to be any large development of forestry, and if an adequate demonstration area is to be provided, then money must be found from some other source. I have every hope and expectation that the Development Commissioners will deal as generously with Scotland as with England. We have very great claims upon them in this respect, because there is a great deal of land in Scotland suitable for forestry. Our claims are probably stronger than even those of England.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is it the view of the right hon. Gentleman that none of this money should be devoted to the promotion of a demonstration area?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I think it must appear to my hon. Friend that the cost of the demonstration area would represent a very large sum, probably half a year's income, and it would be impossible to get any such Grant out of the Agricultural Fund without neglecting what I cannot help regarding as a primary duty, the provision of small holdings. I wish to say nothing disparaging of sylvi-culture, but it is a matter which it takes a great many years to develop, whereas this work of small holdings is work we can do immediately; it is work crying to be done, and it is work that Parliament has placed on us the duty of carrying out. As time is short, and as I think I should be dealing unfairly with Members of the Committee who wish to speak, if I were to enter into a discussion of other matters, I will content myself with having explained what our view is about the new work falling upon the Board of Agriculture, and the way in which we are setting about to fulfil the general duties inherited by that Board from one authority or another.
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Board have yet had time to deal with any of the applications for small holdings either in the way of granting them or refusing them?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: There are a certain number of cases practically on the point of completion.
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: How many?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That I cannot tell you. I would not like to say that any of the cases have been finally settled.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Not by voluntary arrangement?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Of course any cases that have been settled would have been by voluntary arrangement.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I have no intention of moving anything at the end of my observations, but I wish to enter a protest against the manner in which the Secretary for Scotland is carrying on the Board of Agriculture in Scotland. In whatever I say in regard to small holdings, or otherwise, I do not wish hon. Members to think that I am against the principle of small holdings. I merely wish to discuss the action of the Board of Agriculture itself. We have to remember that this Board was originally set up, thanks to various memorials from hon. Members opposite, memorials which I believe the hon. Member for Forfarshire signed with more success perhaps than the last one, although, I confess, it does seem strange to me that a solicitor should sign papers without knowing what is in them.
  Mr. FALCONER: I did not say I had signed any paper without knowing what was in it. I said I thoroughly understood what was in it, but I had changed my mind. The Noble Lord would do well not to make such insinuations. I am not ashamed of having changed my mind. This occurred in 1909, and since then circumstances have altered. Scottish Home Rule is much nearer, and my opinions have changed.
  Mr. PIRIE: The hon. Gentleman was asked to sign the first memorial, but as to the second he was merely told it was ready for signature, and no one was asked to sign it. He was asked to join the deputation.
  Mr. FALCONER: May I explain—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I really think we have had enough explanation. The hon. Member has made his position perfectly clear, and I will ask the Noble Lord to confine himself strictly to the Vote.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I wish to make no reflection on the hon. Member. I quite understand that he signed the memorial without invitation. With regard to the £200,000 set apart for
  1066
  the purpose of constituting this Board, I presume one of the first charges will be for salaries. A comparatively large staff has been appointed, and possibly more may be required, but, apparently, their whole energies have been confined to carrying out the Radical propaganda of small holdings in Scotland. There ought surely to be on that staff men who are experts not only in small holdings, but on agriculture generally, on technical matters, as well as the creation of small holdings, and on questions such as forestry. I know perfectly well there are certain experts of that sort upon the Board, and surely the whole of their energies ought not to be taken up on merely an administrative part of their work, so far as the Small Holdings Act is concerned. A few of the experts on the Board should be sufficient to carry on the work of the small holdings, and the others ought to be engaged in preparing for the other duties which this Board has to undertake. A properly run Department would have been departmentalised, with experts for each subject that came within the jurisdiction of the Board. Apparently that has not been done. The whole of the money has been spent in one direction, possibly in a direction where most votes are to be obtained. They have not even issued a single leaflet from the Board dealing with anything except small holdings, and I think it was a little humiliating, so far as the Scottish Board is concerned, that the hon. Member for Orkney should have asked the Secretary for Scotland if he would mind begging a few leaflets from the English Board for circulation in Scotland. No doubt they are very valuable leaflets, but if they are equally good for Scotland it seems absurd we should have gone to the expense of setting up a special Board of Agriculture for Scotland.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: I rise to a point of Order. The Noble Lord's statement is not quite fair to me.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Some one, at any rate, suggested that some of the English leaflets might be sent round. Now I come to the staff of the Board. We find that forty-six men have been appointed whose salaries exceed £8,000 a year. I wish to ask some question with regard to these appointments. Many of the gentlemen are personal friends of my own, and I am casting no reflection of any

  1067
  sort upon them. It is merely a matter of administration and public economy that I desire to raise. First we see that Mr. Thomas Wilson, a sub-Commissioner for small holdings —a class on a scale rising from £500 to £700—enters the employment of the Board at £700. Why does he come in at £700 when another and, I presume, an equally good man—Mr. A. Macintosh— enters at £550, although he is on the same scale. It seems rather curious. Then I would like to know why the superintendent of poultry is to start at a salary of £500, although the Board apparently considers £350 is enough for the starting point of that class. There are, too, a lot of clerks. I would like to know how many of these gentlemen were Civil servants before they entered the service of the Board, and how many were not. I know nothing about these matters. I come next to the case of a man named Nash. He starts at 14s. a week and can rise to 18s. I hope he is not the only Tory appointed by the Board. These are a few of the questions I would like to ask. Then we come to Mr. McTavish's appointment. He is entrusted, I believe, with the position of custodian of the rolls, and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, this gentleman was only an ordinary clerk and that he was not in the least responsible for the appointment, it seems to me that an important appointment such as the custodian of the rolls should be made by the Secretary for Scotland. I should like to know what salary the custodian of the rolls has and if he gives his whole time to his work. If. as I understand, he is a well-known legal gentleman who is particularly fitted for this work, then I do not really see, unless he gives the whole of his time to the Scottish Office, why he should be paid a salary amounting to £200 a year, and I want to know if this money would not be better employed as payment to a clerk instead of paying more money into a lawyer's office. I want to say a word now with regard to afforestation in Scotland. There have been three elections and in them the one cry from the Radical party in Scotland was with regard to afforestation, but they have not done a single thing for it since. Hon. Members go up into the country and talk a great deal about every acre of land bringing in one pound, but they come down here and do absolutely nothing for afforestation. They
  1068
  talked a lot about afforestation three years ago, but the Secretary for Scotland has done nothing in all that period. I have correspondence here between the Royal Arboricultural Society and the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor. May I have the right hon. Gentleman's attention for a moment?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am making diligent notes of the Noble Lord's speech.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I am very glad, for I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman why, when his predecessor informed the Royal Arboriculcultural Society that there should be a separate Department under the Bill setting up the Board of Agriculture for Scotland to deal with afforestation, he has not kept the promise of his predecessor. I can show the right hon. Gentleman in writing from his own office that that promise was made. Now we are told when it comes to the question of the Department there is not enough money, and we find the other day when the unfulfilled hopes were exposed at last that Sir Robert Wright used words to this effect, that he was very sorry, but he did not think there was any use asking his Department for money for afforestation, because they wanted to spend most of the money on small holdings.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is not at all apparent from what he said.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I cannot put my hands on the actual words at the moment. The Member for Ross and Cromarty gets up and says they have only enough money for small holdings, but how can you have small holdings in barren places where there is no game unless you have afforestation?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: They used to have them in the old days.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Yes, but under the new regime you do not have them. The old days were very different from what they are now. I do not suppose the hon. Gentleman wants the crofters to go back to what he calls the old days. What we want to see is afforestation carried out in districts suitable for it, where you must have, in addition to small holdings, something to keep a man alive. A small holder is not a landholder in one sense. He has to work, and if you do not give him subsidiary employment you will go on dribbling out small sums but you will not do any good.
  Captain MURRAY: The Noble Lord has a complaint to make, because he asserts that the Liberal party proposed three years ago to do a great deal for afforestation and that they have not yet carried out what was promised at that time. I would remind the Noble Lord that but for the fact that he and the party to which he belongs delayed for a considerable period the Bill which set up the Board of Agriculture, which in part proposed to deal with the question of afforestation, but for that delay the Noble Lord's wishes would be carried out.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean that the Department of Afforestation is abandoned?
  Captain MURRAY: One of the problems with which the Scottish Board of Agriculture have to deal is that of afforestation for Scotland. I do not propose to follow the Noble Lord in his indictment against the administration of the Scottish Board of Agriculture. I do, however, wish to say one or two words in regard to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Scotland. I think it is a very gratifying fact that the number of applications for small holdings in Scotland have been as large as the right hon. Gentleman indicated, and I for one welcome his declaration that the primary claim upon the funds at the disposal of the Scottish Board are those coming from small holders proposed to be set up upon the land. I quite agree that a certain proportion of this money should be set aside for afforestation, but I do urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that the sum, being a small one, his first duty and primary object must be to create as many new holdings as possible within a short space of time, and that what I may call this subsidiary occupation for the small holders must eventually be connected with and come after that which is the primary obligation upon the Board. The right hon. Gentleman referred to Grants which he proposed to apply from the Development Commission in order to improve the breed of livestock and various other purposes, such as poultry. I noticed the right hon. Gentleman said nothing about bees, and I hope he has not forgotten the bee industry. It is a very important industry in Scotland. It is a very great and excellent industry as a subsidiary industry to occupy the time and attention of the small holders, and I do urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that in applying for a Grant for the other
  1070
  purposes to which he has alluded he should not allow the bee industry to escape his attention.
  There is only one further point on which I desire to touch. I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied in his own mind that the present staff of the Scottish Board of Agriculture is adequate to deal with the applications not only now coming in, but which must come in in increasing numbers in the near future. I am not myself satisfied that the present staff can cope with the applications as rapidly as they ought to be able to do. I am not going to-night to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman any method which he might adopt in order to bring about a more satisfactory state of affairs in this connection, but I am inclined to think that the Scottish Board, sitting as they must do in Edinburgh, dealing with these very numerous applications are not sufficiently in touch with the country districts from which applications come, and cannot in the conditions under which they work have the knowledge they ought to have of the land that is required in the various districts from which applications come and the various questions appertaining to the problem. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will take these two points into consideration, and that he will direct inquiry very closely into the rapidity with which these applications are dealt and see whether the present staff are able, as I do not think they are able, adequately to cope with the applications coming in.
  Captain GILMOUR: I believe this discussion will produce at least one result in Scotland, and that is that it will make perfectly clear to those who are interested in agriculture and the general pursuit of the farming industry in that country that so far as their interests are concerned the Board of Agriculture which has been set up in Scotland is not in any sense applying itself towards those interests, and so far as one can judge from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Scotland, and indeed the remarks that have fallen from other hon. Gentlemen, do not intend to pay much attention to those interests. I think that is altogether a lamentable position, and I venture to say at no time in the history of agriculture in Scotland has that industry been placed in a more disadvantageous position in so far as it has anything to do with a Government Department than at the present time. It is true that hon. Members who supported the

  1071
  Small Holdings Act made no secret of the fact that their main object was to set up small holdings, and to say that the whole of the agricultural industries in Scotland is to be subjected to treatment such as is meted out at the present moment can but offer small prospect of improvement of the land of Scotland.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say how?
  Captain GILMOUR: I think it is very evident from the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made to-day when he confined the great bulk of his remarks to what the Board were going to do to set up small holdings and that the bulk of the money placed at the disposal of the Board of Agriculture was to be set aside for small holdings. What is to happen to agriculture in Scotland if the greater amount of the £200,000 is to be devoted for that purpose? And under what pretext and under what pretence does he profess that this Board of Agriculture is to deal with anything else but small holdings, and if he is honest about the matter why does he not say that it is a provision for small holdings and nothing else? Really I cannot imagine anything more absurd, when we are told that so far as the industry of the horse breeding in Scotland is concerned, it is to be dealt with by this Grant. Where is the money to come from? We are going to get a very small amount. My Noble Friend the Member for West Perthshire (the Marquess of Tullibardine) has already pointed out that it is quite evident that forestry is to get practically nothing from the Board of Agriculture, and he based that assertion on the statement made by Sir Robert Wright in the "British Agriculturist" of 13th June, in which he wrote:—
  "He warned the council that the resources of the Board would be very severely taxed to meet the demand necessary for the establishment of small holdings in Scotland, and therefore they need not expect much financial support from the Hoard's only Grant."
  So far as forestry is concerned, it is clear that unless a very considerable Grant is received from the Commissioners, nothing can be accomplished. The pretext of delay which is put forward is altogether unsound. It is a matter which has been under consideration so long that it is merely a pretext, because the right hon. Gentleman cannot, or will not, procure the necessary funds. I cannot go into many of the points which have been raised by
  1072
  the right hon. Gentleman, but it appears to me to be a disastrous policy, in so far that you have set up a Board of Agriculture which in staff is inadequate to deal with all the interests it has to cope with. You have squandered the greater part of the money in large salaries to those who hold office, and however excellent they may be, I venture to say there are many of them upon whose appointments agriculturists in Scotland look with a certain amount of suspicion. Be that as it may, it will remain for the right hon. Gentleman and his Department to prove to the agriculturists of Scotland during the next few months that they are going to do something for agriculture and not for a political propaganda. What is the policy which the Board of Agriculture in Scotland, represented by Sir Robert Wright, propose to adopt with regard to the position of the agricultural colleges in Scotland? It is far too big a subject to go into now in any detail, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make some statement as to the policy he intends to pursue. At present, so far as I can judge, the official Board of Agriculture has fallen foul of two, at least, of the important agricultural colleges in Scotland, and it is very desirable, if the work of these colleges is to be carried on satisfactorily, that we should know, and they should know, exactly where we are. I have yet to be convinced that the agricultural interests of Scotland have any hope of suitable attention being given to them, either in regard to stock raising or stock breeding, because I am convinced that under the present regime the whole energies of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Department and those under him, are devoted to the propagation of small holdings which, however excellent in themselves, are not by any means the most important of the greater part of the agricultural interests of Scotland.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I have listened with interest to the statement which has been made by the Secretary for Scotland with regard to the working of the Small Landholders Act. I feel proud that my county should have applied for more than 46,000 acres of land. I am astonished at the remark made by the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire, who seems to think that above all else afforestation is a thing that ought to be supported with part of the Grant with which we are now dealing.
  Captain GILMOUR: I never said so.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I think it is much more in the interests of Scotland that we should have men on the land instead of trees. We have had a land agitation in Scotland for twenty-six years, and during that time the people have been demanding small holdings. The Noble Lord the Member for West Perthshire has admitted that there has been an agitation for afforestation for three years only. In regard to this small sum of £200,000, as Sir Robert Wright has pointed out, we shall find our resources taxed. If that is so, it is a sign of the efficient legislative power of the present Government. We knew there was a demand for small holdings in Scotland, and the Government made a Grant of £200,000. It is admitted that it is essential to have more men on the land in Scotland, and the only way to achieve that is to have more small holdings. The sum of £200,000 for small holdings is small enough, and I hope the day will come when we shall have as much as £500,000 for this purpose.
  Captain MURRAY: Why not £1,000,000?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I quite agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Kincar-dineshire. We hear a good deal of talk about an Empire, but what is the good of it if you have not got the men to fight for you? It has always been proved that the men who can do that are those who are born and bred on the small holdings in Scotland. It is far too early in the day for hon. Members opposite to stand up and suggest that the first claim upon this small Grant of £200,000 should be for afforestation.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Nobody said that.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: That may be important to agriculturists in Scotland, but at the present time there is really no demand for afforestation in Scotland. I know there are some who have advocated it in foul and fair weather, but if you consult the constituencies in Scotland you will find that there is little interest taken in afforestation. I agree with what the previous speaker said with regard to the importance of light-horse breeding, and I regret that there is not a single representative of light-horse breeding on the Commission representing the counties of Scotland North of Nairn, where some of our finest horse breeders live, and where the finest horses are produced. I think it is a shame that such fine judges of light-horse breeding as those who live in
  1074
  those counties should not be represented upon the Commission. I will conclude by congratulating the Secretary for Scotland on being able to give us such a satisfactory statement so early in the working of the Act.
  Mr. HARRY HOPE: I think it is quite unreasonable to expect in the three months which the Agricultural Board has been in existence that any very great amount of work could be done in that time. We on these benches, as well as hon. Members opposite, desire to congratulate the Secretary for Scotland on the fact that so many applications have been made for small holdings. On this side of the House we have always been in favour of facilities being granted for small holdings. When we think of that melancholy emigration which has been going on from Scotland for many years, naturally we desire to associate ourselves with any policy which will tend to keep the men on the land. Personally I take no exception to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the primary object of the expenditure of this money is to enable small holders to be put on the land in Scotland. I consider he is right in making that statement, but that is not all the case. I think, however, that my hon. Friend was well justified in making out a very strong case for money being spent on afforestation. It is not enough simply to provide a man with land, because he requires facilities for working, and experience is necessary for success. I think the small holder can make a living out of his land, and he will do it all the readier if my right hon. Friend adopts some of the suggestions which have been made. We want to see technical instruction in agriculture carried on in all its branches. We know that the small holder can only succeed if he develops his business and adopts all possible improvements. As regards the poultry industry, if the small holder breeds the most simple kind of poultry and grades his produce in a manner similar to foreign competitors, and thereby obtains the best possible price in our own markets, he will have a better chance of succeeding. In other branches of industry we know that small holders can make increased profits if he profits by what science can teach. We all know that science has aided agriculture to develop enormously in all foreign countries, and also in our Colonies, and we desire to see that same good work done here at home. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, if he is in the same place next year, will make a report for the whole year of the work of

