Commons Sitting of 25 March 1912

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Crèedit Foncier of Mauritius Bill [Lords].
Wirral Railway (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords]
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
Edgware and Hampstead Railway Bill,
Liverpool Corporation Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Collooney, Ballina, and Belmullet Railways and Piers Bill,
Newry, Keady, and Tynan Railway Bill, Considered; to be read the third time.
Glasgow Boundaries Bill,
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Glasgow Corporation (Water) Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Glasgow Water (Charges) Bill,
National Electric Construction Company Bill,
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Staffordshire Potteries Water Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.

TREATY SERIES (No. 9, 1912).
Copy presented of Exchange of Notes between the United Kingdom and France respecting Boundaries between Sierra Leone and French Guinea. London, 6th July, 1911 (with Map) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
POLLING DISTRICTS (WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE).
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire altering certain Polling Districts in the Pudsey Parliamentary Division [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
EAST INDIA (INCOME AND EXPEN- DITURE).
Return presented relative thereto [Address 21st March; Sir Henry Havelock-Allan]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT.
Copy presented of Report by the Board of Trade respecting the Dublin and South Eastern Railway (New Works) Bill, and the objects thereof [presented pursuant to Standing Order 158 b].
WINES IMPORTED.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 18th March; Sir Frederick Banbury]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
ARMY (TERRITORIAL FORCE, FINANCES).
Return presented relative thereto [Address 17th November; Colonel Williams]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
EMIGRATION.
Copy presented of Report on the Emigrants Information Office for the year ended 31st December, 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE DISPUTES (PICKETS).
Mr. PETO: I beg to present a petition from the London Master Builders' Association praying that this House will pass legislation without delay securing that the number of pickets during a trade dispute shall be limited to two, and be permitted only to attend the place where a person works or carries on his business, and making all unions, whether of masters or men, responsible for their acts as are ordinary citizens.

SHOOTING OUTRAGES (IRELAND).
Return ordered, "by counties, of all cases of Shooting and Bomb Outrages, in-
4
cluding firing at the person, into houses, etc., reported to the police in Ireland since the Government dropped the Peace Preservation Act, and, in connection therewith, the number of people killed and wounded, respectively, the number of arrests made, the number of persons convicted, the nature of the sentences imposed, and the number of arms seized."—[Captain Craig.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Persia (Presentation of Papers).
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether in view of the delay in presenting the Papers on Persia, documents can be included up to a more recent date than that which was originally intended; (2) when we may expect the Papers on Persia which have been promised, and the text of the Note presented to the Government of Persia explaining the Anglo-Russian Agreement which has been accepted by the Persian Government.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu, for Sir E. Grey): The Secretary of State hopes to be able to lay a first instalment of the Papers relating to Persia on Friday next. This will include correspondence down to the end of September last. A second instalment, to the end of the year, will be laid next week or immediately after Easter, and a third, covering the first three months of this year, should be ready at the end of April or the beginning of May. The text of the Note recently presented to the Persian Government and of their reply will be laid, as a separate Paper, I hope on the 27th instant.

  Brussels Sugar Convention.
  Mr. LOUGHasked whether the right hon. Gentleman can state the terms with regard to increased Russian export or other matters embodied in the Protocol, which was signed at Brussels on Sunday, 17th March, for continuing the Brussels Sugar Convention; whether all the Powers who are parties to the existing Convention, except His Majesty's Government have signed the Protocol; whether the excess export permitted to Russia is in conformity with his statement to the House of Commons on the 21st November, 1911; and, if not, why the British representative

  5
  addressed a communication to the chairman of the Convention stating that he took no exception to the concession that was made to Russia.
  Mr. MONTAGU: By Article 2 of the Protocol signed at Brussels on the 17th instant, Russia is allowed to increase the export of sugar westwards by the following amounts:—

  1911–12

  …

  …

  …

  150,000 tons

  1912–13

  …

  …

  …

  50,000 tons

  1913–14

  …

  …

  …

  50,000 tons

  The Protocol was signed by the representatives of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Austria, Hungary, Belgium, France Luxemburg, Holland, Peru, Russia, Sweden, and Switzerland. A declaration signifying the assent of the Italian Government to the increase in the Russian export for the periods 1911–12 and 1912–13 was signed at the same time by the Italian Minister. The Note addressed by His Majesty's Minister at Brussels to the Belgian Government stated that His Majesty's Government did not consider themselves to be parties to the limitation of Russian exports, and that they saw no objection to the increase of Russian export in this or any future year during the continuance of the Convention. As the right hon. Member is already aware, His Majesty's Government have undertaken not to commit themselves to remain members of the Sugar Union after September 1st, 1913, until the House of Commons has had an opportunity of considering the situation as it exists to-day.

  Sultan of Koweit.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman will lay upon the Table of the House the text of the treaties under which, in certain eventualities, the Sultan of Koweit is entitled to claim the protection of His Majesty's Government; whether any portion of the cost of suppressing piracy and the slave trade has during the past fifty years been defrayed by the Ottoman Government; and what has been the approximate annual expenditure incurred by His Majesty's Government since, the year 1863 in effectively carrying out police duties and protecting the shipping and commerce of all nations in the waters of the Persian Gulf?
  Mr. MONTAGU: In reply to the first question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given on 21st March and 28th March, 1911, to the hon. Member for
  6
  East Mayo; in reply to the second question, Turkey has, in a limited degree, engaged in measures for this object in the waters of the Shatt-el-Arab, but I have no information as to the cost; in reply to the last question, the cost involved in rendering the services indicated has been considerable, but, as it forms part of the general Consular and naval expenditure in the Persian Gulf, I cannot give separate figures.
  Colonel YATE: Can the hon. Gentleman give any instances in which Turkey has assisted?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I think the hon. and gallant Member had better put down a question.

  Ottoman Government (Local Administration Reform).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is now able to communicate to the House any of the Reports received for the years 1909, 1910, and 1911 from British Consular officers, at Salonica, Drina, Uskub, Monastir, Adrianople, and Scutari respecting the political condition of those districts and the steps taken by the Ottoman Government to reform the local administration in accordance with the provisions of the 23rd article of the Treaty of Berlin?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State explained to the House very fully at the close of last Session the difficulty of laying Papers at the present time, and in any case it would be best not to lay them till the Commission, to which he referred on the 19th, and which is now at work, has completed its task.

  Small Holdings.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state how many acres of land have been acquired compulsorily in the last two years for small holdings by the Glamorgan County Council; how much compensation was paid to the sitting tenants, and what has been the total cost of acquiring land and rendering it available for small holders; whether he has received any communication on the subject from the Glamorganshire Farmers' Defence Association; and whether he will undertake that no land in Glamorganshire shall go into inferior cultivation as a result of replacing the existing farmers by small holders?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): No land has been acquired under compulsory powers for small holdings by the Glamorgan County Council. I am not able to give the whole of the information asked for in the second part of the question without further inquiry, but I may say that 660 acres of land have been purchased by the County Council for an aggregate price of £23,137, and 1,431 acres have been leased at an aggregate rent of £l,542. The answer to the third part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the last part of the question, I am not in a position, for obvious reasons, to give the undertaking suggested by the hon. Member, but I have every reason to believe that his apprehensions will prove to have been groundless.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he proposes to modify his recent advice to county councils on the subject of charges for small holdings loans in consequence of the refusal of the Public Works Loan Commissioners to make loans to county councils for the acquisition and equipment of small holdings unless both interest and sinking fund are charged to the small holders in their rent?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Gentleman on this subject on Thursday last.

  Song-Larks (Protection).
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that during the frost in February last one ton and a half of song-larks, estimated at 30,000, were sent to London from Royston, in Cambridgeshire, in one week, and that many thousands are sent to the London market every week, except in the close season; and whether, in view of the utility of these birds to agriculture, he proposes to take any steps to give them an extended period of protection?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question, as the Wild Birds Protection Acts are not administered by his Department. The Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire informs me that several consignments of larks were sent in January and February from Royston to London, though the total weight of them was very much less than that stated in
  8
  the question. As my hon. Friend is aware, I have no power to make an Order under the Wild Birds Protection Acts except on the application of the local authority. It is for the county council in the first instance to consider whether larks need protection, during the open season.
  Mr. G. GREENWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the county council in order to procure an extension of the period of protection?
  Mr. McKENNA: I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend says.
  Mr. KING: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it is undesirable to limit the amount of food available in this country?
  Mr. McKENNA: That certainly is one aspect of the question.

  Hyde Park (Organised Games).
  Mr. DENMANasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that Hyde Park is not made available for organised games of boys and girls, while such games are encouraged in parks under the control of the London County Council with benefit to the poorer classes of London; and whether he will take steps to secure that Hyde Park may be utilised in the same way?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord Of the Treasury): The hon. Member is under some misapprehension. Three grounds have been set aside in Hyde Park for organised games for children in the London County Council schools.
  Mr. DENMAN: Does the hon. Member think three pitches are sufficient?
  Mr. W. BENN: This is the first year in which space has been allotted for organised games. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be satisfied to see how these three pitches work.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Have applications for more than three pitches been received?
  Mr. W. BENN: Applications are received by the officer of the London County Council. I cannot say how many applications have been received. The officer allots the pitches.

  King Edward Memorial Statue.
  Captain MURRAYasked when the model of the King Edward Memorial Statue will be placed in the Tea Room?
  Mr. W. BENN: The model was placed in the Tea Room on the afternoon of Friday last.
  Captain MURRAY: Can the hon. Gentleman supply us with some information as to the dimensions of this memorial, and, further, will he indicate the particular position in the Broad Walk in which it is proposed to place it?
  Mr. W. BENN: It is intended to place by the model a small figure representing the height of an average man. I will ask the Office to draw up a plan and place it in the Tea Room, showing exactly where the memorial will be situated.
  Captain MURRAY: Will the hon. Gentleman give us the dimensions in full, and not only the small figure?
  Mr. W. BENN: Yes, I shall have those dimensions marked on the plan of which I spoke.

  House of Commons (Electric Lighting).
  Mr. KINGasked whether any change has been made, or is in contemplation, in the artificial lighting of this House; if so, why the change has been deemed necessary; and whether the change is in the direction of increased expenditure or economy?
  Mr. W. BENN: It is proposed, if found desirable after experimenting, to substitute electric lighting for gas in the Debating Chamber. This will probably be more efficient, and will certainly reduce the cost of lighting. It is intended to carry out the work in sections, in order to give Members an opportunity of observing the effect of the change.

  General Post Office (Telephone Exchange).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Postmaster-General on what grounds the refusal to allow copies of service journals to be placed in the rest rooms of the telephone exchanges in the General Post Office, South, is based; what considerations govern the selection of the literature supplied to these rooms, and who is responsible for the selection; and whether, in view of the importance to telephonists of the Report of the Medical Committee appointed to consider the conditions of working, he will also withdraw the refusal to allow copies of that Report to be placed in these rooms?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The room in question is
  10
  intended, as its name suggests, to afford tired operators an opportunity of rest; and the responsible officer considered that neither the Report of the Medical Committee nor the "Telegraph Chronicle" would furnish reading suitable for such a purpose. This view was natural; but as it is usual to allow the operators considerable freedom of choice in the matter, I will direct the Report and periodical in question to be supplied to the rest room if the majority of the operators desire it.

  Postal Facilities, Denbighshire.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Postmaster-General whether the postal facilities have recently been reduced in the village of Henllan, Denbigh; will he say why the office at Henllan has been closed between 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. on week-day afternoons; whether he has received protests on the subject from the people of Henllan and Denbigh; and whether he will make full inquiry into the matter?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Permission was given in November last to the sub-postmaster of Henllan to close his office at 1 p.m. on Thursdays and on Bank Holidays, in accordance with a practice which is now common at rural post offices, and is based on the recommendations of the Select Committee on Post Office Servants, 1907. I see no reason for withdrawing the concession made to the sub-postmaster. No change has been made, or is contemplated, in the hours of attendance on other afternoons.
  Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to the proposed changes in the postal service affecting the Trefnant-Henllan-Llannefydd route, Denbighshire; whether it is proposed to substitute for the present mail-cart service a walk or cycling round; whether the present postman has been in the service for twenty-six years, has an excellent record, and has for seventeen years driven a mail-cart along the route; whether he has received representations from the Llannefydd Parish Council, the Denbigh Town Council, and other personal communications from the district, protesting against the proposed changes, not only on the ground of hardship to the postman, but as detrimental to the efficiency of the service; and whether he is in a position to make a statement on the subject?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am aware of the circumstances to which the hon.

  11
  Member refers. Applications have been made for an improvement in the postal service affecting the route in question, and in order to meet them the question of employing two postmen using cycles in place of the cart service is under consideration. When the matter comes to me for a decision I will give full weight to the representations which have been made to me by the hon. Member and others.

  Belfast Corporation (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Postmaster-General whether the Corporation of Belfast has, since 1904, insisted that contractors carrying out electrical installations shall pay the district rate of 8½d. per hour to electricians employed on contracts for the corporation; and, if so, will he insist that the firm of Messrs. Craig and Paton will pay the same rate of wages, namely, 8½d. per hour, to the electricians engaged on the work at the head post office at Belfast?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am not aware of any such arrangements, but I will have inquiry made.

  Dublin Post Office.
  Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAM (Dublin Harbour)asked whether it is an invariable rule of the Post Office to fill the lower grades of established appointments by nominations or examinations within the country in which vacancies occur; and the cause of the delay in filling the vacancies for third-class storemen in the Dublin stores branch by the appointment of the eligible officers who have been performing the duties for some time past?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There is no general rule, though when a staff has a separate local classification the case is as the hon. Member suggests. The store-men in Dublin, however, are not a separate class but are contained on the same class as English and Scotch officers. If this were to be altered and the promotions in Dublin reserved for Irish officers, it would be necessary to reserve promotions in Great Britain to English, Scotch, and Welsh officers, and the consequence might well be that the Irish officers would not be the gainers. The promotions referred to have been delayed by a technical difficulty, but I hope to carry them out shortly.

  Housing Conditions (Scotland).
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Secretary for Scotland, if it is proposed to prepare a Return showing the housing conditions of the population of Scotland according to the recent Census, like the Housing Conditions (Scotland) Return [Cd. 4016] which was based on the Census of 1901; and, if so, when that Return will probably be available?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The question of such a Return is receiving consideration in consultation with the Registrar-General for Scotland.

  New Government Building, Edinburgh.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Government propose to erect a new building in Inverleith Row, Edinburgh, on a frontage line which does not comply with a local by-law prohibiting the erection of any new building within a distance of 30 ft. from the centre of the street; and if he will give an undertaking that the proposed building will not be proceeded with?
  Mr. W. BENN: The question is at present sub judice, and in the circumstances I am unable to give the undertaking desired.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is it the intention of the Government to appeal against the decision obtained in the Courts against the Government?
  Mr. W. BENN: Yes, an appeal is being prosecuted against that decision.

  Forestry (Scotland).
  Mr. HOGGEasked whether it is the intention of the Government to set up a school o£ forestry in the University of Aberdeen; whether Edinburgh University was the first university in Great Britain to appoint a lecturer in forestry and is still the only university having a full graduation course in that subject; and whether, in view of these facts, the Government will consider the advisability of making Edinburgh University the official Government school of forestry?
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask him whether he will defer the announcement of any decision in this matter until all the parties concerned have had full opportunity of studying the Report recently made by the Commission on Forestry?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The question of forestry in Scotland has been under the consideration of a Departmental Committee, whose Report [Cd. 6085] was published at the end of last week, and it would be premature for me to make any statement till that Report had been fully considered. I am aware of what Edinburgh University has done as regards forestry.
  Mr. PIRIE: Arising out of that answer, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the largest forestry classes are at the present moment held at the University of Aberdeen, which is situated in the most extensive forest area in Scotland; and, further, whether he can explain how it would be justifiable for the Development Commissioners to give £9,000 to the Edinburgh University without waiting for the Report of the Committee especially appointed to report on this subject without any regard to the claims of other universities?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: In answer to the first question, the position of Aberdeen University will also be a matter for consideration at the same time as that of Edinburgh University. The other question deals with a matter which does not arise out of that Report, and I must ask the hon. Member to give me notice of it.
  Mr. PIRIE: I will give notice for Wednesday, and, if the answer is not satisfactory, I shall raise this very important matter on Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
  Captain MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that the chief forestry centre should be near the principal timber-growing areas?
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I inquire if before a final settlement is arrived at we shall have an opportunity of discussing it in this House?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is a question not for me, but for the Prime Minister to answer.

  COAL STRIKE.

    LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked whether the London and North Western Railway Company receive a direct subsidy of £5,000 a year and an indirect subsidy of another £6,000 a year by the permission to use Kingstown Harbour, at practically nominal dues, for
    14
    accelerating the mail service to Ireland; whether the mail service is in fact now slower than it was before the acceleration; whether the coal thus saved on each journey amounts to only three-quarters of a ton; whether the Post Office will have to pay for the special trains which have to be run to the South of Ireland owing to the late arrival of the mails; whether it would be more economical to pay for the three-quarters of a ton of coal than to pay for special trains at the other side, irrespective of the large subsidy paid to the London and North-Western Railway Company and of the inconvenience to which passengers and traders are subjected; and whether it is intended to call upon the company to provide the service for which it is subsidised or to exact penalties and, if so, what penalties for breach of contract?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Under a new contract, the subsidy for this service is not separately distinguished. All mail trains on the London and North-Western Railway are now running at speeds not exceeding forty-five miles an hour. I have no information as to the amount of coal saved. Additional special trains are not now being run to the South of Inland. The question whether any, and, if so, what, deduction can properly be made from the company's remuneration will be considered when the company's claim for payment is received.
    Mr. BRADY: Is it not a fact that the mail boat and all the Irish railway companies are running punctually at present; and why cannot the London and North-Western Railway Company do the same?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I must ask for notice of that question.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this is not a matter which should receive the immediate attention of the Department, seeing the whole of the trade of Ireland is being disorganised in order that the London and North-Western Railway Company may save three-quarters of a ton of coal, per day?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I very much question the hon. Member's three-quarters of a ton. I understand the mail service in Ireland has not yet been very seriously affected.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: As I gave the right hon. Gentleman notice of this question, in which I stated that three-quarters of a

    15
    ton of coal only was being saved, will he tell me on what ground he doubts the statement, because it is absolutely true?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As I mentioned, I have no official information as to the amount of coal saved, but the officers of my Department say the estimate of three-quarters of a ton is in all probability below the mark.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this matter up, and give it his personal attention immediately?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I think it lies more in the province of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade as to the amount of coal saved by the running of the trains?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Surely it is not the Board of Trade which is paying this heavy subsidy to the London and North-Western Company for running their trains punctually?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is a question of the coal saved.
    Mr. KING: Could not the right hon. Gentleman take the matter up in unison with the President of the Board of Trade, so that they could bring their united efforts to bear upon the question?
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the total amount annually drawn by the London and North-Western Railway Company from all public sources for accelerating the service between London and Holyhead and for other purposes; what extra or improved service is being given in return; and what is the estimated annual value of the concession made to the railway company in respect of harbour dues at Kingstown?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The annual payment for the conveyance of mails made to the London and North-Western Railway Company is an inclusive one with the exception of the American mails, which are paid for individually at special rates. No portion of the annual payment is earmarked for any particular service. I am not in possession of the information for which the hon. Member asks as regards the Kingstown Harbour dues.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is a fact that under the provisions of the contracts entered into with this company they are receiving £11,000 a year for running their train service punctually, and why they
    16
    are getting that payment if they have ceased to run them punctually?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have told the hon. Member a question may arise subsequently as to deductions from the remuneration of the London and North-Western Railway Company if the trains are not maintained up to their proper standard.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked whether any statistics are available showing how much coal per mile is used by a large engine on the London and North-Western Railway; and how much on the express service and on the present mail service, respectively, between London and Holy-head?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): The Board of Trade have no statistics bearing on this point.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the Board of Trade obtain any information?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I think the hon. Gentleman could write to the company and get the information. I will see what the Board of Trade can do further in the matter.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Are these statistics not already available at the Board of Trade, and cannot the hon. Gentleman tell us the particulars asked for in this question from the records at the Board of Trade?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Apparently not.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the hon. Gentleman ascertain from the London and North-Western Railway Company whether it is a fact that they are running their Irish mail service slow, and are only saving three-quarters of a ton of coal per day?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I will make inquiry.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is the Board of Trade making any inquiry whether the economies now being effected by the railway companies have due regard to the amount of coal consumed?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I know of no such inquiry.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Does not the Board consider it its duty to protect the public in this matter?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I will lay the matter before the Board.

    RELIEF WORKS.
    Mr. POINTERasked the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that the Ecclesall guardians, Sheffield, are offering relief work to applicants for work to perform which a journey of three or four miles has to be taken twice each day, and that Mr. Bagenal urged the Wakefield guardians, at their meeting on 18th March, to adopt a similar policy, and so reduce the applications made to them for relief; and, if so, will he say whether this policy of preventing applications for relief is the recognised policy of the Department?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I understand that some moor land was hired by the Ecclesall-Bierlow guardians at some distance from Sheffield, and that able-bodied men applying for relief were engaged upon its reclamation, the time taken by the men in getting to and from the work being regarded as part of their working hours. This case was, as I learn from my inspector, merely quoted by him as an illustration, and no suggestion was made by him that the Wakefield guardians should procure remote land for the purpose of applying a labour test.
    Mr. POINTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a published report of that meeting it was stated definitely that Mr. Bagenal had complained that the Wakefield guardians were too easy, and had put before them the example of the Ecclesall guardians, telling them that if they adopted their methods they would not have so many applicants?
    Mr. BURNS: That may be so, but I do not regard that as a sufficient grievance that men should have to walk two or three miles to relief work when thousands of working men are walking that distance to their work every day.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I desire to ask the President of the Local Government Board a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether his attention has been drawn to the opinion given by the clerk to the Merthyr board of guardians on Saturday last to the effect that, owing to a decision of the Court of Appeal in 1899, guardians have no power to open relief works during a strike, and whether he accepts this as a correct interpretation of the law, and whether he proposes taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. BURNS: I have only just received notice of the hon. Member's intention to put this question to me. I have seen a fragmentary report, which it would be unfair to the clerk to the guardians to fasten-upon. If the hon. Member will put the question down on the Paper, I shall be pleased to give him a prompt and considered reply. This might be done without any prejudice to the persons or the authority concerned.

    FEEDING NECESSITOUS SCHOOL CHILDREN.
    Mr. DAWESasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the distress caused by the coal strike, he will exercise the powers given to him by The Local Government Expenses Act, 1887, and authorise local education authorities to provide meals for necessitous children during the continuation of the strike, and for such time afterwards as he may consider necessary, on days when the schools are not open?
    Mr. BURNS: I shall be willing in the present emergency to consider applications for sanction.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received communications from teachers and others urging the necessity of providing free meals for school children on Saturdays and Sundays as well as on school days; what reply has been sent; and if in any way he can ensure that meals will also be provided for necessitous children during the Easter holidays?
    Mr. BURNS: The point has occasionally been raised in communications addressed to my Department. A Bill has been introduced with a view to altering the law, but its passage does not rest with me.

    COAL EXPORTS.
    Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESasked the quantity, value, and average price per ton of coal exported in 1911 from England, Scotland, and Wales, respectively?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The average declared value of the coal exported from English ports in 1911 was 10s. 3¾d., from Scottish ports 9s. 3¾d., and from Welsh ports 13s. 10¾d. The quantities and values on which these averages are based were given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in a reply to a question asked

    19
    by the hon. Member for the Chippenham Division of Wiltshire, which was circulated with the Votes and Proceedings of 18th March.

    PROCEEDINGS OF CONFERENCES.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the desire expressed and the permission given by the owners to him that the notes of the joint Conference which took place at the Foreign Office shall be published, he will use his influence with the men's representatives to obtain their early consent to such publication, so that the notes above-mentioned may be printed and made available for the use of Members of this House with the least possible delay?
    Mr. McKENNA: On further careful consideration I see a distinct disadvantage in the publication of the proceedings of the recent Conferences. We have shorthand notes of some of the Conferences only. These would form, therefore, an incomplete record of what actually took place. Moreover, the joint and separate Conferences were begun and carried forward on the understanding that full and free discussion between the various parties interested would take place. I think further that the publication of proceedings such as these would constitute an unwise precedent, which might prove very detrimental to conciliation proceedings in the future.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Is the Home Secretary aware that these Reports have been read by many other persons than those who were present at the Conference, and that, therefore, Members of this House are at a disadvantage?
    Mr. McKENNA: I was not aware of that.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: It is so.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is there any foundation for the inference in the question that it is the men's representatives who have prevented the publication of these Reports?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. I am not aware of that.

    NATIONAL INSURANCE HEALTH BENEFITS.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked whether all workmen in insured trades under the National Health Insurance Act, Part II.,
    20
    would receive benefit in circumstances similar to those at present existing, whereby many thousands of workmen are thrown out of employment through lack of fuel and material, as a result of the mining industry dispute, although themselves not in dispute with their employers?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Workmen not themselves engaged at a coal mine who are thrown out of work as a consequence of a dispute affecting coal miners in the circumstances mentioned in the question would, generally speaking, not be disqualified for receipt of unemployment benefit under Part II. of the National Insurance Act. The decision, however, as to the qualification of any person would rest with the Courts of Referees or the Umpire, and not with the Board of Trade.

    Banff School Districts.
    Captain WARINGasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the Scottish Education Department has ordered the amalgamation of the Banff (Landward) and Ord school districts with Banff Burgh; whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the ratepayers of the Landward district are unanimously opposed to amalgamation; and whether, in view of the expressed opinion that the policy of the department, if carried out, would be deleterious to the interests of education in the district, he can see his way to postpone the ratification of the Order until he has made some further inquiry into the question?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As the result of a careful inquiry by an experienced commissioner, a draft Order for that amalgamation has been submitted to the two school boards in question. The statutory procedure in the matter gives due opportunity for considering further representations, but, beyond that, I should not be justified in giving the promise asked for by my hon. Friend?

    Vaccination.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the board of guardians of the Cardiff Union has recently passed a resolution that they view with apprehension the increasing tendency amongst the residents in their union to procure exemption from vaccination; and will he state what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. BURNS: I am aware of the resolution. I may refer the Noble Lord to the answer I gave on the 19th inst. to the hon. Member for the Rye Division.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the dates that he received communications from Mr. A. T. Emmerson, one of the vaccination officers for the South Shields Union, with regard to his loss of income in consequence of the Vaccination Act and Order, 1907, and what action, if any, has he taken with regard thereto; and whether he is aware that this officer's total loss now amounts to over £100, and in consequence of such loss he is placed in financial difficulties?
    Mr. BURNS: I have received only one communication from this officer with regard to his loss of income, and this was on 29th September, 1910. I communicated with the guardians, who thereupon increased his fees, with my sanction. According to my figures, the total diminution in Mr. Emmerson's earnings as vaccination officer, as compared with his average earnings in the five years 1903–7, is about £120. Towards this the guardians had, with my sanction, awarded him gratuities amounting to £50 7s. 8d. before they increased his fees, and they had appointed him to the additional offices of deputy-registrar of births and deaths and infant protection visitor. His new scale of fees began to operate in 1911. His income from vaccination fees in that year was about £132. I have no information as to the amount of his receipts from the other offices.
    Mr. PETO: Does the right hon. Gentleman think a gratuity of £50 in such a case is adequate compensation for the loss of an income of £120?
    Mr. BURNS: The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that the £120 to which he refers should really be reduced to £103 by the diminution of births. Beyond that, this officer has had the birth fees increased from 3d. to 4d. and the vaccination fees from 9d. to 1s. This gives him an increase of £40 in fees, besides the £50 in gratuities, and in addition he has been appointed to other offices—an excellent way of meeting the grievance—and for these offices, of course, he will receive extra remuneration.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Local Government Board, how many vaccination officers have written him that they
    22
    have applied to their boards of guardians for a gratuity in respect of their past losses in consequence of the Vaccination Act and Order, 1907, and for an increase in the bases of their remuneration with regard to the future, and that such application has been refused; and in how many of such cases the Local Government have, after communicating with the boards of guardians concerned, informed the officer that his case, in the opinion of the Board, is not one in which they can interfere?
    Mr. BURNS: The answer to the first part of the question is fifty-four and to the last part six.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in April, 1909, he received a letter from the vaccination officer of the Bradford Union stating that the gratuity of £7 12s. 3d. that the Local Government Board had sanctioned his guardians paying to him did not make up the total amount of his loss in consequence of the Vaccination Act and Order, 1907, which at that time was £19 8s. 10d.; whether this officer has received a second gratuity of £3 14s.; whether he has received further communications from the vaccination officer of this union with regard to his further loss of income, and, if so, the dates of such communications; whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the two gratuities referred to, this officer had up to Christmas quarter, 1910, lost over £50, and in consequence of the continued increase in exemptions since then he has lost a still further amount, which has placed him in financial difficulties; and what action, if any, does he propose to take with regard to this officer's case?
    Mr. BURNS: I cannot trace the letter referred to in the question, nor do the circumstances of the vaccination officers in the Bradford (Yorks) Union of the Bradford-on-Avon Union correspond with the figures given in the question.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Local Government Board how many boards of guardians he has written to since November last to the effect that, when the Estimates for the Local Government Board were under discussion in the House of Commons in August last, representations were made to him as to the loss of income which certain vaccination officers were suffering in consequence of the passing of the Vaccination Act, 1907, at the same time requesting these boards

    23
    of guardians to consider certain suggestions made by the Local Government Board for paying a gratuity, and as to the mode of future remuneration to be paid to these particular officers, at the same time intimating that, unless the board of guardians dealt with the cases as suggested by the Local Government Board, they would have no alternative to issuing an Order directing what shall be paid to these particular officers; and how many of these boards of guardians (if any) have acted in accordance with the suggestions of the Local Government Board?
    Mr. BURNS: I have written to eight boards of guardians as indicated in the question. Two of these boards agreed to pay amounts somewhat less than those suggested, and their proposals have been sanctioned. In other eases correspondence is still proceeding.

    Preservatives in Cream.
    Mr. STANIERasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consent to such modifications in the draft Regulations for the restriction of the use of preservatives in cream as to provide that the labelling proposals in the Regulations can be so modified as to be made commercially workable?
    Mr. BURNS: The Local Government Board are prepared to receive and consider any representations concerning the proposals in the draft Regulations.
    Mr. STANIERasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he can see his way to delay the operation of the proposed draft Regulations as to preservatives in cream for a month, in order that opportunity may be given to the interested persons to discuss such modifications of the Regulations as will enable them to be carried into effect without detriment to the supply to the public of the articles referred to in the Regulations?
    Mr. BURNS: Under the Rules Publication Act, 1893, the Board are required to consider any representations or suggestions which are made in writing by any public body interested before the Order is finally settled. Notice of the intention to make Regulations was published in the "London Gazette" of 20th February, and the statutory period for the making of such representations or suggestions is forty days from that date.
    Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman also take into consideration the representations made by private individuals, on this matter?
    Mr. BURNS: Certainly.
    Mr. CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these Regulations are causing the greatest consternation in the dairy industry throughout the country?
    Mr. BURNS: I am not aware that they are causing consternation, but I am aware of the fact that those who know something about the industry are making practical and sensible suggestions without consternation.

  ROYAL DOCKYARDS.

    SHIPWRIGHTS (DEVONPORT).
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH - COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a notice appears, outside the Plymouth Labour Exchange stating that shipwrights are urgently wanted for the Devonport dockyard; and whether, in these circumstances, he will consider the advisability of offering some further inducements for shipwrights to enter the yard, either by increasing the establishment or by formulating a pension scheme for hired men guaranteed by the Admiralty?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I am aware that the Plymouth Labour Exchange is endeavouring to obtain a certain number of shipwrights for service in the Devonport dockyard; but the hon. Member is not entitled to infer that the shortage is due to unfavourable conditions of service in the yard. There is considerable demand at the present time for shipwrights throughout the shipbuilding industry generally. In any case, I can give no undertaking respecting an increase in the establishment; and as to the question of the creation of a self-supporting superannuation scheme for hired men in the yards, I can add nothing to the statement I made last Monday in the Debate on the hon. Member's Amendment to the Motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair on going into Committee of Supply on Navy Estimates.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why he supposes there is a demand for shipwrights there?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: There is a demand at the present time, but the hon. Member is not entitled to infer that the conditions at the yard are unfavourable.

    London and North-Western Railway (Second-class Season Tickets).
    Mr. WARDLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a circular issued by the London and North-Western Railway Company abolishing second-class carriages between London and Harrow from the 18th instant; and whether, in view of the breach of contract with season ticket holders this involves, he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The railway company inform me that second-class carriages have been withdrawn temporarily from the Harrow trains, with the object of enabling the passenger accommodation in the trains still running to be increased. The company further state that any second-class season ticket holder who has to travel third class during the period for which the second-class carriages are withdrawn can have a refund of the difference of fare, and that the season ticket holders have been so informed.

    Public Ferries (Ireland).
    Mr. CRUMLEYasked whether there are public ferries at Culmore and Dunalong, respectively, on the River Foyle; how they were first established and how they are maintained; whether the ferry boat at Culmore is subject to Board of Trade Regulations as regards carrying lights after dark; and who would be responsible if loss of life was caused, or any accident occurred, in crossing the ferry, or what party or parties are responsible for the proper working of the ferry?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am making inquiries into the matter to which my hon. Friend refers, and the result shall be communicated to him as soon as possible.

