Commons Sitting of 11 November 1912

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 15) Bill,
Norfolk Fisheries Provisional Order Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.

EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Return of Evictions in Ireland for the quarter ended 30th September, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTIONS (IRELAND) (EXPENSES).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 10th July; Mr. Newman]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 361.]
TRADE (FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND BRITISH POSSESSIONS).
Copy presented of Abstract and detailed Tables showing the Trade between the United Kingdom and each Foreign Country and British Possession for 1911, according to the system of classification in force in 1908 and previous years (Supplement to Vols. I. and II.), with a Prefatory Memorandum [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (JOINT COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Special Order dated 6th November, 1912, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, and by the Insurance Commissioners, the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, the Irish Insurance Commissioners, and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled National Health Insurance (Special Customs) Order, 1912 (No. 3) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 362.]

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
Petitions were presented praying the House not to pass into Law the Established Church (Wales) Bill by—
Mr. Touche (29 petitions) from the Borough of Islington and adjoining districts, bearing 6,305 signatures.
Mr. Butcher (24 petitions) from the City of York, bearing 5,592 signatures; (10 petitions) from Halifax, bearing 1,516 signatures; (35 petitions) from Doncaster, bearing 14,725 signatures.
Mr. Kebty-Fletcher (19 petitions) from the Altrincham Division of Cheshire, bearing 8,542 signatures.
Mr. John Rutherford (22 petitions) from the Darwen Division of Lancashire, bearing 5,325 signatures; (10 petitions) from the Accrington Division of Lancashire bearing 4,322 signatures; (14 petitions) from the Blackburn Division of Lancashire, bearing 5,114 signatures.
Colonel Yate (53 petitions) from the Melton Division of Leicester, bearing 6,904 signatures; (25 petitions) from the Loughboro' Division of Leicester, bearing 9,502 signatures; (14 petitions) from the Borough of Leicester, bearing 3,666 signatures; (44 petitions) from the Harborough Division of Leicester, bearing 5,493 signatures; and (29 petitions) from the Bosworth Division of Leicester, bearing 6,629 signatures.
Mr. Peto (46 petitions) from the Eastern Division of Wiltshire, bearing 5,288 signatures.
Mr. Pollock (14 petitions) from various parishes in the boroughs of Warwick and Leamington and adjoining parishes, bearing 1,504 signatures.
Mr. Malcolm (20 petitions) from the Borough of Croydon, bearing 6,822 signatures.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  China Loan.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the monopoly granted to the Hong Kong and Shanghai group for financial transactions with China, the Government will undertake that all British merchants and manufacturers shall have an equal opportunity of

  1703
  tendering for all Chinese Imperial Government or provincial Government contracts, and that the said financial group will be excluded, seeing that they are a monopoly, from making any condition in regard to the commercial side of the business which must be left free to all.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The exclusive support given by His Majesty's Government to the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank is in respect of finance only, and industrial contracts will be subject, as in the past, to open tender.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the bulk of the money loaned comes from either Great Britain or France, but the bulk of the commercial advantages pass to other countries, who appear in the first instance—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

  Putumayo Rubber District.
  Mr. MALCOLMasked whether the Paredes Report, referred to in the Putumayo Blue Book, was transmitted to the Foreign Department of the United States by the Peruvian Government with any conditions of secrecy attached thereto?
  Mr. ACLAND: The covering Note transmitting the Paredes Report to His Majesty's Minister at Lima referred to it as a secret Report. Doubtless the same terms were used in communicating it to the United States Minister.
  Mr. MALCOLM: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the dispatch from Mr. Knox to Mr. Mitchell-Innes of 24th May, 1912, saying that the Government had taken great interest in the Report and so on, there is no indication whatever that that Report was granted to them on any conditions of secrecy?
  Mr. ACLAND: I think that is very likely true, but it is also probably true that the Report was communicated in the same way to the two Governments.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that the United States took immediate action and that we took none?
  Mr. ACLAND: We had taken a great deal of action before.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Ts the hon. Gentleman aware that during last year 2,000,000 pounds of rubber were exported from Iquitos after the exposure had been made?
  Mr. ACLAND: Yes, I am aware of that.