  1075
  his Department, and I trust he will be able to tell us that, not only have many small holdings been created and men put on the land, but also that he has carried on an organisation to enable them and others in the industry to make the most profit and to profit by the good work that has been done elsewhere.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: With regard to small holdings there is no doubt whatever that a good beginning has been made in Scotland. When you look at this Vote, I think you will see that this sum of £185,000 is a very peculiar Grant. I notice that the Grant-in-Aid will not be subject to the control of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, nor will the unexpended balance be surrendered at the close of the year. Notwithstanding what my hon. Friend said, I think that while the small holdings are the principal thing afforestation is a great help and ought not to be neglected. I think the Noble Lord was somewhat wrong in saying nothing had been done, because a Commission was appointed and went through Europe, or, at all events, through Germany. I had the pleasure of speaking to one of them on his return, and he said it was a great experience for him and an eye-opener to see the splendid condition in which the Germans kept their forests and developed them. He was perfectly certain it would be a great help to Scotland if we could start the same thing. I have no doubt whatever that when the end of the year comes, or, at all events, when the first six months are over, they will see they will not require all this sum for small holdings, and they will be able to devote part of it to afforestation. Something further has been done. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland must know a Committee has been appointed to arrange for selecting places where afforestation should be carried out. I have no doubt that in a very short time they will make their Report, and I should like in the coming year to see a beginning made in this most important branch of industry.
  The hon. Member for Renfrewshire (Captain Gilmour) said the new Agricultural Board, which had given to it the command of the agricultural colleges, was rather running foul of some of the colleges. I believe that is so. I must say my right hon. Friend's predecessor led me and
  1076
  others to understand these colleges would not be under the power of the Agricultural Board. It appears, however, they are, and I think it is somewhat unfortunate, because these colleges have made great efforts and have done a very great deal, and I think it would be a very great pity if the good work they are doing is interfered with by a new broom which comes in and tries to sweep clean. I am perfectly certain the members of this Agricultural Board do not know so much about some of these subjects as the men in the agricultural colleges do. I hope my right hon. Friend will see these men on the Agricultural Board do not run roughshod over these agricultural colleges, but that he will put a restraint on them somehow or other and make them more sympathetic with what has already been done and with what will be done if they move in harmony with the colleges instead of pulling a different way. I hope something will be done out of this Grant for afforestation during the current year. I believe there will be at least £20,000 or £30,000 they will not be able to spend on small holdings during the first year, and, if that be so, some part of it at any rate ought to be spent on afforestation.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I would join with those who have expressed themselves pleased at the number of applications which have been made for small holdings under the Act. I yield to no Member of the House in my keenness in the matter of small holdings, but I think the antagonism which my right hon. Friend suggested between small holdings and the spending of a little money on the promotion of afforestry in Scotland does not exist at all. There is no antagonism between the two. The one is ancillary to the other. I feel bound to express considerable disappointment at the absence of any encouragement of those, and there are a considerable number of us, who are very keen about afforestation in Scotland. The question of afforestation is one of the most important questions that concerns Scotland. It is not foreign from the question of small holdings; it is not foreign from the supreme question of the land; in fact, it is the problem of the land; it is the problem of the right use of the land; it is the problem of the repopulation of the depopulated glens of Scotland. It is the problem of giving to Scotland a new sort of wealth, a large and increasing and unfailing wealth. According to the Report of the Coast Erosion Commission, there

  1077
  are 6,000,000 acres in Scotland suitable for afforestation.
  I daresay those people may be right who suggest that the figure is a little exaggerated, but take it at 5,000,000, or even at a little less than 5,000,000 acres, and you have a quarter of the total surface of Scotland; a quarter of the total area of Scotland; not barren rocks, not the mountain tops, but land actually suitable for afforestation. What is that land used for now? It is used for deer forests; it is used for sporting purposes. It may be used for poor grazing. It is useless to suggest that land is all suitable for small holdings. Some of it may be, but the vast proportion which is suitable for afforestation could not be used for small holdings. It is let now for a mere nominal rent, in many cases for 2s. 6d. an acre, and some of it perhaps for 7s. 6d. per acre. An hon. Friend says much of it is let for less than 2s. 6d. per acre, but I take land which may be let up to 7s. 6d. per acre. That land could be used much more profitably than it is used at present by using it for the purposes of afforestation. Afforestation would create, in the first place, a new sort of wealth for Scotland. In the second place, it would repopulate Scotland. I have only got to go through the Report of the Departmental Committee which was appointed by the Scotch Office last year for confirmation of what I say. There I find it is said:—
  "Land which was afforested would give ten times as much employment as sheep farming, and that figure may be trebled if we add the attendant industries."
  With a proper scheme of afforestation we could more than double the population of rural Scotland. We could not only check the decline in the population of rural Scotland, but we could commence a steady and growing increase. In the last place, afforestation would powerfully promote small holdings. Small holdings in many parts of Scotland are not economic. They succeed best in many of the fishing districts where there is an ancillary industry. In afforestry you would have a subsidiary industry. They would work in the forests during the winter and on their small holdings in the summer, and you could make small holdings possible and profitable over a large area where at present even with the Grant they are not profitable. You would increase small holdings to an enormous extent. What, then, has been done in vie wof these great possibilities? Two things have been accomplished as the result of great pressure and agitation. In the first place,
  1078
  there are the Development Commissioners. These Development Commissioners have power to expend money in promoting afforestation. In the second place, you have got the Scotch Board of Agriculture, a Board with a Grant of £200,000 a year, chiefly and primarily, I admit, for the purpose of promoting small holdings, but still definitely and precisely, in so many words in the Act which established that Board, for the purpose also of promoting afforestation. I claim a small portion, a subsidiary portion—a very few thousands would satisfy us—for the promotion of afforestation. The Development Commissioners last year presented a report on the subject. They stated to the Scotch Office what their requirements were. They were three. They will not recommend a Grant from their funds until a detailed scheme for the expenditure of the money is framed and approved. My right hon. Friend had a Departmental Committee to do that very thing, and that Departmental Committee has reported and framed its scheme, and given a detailed estimate of the scheme which is wanted, and which is demanded by the Development Commissioners. What is the reply? The reply is to appoint an Advisory Committee. I have just been reading this Report, and I can give my right hon. Friend the details of the scheme. In the first, place, it recommends a demonstration area of from 4,000 to 10,000 acres.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is not a scheme; it is a general proposition.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I will give my right hon. Friend the precise proposal. The precise proposal as a preliminary to this demonstration area, is that he should appoint Commissioners to make a flying survey of Scotland for afforestation purposes. Of course, that is the first preliminary; that is in the Report. There is a full and precise report of the Preliminary steps which would be taken. They would not involve much expenditure; they would only involve the expenditure of a few thousand pounds which could be supplemented by a Grant from the Development Commissioners. Why cannot we get something done on the lines suggested by the Development Commissioners, and on the lines of the scheme framed by the Departmental Committee appointed by the right hon. Gentleman's own office? We do not want to go on having Advisory Committees appointed year after year; we have been doing that for thirty or forty

  1079
  years. I could name half-a-dozen Commissions which have sat and reported on this subject during the past generation. We have got the machinery created; we have got the Board of Agriculture; we have got the Development Commissioners; we have got a statement by the Development Commissioners of their requirements, and we have got the precise recommendations from his own Departmental Committee, and yet we do not seem to be able to make any move forward. Why cannot we do a little? Why cannot we get a demonstration area on a small scale in Scotland? The right hon. Gentleman said the other day a demonstration area was impossible under present circumstances. I understood him to say that in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro-Ferguson).
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Could not the Inverleaver Forest be used for a demonstration area?
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The Inver-leaver Forest is far too small for a proper demonstration area. There are only 300 acres planted.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Surely it is capable of being used as a demonstration area.
  It being a quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, further proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

  PORT OF LONDON (STRIKE).
  Mr. O'GRADY: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
  I am sure that the House will sympathise with the purpose that I have in moving the Adjournment, in view of the fact that this dispute has now lasted for nine long, weary weeks. I cannot help thinking, in considering this particular point, that had the House interfered when I suggested they might do three weeks ago the men would now have been at work, and the strike for all practical purposes would have been settled. The House will remember the fact that the junior Member for the City of London moved an Amendment to my Resolution on 1st July, in which he declared that any intervention by the Government in this strike would simply prolong it, that the strike itself was simply a partial strike, and therefore the
  1080
  Government should keep the ring for the combatants. Coming direct from the seat of operations this morning, I have to say that there is a possibility of the strike continuing for another three or six weeks with all the attendant suffering that it involves, as well as the damage to the material interests of the Port. It is a mistake not allowing the Government to interfere in these matters, because it must be obvious that this strike cannot be settled except by some form of Government intervention and some form of legislation. The Government interfered when the railway strike was on, and also when the coal strike was on.
  Why they make a difference between the coal strike and the railway strike and the present strike I cannot for the life of me understand. I presume the Government interfered on these occasions in order to protect the interests of the community generally. They found that the interests of the community were being damaged very considerably by the men upon the railways and in the mines being out on strike. Well, I want to submit that there are something like 400,000 people involved in this strike in London. There are great material interests at stake. On these two points this strike is of as much concern to the community as was the coal and railway strike, and I repeat I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government should interfere in these strikes and refuse at the present moment to intervene in the present one. I want to say a few words with regard to the attitude of the Port of London Authority. I cannot understand their attitude. I cannot understand the attitude of the chairman of the Port Authority. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nor anybody else."] It is a quasi public body. It is the chairman of that quasi public authority who is taking the lead of the employers' organisations, and leading them into a policy of union smashing and the obliteration of the agreements that existed prior to the strike. It is clear that somewhere there is misunderstanding, because Lord Devonport, in his own words, says:—
  "The strike now proceeding is in no way directed against the terms and conditions of the Port Authority employment. No allegation is, or has been, made against the Authority in either of these particulars, or as to the observance of its agreements with its workmen."
  I want to say that this strike would not have lasted so long had Lord Devonport occupied a neutral position, and if he had allowed the other employers to fight out

  1081
  their quarrels with their men. I repeat he has been the head of the employers, and has advised the employers; the Port Authority's offices have been used for the purposes of meetings of the employers, and the whole agency of the Port has been used in employing free labour—the blackleg labour which has been placed at the disposal of the employers. It is well to note that some change has taken place in the position of this strike. That was announced by Lord Devonport in his letter last Friday. He declares in that letter, for the first time, that when the negotiations were on between Messrs Gosling and Orbell, that they had made it clear to Mr. Gosling that the conditions existing at the commencement of the present strike as regards the actual wages and hours of working would remain intact. I want to point out that repeatedly Lord Devonport had been asked that simple question by the men's representatives. I know from my own knowledge that other interested outsiders—interested in the sense that they desired to see an honourable settlement arrived at—had heard this statement from Lord Devonport himself. They asked him whether they could make it public and upon that occasion Lord Devonport replied, and he also replied in the same way to Messrs. Gosling and Orbell, that if this statement were made public he would immediately repudiate it. The change has occurred because for the first time Lord Devonport has put these terms into writing in his letter of last Friday.
  The only two points of difference outstanding between the employers as a whole and their workmen is, that the workmen are prepared to resume work immediately upon the agreements that existed prior to the dispute and on favourable consideration being given to the question of reinstatement. Let us consider this question of wages and conditions, and let us see where the Port Authority comes in and where the employers stand in this matter. We have the statement of Lord Devon-port that the wages and hours shall remain intact. Curiously enough in his letter he goes on to say that there are some variations. I will read his exact words. The variations are that—
  "The shipowners now insist on having a condition stipulated in writing which was in force prior to August, 1911, though not specifically mentioned in either of the agreements signed by them last year. This condition is that the men engaged to undertake to work ns directed by their employers, and they engage not to require the production of any union or federation ticket from any man, however employed in the Port of
  1082
  London, whether afloat or ashore. This is in spirit a reproduction of conditions inserted in the Mansion House agreement of 1889, to which Mr. John Burns himself was a consenting party."
  If that statement of the shipowners was a correct statement of facts one would not demur much. But I have the exact words of the stipulations that settled the strike of 1889 and the terms of the shipowners and employers, and it is well that comparison should be made to show how impossible it is for the men to accept Lord Devonport's terms with these stipulations and variations. The terms that settled the 1889 strike signed by the present President of the Local Government Board were:—
  "Clause 6. The strikers and their leaders unreservedly undertake that all labourers who have been at work during the strike shall be unmolested and treated as fellow labourers by those who have been out on strike.
  "Clause 7. In employing fresh men after the strike is ended the directors will make no difference between these who have and those who have not taken part in it, and will not, directly or indirectly, show resentment to any men who have participated in the strike."
  That is a frank statement of the position which was accepted by the men in 1889. The present stipulations of the employers are—
  "That the men engaged undertake to work as directed by their employers, and engage not to require the production of any union or Federation ticket from any man, however employed in the Port of London, whether afloat or ashore."
  That clause of the employers is neither in the spirit nor the letter of the agreements which settled the 1889 dispute. In fact, they are asking the men to cut their own throats. They have really gone away from their original position in regard to the Federation ticket. They now object to the individual union ticket. I do not for one moment think that this House would ask the men to go back upon terms of that character. We must remember also that the sailors and firemen are involved to some small extent in this dispute, and that the principle contained in the employers' stipulation is to apply to the man afloat as well as ashore, so that the men afloat will not be able to produce their union tickets without fear of contravening the stipulations of the employers, and therefore will be liable to be discharged at a moment's notice. I submit that is an intolerable condition, which no reasonable man, or man desiring to retain some honour and principle, could assent to. That is the position as the matter now stands.
  What is the history of this strike? I do not want to go into details, but for the purposes of our discussion to-night it is well that the various heads should be enumerated. It is a story of broken agree-