    Irish Railways (Conciliation Boards).
    Mr. HUDSONasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if his Department has taken any steps with the Irish railway companies respecting the setting up of the new system of Conciliation Boards in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1911; and (2) if the Midland Great Western Railway Company of Ireland are taking steps to have repre-
    26
    sentatives elected under the old system of Conciliation Boards of 1907; and whether his Department is helping them to perpetuate that old system, contrary to the findings of the Royal Commission of last year?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Steps have been taken to ascertain whether the Irish railway companies are prepared to adopt the conciliation scheme recommended by the Royal Commission, as amended by the Conference of December last, and I understand that the companies adhere to the scheme of November, 1907, and do not see their way to accept the amended scheme. The method of electing representatives of the men to serve on the Conciliation Boards is the same under the two schemes, and an election on the Midland Great Western Railway is now in progress.

    Financial Relations (Great Britain and Ireland).
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether he can publish or make available to Members of this House any information suppled to the Committee on Irish Finance either at their request or by official witnesses; and whether any confidential information in the possession of the Treasury was supplied to the Committee, in confidence or otherwise, which is not ordinarily accessible to the public?
    Mr. McKENNA (for the Prime Minister): The answers I have already given with regard to the Report of the Committee apply equally to information supplied to the Committee either at their request or by official witnesses.
    Captain CRAIG: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House such information as the Prime Minister has already communicated to the Nationalist party?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am afraid I am unable to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. I do not know of any such communication.

    Home Rule Bill.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked how many days will be allotted for the First Reading of the Home Rule Bill?
    Mr. McKENNA: I can make no statement at present.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the Government take into consideration the fact that four days were allotted to the last Home Rule Bill on the First Reading?
    Mr. McKENNA: Oh, certainly.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Will a statement be made before Easter?
    Mr. McKENNA: I think the Prime Minister has already stated that he thought Thursday after Easter would be a convenient day.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I was asking the right hon. Gentleman whether a statement would be made in reference to the duration of time?
    Mr. McKENNA: I will ask my right hon. Friend.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Prime Minister if it is still his intention to introduce the Home Rule Bill immediately after the Easter Recess?
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer is in the affirmative.
    Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich): Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to insert a Clause in it, limiting its operation to three years, as is proposed in the Minimum Wage Bill?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir.
    Earl WINTERTON: May we take it that this date is settled definitely, whatever the other alterations of business may be, in order that Members may make their arrangements?
    Mr. McKENNA: I think the House will regard every date of the sort as conditional upon the requirements of public business.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Am I to understand that the Home Rule Bill is to have precedence over the Welsh Disestablishment Bill?
    Mr. McKENNA: There is no question of precedence. The Home Rule Bill will be taken on the Thursday after Easter.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: When will the Welsh Disestablishment Bill be taken?
    Mr. McKENNA: Later.
    Earl WINTERTON: Will it be possible to get a definite answer this week?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, I do not think so.

    Injured Workmen (Compensation for Injuries).
    Mr. FRED HALLasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has
    28
    been called to a case decided in the Court of Appeal on 20th March, where a workman was unsuccessful in his claim for compensation, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, in respect of injuries inflicted upon him by strikers during the Manchester carters' dispute; and whether, with a view to meeting such cases, he will introduce legislation making trade unions liable to give compensation for injuries to workmen inflicted by their members?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. The case referred to merely decided that the workman was not entitled, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, to compensation for the assault. It did not decide that he had no remedy. He would, of course, have a remedy against those who assaulted him, and against those who authorised the assault. The facts of the case, so far as known to me, do not appear to justify a proposal to reverse an Act of Parliament against which no Member of the House of Commons thought it right to vote on its Third Reading in 1906.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Would not this man have a claim against the employer who was his security while performing this duty?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: No, Sir. The question was raised. He did bring an action under the Compensation Act, and it was decided that he had no remedy.

    Civil Service (Royal Commission).
    Mr. CASSELasked whether the terms of reference to the Commission to inquire into the Civil Service, recently announced, have yet been settled; and whether the Commission will consider the question of the civil rights of Civil servants?
    Mr. McKENNA: It will rest with the Commission to decide whether the matter referred to in the last part of the question falls within the scope of the terms of reference, which were published in the Press, on Thursday, 14th March.

    English Capital (Investment).
    Mr. FRED HALLasked the total English capital invested in public issues during each of the three years 1909, 1910, and 1911; and what proportion thereof was in English, Foreign, and Colonial securities, respectively?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: There is no official information available on this subject.

    School Accommodation (Grantham).
    Mr. WARDLEasked the President of the Board of Education if he has yet received any Report in regard to the steps to be taken to supply the insufficiency of free school accommodation at Grantham; and, if so, what the nature of the Report is?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): I was informed on the 15th March by the local education authority that the sub-committee, which was appointed to consider the question of school accommodation at Grantham, would report to the education committee at their next meeting which was to be held on Friday last, and I am expecting to receive the definite decision of the authority within the next few days.

    Elementary School Teachers (Registration).
    Mr. AGG-GARDNERasked whether there is any especial reason for the delay in providing copies of the Order in Council for teachers' registration for purchase; and, if not, if they may be supplied at an early date?
    Mr. J. A. PEASE: This is not really a matter within the province of my Department, but I have made inquiry and I understand that copies of the Order in Council referred to were placed on sale on Thursday last.

    Education Act, 1902 (Transfer of Schools).
    Mr. POWERasked how many Church of England voluntary schools and how many Catholic voluntary schools have been transferred to local authorities since the Education Act of 1902 came into operation?
    Mr. J. A. PEASE: Since the Education Act, 1902, came into operation, 359 Church of England schools and no Roman Catholic schools have been transferred to local education authorities.
    Mr. POWER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason why such a large number of the schools of this wealthy and highly endowed Church have been handed over to the local authorities, while not a single Catholic school, built by the pence of the poor, has been handed over?
    Mr. PEASE: I should like notice of that question, because it raises, obviously, a very controversial question.

    Evening School Examinations.
    Mr. EDGAR JONESasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Board is now imposing a charge of 3s. 6d. on working men who sit for technical and evening school examinations; and, seeing that the bulk of such candidates cannot afford to pay the fee, will he take steps to have this amount reduced?
    Mr. PEASE: It is the case that the Board of Education have decided to charge a fee of 3s. 6d. per candidate for each subject to students who desire admission to the general examinations in science and technology. I have given full consideration to all the representations which have reached me on the point, but I cannot hold out any prospects that the amount of the fee will be reduced as regards this year's examinations. When the examinations have been held, however, I shall be prepared to consider whether the fee has had the effect of excluding candidates who had definite and substantial reasons for wishing to be examined, and whether there is a case for modifying the regulation on this point as regards examinations held in 1913 and subsequently. The examinations, which of course are not compulsory, are now regarded as being held not as a means of promoting or testing the general progress of schools, but rather in the interests of individuals who desire a personal record of the standard reached. In the circumstances it did not seem desirable that the whole cost of these examinations should fall on general educational funds. The hon. Member will, of course, be aware that it is not anticipated that the cost of the examinations will be in any way covered by the fees charged.
    Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: In view of the fact that the bulk of the candidates cannot afford to pay the fees, is the hon. Gentleman prepared to meet them"
    Mr. PEASE: I have already answered that point. I am not prepared to admit what the hon. Member says, but I will very closely watch the operation this year with a view of relieving it next year.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: What is the net cost? Does the 3s. 6d. nearly cover the cost?
    Mr. PEASE: By several pence it does not.
    Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to instruct the local authority to give some help towards meeting the expenses?
    Mr. PEASE: That is a matter for the local education authorities.

    Head Masters, Elementary Schools (Clerical Work).
    Mr. GOLDSMITHasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Forms 66 S, 2 S, 2a S, and;2P, recently issued by the Board, will increase the already large amount of clerical work which has to be done by head masters of elementary schools; whether he has received any complaints on this subject from local education authorities; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take?
    Mr. PEASE: The forms in question relate to secondary schools and pupil teacher centres and not to elementary schools. Form 66 S is merely a covering statement sending copies of revised forms, issued by the secondary schools branch, to the local education authorities. Forms 2 S and 2P are the summaries of organisation and curriculm of a secondary school and of a pupil teacher centre respectively, and do not differ materially from the forms for which they are substitutes, and which have been in use since 1904. The forms have been rearranged to render them more convenient to head masters and head mistresses. 2a S is a form on which a list of text-books in use in the schools may be given so as to enable the board's inspectors to tell whether the work of the school is properly graded and otherwise suitable. Complaints have only been received from the Warwickshire, Middlesex, and West Suffolk Education authorities, and the Board have recently had interviews with the first two authorities, and have explained the reason for the forms in question to them. I am anxious to reduce the number of returns required by the Board. I am now inquiring how far it may be possible to do so.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    DISSOLUTION OF SOCIETIES.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has yet received the advice of the Law Officers as to the effect of Section 72 of the National Insurance Act; whether the forty-nine societies and two branches which have lodged the necessary papers
    32
    and fees with the Registrar of Friendly Societies for dissolution have yet been allowed to dissolve; and whether Section 72 applies to every registered friendly society which has among its members persons insured under the Act, whether it becomes an approved society or not?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I am advised that Section 72 cannot be regarded as impliedly repealing or suspending the power of dissolution conferred by the Friendly Societies Act, but any society which continues to exist, whether it has among its members persons insured with it under the Act or not, and whether it applies to become an approved society or not, comes under the obligation of Section 72 if it confers benefits on its members similar to those of Part I of the Act. The dissolution of the societies which have complied with the necessary formalities is proceeding.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Am I to understand that all registered societies will have to bring in a scheme under Section 72?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, those which continue to exist after the commencement of the Act.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has any information as to the number of unregistered societies and sick clubs which, in addition to the registered societies, have dissolved or resolved to dissolve since the introduction and the passing of the National Insurance Act, 1911?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: In the absence of a list of such societies, or of any obligation on them to give notice when they dissolve, I am unable to give the information asked for by the hon. Member.

    POOR LAW NURSES.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will make inquiry into the terms of employment of Poor Law nurses to ascertain whether the provision in respect of sickness and disablement made in their case by the terms of employment are on the whole as favourable as the corresponding benefits covered by the National Insurance Act, so that he may instruct the Commissioners to make public their decision whether Poor Law nurses are or are not exempt from the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am unable a present to add anything to the answer gave to the hon. Member on March 13.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Cannot there be some speeding up? Does the hon. Gentleman know that Poor Law nurses do not know whether they are to be insured persons or not?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I can quite realise the difficulty. Speeding up is going on in every possible way. As soon as I can make an announcement I will do so.

    MALE AND FEMALE LIVES (SEPARATE FUNDS).
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether, in the case of a society without branches intending to take both male and female lives, it is considered desirable by the actuaries advising the National Insurance Commission that separate funds for males and females should be set up?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The question of the desirability of separation of funds for males and females has not been referred to the Actuarial Advisory Committee. The subject is one of policy rather than of calculation, and the Commissioners do not wish to prejudge the choice offered to societies under the Act.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is it the policy of the Commissioners to advise all small village societies to accept both men and women as members under the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I should not like to say that without notice. I do not think the Commissioners are advising on the subject.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked what is the equivalent weekly contribution for men and women in each of the years 1912–13, 1917–18, 1922–23, 1927–28, and 1932–33, based on the actuaries' estimates of the number of men and women who will be members of approved societies, and the cost to the State of the two-ninths and one-fourth of the benefits and costs of local administration to be paid by the State in those years?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not understand what calculation the hon. Member is asking for in the first part of the question, but if he will furnish me with further particulars, I will see whether it is possible to give the information desired. The estimated cost to the State of paying two-ninths and one-fourth of the benefits and
    34
    costs of local administration will be found on page 20 of the Report of the Actuaries, Cd. 5983.

    WELSH COMMISSION.
    Mr. EDGAR JONESasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a form offering to supply papers has been sent to Members by the English and Scotch Insurance Commissioners; and whether he can state why in this, is in other matters, the Welsh Insurance Commissioners are covering their proceedings with secrecy?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I understand that the Welsh Insurance Commission are making the same arrangements as, the other Commissions for the supply of papers to Members of Parliament.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some Welsh Members of Parliament were offering to give this information on Thursday last?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I was not aware of that, but I understand the Welsh Insurance Commissioners are making the same arrangements as the other Commissions.

    POST OFFICE CONTRIBUTORS.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether a Post Office contributor who has a balance to his credit in his own name will, in case of illness after attaining the age of seventy years, be entitled to draw upon that balance for sickness or disablement benefit; and, if not, whether he will introduce legislation to amend the National Insurance Act, 1911, in this respect?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative. Such contributors will, if otherwise eligible, be then in receipt of old age pensions. They will continue to be entitled, after seventy, to draw upon their balance for medical benefit, and four-sevenths of any sums standing to the contributor's credit at death may be bequeathed to their nominees. The effect of such an amendment as the hon. Member proposes would be to deprive contributors during the following years of medical attendance and medicines, which they will need more than sickness or disablement allowance additional to their pensions.
    Mr. CASSEL: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that it would be reasonable if a Post Office contributor over seventy years of age is sick he should be

    35
    able to draw upon the fund standing in his name, four-sevenths of which represents his own contributions?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have already said it is more important for him that he should continue to have money for his medical benefit, but it is extremely unlikely that there will be any deposit contributors of the age of seventy.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Suppose there is not enough money at seventy for more than one year's medical benefit, what happens during the next year?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the money is exhausted there is nothing to draw from.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: In view of the fact that the Post Office contributors come to an end automatically in 1914, are not these questions purely academic?
    Mr. CASSELasked when a member of an approved society attains the age of seventy, and ceases to pay contributions, will the society still be liable to make the same payments or any payments in respect of such member to the insurance committee to provide medical benefits; if not, from what source will the doctor and chemist be paid for medical benefit for such member?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The payments made by an approved society to an insurance committee for medical benefit will be made on account of all the members of a society and not of any particular member. They will be paid out of the funds of the society as built up by the contributions made in respect of all the members and the reserves accumulated in respect of them.

    LECTURES.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the statements which Mr. Byers Black, one of the official lecturers paid out of public funds, made at a lecture at the Masonic Hall, Glasgow, on the 15th March, 1912; whether such lecture has the approval of the Commissioners and is in accordance with their instructions to lecturers; and, if not, what steps they propose to take to repudiate it or make it publicly known that it has not their approval or authority?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have seen a condensed newspaper report of a lecture by a Mr. Byers Black, ex-president of the
    36
    Insurance and Actuarial Society of Glasgow, and one of the Scottish official lecturers, held on the date and place named. No official report was taken, and I have no knowledge to what statement the hon. Member refers; but if he has any reason to believe that the "Instructions to Lecturers" are being exceeded, I shall be glad to communicate any evidence he may have to the Scottish Commission.
    Mr. CASSEL: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to furnish him with a copy?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I shall be delighted if it is an authentic copy of what actually took place.

    BENEFITS BEFORE JOINING SOCIETY.
    Mr. CASSELasked what will be the position of an insured person during the prescribed time within which he has the option of joining an approved society or becoming a Post Office contributor; by whom will his benefits be administered if he falls ill during such period; and from whom will he receive sick pay?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is not the present intention of the Commission to prescribe a longer period for this purpose than the minimum waiting period for sickness benefit. Under these circumstances the last part of the question does not arise.
    Mr. CASSEL: So not more than six months, in any event, will be allowed for making arrangements?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Not more than the waiting period.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the result of this be that something like a third of the whole of the insured persons in the country will become deposit contributors?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Oh, no. After the waiting period of six months is over they can transfer to an approved society, carrying with them their full reserve value.

    COTTAGE VALUATIONS.
    Mr. GOLDSMITHasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in calculating the total remuneration of an insured person for the purposes of the National Insurance Act, the difference between the economic value of a cottage and the actual rent paid will be taken into account; and, if so, whether he can state the basis on which such economic value will be calculated?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Where any question arises as to the rate of contributions payable by, or in respect of, any insured person, the matter must be determined by the Insurance Commissioners in accordance with regulations made by them for the purpose under Section 66 of the Act. Where it is shown to their satisfaction that the actual rent paid is less than the economic rent, the difference will be taken into consideration.

    General Valuation Office, Dublin.
    Mr. BRADYasked whether, in the filling of any future vacancy or vacancies for second division clerkships in the General Valuation Office, Dublin, the claims of senior assistant clerks who have been engaged on duties similar to those performed by second division clerks and in checking work done by clerks of the latter class will receive attention from the Commissioner of Valuation?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: When a vacancy arises, the Commissioner of Valuation will give due consideration to the claims of assistant clerks in his Department to promotion to the second division, if qualified under the provisions of Clause 45 of the Order in Council of 10th January, 1910.

    Young Offenders Imprisoned (Metro-politan Area).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state how many youths under twenty-one years of age were in the Metropolitan police area committed to prison during the year 1911, stating what proportion of them were committed by stipendiary magistrates and what number by justices of the peace; what was the average length of their sentences; how many of them were imprisoned for non-payment of fines; and how many of them were committed to Borstal institutions, and for what average period?
    Mr. McKENNA: The preparation of this Return would entail the examination of more than 54,000 commitments, and in view of the already heavy clerical work at prisons, I fear that I cannot undertake to obtain the information.

    Fatal Accidents (Omnibuses and Tramcars—London).
    Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that during the five years 1907–11 305 persons were killed by
    38
    motor omnibuses in the Metropolitan area and only 127 by mechanically propelled tramcars, although the tramcars carried nearly twice as many passengers as the motor omnibuses; whether he is aware of the suggestion repeatedly made by Dr. Waldo, His Majesty's coroner for the City and Southwark, that many of these fatalities would be avoided if motor omnibuses were fitted with a safety tender similar to that which the Board of Trade insists on being fitted to mechanically propelled tramcars; and whether he proposes to take any action?
    Mr. McKENNA: The figures quoted are those which I furnished to my hon. Friend in answer to a question a few days ago. As my predecessor stated in answer to a question on the 15th June, 1910, the Commissioner of Police has from the outset impressed upon proprietors of motor omnibuses the importance of providing a suitable guard, and has intimated to them that when one was available certain concessions would be made as to the minimum road clearance of these vehicles. No satisfactory device, however, of the nature indicated has yet been submitted to him. The safety tender on tramears, suitable as it is for a vehicle running upon fixed rails, is not suitable for a vehicle meeting frequent inequalities of road surface.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman call the attention of the omnibus companies to the fact that the number of accidents caused by their vehicles, is increasing rapidly year by year?
    Mr. McKENNA: Is it a fact?

    Dr. Lightfoot's Case.
    Mr. ARNOLD WARDasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the further statements made by members of the jury in the case of Dr. Lightfoot; and whether these statements corroborate the allegations made by the jurymen Cox and Simmonds?
    Mr. McKENNA: Copies of further statements which have been made by members of the jury in this case have been forwarded to me, and I find they do not corroborate the allegations of Mr. Cox and Mr. Simmonds.

    Charles Huzzey's Case.
    Mr. MACMASTERasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of Charles Huzzey, a first offender, aged seventeen years, now

    39
    in Wandsworth prison; whether he is aware that the lad was charged with stealing two tins of sardines and sentenced by the stipendiary for Westminster to three months' hard labour; and whether, seeing that Huzzey had previously possessed an excellent character and served for five years in the boys' brigade, he will, in view of the extenuating circumstances in the case, consider the desirability of remitting part of this sentence?
    Mr. McKENNA: My attention has been called to the case, but in view of all the facts brought to my knowledge, I regret that I do not feel justified in recommending any reduction of the sentence.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLES: Can the Home Secretary not discourage the making of criminals of these boys?
    Mr. McKENNA: The boy had already on two occasions absconded with money. This was not his first offence.

    Coal Thefts, Birmingham.
    Mr.O'GRADYasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the conviction of William Bicknall and Thomas Waterhouse at Birmingham for taking coal out of the canal; whether the sentence of fourteen days and a month, respectively, was determined on the alleged value of the coal or for the act of taking the coal; and whether inquiries will be made as to the value and, if the statement that the coal was worth 7s. cannot be sustained, the sentences will be revised?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have received a petition on behalf of Bicknall, and after communicating with the justices I felt justified in advising His Majesty to remit the remainder of his sentence as an act of clemency. He was discharged from prison on the 22nd instant. I have received no representations on behalf of Waterhouse, but, after consideration of all the circumstances, I propose to advise the remission of fourteen days of his sentence purely as an act of clemency. These remissions must not be understood as implying any criticism of the sentences originally passed. The quantity of coal stolen was considerable (4½ cwts.), and the Court was satisfied from the evidence that it was not a case of the picking of coal by persons in distress for their personal use, but that the coal was obtained for purposes of profit.

    Censorship of Stage Plays.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to an action against the Lord Chamberlain on Monday, 11th March, at the Westminster County Court, before His Honour Judge Woodfall, brought by Mr. Laurence Cowen for the return of the MSS. of two unlicensed plays, from which it would appear that the Lord Chamberlain has consistently disregarded the provisions of the Theatres Act, 6 and 7 Vic, cap. 68, by negotiating direct with and receiving the fees for examination from the authors and not the managers of the theatres at which the plays are proposed to be produced; whether he is aware that in consequence a number of the plays being performed under the Lord Chamberlain's licence are produced in direct contravention of such Statute; and whether he can state what steps he proposes to take to render such performance legal?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am informed by the Lord Chamberlain that, while he disclaims any authority to give an opinion on points of law, he does not consider that it is the case that a number of plays are being performed in contravention of the Statute for the reason suggested by the hon. Member. I do not propose to take any steps in the matter.

    "Syndicalist" Prosecution.
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the sentences of nine months and six months, with hard labour, passed upon Messrs. Bowman and Buck, and whether, in view of the political nature of the charge, and other circumstances, he will see that the sentence is revised at the earliest moment?
    Mr. McKENNA: As it is open to the prisoners, if they are dissatisfied with the judgment, to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, the appropriate procedure appears to be for them to apply for leave to appeal in the first instance.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that in the event of these persons appealing to the Court of Criminal Appeal the Court can only consider the evidence given before the petty jury before whom the case was tried, and that the Court has no means at all of considering the charge as stated to the grand jury?
    Mr. McKENNA: Assuming that to be so, after the Court of Criminal Appeal has heard the case it would then be open to them to appeal to me.
    Mr. PETO: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that there is any question of political opinions in this case at all?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Read the Recorder's charge.

    Treacher v. Stab (Constable Suspended).
    Mr. HARRISasked the Home Secretary whether he has taken any further steps in the case of the Metropolitan police constable who was suspended from duty on account of the facts proved in the action Treacher v. Stab?
    Mr. McKENNA: The disciplinary proceedings against the constable which were suspended when the legal action was begun have now been resumed. The point referred to in the second part of the question is one for the disciplinary court to determine.

    London Museum.
    Mr. KINGasked whether the representative of the First Commissioner of Works can state if arrangements have been made for Members of Parliament to visit the London Museum at Kensington Palace?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The trustees of the London Museum have arranged for a private view for Members of both Houses of Parliament on Wednesday, between 11 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. Tickets of admission can be obtained from Mr. Speaker's secretary, and can be made to include the wife of a Member, or one daughter of a Member, if that is mentioned in the application.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Home Secretary whether he has any statement to make in regard to the course of business to-day?
Mr. McKENNA: As the negotiations at the conference are still going on, it is not considered desirable to proceed with the Minimum Wage Bill to-day.
Mr. EUGENE WASON: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, as the Temperance (Scotland) Bill has been put down as
42
the First Order for to-morrow, it will be taken as arranged?
Mr. McKENNA: To-morrow it is more than probable that the Minimum Wage Bill will be the First Order of the day.
Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can assure us that the other Bill will not be taken tomorrow? We really ought to know. It is a monstrous thing to take this step.
Mr. McKENNA: I am most anxious to give the House all the information I can. It is quite obvious that if the proceedings at the conference finish this afternoon, the Minimum Wage Bill ought to be proceeded with to-morrow. If, on the other hand, the conference has not concluded, it would not be possible to proceed immediately with the Bill.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will not this afternoon, or at the earliest possible moment, give us information on the subject; and might I suggest that if it is possible to do so it would be well not to take a contentious measure like the Temperance (Scotland) Bill to-morrow, but to take some other business, like Supply?
Mr. McKENNA: It would be a most desirable course to let the right hon. Gentleman know at the earliest possible moment whether the Bill will be proceeded with to-morrow or not. As to the other point, I think it will be necessary to consult my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Mr. LEIF JONES: Supposing that the conference comes to an end this afternoon, would there be any difficulty in proceeding with the Minimum Wage Bill at 8.15 to-night?
Mr. McKENNA: There is a private Bill arranged for 8.15 to-night. I think it would be better to proceed with the Minimum Wage Bill as the First Order to-morrow.
Mr. ARNOLD WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the delays and contingencies which may happen during the next few days will not interfere with the taking of the Women's Suffrage Bill on Thursday?
Mr. McKENNA: I do not think there is any likelihood of the Women's Suffrage Bill being interfered with on next Thurday, but it is impossible to give an absolute assurance.
Sir WILLIAM BYLES: There are two or three questions not quite reached which relate to matters of some urgency and of great public interest, and I would ask whether it is possible in those circumstances to put questions eighty-one, eighty-two, and eighty-three?
Mr. SPEAKER: The effect of giving that indulgence would be to give encouragement to hon. Members to ask supplementary questions on early questions.
Mr. REMNANT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the reports are true that the negotiations have broken down in reference to this Bill?
Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. I cannot say whether they are true or untrue. I have heard absolutely nothing to that effect.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the further stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill will be taken? Will they be proceeded with to-morrow—the next stage in any event?
Mr. McKENNA: Yes, the next stage must be proceeded with to-morrow and the final stage on Wednesday.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I desire to ask a question relating to business in the House. On Friday I handed in a question at the Table in the following terms—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now seeking some method of bringing the question before the House. I do not think that that is treating me or the House fairly.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I must designate the question in some way. I handed in a question relating to a speech delivered by the hon. Member for Woodstock deliberately inciting soldiers to mutiny—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is endeavouring to do in effect that which, by my ruling, I said he should not do. If the hon. Member asks me why I refused to allow the question to be put, that is a question which I shall be glad to answer, but I strongly object to his reading the terms of the question which I refused.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I direct your attention, to question No. 81 on the Paper by the Noble Lord the Member for the Horsham Division (Earl Winterton), in which he asks a question similar to that which I ask?
Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will ask his question I shall be glad to answer it. The question which he is now putting is of an argumentative character.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I asked the question with the character of which you are acquainted. I handed it in at the Table, and to-day I found that it was not upon the Order Paper. I thereupon wrote to you, and asked you whether I might put that question to the Attorney-General, of which I had given private notice to-day, and I received a reply from your secretary in the following terms. May I read the reply?
"The Speaker wishes me to say he does not consider the question you submitted to him an urgent one, but he wishes me to say that it you desire to raise this matter during the discussion on the Consolidated Fund Bill, he thinks it should be possible for you to do so then."
The question which I wish to ask you is this: Why this question, which was duly handed in on Friday, does not appear on the Paper to-day; and, in the second place, whether the fact that a question is not, in the opinion of Mr. Speaker, urgent, is a proper reason for refusing to allow it to appear on the Paper?
Mr. SPEAKER: The reason why I did not allow the question of the hon. Member to appear was because it seemed to me to be not a genuine question put to the Attorney-General for the purpose of eliciting information, but a covert attack on an hon. Member in respect of a speech which I think he made last October. Considering that the House has been sitting almost continuously since October, there has been plenty of opportunity for asking questions before now. If the hon. Member wishes to raise the matter by argument, I told him through my secretary that I thought he would have an opportunity of raising it to-day. With regard to the reason why it is not allowed to be asked as an urgent matter to-day, my reason is because it is not urgent. As I have said, the speech to which the hon. Member wishes to draw attention was made last October, and there has been ample opportunity of raising the question since.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: As a matter of personal explanation with regard to the motive which you have attributed to me in asking that question, I beg to assure you that I had no desire whatever to attack the hon Member who made the speech. The matter was raised because of the recent action of the Attorney-General.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now making a speech which, he will have an opportunity of making on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I wish—[HON MEMBERS: "Order."]
Mr. SPEAKER: I call on the right hon. Gentleman on my right (Mr. Munro-Ferguson).
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTrose. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]
Mr. SPEAKER: I informed the hon. Member that I have called upon the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith, who wishes to put a question.
Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: I beg to ask the Home Secretary whether he can state definitely if the Scottish Temperance Bill will be taken before Thursday, and, if it is not down for to-morrow, will it be for Wednesday? I think it is fair that we should know, if possible, now how soon we shall be able to take it?
Mr. McKENNA: It is highly probable that it will be taken on Wednesday, if not to-morrow, but it is impossible for me to give any undertaking on the point. I will, however, communicate as soon as I can both with the hon. Gentleman opposite and my right hon. Friend upon this subject in the course of the afternoon.
Lord BALCARRES: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is the universal practice for the Consolidated Fund Bill to take precedence of other measures, and that Wednesday is only half a Government day?
Mr. McKENNA: Yes, I shall have to take that into account.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I desire to ask whether I am to be absolutely excluded from putting questions on the Paper with reference to incitements to mutiny while the Noble Lord—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will have ample opportunity—
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Of putting questions?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will not even listen to my reply. The hon. Member will have absolute freedom to put any questions which are suitable and which, in my judgment, can be put to the
46
Attorney-General. If he will bring it to me in writing I shall be glad to look at it, and, if I consider it suitable, it shall be put on the Paper.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  PREVENTION or CORRUPTION (AMENDMENT) BILL
  "To amend the Law relating to the prevention of Corruption." Presented by Sir ALBERT SPICER; supported by Sir Samuel Scott, Mr. Astor, Mr. Bowerman Mr. Brunner, and Mr. Needham; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 2nd April, and to be printed. [Bill 104.]
  RURAL CREDIT BANKS BILL.
  To provide for the establishment of Rural Credit Banks." Presented by Mr. HAMERSLEY; supported by Mr. Jardine, Mr. Stanier, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Rothschild, Captain Morrison-Bell, Mr. Staveley-Hill, Colonel Burn, and Mr. Macmaster; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 17th April, and to be printed. [Bill 105.]