  War in Balkans.
  Mr. MORRELLasked what is the present state of affairs in Constantinople; and what measures are being taken by the Powers to preserve order?
  Mr. ACLAND: In answer to the first question, I would refer to the answer I gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on the 5th instant, which describes the situation as we still believe it to be. In answer to the second question, the Powers have dispatched warships to Constantinople for the protection of their nationals, and chartered merchant ships for their accommodation, should such measures prove necessary; and, up to noon to-day ten warships, apart from the four stationnaires, had actually arrived, including His Majesty's ship "Weymouth" and His Majesty's ship "Hampshire." I may add that His Majesty's ship "Prometheus" is at Beyrout and His Majesty's ship "Barham" at Alexandretta. Some of His Majesty's ships are at Smyrna and Salonica, and other ships are within reach of Constantinople at Besika Bay should the Ambassador require their assistance.

  National Gallery.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, in view of the overcrowded condition of the Venetian rooms in the National Gallery and the necessity of finding suitable space for the newly bequeathed Layard collection of Venetian pictures, it is proposed to further enlarge the Gallery; and, if so, whether he is prepared to receive representations on the subject before any action is decided upon?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The First Commissioner is quite ready to receive representations on the question of enlarging the National Gallery. A request for increased accommodation cannot, however, be considered until it has been put forward by the trustees.

  Admiralty Arch (Statuary).
  Captain MURRAYasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the group of statuary which it is proposed to place upon the Admiralty arch?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The proposal to place statuary upon the roof of the Admiralty Arch has been abandoned.

  Development Commission (Grants, Ireland).
  Mr. LARDNERasked what applications have been received by the Development Commissioners to date from Ireland; how many Grants have been made; the aggregate amount of these Grants; and whether any applications have not as yet been dealt with?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The hon. Member will find in the appendices to the first and second Reports of the Development Commissioners the details of twenty-seven applications received from Ireland by the Development Commissioners up to 31st March, 1912. Nine applications have been received since that date. The Commissioners have recommended advances to the aggregate amount of £150,360 in respect of nine applications. Seventeen applications have been refused. Nine applications are still under consideration; one has been withdrawn.

  Road Board (Grants to Counties, Ireland).
  Mr. LARDNERasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the total sum allocated to Ireland under the Road Board scheme; the amount allocated to each county or local authority; the amounts actually paid to date; will he state the basis on which Ireland's proportion is calculated; whether the original scheme of allocations amongst local authorities in Ireland propounded by the Road Board has been altered in any respect; and, if so, what?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The total sum allocated by the Road Board to Ireland out of the income of the Road Improvement Fund up to the 31st March, 1912, was £203,528. As stated in the first annual Report of the Board, this amount is based on the ratio of the population to Ireland to that of the other parts of the United Kingdom. I will
  1706
  circulate with the Votes a table showing the amounts granted to the several counties, which are based on the consideration of the applications and circumstances relating to each county. The only scheme propounded by the Board to local authorities in Ireland was a general scheme for dealing with a large mileage of Irish roads, suggested by the chairman for the consideration of Irish county authorities at a meeting held in Dublin on 7th March, 1911, of which a Report is printed in Appendix 15 to the Board's first annual Report. The Board have no knowledge as to whether the Irish County Councils have taken or intend to take any steps to consider the scheme suggested.—[See Written Answers this date.]
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: How much of the sum allocated has been paid over?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Gentleman must give me notice.

  Coinage (Durability).
  Mr. KINGasked whether the coins now being issued from the Royal Mint are tested by the sclerescope for hardness and durability; and whether the coinage of the present period may be expected to preserve all the marks of impression longer than previous issues?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It would not be possible to test each individual coin of a large issue, but the results obtained by laboratory experiments with a sclerescope are used as a guide in manufacture. The answer to the second part of the hon. Member's question depends upon the particular designs chosen for comparison, but I understand that, speaking generally, the durability of the present coinage is as great as that of former coinages.

  Geological Survey.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked whether it has been proposed to destroy or sell as waste paper consideralbe numbers of memoirs published by the Geological Survey for which there has been no demand for some years; whether, before consenting to this, the Treasury will consider whether they might be advantageously distributed amongst public libraries or offered at reduced prices to local scientific associations; and whether, in view of the difficulty experienced in handling these memoirs, the Treasury is considering some more popular method of publishing valuable records than those which it has hitherto adopted?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not aware of the proposal outlined in the hon. Member's question, but I shall be glad to make inquiries into the matter.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will steps be taken to distribute these presentations in future among the various public libraries?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I will note the suggestion.

  Public Records.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked whether the Treasury has yet considered the recommendations as to printing, binding, and publishing Public Records made on page 30 of the Report of the Royal Commission on Public Records; and whether, as a consequence, the public may hope that future volumes will be cheaper and be printed in sufficiently large editions to prevent their prices being forced up owing to their scarcity?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: No decision has yet been reached in this matter.