  1083
  ments from 21st August last up to May of this year. I regret to say, so far as I am able to read every communication which has been published on the matter—so far as I am able to get the men's side; I agree I am partial in that sense—but so far as I have been able to gather the position of the employers not directly implicated, I find that those agreements were broken by the employers themselves for those eight months. Consider what that involves. It has been computed that it involves not less than £500,000 in wages, which the men have never been paid, and to which they claim they are entitled. Was that claim a justifiable claim? When the dispute arose over the question of the increase in the wages of the short sea traders' workpeople from 7d. to 8d., and the employers and the workmen could not agree—I shall have something to say later on about the lack of machinery in the Port of London Act to settle disputes—they resolved to submit the matter to the arbitration of Sir Albert Rollit. He found definitely and specifically, in as clear language as one could put terms, that the men were entitled to an increase from 7d. to 8d. an hour. That was not paid. When both sides mutually agree to arbitration it is always a point with the trade union movement and with most employers in various parts of the country that they both agree to observe the award of the arbitrator. Where union men do not observe it every pressure has been brought to bear upon them by officials to compel them to observe it. In this case nothing was done by the employers except to give a blunt refusal to accept the terms of the Rollit award.
  There was another impossible position. After a while, when negotiations upon the matter had ceased, when there was no possibility of a settlement being effected, the men still remaining at work, both sides agreed to submit the matter to the Lord Chief Justice of England for a legal interpretation of the Rollit award. Again in clear and distinct language — the language of one of our most brilliant and leading lawyers, the head of his profession—it was declared that the Rollit award was a perfectly correct award, and meant what it said, that the men were entitled to claim a rise from 7d. to 8d. After eight months of that kind of endeavour on the part of the union to effect an honourable settlement and to get the employers to stand by their agreements, nothing at all was done. As I said the other night,
  1084
  it ought to be clearly remembered, in spite of what has been said by the Port Authority and by the employers, that this strike was not instituted by the leaders, but that the men themselves in a spirit of exasperation, I agree unwisely, struck over the question of the man Thomas. But there were 20,000 men out from the Port before the leaders took the attitude they did, and to save the situation, to prevent anarchy, and with the express desire of getting the 20,000 men back to work, they thought the best thing to be done was to raise the whole issue by withdrawing the other men. What followed from the employers' point of view? They absolutely and definitely refused to accept the Clarke Report. Sir Edward Clarke was appointed by the Government to investigate the matter. It is well known that he does not hold the political views of the Government at all. He was selected for his eminence at the Bar, for being a great public man, and a man who, in the judgment of the Government, and in my judgment, would be the man best fitted to decide as between the two parties. He declared that the men were wrong, but he declared also that the employers upon five points had broken their agreements involving questions of wages. The men at once, at the instance of some of us who had been advising them, immediately accepted the Clarke Report, and were prepared to go back to work upon the terms of that Report. Again we found an impossible barrier erected by the employers, by their refusal to accept the Clarke Report.
  The Transport Workers' Federation held their annual meeting in London, and discussed the whole aspect of the dispute. Some of us, desiring that an honourable settlement should be fixed up, went to the Transport Workers' Federation and discussed the matter with them, and told them that they must remember that what the employers were apparently getting at was the fact that there was no guarantee given by the men that the agreements would be kept, and that the best way to get out of that difficulty would be for the Transport Workers' Federation and the other unions involved to offer monetary guarantees. The men discussed that in all its bearings, and instructed me to convey the information to the Government and to the employers that those monetary guarantees would be deposited. Lord Devonport declares that was an advance upon the previous position. The Government incorporated that monetary guaran-

  1085
  tee with certain proposals which they suggested to both sides. I have the proposals here, but I do not think it is necessary to read them. I believe that if those proposals had been accepted at that time by both employers and the workmen, and subsequently incorporated in an Act of Parliament, it would have been the very best thing that ever happened for the trade in the Port of London. The men accepted the Government's proposals, although they involved monetary guarantees and certain other stipulations and regulations which prevented the free action of the unions. Again the employers gave the Government an absolute and positive refusal. Since that time this House, by a majority of 66, carried a Resolution expressing its opinion that the time had come when the employers and workmen should meet together in order to settle this dispute. Again the employers flouted the opinion of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister had been doing his best to bring about an arrangement. All the way through the piece the employers have taken up the position that they want the intervention of no third party, and, above all, they resent the intervention of the Government. It got to such a pitch —and here I want to be careful in my statements—circumstances were such in the East End of London, brought about by this refusal of the employers to settle the dispute, that the King of the country had to cancel a public engagement. Really, I want to know where we are in this matter. I thought we had a Monarch and we had a Government, but apparently we have not got either. King Capital rules the roost to-day, dictates and controls in a despotic manner, flouts the Government, flouts public opinion, and decrees, above all, that Britishers should simply go and crawl to them on terms of unconditional surrender which I will never advise them to accept.
  Let us get the story from the men's side. The original proposals that the men submitted to the employers have been whittled down time after time and there are only two remaining. What were the main points of the original proposals? Again, an effort to ensure peace in the transport trade of London. They suggested that a Joint Board should be established, consisting of representatives of the employers and the workmen. It is perfectly true they said the employers should be federated. The employers reply was that they could not be federated, and that the conditions of trade in the Port made it
  1086
  impossible. It is a curious thing that they can become federated to smash the men's unions. They are all alike for that purpose. There is no competition amongst them, there is no discussion of the specific interests of their respective trades which can bring them into conflict with one another, and if the principle of federation is good for union-smashing purposes, it ought to be infinitely better and more sensible to keep the peace in the Port of London. I am astonished at what I consider to be the gross stupidity—to say nothing else—of the London employers. I have been connected with the shipbuilding trade. The employers in the shipbuilding industry compelled the unions to federate and will have no contact with individual unions at all; but will fix up their terms of settlement with federated unions. I was on the executive of the Shipbuilding Trades' Federation and was a signatory to that standing agreement. The point that brought that about was that individual unions of workmen struck in the shipbuilding trade and went on fighting their employers, with the result that after a time other bodies of men were thrown out. These bodies of men said, "We have no trouble with the employers. Why should we be thrown out of employment? If you are going to squeeze us in that direction we may as well all come out together," and the employers replied, "That is the best course to adopt"; and they declared from that time forth that if one union struck and they could not be brought to reason, either by the other unions or could not settle with the employers, the employers would lock-out the whole of the trade. So that they compelled the unions to federate.
  Let me point again to the cotton trade, in which there are many conflicting interests. The cotton employers will not confer with an individual union at all. Under the terms of the Brooklyn Agreement if they cannot agree they all strike together or lock out together. The employers, for the safety and prosperity of their business, have declared that they will confer with a federated union only. What is this fear in the mind of the employers about the men's federation? That you cannot prevent federation goes without saying. No law, no decree, no action on the part of any employers can prevent the federation and amalgamation of trade unions. There are forces outside both employers and workmen that drive them into federation and that drives capital to

  1087
  federation. A unit of capital which will not federate to-day is remorselessly thrust out of production. That is an economic proposition to which I trust the House will give consideration. The very same principle applies to a workman's organisation under modern industrial conditions. They refused the Joint Board because it meant that the workman wanted the employers to federate. That was the first proposal they made to ensure peace in the Port, and, above all, to prevent smaller issues like that of the man Thomas, for instance, developing into great troubles and great strikes and involving the whole of the men and the employers in the Port. The next step the men took was that they unreservedly accepted the Clarke Report, and they unreservedly accepted the Government's proposal, and that was the occasion upon which they offered to deposit a monetary guarantee. Finally, when everything failed, the only outstanding point left for consideration by the employers, which has been rejected, is the resumption of work upon the agreements existing prior to the dispute, and the favourable consideration by the Port Authorities of the reinstatement of the men. Here is what the "Westminster Gazette" said:—
  "In the Act that set up the Port Authority it says that a man shall not lose his position except for misbehaviour, and the strike can hardly be called misbehaviour. The Act also declared that the Chairman of the Port Authority shall take into consideration the conditions of labour at the Port, and do his best to prevent the casualisation of labour."
  If the latest terms of the employers were to be accepted by the men—and heaven forbid that they should—particularly the terms suggested by the ship-owners, they would involve the decasualisation of labour in the Port of London, and a reversal to the conditions of 1889, which I have before declared were simply brutal. The proposal of the shipowners is to take their men on inside the docks instead of outside. That means that the men have got to rush for their work, they have to brutally clamber over each other, and when they get work—this is the most insidious part of it—they have to subsidise the foreman, and the man who can sub-sidise the foreman most is the man who gets the most work. Although the wages in London are now 8d. an hour and 1s. for overtime for the docker, if these terms are accepted by the men, not only would you revert to the old conditions which I have described, but you would revert to the old type of wages of 4d. per hour, and
  1088
  not only that. The workmen are now bound to be given four hours' work. Under the old condition of things they were simply called in for an hour, and then flung outside the dock gates again. That is an intolerable position, and I will never ask the men to accept it. It is not sufficient for me simply to criticise. I am as anxious—I am more anxious—as any man in this House to effect an honourable settlement, and I want to suggest a way out of the difficulty. There are five possible points upon which this matter can be settled, and the men can resume work, always upon the understanding that the old agreements that existed prior to the dispute shall obtain. The first is the setting up of the Conciliation Board. I know that means an Amendment of the Port of London Act, but this House could devote its attention to no more beneficent measure. If that is not sufficiently drastic, there is the question of setting up a Wages Board. I do not believe in a Wages Board, but if it is the desire of the House, I feel sure that the men would accept a Wages Board, provided that it is done along the lines of the provisions of the Miners' Act, that is to say, the setting up of a board to discuss wages. Then there is the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald). That also might be passed into law. Certainly the time has come when the principle of that Bill should become the law of the land. The Bill in effect says that when agreements are entered into between federated employers and federated workmen they should be compulsory and cover the whole trade. The whole difficulty in London in regard to the carmen's side of the question was that one gentleman who was told to sign on behalf of the carmen employers was not at the time a member of the Employers' Association, and he broke away from the others and refused to obey the conditions. If we are to have industry carried on in the ordinary manner—a manner which will not involve these great outbreaks on the part of the men—it is absolutely essential that these agreements should be compulsory over the whole trade. Then there are the Government's own proposals. If I may express my own opinion, I much prefer these proposals to any others. They are simple proposals, and the machinery is simple. They could be incorporated in a Bill in the shape of provisions which could put an end to these lamentable outbreaks in industry.

  1089
  I cannot finish without referring to the humanitarian side of the question. I was misunderstood the other evening on this matter. I said I was born among these people, and lived among them until I was twenty years of age. I know their life of grinding poverty, how they are often on the verge of destitution, and how when the slightest economic disturbance comes along it pushes them down into the pit. Once they get there, it is almost impossible for them to rescue themselves for a long number of years. I have been acquainted with poverty, and I have been acquainted with it in the seaports of this country, but I have never met such an appalling state of poverty as there is now in the East End of London. As Mrs. Barnardo indicated, the condition of things there is worse than that of the ryots as regards the effect on the community at large. The life of the children is being blotted out as if they were of no more importance than flies in God's creation. That is a condition of things this country ought not to tolerate. Whatever may be the difficulties and troubles in connection with the settling of this strike, whatever may be the points raised by the men or the employers, I claim that this House ought to intervene in the matter, and, without taking the employers' side or the men's side, effect a settlement of the strike. I have been with the men at meetings all the day long. I have told them "There is no money for you next week. The union chest is being depleted. It is quite true that money is coming from other unions, but it is not sufficient to keep your wives and children even in bread for a week." I have told them that the strike will last, that the employers are obdurate, and that Parliament is doing nothing, and they have said that they were not going back in dishonour, and that they would never accept the terms of the employers. That is a spirit and temper which I think ought to meet with the approval of the House. I do not think that we or anybody else should break a spirit or temper of that kind. Mrs. Barnardo says that the outstanding heroes are the men who will humble their pride and go to the workhouse in order that their wives and children may get outdoor relief. I think there is a general consensus of opinion in the House that the strike ought to be settled. I believe that. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said he did not wish to see the men's unions ridden over roughshod. But they will be ridden over roughshod. They are
  1090
  being ridden over to-day. We ought to save the men's unions, and I think if the Government would bring forward a single Clause Bill in the shape I have suggested, setting up a Conciliation Board or a Wages Board, or enact their own proposals into law, the general consent of the House would be given, and it would be passed in a very short time. The "Westminster Gazette" said a Bill would be passed in one day. I think it could, but whether it could or not the fact is that when this House likes it can do things. It can pass coercion Bills in twenty-four hours. I appeal to the House to give consideration to this question, and to urge the Government from all quarters that they shall enact some kind of legislation that will effect an honourable settlement of this dispute.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to second the Motion.
  I would ask the House to remember that the condition of affairs in the East End of London has not been one whit exaggerated by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds (Mr. O'Grady). Although it might be to the advantage, or the supposed advantage, of certain sections of society that the men should be beaten in the fight they are engaged in, I do want to call the attention of the House to the fact that every observer of the East End is, I believe, convinced that at the present moment you are adding tenfold, or even a hundredfold, to the weight of the ordinary destitution there is in that part of the Metropolis, and that you are piling up trouble, not merely for the day, but for the days to come, because children are growing up enfeebled and lacking vitality. The population growing up there at this moment are not getting sufficient food, and in all probability that will throw a tremendous burden on other people in days to come. But in addition to that, those who are bringing strike breakers, or blacklegs, or whatever you choose to term the free labourers, are, I think, incurring a very tremendous responsibility. One thing that the dock trade of this country suffers from is casual labour, and any man who goes through dockland to-day must be appalled at the number of men gathered up from all parts of the country and dumped down there to add to the multitude who, even when the strike is settled, will be fighting to get a day's work. For my part, I think one of the most terrible consequences of the prolonging of this dispute is that you are going to add