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  4.0 P.M.
  Sir MAX AITKEN: I wish to draw attention to the Treasury Chest Fund, and the operations with respect to that Fund by the Treasury in a manner which seems to display a lack of business capacity. Having had perhaps more leisure than most Members of this House, I have read the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General for 1910–11. The. point I wish to bring to the attention of the House is not merely the financial loss caused by the Treasury operation, but to the gross departure from constitutional practice in the extraction of that sum of £340,000 odd from the Treasury Chest to serve political purposes. That is formally condemned by the Controller and Auditor-General in his Report, in which he seeks to lay down to the Public Accounts Committee that the Treasury Chest Fund exists for the purpose of carrying on the public service generally, and he condemns the use of the Fund for purposes at home. It is quite clear that the Government, to serve political purposes, deliberately deprived the Treasury Chest Fund of half its capital for purposes at home, notwithstanding that

  47
  the Treasury Chest Fund is to serve the widespread oversea interests of the Empire, and not to serve the Government for either the Post Office Service or other Services at home. How did this come about? In March, 1910, when the House met after the General Election, the Government was obliged forthwith to introduce the Budget. The House of Lords rejected the Budget, but, in the words of the right hon. Member the then Home Secretary, the Government were forced to put it through without the alteration of a comma—"We shall ram it through," were the words used. When the Election was over it was found that the Government majority had disappeared, and that they were dependent upon the Irish vote. In 1909 these Irish Members had declared against the Budget, and had voted against it on the Second Reading. The hon. Member for Waterford at the Gresham Hotel, Dublin, said he was opposed to the Budget unless more favourable terms for Ireland were granted in regard to the Whisky Tax, and unless several other matters were eliminated. That was not done.
  Attacks were made on the House of Lords, and the time of the House was spent in discussing the relations between the two Houses of Parliament, while the hon. Member for Waterford negotiated with the Government. From the alliance which resulted there came the degradation of national finance to which I am now about to call attention, and which has been thoroughly condemned by the Controller and Auditor-General. I would point out that the Controller and Auditor-General is responsible to this Empire for its book-keeping, just as is the auditor of a company to its shareholders. Let us see what was the position in March, 1910. The Government were short of money and they required a Vote on Account. They had been in office for four years, and had followed the practice, established by the Conservative Government in 1896, of applying for three, four, or five months' Supply. Yet in March, 1910, the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to this House and asked, not for three, or four, or five months' Supply, but six weeks' Supply, which amounted only to the sum of £8,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in doing this, stated that he was only reverting to the practice which had been established previous to 1896. I would like to quote from the Chancellor
  48
  of the Exchequer's speech made at that time, in which he elaborated very fully his reasons:—
  "We are simply reverting to the practice which was the established practice in this House up to the year 1896. when Votes on Account were taken, as a rule, for six weeks, or in some cases for a month, and in some a couple of months, the reason being that it was very desirable that the House of Commons shall have control over the Executive. In 1896, the party to which the right hon. Gentleman for East Worcestershire belongs, being in office at that time, for the first time departed from what I still think was an excellent practice, and they made the Votes on Account for three, four, or rive months. We thought that was weakening the control of Parliament. We protested strongly against it at the time. …. And the reason why we depart from what has been the practice, which was not introduced until 1896, and is not a very old one, and why we have taken this occasion for reverting to the older and better parliamentary practice, is because the financial position is quite an unusual one."
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:—
  "With a view to restoring the complete control of the House of Commons over the Executive. I think that the House of Commons ought to have another opportunity … of expressing its opinion about the Executive."
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to say:—
  "For these reasons, we do not think it expedient to invite the House of Commons at this stage to arm the Executive with funds that will make it practically independent of the House of Commons as far as funds are concerned for more than that very crucial period in its history. That is the real reason why we make this departure, not from a very old-established precedent, but from a very bad precedent that was set by our predecessors in office, by the party to winch the right hon. Gentleman belongs."
  Of course, the real object of the Government of the day was to cripple and harass their successors in case they were unable to make arrangements with the hon. Member for Waterford, and to put the country in a position in which they would be able to charge the House of Lords—if they threw out the Budget—with having left no money in the hands of the Executive with which to carry on our financial business. That they estimated far short of the public requirements is now not a matter of rhetoric, but a matter of history, and the practice of raiding the Treasury Chest Fund, as I have said, was condemned by the Controller and Auditor-General in his report. The Treasury Chest exists for the service of the Treasury Chests overseas. A month after the Vote of £8,000,000 on account for six weeks only had been obtained, in fact, on 12th April, 1910, the Chancellor of the Exchequer who had assured the House that this six weeks' Supply was ample for his purposes proceeded to make use of the Treasury Chest Fund, and withdrew from it money for the operations of the Postal Service of the United Kingdom to the amount of

  49
  £340,000, and for the salaries of the National School Teachers in Ireland to the amount of £50,000. This manipulation of the accounts, if it had arisen in a normal way, or because of some non-political exigency, might possibly have passed by without too much discussion, and might have been regarded simply as an offence against book-keeping; but, when it can be shown that it was perpetrated for political reasons, and to serve political exigencies, I think the country will be astonished. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been attacked for the methods by which he has filled the Government's purse. In order to obtain this advantage over political opponents who, he expected, might come into office, he deliberately, in order to cripple his opponents, applied for a short amount of Supply, and when confronted with the results of his operation, in order to make up for that short Supply, he raided the Treasury Chest Fund to meet the deficit.
  I assert that the deficit was artificially created, and in doing this what did the right hon. Gentleman say to the House of Commons? He said he only wanted £8,000,000 of Supply, and he gave reasons why he asked for that amount of Supply, limited to six weeks only. He said his object was to restore to the House of Commons control over the Executive, which had been weakened by practices adopted by his predecessors, whereas the fact is that in the following Session, or about one year after, he took only the six weeks' Supply, he came to this House, differences having been settled with the hon. Member for Waterford, and reverted to the very practice which had been in existence previous to 1896, and which had been in existence during four years before this memorable case in March, 1910. He asked for three months' Supply, for a Vote on Account for £20,000,000, instead of £8,000,000, demonstrating that it was a hypocrisy and pretence in 1910 to ask for £8,000,000 only. This is not a matter of mere book-keeping; it is not a matter of the technical keeping of accounts; the Treasury Chest is a real and necessary institution in connection with the Empire. All over our Empire we have established Treasury Chests for the maintenance of our financial stability. To recite the names of the places where a Treasury Chest is established is enough: Bermuda, Jamaica, Ceylon, Egypt, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Malta, Mauritius, Sierra Leone, South Africa, in fact, nearly everywhere that a British warship may call or the British Army may
  50
  need funds. I may be told that the Government's credit stands so high that no injury would have been done to the Imperial Service by the conversion to home use of funds set apart for services abroad. But that explanation does not lie in the mouth of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that can only be so long as British book-keeping retains its good name for integrity and honour. The only analogy by which we can be guided in connection with the Treasury Chest is that you should only issue notes so long as the gold reserves are maintained at a statutory level. Treasury Chests abroad are permitted to-draw bills so long as the Treasury Chest capital is intact. The Chancellor of the Exchequer departed from that practice, and depleted the Fund which Parliament set aside for the protection of Treasury Chest Bills drawn at the various points where Treasury Chests are maintained abroad. On 17th March, 1911, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury stated that the Treasury Chest Fund was used to deal with money required for the pay of troops and the Admiralty, and to meet losses entailed by variations in exchange; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not deplete the Fund for any of those uses, but for an unworthy and, I think I am fair in saying, a partisan purpose. Are banks to be told that they may deplete their gold reserves as the Chancellor of the Exchequer depleted this Fund? There was no emergency, nothing to precipitate a financial crisis; but it was merely a ruse to embarrass his opponents, and that was the largest game the Chancellor of the Exchequer was after at that time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the guardian of the public fund, and he has no business to use the Treasury Chest for home purposes, and that says the Controller and Auditor-General. This is not due to any mistake or to any misdirection, but it is a deliberate shortage brought about in the public service for political design. In a Debate in March, 1910, the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was very severely condemned. What the critics would have said on this side of the House if they had known he was going to employ the Treasury Chest Fund to eke out his book-keeping account I cannot conceive. At the time that he was pretending to return the control of its finances to the House of Commons, he was actually depriving the House of Commons of that control by resorting to the Treasury Chest Fund. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire,

  51
  in the course of the Debate in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer applied for six weeks' Supply, said:—
  "What has occurred, then, within the last few days? What fresh comings and goings, what new threatening letters have the Government received that they again alter their programme, and now settle that means are to be found for carrying on the King's Government for six weeks and no longer. I believe it has been pretty clear what the Government had in their minds. I think it has been pretty clear from the moment when they declined to take the Budget, in accordance with the statement of the Prime Minister, as the first Act of this new Parliament. They are threatened men; they hold their official life by a precarious thread that may be snapped at any moment, and they know it.… They propose to provide just enough to go into the middle of May. By that timet hey think their own life will be about coming to an end, and the one thing on which they have determined, and the only object that, amidst all these twistings and turnings they are steadily pursuing, is to leave the greatest financial confusion behind them they can. That is what I call a shabby game. The Prime Minister talked solemnly of carrying on the King's Government with credit as long as the right hon. Gentlemen beside him were Ministers. There is little credit for their present proceeding, there is little thought for the dignity of the Crown, for the due conduct of public business, and for the convenience of the public service. Everything of that kind is made subservient to their party, and in the hope that they may stave off defeat, if fortune is kind to them; but that, at any rate, they may leave a financial morass behind them for anybody who tries to follow in their foot-steps." - [OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1910, cols. 1653–4, Vol. XIV.]
  I cannot conceive what additions my right hon. Friend would have made to that description of the Government if he had known they were shortly going to apply to the Treasury Chest Fund. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith) intervened in the Debate and said:—
  "In other words, it is one step and one stage in the policy of evasion and chicanery which the Government has been pursuing. They are trying to make a deal with Irish Members below the Gangway."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1910, col. 1658, Vol. XIV.]
  The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) continued the Debate and owing to the stress of criticism, particularly of my right hon. Friends, whom I have quoted, and the Noble Lord, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer defended himself. He attacked the Noble Lord for lecturing him on the Constitution and declared he was going back to the unbroken practice of Parliament. He stated that the Noble Lord and his Friends wanted to go on without the financial control of the House of Commons and stated that he and his Friends wanted to get on without the financial interference of the House of Lords. He neglected to add that he intended in a measure, at any rate, to get on without any financial control at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I submit, is the trustee to the British Empire and of
  52
  the Treasury Chest. He is bound, beyond and above all other Members of this House, to act in conformity with the opinion of the Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee, and they condemn the use of the Treasury Chest Fund for services at home. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the occasion of the Debate to which I have referred, in the course of his speech, said:—
  "The Noble Lord for a whole week has been saying that we have not got the cash for the purpose of paying these Supplies. Very well! We are limiting the amount which we are voting to the cash we have in hand. That is not a bad practice. It is what every business community practices. If the Noble Lord were Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would know perfectly well that all the money I have got is what I have said, and it is just enough for six weeks;."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1910, col. 1665, Vol. XIV.]
  There is no mention at all of the £340,000 to be drawn from the Chest Fund for the Post Office service, or of the £50,000 for the payment of national school teachers in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman went on:—
  "I can assure him that all the great financial authorities of the House, like the late Sir William Harcourt, were exceedingly shocked at the departure which was made at that time. They protested in the strongest possible manner against it. My recollection is that Lord Courtney, also a great authority, protested against it, though I am not quite clear about that."
  Thus, although the Chancellor quoted all those opinions in defence of his application for six weeks' Supply, in the following year he reverted to his original practice, and that of his party for four years previous, by taking three months of Supply. In that way the right hon. Gentleman convicts himself when he declared that that was all the money he had got. Within four weeks, instead of coming back to this House and declaring a mistake in his Estimate, he departs from precedent and seizes the Treasury Chest Fund. Need he have resorted to that if he desired to restore to the House of Commons its control over finance? The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) rushed in to the aid of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time and supported his application for a six weeks' Supply. He said:—
  "For my part, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has returned to constitutional precedents of the past in keeping in his possession all those large Votes on Account that for a lengthened time were followed by every great Liberal statesman in this House. Sir William Harcourt opposed those lengthened Votes on Account; Mr. Gladstone was a determined and inveterate enemy of large Votes on Account; and it is astonishing to me to hear gentlemen who claim to be constitutionalists complaining that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is keeping the control of this House over the finance of the country. What is finance? It is the instrument by which the House of Commons is able to control the Executive and policy of the nation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1910, col. 1670, Vol. XIV.]

  53
  While those noble maxims were being thrown about the House and were being poured upon the Opposition, and while the Ministerial virtues of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer were being referred to by his Friends and colleagues, he went, without the knowledge of the House, without precedent, and without authority, and seized upon the Fund set aside for the special purposes of and for the credit of the Empire. Having thus dealt with the constitutional issue, I turn for a moment to the actual operation of the Treasury Chest Fund. During the year in which the right hon. Gentleman raided this Imperial hen-roost, and in which he exercised the return to the House of Commons of its control over the Executive, he made a loss of £42,000. I have looked into the operation of the Fund, and if any ordinary city banking institution or any ordinary merchant was to behave in the manner in which the Treasury behaved as to the Treasury Chest Fund, that merchant or institution would long since have landed in bankruptcy. I assert that all of that £42,000 was money deliberately thrown away. It was an unavoidable and unnecessary loss, and a loss brought about by reason of the refusal of the Treasury to accord with Imperial practice. The Treasury Chest Fund is merely a bank with a capital of £700,000. At the end of each fiscal year the bank's profit, limited almost entirely to exchange operations, should be, if there is any profit, surrendered to the Auditor-General; and the loss, if there is a loss, should be made up in Parliament by a Vote taken at the time of the Supplementary Estimates. Obviously a bank with a capital of £700,000, dealing only in exchange and wihout any interest or dividends to pay, ought to show a very handsome profit. Yet, on the contrary, in the year ending 31st March, 1911, there is a loss of £42,000. That whole loss is due to the operation of the Treasury Chest at Hong Kong, and it amounted there to £50,000, or nearly so. Obviously the profit or lass is due to rates of exchange which, I admit, are an ever-varying quantity and also depend upon the skill and capacity or upon the negligence and incompetence with which the business is carried on. The conversion of sterling in Hong Kong, where, as the accounts disclose, there were dispersements amounting to £800,000, is a complex transaction, and in the year ending 31st March, 1911, on the conversion of £800,000 sterling into Hong Kong dollars, the Government made a loss of £50,000.
  54
  That is, a loss of 6 per cent., or about 1s. 2d. on every £. That is a very considerable loss. Any ordinary exchange clerk could make a conversion of £800,000 into Hong Kong dollars at a cost of 2d. in the £. So that a service for which the Treasury paid 1s. 2d. an ordinary individual could get for 2d. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury explained all that. He said:—
  "It is entirely due to the loss on the Treasury Chest at Hong Kong, and that is owing to the official difference between the value of the dollar we have to pay at Hong Kong and the exchange on Treasury Chest Bills. The system under which we act was laid down by the late Lord Goschen, and it has always been followed since, namely, that the rate should be calculated on the price of silver in London a quarter before the money was to be paid. Sometimes we get from year to year advantages from that, and at other times we get disadvantages. This year, owing to the rise in the price of silver, which has continued almost consistently, we have lost, and owing to that rise we have been paying to the Army and Navy more than we should otherwise have done to the extent of the sum of £42 666."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1911, col. 1443.]
  The Financial Secretary gave three explanations. He said—first, that the loss was owing to the official difference between the value of the Hong Kong dollar and the exchange on Treasury Chest Bills; secondly, that it was due to a system laid down by the late Lord Goschen; and, thirdly, that it was due to an overpayment. As to the first explanation, I cannot follow the reason exactly, but, if I am right, the Financial Secretary says that it is the custom to value the Hong Kong dollar on the basis of the price of silver for the quarter before the date of payment. That is surely a very bad basis of calculation. Does the Financial Secretary value Consols purchased for the Sinking Fund on the basis of the price of Consols when the Chancellor of the Exchequer came into office. It would be just as reasonable as a valuation of the Hong Kong dollar on the basis of the price of silver for the quarter before the date of payment. The proper basis would surely be the price of silver on the date of payment, and not for the quarter before. But the Financial Secretary says, "That is all right. We are not responsible for that. The late Lord Goschen laid down the system." The late Lord Goschen may have laid down the system, but it is difficult to realise it when one considers his great reputation, particularly in exchange. But even admitting that that is the fact, the late Lord Goschen sat on the Treasury Bench twenty-five or thirty years ago, and the reasoning which applied thirty years ago hardly applies to-day. I do not think it is necessary to labour that point at all. In any case, the attempt to fix the

  55
  responsibility on the late Lord Goschen will leave us cold, because in the six years that he was in office the late Lord Goschen made out of the operation a profit amounting to £33,000. The last and the most amazing explanation is that he paid out in Hong Kong £42,000 more than he owed. Why? Because he paid for the Hong Kong dollars 1s. 11½d. but they were worth only 1s. 10½d.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): Does the hon. Member say that that is the explanation I offered?
  Sir MAX AITKEN: That is the explanation the hon. Gentleman offered on 28th February last, when he said, "Owing to that rise we have been paying the Army and Navy more than he should otherwise have done to the extent of £42,000." I submit that there is no other explanation except that he paid £42,000 more than he ought to have done.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Does the hon. Member suggest that the soldiers should have paid the £42,000?
  Sir MAX AITKEN: That is not the explanation of the Financial Secretary. He said, "We have been paying the Army and Navy more than we should otherwise have done to the extent of £42,000." That is perfectly clear. In other words, he says that in Hong Kong the Treasury Chest was selling sovereigns for 19s. I am sorry I did not get an opportunity on the Supplementary Estimates to work the matter out, but I have given the closest attention to the explanation, and if there is anything more to be said I shall be glad to hear it. I think the Financial Secretary has beaten the 9d. to 4d. He has paid these Chinese gentleman 21s. 2d. every time he owed them £1. According to the Financial Secretary, the Treasury Chest at Hong Kong was paying out Hong Kong dollars on the basis of 1s. 10½d. when they were really worth 1s. 11½d., and they were receiving such sums as are received for the Treasury Chest at Hong Kong for remittance to London in Hong Kong dollars at a valuation of 1s. 11½d. These are approximate figures. So that the Treasury Chest at Hong Kong was paying out Hong Kong dollars, asserting that they were worth only 1s. 10½d., and receiving Hong Kong dollars for remittance to London, asserting that they were worth 1s. 11½d. In conclusion I appeal for sup-
  56
  port to financial Gentlemen opposite—to that band of financial gentlemen referred to by Lord Crewe who have never been frightened from the Liberal road by the hobgoblin figure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no intention of chewing the cud of dead controversy concerning any action alleged to have been political action in connection with the year 1910, or of ransacking the OFFICIAL REPORT for various statements made on either side in connection with the action of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer; because for every statement from our side of the House that there were arguments for taking a short Vote on Account, there were the strongest arguments advanced by Gentlemen on the other side to the effect that short Votes on Account should not be taken and that we should resort to the practice we are now resorting to of taking a longer Vote on Account. In all seriousness, when we are dealing with financial questions, I do not think we are much aided by bringing in political controversies which are entirely irrelevant to the question at issue. The hon. Member opposite has raised two points: first, why should money have been temporarily used from the Treasury Chest for purposes at home instead of for purposes abroad; and, secondly, why was a substantial loss made on the transaction under consideration, especially in connection with the Treasury Chest at Hong Kong. The fact that the Treasury Chest advanced for, I think, eight days, £390,000 supplementary to the Civil Contingencies Fund, when the Vote on Account proved to be in two of its Votes insufficient, has nothing whatever to do with political considerations at all. It has nothing really to do even with the question of taking a Vote on Account for six weeks or two months or four months, because, whatever Vote you take, there may be an underestimate in the amount required for a particular Vote, and until an additional Vote can be passed it is necessary, if you are going to keep within the law, to supplement the Vote. The Civil Contingencies Fund has been used and is always used for that purpose, if necessary. But in this instance sufficient money was not available in the Civil Contingencies Fund. The hon. Member made one or two statements not entirely correct. He first of all assumed that this was an illegal practice and that the law which created the Treasury Chest forbade its application for

  57
  home use. That is not the case. The Treasury Chest is described as being provided for making temporary advances for any public service, to be repaid either out of money appropriated by Parliament to such service, or out of other money applicable thereto. When therefore the Treasury, finding that the Vote on Account was insufficient in two cases, supplemented the Civil Contingencies Fund with a temporary advance from the Treasury Chest, they were doing something that was perfectly legal and could not be challenged. The hon. Member also stated that this was condemned by the Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee. That also is not the fact.
  Sir MAX AITKEN: Will the hon. Gentleman read the report of the Public Accounts Committee in 1902, and the report of the Auditor-General in relation to the use of the Treasury Chest for Civil Services at home?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think there is any real ground for the suggestion of the hon. Member. I may say that the Auditor-General has called the attention of the Public Accounts Committee to this use of the Treasury Chest, which, although it is not illegal, is not the normal use of the Treasury chest.
  Sir MAX AITKEN: But the report of the Public Accounts Committee—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has made his speech.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The Public Accounts Committee has discussed the question with the Auditor-General, but has not yet reported upon the matter. I am inclined to suggest to the House that the whole question would be far more properly raised when we see what the Public Accounts Committee do report. It is not true, however, to say that the Public Accounts Committee have condemned the system, nor is it true to say that the Auditor-General condemned it. What are the actual facts? The hon. Gentleman suggested—I do not think he intended to suggest it—that this temporary advance of £890,000 was part of the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for I think he said, keeping the control of finance from the House of Commons with a view to certain political exigencies. He has a right to argue, if he likes, that the taking of only a six weeks' Vote on Account for £8,000,000 is part of such scheme. But he has no right to argue that the fact that
  58
  £8,000,000 proved insufficient is any part of the scheme at all. It was a miscalculation that may arise on any Vote en Account, taken at any time.
  The hon. Member also said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer used this money instead of coming back to the House for a further Vote. That also is entirely incorrect. The allowance for the Post Office service was found to be insufficient about the second week in Apri. On 14th April the Chancellor of the Exchequer took an additional Vote on Account in order to pay for these services, and it was only between the Committee stage and the Report stage, eight days, of that Vote on Account that this money was advanced from the Treasury Chest, after which it was repaid. So far, then, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer using the Treasury Chest in order to continue using moneys without coming to Parliament. As soon as there seemed the least degree of possibility that the money voted by Parliament—the £8,000,000 for the six weeks' Vote on Account was being exceeded, the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to Parliament for an additional amount. The amount was voted, and the money was replaced in the Treasury Chest. Under these circumstances, I think all this stuff about the Chancellor of the Exchequer using this £390,000[HON. MEMBERS: "Stuff?"]—well, all this argument, if you like to call it, that this £390,000, less than one day's average expenditure of the nation, was taken in order to keep Parliament away from Supply may be regarded as a figment of the hon. Gentleman's imagination.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Had it ever been done before?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think the money has been sufficient before. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition knows that every year the expenditure of the country is increasing, or at least has increased over twenty or thirty years. The margin allowed on account on the Civil Contingency Fund is fixed, and continues as time goes on to bear a less proportion to the total of the public services. It is quite likely that whatever Government is in power it may be necessary to ask this House of Commons to increase that margin for the Civil Contingency Fund. As to the other question, I am sorry I did not make it clear—but the hon. Gentleman recognises I only had three minutes to reply before the Vote was passed. I think he will see that Lord

  59
  Goschen was not so foolish as he imagines when he laid down the system. It is quite impossible—the hon. Member who has intimate knowledge of these matters will agree with me—to strike a precise daily rate for the dollar when you are paying out to your troops day by day. Not only would that be an elaborate and intricate operation, but it would also cause something like a mutiny in the Army and Navy. If the Army and Navy were being paid a variable amount in dollars for their income week by week, they would not understand why the amounts varied. I take it that the principle followed by all Governments alike was that laid down in 3850. In fact, two principles have been laid down.
  The first is that the Army and Navy shall be paid in the currency of the country in which they are at the time serving. The second is that they shall be paid at a rate of exchange which shall be a definite amount ranging over a period of some months. Lord Goschen's system was this: He estimated the value of the Mexican dollar, in which the Army and Navy are paid at Hong Kong, at the price of silver in London in the quarter preceding, and the Army and Navy are paid on that basis a dollar for each 1s. 8d., 1s. 9d., or 1s. 10d., as the case may be. In Hong Kong silver is bought as required. It has never been the practice of the Treasury to allow the Treasury Chests scattered in various parts of the world to have more than one or two months' supply in hand; but to say that we bought silver at 1s. 10d. and sold it at 1s. 8d.—the statement made by the hon. Member—is a statement altogether remote from any possibility. What happened was that the price of silver was rising, and that the dollar that we paid the men in, translated into gold currency—not legal currency—was worth more than it would have been had we taken the price of silver when it was paid. To that extent the Army and the Navy, in a sense, gained something like £49,000. Nor is this a scheme devised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give 9d. for 4d. If the hon. Gentleman will look through the various transactions which have taken place under this system since 1889, he will see that in a good many cases the price of silver has fallen and the Treasury has gained, whilst the men of the Army and Navy have been the losers. Roughly, I think he will find that the thing balances from year to year. It is not true to say
  60
  either that we are living on the memory of a great financier of other times. The Public Accounts Committee—I think my hon. Friend behind me will bear me out in this—a few years ago called the attention of the Treasury to this system, and asked that a further and careful consideration, should be given to the matter. The Treasury gave a most careful consideration. They considered the possibility of alternatives, and they came to the conclusion that Lord Goschen's plans still held in spite of change; that, on the whole, it is the fairest system, both for the Army and Navy, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, for the Treasury Chest. The hon. Gentleman talks as if this money went to Chinese junk men. It is not so. If we strike a rate in London and then buy dollars at a higher value in Hong Kong the soldier and the sailor get more dollars than they strictly should get; if the price of silver goes, down then the sailor and the soldier get fewer dollars than the market rate would give.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask what system is adopted in paying the contractors who supply the Army and the Navy at Hong Kong?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not certain that they are paid in Mexican dollars at all, but if the right hon. Gentleman will give me notice of that I shall be happy to make inquiries. I do not think they are paid from the Treasury Chest. But I shall be quite willing, as the representative of the Treasury, in this or any other Debate, to hear what hon. Gentlemen have to say to promote economy. The system that I am speaking about has been the invariable system since 1889. It has been investigated since then, and the Treasury are quite convinced, as at present advised, that it is far the fairest, and most satisfactory system.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here, because I really cannot regard this as a matter of such very slight importance as the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary has hinted. First of all, with regard to the question of whether or not this arrangement has been carried out as a business-like transaction, I am bound to say that I could not believe—I am talking now of the loss which the Treasury Chest incurred at Hong Kong—that the loss was exactly occasioned in the way that my hon. Friend has described. On the other

  61
  hand—I understand the Financial Secretary had only a few minutes—taking the words of the Financial Secretary then there was no other explanation possible. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury told us that last year we paid in Hong Kong about £42,000 more than we ought to have done if we had taken the rate at the time of payment. That seemed to me, and seems to me still, to be an arrangement for which I can see no explanation possible. But now that the hon. Gentleman has given the explanation, it takes away a great deal of the blame which one was inclined to give. It still, however, leaves the impression to my mind of being very unsatisfactory. It is perfectly right that there should be some approximate steadiness in the payment of our soldiers and sailors month by month. It is perfectly right also that the Treasury should not make any attempt to make money out of the exchange in dealing with our soldiers and sailors. On the other hand, when we find that we made last year a loss of 1s. 2d. in the £—that is admitted—when we find on turning to the year previous that we made a loss of fully half that amount—then it ought to have become evident to any business man that the system is not right. However generous we may be to our soldiers and sailors we ought not to pay more than the approximate amount due in accordance with the terms of their contract. I think, therefore, that this matter requires reconsideration. Taking the system which is in force as one under which constantly we are paying more than we ought to do, it ought to be reconsidered, and we ought to adopt some system which, allows us to pay approximately the amount due, and not more, to our sailors and soldiers. That is, I say, simply a question of business.
  When you come to the other part of the transaction it is a question of Parliamentary decency. The House of Commons will remember the exact position in which we stood. It was just after the election. The Government had won the election. They had told us that they were going to make the Budget their first object in meeting Parliament. They did not do it. For something like two months we sat here, not being even allowed to smell the Budget, while negotiations and subterranean negotiations of all kinds were going on; while Parliament and the Government were turned into stock exchange, and a system of bargaining went forward for the Government to buy a majority by which they could carry their
  62
  schemes. That was the position. As part of that system of bargaining, and in order not to allow the House of Commons, to assume control over finance, in order to make sure that the Gentlemen below the Gangway had control of the Gentlemen who sit opposite, a Vote on Account was brought in—a thing absolutely unprecedented since 1893. It was brought in, too, for a six weeks' Supply instead of for the ordinary time. It was brought in with a purpose, which everyone understood at the time, of making it impossible for any other Government to be established, because there would not be the majority which would give them Supply. That was the object. If at that time the Chancellor of the Exchequer had openly told us that that was the object, we should have told him what we thought of it. [An HON. MEMBER: "You did."] We knew that was the object. What happened—this is where the Parliamentary decency comes in—the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us it was not the object. These were his words:—
  "What is it he complains of? He complains that we have reverted to the practice which was the unbroken practice of Parliament to 1896."
  And later on he says precisely the same thing:—
  "What do they complain of? That we reverted to this practice which we think a better practice as it enables the House of Commons to retain control over its finances."
  5.0 P.M.
  He led us to believe that the object was to enable the House of Commons to retain control over its finances, yet the moment the temporary object—the trickery, for that is what it was—was carried out, that moment he reverted to the previous practice which he then condemned, and showed that the whole thing was simply a case of Parliamentary manœuvring and nothing else. I do not think this thing can be passed over as lightly as that. I think also that something has to be said about the use of the Treasury Chest Fund at all. The hon. Member says that was no part of the manœuvring. Neither was it. It was the effect of the manœuvring and the result of the manœuvring. The hon. Gentleman says we made a great fuss about nothing, that it might have happened to any Government that the amount of money would run out. Is not that an extraordinary way to speak in face of this sentence in the Auditor-General's Report?—
  "The employment of the Treasury Chest as a fund supplementary only for special contingencies for the purpose of temporary business of the Civil Service at home would not seem to be in accord with the des-

  63
  cription of the fund contained in Paper No. 5, namely, that it exists for the purpose of laying down funds abroad to carry on the public service generally."
  It is not we who are condemning the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is the Auditor-General who in the most emphatic and clear way condemns him. Of course, I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that the object was not what my hon. Friend behind me says it was. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would maintain that the object was to retain the control of the House of Commons and not the House of Lords over finances, but what he really meant was that he was going to retain control over them without regard to the House of Commons or anybody else. It is not the first time he has done that. We all remember the very interesting Debate in this House which arose out of the Chancellor having given instructions to delay the collection of Income Tax for the purpose of robbing the Sinking Fund of money to which it was entitled. In neither case do I assert or suggest for a moment that he was making an improper use of the money, but I do say, in both cases he was resorting to an irregularity which even in private business would deserve the severest condemnation. In regard to the finances of a great country like this, the one service, or, in my opinion at least, the greatest service which was rendered by Mr. Gladstone to the finances of this country was to establish a system within which you are bound. What the Chancellor has done is to show that he does not recognise any of these bonds, and he has destroyed all the consciousness of regularity upon which our finances really depend.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury usually makes a very clear explanation of any charge brought against him, but I venture to say the explanation he has given with regard to the charge of the appropriation of money out of the Treasury Chests for purposes here at home has not satisfied a single Member on either side of the House. If we were sitting upon the benches opposite and our Chancellor of the Exchequer had done what the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has done the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough), instead of indulging in gossip, would be fuming at the terrible manner in which the wicked Tories were playing with the finances of the country. I do not believe we shall have a word of intervention from him on
  64
  this particular occasion. What is the explanation of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury? He says that it was only for eight days. That is like the excuse that it was only a little one. That does not make it any better. He has done what was wrong, and because it was only done in a small way and for a short period does not alter the fact that the doing of it was wrong. As my right hon. Friend has reminded us, this is not the first time that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid predatory hands upon the finances of the country. Only last March he laid hands upon the Sinking Fund, and therefore it is no answer to say that this is only a small matter which only lasted for eight days.
  Does the hon. Gentleman say that the application is not illegal? Has he any answer to the interruption of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. T. M. Healy)? He admitted it had never been done before. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster is not in the House, because, in answer to a question by me after this infringement of the custom of Parliament had been made, the right hon. Gentleman, who was then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, informed me that the only possible use to which the Treasury Chest Fund could be put was the financing of obligations undertaken abroad. I understand that is correct, and therefore so short a time ago as March, 1911, after the little lapse from virtue by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that the Treasury Chest could only be used for financing of operations undertaken abroad. Let me point out what it is we object to. I do not raise this question because I want for a moment to make a party score. I raise it because I think it is a most important question, especially when one bears in mind what the right hon. Gentleman said in answer to an interruption by my right hon. Friend that the expenditure of the country was increasing at such a rate that this sort of thing may have to be done by any Government. It is because expenditure is increasing with such enormous rapidity that it is absolutely necessary that the Rules laid down from time immemorial by the House of Commons for the guidance of its finances ought to be observed. If we were back in the old days of economy, and not spending in the reckless way we are now, it might be said there was not so much need for strict investiga-

  65
  tion of the methods in which the finances of the country are conducted, but when we are now approaching something like an annual Budget of £200,000,000, there is nobody, I venture to say, except, perhaps, hon. Members on the Labour Benches opposite, who would suggest that it is not absolutely necessary that very great care should be taken of the manner in which these large sums are dealt with. It is, however, much easier—and I use the word in no offensive sense—to juggle with large sums than with small ones. And when you get into these vast figures it is almost impossible for the House of Commons to see what is going on, and all we can depend on is that we trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to observe the rules laid down by the great financiers of the last century and follow them out.
  That is exactly what they are not doing, not only now, but in tampering with the Sinking Fund some time ago. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, and one or two at this side, have sought to set up an Estimates Committee. What we shall have to do is to appoint a Committee to investigate the proceedings of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to go into his private room accompanied by an accountant and see what he is actually doing with the money. We cannot trust the right hon. Gentleman at the present moment. We have twice in one year found him out in evading the customs of Parliament, both times for party purposes, and eluding the Rules always laid down for the guidance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Let me now deal with the question of the Vote on Account for six weeks. The hon. Gentleman found his excuse for going back in 1911 to a four months' and now to a five months' Supply because, as I understand, we on this side of the House objected to his taking a six weeks' Supply. It is the first time since 1906 that hon. Gentlemen opposite ever shaped their policy according to the desires of the Opposition.
  Mr. MASTER MAN: We always try to meet the Opposition in little things.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Nothing, I think, emphasises more what I am saying than that interruption. The question of the expenditure of £180,000,000 is in the mind of the Financial Secretary a little thing. I do not think, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes to read the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow and finds the Financial Secretary has made that remark, he will
  66
  thank him. We know perfectly well the meaning of the whole transaction. It was a Parliamentary trick, as my right hon. Friend said, in order to make certain that if the party opposite were defeated at the last Election they would be able to prevent the new Government coming in from carrying on the finances, and then, last year, when they had a safe majority, they reverted, regardless of their hypocrisy, to the old system. This year they have gone beyond it and taken £59,000,000, which is nearly five months' Supply. I am not sure they have not made a mistake, for, if by good fortune they should receive their deserts in a few weeks, they will have provided us with sufficient money with which to continue the finances of the country in a sane and proper way. I am sorry so few Members on the other side of the House seem to regard financial questions as of any importance. I have long ago given up any hope of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and therefore the country must rely upon the industry of hon. Gentlemen upon this side in order to expose the bad and the unsound efforts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: But for the fact that the House is overshadowed by a great industrial crisis, I think the question which has been raised in the remarkable speech made by the hon. Member above the Gangway would have attracted universal attention upon this question of Parliamentary procedure. I am not competent to deal with the questions of exchange which were handled by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, and therefore he will excuse me if I decline to go into the question of the loss or gain on silver. I congratulate the House, however, upon having an hon. Member able to deal so capably with that question, and perhaps I would suggest that the Opposition have had no reason to be sorry because the electors have made what I may call a Colonial preference. But that is not the question which I wish to deal with. Whenever the Controller and Auditor-General strikes a blot it deserves the attention of every Member of the House of Commons. For my own part I have never failed, whatever Government has been in power, to deal with such matters. What I am saying now is not by way of criticism of the present Administration, but I am speaking, having regard to what we all ought to feel, namely, the necessity of proper administration in our public accounts.