  1091
  to what every social reformer tells you is the worst and most wicked side of labour in connection with the docks. You will accentuate all the casual labour problem and all the difficulties of decasualisation. The great difficulty of decasualisation is that you do not know what to do with the surplus, the men who will be squeezed out. Even if we settle the strike to-morrow we have got on our hands an enormous problem of this kind, added to greatly by the fact that you have brought these men in from all parts of the country.
  You heard from my hon. Friend that the wages in the docks previous to the original Dock Strike, from which we date almost everything in the East End, were 4d. per hour, and the men could be taken on for one hour. Will anyone in this House say that the men would have got this 6d. an hour, and finally the 8d. an hour, without the aid of the trade unions? Will anyone say that employers of their own good will would have given that increase? Does not every man who knows anything of the problem know that those men would have gone on with the 4d. an hour, and their frightful conditions of casual employment getting worse and worse, and the fearful scramble to get even an hour's work would have gone on if it had not been for the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Burns), who is now President of the Local Government Board, Mr. Tom Mann, Ben Tillett, and others? That was twenty-five years ago. No one can dispute that. When that is so, is there anyone going to say that you want to stop trade unionism in this country, and you want to keep down the power of combination in this country? I understand some people to say that they do not object to the men forming themselves into sectional unions, but they do object to a federation of unions, and they object to what is called the sympathetic strike. I understand that a great deal of the opposition that has been shown towards the men in this particular dispute is really on those lines, that men say they are up against a new kind of problem in industrial life, a new kind of difficulty which it will be very hard to overcome. May I ask those who think that way, have they never heard of the sympathetic lock-out and of the fact that employers federated together? In Lancashire only a few months ago, over a dispute that concerned only three people, something like 100,000 operatives were locked out.
  1092
  We must remember that both sides, employers and workmen, in industrial action to-day are bargaining, and it is only by federal action that they really can maintain their position. But in this dispute we have got the men who say that it is impossible that you can really have a federation. Let us inquire into that for a moment.
  9.0 P.M.
  Take the Port of London. I have already mentioned that casual employment is one of the worst and most vicious characteristics of employment at the docks. Surely we are entitled to say that the great Port situated on this river which no man made, is an absolute highway belonging to the whole of the people of this country, and is of great national importance to the people of this country. You have already said that private people could not manage it proporly, and so you have set up a semi-public authority to manage the business of the Port, and those who have lived in London know how grossly the business of the Port was managed previous to the Port of London Authority being established. But is there anyone here going to deny that the conditions of labour, the settling of wages and the settling of the conditions on which labour shall be carried on are as important to the community as the settling of the rates at which the tonnage which comes into the Port is handled. In my opinion the Government, or whoever put through that Bill, missed a very great opportunity of settling once for all the casual labour question and the wages question. What is happening now? On one side of the basin in the docks a certain shipowner will be paying a man 8d. an hour. On the other side another firm of shippers are paying 10d. an hour. How can you have peace when conditions like that prevail? What I think ought to be done is that the Port of London Authorities should be made responsible for all the labour within the Port. Within the docks at present there is a multitude of employers. This business of the shipowners who are wanting to call the men in and take them on inside the docks, the whole of that business concerns numbers of shippers, some of whom may behave very well, while others may behave very badly. But my contention is that the docks and river are the property of this nation, and we here in Parliament ought to lay down that within that Port conditions of labour shall be observed, and must be observed, which shall give men

  1093
  living rates of wages for decent work each day of the week all the year round. There is no other means by which you can expect peace. No one can impose that but Parliament; no one can deal with that but Parliament, and I contend that the federation of trade unions, the amalgamation of the unions, is just as necessary as the amalgamation of the employers.
  It is often said the men of the unions do not carry out the bargains which are made. Of course I do not want to labour any of the points about broken agreements. It is admitted on both sides that agreements have been broken on both sides; but you will never, in my opinion, get the work of the Port done properly, and you will never get any public work done properly, unless you take the organised workers into your confidence, and allow them to assist you in settling the regulations and conditions under which the men will work. That is not a new principle in this House. The Postmaster-General and the present President of the Board of Trade when he was Postmaster-General, over and over again met the representatives of the organised labour of the Post Office. The London County Council, which is a constituent part of the Port of London Authority, itself has a Conciliation Board to deal with all its highway workers and settle any disputes which may arise. It does not merely meet the individual workers, but it meets the representatives of the unions and settles matters with the unions as to hours and conditions, and instead of there being continual friction, the London County Council is able to carry through its work practically peacefully all the year round. And if you look at what has been done outside, you have got the mining industry. One of the things we claim in this matter is that the men are not paid the proper tonnage which they handle. One of the great difficulties is that there is no check on the tonnage. I may remind the House, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Fenwick), will know full well, that the miners of this country used to be robbed wholesale because they never knew how much coal they had dug out of the earth. There was no check on the weight of the coal which was taken out at the pit's bank. Now they have got the check weighman at every pit. You have also got the particulars Clause which was enacted by Parliament for the men in the cotton industry. Surely we are not asking too much when we say that we want this same kind of thing to be done in the case of a
  1094
  semi-public authority like the Port of London. If the Post Office and the county council do it, and Parliament has prescribed it in the case of private enterprises, surely we are entitled to say to Lord Devonport and his friends, that in the case of this Port of London Authority, which employs thousands of men, Parliament will safeguard them and see that they get the wages that they are entitled to from day to day.
  There cannot, it seems to me, be any argument against that at all; yet that is all that these men are really fighting for. So far as I can judge the arguments against us are based on the assumption, as I have already said, that you must break down this federation of men's unions. I would like those who are undertaking that task, especially those who do not want Parliament to interfere, to take into consideration that there is a growing sense of injustice amongst working men, and a growing sense of injustice amongst the very poorest people which will find expression in one of two ways. It will either find expression in this House or it will find expression in ways that very few of us wish it to find expression. This House has got to make up its mind whether it will go on educating poor men's sons to read and write, teaching them to understand economic conditions, and at the same time refuse to pass the necessary legislation to prevent them when they become men from being starved in this kind of fashion. For my part I cannot for the life of mo see how you can expect men to do other than come together and federate through their unions in the way they are doing. I say you have set them the example in your huge combinations of capital. It is of no use talking and imagining that it is only a figure of speech. We know quite well that in the City of London aggregations of capital can be used as a screw not merely upon the workmen, but upon the smaller kind of people engaged in the same sort of industry; and the function of Parliament in dealing with grievances, it seems to me, really changes year by year. You now have to face industrial problems in a way that you have never had to face them before.
  If you want to prevent working men from thinking that the weapon of the general strike is the right weapon, do not imagine that by crushing them, as you think you will this time, you will kill that idea. You will not do anything of the kind. You will only kill it by showing

  1095
  that Parliament is stronger and more powerful to deal with general grievances than the general strike or Syndicalism can be. You will never get working men to trust Parliament until it secures them their daily bread on honourable conditions. You are only, after all, showing these men how to stand out for the right of combination. Solicitors, Counsel, King's Counsel, the whole legal profession combine. [An HON. MEMBER: "And doctors."] I did not want to drag in the doctors, but, they, too, are showing the working men a splendid example of how to stand out for a minimum wage, and they are being backed up by the Tory Press, especially the "Daily Mail" and suchlike journals. They are showing the working men, I think, the very worst side of human life— certainly, in my opinion, a rather selfish side of human life—but, anyhow, they are showing the working men that they are strong in their power to combine not to do what they do not wish to do. I want to see preserved to the working men the right to combine that is enjoyed by every solicitor and every counsel. In this House there are representatives of the Teachers' Trade Union. I know they do not like to be called a trade union, though they are only that. The London County Council and every educational authority deals with the Teachers' Trade Union. If that is good enough for them, surely we have a right to come to this House and say that these people, who are amongst the poorest of the community, shall not be wiped out in this kind of fashion. I put especial stress upon this consideration, that the Port of London is public, is something that belongs to the nation, is a national interest which should be kept going, and I say that we ought to insist that the Authority of the Port of London should treat their men decently and fairly in all disputes, and submit questions of difference to arbitration.
  The other matter to which I wish to call attention is this: People have denounced the leaders in this strike. After all, many of us say things outside this House which we do not say here. I suppose that every politician who makes a speech outside the House makes it in a more fire-eating manner than he generally does in this House. We have no right, it seems to me, to doom a whole mass of men because we do not like what some particular people have been saying. But behind these leaders are this mass of women and children. I do not know whether the
  1096
  House quite realises what the condition of things is. Only this morning four men marched into my house—four lightermen who, as a rule, earn a couple of pounds a week, or 35s. a week. Their clothes were worn, and they themselves looked very worn, tired, and heartsick. They marched in to beg a shilling ticket each. I got the particulars of the men and their families —five, seven, four, and I think two, represented the numbers of their families. There they stood, and I thought to myself, has not the British Parliament anything to say to these men? Has not the British people anything to do for these men? A man said to me the other day, "Let them go back to work; why do they not go back to work?" I will say what has been said in another connection, that in any time of persecution or of difficulty it is advised, "Oh, don't be a fool, submit to the conditions, and everything will be all right." I have seen the women in the Division represented by the hon. Member opposite—Mile End—Bow and Bromley and Poplar. There they gave away a little milk and dry bread—only milk and dry bread. Thousands of people got none at all—they wanted it, but they got none at all. Yet we are told about these men and these women—and the women are as heroic as the men in this strike; they are standing solidly behind their husbands, as it is possible for women to stand—that is all nothing!
  But I will tell you what it is that they are doing—they are standing out for a principle. They want to stand firm on their legs as honourable men, not cringing to the employers, but free men, as you boast Englishmen should be. They want to have the power, if they are to be dealt with by massed capital, to face that massed capital by massed labour.
  But labour is always at a disadvantage. Neither Lord Devonport nor any merchant who is at present feeling the distress, have gone without a single meal during the whole of the strike. I know that many of the people in the East of London who have nothing to do with this strike are going down financially because of the strike. It is all very well for these people, the big monopolists, to think that it is no concern of anyone else but the men who are on strike. It concerns thousands of small people carrying on small businesses. But even they are not starving as are the workers and their wives and children. We may hear that Parliament has not got time; that it cannot sit to see this thing

  1097
  through, and that the House is going to rise in a fornight's time. I would like to ask the British Parliament, you men who believe in heroism, that if this sort of fight were put up for the fleet or for a beleaguered city what you would think of it? What was it we saw the other day when the hero of Ladysmith, Sir George White, was buried? You honoured him for refusing to give way, even though women and children were starving. You honoured him because he kept the flag flying. I want the British Parliament to honour those women and those men who are fighting for the vital principle of the right to combine to manage their own lives, and in order that their boys and girls may have a better chance than they have had to live in the days to come. If you honour men in a siege and in a battle, honour those men and those women and children who are facing, many of them death, hunger—all of them; and who are doing so that they may win the right to combine, the right that you have got, and that I have got, with their fellows, to improve their conditions. I want this High Court of Parliament which is here to redress the grievances of the people, to stand by those men, and to set up in London an authority that will settle this and all other disputes in an equitable manner between both parties.
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: The hon. Members who have moved and seconded the Motion have drawn a pitiful picture, and have made a pathetic appeal; but there is a real danger in this House of Commons allowing the opinion of the House to be swayed by sentiment from certain realities of business outside. This question is not one to be dealt with by impassioned oratory. This question is not one to be determined by whether those who are out on strike have conducted that strike with gallantry. This question is not to be dealt with by sympathy, which everyone must feel for those who suffer from the strike, whether they be directly or indirectly concerned in it. Behind this strike and behind this question there is a great reality, and a reality which has not been touched upon, in my humble opinion, by either of the hon. Members who moved and seconded. The real question has been kept in the background. A great deal has been said in reference to that of the trade union movement, A great deal has been said as to the usefulness of the unions to the men, and as to the right of the men to combine. That I accept, and that I do not question. But what you are dealing
  1098
  with here is not a question of men in combination, but it is a question of leaders of the union in combination without reference to the men at all. You have got, in considering this question, to bear this in mind, that the one point which keeps these men on strike to-day and the only one, is that the leaders of the different unions are standing out for the Federation ticket. [HON. MBMBERS: "No, no."] Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite say "No." Are hon. Members below the Gangway prepared to say this: that those who lead the men and those who purport to conduct this strike will make a written declaration that they will abandon the question of the Federation ticket? Will they say that? Is there any answer? [An HON. MEMBER: "Why should they?"] I thought hon. Members below the Gangway said the Federation ticket had no relation to the strike, and when I challenge them upon it they are silent.
  Let me say how the matter really is. It is this: this Federation of Transport Workers is not a union at all, and all the talk that is directed against the masters for trying to destroy unionism has no relation to the question as it now exists. The Transport Federation is not a union; it is not registered; it does not consist of a body of men. It consists of a number of officials of the unions. It is said that the men have a right to federate. I say, in answer to that, that the Transport Workers' Federation is not a federation of men at all. It is a federation of leaders of different unions, and, what is worse, they do not consult the men of their unions before they determine what course they will take.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Rubbish.
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: Has any ballot been taken of any trade connected with the transport workers except one? Has any ballot been taken except one—I ask hon. Members below the Gangway? One was taken when a sympathetic strike was desired to be created by the seamen and firemen. The seamen and firemen, by an enormous majority, declined to be concerned in the strike at all. That is the only trade union in which the men were consulted in reference to this strike. Has a ballot been taken in any other union? Hon. Members will perhaps name one if they can. What is the position of the men in those unions? They cannot express

  1099
  their views upon going out. They are ordered out. They cannot express their views upon going in, except by the drastic expedient of tearing up their Federation tickets. A great many of them have done that, and to-day, under the Port of London Authority, more than a third of their men are back at work without their Federation tickets, and a great many more of them are on the list waiting, as opportunity occurs, to come on again. That is the position as regards the Federation, and the whole difficulty to-day is that while a great deal of suave and a great deal of soothing syrup is administered to the British public through this House of Commons, the plain truth is that the one thing that matters is not said, and it is that what the leaders are standing out for is the recognition of the Federation. If the leaders would abandon the question of the Federation ticket the strike would be settled to-morrow, and there would be no further difficulty in the matter. As regards the claim of the Federation it is very simple and it is this, that no man shall work who has not a Federation ticket, and that no man who has not a Federation ticket shall work. That is to say, you must act under the direct authority not merely of the trade union, but of the committee that controls all the unions, and unless you accept their ticket you shall have no work, and only on the condition of accepting their ticket shall you have work.
  That is what the employers in the Port of London take a definite and determined stand against. Are they wrong? They say, "We have no objection to your unions; we have no objection to the men making known their grievances through their union leaders. But what we do say is this, if there are men who do not desire to belong to the union, and who are competent workmen, they have an equal right to work according to their skill and according to their opportunity with those who belong to the unions; and we intend to recognise that, and do not intend to be dictated to not by one union, but by a combination of all the unions in this way, or to accept their dictation as to whom we shall employ, or whom we shall not employ." That is the issue as between the Employers and the Transport Workers' Federation. Are they to be told whom they may employ and whom they may not employ? If they are to be told as regards individual labourers, they may be told as
  1100
  regards every single item that makes up the relations between capitalists and workmen. If they may be dictated to as to the identity of their employers, they may be dictated to to any extent both as regards the rate of wages and as regards the conditions under which they work. When you get that sort of autocracy not of the union, not of the men, but of those altogether superior persons who exist outside and do not even consult the men, then it is not surprising that capital makes a stand and says, "No, whatever happens, this strike may be settled in many ways; but if the settlement involves the recognition of the Federation ticket, this strike goes on until one or other of us falls." That is the principle, and you will never get the employers in the Port of London to recognise the Federation ticket however long this strike may last; and those who are encouraging men to continue in the strike, and to starve their wives and children, in the hope that the Federation ticket will be recognised in the last resort, are doing those men and women and children an infinity of harm. They are doing the men a wrong because they are keeping them out of work; they are getting their posts filled up by other men, and there will be less places for them when the men go back to work and the strike is over. They are doing no less grievous wrong to the women and children for whom they profess such sympathy. They are not consulting the interests of those whom they seek to represent.
  The Transport Workers' Federation arose at the time of a former strike. It was said that the Federation would be independent of any particular trade, and that therefore it should be welcomed by the employers, because it would take a detached view of any industrial problem and be able to say to the men whether or not they should strike in reference to a particular question. It was on the strength of that representation that the employers in 1911 became parties to agreements to which the Transport Workers' Federation were also parties. I ask the attention of the House to that fact. In the belief that the Transport Workers' Federation were destined to be an engine for peace, the employers in the Port of London signed agreements with the Federation in regard to different rates of wages and so forth. Those agreements were broken forthwith. There was a small sectional strike in November, and another strike in the present year. The employers have realised that

  1101
  so far from the Transport Workers' Federation being an engine for peace, it is a most potent engine for war. The representatives of the men now say, "We are very very weak," we will go back on any terms." But what else? "We will go back if the employers will revive the agreements which the men broke when under the directions of the strike leaders they went out." That sounds plausible and reasonable enough, but what is the inner meaning of it? It is this: If the employers say that they will accept again the agreements which the men have broken, they will revive agreements to which not only they but the Transport Workers' Federation also are parties. The strike leaders will then be able to go to Tower Hill and say that the employers have recognised the Federation and revived the agreements with the Federation. That the employers will never do. If new arrangements are to be made, new arrangements can be made, but they will not be made with the Transport Workers' Federation; they will be made with individual men or individual unions. It is not immaterial to observe that great harm can be done by this House through a sentimental humanitarianism intervening in this matter.
  To show the significance of what I have said, let me point out what happened in regard to a small Committee of hon. Members who made so bold as to intervene. Being certainly well-intentioned, but not so well informed, they passed a Resolution that it was desirable that the men should go back, and that agreements should be made by the employers with the different unions—missing the whole point of the transport federation ticket. That Committee of hon. Members, overlooking the fact that the federation ticket, suggested that it would be a good thing for the men to go back and the grievances to be considered between the masters and men. Those hon. Members were at once told by the strike leaders to mind their own business, because they had, probably inadvertently, exposed the whole point which makes the leaders compel the men to stand out. I observe to-day that Mr. Tom Mann, the hon. Member for East Leeds, and the same Committee of this House met, and with equally good intentions and even more confused information, passed a resolution saying that the men should go back on the basis of the old agreements—that is to say, the agreements with the Transport Workers' Federation.
  1102
  It is a question not of the position of the men or of the union, but of the position of the strike leaders. The masters' terms are perfectly reasonable. They are willing that the men should go back on the same wages, and for the same hours that they had before the strike, but the agreements on which they go back will not be the broken agreements of the strike leaders; they will be new agreements with the unions or the men.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: Did not the employers break agreements?
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I am not saying that there have not been individual cases of breach by masters.
  Mr. JOWETT: Why did you not mention it?
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I also say that there has never been in the case of the masters what there has habitually been in the case of the men, that is a wholesale breakage of agreements. The masters also offer just and generous consideration of all grievances brought forward by the men or by their unions. Is it not sufficient that the men or their unions should bring their grievances forward without this hybrid committee intervening and trying to break both employers and employed to their will? The masters also offer the re-employment of the old hands as opportunity offers. It is quite unreasonable to suppose that the men who have stood the strain and stress and danger of taking the places of those who have gone on strike should be thrown forth from work because the other men are pleased to come back. These are the masters' terms. What is there unreasonable in them? Nothing at all. Why are they not accepted? Because they exclude the federation ticket. Hon. Members below the Gangway know that the real root of the difficulty is the federation ticket, and nothing else. The people who stand for the federation stand not for the men, not for the particular trades, but for this proposition—that the leaders of the trades in the aggregate may, whether or not particular trades have any grievance, call out the men of all the trades and paralyse the trades at their own call; without consulting the men; without demands on the masters; without stating grievances, and without any notice. That sort of thing cannot be tolerated in a commercial country.
  Mr. BOWERMAN: What about Sir Edward Clarke's Report?
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: Sir Edward Clarke's Report has no relation to the present position. The position is far past the stage of Sir Edward Clarke's Report. On the things that had happened that report was against the men, though from the larger numerical point of view on smaller individual cases it was in their favour. But the masters have made their offer. The only thing that keeps the strike going now is that the masters will not recognise the federation ticket. That the men are out and are losing their employment, that they will not regain that employment when the strike is over, that women and children are suffering, that allied trades are being seriously injured, is due to that and that only. This House should recognise that you are standing for the federation ticket, which means the imposition on employer and employed alike, not in one trade but in all trades of that character, the will of a board that will brook no interference by anybody and asks nobody's wishes and nobody's will. The only other point is that the shipowners say that they will take on in future inside the docks. It is said that that is going to lead to great brutality.
  Mr. LANSBURY: And bribery.
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I am sorry that the foremen, who, after all, are presumably representative men who have emerged from the ruck, should be branded by the hon. Member as susceptible to bribery.
  Mr. W. THORNE: No bribery goes on here I suppose.
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: Hon. Members suggested it would be very brutal to take on inside the docks. Let me remind them that at any rate it would have this advantage, that it would prevent intimidation and violence. It would give an opportunity to free men in a free country to sell their labour where they can sell it. It would, I agree, do a good deal of harm from the point of view of peaceful picketing, but there are other points of view connected with real employment from which it would do nothing but good. The House should pause, before it intervenes in an industrial matter like this, a matter which is not one of merely attacking a trade, not one of doing injustice to a particular trade, not one even where particular disputes exist. You are asked to intervene, not in
  1104
  a direct fashion, but in a dangerous and indirect fashion, by passing a Resolution here to give encouragement to the men down in the East of London, who are on strike and are suffering such misery, to continue in the belief that this House will act, when it must be in the knowledge of every hon. Member who considers the position that the House cannot accept the proposition that the employers must end this strike on terms which mean recognition of the Transport Workers' Federation ticket, which would mean to them in the future a denial of the right to control their own concerns, and to free labour in this country a denial of the right to work at all.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: We have had various discussions in this House regarding attempts to settle this strike, and every time a discussion has taken place hon. and learned Members opposite have risen to promulgate a sort of unauthorised employers' programme. In the last Debate the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) made certain statements regarding what he thought were the intentions of the employers, and we asked him if he were authorised to make them— whether they were in the form of an offer? I regret very much he was unable to meet us in that respect. If he had been I think we would have settled the strike by now. The hon. and learned Member who has just spoken has again produced a programme. Is he authorised to make the statement he makes?
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I may answer the hon. Member at once. I am not authorised in the sense he means. I speak for employers, but not for the employers as a body. But I may say that I not only reasonably believe, but my belief amounts to conviction, that if hon. Members opposite will abandon the Transport Workers' ticket, then the strike from the point of view of the employers will come to an end.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Of course a great deal depends on the meaning of certain words which the hon. and learned Gentleman has used. Speaking for myself, and I can only speak for myself in this particular instance, I should be very pleased to put myself into communication with him to try and see how far the words he has used have, the same meaning in both our minds. I hold in my hand the actual document which was sent by the Port of London Authority to the men—the last official communication made

  1105
  to them by the Port Authority. If there is any further statement to be made, and if it be made in the same way as this has been, then the men will be in a position to discuss it, but until it has been made in this form I am sure the hon. and learned Member will not expect them to discuss it. The statement is as follows:—
  "That, all classes of the men agree forthwith to resume work, not stipulating for any conditions, but relying on the assurance given by the employers that they will consider any grievances brought before them, either by the men themselves or by representatives of the particular unions concerned."
  The men agreed to accept these terms, provided that one thing was inserted, and the words they wanted inserted were:—
  "Without alteration of the agreements prior to the dispute."
  The hon. and learned Member tries to build up an argument that these agreements involve recognition of the Federation ticket. I want to be quite accurate in what I am saying. If the hon. and learned Member does not agree with me, I shall be very glad to be corrected by him. I hope that some good may come out of this night's Debate. But the hon. and learned Member seems to read in that expression a desire or demand, perhaps, that the Federation ticket should be observed. There is no such intention. The hon. and learned Member knows that these agreements are of two characters. I am informed—it is information I received while the hon. and learned Member was speaking—that the majority of the agreements were made with the unions, and not with the Federation. In my statement I want to be quite within the bounds of truth. Certain other of the agreements were made by the Federation. Is it the contention of the employers that these agreements made by the Federation shall lapse altogether, and that nothing shall exist to cover the ground that they cover, or is it the intention of the employers that these agreements shall be transferred to the unions concerned? Are the employers willing to say, "We will vary the agreement so far as the Federation itself is concerned as the contracting party; we will not vary the agreements so far as the conditions of labour are concerned, but will transfer our dealings from the Federation to the individual unions concerned "? Are they going to say that? If they are, then perhaps we shall be in a position to make further progress.
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: Does the hon. Member expect an answer? As I understand the matter, the hon. Member also
  1106
  speaks from information in this way. He is speaking with the authority of the men's leaders. As I understand the matter, the agreement has been broken. The employers are willing to enter into a new agreement, to which the Federation shall not be a party, but at rates of wages and labour conditions established as before. Perhaps I should add this: It is impossible that these agreements should inevitably include all those who have gone on strike because of the new element that has come in.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Agreements cannot affect men on strike or men who have been on strike. The agreements affect men who are in employment. I want to stick to my point, if I may. I do not expect the hon. and learned Member to give me, perhaps, a firm answer, or to commit anybody for whom he thinks he is speaking; but I should like that the House should be in a position to judge. I want to understand whether the employers are willing to renew this agreement in every respect except the point that the Federation shall not be the contracting party, but that the unions of the men shall be the contracting party. If we get that, I think we are not far from settling; that really is the point, and, as a mater of fact, I do not want to go into the controversial matter, which has been raised, regarding the government of the Federation. The hon. Member is quite wrong in a good many of the statements he has made. I am sure he has made them in good faith. He knows perfectly well that the leaders of the unions, just in the same way as leaders of parties, have to form their judgment from what they know. Sometimes there are referendums upon which they form their judgment and sometimes they form them from their knowledge of the men themselves, and they have got to take the risks whether their action is approved or disapproved. As a matter of fact, and nobody can dispute this, this dispute arose because, before the leaders were consulted, the employers took certain action and locked out certain of their men, and the fact that certain men were locked out precipitated a situation which had been growing very difficult for some weeks before, and it really is profitless to discuss that matter. We fought about that before. We put up our case. Hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite put up their case. They have not convinced us, and I am sorry

  1107
  to say we have not convinced them; and the problem this House has to face is, can it by any action which it may take, or perhaps even better, can we by any statement we may make, as at any rate more or less responsible, do something which to-morrow morning will bring the two sides together to affect a settlement? To come back to the statement that I have read, the official statement, communicated by the Port Authority to the men's unions, if the hon. and learned Member is really still under the delusion that the men are standing for the federation ticket, will he use every endeavour that he can command on the assurance that he is wrong to settle the strike?
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: Is the hon. Gentleman speaking for himself now, or is he speaking for those whom he describes as the men's leaders?
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I am practically quoting the official statement made days ago by the men.
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: May I ask the hon. Gentleman another question? Will the leaders of the strike sign a declaration that in any settlement they do not stand for the federation?
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: In that specific form the matter has not been discussed. The hon. and learned Gentleman, I am quite sure, does not intend to narrow down this matter and to raise a false issue, because the important part of his second statement was the writing and signing. I say I have not authority upon that—it has not been discussed in that form. But let us go back to his first statement. He asked me whether I sneak for the men only, or whether I speak as a responsible representative, so to speak, or agent—I use the expression without offence to myself—as the responsible agent of the men?
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: And the leaders.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: May I assure the House that the leaders have made the statement I have made? And what I have said now I am perfectly certain the leaders will stand by, because they have already stated it on their own account. And if I may say so, those who are in attendance outside this House have been good enough to inform me that the sentence I have just made use of does represent their opinion, and they make themselves responsible for that. Now,
  1108
  can I do anything more than that? I venture to say that the situation is so very simple now that all that is required is a certain amount of pressure from more or less impartial persons. Hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite have on the whole—I do not want to misrepresent them—taken up the employers side. We on the whole have taken up the men's side. But whilst we have ranged ourselves upon either side I think we have kept ourselves somewhat out of the dust, and the more heated passions of the fight; and I think we are both more or less as one, and if now as the result of this Debate and this exchange of opinions we can lay our heads together, and each of us bring to bear what pressure we can upon our various sides after consultation, I feel perfectly certain we will settle the whole matter; but it does depend upon what hon. Members opposite have said. I was very much tempted to follow the hon. and learned Member who preceded me into the more or less controversial parts of his speech, but I will refrain from following that great temptation. We have tried to get the adjournment of the House for the purpose of settling the strike, and I have risen with that sole and simple purpose in my mind, and having said that I think I will leave it to the sense of the House.
  MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE:I feel that a very great responsibility rests upon anybody who joins in this Debate to-night. I am perfectly certain of this, that every Member of this House, no matter to what party he belongs or what side of the House he sits in, is certainly anxious to get this strike settled and to see peace again in the docks. I simply want to explain my position. My name has been dragged into this, and I want to explain first of all my own position in it, and the situation now as it is at this moment. Originally I was asked merely to take a message between the two parties. Whether I was successful in taking that message or not does not matter. But I assure hon. Members I have not the slightest feeling of pique or anything of that sort because my message was not received. It is quite conceivable that it was a case of policy on the part of the employers not to have any third party in the dispute, and no doubt they thought they could possibly settle the matter better between the masters and the men without any other interference. Since then, however, I have been more intimately brought into contact with the strikers

  1109
  side of the question. I will not now go into the merits, but from what has been going on I have seen that so far as the employers are concerned they are in the position of winners, and when it comes to the question of when a man is beaten there arises a point whether you are to go on trying to beat him more or get him back into your service again. I hold the opinion that it is very easy for the strongest man to beat the weaker one, but that is different to conquering that man. Personally, I think it is wise statesmanship not to attempt to conquer that man by force but by argument and statesmanship. The same things happened in South Africa because after beating the Boers we attempted to get thorn back to work alongside us. I wish to say to the House tonight that whatever the merits of the strike may be, and whoever may be right or wrong on one side or the other, nearly all those are things of the past now, and I believe that the whole of the men with the exception of one union are now prepared to go back. The whole question of reinstatement and the federation ticket have been dropped by the men and only one point remains outstanding, and that is whether the stevedores and others in the same position in their union are to be taken on outside the docks or not.
  We have really got the whole question narrowed down to this one point, and I put it to hon. Members whether it is worth the while of employers and employés to carry on this strike on this one point when the continuation of the strike means absolute misery and starvation to thousands of poor people and shopkeepers in the East End, as well as paralysing the whole of the trade of the Port of London. It does not seem to me that this point can be settled in any other way than that which I suggest. The whole of those trade unions have dropped the question of the federation ticket now, and all those unions are prepared to advise their men to go back to work with the exception of one union. The other unions, however, cannot go back from motives of honour because they feel that they cannot go back until that one point has been settled with the stevedores. I am now speaking more to certain people outside the House, and I ask is it worth carrying on the strike if the stevedores would be willing to go back to work, and the employers would be willing to take them back, and allow that one point to be settled as soon as they have gone back. If the employers would say
  1110
  that they would hold over that one point for arbitration, I believe the whole of the men would go back to work together. I want to remind hon. Members of the misery these men are in at the present moment. I do not think any hon. Members would say that I am allied to hon. Members below the Gangway, or that I have anything to do with Socialism. I supported the employers at the beginning of this strike, but I think the time has now come when the strike ought to be settled. I feel now that I am not representing either one side or the other, but I am trying to do what I think is fair.
  10.0 P.M.
  At first the starvation in the East End was not with me a motive so long as there was a fair fight, but now it affects me very strongly. I have been down there amongst the poor people, and this has moved me to a certain extent. I have seen a number of these people. I said to one of them, "When did you last have food?" The reply I received was, "Twenty-four hours ago." I asked "What did you have? and the reply I received was "One pennyworth of bread." I inquired, "How many of you are there?" and the answer I received was "Eight of us." I asked another the same question, "When did you have food?" and "Yesterday afternoon" was the answer. I put the same question, "What did you have?" and the reply was "Twopennyworth of fish amongst seven of us." Those are only two instances out of about a dozen. I am not saying this to move hon. Members, but when I go down to the East End and haphazard find these cases, it shows to me that there is a great deal of misery. May I remind the House that there are 16,000 children coming out from the schools this week on holidays, who have been fed through the rates, and in future I believe it will be impossible to feed them owing to the Regulations. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I ask hon. Members to remember that these children some day are going to become mothers and fathers of the next generation, and if you are going to starve them in this way it will be a very serious lookout. I was speaking of the situation as I have seen it. Personally, I hate the idea of intervention by Parliament, and I would rather see this matter settled by the two sides amongst themselves, but if the two sides cannot settle it there is no doubt that Parliament must. The whole thing is narrowed down to this. I wish to say perfectly frankly that I have no sympathy