  67
  The Controller and Auditor-General is given the position of a judge. That is to say, he is given the power to pass his opinion upon the accounts of this Empire, and he is in such a position of independence that he cannot be removed by any Government, and for his removal a Vote of both Houses is necessary. Accordingly a man invested with great powers of this nature is not likely to misuse or abuse them. I do not even know the name of this Gentleman, and I am wholly uninformed as to his personality or his past. He has, however, laid down, founding himself upon a Report of the Public Accounts Committee, that this Treasury Chest money has been used for a purpose which, practically speaking, is illegal. May I take this opportunity of congratulating the Financial Secretary to the Treasury upon his promotion, which has given universal satisfaction in all quarters of the House. The hon. Gentleman said the use of this money was perfectly legal, and he read out a line from the Statute of 1877. May I point out that that is not the governing Statute in the matter. If you want to see where the language which the hon. Gentleman used comes from, and if you want to get the language applicable to the case, you must go to the Act of 1861. The Public Accounts Committee founded itself upon the use of those words which appear in the Preamble of the Act of 1861. Here are the words upon which the hon. Member relies:
  "They may employ from time to time the Treasury Chest Fund or the balances and so on to purchases of specie and so on in making temporary advances for Public and Colonial services."
  The Preamble of the Act of 1861 says:—
  "Whereas various sums were granted by Parliament from time to time, up to the year 1832, for defraying certain services denominated 'The Extraordinaries of the Army.' And whereas a Fund, now called 'The Treasury Chest Fund,' the available balance of which amounted on the 31st day of March, 1860, to the sum of £1,330,701 3s. 3d., has arisen out of the said Grants, and from the receipt of other moneys on the Public Account, and the said Fund has been employed, under the direction of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, as a banking fund for facilitating remittances, and for temporary advances for public and Colonial services, to be repaid out of the moneys appropriated by Parliament or otherwise applicable to those services; and whereas it is expedient to
  68
  maintain in the Treasury Chest Fund a sufficient available balance for supplying the several Treasury Chests with moneys for carrying on the public service, to limit the amount of such balance, and to make other provisions in respect of the said Fund."
  Where are the Treasury Chests established? It is not at home, and it may be in Bermuda, Gibraltar, Malta, or Hong Kong for aught I know, and the purposes for which the Treasury Chest Fund is made applicable is necessarily an oversea purpose. To tell me that you are entitled to construe the words "public service" except in relation to where these Treasury Chests are situated is an absurdity which the hon. Gentleman will not get any lawyer on his own side to support. The Treasury Chest is an oversea chest, and it is not a home chest. It is a Colonial Chest and not a United Kingdom Chest. Therefore when you are using these words which the hon. Gentleman employs you must use them, and construe them in relation to the services with which the country is dealing. These Treasury Chests are in every instance undoubtedly beyond the sea. My next proposition is that the Public Accounts Committee, before this use of the Treasury Chest was made, set the signet and the mintage of their approval on the contention and the construction for which I am now arguing. The Public Accounts Committee is a body of respectable and influential hon. Members who are trusted by us to an enormous extent, because we scarcely ever challenge their decisions. They overhaul the whole of the public services of the country. I do not know whether they overhaul the Secret Service Fund, but probably with that exception I suppose there is not a single account connected with the expenditure of this country from the cats' meat account of the Treasury to the accounts of the Royal palaces which they are not entitled to inquire into. Eight or nine years ago, and before this question had arisen, and before any question of the abuse of the Treasury Chest arose, the Public Accounts Committee—that is to say, the trustees of this House, drawn impartially from both sides, laid down that the Treasury Chest Fund was an overseas fund. So that when, owing to the shortage of the Vote on Account two years ago you drew on this Treasury Chest, you did it in the teeth of the Preamble of the Act of 1861, and you also did it flouting the decision of your own Grand Committee.

  69
  The hon. Gentleman says we shall get a fresh Public Accounts Committee, but will you? Probably you will, but will you have a majority on it, I noticed immediately this matter was mentioned an hon. Member opposite was ready to get up in order to defend the Government. Is that the kind of Public Accounts Committee we have got now? The Public Accounts Committee are our trustees appointed without challenge and we accept their decision and to reconstitute this Committee and rake up what has been done to serve the exigencies of a particular party is no function of a Public Accounts Committee. I have dealt with the position of the hon. Gentleman and with the position of the Public Accounts Committee, and now I come to consider what has been done as a matter of fact. I suppose there is no man in this House who hates and despises the Treasury gang as I do. They have robbed my country for 112 years, and I fully believe they are trying to rob it again. I regard them with hatred and loathing, and, what is more, I regard them with contempt. They pretend to be great economists, and they are continually niggling and attacking other Departments, but when you find them out in a mistake they give you all kinds of beautiful explanations, which are generally false. We have not a single body engaged in watching these gentlemen at the Treasury. We accept everything they do and state, and they are regarded as a sort of fetish.
  As an Irish Member, I am specially interested in this matter for this reason: One of the things they have done with the Treasury Chest is that they have paid the salaries of the Irish national school teachers out of it. It will bring joy to the national school teachers of Ireland to know that somebody in Connemara has been paid the money which should have gone to Hong Kong. This is, to my mind, a matter of grave seriousness, because we are dealing with the procedure of Votes on Account. Let us consider the position of Votes on Account. Those of us who were brought up under the Gladstonian tradition always regarded a Government with respect which gave us short Votes on Account. It showed they intended at the time to put down their Supply whereby you could debate every Vote of Supply, and that they intended not to deprive the House of its financial control. As long as Gladstone lived, he was a man for short Votes on Account. I am sure the late
  70
  Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Balfour) will not think I am needlessly censuring him, because we all respect him and are glad at his return, and personally I greatly grieve at his loss, when I say I, for one, bitterly condemn the system which he established, and which gave us I think it was twenty or twenty-one days, I forget exactly which, for effective Supply, which effective Supply, remember, included the days on Votes on Account. If you put down a Vote on Account you rob the House of one of its effective days of Supply. Accordingly, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman, having been driven by his Parliamentary exigencies into that position said, "I will take Votes on Account for longer periods, instead of having the Gladstonian tradition, which gives you short Votes on Account. It will not be fair now to take short Votes on Account, because I shall be robbing the House of one of its twenty-one days." There was some reason in that position. He said, "I will give you twenty-one days, but it would not be fair if I put down short Votes on Account, because I should be robbing you of one of them." If you look at it strictly from the point of view of the logician, that was a fair proposition.
  When the present Government came into office with its huge majority, having complete power to overhaul that position, it maintained the Tory policy, it maintained the twenty-one days' policy, and it maintained the policy of long Votes on Account. Who changed it? When was it changed? Is that change going to be a permanent one? When the Chancellor of this Exchequer declared, in 1910, that he was departing from bad Tory precedent and was going back to the ancient principle of Gladstone, I want to know whether it was for that year only? It is not a matter, I respectfully tell the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, which is to be tossed aside by saying, "Oh, I am not going back on worn-out Parliamentary Debates of two years ago." It is nothing of the kind. This is quick, vital matter affecting the year 1912, and all the years we may sit here, and for my part I hope they will not be long. I now come to consider what he did, why he did it, and what is the result of it. I was amazed to hear from the hon. Gentleman above the Gangway, the Member for Ashton, the statement he made, namely, that the right hon. Gentleman, having said he was taking six weeks' Supply, and that he was restoring to the House its

  71
  power of control over the Executive, proceeded to subtract from, the House of Commons the power of controlling the Executive by resorting to a fund which never practically comes up for Parliamentary discussion at all. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman is this, "Oh, he only did it for eight days. The baby is only a little one. Just overlook it. He only committed sin for eight days." Is this to be drawn into a precedent? If a Minister is hard pressed for his Vote on Account, can he resort, not for eight days but, for aught I know, for eight weeks, to a sum of something like £750,000, a handy nest-egg he has there under his control; and can he leave Honduras, Jamaica, the Straits Settlement, and the Cape without a shilling whilst he is escaping Parliamentary control? That is the importance of the position, which the right hon. Gentleman has evaded. Why, Charles I. lost his head for something very like this! He said he would levy his Supply by the aid of Ship-money. I think it was Sir Harry Vane who said that those who try to break Parliament generally end in getting broken themselves. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has tried to break Parliament and has tried to break Parliamentary control to the extent of £800,000. It does not matter to say that he has only used £300,000, and to say he has used it for eight days appears to me immaterial.
  The position of the right hon. Gentleman opposite is this: I can do it now as often as I like. I have not broken the law. It is quite legal. "Everything I have done is absolutely legal. The twelve stations where the Treasury Chest has formally been established have now been transferred to Charing Cross. Bermuda has become Downing Street, and I can use this money," as he has, "for the General Post Office at St. Martins-le-Grand and for Irish National Teachers at Ballaghaderin. That is amazing to one who takes a keen interest in anything affecting the financial control of this House, and who is sensitive on any matters in which the Treasury are concerned. That is an extraordinary position, and, if it is taken up by a Minister, however able, we have to ask him: Is he the mouthpiece of the Cabinet on this question? Has he declared the constitutional position of His Majesty's Government on this question? Has he had the advice of the Attorney-General upon it? We are entitled to know. I do not know how long £800,000 would carry
  72
  on the Government. Let us see what the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was when he did this. I am satisfied that he never did this off his own bat. I am satisfied it was some Treasury necromancer, who said, "Do not bother about going to Parliament, I have £800,000 lying here I never told you about at all. Do not trouble the House of Commons." Let us see what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, because I accept his good faith in this matter. I am satisfied that a busy Minister, who had the words of the Section of the Act of 1877 read out to him, without being told what its genesis is, would say, "You tell me it is legal, and I will do it." What was his position in April, 1910. He said:—
  "The Noble Lord for a whole week has been saying we have not got the cash for the purpose of paying these Supplies. Very well. We are limiting the amount which we are voting to the cash we have in hand. That is not a bad practice. It is what every business community practices. If the Noble Lord were Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would know perfectly well that all the money I have got is what I have said, and it is just enough for six weeks."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1910, col. 1665.]
  That is a very remarkable statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and it is not met by the reply of the Financial Secretary who says, "Oh, well, really, I am not going back to the weary stuff we talked two years ago. It is all dead and gone. It has no relation to the living present, the year 1912." Is that so? A Minister comes down to the House and says, "Six weeks Supply will do him. Eight million of money, that is all I want; that is all I have got," and he has all the time what I call a Secret Service Fund of his own which enables him to evade his Parliamentary obligations. I do not for a moment believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer is personally a party to this. I believe that he would cut off his hand before he would do it. What we want to get at is the name of the Companion of the Bath that supplied him. Some Gentleman of the Treasury for a very long time, who has several Orders and Garters and Ribbons, has informed the right hon. Gentleman that his course was a legal one. Now we know that it is not a legal one, because it has been condemned by the Controller and Auditor-General, because it has been condemned in alvance by the Public Accounts Committee, and because the words which I read out from the Act of 1861 show, and it cannot be denied, that this Treasury Chest was invented, created, and intended, and can only be used for public services abroad.

  73
  In these circumstances, I do think the Debate raises many points of constitutional importance. It raises the whole question of the control of this House over its Executive. It raises the question of the honour and of the credit of Ministers who are advised by Treasury experts, who, having said that £8,000,000 will do them for six weeks, when they find it will not, turn round and resort to this unheard-of fund and tell them they can employ it. It is, to my mind, especially objectionable, because Parliament foresaw that exigencies would arise when there would be a shortage of funds, and created for that very object what is called the Civil Contingencies Fund. The Civil Contingencies Fund was the fund from which this money for the Post Office and the National Teachers should have been drawn. Instead of drawing it from the Civil Contingencies Fund, a home fund, a proper fund, and a Constitutional Fund, they go and draw it abroad, at a time when, for aught you know, your Navy may be requiring the very moneys that you are disbursing in Connemara. Therefore, I think, under these conditions we are entitled to know if the Government, as a whole, maintain the position the Secretary for the Treasury occupies, and, if not, whether it would not be fair and proper that some expression of regret should be made to Parliament for having committed an unconstitutional act which has been condemned by the only public officer independent of the Treasury whose views the House can rely upon.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  I do so in order to enter a protest against the institution by the Government of prosecutions of the Press. I would remind this House it has not been the practice for many years for prosecutions of this nature to be indulged in. Prosecutions by the State are always risky business. Prosecutions of the Press have long been notable by their absence. It is true that in Ireland and India we have seen such prosecutions, but they are unknown in England, and for a very good reason. Before the Government under-take a prosecution of the Press there are many risks to be considered. First, there is the risk of increasing the evil by giving wider publicity to printed matter in an obscure publication. There is the classical case of the prosecution instituted
  74
  against Paine's "Age of Reason," and Paine's "Rights of Man," Lord Campbell said of these:—
  "Its circulation was infinitely increased by the Attorney-General filing an information against the author."
  6.0 P.M.
  Then, secondly, there is the risk of interfering with the open expression of opinion however violent or detrimental to Society and so driving it underground. Besides, there is the risk of giving the writer publicity for his libel. I come to the third risk, that of inflaming the opinion, both of those prosecuted and of their friends. There have been some recent prosecutions and certain unfortunate printers have gone to prison. They are not even Socialists; they are men who have no interest in politics; they will come out of prison red-hot revolutionists. Their friends through-out the length and breadth of the country feel the injustice done by the Government to them. Once you begin prosecutions of this kind it is difficult to draw the line and stop. It was said that Grenville issued 200 injunctions against the Press in six months. The learned Attorney-General is beginning to learn the lesson. You have already the cases of the Syndicalists, the "Labour Leader," "Huddersfield Worker," "Forward," "Justice" and "Freedom" on your hands. How many more? We are beginning to see that by reason of the arrest of Mr. Tom Mann, and possibly that of Mr. Victor Grayson, there are others to come. The Government has great powers, but it is not always expedient to exercise them. There must be no feeling that they are pandering to panic. There must be absolute impartiality, not only of intention, but it must be conveyed to the public mind. Everyone knows the unlimited powers of the State in matters of this nature, but before exercising such powers it is always wise to bear in mind the expediency of the application of any Act of Parliament. It should be the duty of the Law Officers of the Crown to consult the Crown before instituting prosecutions. Was it done in this Case? This is a regular Phœnix of a struggle coming up in every age. It is a question whether prosecutions of the Press have ever been justified. The best men in every age have been against them. Milton, Erskine, and Macaulay were against them. There has always been the same provocation, the same fears inspiring the prosecution. The clamour of propertied classes has again and again deafened the Government to

  75
  the still, quiet voice of reason and liberty. What did Erskine say:—
  "I will not say which party is right, but God forbid that honest opinion should ever become a crime."
  There is a curious similarity between the present position and 1797, a curious propriety in basing prosecutions now on the Act of 1797. Then there was the real danger of the mutiny at the Nore. The Bill of 1797 was not merely the outcome of the anti-Jacobin terror: the mutiny was fresh in their memory, and the Bill was introduced to put a stop to inciting to mutiny. Yet even then in this House Sheridan got up and opposed the Bill. When one looks back on the history of the country under Castlereagh and Pitt one cannot help looking on it as a redeeming feature in an age of tyranny that Fox, Grey and Sheridan night after night led their little band in the Lobby against such Bills. We are carrying on their traditions; hon. Members opposite are carrying on the traditions of their ancestors, when they go into the Lobby for coercion and tyranny. Then the prosecutions took place. The same State prosecutions that we are enjoying to-day. Hardy, Horne Tooke, Gilbert Wakefield, and others, were prosecuted, and, of course, not only the principals but the printers as well. The only difference is that some of them got off in those days. Those who did not get off had fourteen years' hard labour at Botany Bay. Those who did get off, got off because in those days they were defended by men with magic voices like that of Erskine. I want to quote one short passage by Erskine directly affecting the problem before us, and dealing with the subject of the freedom of the Press:—
  "Tempests occasionally shatter our dwellings and dissipate our commerce; but they scourge before them the lazy elements which without them would stagnate into pestilence. In like manner Liberty herself, God's last and best gift to his creatures, must be taken just, as she is. You might pare her down into bashful regularity, and shape her into a perfect model of severe, scrupulous law, but she would then be Liberty no longer; and we must be content to die under the lash of this inexorable law that we had exchanged for the banners of freedom."
  These words are as true to-day as they were then. They are as practical in their application at the present juncture as they were then. I ask all Liberals who know when they read history that Erskine was right and the Government wrong, to express Liberal views now and say that the Government ought to be regarded as wrong now, as it was then. There was the
  76
  case of the prosecution of Muir, of Edinburgh, who was tried in 1793, and this is what Erskine May says of the trial:—
  "Every incident of this trial marked the unfairness and cruel spirit of his judges."
  The same might be seen to-day, as I saw it the other day at the Old Bailey. How do we judge the trial of Muir? If anybody goes to Edinburgh he will see on the Calton Hill the Martyrs' Memorial. Are these people who are being prosecuted now more extreme than those who were prosecuted then? Let me quote from Charles James Fox. He said in the House of Commons—I do not think he could have said it outside—
  "If his opinion were asked by the people as to their obedience he should tell them that it was no longer a question of moral obligation and duty, but of prudence."
  Is not that the position to-day? I do not wish to go about the country saying that the people who issued that pamphlet were right, but I do not intend to go about the country and say it is wrong. I will tell them that it is dangerous to say it so long as the prosecutions are carried on in this way by the Government. The rage of the Government for prosecuting the Press went on till 1831. It was revived in the famous prosecution of Cobbett, and at that time there was the same solid ground for the prosecution that there is at the present day. There was the same terror among the upper classes. There had been the riots at Merthyr Tydvil, when seventy or eighty men who had struck for higher wages were shot. It must be remembered that Cobbett had already spent two years' hard labour in prison before that time. He thundered against these iniquities in the "Political Register," and directly a Whig Government came into power in 1831 he was prosecuted by the Liberal Attorney-General, just as the Liberal Attorney-General is now the prosecutor in this case. I should like to read the passage from the "Political Register" of 1831, which, I regret to say, is thoroughly applicable to the present circumstances:—
  "I may say for myself that I wrote and published under the party of Peel for twenty-one years and under six Attorneys-General called Tories; that I never heard of a prosecution all the while from any one of them; and that the Whigs had not been in power more than about twenty-one days before a deadly-meant prosecution of me was begun; and now, at the end of only six months, there have been more prosecutions against the Press than during the three years that the Duke of Wellington was in power."
  I may mention that Cobbett was tried, like Bowman, at the Old Bailey. He was acquitted. It is noticeable that from that

  77
  date to this—from 1831 to 1912—prosecutions of the Press of this nature have ceased. Erskine May is emphatic in his History that it was from the trial of Cobbett that the freedom of the Press really dates. This is what Erskine May says about it:—
  "However small a minority, however unpopular, irrational, eccentric, perverse, or unpatriotic in sentiment, however despised or pitied, it may speak out forcibly in the full confidence of toleration. The majority, conscious of right, and assured of its proper influence in the State, neither forces or resents opposition."
  That was the position until this year. Now we see a change. I can quote John Stuart Mill on the same question. He writes in "On Liberty":—
  "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would he no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
  These are the opinions of Liberalism today, just as they were the opinions of Liberalism in the time of John Stuart Mill. I come to the consideration of this "Open Letter," which has been the cause of these prosecutions. I do not want to read the whole of that letter to the House, but this is the material passage:—
  "When we go on strike to better our lot, which is the lot also of your fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters, you are called upon by your officers to murder us. Don't do it. You know how it happens. Always has happened. We stand out as long as we can. Then one of our (and your) irresponsible brothers, goaded by the sight and thought of his and his loved ones' misery and hunger, commits a crime on property. Immediately you are ordered to murder us, as you did at Mitchelstown, at Featherstone, at Belfast."
  That is the strongest paragraph in the whole of this letter. It is for printing that paragraph that these prosecutions have been undertaken. I do not want to tell the soldiers who have taken an oath that it is their duty under any circumstances to break that oath, but we all know that it is their duty to break that oath under certain circumstances. No man would be justified in shooting his father or his brother at the order of any of us. To show the spirit of the people who are writing these protests, who have been sent to prison, or who are being prosecuted, I am going to read to the House the defence of the man Crowsley. He was a common fireman, employed by the London and North-Western Railway Company, and an absolutely sober, honest, working man. I have met him since, and I know him very well. He is getting about 33s. per week wages. At his own expense he takes this "Open Letter" and has 3,000 copies of it made, paying 15s. for the privilege. He gets home at three o'clock on Sunday
  78
  morning, and goes by an early train to Aldershot and distributes these leaflets. This is his defence:—
  "I am not guilty of any crime. Had I been guilty, my conscience would tell me so. The law you say I have broken was made over one hundred years ago, when the middle and working classes had no voice in making the law. It was made by a class who live on the labour of another class. But if passed yesterday, I would still tell you that there is a higher law which says, 'Thou shalt not commit murder.' I have simply made an earnest appeal to the honour of soldiers not to shoot their brothers who are fighting for the right to live. If that is breaking your law, so much the worse for your unjust law. You say my action was undermining society. If society will not stand the attacks of truth, does not that prove the rottenness of your society, and the sooner a more just state exists the better? Your prison missionary called me a traitor for calling attention to the creed he preaches. You and he are entitled to your opinions, and I to mine. But you are traitors to your creed. You say with your mouth, 'Love one another.' In your heart you say, 'Shoot, and shoot straight!' Why are you prosecuting me for distributing leaflets which preach what Tolstoy preached all his life in Russia undisturbed. You may send me to prison, I shall not be the first or the last to go there unjustly. But you will have to sand many more before you can hope to suppress the truth. And you will stand condemned for ever before the eyes of all truth and freedom loving people. I know and believe every word on the leaflets to be true. Why are you so afraid of the truth?"
  Is that the sort of man you want to send to prison? Is that the sort of man that is worth the Government's breaking a tradition of sixty years in order to prosecute? God forbid that honest opinion should ever be made a crime.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): On a point of Order. Sir, I desire to raise the question, for guidance from you, as to how far we are entitled to discuss the merits or demerits of cases which are sub judice. The difficulty I shall be placed in is this, that if my hon. Friend refers to cases of this kind, which he knows are actually sub judice at present, and others, it places me in the position, if I reply to the case made against me, of having to deal with evidence which has not yet been sifted, and upon which I have had to act merely as primâ facie evidence. I have been careful always to state that that is the view of the case. I find it difficult to deal with the whole of the evidence relating to these matters whilst the cases are still pending trial. I thought the rule of the House was that we could not discuss the details of cases which were sub judice, and I submit we cannot go into them.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think the House has always set its face against discussing any question which is still sub judice. Up to the point the hon. Member has reached I understood those cases were disposed of.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: This case and the case actually quoted are sub judice.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Is it under appeal?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: No. As my hon. Friend knows, Crowsley is committed for trial.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I thought the hon. Member referred to six months' hard labour. I think the hon. Member will see that in the interests of that particular individual and any others whose cases are coming on, it would be most undesirable to refer to it except just incidentally. Of course, what he says on one side may be contradicted on the other, and it would be very undesirable that observations should be made with reference to a case which is still going on. As to any cases which have been concluded, and which have not been appealed against, of course the hon. Member would be entitled to make any comments which he thinks right.
  Mr WEDGWOOD: I certainly accept that. The case of Crowsley is a little peculiar because he offers no defence except one which is of no value in a Court of Law. It is not really a new thing in this country for people to be urged not to shoot under certain circumstances when they are in the Army. In the American War of 1780 it was quite a common thing for officers to resign their commissions sooner than go out to the United States and shoot their brothers there, and at the present date we have the case of the hon. Member (Mr. Hamersley) saying that under no circumstances would he allow his son to go and shoot down Unionists in Ireland—a very proper position to take up. May I say, in the absence of the hon. Member (Mr. MacCallum Scott), that he gave me this case to speak about, and gave me the extracts from the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Hamersley). I do not think it is necessary to say more about it than that those of us who are against these prosecutions would be equally against any prosecution of the hon. Member (Mr. Hamersley) or anyone else who said anything of a similar nature. I will not refer to the prosecution of Mr. Tom Mann except to say that there was no question of the soldiers coming in at all. The soldiers were not at the meeting. There you have a case of interference with simple freedom of speech alone, and no direct incitement to anyone. After the outburst of public opinion all over the country among the working classes over that case, I think hon. Members can begin dimly to imagine what is going to happen
  80
  if this series of prosecutions goes on. Already the working classes have a very shrewd suspicion of the judiciary of this, country. They do not think they are getting fair play. Are all these cases which, are coming before us likely to increase the respect of the working class for the judicial bench? We have the extraordinary ex parte statement of the Recorder the other day in the charge to the jury. I was very glad that he made that charge to the grand jury, because it merely expressed in words what we know all the people who have to try these cases are feeling. However judicial and impartial they may be, they are all human beings like ourselves, and they all, naturally, take either one view or the other in politics. I consider it quite natural that Sir Forrest Fulton should think in that way and should speak in that way, but I am quite certain that the people who read that speech and who see the extraordinary severe sentences which were given will put two and two together and recognise that the working classes have no chance under existing circumstances of getting justice if they give expression to Syndicalist views.
  I come now to the present state of affairs and the difficulty in which the Attorney-General has put the Government. They have proceeded against the Syndicalists and against Mr. Tom Mann, well-known politicians, but people who have no personal friends in this House. Are they going to proceed against people who have personal friends n this House as well? I asked a question to-day about the "Labour Leader." The "Labour Leader" is not indeed the organ of the Labour party, but it is intimately associated with the Labour party, and the chairman of that party, Mr. W. C. Anderson, is, I think, chairman of directors of the "Labour Leader," and Crowsley is also one of the directors. They have no editor at present. The "Labour Leader" came out on 22nd March with this in its leading article on the front page:—
  "Before the present prosecutions were instituted, we urged the soldiers to refuse to shoot their kinsmen who are battling against poverty if they were ordered to do so, and we repeat that advice now."
  You know what that moans. The "Labour Leader" intends either to share the fate of the "Syndicalist" or to show that the Government is partial in the selection of those people who are to be prosecuted. The "Labour Leader" is not by any means the only paper that is putting in paragraphs like that. Are they all

  81
  going to be prosecuted? Is every man who sells one of Tolstoy's penny pamphlets, and the Free Age Press who are the publishers, to be prosecuted by the Government for making use of paragraphs exactly like that? Really, it was madness that the Government should start on this scheme of prosecution. Almost more unpleasant to deal with than the case of the "Labour Leader" is the case of hon. Members opposite who sit for Irish constituencies. I have neither the time nor the taste to scavenge in the old speeches of hon. Members opposite. I do not know whether they have ever specifically made speeches urging that soldiers should not shoot upon the men of the North of Ireland, but hon. Members opposite may be quite certain that the Incitement to Mutiny Act of 1797 was not the only Act passed in those years of Tory re-action. There were the Treasonable Practices Act, and the Seditious Meetings Act. Is the Government going to confine its attentions to the Syndicalists and the Labour parties, and let off the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson), Privy Councillor, ex-Law Officer? Let me read an extract from a speech by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Moore). In September, 1911, he said:—
  "You need not be a bit afraid of being prosecuted for sedition or rebellion. Let the Government try to lay a finger on any man for asserting the principles of freedom in civil and religious matters, and they would light a fire in Protestant Ulster which would never be put out."
  I should be the last man to suggest for a moment that it would be an advantage to the State to prosecute the hon. and learned Gentleman for making a seditious statement.
  Mr. MALCOLM: In what part of that statement was the sedition?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: "Let the Government try to lay a finger on any man for asserting the principles of freedom, and they would light a fire in Protestant Ulster which would never be put out." "You need not be a bit afraid of being prosecuted for sedition or rebellion."
  Captain CRAIG: So far as we are concerned we repeat, the statement in this House and take all responsibility.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I was quite certain the hon. and gallant Gentleman would. He would repeat it outside too, with perfect safety, I believe; but whether it would be perfectly safe a month or two hence, when we have had a few more of
  82
  these prosecutions, and when, public opinion is beginning to be a little afraid of hon. Members opposite, as they are really afraid of the Syndicalists now, I am not quite so certain.
  Captain CRAIG: We are quite prepared to take all risks. We are not going to funk it in any way.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: We know the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Let me now give a quotation from the Rev. Wm. Wright—I do not know who he is, but it seems to me that he likewise incurs risks for the free expression of his opinion. He said at Newtownards, county Down, on 10th November:—
  "In a very short time they would have taught their young men to resist Home Rule and also to handle arms. He thought there was no hope for them except the hope of using arms."
  I do not think for a moment he has not a perfect right to say that, just as much as Mr. Tom Mann had a perfect right to make his speech, just as much as the "Syndicalist" has a perfect right to publish the open letter. It would be very difficult for the Attorney-General to be able to distinguish between the Rev. William Wright and Mr. Tom Mann.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is it right that Mr. Tom Mann's name should be brought in? He is under trial.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: The Noble Lord must really understand that Mr. Tom Mann and Frederick Crowsley are made of the same material as the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Craig). They are quite willing to stand the racket. They are out to fight for freedom just as much as the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. He has several times stated that Mr. Tom Mann was being prosecuted for a speech that he made. That is not a point in the prosecution at all. The only use that is made of the speech is that therein he stated emphatically that he was, according to our view, responsible for the publication of the "Syndicalist," and he made other statements of that character. The speech in itself, however violent, is not the subject of the prosecution.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I am very glad of the right hon. Gentleman's interruption. That means to say, I take it, that it is only printed words which are prosecutable, and that a man may say what he likes. It

  83
  seems to me that there are three courses open to the Government. They may stop where they are and leave the prosecution at the "Syndicalist," in which case they will incur, justly, the charge of partiality. It will be said of them that they are afraid to prosecute the "Labour Leader" on account of the Labour vote, and that they are afraid to prosecute hon. Member's opposite because of arousing the fury of Ulster. These accusations will be made and will have, at least in the public mind, something of the savour of truth about them. Or else the other course open to the Government is to prosecute in every case, to proceed against every newspaper, and to see that they all get six months' and nine months' hard labour, and in order to carry out their policy to the logical conclusion, they should include speeches as well as publications in newspapers. Or else the other course open to them—the course which I think they ought to adopt—is to amnesty the prisoners, Messrs. Bowman and Buck, and to cease prosecuting Tom Mann. Let them fairly recognise that they have made a mistake. Let them fairly recognise that on no principle of English tradition ought these prosecutions ever to have taken place, that a man is still able in a free country to express freely his opinions, however detrimental they may be considered to be by the vast majority of mankind. Let them recognise the position, and cease these prosecutions. Let them amnesty the prisoners, and then at last we shall have put an end to all those prosecutions of the Press and all this interference with the liberty of Englishmen, which we have fought for in past generations and which we pride ourselves upon still. Class feeling is strong enough in this country. You may embitter it. There is no sign of the bitterness wearing down. Are you going to embitter it by having the working classes smarting under an obvious injustice? Put that matter right, and start afresh with the clean slate which you are so often talking about. I plead with the Government, not in the interests of these men—they do not ask mercy, and they do not want mercy—I plead with the Government in the interests of Liberal tradition and in the interests of the traditions of our country, of which we all, on whichever side of the House we sit, are justly and rightly proud.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I wish to second the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend.
  84
  The subject that we are discussing is one which has excited a certain amount of levity among hon. Members, and I beg to assure them that it is a very serious one—serious in view of the general unrest there is in the country. I suppose that every hon. and right hon. Member will agree that at this moment there is more unrest among the working classes than at any period within the knowledge of any of us. It is at this moment that the Attorney-General, acting, I suppose, quite within the law, has thought fit to single out a quite obscure little journal which had a circulation that did not come up to hundreds, even if it went to that, and to take these men and put them on their trial practically for sedition. I would like to say with regard to both sides of this House, if I may do so without offence, that I do not think hon. Members on either side come into court with very clean hands from the point of view of law-breaking and advising the breaking of the law. A good many hon. Members on this side, when the Conservative Government passed the Education Act, went into the country and quite as deliberately incited their friends in the Passive Resistance League to break the law so far as that Act was concerned, and they were not prosecuted for so doing. I am not standing here to say anything in judgment upon them. If they believed in what they were doing, I think they were entitled to do it, but they must remember that in Ulster hon. Gentlemen opposite are doing something which, though not applicable at this moment, is going in their judgment to apply after a few months' time. They are organising the importation of arms, and they are raising a tremendous amount of money, running into hundreds of thousands of pounds, for the purpose of arming men. [Indications of dissent.] Well, they are either telling lies in the Press or it is true. You are doing that for the purpose of meeting certain emergencies in regard to Home. Rule. I contend that no one here belonging to either party can say that it is a very wrong thing when people feel strongly for them to give expression to their views, even if those views happen to be opposed to the law. If you are going to claim the right to rebel against Home Rule, then those people who are starving can appeal to their fellow men—men sprung from the same class—not to use arms against them and shoot them down.
  I think the House and the Attorney-General will admit that in the case of the

  85
  "Syndicalist" what was done was not to meet a condition of things taking place, but to meet something that might take place. The men who wrote the "Syndicalist" letter are in exactly the same position as the hon. Member from Ulster. There might have been some justification—which I do not admit—if the troops were being used, or if there was a likelihood of their being used, but everyone knows that there has not been any likelihood during this strike of soldiers being used in this way, and therefore the case is on all fours with the Ulster case, and our case against the Government, or rather the Attorney-General, is that he has allowed men in the high position of Privy Councillors in the State to advocate rebellion under certain conditions and has not prosecuted a single man, and that then he comes out and lays hold of men like those connected with the "Syndicalist." We are told we should respect the law. I want to respect the law, but I cannot respect the law when it is administered like that. I cannot respect the law which discriminates between Privy Councillors and men who have to earn their daily bread. If you were right in prosecuting Bowman and the Bucks, you ought also to prosecute the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) and his colleagues behind him. Not having done that, I wish to ask Liberals in this House to retain some of the sort of regard for the rights of the individual they used to express when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) was Chief Secretary for Ireland. Over and over again I have sat upstairs and heard him denounced for doing things in Ireland similar to those which you are doing at this moment in England. What was always the answer by Mr. Gladstone and Sir William Harcourt? It was that it was the most futile thing to put down the expression of opinion as to the condition of Ireland, and that the right thing to do was to find out why people said these things and to get rid of the causes, and when they committed out-reges it was stated that the right thing to do was to find out what led up to the outrages. That is what should have been done in regard to the Syndicalists.
  An hon. Member interjected the remark that we who sit over here are traitors. I want to say to all Liberal Members I do not know what you mean by patriotism or being a traitor. [An HON. MEMBER: "You
  86
  are not English."] I am English, or British at all events. I am a bit of Welsh; but that is not the point. The point is that we are all citizens of this country, and so far as I am concerned there is no country in the world I love like England. Whenever I go abroad and come back, I am very glad indeed to feel that I am again at Newhaven or some other port. I say that I yield to no hon. Member opposite in love of my native country, and if you mean that I am a traitor because I protest against the perpetuation of the condition of things now prevailing, I say, just now, then I am a traitor. I am in positive rebellion against the condition of things under which our people are living. What is going to happen if this conference fails? The "Observer," which I believe is edited by an ex-Fenian, told us yesterday that strong measures are going to be invoked, and we were told by other Tory journals this morning—I hope the Liberals like them—that the Government are going to use the forces of the Crown, and, generally speaking, they are going to be marched about the country for the purpose of over-aweing the miners. I am going to do everything I can to make the miners realise that they have a right to sell their labour on their own terms, without being dictated to by Governments, and if any Government think they are going to put down unrest and crush out this spirit of unrest by taking hold of a tiny little journal like the "Syndicalist" they are making the biggest mistake that any Government has ever made in our time. What are we asking? That unarmed people should not be attacked by armed people. That is what you are all shouting about at question time. You protest that the Army should be used against these people. Is there any man here, any single hon. Gentleman opposite, who would attack with a revolver an unarmed man under any cireumstanses—a man who was not attacking him at all? What is going to happen, that you are supposed to be obliged to use the Army? Well, perhaps a house is burned down or a factory is burned down. I am one of those to whom property does not matter, but to whom human life does matter. Yes, I say here in this House that in my opinion a human being is worth all the property I know of. You can rebuild a factory, and you can re-make a machine, but you cannot bring back a human life under any circumstances, and without any reservation whatsoever? I associate myself with those men when they

  87
  appeal to the troops not to fire on unarmed people, and I say if men be called upon to fire at unarmed people it is a most cowardly and wicked thing. It may be asked what are you to do? I was in Colchester the other day, and I was speaking to some men in the Army—I do not mean publicly, we were walking about—who came from the colliery districts of this country, and they were in mortal terror that they might be sent down to places where their own fathers, brothers, or cousins might be residing, and that the officers might call upon them to fire upon their own relations. It is against human nature to ask men to do anything of the kind, and if I were the only man here I should protest against anything of the kind being done. Hon. Gentleman will say what are we to do if we are in a riot? I have been in a great many disturbances, and I have read the whole of the Debate connected with Mitchelstown. Every argument the Attorney-General can use to-day the right hon. Member for the City of London used then, and he was contradicted by the Liberal party out-and-out. I supported the Liberal party then, and I would like to do so now. The argument was that the crowd was too tumultuous and riotous, that they could not be kept in order, and that shots had to be fired. The whole strength of the Liberal party took the other side.
  It is perfectly well known as regards crowds that if you want to terrorise people you will use arms; if you want to prevent them carrying on their agitation you will use the military; but if you only want to put down a momentary disturbance you will confine yourself to the same kind of weapon which the people have in their hands. Here in London we have had a great number of disputes with great crowds of people, and those of us who have been round about in the disturbances outside this House have remarked how the police, no matter what the temper of the crowd, were able to keep them in order and keep them moving without any violence at all. The proper course to adopt is simply to allow the police to employ the ordinary means, and not to have them armed with weapons that will kill people, but just to get them out of the road for the time being. What is it these people are fighting for? Exactly the same thing that the Irish people fought for at Mitchelstown and other places—for the right to live. Why is it that you are not on their
  88
  side as you were on the side of the Irish, people when they were struggling? It is because you have not got enough people who are yet interested in it. When we have, then I venture to say that the same kind of change of opinion will take place that took place over that. The workmen who are out on strike are out to get more of what they earn each week. The plan of campaign in Ireland was to enable the tenants to get more of what they earned each week. There is really no difference in principle about it at all. Let the House think of what this manifesto says. Some men commit an outrage. Then police or soldiers are let loose. Are you realising at this moment the vast numbers of people who are not connected with this strike at all, the six or seven hundred thousand men and their women and chidren who are living on partial strike pay? And what is their condition? If we realised that, I think we might understand that they feel a little rebellious under these conditions. They are fighting for their very existence so that they may have what is a subsistence for their women and children. The Government tell us that they must preserve order. I deny their right altogether to bring armed troops against these people. I am an old anti-militarist; I used to come to this House to listen to the late John Bright. One thing I honour him for is the stand he took during an unpopular period against wars that took place which were popular. I honoured him for being the apostle of peace that he was for the most part of his life, and I learnt from him, and a good many more people in this House, the impression that war was a very bad thing. One man helped me to believe war wrong by writing about it in another nation, and I invite the Attorney-General to consider whether the publishers of the Biglow Papers should not be at once prosecuted. It might help the House to remember that James Russell Lowell, who was American Ambassador here, held these views which I hold, and that I am proud to be a follower of his. He was laughed at for a time, but later on we were proud to welcome him as one of the most distinguished ambassadors who ever came to St. James'. Here is what he says:—
  "Ez fer war, I call it murder,—
  There you hev it plain an' flat;
  I don't want to go no furder
  Than my Testyment fer that.
  God hez said so plump an' fairly
  It's ez long ez it is broad.
  An' you've gut to git up airly
  Ef you want to take in God.

  89
  "'Taint your eppylettes an' feathers
  Make the thing a grain more right;
  'Taint a-follerin' your bell-wethers
  Will excuse ye in His sight.
  Ef you take a sword an' dror it,
  An' go stick a feller thru,
  Guv'ment aint to answer fer it—
  God 'll send the bill to you.
  "Tell ye jest the eend I've come to
  Arter cipherin' plaguey smart,
  An' it makes a handy sum, tu,
  Any gump could larn by heart;
  Labourin' man an' labourin' woman
  Hev one glory an' one shame,
  Ev'ry thing thet's done inhuman
  Injers all on 'em the same."
  Those are the sentiments I stand by in this House. You call upon one set of the working classes to murder another set of the working classes, for the soldiers are drawn from the working classes, if you set out to shoot down their fathers and their mothers. You know perfectly well that you are calling upon them to murder their loved ones. It is nothing else. I am sure I am not here to say that I approve of that. I hope that British soldiers will have manliness and pluck enough to say, "We are ready to defend the country if need be against foreign invasion, but we are not ready to shoot down our brothers, our sisters, our wives, and our friends in defence of the capitalist, who are trying to starve us into submission." Remember that is what it all comes to. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] That is what you are counting on. The Noble Lord opposite the other night was quite cheerfully hoping that the Government would not interfere until the strike would reach its end in the ordinary way. The ordinary way means to starve them into submission, to break their spirit by starving them. I hope the British Tommies wherever they are—
  Earl WINTERTON: You are doing me an injustice. I never suggested that that was the way at all.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I accept the Noble Lord's contradiction, and take it back unreservedly. I understood him to say so. I interjected a remark, and Mr. Speaker pulled me up and told me that I ought to wait until I could speak, but I unreservedly withdraw the imputation. I hope that the British Tommies will have too much British spirit in them to allow themselves to be used in this great crisis against their own class, and, further, I hope that this House will compel the Attorney-General not to discriminate in this business, and will say to the Government, "If you are going to prosecute people for preaching rebellion, then everybody has got to be treated on equal terms." And I say,
  90
  further, I hope the next time, if people are put on their trial, that such a wicked judge as the Recorder for London will not be in charge of the trial. And of the things that one learns in public life, one of them is that the worst method of getting a good judge is to draw him from either side of this House. I hope to see the day—
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member desires to indulge in an attack on judges, he must do it in the ordinary way, by giving notice and putting a Motion on the Paper.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I will do that; but as the Recorder for London has been mentioned, as we discussed his charge to the grand jury, I only want to say, if I may say—I do not want to get out of order on this, because the thing is much too serious—that the Recorder for London did make a most iniquitous charge, and I think it is time that some method was adopted for appointing men to the Bench who do not hold such strong political biassed views.
  An HON. MEMBER: The Recorder was not a political appointment at all.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I know he is not a judge; I also know that he was appointed by the Corporation of London, but the Government has jurisdiction over all people. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I believe they have. I believe that the Government has to sanction an election by the Corporation. I only wish to say, in conclusion, do not let the House think that this is a small thing. If you knew the kind of letter-bags that some of us are getting on this subject, you would know that feeling is very strong indeed, and I want to join in asking the House at any rate to say that this sort of prosecution shall stop, and also to say that you will not lock-up, as many of the workmen believe, the best of their organisers outside on a technical offence, for something that is said, because you want to take him away from the men during this period of crisis. That, at any rate, is what the men are feeling, and they are giving expression to it outside. I hope that the Attorney-General will not go off the main point, but will tell the House why these other men who have preached rebellion in the future—and remember that this was only mutiny in the future—have not been prosecuted.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am very glad indeed that this opportunity has been taken of raising the questions referred to

  91
  by my hon. Friend who moved and the hon. Gentleman who seconded this Amendment, because I cannot help thinking that there is a vast amount of misunderstanding of the offence that is charged and of the reason for these prosecutions. I have certainly no wish to complain of the tone of the speeches made by either of my hon. Friends, both of whom I know are actuated by the highest motives, but there has been a complete delusion, so far as the arguments enabled me to understand, as to the point on which they think the prosecution rests. The hon. Gentleman who moved stated that this prosecution was an attack upon the liberty of the Press. None of these prosecutions touched in any way the liberty of the Press. It is a misapprehension to think that they have done that. If the statements of the "Syndicalist" or any other newspaper consisted merely of advocating that the soldiers should not be allowed to interfere in cases of industrial unrest there would certainly be no prosecution. I think I am justified in stating that this is the freest country in the world for the expression of political opinions. Political opinions are expressed sometimes very violently and very forcibly, sometimes going, it would seem, almost beyond the range of what should be allowed, and nevertheless prosecutions do not take place. I receive almost daily, and for some time I have been receiving, letters and complaints as to statements which are said to be seditious and speeches which are said to be very violent, upon which I am asked to sanction prosecutions? The view I have taken hitherto, and the view which I shall always take, is that in the expression of political opinions a man is entitled to the fullest freedom, and no prosecution should be instituted against him for the expression of any such opinion. But it is a totally different thing when it is not an expression of opinion you are dealing with, but an inducement which is held out, and intentionally held out, to seduce men from the duty which they have undertaken to perform.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: What was the inducement?
  7.0 P.M.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am going to point out what the inducement is. The attempt is to seduce men from their duty. That is the point upon which I rest. That is the reason for the prosecution, and, as I shall show the House, if the soldiers were induced to refuse to obey orders,
  92
  the result would be that they became amenable to the gravest penalty, because under the Army Act, passed by this House of Commons year by year, if the men wilfully refuse to obey the orders of their superior officers, even now I say they would be liable to the penalty of death, or other grave penalties after inquiry by a court martial. The whole effect of the article in the "Syndicalist" is to incite men to commit that very act of disobedience. It is not written in order to deal with the question of the use of military in industrial unrest, except to create among the men of the Army the determination that if called upon to shoot they should not shoot, but should refuse to obey, and thereupon incur these grave penalties. It is a very grave offence to incite soldiers to commit that act. It is for that offence I have taken these proceedings, or, to be quite accurate, I have authorised these proceedings, and I accept the whole responsibility.
  Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask the Attorney-General whether there was the same evidence in the Ilkeston case?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That is a different case. No one in this House will say that is a justifiable practice.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Is it not a fact that none of these appeals made to the soldiers deal with the case of men who may be rioting, but that the appeal to the men is not to shoot down peaceful citizens on strike.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not understand what my hon. Friend means. Does he mean that soldiers would be called out to shoot down peaceful citizens who are not rioting?
  Mr. O'GRADY: I do, unquestionably, after the statements made on the other side.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not think it can be suggested that a Government from either side of the House, or whatever side it might be, would order soldiers to fire upon peaceful men who are not rioting. That really is a case about which we need not trouble. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham asked me a question just now, but I hope he will forgive me if I do not reply in detail, now that the case is actually sub judice. My impression is, however, that the charge there is a different one, a graver one, even than this. It is not one which I think could be discussed

  93
  at the present moment, and I do not think anyone could form an opinion on it without the facts. The point on which I have been attacked is that I authorised these proceedings. I want the House to follow exactly what happened. My hon. Friend asked me whether I had consulted the Cabinet. I think that is not a question which he is entitled to put to me. But I must certainly state, as I have already stated and repeated to this House, that I alone, in the course of my official duty, am responsible for authorising these proceedings, and the full responsibility rests upon me. Let me just tell the House exactly what did happen. The article in the "Syndicalist," of which a portion has been read, is familiar, I have no doubt, to hon. Members. The effect of it is to say to the soldier that, at a time of riot, either to shoot or obey the orders of his officer, is to commit murder if he fires on rioters on strike.
  Mr. O'GRADY: No.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Surely it means nothing except that. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley quite admits.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Not rioting. There is not a word about rioting in this.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Then not to fire upon strikers. The only question that arises is whether the soldiers should fire when called upon. They are never called upon except for rioting, and I really do not think it is fair, either to the House or to the men outside to whom speeches may be addressed, to suggest that they will be called upon to fire upon men who are doing nothing wrong, who are merely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley said, asserting their right to strike and to cease work if they agree to do so. Of course they have that right, and no one has ever suggested that it should be restrained. If the case is to be put to the men outside, I do hope that it will be put honestly. I am sure that hon. Members of this House will put it quite fairly and honestly to the workmen who look unto them. It is so very easy to raise a storm of passion by telling men who are unfamiliar with our Parliamentary or judicial procedure, that what is intended is to call out the soldiers to shoot down men because they will not go to work. The man who states that, if he has any knowledge of politics, must be aware that he is stating that which he knows to be untrue. He is taking
  94
  upon himself the gravest responsibility, because he may be inducing the men to commit acts of violence in consequence of what they thought, and could only think, was the grossest act of injustice, and then when the time for the reckoning came these men would, of course, have to bear the penalty. It would be no use then asking them why they were misled. From the documents that come before me—I hope no one will understand that I accuse any Member of this House—I cannot help knowing that the statements made outside with reference to this matter are not only misleading, but wicked and dishonest. It has been stated by some, and I think thought by many, that these men have been prosecuted because they hold Syndicalist opinions. Really, again, that is quite untrue. I have seen a great many publications, or, at least, a number of Syndicalist opinions. There are some in this paper, there are some in others with which, perhaps, some of my hon. Friends are more familiar than I am. I have never thought of prosecuting any man for advocating Syndicalist opinions any more, of course, than for the most violent Socialist opinions. A man is entitled to his opinions. But that is not the point of this prosecution at all. I was going to say to the House what actually happened when I was interrupted. The "Syndicalist" newspaper was brought to my notice containing an open letter addressed to soldiers, which was calculated to do infinite mischief. Whilst I was considering that article a man called Crowsley, to whose case my hon. Friend referred, was arrested, not by my order nor on my authority. He was arrested by the military authorities at Aldershot, and he was arrested for doing the very thing which the article in the "Syndicalist" was bound to bring about—that is, he was arrested for distributing among the soldiers this very open letter the object and intention of which was to induce the soldiers to refuse to obey orders when called upon in time of riot. The military authorities arrested him, and the man was prosecuted. He is now committed for trial, and I cannot now say anything more about him, except—
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: The Public Prosecutor took it up.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The military authorities started the prosecution, and they asked if the Director of Public Prosecutions would assist in conducting the proceedings. I have no doubt many hon. Members are aware that often a case is

  95
  started by the police, and then later it is seen that it is difficult and complex and thereupon application is made to the Director of Public Prosecutions, whose duty it is to refer the matter to me for my directions as to whether or not he shall take up the case as Public Prosecutor for the purpose of conducting it and putting the matter properly before the authorities. The Crowsley case was put before me, and I took the view that the Director of Public Prosecutions should take it up on the application of the police, and conduct the proceedings. Thereupon I also took this view, that this man who had either printed, or had received—I do not really know—a number of leaflets—
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: You do not know?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not know, but my hon. Friend may be more familiar with the matter than I am, I can only say that this man apparently was led to believe when he saw the article in the "Syndicalist," that this was a proper appeal to the soldier, and he took this printed leaflet and he himself went about distributing this very thing that is put into his hand by the "Syndicalist." I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley, who has said, quite rightly, that we ought not to let great people escape when we prosecute little ones, does he think that if Crowsley was to be prosecuted for distributing these leaflets among soldiers, that those who printed and published its text in the "Syndicalist," and were responsible for its initial publication, should be allowed to go free?
  Mr. LANSBURY: I quite agree we should prosecute all for the same thing, including those hon. Members on the other side.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I will deal with the case of "other hon. Members" directly. Let us at least go step by step in the matter, so that the House may realise, as I am anxious it should realise, the true facts. When the question of prosecuting the "Syndicalist" arose, I determined that there should be a prosecution in order to stop men like Crowsley from getting themselves into difficulties, and being prosecuted for this very thing. I then had to consider against whom there was sufficient evidence. Although, I may say it now, I strongly suspected that there was a person of much greater prominence
  96
  directing this publication than either Bowman, the publisher, or the brothers Buck, the printers, yet I had no evidence to justify my starting a prosecution on the chance of being able to prove when the time came that this other person was responsible. Consequently, in the end, I had to prosecute the only persons against whom I had evidence. There was evidence against them because their names appeared on the paper itself, and therefore it was quite plain that they were the persons to whom we could bring home the responsibility. If papers in this country appeared without the name of the publisher or printer we would never be able to bring home responsibility to anybody. Consequently by law they were bound to put their name on the publication, and they are the persons who ultimately must be made responsible. Anybody knows that the printer takes responsibility when he puts his name to a publication. Consequently, in order to stop that kind of publication, I authorised this prosecution. When I had done that my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley interrogated me, and, if I may say so, quite properly and rightly, as to why I prosecuted the publishers and printers, and did not prosecute those who were somewhere behind (he did not disclose the names), and against whom I had no evidence. He said, "Why do you prosecute these men when there is somebody else who is at the head of it and against whom you ought to take proceedings?" My answer was that I had no evidence except against those three men, and consequently a prosecution was launched against them.
  Let the House follow now what happened. The prosecution against Crowsley and against Bowman and Buck Brothers had been reported in the newspapers, and many questions had been put to me in this House by many hon. Members and the matter had been discussed, to some extent as that is only possible, at question time, and after all that Mr. Tom Mann makes a speech. Of course I am not going to quote the speech or going into the details, as I do not think it would be right as the case is sub judice. I can only speak from the primâ facie, evidence put before me. It may be that he will be able to show that he did not make any such statement, but all I can do is to act on the evidence put before me. He made a speech in which he distinctly affirmed that he was responsible for the publication,

  97
  that the Government was prosecuting the small men because they did not dare prosecute him—either he or somebody else at the meeting said this—and why did they not prosecute the person who was really responsible, and then some voice cried out in the crowd at the meeting, "Oh, because the Government is frightened." It was upon the speech made at that meeting, that the evidence was obtained from which it was quite plain that Mr. Tom Mann, on the evidence before me, accepted the responsibility for the publication, and challenged the Government to prosecute him for it, and said that now they knew, or the effect of his words was that he had published it, why were they going on against Bowman and others and why was he not being prosecuted? I refrain from enlarging any further on the speech except to add that he said that he would continue to publish the "Syndicalist," and there and then at that meeting sold and distributed it. The House will remember that I stated I had instituted this prosecution with the object of impressing upon those who might be affected the gravity of the offence and the serious character of incitement to mutiny, so that we might induce them to stop publications of this character, although, of course, they are entitled to advocate Syndicalism as much as ever they please, and so that they should not attempt to incite soldiers to mutiny. That was the object. Some of my hon. Friends have said to me, "You put into force an obsolete Act of Parliament passed in the year 1797." My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) gave us a short history of what had happened with regard to that Act in earlier years. He might have continued it, and had he been so minded give us the history of it to the present day.
  Mr. WEDGWOODmade an observation which was inaudible.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think I might have assumed that the hon. Member was not aware of how the matter stands. Perhaps he will allow me to tell him how it stands. It is quite right to say that there has been no prosecution since 1804. There has been no prosecution because it is an extremely rare offence. There has been no such offence, and it has not been necessary to have recourse to the Statute. When the hon. Gentleman says this is an old Act of Parliament, let me tell him two facts which
  98
  will cause him to see that, although it is an old Act of Parliament, it is not obsolete. You will find this Act of Parliament in every modern text-book on criminal pleadings. In the book used by all practitioners, "Archibald's Criminal Practice," you will find, not only the Statute set out, but a copy of the indictment, the evidence which is necessary, and also the punishment which can be meted out. That punishment is so severe that the maximum is penal servitude for life. In 1837 there was an alteration made in the punishment. Thus we have got the Act referred to in the text-books, and the law always stated in regard to it. More important still is the fact that it is in the Army Regulations. In paragraph 461 of the King's Regulations with regard to the Army (1908) there is the provision that the notice shall be read once in every three months at the head of every unit, and that notice is a notice as to the existing law of the Incitement to Mutiny Act, 1797. It was quite a short paragraph, and it gives the effect of the Act in a few sentences:—
  "Under the existing law any person who shall maliciously and advisedly endeavour to seduce any person or persons serving in His Majesty's Forces by sea or land, from his or their duty and allegiance to His Majesty or to incite or stir up any such person or persona to commit any act of mutiny, or to make or endeavour to make any mutinous assembly or to commit any traitorous or mutinous practice whatsoever may, on being legally convicted of such offence, be sentenced to penal servitude to the term of the natural life of such person."
  I think at any rate it will be quite clear to my hon. Friend, although they may have thought this Act is obsolete, that it is very much in force, and actually in use every year. There is one other fact to which I must call the attention of the House, while I am not in the slightest degree attempting to divest myself of any shred of responsibility which rests upon me in this matter, yet I must tell it in order that the House may understand why the prosecution of Mr. Tom Mann was undertaken. I do so for this reason: I think it was the Member for Bow and Bromley who suggested that Mr. Mann had been singled out from the rest because he is prominent in the world of Syndicalism and had taken a leading part in labour unrest.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I said that that was the predominant feeling outside among the workmen.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am sorry to hear it. I hope my hon. Friend will at least

  99
  do the justice—I will not say to me, but to the Government—to point out what I am now going to state, and from which he will see that it was not at the instigation of the Government that Mr. Tom Mann was arrested. What took place was, after he had made those speeches in the north, the police authorities at Salford desired to arrest him and to prosecute him for having published the "Syndicalist" up north. An application was then made in the same way to the Director of Public Prosecutions for assistance in the prosecution. He then just in the same way as in the other cases to which I have referred applied to me for directions, as it was his duty to do. I, in the course of what is in my opinion a judicial duty as Attorney-General, decide whether or not the assistance of the Public Prosecutor should be afforded.
  Sir W. BYLES: Do I understand that the initiative in the arrest of Mr. Tom Mann was taken by the police at Salford—the first step?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Yes, certainly. The steps are perfectly plain and perfectly easily traceable. Of course, I had no control over the Salford police at all. What happened? The Salford police, having come to the conclusion when they got those speeches, that they would prosecute, then asked for the assistance of the Public Prosecutor, and it is when they ask for that assistance my jurisdiction steps in.
  Sir W. BYLES: Then the chief constable—
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The police authorities undoubtedly. I do not quite understand my hon. Friend's question.
  Sir W. BYLES: I am sorry to interrupt, but I represent this borough, and I want to know who in that borough set the wheels of the law going.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I really cannot tell who set them going in the first instance. All I can say is that the police authorities of Salford made an application, and I convinced myself of the existence of evidence before I authorised the Director of Public Prosecutions to intervene. I should just like the House to consider for a moment what the state of things is at that time. You have got these three comparatively small
  100
  men being prosecuted. You have Mr. Tom Mann stating openly at a meeting that he is responsible, that he will do it again, that he defies any Government to arrest him or take proceedings against him. I am not sure that he used those words, but certainly the effect of them was stated by persons at the meeting at which he was present. Will any hon. Member, however violent his views may be, and I am sure the Member for Bow and Bromley will not misunderstand me when I say that I will take him, because he has expressed very strong views and feels them honestly, I will ask him to put himself in my position for a moment as Attorney-General, and assume that he is then asked by the police authorities for authorisation to the Director of Public Prosecutions for assistance in the prosecution of Mr. Tom Mann and I want to know what would he do.
  Mr. W. THORNE: He would have different opinions if he was in your place.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Whatever political opinions he may hold ought not to influence him in the discharge of his duty. I am quite sure if my hon. Friend held my office he would be very reluctant, but I have no doubt he would take the course I was bound to take, and would give the assistance of the Director of Public Prosecutions, an official placed there for the purpose by Parliament in order to assist in these prosecutions. That is how it is that I, as Attorney-General, am in the slightest degree concerned with the prosecution. I do hope my hon. Friends who hear the facts when they speak outside the House, will take care to impress on those who hear them that this prosecution is not at the instigation of the Government, but that the person responsible for the authorisation is myself, and that what I have done is done simply in the ordinary course of my duty. May I just pass to two of the points raised by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. J. WARD: The most important point is the difference made.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme asked where are you to draw the line? I should have thought that that was clearly shown by this prosecution. You may have, and no doubt do have, words which are capable of being deemed to be seditious. I think I am justified in saying that it is not the policy of the law to

  101
  prosecute for these seditious utterances. They have to be serious—very serious indeed—before any step is taken. That is what has taken place again and again. It is certainly what has happened under my jurisdiction, and I have not the slightest doubt under that of the right hon. and learned Member opposite (Sir R. Finlay) when he was Attorney-General. You cannot help these questions arising. They come before the Attorney-General, and then he has to decide them. I can only say that my policy all along has been to refuse either to sanction prosecutions or to authorise assistance for prosecutions for seditious utterances, for violent expressions of opinion of either one kind or another. But I do think that here is the point at which I draw the line. I draw the line at inciting a number of men who have sworn allegiance and whose bounden duty it is to obey their superior officers, with the intention of seducing them from their loyalty. Do not let us make the mistake of thinking that this prosecution is in any way interfering either with the rights of strikers or with the question of whether soldiers should be called upon to interfere in strikes. That is not the point with which we are concerned at all. That is a real question of political opinion, upon which, no doubt, many different views may be expressed and strong views may be held; but it is not the subject-matter of this charge.
  I want the House to think for a moment what would happen. Supposing you have grave unrest, and during that time you have a number of men on strike. I am sure I shall have the approval of the whole House in saying that as a rule you do not find that it is among the strikers that violence takes place. It is not as a rule from them that outrage occurs. When there is unrest and there are large numbers of men in the streets, and disturbances occur, you always get, first of all, unfortunately, a number of the criminal class, who seize the opportunity to collect amongst a number of innocent persons. You get also a number of wastrels, who indulge in some kind of horse-play, and very often in something very much worse. But generally speaking, it is not the strikers at all who are the cause of the disturbance. You have riot and violence. You are unable to cope with it. You have not sufficient police force to quell the disturbance. What is to happen? What, in the
  102
  view of hon. Members who are saying that this letter ought to be published and ought to have its effect, is to happen under these circumstances? What can happen? [An HON. MEMBER: "Mitchelstown."] What is the only possible result? The only possible result is anarchy. I am entitled to ask my hon. Friends, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley, is that what they desire?
  Mr. LANSBURY: No.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Then, if that is not what he desires, I want to know what he means by saying that the soldiers are not to shoot if called upon to quell a disturbance or riot.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I mean exactly what I tried to convey to the House, and what the late Mr. Gladstone and the late Sir William Harcourt meant when they told the right hon. Gentleman that, instead of using the troops, he should remove the causes of the discontent.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: In that expression of opinion there is not a pin's difference between my hon. Friend and myself. In those opinions, of course, I entirely agree, but that is a totally different thing from that with which we are dealing. My hon. Friend will forgive my saying that it is not an answer to the question which I put to him. He is quite justified in saying that it is the answer he wishes to make, but it is really not an answer to the question. I am glad, and I am not surprised, to hear that he does not mean to create anarchy.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I am not an Anarchist.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. Member wrote recently to the "Daily News" a letter upon this subject, in which letter he expressed himself very strongly. Although his opinions were somewhat violently expressed, he is quite entitled to express them in that way, and no one will suggest that he ought to be prosecuted for expressing those opinions. Nor ought anyone else to be prosecuted for so doing. The mistake he makes is in thinking that for the expression of those opinions anybody is going to be, or has been, prosecuted. He completely misunderstands the object of the prosecution. Let me remind the House of the defence that was set up in regard to these men. It is not unimportant. The

  103
  defence set up at the Old Bailey recently was that there was no intention to seduce soldiers from their loyalty. I am quite entitled to ask the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, though I do not press for an answer, does he agree with that? The defence set up was, and I call the attention of the House to this, that it was mere argument to prevent the use of the military in times of industrial unrest. If that was all that this open letter to soldiers meant I should not have dreamed of authorising a prosecution for it, and no one would have been prosecuted.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Why put the printers through the mill?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I will deal with that presently, but let me, first of all, finish what I am saying on this point. I think the House ought to bear well in mind that the defence was that it was an argument, and that there was no intention to seduce soldiers from their loyalty or to tamper with the soldiers in any way. As I understand the argument of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley to-day—and this is perfectly relevant to the point—that is not his view at all. He would disagree with that.
  Mr. LANSBURY: If I had written the open letter, or was in any way responsible for writing it, I should not have employed a solicitor; I should have stood up and taken the responsibility for writing the letter, and stood by my view. But a lawyer was employed, and, like a lawyer, he had to get an excuse.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am perfectly certain that if my hon. Friend had done anything which brought him within the law—I am sure I hope he will not, and I do not think he will—he would assuredly have taken his stand like a man, and would have said that he intended what every word of that letter does mean, and no honest man can read it without being convinced that this meaning was intended. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Will Thorne) asks about the printers. I thought I had dealt with that, but I will go into it a little more fully, as I think it is worth while. The prosecution against them I have already explained. I agree that if the printers were really innocent of any intention to incite, and only printed the paper as a commercial venture, the matter requires consideration. As I stated to the House, my object was by proceeding
  104
  against those responsible and whom I could make responsible to bring clearly home to the minds of persons who might be in igorance of the law that they must commit this offence and that if they did, they would become liable to grave penalties.
  I authorised the prosecution, but certainly I think the case of the printers does require some consideration. I have not yet been able to get the shorthand notes of the proceedings. I have asked for them, and shall have them. The learned judge seems to have considered that there was a difference between the case of the publishers and of the printers, and to have been very much impressed—I really cannot help thinking that he must have been impressed—by the fact that the printers did not go into the witness box. If the printers had gone into the witness box and stated on oath that they knew nothing at all of the nature of the publication, that they merely got the order to print, that they printed the paper without taking any responsibility or without realising that they were publishing something which could be made the subject of a prosecution, in my view they would have had a complete defence for the prosecution. It was always open to the printer to say, "I did not know I was printing anything illegal; I did not know what was actually in the paper." That really was very much the view apparently that the learned judge took. I will not discuss any point of law. I have not looked into the question very carefully, but my impression is—I will not say more than that—that if they could have made that out, if they could have made out their complete innocence of any knowledge of the subject-matter, the mere fact of printing it would not have brought home guilt to them and they would have been acquitted. Whether it is a complete legal defence I have not carefully considered, but I cannot help thinking that if that had been the case presented to the jury, the jury would have seen their way to deal with it and the men would not have been sentenced as they were.
  But they did not go into the witness box; they took their stand upon the defence stated by their counsel. I do not wish to visit upon their heads too severely the fact that they did not go into the witness box. It may be, it is quite possible, that by going into the witness box they would have had to make some statement which they did not wish to make. All I desire to