  1111
  with what I may call extremists on both sides, and I have nothing to say to the ravings of Hyde Park agitators any more than I have to those who will not hear reasonable messages from the other side. I am prepared to say this—and I am speaking with a full knowledge of what I say— that the beaten forces would come back on these terms, and I think it is a very good policy for the victor to give terms. Those terms are:—
  "That all classes of the men agree forthwith to resume work, not stipulating their own conditions, but relying upon the assurances given by the employers that they will consider any grievances brought before them either by the men themselves, or by the representatives of the particular unions concerned. It is further understood that there will be no alteration in the agreement in force prior to this dispute with the various unions concerned."
  That is where they stop. I believe the men will accept this if these words are put in:—
  "But where the agreements mention the word Federation,' it is to be understood that the agreements stand with the unions concerned and not with the Federation; and so far as concerns the special agreements with the Stevedores' Union and others in the same position, with regard to taking on men outside the gates, such will be a matter for consideration after the men have returned to work."
  I have no reason for supposing that the employers will accept or refuse the above, but I sincerely hope, in the interests of peace and humanity, as well as commonsense, they will accept something of that kind. I do not wish to be dogmatic in the actual wording, but, seeing two Christian communities opposed to each other and the appalling distress existing in the East End, I sincerely hope that the two sides will come together on something like these terms, which, personally, I think are perfectly reasonable.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I very much regret that, owing to an important engagement, the Prime Minister cannot be present to take part in this discussion. I rise rather to enforce the appeal which has been so eloquently put to the House by the Noble Lord (Marquess of Tullibardine) that a last effort should be made by all sections and parties in this House to induce those who are engaged in this bitter and disastrous conflict to bring it to an end which is honourable to both sides. The part which the Noble Lord has taken in this matter is one which is very creditable, and if men on both sides were moved by the same honourable influences and by the same desire to save,
  1112
  not merely a great amount of human suffering which is now being inflicted, but also a great amount of real permanent injury to the interests of this country, I cannot help thinking an end could be made to this terrible dispute. I shall do my very best to avoid saying anything which will make it difficult for either party to offer or accept terms. I think it will be admitted that the case has been very fairly and temperately stated on behalf of the men in this matter. I would like to say just one word as to what fell from the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Norman Craig), who presented the case for the employers. I could not help thinking that unless the employers had a much better case than the one he presented in the first part of his speech there is hardly a justification for prolonging the strike. He brushed on one side what he called "sentimental humanitarianism." By that he means, of course, the great suffering in the East End. Supposing he brushed all that on one side, there are very solid interests which are being damaged. For the moment the great entrepot trade of London, the greatest in the world, is at an end. Ships which in the ordinary course would come here are going either to other ports in this Kingdom or to foreign ports. No one can contend that is going to be temporary or say to what extent it is going to be permanent. So the real permanent interests of this country are involved in bringing to an end this dispute. I have already pointed out the powers of the Government are very limited. The dispute has been going on for about six weeks.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Nine weeks.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member is quite right. It has been going on since 16th May. No one dreamt at that time the dispute would take so long as it has taken. I am sure it was the impression of all the employers, and not merely of the employers but of others as well, that the strike could not possibly last long— that it would soon come to an end, and that it was far better it should come to an end by defeating the unions. I have seen many disputes of that kind, where the sanguine anticipations of parties that they will accomplish and win a great victory in a short time have generally been falsified by the end. I am not sure it was not the case with the miners' strike. I remember a strike down in South Wales, the Tony-pandy strike. I remember a strike

  1113
  in the quarries which lasted two or three years, a strike which has inflicted a very permanent injury upon the slate trade. There is not one of those strikes in which the employers did not expect an early determination. They reckoned up the funds at the disposal of the union, and they said, "They cannot possibly last." They did not reckon upon the tremendous lasting power of men who are fully convinced they are wronged. I do not think anyone in this House will believe it possible that men would have gone on for nine weeks under such conditions—conditions I cannot describe—the Noble Lord has described them in very touching language, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Mr. O'Grady) described them in language which was not in the least exaggerated—unless they were firmly convinced that conditions were sought to be imposed upon them that no man could possibly, consistent with self-respect, accept unless he was really starved into the position of surrender.
  I am not going to examine the grievances in this case. The only thing I point out is this: There has been an inquiry; it was an inquiry by a person whose impartiality no one has challenged, and the result of that inquiry has been undoubtedly to condemn the action of the men in one or two particulars, but it has also criticised and censured the action of the employers in other particulars. That report stands. If it was not a sufficiently exhaustive report—if the employers thought they had not been fairly represented there, or that evidence which ought to have been heard had been excluded, and if they had pressed for a reopening of the inquiry—I think no one would have resisted the demand; but they have done neither one thing nor the other. They have neither accepted the report, they have neither shown the inclination to act upon it, nor have they asked for or shown any readiness to accept any other inquiry in any other form. Those are the facts in so far as the Clarke Inquiry is concerned, and they are not facts that can be ignored altogether. The Government can certainly not go behind them. In setting up that inquiry, we were acting under an Act of Parliament passed in 1896 by our predecessors in office. The inquiry was an official inquiry, set up under one of the Sections of that Act of Parliament, and we cannot, in the absence of any other inquiry, possibly go behind the findings of that report. The hon. Gentleman the
  1114
  Member for Leeds said we ought to act upon that inquiry. We have acted upon that inquiry to the extent of our powers. We have exhausted every legal power which is vested in the Executive at the present moment. We have no power beyond the power of inquiry and of conciliation. There is no other power vested in the Executive in a case of this kind, none.
  The hon. Gentleman may say, and I think it is said, "Then you ought to seek further powers"; but I should rather like to point out to the hon. Gentleman and his Friends the fact that no further powers are vested in the Executive at the present moment is not the fault of the present Government, and it is not the fault of their predecessors. It is because up to the present public opinion has not demanded fresh powers. On the whole, public opinion has been opposed to the granting of fresh powers. That is not confined at all to the capitalist class. That opinion is shared, to a very large extent, by the labour representation of the country. If you proceed with conciliation, the next step is compulsion; and if you have compulsion it must undoubtedly be compulsion not on one party merely. It is far better that labour should realise and face that. In this case the leaders of the men did face it. But, after all, you cannot legislate for each particular case. You cannot have an Act of Parliament to deal with every special dispute that arises in this country. I know hon. Members will say that you did not so regard the miners' dispute. The miners was a case of one trade which covered the whole of the country; this is the case of a trade in a particular town. If you are to deal with problems of this kind they ought to be dealt with thoroughly and after mature consideration. My own opinion is that the public are beginning to feel, and feel very strongly, that there ought to be some means of determining a dispute of this kind, that those means ought not to be means on the one hand of driving the one party to starvation, or on the other hand of ruining the industry. The merits of the case have very often nothing to do with the result. That depends upon other conditions. The strength of the union, the funds they have at their disposal, the question of whether the industry can stand it for the time being, how far they can go, the risks they can run, are all questions which have nothing to do with the merits of the case, and therefore it is a thoroughly barbarous method of settling the dispute. I believe the public is rapidly coming to the general feeling that some

  1115
  means must be taken to put an end to a situation of this kind which is doing so much harm to the trade, commerce, and industry of this country. That is a question to which hon. Members below the Gangway have to make their contribution.
  Mr. O'GRADY: On that point may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that was considered when the special Act was passed by this House? We ask that the Port of London Act should be amended.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In the first place that is a question which deals with legislation passed some years ago. That legislation had an entirely different object. We were not setting up an authority for the purpose of settling disputes in the Port of London. We were setting up an Authority for a totally different purpose—for the purpose of purchasing all these private undertakings and federating them in one rather on the lines of the Liverpool Board of Trust. But we are dealing with the past. The question is: What is to be done for the future? What is the position here? We have a dispute which has arisen, and that has taken about nine weeks, and there is no immediate prospect, so far as I can see, of it coming to an end. It cannot come to an end, I understand, until the lightermen surrender. The vast majority of those who are engaged at the Port could not return to work unless the lightermen gave in. From all I hear, the lightermen are in a position to hold out for a good many weeks. No one knows the amount of suffering that may inure during those weeks. No one knows the amount of permanent damage which will be inflicted upon the trade of this country in the meantime. We have had appeals made, not merely by the Government; we have had appeals made by the House of Commons; we have had appeals made by the Members of the Opposition; we have had appeals made by, I think, the bishops of the dioceses concerned, and they have all come to naught. I am firmly convinced that the time has come for a reconsideration of the whole problem of the settlement of trade disputes. The Government have set up an inquiry into the matter. The Industrial Council are considering the best method of dealing with matters of this kind. I do not believe it is possible to deal with them without some form of
  1116
  legislative sanction, because you always come up against some employer or some union who will listen to no appeal, and who are perfectly indifferent to public opinion, and there mere methods of conciliation must be a failure. In a case of that kind there must necessarily be legislation, the sanction of some legislation which can be enforced. But before any legislation of that character can be carried, it does necessarily involve that there shall be a guarantee, not merely upon one side, but upon the other, that the decisions not merely shall be enforced, but can be enforced, otherwise I am perfectly certain that no Parliament would ever sanction legislation which would be barely one-sided. It would not be fair, and would not commend itself to the judgment of the public.
  The Government have come to the conclusion that it will be necessary to deal with this problem. It is not merely this dispute; there are disputes constantly cropping up. The weapon with which the executive is armed is absolutely futile beyond a certain point. I am not criticising the Act of 1896, because I do not think public opinion would have justified the Government of the day going beyond that legislation at that stage. But since then a good deal has happened. Attempts have been made to carry that Act into effect, and have failed in a good many cases. This Act was utilised in the great Penrhyn dispute in 1898 and 1899. It answered no purpose. For three years the dispute went on, after the Board of Trade had intervened under this Act of Parliament. This is another case, and there have been several in the course of the last few years. Therefore the Government have come to the conclusion that it will be necessary to deal with the whole problem, and to deal with it in the immediate future. The hon. Gentleman has asked us to deal with this particular strike. I think that would be exactly the wrong way to deal with the problem. To pass a Special Act dealing with this particular strike, when the problem is a general problem, I think would be a mistake. I shall be prepared, when the time comes, and if criticism is made, to show that there is a great distinction between the case of the miners' strike and the present one in that respect. This raises the general issue, which constantly arises, of agreements being entered into, and of charges being made on both sides that the agreements are not enforced, because the charge is by no means a charge by the employers

  1117
  against the men. It is a charge which the men brought against the employers, and Sir Edward Clarke, sitting in a judicial capacity, has found both of them guilty of the accusation brought against them, and yet there is no means of redressing the grievance.
  There is an old adage of the law that there is no wrong without a remedy. Here undoubtedly is a great wrong, and there is no remedy. It is admitted first of all that the men were wrong in the particular circumstances that precipitated the strike. It has been found that the employers were wrong in two or three other respects. There is a wrong and no means of applying a remedy, and it is the case in every dispute between employer and workman that takes place in this country even if the Government find after investigation that one party or the other is in the wrong, that there is no remedy which can be applied. All we can do is to employ the machinery of conciliation and persuasion, and I am sure the public has come to the conclusion that that is inadequate. Labour disputes are becoming more and more serious. They are becoming more and more a challenge to our commercial supremacy. We can less and less afford them, and under these conditions I think it is an imperative necessity for a great commercial country like ours engaged in formidable competition with foreign countries that we should have some machinery which will prevent these great trade disputes developing to a point which will drive trade away from the country. It is no use imagining that it can be done by mere agreement, conciliation, and persuasion. The Executive must be armed with more formidable powers than those with which they are entrusted at present. The Executive in a case of that kind must have the power to deal, not only with one party, but with the other as well. In this case I must say that the transport workers have shown an example which would have been well worth the trade unions taking into account. They made an offer—I read the offer to the House of Commons—that they were prepared to deposit a sum of money as a guarantee that their part of the agreement would be discharged. That has been done voluntarily in several of the trades of this country. It has been done with very great effect. It has been done, I think, in the Bristol docks, in Leicester, in the boot trade, and I fancy there are two or three other cases; and I think it
  1118
  would be the testimony of all those who watch the operation of these agreements that it has had an excellent effect upon both parties. With regard to this particular case, I am still, after the very reasonable, fair, and temperate Debate we have had, hoping that counsels of wisdom will prevail. The hon. and learned Gentleman who presented the employers' case, and presented it I assume with some measure of authority, said that the Federation ticket was the only thing that stood in the way. I have one word to say about that. Speaking in this House on 5th June last, I said:—
  "It would appear that the recognition of the Federation ticket as a condition precedent to the resumption of work by the men is not pressed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June, 1912, col. 134.]
  I want the hon. and learned Member to remember that. That is the statement I made then, and I made it with authority. I made it after seeing the men, and I informed them that it would be my duty to state to the House of Commons that the Federation ticket was not, pressed by the men as a condition precedent to the resumption of work.
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I doubt not that the right hon. Gentleman said that, and I doubt not that the men's leaders said it. My difficulty from the point of view of the employers is that what is said is not always observed, and that they cannot get any definite pledge in reference to this dispute that the Federation ticket is not a reality. If that could be done, I think it would dispose of a great part if not the whole of the difficulty.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that if there had been a real desire at that time to settle, and if the Federation ticket had been the only circumstance that stood between the employers and the settlement of the dispute, they certainly would have accepted the assurance I was giving after an interview with the men, and the least they could have said would have been this: "Very well, you can place that into the terms of an agreement." Is there any doubt about it? The men would have said that the condition would not be pressed. They definitely stated that they did not want the men to stand in a white sheet. No man could say what were the conditions they would press in future. All they could say was: "For a settlement of this dispute we are not making this a condition." They were prepared to say so. I communicated that to the employers, and