  105
  do is to impress this upon the House. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already said to me that he intends to rely upon the advice which I may tender to him upon the case in determining whether any recommendation should be made by him for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. If the matter comes to him he will ask me to examine into the circumstances, and I can only assure the House that I shall carefully consider it. Upon the materials which come before me, and which were not actually before the learned judge, it may be possible to come to a more lenient view of the case and to deal with it in a different way. I am sure that every Member of the House will agree with that view. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "No"] Surely that is so. If these men are responsible in the proper sense of the word, and not merely technically responsible, of course they must take the result. But if they cannot be said to be completely innocent, if they have published with a knowledge that they were publishing something which was questionable, but yet were not taking any active part, and did not intend the result of their acts, I think different considerations should apply.
  A matter I have not yet dealt with is that which has been raised at various times, namely, the statements which have been made by Privy Councillors and others in reference to Ulster. Let me remind hon. Members, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley, who I will not say attacked me, but said that I should have interfered there as well as in this case, that so far as I am personally concerned, I have nothing whatever to do with Ireland. I am not Attorney-General for Ireland, and I have no jurisdiction there. But I am not going to ride off on that plea. He cannot bring home to us—for I am speaking not only for myself, but for the Government—that we were unmindful of this. I do not think the speakers always devoted careful thought to their utterances before they made them. I pointed out within twenty-four hours of the occurrence in a speech on the public platform that hon. Members and right hon. Members, or Noble Lords holding high position, took upon themselves the gravest responsibility when they chose to use inflammatory language in Ireland with reference to Ulster, and with reference to the meeting in Belfast. Whether or not the words were seditious is, of course, a different matter.
  Mr. C. CRAIG: I am going to ask the right hon. Gentleman a very simple question, and that is, what particular utterrances or statements does he refer to? In the case that we have been discussing we have been dealing with specific utterances. I submit we ought to have the specific utterances in this case.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am a little surprised, I must say, that the hon. Member should ask me what the particular utterrances were. I am not saying that the utterances were seditious. In order to say that I must have the exact words and their context before me. I am dealing with the inflammatory language used. Surely the hon. Member does not wish me to quote words for that? Does he dispute it?
  Mr. C. CRAIG: Yes, certainly.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: What does the right hon. Gentleman say were the seditious words—these seditious statements?
  Mr. P. O'BRIEN: They want to forget it.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I stated quite plainly that I would not express an opinion as to whether the words were seditious or not without seeing them and their context. I do say that inflammatory language was used, and that—I repeat it—I am surprised that any hon. Member who sits for any Ulster constituency should question what I have stated. I thought that Ulster gloried in it.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: We do not want to carry on sedition.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: However, I cannot help thinking that many of these wild utterances really were nothing else but bombast, and that in spite of the high authority or high authorities who chose to utter them, no one takes them too seriously. No one really imagines that behind lurks anything else but a desire to use strong language in a cause in which they feel very strongly.
  Mr. C. CRAIG: If these statements were so bombastic or nothing but bombast, why did the Government, of which he is such a distinguished ornament, think fit to send 5,000 troops to Belfast?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. Member's attention is directed to quite another aspect of the matter. He apparently is thinking only of the Belfast meeting. I thought that was a comparatively trivial affair.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these troops were brought to Belfast against the will of the promoters of the meeting, and if the promoters of the meeting had been allowed to deal with the opposition they would not have required troops.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I cannot help thinking that in this instance it was perhaps just as well to have had recourse to the military, for they served a very useful purpose. But I really was not thinking of what happened in connection with that affair. I was thinking of other utterances to which my attention had been called. I do not want to discuss this matter in any detail. I only referred to the question because the hon. Gentleman alluded to it. There were references, for example, to the formation of a provisional government, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Down, no doubt if he were in his place, would probably state that he quite agreed with what was said—
  Captain CRAIG: I have already said so. I have already stated in the House, when my right hon. and distinguished Friend was not present, that everything I have said outside I stick to. If we get the opportunity sought for by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast the Government and the right hon. Gentleman would see that there is no question of bluff about it.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The result of it all seems to be that, at any rate, some of these utterances still find favour with some hon. Members opposite. I do not wish to deal any further with that. All I do wish to emphasise is when grave complaints are made of the violent speeches or utterances of hon. Gentleman who sit below the Gangway or above the Gangway on this side, that a little more attention should be paid to certain speeches which have been made during the last twelve months, and also to express the hope that a little more responsibility had been felt by those who gave utterance to them. I have dealt with the whole of this matter, I am afraid at greater length than I intended, but I was very anxious that the House should really understand what the position is. I ask the House to realise that it is no pleasant part of my duty as Attorney-General to authorise the prosecution, either of these men or any other man in connection with these matters—but I do regard it as my duty. I regard it as
  108
  a trust imposed in me, to see that in these matters the law at least is respected. I can only say that I am entirely unrepentant for any part that I have taken in connection with this prosecution. What I have done I would do over again. If I did not act the part which I have acted I should be entirely unworthy of holding the distinguished position of Attorney-General in His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has given a very good justification for our action if we accept his statement. With all respect to him, though, and without meaning in any way anything offensive, he has been reasoning on a false basis. I would say at the outset that this issue is not to be taken as that of an isolated act. There is growing up in this country, and in other countries, a strong anti-military spirit. It has found its post positive expression in the ranks of the Socialist movement, but it exists to a considerable extent outside that movement. Men have gone to prison in France for advocating anti-militarism and calling upon the soldiers not to shoot. The same has happened in Germany. Now a beginning is being made in this country. I would like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman what I consider has been the false basis upon which he has been conducting his argument. He has asked us and my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley why he wishes to seduce soldiers from the duty they have undertaken to perform. I respectfully submit that firing upon an unarmed crowd is no part of the duty which soldiers have undertaken to perform. They are enlisted to defend the country. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman—he can correct me if I am wrong in this—"is not the responsibility of the soldier for quelling riots exactly the same, neither more nor less, than that of an ordinary civilian?" There is no more responsibility resting upon the soldier because of his profession than there is upon the civilian to suppress a riot. I make that the basis of my remarks. If it is wrong it can be challenged here and now. If what I say be so, then how can anyone be charged—
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. Member puts a question to me. The soldier has two duties: he has civil duty as a citizen to aid in suppressing riots, and he has a military duty, which is to obey the lawful orders of his superior officer.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The right hon. Gentleman has put the thing in better language than I was able to do without altering its meaning. The duty of the soldier to suppress a riot is the duty of the ordinary citizen, neither more nor less. I want that point clear. I want to emphasise that point. His duty to obey his officer does not free him from his liability to the law if by obeying his officer he commits an illegal act. If that be so, this attempt on the part of gentlemen who have been convicted or accused of seeking to seduce soldiers from their duty has no foundation. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when a soldier enlists, he is informed that part of his duty will be to shoot down his fellow workers during a strike? The Emperor of Germany was honest in this matter. He told his troops that their business was to shoot down whosover they were commanded to shoot down, even if it were their own brothers or their own father. A soldier enlisting In the British Army is not told, and has no means of knowing—
  Mr. CLAUDE LOWTHER: Surely not after the Riot Act has been read?
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Therefore it is simply obscuring the issue when we are told that we are seeking to seduce the soldier from his duty. Just one other point upon that head. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the soldier is never called upon to fire except in a riot. Surely that is to forget the most recent case, of which a good deal was made in this House, that is the Glenetley case, during the recent railway strike, when two men who were not participating in what happened, and when there was no riot in any legal sense of the word, were shot dead, and where the jury found that the order to fire ought not to have been given until other means had been tried for quelling the disturbance. Here is a case where the soldiers by firing killed two men, and where the jury subsequently found they ought not to have been shot at until the powers of the civil law for quelling the disturbance had been exhausted. Undoubtedly in giving advice to the soldiers not to shoot their brethren who are on strike, we are trying to save them from the commission of murder. It is always murder, sometimes justified and sometimes not.
  The point is, this leaflet did not ask the soldiers to refuse to fire in face of the
  110
  enemy—the duty for which they are enlisted; it did not suggest anything of that kind. What it did suggest was that if they were called out to perform strike duty, they should refuse to shoot. The right hon. Gentleman wants to know whether, in the event of strike riots or any other, and the civil authorities being overpowered, we would say anarchy should be allowed to prevail, and that nothing should be done. Certainly not. What we say is, the civil law is there to prosecute. After the disturbance at Tonypandy and Rhondda Valley the civil law was called in, and there are men lying in gaol tonight who were prosecuted months after the event, having been found guilty of taking part in these disturbances. I strongly regret the action of the Government for this reason among others. If this prosecution had stood as a solitary instance it might have been regarded as a mere incident and allowed to pass almost unchallenged, but anyone who knows anything of the history of the past is aware that having once entered upon this perilous course you are bound to proceed. It is a case of facilis descensus. First the man who distributed the leaflet was arrested, following him the manager of the paper was arrested, and following him the two young workmen who printed the paper were arrested, and now Mr. Tom Mann, chairman of the committee responsible for the paper, is arrested. Where is it going to stop? You only want to get beginning this kind of thing.
  The next step will find our working-class movement, which has hitherto been so free and clean and above board in all it has done, transformed into a semi-secret association with the police spy and agent-provocateur in our midst. Where is this thing going to end? Cannot the Attorney-General advise the Cabinet that because of the favourable experience of the past they are entering upon a wrong course, and that these proceedings should be stopped before more harm is done? The Attorney-General, with his great legal and historical knowledge, knows prosecution has never yet stopped a movement. It stimulates a movement. What has happened at this moment? One prominent Labour leader is in gaol, and from every part of the industrial field come resolutions of protest demanding a general strike until he is released, calling upon Labour Members to stop the proceedings of this House until something is done. That is what your prosecutions are leading you to.

  111
  Had this been allowed to pass not one single soldier would have been seduced from his duty. The mischief has been begun. Let us stop it as soon as can be. At any rate, let us know the reason why class distinction has been shown in these prosecutions. In January of this year a leaflet was distributed at a meeting in Armagh addressed by the right hon. Gentleman who sits on the Front Bench opposite as Member for the University of Dublin, and who is a Privy Councillor to boot. In that leaflet this language was used:—
  "If the British Government persists in placing us, loyal Protestants of Ulster, under the heel of Rome by forcing through Home Rule, we will consider ourselves absolutely justified in asking for assistance at the first opportunity from the greatest Protestant nation on earth, Germany, to come over and help us once again to break the power of Rome in Ireland, and thus maintain our civil and religious liberty."
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Who is responsible for that?
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: It is not signed. Our men have the courage of their convictions, and they sign their statements.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Was the leaflet circulated at Aldershot signed? I say it was not.
  Mr. LANSBURY: At any rate, the men are in prison for it.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Suppose it was not, that only strengthens the point I was going to make. The authorities found out who printed and circulated it, and they prosecuted them. Why was not similar action taken in this case? This is a bit stale, and I perhaps should not have referred to it but for something that came out of it. The "Catholic Herald," of Glasgow, reproduced this leaflet. With what result? With the result that a letter was received by its editor, Mr. D. J. Quinn, Glasgow, written—and I ask the attention of the Attorney-General to this because we may have more prosecutions—by a gentleman who signed himself Major A. Bingham Crabb. That gentleman who, according to that description, holds the King's Commission, or did hold it. What does he say about this invitation to the Germans to come over and save Ireland from the dominion of the Pope. He says:—
  "What is wrong with the leaflet? German martial law would give Ireland a better Government than it could expect under that pot-bellied papist John Redmond."
  112
  I apologise to my hon. and learned Friend for having to use that language, but possibly he has seen it before.
  "The only loyal party in Ireland are the Unionists—the remainder are traitors—and do not deserve to be governed by Redmond, and his gang of corner boys from Waterford, Tipperary and Limerick We shall fight them and lick them."
  Is this Gentleman who holds His Majesty's Commission, or has held it, being prosecuted? Surely as an example of sedition or disloyalty there never was a more flagrant case than this leaflet, and the advice contained in it. That is our case. We say first of all that the issue of this leaflet, for which our men are being prosecuted, and the advice it contains was drawn and derived directly from the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. Every day we open the proceedings of this House with prayer. We repeat the Lord's Prayer, and we profess ourselves disciples and followers of Him who said, "thou shalt not kill"—there is no exemption for soldiers—and to-night we are discussing the prosecution of men for no other offence whatever than that they have gone to the soldiers and said, "Comrades, when your brothers are fighting for better conditions—conditions for you yourselves when you return to work—do not shoot them down, even if your officers command you to do so. Take the consequences of refusal to shoot them down, but do not murder your brother and your comrade who is fighting your cause as well as his own." I ask the Attorney-General and the Government to be guided by the past as to the danger of the path they have entered upon. If I was speaking at this moment in the interests of our own party I would say, "Go on, the further you go, and the faster your pace, the better for us. Every prosecution is worth tens of thousands of votes to us at the elections." I do not want to see violence and reaction reintroduced into the working-class movement. We have kept it free from that. If the Government will allow us we are prepared to keep it free from it still. We shall take the responsibility for carrying out our strikes peaceably without interference from without, and we ask the Government to pause ere it be too late, because once the fires of revolt are let loose in this country, there is no saying where they may end or what the results may be.
  And, it being a Quarter-past Eight, and Private Business having been set down by

  113
  direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL [By Order].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. WARDLE: I am asking the House to-night to divide against the Second Reading of this Bill on the ground that the company which is putting forward this measure has shown itself scarcely fit to be entrusted with the power which this Bill would confer upon it. They come here and they ask Parliament to confer powers upon them to run a great industral concern, and yet they have not shown, and they are not showing, that consideration for their employés which I think Parliament has a right to ask for. In this particular instance the Glasgow employé is rather different to that which we are used to speaking about on these benches. I am now dealing with the case of the clerks and the station-masters employed by the Great Eastern Railway Company. I should like to point out to this House that our objection to the action of the company is based on the facts disclosed in the documents which have been sent to the various Members of this House, not only the clerks, but by the company, which say they are denying to their clerks what ought to be in these days one of the elementary rights which those clerks ought to possess. May I say at the outset that with regard to the other portions of the staff of this company, by various agitations and through the interference of Parliament, a method is provided by which there can be a combined movement of the rest of the staff. They can bring a united case before the Conciliation Boards which have to consider their case and deal with it en masse for the general body of the staff.
  In this particular instance there is no such thing as a Conciliation Board for the clerks, and therefore they ask that they should be permitted to present this company a united memorial for the improvement of their status and for an increase in their salary. Consequently they have
  114
  asked that a deputation should be received, and that it should be allowed to put the case of the whole body of the clerks, and that the united movement should be allowed. We are told by the company that such a course as that cannot possibly be permitted to this respectable body of their servants, and that it is impossible to allow clerks and stationmasters to ask unitedly and in a combined movement for better conditions of service, and that they must make their application individually or in small sections. Therefore, I venture to say that while this attitude is taken up by a great railway company, and by them alone, this House ought not to confer upon that company any further powers. This memorial, about which all the trouble has arisen, was signed by 1,717 of the company's staff, including fifty-four stationmasters. The secretary to the movement is an employé of the company. So far as the movement itself is concerned, it has been conducted by the staff of the company. I do not deny, and I should be foolish to deny, that they have not received assistance from others, outside. I should be very foolish to deny that part of the movement has been inspired, if that is thought to be wrong by other people, but that does not alter the fact and the rights of these people. It does not alter the fact that they have gone in a perfectly constitutional and straightforward way to the company and asked for this memorial to be received and for this deputation to be heard.
  In these days, if a company desires to have friendly relations with their staff, and that their staff should be treated properly, it is time they gave up these old-fashioned, antiquated notions that the clerks are somewhat different from the other portion of the staff, and have no rights which are common to the rest of the staff. Benevolent despotism may be all very well, but it ought not to be the attitude which a great railway company ought to take towards its staff. We are told that there is growing in this country at the present time a great deal of industrial and labour unrest, and some people say even a great growth of Syndicalism. If this company wish to promote Syndicalism and industrial unrest, this Bill is the way to go about it; but if they want peace and good relations with their staff, then they should allow that staff to have the ordinary rights which are conceded to

  115
  all other bodies of workers. I am right in saying that the Great Eastern Railway Company in these matters are a law unto themselves. They have some very peculiar notions. Other companies have permitted and have allowed, if that is the proper language to use in this connection, a combined movement on the part of their railway staff, they have received memorials, and they have accepted deputations; nay, more, they have had interviews, which have resulted in great improvements in the position of their staff without any of this trouble at all.
  I would not stand up here to-night to speak against this Bill if it were not that it ignored a very vital point of principle so far as I am concerned and so far as the staff is concerned. I do not want to go through the whole history of these negotiations, because I do not think it is desirable. Hon. Members have already made themselves acquainted with the literature which has been issued on this subject, and it has been pretty voluminous, and they have had an opportunity of hearing and reading both sides of this case. It is upon the company's own statement that I take my ground this evening. If the statement which has been issued on behalf of the company is not in itself sufficient to convince this House that the company are adopting an autocratic attitude which is old fashioned and antiquated, then I do not know what is autocratic. They have put forward this statement. Some parts of it I do not propose to deal with, but they say they cannot receive from their clerical staff applications for a general improvement in salary, and that the staff must present those applications individually or in very small sections. I will quote in a moment the statement which was made by the Noble Lord before the Royal Commission, but before doing that I would like to draw attention to this fact. A more inoffensive individual could not probably be found in the whole of the company's system than the secretary of this movement, a person who has always, so far as I have been able to find out, done his duty to the company, and his only offence is that he has been the mouthpiece of his fellow clerks. He has been called before the general manager, severely censured, and, according to the company's own statement, practically intimidated for simply trying to get the rights which these clerks think they ought to possess.
  116
  The general manager, according to his own statement, says:—
  "I saw him and pointed out he was acting most improperly, and advised him to refrain from continuing a course subservient of all proper discipline, which, if persisted in, would be detrimental to his own interests."
  Surely in these days it cannot be said when a clerk simply tries to act as the secretary of a movement and asks for an interview and puts forward a memorial that any question of discipline arises. It is positively absurd to say so, and I venture to say on the company's own statement they ought to be condemned. The ground upon which the refusal to receive the memorial is given is a document issued in 1900 which was put in by the Noble Lord the hon. Member for Kensington (Lord Claud Hamilton), before the Royal Commission. The clerks say, and I think they are perfectly right, that this document has absolutely nothing whatever to do with their case. It has no connection with clerks. It was never conveyed to them as having anything to do with the question under consideration. These are the particular words which are supposed to have something to do with it:—
  "In the course of the interviews—"
  These interviews were with the outdoor staff, and with people who had been for a long time agitating for improved conditions.
  "In the course of the interviews the directors had with the various deputations from the men they had brought under their notice, several cases in which in some instances individuals and in others small sections of the men complained of alleged minor grievances in the departments to which they belonged. Nearly all these cases had reference to matters capable of being dealt with by the head of each department, and were not of a character to be brought in a first instance before the Board."
  That is not the case in this instance at all. This memorial does not affect individuals as individuals, and it does not apply to small sections of the men. They are not minor grievances nor such as could be settled by the heads of the departments. If there is to be a general increase and general improvement in the condition of the clerks on the Great Eastern Railway, it must be put before the general manager and the directors before it could take place. Therefore, there would possibly be no means whatever by which a general improvement could take place if the company were to insist that every individual and every small section of men should make application to the head of the department. That, in brief, is the position of these clerks, and the ground upon which I am going to ask the House

  117
  to divide against this Bill. There have been other matters introduced, and I should like to point out that notwithstanding what has been, said about the alleged improvement in 1911 these clerks to-day receive less on the average than the clerks of any other railway company running into London. The revised scale of salaries put forward in January, 1911, was scandalously low. It was admitted to be low at the time it was given, and it was admitted that for a long time these clerks had been under-paid. I do not want to go into the question of comparative salaries, though I could do so if necessary, because I think that is a matter for the deputation and for the Board; but I think the Board ought to receive these men and hear what they have to say. The Noble Lord and his company have issued a statement that they made a general improvement in January, 1911. Will he believe that general improvement was denied in many individual instances to men who were entitled to it. Only this very last week men have been paid back money as much as £20 in one case, if not more, because they were not even getting the rights conceded to them in January last year. That shows if it had not been for this movement and for this Motion down to-night the probability is many of these clerks would never have received their back money, and that attention paid to their grievances which they had a right to expect, and which they had put forward time after time individually in that very manner the Noble Lord asks them to do. That is the general case with regard to the clerks' salaries. I venture to appeal to this House not to allow this Bill to be read a second time until the company are willing to receive the depution to which I have referred.
  There is another point in regard to the Bill. I have put down an Instruction which I had hoped to move should the Bill be fortunate enough to get a Second Reading, dealing with the question of the superannuation fund of the company, but I am told there is some doubt whether it is in order, and I therefore take this opportunity of saying a word or two with regard to it. This railway company has a superannuation fund, and it is, like the rest of the dealings of the company, autocratically managed. The men who have to pay have no say in its management and are not allowed to elect any of the men on the committee. That is not the case with the other railway companies, excepting the Great Northern Railway, of which the hon.
  118
  Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) is one of the directors. In this particular case the question of the superannuation fund was referred to a Departmental Committee two years ago. I sat upon that Committee, and there was a railway manager also upon it, and it unanimously reported that these men ought to have the opportunity of having a say in the management of this superannuation fund and of electing a certain number, only half, of the committee. There are other points I should like to touch upon. This fund has had a very varied history, and, according to all I can gather, although it is guaranteed by the company, it is not in a very solvent condition. The company have persistently refused to act on the report of the committee which has sat on it and has urged that its actuarial valuation should be sufficient for five years. If my Instruction is in order, I shall move that this point be referred to the Committee. One other point I wish to touch upon. It has regard to the action of the company since this question came to the front. It is a very strange thing that not only have the company refused these men the right to present a memorial and to have deputations, but they have, since that refusal, interfered with the men who put it forward and have returned it. What has happened since? Fifty-four stationmasters who were signatories of the memorial have been reprimanded and told that it was a very grave breach of discipline. At Parkstone the staff have also had a system of espionage applied to them, and the secretary of one of the most promising branches of the Railway Clerks' Association has been removed to a very small station. This is but part of the whole story. The Noble Lord who will reply to me will probably say that they treat their clerks very well. But I submit that the clerks are entitled to better salaries and to better conditions of service than they are under at the present time, according to the scale of salaries which was put forward in January last year. It is a disgraceful state of things. The company may be poor. It may be suffering from financial embarrassment, but there are other companies which are in a much worse financial position, but which have nevertheless improved the salaries of their clerks. Unless the company are prepared to meet us in this matter I shall certainly divide against the Second Reading of the Bill as a protest against the manner in which they are treating these men.
  Mr. BOWERMAN: My hon. Friend has made a very clear and explicit statement on this matter which leaves very little for me to say. It appears to me that the men presented their request in a memorial which was drafted in terms of the most respectful character. But, after all, it is another phase of the old question, the question of the refusal of the managers to receive the representatives of the men. So far as we are concerned on these benches, it is the last thing we would do to stand in the way of powers being granted to the railway company with regard to a revision of regulations of this kind. I can only hope before this discussion terminates, and before a Division is challenged on this question, the House may obtain from the Noble Lord who represents this company, some guarantee that he and his co-directors are prepared to meet the representatives of the men.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for Stockport propose to move his Amendment?
  Mr. WARDLE: No, I propose to divide against the Bill.
  Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: It may be for the convenience of the House if I, for the moment, defer my observations with regard to the objections to the Bill, and deal in the first place with the remarks of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle) regarding what he called the clerks' grievances. I am sure no one will take any exception to the manner in which this question has been brought forward by the hon. Member for Stockport and by the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Bowerman), but I think I am entitled to say that the hon. Member for Stockport exaggerated his case and I would ask the House to be good enough to listen to my views. As the House is aware the Great Eastern Railway Company is not a strong company financially. It has striven manfully for many years to maintain its position as one of the great railways of the country, and I believe it has done so not without success. Two or three years ago it gradually emerged from the financial depression which had involved it, and began to find itself in a better position. During that period of financial depression I became painfully aware that the salaries of many of our clerks were not adequate to the services they performed. In these matters one must have regard to economic conditions, and I felt that so long as the company was in that position we could not
  120
  safely, having regard to its price in the market—which as the hon. Member must admit is a very important factor in dealing with railway matters—advance the salaries. But a year ago last November, finding that our position was better, I moved, without any solicitation whatever on the part of the clerks, and without any pressure whatever from outside, that we ought to reconsider their salaries and agree upon immediate advances. The numbers affected were as follows: We have 340 station masters, of whom 198 had their salaries raised in April last; we have 1,100 clerks in the coaching department, of whom 866 had their salaries raised on 1st January, 1911, while out of 1,100 goods' clerks, 985 had their salaries raised on 1st January, 1911, the total being 2,540, and out of that number, without any request on their part, 2,050 had their salaries raised some on 1st January, 1911, and others on 1st April, 1911. When these salaries were advanced no question of finality ever arose. The House will admit that there can be no finality in matters of this kind, but we felt we were doing something in justice to those men who had served us so well and loyally, and with whom we were on the very best of terms.
  What happened? We got letters of gratitude from those clerks in every part of our system. Where we did not get letters, they expressed their sense of what was done through the chiefs of their departments. Therefore we felt that for the moment—I will only say for the moment— we had endeavoured to do our duty towards these clerks. Towards the end of December last I was told that a large memorial was in course of progress for signature amongst our clerks for an increase of salary. I said at once that it was rather soon to agitate that question, since we had gratuitously, only a short time before, accorded them an advance. I said we must see what all this means. Finally, a memorial was delivered at the head office of the Great Eastern Railway Company, not from the clerks in the different departments, but a memorial en bloc, with all the departments mixed up hotchpotch, asking for different increases in salary. I myself carefully looked at the memorial, and saw at a glance that it had not been arranged! within the precincts of the company itself, and that it was entirely due to outside influences. What showed me this was—and it will be apparent to any hon. Member of the House, that there was not an allusion made in that memorial to the voluntary

  121
  increase the directors had granted in 1911. The board and I are on the best terms with the clerks and the men in our service. I have been on the best of terms with them for thirty-eight years, and during the long time that I have been a director of the Great Eastern Railway Company I have never had one word with a single clerk in the employ of the company. My relations have always been friendly, cordial, and co-operative with them in forwarding the interests of the company. I asked myself how it was that in the memorial no mention was made of the advance given in 1911. I came to the conclusion, and rightly, that the whole of this memorial was manufactured outside the company, pressed upon the clerks for signature, and had then been presented as emanating from the clerks themselves. We know what human nature is, and that when it is said there is money going everybody says, especially young men, "Why should not we have a share in it?" No doubt 1,700 clerks did sign that memorial, but I know for a fact that many of them had no idea that it meant any interference with the rule and discipline of the company.
  When the memorial was presented by a clerk of the Great Eastern Railway, acting under the influence of an outside trade union secretary, it was returned to him with the intimation that he had misunderstood the position, and that any such memorial to be received by the board of directors should come through the usual channels—namely, the heads of the departments to which the signatories belonged. For the information of the House, I may say that for forty years the system of the company has been that all such memorials should come through the heads of the departments. That has worked without friction and with the cordial co-operation of the staff, clerical and wage paid. Why do we consider it so important that that rule should be observed. I believe the system of the Great Eastern Railway Company is different from that of most other great companies. We have always had a great dislike to centralisation. We are a decentralised company. Each of the four great departments of the company— coaches, goods, locomotives, and engineering—are separate departments, absolutely independent of one another, and governed by an independent head. So independent is the head of each department that he is supreme within his
  122
  own department. No director has the right, not even the chairman, to make an appointment to any of these departments, or to promote, suspend or dismiss any man, or to have anything to do with the action of those departments, except with the express sanction of the head of that department. We have always had a very strong belief in that decentralisation, because I know that when you put responsibility on the shoulders of a man you bring out all his finest qualities. When you make a man responsible, as these heads are responsible to the board of the company, you know there will be a minimum of favouritism or of jobbery of any sort or kind, for the reason that, if anything goes wrong in any of these departments, the head of that department is immediately made responsible to the board for such failure, whatever it may be, within that department. That is a system which has worked well for forty years on the Great Eastern Railway, with the full approval of the staff and the members of each of these four departments; and what we feel is that when a memorial comes forward for improved conditions of service, for improvement of pay, or any other purpose, it should reach the board through the head of that department, who in his turn makes his remarks upon it, in favour or against, as the case may be, and sends it to the general manager, who presents it to me, and finally it comes before the board, who, if necessary, or if it is persisted in see the signatories to the memorial. In this case the clerk who presented the memorial was told it had been presented in an irregular manner and a manner contrary to the practice and rules of the company. Having been told that in writing by his superior officer, he returned it. The general manager told him he had nothing to add to his previous letter—that this was contrary to the rules of the company. He then sent it to me, the chairman. A short time ago we were involved in great trouble, not with our clerical staff, but with our wage-paid staff. The upshot of that was a Royal Commission, before which I gave evidence; and that Commission, which contained upon it a Labour representative and also a member of the Board of Trade who had formerly been identified with the Labour party, unanimously passed a resolution, which contained the following provision, among others:—
  "We think that, with great responsibility, the company cannot and should not be expected to permit any intervention between them and their men on subjects of discipline and management.
  9.0 P.M.

  123
  I hold that the rules which have been made by the company and have been observed by the members of the company come under the head of "Management and Discipline," and when a clerk, possibly inadvertently, transgresses the rules, and is told by the general manager that he is transgressing, and repeats the transgression on two subsequent occasions, he is certainly guilty of a breach of discipline. In ordinary commercial life, in institutions not responsible in any sense whatever to the House of Commons, such a man would be dismissed for breach of discipline. We take a broader view on the Great Eastern of these matters. I discussed the matter fully with this young man, who I believe is a good servant of the company, but had been misled by the outside influence to which he was subjected, and, therefore, no notice was taken of his transgression. But I cannot help thinking that every impartial Member of the House will feel that in this instance a breach of discipline has been committed, to which in ordinary cases the man would have to incur the consequences. All we said to the clerk was that, "If the Great Eastern Railway clerks are honestly and genuinely desirous of getting their salaries raised and their conditions of service improved, all they have to do is to follow the approved rules and practice of the company in force for forty years, and then we will give the most friendly consideration to anything they have to say." I repeat that here. All we ask is that they should follow the established rules of the company and approach us in the regular form which has always been in force. I cannot say more than that. The hon. Member suggested—he did not say so actually—that the Great Eastern Board are not only old-fashioned, but are somewhat autocratic in the manner in which they deal with the staff. If we had a secret ballot of the men—clerical and wage-paid—to decide between myself and the hon. Member (Mr. Wardle), I should come out triumphant at the top of the poll. When men are dissatisfied with their employers and the manner in which they are treated, there is no more favourable occasion for showing their disapproval of their masters than by using the opportunity afforded them when a strike occurs. A strike occurred in August last. The Great Eastern Railway employ, roughly speaking, 30,000 men, clerical and wage-paid. How many went
  124
  out? Thirteen hundred. How many went out on other lines with their termini in London running north? Numbers very much in excess of that. I do not think anything has shown a belief of the Great Eastern men in their board and in their chairman more than the fact that out of 30,000 only 1,300 went out. I do not say they all were satisfied. I wish we could afford to give many of them higher pay than we do. But they believe in their board and in their chairman, because they know that their chairman never makes, them a promise from which he goes back. That is the reason why they have faith in their chairman and in their board, though they may not be satisfied on all points. I ask hon. Members, having regard to the position they occupy in this House and the feeling of public duty which we should all entertain in regard to our position here, do they think they are really serving the public interest by adopting the course which they have taken to-night? I quite admit that certain Members in this House are returned for a special purpose, but underlying whatever may be our desires in entering this House, surely we all have a sense of public duty. Forty years ago the Great Eastern Company was a byword and a reproach to the railway companies of the United Kingdom. The first man who took that company in hand was the late Lord Salisbury, and he cleaned out the Augean stable. Then followed my predecessor, who took in hand the reorganisation of the company. Then came my humble self, and I think I may claim, although we are not perfect in all respects—we are very imperfect in many respects—that we now occupy the position of one of the great railway companies of the Kingdom, and that we are on the best of terms with the whole of our staff, except for these small eruptions which have now taken place. Our relations with the traders in our district are cordial and friendly, and as regards the Board of Trade, for the past five or six years there has never been a dispute between us. Do hon. Members think that by stopping momentarily the career of usefulness of an institution like that they are serving the public benefit? I fear they make a great mistake. We have proved ourselves capable of doing much for the district we serve, and we hope to do more; but we cannot afford to have a setback, even for a year, having regard to the injury which it will inflict upon those very districts on which we wish to confer a favour.

  125
  I will say one word about superannuation. There was a time when railway companies or commercial undertakings starting a superannuation fund for the benefit of their employées were considered as doing something which was very fine indeed, and for which they were always commended in the pubic Press and sometimes in this House itself. But things have rather changed now, and hon. Members who represent Labour view with a very jealous eye these superannuation and pension funds, particularly when they belong to railway companies, and more especially when they are eminently successful in their operations. The superannuation fund was founded in 1878, and it was put on the basis of the guarantee of the company in 1898, that is, twenty years later. That was during a period I have been chairman. Why did I get the board to put it on the basis of the guarantee of the company rather than the basis of the actuarial quinquennial investigation? For this reason: I found that the clerks who composed that superannuation fund, and who numbered about 4,000, as the quinquennial valuation approached, always had a feeling of unrest, anxiety, and apprehension in their minds as to what the result of that report might be. I talked to many of them on the subject, and they thought that they might possibly have to increase their subscriptions to the fund, or to agree to diminished benefits. I felt that this harassing operation on the minds of those who served us so well ought to be got rid of if possible. In consultation with men whose financial knowledge was very much greater than any I pretend to possess, the board devised a scheme by which the guarantee of the company was substituted for the quinquennial valuation by an actuary. I may say, in passing, that ordinary commercial institutions cannot have such a guarantee as this, because a commercial undertaking may at any time become bankrupt, or be broken up owing to the wishes of those who own it, or come to grief in any other way, and, therefore, the only way in which a fund can be safeguarded is by an actuarial investigation. There are only two classes of undertakings which can be entirely free from actuarial valuation, namely, the State and railway companies, because they cannot be wound up. The State must continue so long as civilisation lasts. Railways are in a somewhat similar position, for they cannot be wound up summarily, and, therefore, an actuarial
  126
  valuation can be dispensed with in the case of railway companies. But the guarantee must be absolute, otherwise we should not be justified in asking our employés to accept it. What is the guarantee? It is the guarantee of the working expenses. It is, a pre-debenture guarantee, and has behind it no less than £1,500,000, so that it is absolute. This substitution of the guarantee of the company for the actuarial valuation was made at the request of the members themselves, and when it was put before the whole body of the contributors to the fund the proposal was passed unanimously, not on one occasion only, but at a second meeting which had also to be held. Far from there being any desire on the part of the staff to get rid of the guarantee of the company, the whole staff are against any change from that guarantee to an actuarial investigation.
  Mr. WARDLE: I am not suggesting that.
  Lord C. HAMILTON: On Thursday last the annual meeting of the superannuation fund of the Great Eastern Railway took place. It was a crowded and enthusiastic meeting, but, having an engagement elsewhere, I was not able to be present. Not one word was said by a single member present, either as regards a change from the guarantee of the company to an actuarial valuation or as to the representation.
  Mr. WARDLE: I did not propose or suggest that the staff had made any representation in regard to that, but the committee of which I was a member made a representation that in the interests of the shareholders of the company it was advisable that a valuation should take place every five years.
  Lord C. HAMILTON: I think the shareholders can take care of themselves in a matter of this sort. I admit the hon. Member said that the representation upon this superannuation fund was somewhat inadequate, and I am ready to state on behalf of the company that the contributors should have wider representation. We are willing to accept it, and I think we will have to embody a proposal for that purpose in a future Bill. But as regards a change in the superannuation or pension fund from the guarantee of the company to an actuarial investigation, that is a matter to which in their interest I could never assent.