  1119
  so it is really not quite fair to say that the fact of the Federation ticket being pressed has been the only cause for the prolongation of the dispute.
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: The right hon. Gentleman misrepresents me. I did not say that the fact it was being pressed was the only cause of non-settlement. I said if it were definitely withdrawn, it would lead to the settlement of the dispute. I was dealing with it not negatively, but positively. I said that in my opinion—I did not speak with authority—it would lead to the settlement of the dispute.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What the hon. and learned Gentleman says now is that he wants the men to get up and state, "We withdraw absolutely everything we have said about that." The employers—I say this to their credit—never asked that at the time I put this to them. I said that they should not make it difficult for the leaders of the men to come to an arrangement so long as that condition was in fact withdrawn. They accepted that, and it was after that I made the statement to the House of Commons, having informed the leaders of the men that I would make it. I think if the employers had any doubt at all as to the adequacy or sufficiency of these words, they should have said, "Well, we want just a little more than that." They did not do so, and therefore I think it is rather late for the hon. and learned Gentleman to get up and say, "That is the only subject which stands between us and the settlement of the dispute." He cannot mean that. However, it is very hopeful that the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke with apparent authority, and that he should make that statement, and I trust that he may do something in the course of the next day or two, because he must realise that it is very important not merely for the men, or for the trade of London, but important for individual employers, because it must be inflicting very serious damage upon their business, and they themselves cannot say the extent of that damage at the present moment. I am certain of that. I therefore merely trust that it will be possible for the hon. and learned Gentleman not merely to present the case of the employers to the House, but to use such influence with them as to get a statement of the terms which it would be possible for the men to accept in order that they might resume work and put an end
  1120
  to this very terrible dispute in the Port of London.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no desire to criticise all the words that have fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. I agree entirely with what he said about the need which is facing us in the future of finding some other method than is possible now for dealing with industrial disputes. Of that I think there can be no doubt in the minds of anyone who has been studying, as we all have been endeavouring to study, these questions during the past year; and I am sure nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman how difficult any method of dealing with these disputes is. All that I can say, and I think I can say it on behalf of my Friends behind me, is that if the Government with its many other obligations really does find time to deal with a matter so important as this, when he does bring forward proposals in this direction we shall be ready to receive them with the single desire to find out that system which will best secure the result, we all desire. I agree also with the right hon. Gentleman—I am sure the House will agree— that it would be the worst possible thing for the country in the long run to attempt to deal with big problems like that as a means of settling the particular dispute that is now before us. That is altogether apart from the issue which we are discussing to-night, and I desire to say at once that I do not think that there is any difference of opinion on the part of the House as to the desire that this strike with its terrible consequences should come to an end in the quickest, possible time. I am sure that my hon. Friend behind me who was criticised by the right hon. Gentleman for saying that this was not a question which should be settled by sentiment realises these evils just as much as any of those who may criticise him. There is no one who does not desire to sec them ended. But there has been to a large extent an impression created by a good many of the speeches made that there is only one party to this dispute, and that if that party could be brought to agree to reasonable terms the matter would be settled to-morrow. That is not the view of the other party to the dispute which has not been represented with this discussion to-night. The hon. Member did not pretend to speak on behalf of the employers. The hon. Member for Leeds reminded me that I said with reference to a previous dispute that I should be as

  1121
  sorry as he to see the masters take advantage of a victory like this to attempt to ride roughshod over trade unionism in this country and damage it. I said that sincerely, and I repeat it now. And more than that—though, of course, it has happened that I have seemed to speak from the employers' point of view, as is inevitable, I suppose—I have really looked at this question precisely in the same way that I should have looked at it if I had sat on that bench opposite. I have looked at it with the same sense of responsibility; and if I believed that the masters in this dispute were being vindictive over it, were trying to get, not only victory, which anyone who enters into a fight is entitled to do, but to get victory on terms which were humiliating in the last degree to those opposed to them, then I should have done nothing to support them in such circumstances. I ask the House is it not at least certain that there is another side to the matter. The hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. O'Grady) has spoken of the special grievance that the Port of London has taken a leading part in the dispute. But is not there another side? Remember that the Port Authority has no sort of pocket interest in the dispute. They are there as representing the interests of the Port of London only.
  Mr. W. THORNE: What about the shipowners on the Port Authority who are in a federation?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member has not followed me. The hon. Member for Leeds spoke of the special grievance of the Port of London Authority acting as they are doing. Another moral is to be drawn from it. They have no selfish interest in it. They are men who have been selected to represent the interests of the Port of London; and I venture to say, from my knowledge of them, and from what I saw of Lord Devonport in this House when he was opposed to us, that I do not believe that these men are less favourable to the legitimate demands of working men than are those who sit on the other side of the House. That is my opinion. Let us assume—and I ask hon. Members to do it—that they have good grounds for the attitude they have taken up. What is the position of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite? I am afraid it amounts to this—they will not admit it, but I think it is true—that they are trying to get the best of both worlds. They first of all try to get all they can
  1122
  by a strike, and then, when they fail, they come to Parliament and ask Parliament to get for them what they have failed to get for themselves. Let us take what was said by the hon. Member. He said that this strike was a foolish strike, yet in order to avoid anarchy they are to call out all the other men. If a trade union is run by its leaders in this way, then trade unionism can be nothing but bad for industry. If the men engage in a strike which the leaders believe to be foolish, let them tell the men it is foolish and tell them to go back, and then try to get rid of the grievance of which they complain. What said the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury)?— that if they prove that a general strike is not effective, then they must show what Parliament can do.
  Mr. LANSBURY: And redress the grievance.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: But if a general strike is not effective, and you must prove that Parliament can do it better, then precisely the same thing again happens. You first try a general strike and then come to ask Parliament to do for you what you have failed to do for yourselves. It is precisely what the Prime Minister himself said, that they have too much got into the habit of indulging in these disputes foolishly, with the belief that when they make mistakes they can get their mistakes corrected for them by the House of Commons. If there is to be industrial peace, or the possibility of industrial peace, that feeling must be got rid of on the part of those who are leading the men. The real point at issue—and the right hon. Gentleman did not touch it—is not what was the cause of the strike, or how it arose, but what are the difficulties now and how are they to be overcome. It is assumed that these employers are very obstinate about it. I am not going to speak on behalf of the employers. I have tried to follow this thing from the beginning, because I recognise the responsibility of the Government, and I am judging by the letter which was published in the "Times" from Lord Devonport. That stated the case in the clearest possible way. What is the point of dispute at this moment. The men say, "We are willing to go back provided all the old agreements are adhered to." That is their position. Lord Devonport's letter, which I have in my pocket, and which I will read if what I am saying is disputed, is this: "I met Mr. Gosling, the leader of the men, and went over all those

  1123
  agreements in detail, and showed in what respects we were not willing to accept them" — in substance that is Lord Devonport's letter—"and the only real difference between the agreements and what we are willing to do is "—as was mentioned by my Noble Friend—"that the ship owners insist that the men should be engaged in future not outside the docks but inside, as was the case last year."
  If that is the whole point in dispute between them I think it is a very small point to keep a great strike like this going—I quite agree— but what right has the House of Commons to assume that one side should give way more: than another. I decline to go into the merits of it at all, but obviously there is another side. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley said if you do that there will be a scramble, and men will be stepping over each other's shoulders to get work. I do not follow that. He spoke of some opportunity of men competing and of jumping over each other's shoulders. I do not follow that. Perhaps there may be some reason I do not understand. The employers' contention is this: They say they only agreed to that condition last year on the strongest possible pressure being put upon them by Members of the Government, and they put in a protest against it last year, and upon what ground? On the ground that the position in which the men were engaged would be used to exercise intimidation over those who did not come with the Federation ticket. That was the ground of the employers' objection. They say now that has happened, that actually did happen, and with that statement they are not willing the strike should end without reverting to the old order of things which prevailed for twenty years.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Twenty-three years ago it was agreed that the men should be taken on outside and the employers broke that agreement.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Twenty-three years ago is further back than I mentioned. Lord Devonport said that that arrangement had gone on for twenty years.
  Mr. LANSBURY: It was always outside the Surrey Commercial Docks.
  Mr. W. CROOKS: For fifty years the stevedores were taken on outside the docks. This is quite new and never came up before.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not profess to have personal knowledge about it. I claimed only to be stating what was said by Lord Devonport, and Lord Devonport did make the statement which I have made to the House. This is the position. Apparently the dispute is limited to this one point. All that I say about is this. I do think that that is a very small point on which to continue a big dispute like this, but I do say the House of Commons has no right, with the knowledge which it is possible for us to have, to say it is a point on which one side should give way rather than the other. That is what we are asked to do by the speech of the hon. Member. That is the whole case. The hon. Member for Leeds made out that in this letter of Lord Devonport there was something which implied that the men were not to go to trade unions. It was not a question of preventing men from belonging to a trade union; it was a question of preventing trade unions from making it impossible for men to work who do not want to belong to a trade union. That is all. The employers may say that this is a matter of principle with them. They may say, as I should say: I should like to see trade unions become stronger, because I think that, as a rule, they tend to the diminution of disputes. But I say, also, that they must become strong by persuading their fellow-men to join them, not by compelling them. You have no right to impose, and the employers have no right to submit, to conditions which mean that they cannot employ men unless they join unions, whether they wish to join them or not. I think the Government take the same view as I take in this matter as regards the particular issue before them. They think, as I think, that the House of Commons cannot usefully intervene in this dispute. But I am certain that everyone in this House, not only desires that the dispute should end, but thinks that it ought to. That does not mean that we take sides as to which party to the dispute we are going to put, pressure upon.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: To-night the House has listened to an interesting discussion between the parties to this dispute, and we have had, as we had last year, an attempt made to settle a great dispute across the floor of the House. This House has been turned into a Chamber in which the parties, or those who put forward the various cases, have attempted to come to terms. This House is not the best place in which it can be done, but it is certainly

  1125
  the place where power should be given to the Government of the day to end a dispute of this sort. The very fact that it has been possible that there should be an attempt between two or three people to settle the strike in this way shows that on both sides there are great organisations growing up in this country, and it is necessary that the Executive of the day should have power to deal with a situation which arises out of them. The Noble Lord opposite referred to a child of thirteen, who, in the course of twenty-four hours, had had only a one-eighth share of a pennyworth of bread. We are asked not to deal with the matter on the ground of sentiment. But that child ought to be able as a matter of right to come to this House and say, "I want an end put to this position." It is no good saying to that child that her father is a member of a union, that there is a strike, and that, the leaders on both sides are unreasonable. It is the duty of this House to protect that child, and the wives of the men. It is the duty of this House to protect the Port of London from the results of such a dispute. I am not going into the merits of the case. I simply say that it is another striking instance of the necessity of putting into the hands of the Government of the day some powers which will enable them to prevent such calamities. Far be it from me to say that these great organisations do not serve a useful purpose. Whether you think they do or not, you cannot prevent them. You cannot prevent the great organisations on the masters' side. You cannot prevent the men or their unions uniting. If that is so, you have to face a new state of things in the industry of this country. I am glad to hear from the Government that they intend to seek from this House powers which they do not already possess. I hope they will be able almost immediately to get those powers, because there is very little we can get on with if this House is turned into a kind of conference room month after month, unless we have such powers as these. There is another point which I think is important to members representing trade unions on these benches. They are doing what they can to check the growth of syndicalism. The syndicalists say, "Don't have any faith in Parliament." To-night you are putting a weapon into the hands of the syndicalist. In my own Constituency the walls are covered with notices of this description: "Go to the workhouses and apply for relief. Do not go in yourselves,
  1126
  but insist that your wives and children shall have food. You may lose your vote. Never mind. It is no good, you only use it to vote for Liberals or Conservatives. Bring about a crisis in this way." What does that mean. It means that the workmen of the country are to be taught that they are not to have faith in the political power of the House of Commons. I think it is about time that the Government possessed the power which the people have a right to see exercised in matters of this sort.
  Mr. CROOKS: I rise to suggest that the Leader of the Opposition and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, should form themselves into an arbitration board and settle this strike. We all want a settlement, and in this proposal there can be no suggestion of a party move. We know the horse is out of the stable, and we want to get it back again. I am sure the two right hon. Gentlemen could settle the matter in twenty-four hours.
  Mr. PETO: I do not want to import any bitterness not hitherto developed in this Debate, but I desire to point out one thing which seems to have entirely escaped notice in the speeches from both sides of of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that every legal power vested in the Executive had been used, and public opinion had not demanded greater powers, but some measures of determining disputes of this kind was absolutely necessary, and the Executive must be armed with more formidable powers than it now possesses. I ask why should we pursue a dispute of this nature in the same manner as warfare is conducted between two opposing nations. Is it not possible to realise that the interests of both parties to the dispute are absolutely identical, instead of arming the Executive with fresh and stronger powers? I echo the remark of the hon. Member for Woolwich that somehow or other we should recognise that there is one fund to be shared, and that is the profit which is derived from every industry, and the one thing necessary is that that fund should be fairly divided between the parties.
  Mr. O'GRADYrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put accordingly, "That this House do now adjourn."

  The Committee divided: Ayes, 58; Noes, 255.

  Division No. 157.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

  Adamson, William

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Alden, Percy

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Sutton, John E.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Hodge, John

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Barnes, George N.

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Hudson, W.

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Brace, William

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Touche, George Alexander

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

  Jowett, F. W.

  Wadsworth, John

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Walsh Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Lansbury, George

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Crooks, William

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Wardle, George J.

  Dawes, J. A.

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

  Wilkie, Alexander

  De Forest, Baron

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Pirie, Duncan Vernon

  Winfrey, Richard

  Gelder, Sir A.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Glanville, H. J.

  Richards, Thomas

  Goldman, C. S.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Hancock, John G.

  Rowlands, James

  O'Grady and Mr. Goldstone.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Delany, William

  Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Hills, John Waller

  Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Doris, William

  Hinds, John

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Duffy, William J.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Armitage, Robert

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jones, Haydn (Merioneth)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Falconer, J.

  Joyce, Michael

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Keating, Matthew

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Fell, Arthur

  Kelly, Edward

  Beck, Arthur

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Kilbride, Denis

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

  Ffrench, Peter

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

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

  Boland, John plus

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Boyton, James

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Fleming, Valentine

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Law, Rt. Hon. A Bonar (Bootle)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Gibbs, George Abraham

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

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Leach, Charles

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

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

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

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

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  McGhee, Richard

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

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

  Clough, William

  Hackett, J.

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

  Clyde, James Avon

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Harcourt, Robert H. L. (Rossendale)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

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

  Cotton, William Francis

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Meagher, Michael

  Crumley, Patrick

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

  Molloy, Michael

  1128

  1129

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Summers, James Woolley

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

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

  Tennant, Harold John

  Mooney, John J.

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Morison, Hector

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Muldoon, John

  Reddy, Michael

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Munro, Robert

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Webb, H.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Roch, Walter (Pembroke)

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

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Wiles, Thomas

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

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

  Williamson, Sir A.

  O'Dowd, John

  Sandys, G. J.

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

  Ogden, Fred

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

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

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

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

  O'Malley, William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Yate, Col. C. E.

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

  Sheehy, David

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Shortt, Edward

  Younger, Sir George

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Spear, sir John Ward

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Stanier, Beville

SUPPLY.— [EIGHTEENTH ALLOTTED DAY.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1912–13.
  Postponed proceeding resumed on Question "That a sum, not exceeding £99,580, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland." [Note.—£110,000 has been voted on account.]
  Question again proposed.
  And, it being after Eleven o'clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House; Committee to sit again To-morrow.
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Wednesday.)

  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION).
  Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to make further provision for Superannuation and other Annuities and Allowances to Elementary School Teachers certificated by the Education Department, and to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of increased Superannuation and other Allowances."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not want to object to the Motion, because I am anxious to treat the Government fairly; but, of course, it is understood we have some opportunity of discussing the Second Reading of the Bill which will be introduced and founded on this Resolution.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan)indicated assent.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Trevelyan.

  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPER-ANNUATION) BILL.
  "To amend The Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898, as originally enacted and as applied by any other Act," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 288.]

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Mr. O'DONNELL: I beg to move "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Rules and Programmes of the Intermediate Education

  1131
  Board (Ireland) for the year 1912–13 be not sanctioned until they are amended in the following particulars:—

  (1) Page 1, Section I. (4), for the word 'three,' substitute 'four,' and after 'viz., 'insert' Preparatory';

  (2) Page 5, Section IV. (c), instead of '14,' insert '13';

  (3) Page 9, Section VIII. (b), after 'Greek, Latin, or,' insert 'one,' instead of 'two.'"

  This Motion is a very important one. I listened earlier to-day to the discussion on Scottish Education, and I heard hon. Members grumble at and criticise the system that prevails in Scotland. But I should like some of these hon. Members to cross over to Ireland and see the system of primary and secondary education that obtains there. When I know the system that prevails in Scotland and compare it with that which prevails in Ireland it makes me hunger that the opportunity should be given to Ireland to do for her children what the Scottish people have done for their children. My Motion deals with the new programme which has been issued by the Intermediate Board of Education for Ireland. In that programme changes have been made. In previous years there were four grades, and the pupils have presented themselves according to their respective ages in these four grades. This year three grades are substituted for four, and the age begins at fourteen instead of thirteen. I would like to draw the attention of the Chief Secretary and the Committee to this very important matter. Everyone interested in Education must agree that if secondary education is to be of any use at all it must be begun at a reasonable time. If you delay the entrance of the pupils to the secondary school you waste some of the best years of their life. That is not what the Scottish people do. They begin there at eleven years of age and finish their higher grade education at the age of fifteen. No restrictions are placed in their way. No public examinations are necessary except at the end of the period. The teacher is first of all required to be a competent man. That being allowed he is trusted to do his work in the proper way.
  It is not so with us. We have no knowledge of the capacity of the teacher. He may have no degree. He has no fixed salary; no security of tenure. There is no
  1132
  such thing as an established teacher in the secondary schools of Ireland. That is one of the fatal blots on any system of secondary education. There may be some excuse for the Board to have these wretched and useless examinations at the end of every year of secondary school life. They do not do that in Scotland. They have a keener sense of what true education is, and I certainly should agree with a speaker earlier that the result of Scottish education for years past has been that splendid men have come forth from the primary and secondary schools of Scotland to take an honourable part in every walk in life in every country of the world. The contrast between our system and that of Scotland is great. We have no public system of secondary education in Ireland at all. No public school is owned by any public authority either by the State, the County Council, the District Council, or by any public authority whatever. That is not so in Scotland. All over that country secondary schools are provided for the poorest child in the land, and every man's son, from the highlands or from the city, can go into these schools, on one condition only, that he is fit to take advantage of the facilities provided. That is not the only obstacle in his way. Take the case of boys who are some distance from secondary schools. The Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, established county committees, which last year spent £152,000 in providing bursaries for the children of poor people in remote districts who could not otherwise get secondary education. £152,000 for bursaries in Scotland, while the total grant for secondary education in Ireland last year was £42,000!
  I wish more directly to call the attention of the Chief Secretary to the two matters mentioned in my Motion. The first is the abolition, without notice, when the school year is ended, when the teachers have gone on their holidays and the children have left school, of one of the grades which has been in existence for twenty years, a grade which draws the young children from the primary into the secondary; and the second is raising the age of commencing secondary school life from thirteen to fourteen. That of itself will create a bad impression in Ireland. It will make many people in Ireland think that the Intermediate Board believe that the proper time to begin secondary education is fourteen, and not thirteen or twelve. It will further have a most injurious effect upon many schools in Ireland. The Chief Secretary must have seen some of the splendid work

  1133
  which has been done for the education of the poor by the Christian Brothers in Ireland. These schools in our towns have catered largely, if not mainly, for secondary education for the poor. Will it be believed that these men have devoted their lives to the education of the poor, giving secondary education, with practically no assistance from the State, for sixpence per week. The grants which they have got from the State have fallen off. Last year 4,000 children were presented in the preparatory grade. These schools cater for poor children who stay, not for five years, but for two or three years, and who afterwards go into the world and become artisans, mechanics, and shop assistants. They are not children of rich men. Such schools will suffer severely, and it will give them all they can do to live through next year if this change is persisted in. The one thing in Ireland which is starved is education. Everything else has money plentifully poured upon it. The one thing which makes a nation prosperous, peaceful, and happy is starved. I hope the Chief Secretary will be able to give us some assurance that something will be done to get over the present impossible condition of things. I would congratulate the Intermediate Board on having done what they have done because it has brought the attention of the whole country to the scandalous condition of intermediate education as a whole, and it has centred the attention of public men, educationists and others, on the question.
  There is another question to which I wish to draw attention. In this programme a boy who starts secondary education has to take three languages if he does not go in for the classical course; English is compulsory. Then come the modern languages. He has to take two modern languages. I ask anyone who has studied educational questions as they effect poor people, men who will devote their lives to the shop, to the farm, or to the desk, is it reasonable, is it educational, is it proper development for these boys who spend only two or three years in a secondary school to compel them at the beginning and throughout their career to take up three languages. Does anyone believe they can learn them properly or usefully in three years? The time spent in these extra languages is waste. It is most absurd that it should be compulsory. It is only recently that that change was made. We tried some years ago to get Irish put on a par with other languages and after some difficulty we succeeded. Before that time only two
  1134
  languages were required, but immediately we got these concessions for our own language, which is now practically taught in every one of the secondary schools, the Board comes down and insists that if a boy takes English and Irish he must take either French or German as well. That is most absurd, and it seems to us, looking at it from the outside, that the Board is not considering educational standards, but has done it merely because it wants to cast a slur on the language of our country and theirs. I do not mean in the slightest degree to insinuate that the Head of the Board, whose devotion to and splendid work for education, both primary and secondary, and whose courage and sympathy we all appreciate, was any party to any such thing, but I am afraid I cannot exonerate the Board from the charge I have made against them.
  There is another question I should like to call attention to. Education cannot be carried on without money. The Chief Secretary is the man to whom we have to appeal to open the door of the Treasury. The Treasury gives us not one penny for secondary education. It gives it to England and to Scotland and to Wales— £1,000,000 to England, £250,000 to Scotland and £100,000 to Wales. Why is Ireland not entitled? I trust that the Chief Secretary when he comes to consider the matter will see that we have a claim, and that he will do his best to have that claim pressed.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to second the Motion.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I am not at all surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have availed himself of this the only opportunity he has to call attention to this question. I am sure the House will excuse me if at this hour I do not avail myself of the opportunity of entering into any comparison between the money supplied to Scotland and that given to Ireland. There is only one question before the House, namely, the rules referred to in the Motion. The Intermediate Board in Ireland occupies a very peculiar position, for it lives as an independent body upon its own income and does not come to Parliament year by year to obtain any amount whatsoever for the purpose of carrying on intermediate education in Ireland. I agree that the funds at its disposal are very insufficient for its purpose. Nevertheless, the Board

  1135
  has certain funds arising from the interest on a million of money of the old Church funds, and also what is known as the "whisky money." Having these two sources of income, it distributes the money amongst various schools in Ireland where this intermediate education is given, as best it can, in accordance with the provisions of the Statute. As matters stand at present, and until the new rules are sanctioned, there is a certain public examination which the Board is bound to carry on and at a great cost to maintain. It gives to the children who pass the examination and to the schools to which the children belong certain grants of money.
  There are four grades—the preparatory, junior, middle, and senior. The pre-preparatory is the one the Intermediate Board proposes to abolish. It is a pretty stiff examination that awaits the unfortunate children who at the age of thirteen enter these schools. It is a searching examination, and it is a practically useless examination having regard to the tender years of the children. Everyone who has ever had a school education, or who has passed an examination, knows that it is one that lends itself peculiarly to cram. I am not expressing any whimsical opinion of my own, because I know that it receives the support of educationalists in Ireland. There are great educationalists in Ireland of considerable enlightenment and progressive ideas in these matters. The Christian Brothers carry on admirable work, and devote themselves to education after a fashion which fairly entitles them to be considered educationalists of no mean authority. They are of opinion that it is a most desirable thing to abolish this preparatory grade; but we cannot overlook the fact that there are in Ireland, particularly among the schools maintained by the Christian Brothers, classes consisting of children of tender years—children of thirteen years of age— and as the schools receive the sum of, I think £3 1s. 4d. for every child who passes this examination, and as they live upon the funds so derived, it is not surprising that there should be a considerable degree of dismay at this new rule which by destroying this preparatory examination cuts off from a material source of income those schools where the young children attend in large numbers. They have had conferences with the Intermediate Education Board. Being enlightened educationalists they agreed that this pre-
  1136
  paratory grade should in the interests of the children and of education be abolished.
  But when they came to the agreement they were under the impression and the Intermediate Education Board themselves also thought that they could apply the money saved by getting rid of the examinations in the preparatory grade to these schools as a bonus grant on inspection. That is to say, if schools were inspected and satisfied the inspector that the teachers were competent proper persons, and the classes well administered the money could then have been paid to these schools. In the new rules which on May 28th the Intermediate Education Board submitted for approval to the Lord Lieutenant there was a rule which would have enabled them to distribute as a bonus grant among the schools a very considerable sum of money. But the Intermediate Education Board has the advantage or disadvantage of having as one of its members the greatest lawyer in Ireland, Chief Baron Palles, who now I am proud to say has been summoned over to England to sit on the Privy Council to hear a case of great importance, and he felt it his duty as a member of the Board to address a letter to the Under-Secretary in Dublin stating that this rule in his opinion was ultra vires and illegal: in other words, that the Intermediate Education Board having regard to the statute creating them, although they could abolish the examination, could not apply their money except on the results of examinations. The Lord Lieutenant took the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown on the subject and they found the Lord Chief Baron correct in his view of the law. Therefore the Intermediate Education Board were not in a position to carry out the understanding already come to with the educationalists in Ireland that this money saved by the abolition of the unnecessary and uneducational examination should be paid to the schools on the results of inspection.
  That is the situation, that the rule which the Intermediate Education Board had inserted had to be struck out as ultra vires, and therefore it does not now appear among the rules which lie on the Table of this House for confirmation. I confess I am rather glad to avail myself of an opportunity that I think now presents itself. For some years past during my tenure of office I have been pressed by educationalists on the Intermediate Education Board, and also by other educationalists in Ireland, to

  1137
  introduce a short statutory measure which would enable the Board to apply its own money—this does not involve any demand on the Treasury—from its own resources in the way best calculated to promote the real interests of intermediate education in Ireland. What I propose to do if I receive, as I trust I shall after we meet in October, the general support of those interested quite irrespective of party in Ireland, as this is not a party question, is to introduce a short Bill of, I think, only one Clause, enabling the Intermediate Education Board to do the thing which they thought they could do but now find they cannot do, and not only to get rid of the examination which all agree should be done, but to apply its money by way of a bonus grant among the schools and independently of the results of examinations, in such a way as will not inflict injury upon the schools which are largely attended by children of the age for entering for this preparatory examination. That they cannot do at present because of the existing statute binding the Board down simply and solely to public examinations and their results.
  I therefore say to my hon. Friend who has introduced this question, I think quite rightly, having regard to the very considerable pecuniary loss under this rule, that I hope he will rest content with the assurance I give that I will introduce a Bill as soon as an opportunity offers, and I have every confidence, because I know I shall have the support of the Intermediate Board of Education itself, that it will pass through this House and the other House before Christmas. I certainly give that undertaking. I am very glad to give it, because it is a thing I have had in my mind for a very considerable time. I give that undertaking most emphatically to the hon. Member, and I think it really gets rid of the reason for seeking to stop these rules from receiving the sanction of the House. With regard to the language question the hon. Member will excuse me from going into it. Educationally I certainly differ from him. The languages prescribed are Latin or Greek, or two modern languages, of which Irish may be one. If you want to abandon the advantages of the classical languages which I am old fashioned enough to believe are very great, then you may take two modern languages, for example French and Spanish. I need not expatiate on the merits of those languages,
  1138
  but a person, unless he can read French, is in a very limited state: and the Spanish language in the commercial world occupies a position of extraordinary utility. Irish is an admirable language,— I wish it were better known in Ireland than it is. Irish may be one of the two languages; but to say that you would be content with Irish alone I think would be very unfair to those children who have the advantage of being Irish-speaking from the beginning. It is their mother tongue, and not a language which by itself could be called a substitute for the classical languages, which are not only dear to the teachers but are recognised by all those who are concerned in education. Although there may be substitutes for them, I do not think the substitution should be cut down to one language. The real point which the hon. Member makes is the pecuniary damage which is very likely to be done to a large number of schools in Ireland if the rule were passed in its present form, and I hope he will accept the undertaking which I have given. Of course, it depends upon what this House may do, but I cannot doubt myself that I shall be successful in carrying the Bill into law. It is entirely in accordance with my own view, it has not been forced upon me in any way; in fact it is what I have desired, and I hope it will be carried.
  Mr. DILLON: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the result of his Motion. I think the promise which the Chief Secretary has given entirely meets what has been a very great grievance in Ireland, and has caused great alarm. What we understand from the Chief Secretary's speech is that a Bill will be passed before Christmas under which it will be possible for the Intermediate Board to carry out the understanding on which, this alteration was made and which, under the circumstances mentioned by the Chief Secretary, was not carried into effect, namely, that they would by a system of inspection, bonus following on inspection, make up to the schools what they would lose by the abolition of the Preparatory Grade. I will only make this suggestion to the Chief Secretary if he should find, and I do not say he will find, that it was a contentious or opposed Bill by doing away with necessity for examination in all grades, he would be quite certain to make his Bill non-contentious by confining it with the Preparatory Grade. If that were

  1139
  found necessary this grievance could be removed by a Bill which would do away with the necessity of examination in the Preparatory Grade. Under these circumstances and by the passing of this Bill before Christmas the grievance of those schools, even for the present year, will be prevented, and on the understanding that the undertaking given to the Christian Brothers Schools and other schools will be carried into effect, I would suggest to my hon. Friend not to persevere with his Motion. I think the undertaking given by the Chief Secretary has really achieved his purpose.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: In view of what the Chief Secretary has said, and in the
  1140
  hope that he will be able to carry out his promise, I certainly most cheerfully withdraw; I will say this, however, that should anything occur to prevent this Bill being passed I will reserve the right, which will be given next year, to raise the same point when these rules are presented again.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  And, it being after Half-past Eleven of the clock, on Tuesday, 23rd July, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twelve minutes before Twelve o'clock.