  127
  The Bill is an Omnibus Bill of considerable importance. It deals first of all with the widening of the line to three flourishing seacoast places—Felixstowe, Clacton, and Cromer, and it contains provisions with respect to large works at the town of Ipswich. Looking to the welfare of millions, as we must do, the main and most important part of the Bill is that which enables it to find money for the electrification of the East London Railway. I happen to be chairman of the East London Railway, and for three years I have devoted my time—and no easy task has it been—to endeavouring to get the six companies who lease that line to agree to its electrification, so that the resumption of the through services from New Cross, across the Thames, to other parts of the Metropolis may take place. It was not an easy matter to get these companies, whose interests might not be all in the same direction, to agree to this proposal, but I managed to do so in the course of last year. The Great Eastern Company propose by means of debenture stock to raise the necessary funds. What does the electrification of the line mean? It means the resumption of the arterial traffic from New Cross to every Metropolitan and Metropolitan District station, and by changing at Liverpool Street in June next to any portion of Central London. In that respect it will be of enormous value, not to smart society, but to the toiling millions who live on either side of the Thames and who have to seek work on either side. I ask hon. Members not to think of rejecting the Bill. Hon. Members opposite think, or profess to think, that my interests only lie in one direction. I work very hard sometimes for the toiling millions, and I have worked very hard for those who will be benefited by the through services of the East London Railway. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I do not think any Member on this side of the House would take any exception to the statement as presented by the Noble Lord. I admit frankly that he has stated the case from the standpoint of the company fairly, honestly, and dispassionately, but I also contend that the very statement of the case as presented by him is the strongest proof that we are justified this evening in the action that we are taking. I also admit frankly that it is unfortunate for any Member of this House to block a Bill
  128
  on a subject-matter foreign to that contained in the Bill. There is no Member on these benches that desires to take exception to any Clause in the Bill, but this Bill gives us an opportunity of asking this House to say whether the particular railway company, who already possess certain powers, have so used those powers that they are fit to be entrusted with wider powers in the future. I go further and say that on three different occasions last year when railway Bills were before this House, and when we from these benches asked the House to reject the Bills, and various representatives of the Board of Trade, with a view to giving the Bill a Second Reading, pleaded that the matters we complained of would eventually be adjusted, had the warnings we gave then been taken serious note of by the railway company, there would have been no strike in August last. Therefore we are justified, when this opportunity has presented itself, in asking the House to consider fairly and honestly whether the attitude that the Great Eastern Railway Company took up is an attitude that this House can itself recognise. The Noble Lord indicated clearly that his objection to this particular petition was not on the merits of the application of the men, because he admitted that the men to his personal knowledge, although they had served the company well, were not rewarded adequately.
  Lord C. HAMILTON: I said they were not rewarded adequately before the advance which took place in January, 1911.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: That carries with it the further supposition that they are rewarded adequately to-day.
  Lord C. HAMILTON: No, I do not say that.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: If the Noble Lord does not say that, then I come back to the original point, namely, that his one objection to receiving this petition was on the ground not that the men were not justified in asking for more, but because of the methods they employed in petitioning the company.
  Lord C. HAMILTON: Quite right.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: That being the case, the House will recognise at once that they are face to face with the problem as to whether in these days any body of workmen can enjoy the full benefits of combination. The real point that we have to consider now is, after the statement of the

  129
  Noble Lord, as to whether any section of workers in this country are to be denied the opportunity of combining together when the law of the land allows them that particular privilege. Therefore I hope that Members on both sides of the House, when they go into the Division Lobby, will recognise clearly that they are voting on this issue because the rights of combination are being denied to them by the Great Eastern Railway Company. The Noble Lord made the statement that in his opinion the Great Eastern Company had been lenient in their treatment of these men, because, as he says, they broke the rules and regulations of the company. As he put it, other companies were more harsh than the Great Eastern. They may have dismissed their men. Other companies may have dismissed 1,700 men.
  Lord C. HAMILTON: The hon. Member is quite in error. I was talking of the man who presented the memorial, who admitted a breach of discipline, and the manner in which he did it and persisted in his conduct. It has nothing whatever to do with the 1,700 men.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: It is perfectly true that the Noble Lord apportioned the responsibility to the one individual, but if the Noble Lord is as fair, as I believe he is fair in this matter, and as he is quite conscientious, he will recognise that the sin that he attributes to the one individual was a sin that the 1,700 committed by signing the petition. And if the Noble Lord does not accept that position—and he shakes his head—then it becomes more serious, because he admitted frankly that he is prepared to intimidate the one man who has the courage to present the memorial signed by 1,700 others subscribing their names to it. But I would put this point to the Noble Lord: why does he not apply that principle to other sections? He, like myself, gave evidence before the Royal Commission. His one objection to the attitude of the trade unions was that so far as his company were concerned the board room door was always open. He stated that the directors were ever ready and willing to receive a deputation from any section of the staff.
  Lord C. HAMILTON: Through the proper channel.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: What does that mean? The Noble Lord will know that at the same Commission that he referred to I produced evidence, and the original document, where the proper channel he is
  130
  now referring to meant that a Great Eastern inspector actually sent out a slip inviting petitions of the men to be sent to him as an official in order to be presented to the company to say that the men were so satisfied that they did not want any improvements.
  Lord C. HAMILTON: I know nothing about that.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: You followed into the witness-box after myself, and you know that I presented that document to the Royal Commission, and that that document was never controverted by you or any general manager.
  Lord C. HAMILTON: I knew nothing about it. I am sure if I had I should have controverted it, but I know nothing about it.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I venture to submit that the whole experience of dealing with the Great Eastern Company is that they have ever been, and are to-day, hostile to trade unionism.
  Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: Modern trade unionism.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Modern? Then I can only say that the definition of modern goes back to a long date, because eighteen, years ago the society that I represent paid a victimisation grant to someone whom the Noble Lord rightly deemed was a very, very old-fashioned trade unionist. But the hostility is not to the modern trade unionism, the hostility is against any and every form of combination, and I do respectfully submit that the day has gone by when any section of this House or any employers of labour should take their stand to-day and say that the workers should not have the power of combination. The Noble Lord, with every other Member, knows perfectly well that it is in this bargaining power that the workers have the only means by which they can improve their position. When the Noble Lord suggests that he took exception to this petition on these grounds I would ask him to remember that if he wants to encourage the very worst form of Syndicalism, if he wants to stamp out the evils which he pourtrays from time to time, he will not do it by simply giving a lever to people to say that certain employers of labour will not do justice to their employés. Therefore I ask the House to divide on this particular Bill, and I repeat what I originally stated, that the Noble Lord has put perfectly clearly that he is

  131
  against combination in any and every form. There is no other railway director sitting on either side of this House, representing any particular railway company, who adopts the same attitude as the Noble Lord.
  There are Members on both sides of the House representing large railway companies, and in every case when a similar petition has been presented the directors of those companies have never hesitated to meet the deputation and afford them an opportunity to state their case. The Noble Lord has said that he and his directors are on the very best terms with their staff. They have shown, as he says, their appreciation of the loyalty and services of the staff. Then I do suggest to him that if the only ground for rejecting these men's application was because of the poverty of the company, would it not have been much better, if the relationship was of that character, for the Noble Lord to have invited these men and state to them the position of the company, and then the loyalty of the men would have been tested by the way in which they received the Noble Lord's decision? But he did not do that. He did not absolutely refuse; therefore I say that we should divide on this Bill, not out of any hostility to any individual Member of the House, not because we want to delay legislation, not because we fail to realise our responsibilities as public men, but because we feel that the working classes of this country have by legislative enactment conferred upon them the power and right of combination. It is not in the twentieth century the duty of or a wise policy on the part of any railway company to deny that right, and I hope that Members on both sides of the House will show their opinion by joining us in the Division Lobby.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I ask the House to hear a word or two, not from the point of view of a railway director, because I am not a railway director, and not from the point of view of a trade unionist, because I am not a trade unionist, but from the point of view of the public in the Eastern counties, who are really, after all, the persons principally concerned in the matter in the Second Reading of this Bill. May I say that from my personal knowledge the particular matters with which this Bill is concerned, namely, certain works of widening and of improvement, and other works referred to by my Noble Friend behind me, have not really originated with
  132
  the company but with the public, traders, and inhabitants of the districts served by the company. The inhabitants of Clacton-on-Sea, Felixstowe, Lowestoft, and other districts in Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex, have long felt the urgent necessity for the additional accommodation which this Bill provides. They have urged upon the company the necessity for carrying those works, and it is in response to that request that this Bill is introduced to the notice of the House. What the House is now asked to do is to reject the Second Reading on grounds totally outside the provision of the Bill itself, and on the ground very fairly stated by the hon. Member for Derby, that the company, owing to their treatment of certain sections of their employés, ought not to be given any further extension of powers.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Quite right.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not want to discuss the very wide principle as to whether it is wise for this House to reject the Bill on that ground. It has now for the last nine or ten years, I believe, been the custom of the House to permit discussion of this kind on an omnibus Bill introduced by a company, and I do not desire to discuss that practice, but I do think the House is justified in paying regard to the relative importance of the Bill itself and the dispute on the ground of which we are asked to reject the Bill. The Great Eastern Company, I believe, is unique among railway companies in that it has practically a monopoly of a very large district in the counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex, and if these works are not obtained from the Great Eastern Railway Company they cannot be got at all. It is a matter requiring very serious consideration, and it is a very grave thing indeed to ask the House to take the course of refusing the Eastern Counties these advantages.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Both my hon. Friend and myself put it perfectly clearly that these advantages that the hon. Gentleman and the Noble Lord have enumerated can be obtained if they consent to the very reasonable conditions that we submit.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I think it is rather an ingenuous way of putting it; that, in fact, in the friendliest possible way in the world we hold up the Eastern Counties, and we hold up the Great Eastern Company, and if you want the Second Reading of the Bill you have only to do what we ask.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: They hold up the Bill.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: It is the hon. Member and his Friends who desire to hold up the Bill. After all they are the assailants in this case, and they ask this House to reject the Bill on the ground of a dispute between the directors and some of the company's servants, or they say that the House would be justified in saying that this dispute must be settled before this accommodation can be permitted. Every hon. Member who is in opposition to the Bill has stated that he does not object to one single Clause in it. I do appeal to the hon. Member who has just spoken, as a reasonable man and in his capacity as a Member of this House because, he is that as well as the representative of a great labour combination, and he is responsible to the public, does he think as a Member of this House that he is doing his duty as a public representative in refusing to allow the Second Reading of a Bill which is desired by three counties and which will provide a great deal of work and labour? The labour which it will provide for the present is a comparatively small item. It is the opportunities of future labour and future development which this Bill will provide which to my mind is the strongest point in its favour. Does the hon. Member think he is justified on account of what is after all a small point?
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I do not think so.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Because it is a matter of principle, as I understand. I only know what I have heard in this House. I have no side to take, and, as far as I know, the clerks may be justified or the directors may be justified. I only take the public standpoint. From what I understood my Noble Friend to say, the whole point is the method in which this petition should be presented, and, as I understood my Noble Friend, the organisation of the Great Eastern Company differs from that of other companies in this respect in the organisation of four totally separate departments under separate heads.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I do not desire to enter into the details, but there is no exception in the case of the Great Eastern Company to that of any other railway company so far as departments is concerned. Every railway company has locomotives, carriage, traffic, and separate departments, and in that respect there is no difference.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I understood my Noble Friend to say that in other railway companies those departments were all grouped under a common head and that in the Great Eastern each department is independent. I do not speak from personal knowledge. After all, the question, whether it be one of principle or fact, is simply one of the methods in which certain petitions should be presented. I imagine that the important thing for railway servants is whether they are going to get some improvement in their position. I am bound to say, and I do so most strongly on public grounds, if this House is to regard it as a question of principle, and if it is to interfere at the request of the hon. Member, not to obtain some particular advantage which is admittedly required for the service of this company, but in order to support trade unions against the company in asserting themselves, and if the House as a body is going to take the side of trade unionism against railway directors, and is going in a matter of business of this kind as between the company and the public to take sides on a political question, then I think they are taking a course which is contrary to the interests of progress and of business and of the proper development of industry in this country. Surely it is part of the business of this House to do what it can, with due regard to the general interests of capital and labour, to enable, and not only to enable, but to encourage, the one root cause of all progress, social and political, which is increased facility in communication. That is the one cause to which all progress can be traced. When a railway company comes to this House and asks, as this company does, on the incentive and the initiative of the inhabitants of a particular district which that railway serves, for facilities, then I simply rise on behalf of those whom I represent in that district, without expressing any opinion on the merits of that dispute, on which I do not desire to say one word for or against, to ask the House not to deprive the district of those facilities which it urgently requires, unless it thinks, as I hardly think it can, that the case made by the hon. Gentleman opposite is so strong and the matter raised so important that it ought to override the actual requirements and necessities of the Eastern Counties for which this Bill proposes to provide.
  Mr. NEWTON: I have been requested by a public body in the constituency which I represent, and which is served by the

  135
  company, to say a few words on behalf of the town of Clacton-on-Sea in favour of this Bill. The proposal in this Bill is that the line there should be doubled. At present we have a single line, and I can assure the House that much inconvenience is felt there, especially during the summer time, when they are accustomed to have, and do have, a large number of persons going to that resort, from having only a single line. That must be obvious to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and theirs must be the responsibility if by throwing out this Bill they do a serious injury to that progressive town and to the people in that country. My hon. Friend who has just spoken seemed to me to put the point very well indeed. I had been making a few notes when hon. Gentlemen opposite were speaking, and I find that my hon. Friend has made many of them, so that I need not repeat them to the House. Certainly I came to the conclusion from the speech of the hon. Member who moved the rejection that the grievance with them is this. It is a matter of principle. Just now the hon. Gentleman opposite to some extent seemed to taunt my hon. Friends on this side because they think it is a matter of principle. With hon. Gentlemen opposite it is equally a matter of principle. The point to see is whether that matter of principle is sufficiently vital to entitle this House to take a course which must be fraught with great loss to a large body of people. An hon. Member opposite put the point in two ways. Their grievance was the method of presenting a petition and then the point of hostility to trade unionism. I am not prepared to say what the view of the company is on that matter. I have no interest whatsoever in the Great Eastern Railway Company commercially. My only interest in it is that it does well and has promised to do better for the constituents I have the honour to represent.
  One of the hon. Members opposite told us that clerks after ten years' service were able to earn only 22s. a week. We are not able to express an opinion upon that in this House to-night, in the first place, because the hon. gentlman very properly did not prove his statement. But I ask hon. Members opposite to admit that the Great Eastern Railway Company have shown themselves willing by their action in April and January of last year, when, without compulsion from any section of their servants, they showed that as their fortunes improved they desire to improve
  136
  the fortunes of those who work for them. The noble Lord also might have told the House that the Great Eastern Railway Company believe in promotion from the ranks. I hope that hon. Members opposite will recognise that that is a principle with the Great Eastern Railway Company, and that they will do the company the credit of recognising that in that matter they are thoroughly go-ahead. We are told that the clerks held a meeting, and agreed to a protest being made in the way of a blocking Motion to this Bill. I am quite prepared to believe that, but I say unhesitatingly that if those clerks could be assembled, without any fear of intimidation—because I do not believe that the servants of the Great Eastern Railway Company are in the least afraid of intimidation—and asked whether they preferred that this Bill should be rejected and these works not undertaken, they would to a man say, "We have made our protest; we believe from what we know of the company that they will do their best as times improve; therefore let the work go on, so that not only we but others may have further occupation." My interest in the matter is not at all personal. I submit to the House that if for a small matter of principle, which will not, and cannot, advance the material interests of the clerks, they are willing to delay works of great magnitude and value to residents in East Anglia, they will be taking upon themselves a very heavy responsibility, and one which I personally am not willing to share.
  Mr. T. E. HARVEY: Hon. Members opposite have made a very earnest appeal to the House on the ground of the merits of the Bill, and the disaster that would ensue to the Eastern counties if the Bill were not read a second time. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle) in opposing the Bill deliberately did not move that it be read a second time this day six months, in order that that argument should not apply. It is pointed out in our "Manual of Procedure" that a mere negative does not preclude a Motion for Second Reading from being repeated on any subsequent day. The last precedent for that, which was also a railway Bill, is of comparatively recent date—1887—when a Report stage was adjourned in this way. I very much hope that the House will keep that precedent alive by enforcing it on this occasion. None of us want to oppose the excellent purposes of this Bill. It would undoubtedly be a great disaster if that were done, but even if that were to be the

  137
  case—as, from the "Manual of Procedure," supported by the high authority of Sir Erskine May, and the precedent I have quoted, it is clear it would not be—the matter is so important that many of us will feel it our duty to go into the Lobby in support of the hon. Member for Stockport. Will not the Noble Lord (Lord C. Hamilton) give way on what the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) has admitted is a small point? We do not ask for the granting here and now of the claims made by the railway staff. We quite admit that the House of Commons has no right to decide off-hand whether or not those claims are justified. All we ask is that the directors should be willing to receive this petition of the railway clerks. It is a perfectly simple thing. Every other railway company in the land is willing to receive similar petitions. I have in my hand a letter from a railway clerk in the employ of another company, describing how he was on a deputation which went up quite recently to another great railway company with a similar petition. They were received with great courtesy, first of all by the general manager, then by the general manager and the directors, and their demands in substance met. I do not ask the Noble Lord to promise to meet the demands of the clerks, but that he should be willing to waive this small punctilio and hear their case. He has spoken of the friendly terms he is on with them, and of the perfect confidence the members of the staff have in the Board. Let him respond to that confidence and prove those friendly terms by not adhering to a rule which he says has not been changed for forty years. Is it not time that a forty years' old rule should be changed? I am sure that in private life the Noble Lord would not meet a grievance on the part of the servants in his own household in that way. We can only appeal that in connection with this great public company the same principles of courtesy shall prevail which would certainly be used in private life. We ask the House to reaffirm a precedent already set, not to vote against the principle of the Bill, but to insist upon a just demand being met, by voting that it be not now read a second time.
  Mr. HENRY TERRELL: The question before the House is really a very simple one, and does not really involve any great question of principle. As I understand it, the question is simply whether the Great
  138
  Eastern Railway directors should meet, when requested so to do, any number of their clerical staff who have grievances which they wish to submit to the directors, or whether a section, be it large or small, should have to go through the old methods of first of all submitting their grievance to the head of the department, who would transmit it to the general manager, who would transmit it to the chairman, who would transmit it to the directors. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) has suggested that there is involved some great question of principle as to whether or not the trade unions should be recognised, or whether or not the sacred right of combination should be challenged. It has really nothing whatever to do with that question. The only question is whether members of the clerical staff should have the right to go straight to the directors when they have a grievance. If that is the real question, I should have thought it was manifestly to the interests of the directors themselves that they should be willing at any time and under any circumstances to meet any number, be it one or more, of their clerical staff who had any grievance to place before them. For this reason: the clerical staff above all sections of railway servants have always in the past shown themselves distinctly loyal to the company. I only speak from what I know from reading the papers, and I do not profess any experience in railway matters, but you find that whenever a railway is in any difficulty it is the clerical staff that they fall back upon to get them out of the difficulty. The clerical stiff is composed of men who enter the railway service, and from whom the heads of departments and the general manager is often selected. They are men who are also looked up to by other grades of railway servants.
  My Constituency is a railway constituency. I know that in it the clerical staff is looked up to by all other grades of railway servants; rightly so—I do not wish to use language offensive to the other grades in any way, but they are all men of superior education. They enter the service in the main with the view that they are entering upon the management of a great commercial undertaking. I would suggest to my Noble Friend that the company might accede to the appeal made by this side, whenever approached by the clerical staff, to agree to receive them and consider their grievances. I submit, however, that this question is not one which

  139
  should induce this House to refuse a Second Reading to the Bill. The Bill is not one in the interests of the directors. It is a Bill in the interests of the public, and of the public only. It contains provisions enabling the company to give better and more regular services to the people in the district served by the company. It contains provision to enable the company to improve Lowestoft Harbour. It contains a variety of provisions, all of which are directed entirely to enabling the company to provide a better service for the people whom they serve. Why should those people who are intended to be benefited be obliged to suffer because there is some dispute? It is punishing one man with whom you have no complaint in order to try to force that man to intervene in a dispute in which he has not interest. It seems to me to be wrong in principle. I do not say it will establish a precedent, but it would be wrong to follow the precedent which has been established, and refuse a Second Reading to this Bill, and so try to force upon the directors a measure compelling them to give way.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport has laid his case before the House, and the question has been discussed. We have had an expression of opinion from various Members. Surely that is all that is desired? I would urge the hon. Members who are interested in this question not to press the matter to a Division, but to rest satisfied with the ventilation of their grievances and the expresson of opinion on various sides of the House.
  10.0 P.M.
  It has been suggested that if the question is put in a particular form by Mr. Speaker that it would, not prevent the company from applying again to-morrow; that if the word "now" be omitted it would leave the question open. That would delay the passage of this Bill. Hon. Members know that a Bill of this kind has to go through various stages before it becomes law, and delay in any one of these stages may be very serious, and prevent the Bill from becoming law for a considerable time. Though I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport that the clerks should have the right to go straight to the directors, I think they should consent to the Bill having a Second Reading, and that they should rest satisfied with the protests they have made.
  Mr. WALTER M'LAREN: The position, though vital, is a very simple one. We on this side have no desire to reject or hinder the Bill. It is simply a question of the mechanism by which the memorial of 1,717 clerks and, I think, other officials shall reach the board. The Noble Lord opposite suggests that the memorial can only reach the directors by being broken off into sections, and portions of it going through the heads of the particular departments. In that case it would ultimately reach the board in four fragments. I take it that the memorialists do not even now ask that the Noble Lord and the board should be at the trouble to receive them direct. They will be quite content if the general manager will listen to their complaint. They will be quite willing that he should receive their memorial, in the first instance, or that he should receive a small deputation, the names of which have been given in the newspapers. It is composed of about a dozen fairly well known employés of the company. The Noble Lord, by uttering one sentence in this House, can have his Bill carried. He has, I humbly submit, simply to say, "I will instruct Mr. Hyde to receive that memorial." If he will make that extremely simple concession, it need not go against the rules of the company, for the memorial can come through the heads of the department, and the Bill would go through. That is all we ask.
  We do not wish to injure the company. We believe the Bill is a good one. It is a queer rule of this House that we have no way of moving in this matter except by moving the rejection of the Bill; and it has occurred to me as to whether a Motion would be in order to the effect that this House will read the Bill a second time, with a request to the directors of the Great Eastern Railway Company to receive the memorial of their clerks. All we ask the Noble Lord to do is—we all know the good feeling which exists between himself and his army of employés—to say, "I will let Mr. Hyde receive the memorial or the deputation." It need not be a precedent for the future. It does not even commit the board to give favourable consideration to the memorial. They can receive it and express their regret that they cannot comply with it. I do not know what the merits of the memorial are. I have no means of judging. These are times when employers should make every possible concession to assuage sore feelings. We have enough sore feeling in this country at the pre-

  141
  sent time. Do not let us have more of it. Let every employer do what he possibly can to conciliate his workers. I do submit to the Noble Lord that no conceivable harm could be done to the interests of his company if he were to make this trumpery concession to the feelings of the clerks. I dislike the idea of voting against this Bill. It is not what any of us want to do, yet we have no other means of putting our protest upon record. We do not want to destroy the Bill; we would like to have some other method by which our protest could be recorded. I again appeal to the Noble Lord to make this one concession and let us get rid of the whole difficulty.
  Major DALRYMPLE WHITE: With regard to the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down I do not think that he understands the point, and from what I gathered from the speeches of some other hon. Members, I do not think they understand that the Great Eastern Railway Company are quite willing to receive a deputation—that is, to receive more than one man—as a deputation from the clerks or anyone else, provided they come through the proper channels, the heads of the department. I fancy many think that what was conceded was that a written petition should be sent to the general manager and laid before the board. I thought I would make that point clear.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): I think it is extremely unfortunate that the fate of the Bill should depend on a small point of punctilio as between the clerks and the directors. Everyone in this House desires that the Bill should pass, and nobody in the House desires that the House should take up a partial attitude as regards either side. The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment simply desired that a certain appeal should have a proper hearing, and the Noble Lord who spoke on behalf of the Bill indicated that if the Bill were passed any question should be heard. Only he stipulated that it should come through certain channels and follow certain formalities, and the whole trouble is that neither side is content to waive that point. It is urged upon the Noble Lord that he is standing on a point of punctilio. I suppose he is, but I think the other side is doing the same. The clerks cannot agree to send their petition in the traditional way through the heads of
  142
  departments. The directors stand on tradition, and will not be content to receive a petition in any other way. It is not for the Government to take sides in this matter. All I can do as speaking for the Board of Trade, which is the impartial friend of both parties, is to recommend that this dispute should be arranged without forcing the convulsive process of a Division in this House. Why should not both methods be adopted? Why should not the clerks on the one hand agree, as they are not making any bitter complaint against their directors, to send their petition, in the first instance through the regular channels; and why should not the directors then agree, the rules having been observed, that the general manager should receive that general deputation which is all that is asked for by my hon. Friends who spoke against the Second Reading? If the general manager will agree to receive a deputation speaking for the petitioning clerks in general, surely, on the other hand, the clerks might agree that their petition should first go through the heads of their departments. Surely that is a matter that ought to be arranged.
  After hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Stockport and the speech of the Noble Lord I was hoping someone on the other side would propose some accommodation and solution. The hon. gentleman the Member for Crewe indicated that something of the kind might be done, but we have not had any kind of declaration from the Noble Lord, or those who spoke for the company, sufficient to avoid the dangers of a Division upon the Second Reading. It is said with great force that there are three parties to be considered. In this, as in other trade disputes, you have the great, silent, much suffering public outside. My hon. Friends who are opposing this Bill make no complaint against any line of it; they do not dispute it is a Bill full of beneficent purposes. They will not dispute what I say that as regards London in particular the arrangements for the prompt electrification of the East London Company and through trains to Whitechapel and New Cross would be a great advantage to the public. The hon. Member for Chelmsford Division, and other hon. Members, spoke of the many other ways in which people would benefit under the Bill, and I am sure my hon. Friends, who recognise the public interest at stake, would be ready to make con-

  143
  cessions as regards a point of punctilio on their side if the Noble Lord would be equally willing to make a concession on his side. I think that could be done.
  Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: Any suggestion coming from an hon. Gentleman representing the Government of the day would be received with every respect by any Member who has charge of a Bill of this character. The hon. Member, I take it, has suggested that a petition in this case coming through the heads of their department, and divided into four departments, and having been received by the board, the board should then agree that the general manager, and I suppose subsequently the board itself, should receive the whole of the signatories en bloc. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: Only the deputation.
  Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: The whole of the signatories represented by the deputation en bloc. That is to say, the hon. Gentleman suggests that the universal practice and tradition of the company should be reversed by receiving this deputation through the heads of the department, and, that in consequence of the difference of opinion that has arisen here to-night, we should waive any further objection to receive deputations en bloc. I think such a suggestion is very important and very clever, and I think it is one which on behalf of my company I could accept. Then I shall have preserved the traditions of the company for which I set out, but at the same time I shall have made a graceful concession to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I am sure the whole House will desire to express its sense of satisfaction at the handsome fashion in which the Noble Lord has met the suggestion put forward. It only remains now for my hon. Friends to accept the arrangement which the Noble Lord has so readily acceded to and to let the Bill have a Second Reading.
  Mr. HUDSON: After the very pleasing statement made by the representative of the Board of Trade, and the very handsome remarks made by the Noble Lord, I should like to be clear on this point on behalf of the men. These four departments are to receive the deputations on behalf of the memorialists from the four departments. The men can then send
  144
  their deputation, chosen as they wish, to choose them from the representatives of their organisation to the board. That is the position.
  Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: Representatives en masse from the four departments.
  Mr. HUDSON: Yes, the four united, and they are to choose whom they require on that deputation without any interference.
  Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: Certainly not, unless they are servants of the company. Certainly not in any other circumstances.
  Mr. HUDSON: I am pleased to know that we are getting on a little bit. I could not press the Noble Lord further, because that has been our request, and it was clearly laid down by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport. The claim was not for distinct representation of the unions, although I do not think that would have been unreasonable. However, we are prepared to accept the offer made to us, and we trust that with regard to the clerks the Noble Lord will eventually travel as far for them as he has for other grades of his own particular company. Already I have met his company as secretary of one of the grades, and would it not be wise to allow, not on this, but on future occasions, the representatives of the union to meet the company?
  Mr. WARDLE: I have consulted those for whom I have acted, and if it is clearly understood that after the division of the memorial into four sections a deputation to represent the whole of the signatories will be received I am prepared to withdraw my opposition.
  Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL,
  Postponed proceeding resumed on Amendment to Question "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Which Amendment was to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
  Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: I have received a telegram from an association representing 450 school boards and thirty

  145
  secondary school committees in Scotland asking me to put down a Motion urging His Majesty to withdraw his assent to the Teachers' Superannuation (Scotland) Bill, but as that scheme is only one of a group of Scottish education questions which involve great cost upon the ratepayers I think it would be more convenient to the House if I raised the subject on this Bill with a view to ascertaining if the Government are disposed to meet the complaint. The matter is one of great urgency, or I should not have raised it to-night. This superannuation scheme is one of a group of the educational projects of the Scotch Education Department, which includes smaller classes throughout the primary schools, medical inspection, and attendance, and an increase in continuation and technical classes. These projects have originated mainly, and have been developed entirely, at the Department, through whose edicts they are launched at the ratepayer to be operated almost entirely at his expense. The charge upon the Treasury is so slight that probably my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a very limited acquaintance with these undertakings. The opportunity for control over them in this House is so slight that they practically do not come under our review as representatives of Scotland. The edicts of the Scotch Education Department, therefore, are apt to be as little under the control and guidance of Parliament as under that of the ratepayers; and the ratepayer knows nothing about these projects until some fine day or other he is called upon to meet the cost. The Scotch Department can launch its projects at the safe distance of 400 miles out of Scotland, independently of the Treasury, of Parliament, of the local authority, or of public opinion in Scotland. The total cost of this group of projects is huge. The original estimate for teachers' superannuation was about £70,000. The cost of the present scheme approaches £250,000 altogether, and it will yet rise, because, if the scheme for small classes, an admirable scheme in itself, is to be carried out, there must obviously be a very large increase of teachers for whom retiring allowances will have to be provided. Therefore, that total is sure in the end to rise. Of that sum £137,000 had to be met by direct and indirect contributions of the ratepayers. They had to come mainly out of the Scotch Education Fund, and partly directly from the rates. Since the movement against these unusual burdens began we have had
  146
  a contribution promised from the Treasury of £25,000, upon the plea that it is to be an equivalent Grant on account of some imaginary scheme for the superannuation of teachers in England. I asked for particulars of that scheme from the President of the Board of Education, and he could give me none. I asked for the cost of it, and he obviously had no idea what it would be, so this £25,000 is not an equivalent Grant. It is a dole, and an uncommonly small dole at that. Another item of policy accords entirely to the Education Department a very necessary power of school improvement. But in Scotland the school buildings have been constructed hitherto on a system almost as substantial as that of the pyramids of Egypt. They are now to be remodelled on a model of extraordinary extravagance in order to meet modern requirements, and this, again, will cost the ratepayers an enormous sum of money. The scheme has been postponed. But why? Because the taxpaying worm has turned. That is the only reason. We shall have it again later on, and then we shall have a scheme at a cost unknown to the ratepayers.
  Again, under the Votes for the year, £7,000 is to be allocated for the medical service. The School Board authorities are now charged with the responsibility for medical inspection and attendance. Seven thousand pounds will not go very far to meet the cost of that responsibility. It may easily grow into £70,000, and the whole cost will fall on the local authority and the ratepayer. To these items the cost of the continuation schools and the scheme of technical classes are to be added. The existing contribution made by the State towards the cost of education in Scotland depends on the receipts of the Treasury for the use of the bottle. I am here neither to attack the work of the Education Department nor to protect the ratepayer. I am here as an educationalist to point out the consequences to the children of Scotland of this method of administering the finances. I for one have accepted the burden placed on the country by the financial policy of the Government. I have accepted that policy; but I invite the Government to accept this suggestion that the power to meet the burden of the Budget will only be realised through the resources of the country being developed in order to meet the weight of that burden, and that end will not be achieved by the Government if through its action the system of the training of the rising generation is starved.

  147
  If we are to develop the resources of the country, and the capacity of the population to bear the financial strain, we must take the ratepayer along with us in educational development. It has been said—I think by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland—that it is immaterial whether the cost of taxation is met by rates or by taxes. That is not so. Local taxation is far heavier than Imperial taxation upon the best citizen with the least means. The rates upon housing are becoming oppressive. In my own burgh the rates are already over 2s. in the £, and, under these various schemes, will be something like 2s. 6d. That is a most oppressive taxation upon the very best section of the working classes of the country, and the result will be that when the weight of this taxation is felt, out will go the progressive board, and in will come the board pledged to a policy of starving the educational system. There are signs of that already. What you are drawing from the Scottish Education Fund to meet the superannuation scheme will be abstracted from the requirements of the children in the schools, unless the Government makes an adequate contribution towards the cost of that scheme. You will have no policy of smaller classes; you will have no educational provision adequate to meet the requirements of the youth of the country between the ages of fourteen and seventeen, who are losing their opportunities in our great towns, in that most impressionable age, which can be turned to the best advantage. You will have school boards returned who, finding themselves obliged to draw money from the over-taxed, overrated ratepayer for educational purposes, will starve all the optional subjects under the code. I cannot imagine a policy more disastrous to the prosperity of the country than to starve the educational system of the land.
  Under the present system the cost of education is borne, roughly, half-and-half by the State and by the local authority. What I desire to impress upon the House is, that unless something like that proposition is maintained, there will assuredly be deterioration in education. I speak as one knowing the rating authorities and the mind of the ratepayer well. Whether as Provost, or as chairman of a parish council, or as a member of a county technical committee, I have every opportunity of knowing what public opinion is upon
  148
  this matter, and I am very far wrong if we are not upon the eve of a reaction on the part of these educational authorities, because of what I will endeavour to show now is the false policy of the Treasury in respect to giving adequate Grants-in-Aid towards education in Scotland. The half-and-half policy is what we claim. The Treasury counter claim against us is based on the fixed ratio of 1,100, namely, that Scotland should only get a certain proportion of what is granted to England. That was Lord St. Aldwyn's hobby. Another of his hobbies was always to keep the other communities of the Celtic fringe in line with English requirements. I have never accepted, and I never will accept, that theory of ratio between expenditure in Scotland and in England. It is unfair, it is unequal, and it is lopsided. I will give one example of it. If it were applied all round, how much more would be spent in Scotland upon the Imperial establishments for defence? The whole of these establishments until quite recently have been concentrated in England. The expenditure upon the Army has been concentrated upon England and upon Ireland. I believe my right hon. Friend is building a new set of barracks in Scotland, but beyond that I am not aware of any great expenditure, and there is now the expenditure on Rosyth, but up to now the whole expenditure on Imperial establishment and on the Army has been mainly in England, but also to a certain extent in Ireland. It has not been in Scotland at all, and if this fixed ratio is to be observed let us have it all round. Let Scotland have the advantage of a fair proportion in a direction in which she gets nothing. To restrict Scotch education to the English level would be a grievous injustice to Scotland. At the time of the Union the interests of our universities were protected, and the Grants given to the universities were expanded, and expanded quite irrespective of this ratio between expenditure and education between England and Scotland. The fate of education cannot continue to depend upon this arrangement of Lord St. Aldwyn's or on the consumption of whisky in Scotland. As on existing expenditure on education the proportion is about half and half between the State and the local authority, so must that proportion be maintained as regards new expenditure. Scotland will not stand either the methods or the finance of the Scottish Education Department, and I confidently put this case forward in the hope that Scotland will be treated in exactly the same way as regards

  149
  these new projects of educational expenditure and the intervention of the Scottish Education Department as she has been in respect to past educational expenditure which has had the approval and support of this House.
  Sir H. CRAIK: It is no part of my duty to settle differences between the right hon. Gentleman and the Front Bench opposite. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman reminds me of the verdict of my own countrymen on a certain dish, which is called sheep's-head, that there is a great amount of confused feeding. I tried to the best of my power to follow his argument, but met with very great difficulty. He began by recounting to us the evils of the Scottish Education Department, how it launched its projects upon the country without any responsibility and the burdens that it placed upon the ratepayers. When he went a little further he said, "It is no part of my work to question the policy of the Scotch Education Department or to dwell upon the evils of the burdens of the ratepayers."
  Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: I said I sympathised with the policy of the Department, and I pointed out that its methods of finance were disastrous to education.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I cannot for the life of me see how the right hon. Gentleman's repetition of his own words differs from my account of them. Finally, at the end of his speech, he returned to these burdens of the ratepayers, which he said it was not his wish to dwell on in the middle of his speech. I will only refer to one point. He accused Lord St. Aldwyn and the party on this side of having invented a strange proportion of eleven-hundredths to represent the claim of Scotland in regard to education. There never was a greater fiction. I was at the very bottom of the whole of these arrangements. What was done was in regard to the allocation of certain local taxation Grants? The financial estimate was that the share of Scotland should be eleven-hundredths of the whole. It had nothing to do with the general question of education, which was based, not between one portion of the Kingdom and another, but upon the requirements of the different countries, and the amount earned by the different countries under the Code and according to the conditions prescribed.
  I wish to draw attention to the accusation the right hon. Gentleman made against the Scottish Education Depart-
  150
  ment. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman and the Members who sit on the benches behind the Government to attack the Government. That is perfectly within their right. I looked on with equanimity. I only wish they would exercise that same boldness in the Division Lobby, and that their minds were equally strong there, but if I were to divide the House they would very soon separate from me. I am not going to interfere in these domestic squabbles, but I would point out that it is not according to constitutional practice that the right hon. Gentleman should attack the permanent members of the State and place the responsibility on them. It is cowardly, to begin with, and it is unconstitutional in addition. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Scottish Education Department can launch projects unchecked upon the country, and he proceeded to give an instance of launching its projects when he stated that it had burdened the country with a new Superannuation Grant for teachers in Scotland. Let us look at the facts, which in these rhetorical phrases the right hon. Gentleman claims to represent with accuracy. Did the Scottish Education Department launch the superannuation scheme? The Act of 1908 was passed by this House after due warning as to the burden it would impost. I myself, again and again, in Committee reminded the Government of the difficulties, financial and otherwise, which might be caused by the provisions of that Bill. These were not attended to. Nothing could be wrong that was spent on education, and the Government, supported by the Scottish Liberal Members, passed the provisions for that scheme. The Scottish Education Department was ordered by Parliament to draw up the scheme. After four years the scheme has been deliberately drawn up and laid before the country. Is that scheme launched upon the country by the Scottish Education Department? The Department carried out the orders of Parliament, and the responsibility did not rest with it, and for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite after they have induced Parliament to pass the Act to try to save the pockets of their Constituents by deceiving and disappointing the teachers is one of the most ignoble pleas I have ever heard in Parliament. The proposals of Parliament may have been rash; I do not think they were. I think that they were a mere act of tardy justice rendered to the

  151
  teachers of Scotland. But if they impose a burden on the ratepayers of Scotland let us see how it arises. You took the proceeds of certain local taxes in aid of education. As far as lay within my province at the time I protested in 1898 and in subsequent years against this as being dangerous and certain to cripple education. It was pressed upon us with the assent of the Scotch Members. For many years these taxes yielded a much greater return than you had any right to expect, and we annually laid by a profit out of these taxes. These taxes, possibly by your own legislation, are not now so remunerative as they were then. But is it fair now to say, "As long as the bargain was a good one we accepted its benefits, but now that it has become a bad one we claim to be relieved of it and to have a fixed payment made?" I shall press as hard as I can upon the Treasury for additional help for education, but that must be upon a large and general basis. I think that education is far more of an Imperial burden than it has hitherto been reckoned, and ought to be removed to a large extent from the local rates. But you cannot expect to be left entirely free in the localities to stretch expenditure as you please, and then appeal to the Exchequer to meet it as if money that came from the Exchequer were manna that dropped down from heaven and was paid by nobody. After all the taxpayer does require a certain amount of consideration, and the problem is very difficult of solution how to leave the locality perfectly free in regard to expenditure on educational administration if any increases whatever are to be met by the Imperial Exchequer. If you want more Imperial taxation you must inevitably curtail local initiative.
  Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: My point was in reference to the educational policy and the cost as between Imperial and local taxation, that these new projects of the Department were to be carried out practically entirely at the cost of the ratepayers without any help from the Imperial Parliament. Could the hon. Member give us the great benefit of his knowledge upon that point?
  Sir H. CRAIK: The desire that about half and half should be the share is perfectly natural, but if you increase expenditure indefinitely, not only the half that you pay is to be decided by yourselves, but also the half paid by the Exchequer
  152
  which is to have no voice in the matter. I do think that the Government, when in the Act of 1908 they entered on projects of expense, should have provided by taxation, particularly for the medical inspection. I urged at that time that the medical inspection, to begin with, should be an entirely Imperial burden, because it was not decided, according to local views, but by natural causes, and the relief was for the nation as a whole, and therefore properly dealt with as an Imperial charge. I am glad to help any hon. Member to the utmost of my power to bring pressure to bear upon the Treasury to increase the Imperial subsidy. I am ready to join with them in saying that certain parts of the educational expenditure ought to be entirely Imperial, and not local at all; but I am not prepared to join in a captious attack upon the Department, because they happen, in the discharge of the duties laid upon them by legislative Acts, to have issued decrees that necessarily involve expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman and those with him who take that line of argument are not helping their cause. They are likely to cause injustice to a most deserving body, the teachers of this country, and they are not helping to attain the end they wish, namely, a proper and substantial subsidy for local burdens while maintaining a high standard of education.
  Sir WALTER MENZIES: I support the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith Burghs. This superannuation scheme is one of a group of schemes, each of which increases the burdens upon the ratepayers. The system of legislation by Minutes issued by the Education Department, for which we do not hold the head of that Department responsible, as the hon. Member supposes, but for which we hold the Secretary for Scotland responsible, has really an important bearing on the matter under discussion. We have had schemes of all kinds thrust upon the country without any notice, each one of them costing more than the other. Take, for example, the Minute insisting on smaller classes. What are the facts? I suppose that each new school which has been built lately has been forced upon the school board, or has certainly been built at the instigation of the Education Department. They are palatial buildings, and we find, particularly in the smaller mining towns of Lanarkshire, that they are an outstanding feature of the district. The class-rooms have been built to accommodate sixty pupils in each room.

  153
  It is true that this Minute has been suspended, and may be again suspended, but it is held above the heads of the School Boards like the sword of Damocles. The plaster on the walls has hardly become dry, the concrete pavement has hardly stiffened before an Order comes from the Department that the class-rooms are to be for only forty pupils. These schools are gradually paying on the system of thirty years' principal and interest, but as soon as two or three payments have been made the School Board are told to remedy these new buildings, that they are old-fashioned and out of date, and that the classrooms must be made only for forty. Each one of those schools has been costing the ratepayers a good deal of money, but that is not all. There are continuation classes and supplementary schools forced upon small School Boards. In this matter I do not see eye-to-eye with the right hon. Member for Leith Burghs, because I doubt the wisdom of a number of those continuation classes. Many of them are quite absurd. I hear of housewifery classes. What does that mean? A room is arranged in imitation of a workman's house. The room is dirty and the bedclothes are all rumpled. A girl is brought in and asked to brush up the room and arrange the bed. Then it is all disordered again, and another girl brought in. Dust is again thrown about, and another girl is brought in. I think nothing more absurd has ever been heard in the history of education either in Scotland or any other country, and that is what the taxpayers of Scotland are asked to pay for. All kinds of evening classes are thrust upon unwilling School Boards. They insist upon teaching fretwork to people who will be ploughmen or going down a mine, and they insist on teaching girls in evening schools—working men's daughters—to make omelettes and puddings. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I am quite willing these classes should continue if they can get those pupils, boys or girls, to pay one penny per week for them.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Does the hon. Member wish to discontinue the cooking classes?
  Sir W. MENZIES: No; but I only say the pupils will not pay the one-hundredth part of the cost. As an old chairman of a school board, and a present member, I say the county committees insist upon thrusting money on the small boards to start evening classes, to do fret-work, carving in wood, and to teach men who will be ploughmen or going down a mine,
  154
  and all for nothing. If they had to pay one single penny they would not go to the classes. I quite agree with the right hon. Member for Leith Burghs, that if we are to have these Minutes thrust upon us by the Education Department in Scotland, then I do think that we are wise to insist that the Treasury shall be consulted and pay half of the cost and the ratepayers of Scotland the other half. It is a humiliating position for Scottish Members of Parliament to have to go to the Secretary of State to get these Minutes stopped, and if we cannot get that done in any other way this suggestion that the Treasury should be responsible for half is, in my opinion, a very good suggestion, and I heartily support it.
  11.0 P.M.
  Captain GILMOUR: Every Scottish Member will agree as to the necessity of pressing the Government to be a little more generous in the settlement of this scheme. I am perfectly willing to recognise the necessity for the locality to have a direct responsibility in the expenditure upon education; but I feel that in this scheme, as indeed in many other schemes which emanates from Parliament, Parliament in its wisdom or otherwise is imposing upon the country schemes which, if they are to be carried out properly, necessitate a great increase in the expenditure. Those who take an interest in the matter realise that the heaviness of these burdens will have a direct effect in the not distant future upon the desire of local authorities to do the best for those for whom they have to work. I am distinctly disappointed at the amount of money allocated for this particular scheme. No one on either side would feel himself justified in withstanding the carrying out of this superannuation scheme as far as the teachers are concerned; but a large section of the school boards and general ratepayers of Scotland hold that in this matter a larger proportion should be recognised as an Imperial charge.
  Apart from the superannuation scheme, reference has been made to the size of classes. I believe a reduction in the size of classes is eminently desirable, but, on the other hand, unless the Department and the officials charged with the carrying out of this particular scheme go with great care and circumspection, they will inflict on many districts burdens almost impossible to be borne. Difficulties will in-doubtedly increase in the immediate future in regard to the medical inspection

  155
  of school children. Already one medical inspector says that the great difficulty with which those who are carrying out the Act are faced is the desirability, however close the inspection may be, of going still further, and the necessity of applying some of those remedies, which are absolutely essential if the inspection is to be of any good, must fall upon either the State or the locality. I believe that it is just and right that the State should bear a larger proportion than is proposed under this scheme, and I would join with any hon. Members in urging upon the Government that they should reconsider the allocation in order that the provision may be more equitable between the State and the locality.
  Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: I also desire to support my right hon. Friend in the proposal that he has made to-night, that the Government should at least bear part of the total cost of the new schemes which have recently been promulgated in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman who represents the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen joined my right hon. Friend also in supporting the view that the Treasury should bear a very much larger proportion of the burden of education in Scotland than it does at present. I think he misunderstood the remarks of my right hon. Friend when he charged him with accusing the present permanent chief of the Education Department of springing these schemes upon the ratepayers of Scotland without any notice or any consultation with the authorities or the ratepayers. There is no Scotsman interested in the education of his countrymen who does not approve of these schemes. There is no Scotsman who does not want to see every one of these schemes brought into full working operation. That is not our point.
  During recent years the burden on the local ratepayers for educational purposes has been growing at an enormously rapid rate. I do not thing it is an exaggeration to say that throughout the length and breadth of Scotland there is an uprising against that burden. What we feel is that the educational interests of our country are going to suffer solely because of those constantly added burdens on the ratepayers. My right hon. Friend quoted the case of Kirkcaldy. He said that the education rate there was a little over 2s., and that probably it would go to 2s. 6d. I quote the case of the chief borough in my
  156
  Constituency. In 1909 the education rate was 1s. 10d.; in 1910 it was 2s. 2d. Last year it was 2s. 6d. It has increased, too, when the yield of a penny has also increased! In the case of Falkirk the burden presses on a very large body of men who are really not able to bear it. If we do not provide a remedy for it the educational interests of Scotland will suffer, and what has been in the past the greatest asset of our country is unquestionably going to be diminished in value. I urge the Secretary for Scotland; I hope to have the opportunity of urging upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the real need that there is in the interests of education in Scotland for a large grant towards the educational needs of the country. I hope the Government will favourably consider this.
  Mr. PIRIE: I am not going over the points already made by my colleagues on both sides of the House who have urged greater generosity on the part of the Treasury towards Scottish education. I merely point out there is a special duty upon the Treasury in this case. The present situation in Scottish education is largely due to actuarial bungling which took place when the 1908 Act was before us in Committee. It is hard that we Scottish Members should have to suffer for the sins of our predecessors at the Treasury, or at the Scottish Office. I am not here to attack any Civil Servant in ordinary circumstances, but at the present moment we have very exceptional circumstances. What has been the actual state of affairs has been laid down by the Government through the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate speaking in October last year, gave the whole case away at once. He was speaking as the representative of the Scottish Office, "Why," he said, "my friends the Scottish Educational Department, as we all know, is Sir John Struthers." The Permanent Secretary therefore represents My Lords and the Board, and that Board exists in the imagination of the public but has no real personality except in the person of the Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Education Department.
  I rise here to protest against the throttling tyranny of the Scottish Education Department. Scotland is ruled autocratically by that Board. Circulars and minutes are issued, withdrawn, and re-issued, and the teachers and the school boards do not know where they are. It is time we should make some

  157
  protest, and I am glad of this opportunity of protesting most emphatically against the existing state of affairs. There is a very grave issue at stake as a result of all this. What we pride ourselves upon is the excellence of our rural schools, but education is being gradually undermined by over-Secularisation. The state of the rural schools is exciting the greatest anxiety in the minds of the greatest Scottish educational authorities. These men are not to be found in this House, but are to be found in Scotland where they are devoted to their work, and their protests are to be found in the Scottish papers. We have seen repeated warnings to the public of the growing and increasing dangers from the able pens of Principal Gyles, Sir William Ramsay, Sir William Pollock, and Professor Ramsay, all protesting against the decay of what made Scotland a great nation in the past, namely, the rural schools. That is a fact to which this House is absolutely blind, of which it knows nothing, and of which English Members care less. The only chance of learning these things is by following what appears in the Scottish papers and drawing attention to those things. To deal with these grave matters one thing is absolutely necessary at the present moment, and that is that the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Scotland, should appoint a commission of inquiry into the whole question of Scottish education and the great changes brought about in latter years since the Education Act of 1908. I can assure hon. Members opposite who have the interests of Scottish education at heart, and we are all interested upon this point that such a commission is necessary. The hon. Member for Aberdeen University (Sir Henry Craik) shakes his head, but I remember his statement that "if they wanted to remove the Education Department from Edinburgh it would only be removed over his body." I do not forget these things which are anti-democratic. For many years Scottish education has proceeded on democratic lines, but now Parliament seems to be entirely out of touch with the progressive tendency of the Scottish nation. As a direct result of over-centralisation there is one disquieting feature, and that is the amount of travelling which students who go in for the higher education have to do owing to the scarcity of teaching centres in Scotland.
  Complaints are constantly made that boys and girls of thirteen and fourteen
  158
  years of age have to travel many miles daily in order to get instruction. The moral effect of this constant railway travelling day after day on these boys and girls is indescribable, and protests against it are being made on all sides by those who wish to see this evil dealt with. With the exception of occasions of this kind the only opportunity given to us is by question and answer in this House, and I wish in this respect to enter a protest against the evasive answers which have been given by the Scottish Education Department, who seem to consider it their duty to answer our questions on the lines that the more dust they throw into the eyes of the public and the less information they give, the better. Questions are put in this House not only for the information of Members but to inform the public of the state of affairs existing, and this is about the only way which the Scottish Members have of calling attention to their grievances. When the first step of appointing a commission of inquiry has been taken the next step should be an effort to bring the Scottish Department into closer touch with the feelings of the Scottish people by transferring the headquarters from Dover House to Edinburgh. With the help of my colleagues I intend to make a great effort to induce the Secretary for Scotland to take up this important question.
  Mr. MORTON: I wish to support the appeal which has been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro-Ferguson), to the Education Department to bear a fair share of carrying out the reforms which have been referred to. As far as I understand the question at the present moment there are no school boards asking that the teachers' superannuation scheme should be defeated. All they ask is that the scheme should be delayed until the money is found to carry it out. As far as I know the Government are willing to give us £25,000, and in round numbers we want £40,000 more than that, and then the Government will only be finding just about half the cost of these undertakings. That is not asking too much. I do not think for a moment we can get all we want under the present condition of things. Until we get Scotch Home Rule we shall not get these things put right. In the meantime, we do not want to lose the points in education Scotland has enjoyed for so long.
  I hope we shall get a promise to-night of at least what we want, because it is not too much, in my opinion, to ask the

  159
  Treasury and Parliament to find half of the cost of these new undertakings. I hope, if we do not get it to-night, we shall go on agitating both on further stages of this Bill and on other occasions until the Government do what is right and proper towards the people of Scotland. We agreed to the Act of 1908 providing for a scheme to be laid down before Parliament for the superannuation of teachers, and we do not want to run away from that at all, but we want to treat the ratepayers and taxpayers in a proper manner, and to find the money to carry out that scheme which we believe will be eventually for the benefit of the people. I quite agree that the Scotch Education Department should be taken from Whitehall to Edinburgh. It is a Scotch department, and ought to be conducted for the benefit of the people of Scotland. In the meantime, all we want to do on this occasion is to deal with this money part of the question, and get what we can in the best interests of the people of Scotland.
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The burden of the speeches of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have taken part in this debate have been concerned with finance, and really they would be more appropriately directed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer than to the Secretary for Scotland. I regret my right hon. Friend is not present to hear these demands which, of course, I, as Secretary for Scotland, have no reason to object to, but as the House is aware he is engaged on very pressing and important public business elsewhere. My right hon. Friend, the Member for Leith (Mr. Munro-Ferguson), who opened the debate, in raising the terrible question of educational finance in Scotland, found no fault with the efforts which had been made to improve the quality of education in Scotland, including the proposal which is not questioned for reducing the size of classes, and that was the opinion of most of the speakers. Their complaint was that a sufficient amount of money was not found by the Treasury to assist the progress of education. They all used the same figure. They said they thought the Treasury ought to provide half of the cost of the new services. As a matter of fact, I had the figures got out of the proportion which the Treasury does provide of the cost of education in Scotland, and I find three years ago it was 50.8 per cent., and the
  160
  last two years 52 per cent. So that the amount provided by the Treasury is decidedly larger than the amount provided by the rates. There are some other sources of income. Really the matter which has forced this question specially on the attention of the Scottish Members is the Superannuation Scheme which was inserted in the Act of 1908. I should like to remind my hon Friends of the fact that that was no part of the original scheme of the Bill, but it was pressed on the Government first by the teachers and afterwards by a number of school boards in Scotland. We often hear matters discussed as if that Act of 1908 put new duties on the school boards and provided no new money for them. During the whole of this debate not a single Member has referred to the fact that the Act of 1908 brought with it a new grant from the Treasury. That is a very important matter in considering the general question as well as in connection with the particular question of the cost of the superannuation of the teachers. There was a general aid grant of 3s. to scholars, and the £105,000 has since grown to £120,000.
  When considering this pension scheme it is right to bear in mind that it is not a scheme which will continue to be a growing burden on the rates. It is a scheme the burden of which as far at the ratepayers are concerned will tend to diminish £46,000 of the new burden is money for existing pensions and must be reduced year by year until it finally disappears, while the growth of expenditure on new pensions will be largely, if not entirely, met by the growth of the Exchequer contribution, which is increasing for all practical purposes at the rate of about 9 per cent. Therefore, this burden of superannuation of which we have heard so much is a decreasing and not an increasing burden so far as the ratepayers are concerned, I think, on the whole there has not been a very serious attack upon the rules and suggestions that have come from the Education Department. Some hon. Members seem to think that the Superannuation Scheme originated with the Department. But it is not fair to make the Department responsible for it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leith Burghs seemed to think the £25,000 received this year was not an equivalent grant. I do not know upon what he based that opinion, but I can assure him, having been at the Treasury at the time the grant was made, that it is strictly equivalent.
  Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: I asked the President of the Board of Education in this House what the scheme was, and what it cost, and I gathered from his answer that it did not exist.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Scotland got £25,000 this year, and England got no equivalent! That is nothing for the Scottish Members to grumble about. But it is equivalent because a certain amount of money was set aside by the Treasury and of that Scotland's proportion was £25,000, which was handed over. England will receive her equivalent grant in due course, but Scotland had the advantage first, merely because of the accident that there is a fund to which the money can be paid. But I do not think it rests with us to make any complaint of that fact. I will merely repeat, if the idea of Scotch Members is that half the amount should be borne by the Treasury, that is the existing state of affairs. But it is certainly no business of mine to deprecate urgent appeals to the Treasury for the improvement of Scotch education. I quite admit that the cost of education is increasing in Scotland with higher ideas of cultivation, and that it is a burden which presses upon some localities very heavily. If we are getting a small grant from the Treasury to meet the cost of medical treatment, the whole qestion is one that can only be adequately dealt with when the great question of the relation of local and Imperial taxation comes to be settled, and large questions, involving, perhaps, the basis of rating are really seriously considered by Parliament.
  Mr. MORRELL: I should like to say why it is, if my hon. Friend (Mr. Wedgwood) goes to a division, as a protest against the prosecutions that have been instituted by the Attorney-General recently, I shall feel bound to support him, in spite of what the Attorney - General has told us. The Attorney-General has said that in instituting these proceedings the Government has intended no attack upon the Syndicalist opinions against whom these proceedings are pending. I am perfectly certain that that is so. We have not only to consider what was the intention of the Government, but what effect proceedings of this sort are likely to have upon the public mind, and everyone who hears or reads of them. They are taken at a time of great unrest and great excitement. The prosecuting counsel himself referred to the coal strike. He referred to Syndicalist opinions. He said he was engaged in
  162
  prosecuting them for this particular "Open Letter." The Recorder used language which the Government themselves cannot defend. All that is likely to have a most mischievous effect upon the public mind, and is likely to do great damage to the very course of order which the Attorney-General thinks he is serving.
  I can hardly imagine a more futile way of proceeding against these doctrines than to prosecute them in the way the Attorney-General has done. I most certainly have no sympathy whatever with Syndicalists views. I regard them as mischievous, and foolish. But if I were a Syndicalist I should ask for no better ally than the Attorney-General in advertising and propagating my opinions. The Attorney-General has never told us where or how he is going to stop. He described the way in which he was led on from one prosecution to another. He started with a poor man distributing tracts at Aldershot. He put the whole machinery of the law in force against him. Then there were the two poor printers who printed them. Then he found he had to prosecute Mr. Tom Mann. What about the "Labour Leader"? Is he prepared also to prosecute the editor of the "Labour Leader," and the chairman of the Labour party, or whoever is responsible for the "Labour Leader," for precisely the same doctrines as were printed in the "Syndicalist." If we once start this it is very difficult to stop. I hope my right hon. Friend will be wise enough to stop. If he does stop instituting these prosecutions now, he will be admitting the justice of the complaint that we bring against him for the prosecutions he has already undertaken. I believe this is altogether a perversion of the criminal law. The object of the criminal law is to protect individuals against real offences and punish those who commit real offences. What offences have these men committed and against whom? Against the soldiers? The soldiers were already warned by their commanding officers that they would be foolish to take advice of that sort. Is the discipline of the Army so bad that it is necessary to keep our soldiers in ignorance in order to make them obey their commanding officers? Are we really to believe that Society is in such a rotten condition that you have to prosecute men who hold opinions of this sort? I do not think the Government ever made a greater blunder than in starting prosecutions of this sort, and I shall certainly support my hon. Friend.
  Mr. HAMERSLEY: I ask the indulgence of the House to make a personal explanation. I have been brought into this controversy and remarks have been insinuated about me by an hon. Member for Glasgow earlier in the day and later on by the mover of the Amendment. The insinuation is absolutely incorrect. What I said was that not yielding to anyone in my loyalty to my country if at any time coercion should be used, which God forbid, to force loyalists in Ireland to come under a National Parliament in Dublin under the provisions of a Home Rule Act which had never been submitted to or received the consent of the majority of the voters of England, neither my sons nor myself would take any part in such coercion, and in this I believe I should be supported by a large majority of my fellow subjects. That is all I said, and it is impossible to construe it into inciting soldiers to disobey the orders of their officers. I and my sons have been connected with the Army, and I thought it right to make this explanation.
  Mr. KING: I think it desirable that one more voice should be raised amongst the many which might be raised and many which certainly are being raised outside this House, to express very seriously, but very strongly, the dissatisfaction which undoubtedly exists over these trials. We have listened with a good deal of sympathy to the explanation of the Attorney-General. It was put forward from a strictly legal and technical point of view, and it was a very strong one. Of course, it is totally impossible to divorce this question from the larger social and political questions which are raised by these prosecutions. It is quite impossible to look at these prosecutions merely from the legal point of view of the Public Prosecutor. They affect thousands of people throughout this land from a larger point of view, namely, whether the people of England, especially at this time of social upheaval and political development, are to have their full constitutional rights which thousands and thousands widely feel. I wish respectfully and strongly to urge upon the Government that there ought to be no more prosecutions of this kind, and that this policy is bad for them and bad for the sense of justice which we all desire to have. It is bad for them if they want to settle the grave economic and labour difficulties which are so prominent at the present time. I am going to
  164
  suggest to the right hon. Gentlemen who are sitting there in such numbers on the Treasury Bench that there is a very good precedent for this question which they might do well to study. I refer to the feeling on the matter which has been raised and widely expressed throughout Germany at the present time. We all, I suppose, admire and in many ways cannot help wondering at the marvellous energy and courage of the German Emperor. He has done a great many fine and noble things, but he certainly, like all clever and courageous men, has made one or two howling mistakes.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that that is not the form of expression generally applied to the ruler of a friendly State.
  Mr. KING: I withdraw at once, and I assure you and the House that I wish to express no disrespect for that eminent ruler. But as this is a serious and important matter I must attempt to finish the speech which I look upon it as my duty to make. On one very famous occasion a very eminent man in Germany declared that if he gave the command to his soldiers to shoot down their fathers and their brothers it was their duty to obey. These words once uttered have never been forgotten. They have been repeated year after year on platforms throughout that land. I heard myself only two months, ago that speech referred to again and again in social-democratic meetings, and I make no doubt whatever that I am correct when I say that the social-democratic vote in Germany which swelled by 1,000,000 at the last election over the numbers that were recorded for that party at the previous election, was in no small measure due to that saying which, though it might be courageous, might have been true, and might have seemed imperatively necessary to him who used these words, were certainly a political mistake, and were regarded by the great mass of the German people as showing that the Army of their country was not to maintain the dignity and integrity of their empire, but to repress their loyal and just aspirations for a better state of society. I feel it my duty, and I do so with serious earnestness of purpose, to point out to the Government that if these prosecutions are carried further they may find that they are viewed by many thousands, in fact many tens of thousands of our countrymen in a totally

  165
  different light from that in which they are viewed by the Public Prosecutor, and that the spirit which may be laughed at here is a spirit that is very widely and very deeply felt throughout the country.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 27.

  Division No. 54.]

  AYES.

  [11.50 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Firench, Peter

  Neville,, Reginald J. N.

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Gilmour, Captain John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Glanville, Harold James

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Goldman, Charles Sidney

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

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

  O'Dowd, John

  Armitage, Robert

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

  Baird, J. L.

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  O'Malley, William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hackett, John

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

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

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  O'Shee, James John

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmoutn)

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

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Pirie, Duncan Vernon

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hinds, John

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Butcher, John George

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Cassel, Felix

  Keating, Matthew

  Sheehy, David

  Cawley, Harold, T. (Heywood)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

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

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Clough, William

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Clyde, James Avon

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Tennant, Harold John

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Trevelyan, Charles philips

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Crumley, Patrick

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

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs, Louth)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Webb, H.

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

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Meagher, Michael

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leltrim, N.)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Devlin, Joseph

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

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Menzies, Sir Walter

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

  Dillon, John

  Middlebrook, William

  Winfrey, Richard

  Dixon Charles Harvey (Boston)

  Molloy, Michael

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

  Doris, W.

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

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

  Duffy, William J.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Younger, Sir George

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Munro, Robert

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Murray. Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  NOES.

  Adamson, William

  King, Joseph

  Sutton, John E.

  Barnes, G. N.

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Morrell, Philip

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Hardie, J. Keir

  O'Grady, James

  Watt, Henry A.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilkle, Alexander

  Hodge, John

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Hudson, Walter

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Snowden, Philip

  Wedgwood and Mr. Lansbury.

  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time and committed.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. GULLAND: I beg to move "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the course of business for to-morrow?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The first Order to-morrow will be the Committee stage of the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill. The second Order will be the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Bill. It is not absolutely certain that it will be taken, but I expect that it will be. In order to meet the case of that Bill being effective business of the day, notice has been given to take the evening sitting, and to suspend the eleven o'clock rule, only for the purpose of the Bill. The third Order will be the Temperance (Scotland) Bill.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  And, it being after Half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Two minutes before Twelve o'clock