  Tea Inspectors (Customs Department).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked what is the number of surveyors of Customs and Excise in the Port of London on 28th October, 1912; how many of these have been approved and appointed as inspectors of tea under Section 30 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875; and how many were employed upon this duty on that date?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The number of surveyors in the Port of London on 28th October, 1912, was thirty-six, and the number approved and appointed as inspectors of tea was seventeen. Some ten of these surveyors were employed on the date in question in districts where the duty of inspecting tea ordinarily occurs, but I cannot say whether all of them actually had occasion to inspect tea on that date.
  Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the practice amongst all recognised fair employers of labour to permit of personal representations being made by their employés before altering their conditions of remuneration, he will consider the advisability of receiving a deputation from the tea inspectors in the Customs Department in order to enable them to state their case against the abolition of their special remuneration for special duties imposed under Section 30 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think any useful purpose would be served by receiving a deputation on this subject.
  Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that only inspectors of tea specially appointed under Section 30 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, and approved by the Treasury, can perform the duty of tea inspection; whether it is proposed to continue appointing such inspectors in the future; and whether, seeing that these special duties have hitherto carried a salary of £30 per annum, he will explain why these expert duties are to be imposed without specific remuneration; and whether it is the custom to abolish long-standing allowances in such a manner?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am aware that inspectors of tea are appointed as such under Section 30 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875. Such appointments will continue to be made as a matter of course. As to the reason for abolishing the old extra allowances of £30, I must refer the hon. Member to my reply of the 28th ultimo.

  Civil Service (Salaries).
  Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the acknowledged increase in the cost of living since 1896, he will review the salary scale of assistant clerks, bearing in mind the fact that the purchasing power of money has depreciated by 12 to 15 per cent., approximately, since 1896; whether, in view of the opinions which have been expressed before the Royal Commission on the Civil Service by the heads of many Government Departments, including the Treasury, that the line of demarcation between the duties of assistant clerks and second division clerks ceases now to exist in many instances and is very faint in the majority of cases, he is satisfied that the proportion between the salary scale of assistant clerks, namely, £45 to £150, and that of second division clerks, namely, £70 to £300, is commensurate with that between the duties actually discharged by these two bodies of clerks; and whether he will consider whether Clause 44 of the Order in Council, 10th January, 1910, requires some reconsideration and amendment?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think I can anticipate the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service on this matter.

  Political Clubs (Entertainments).
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that the North Camberwell Radical Club, of 352, St. James's Road, Old Kent Road, held on the 26th ultimo a boxing gala on their premises, at which two well-known professional boxers were advertised to appear; that in consequence of this and similar proceedings complaints have been received by the police from residents in the neighbourhood; and will he say what action he intends to take in the matter?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): My attention has not been drawn to this, and the Commissioner of Police informs me that nothing is known to the police of the boxing gala referred to, or of any similar proceedings; and they have received no complaints on the subject.
  Mr. NEWMAN: Is it legal for any club to have a boxing gala if it wants?
  Mr. McKENNA: That question should be addressed to the Law Officers of the Crown.
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the variety concert entertainments which are advertised to take place on Sunday mornings and evenings on the premises of Liberal and Progressive clubs in London and district; whether he is aware that, in the issue of the 26th ultimo of a journal known as "Club Life," the Walthamstow Liberal Club advertised that it had made an entire change of brewers and was providing for Sunday afternoon a star dramatic turn entitled "A Snug Little Kingdom," and that on the same date the Hackney Liberal Club advertised a continuation of their light ning variety programmes for Sunday morning and evening, and the Central Finsbury Radical Club a continuous Sunday variety entertainment; whether such clubs are fully licensed for dancing and music on Sundays and week-days; and, if so, will he say what is the annual cost of such licence?
  Mr. McKENNA: I understand that concerts and entertainments take place in many working men's clubs in the metropolis on Sundays, admission being restricted to members and their friends.
  1710
  This is the case at the three clubs named, and, in these circumstances, the clubs are, I am advised, not required to take out the licences applicable to places kept for public dancing and music and other public entertainments of the like kind.
  Mr. NEWMAN: Can these entertainments go on all night or is an hour fixed when they have to stop?
  Mr. McKENNA: I should have to have notice of any question of that kind.
  Mr. KEBTY-FLETCHER: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any communication from the local Free Church Council on the subject?
  Mr. McKENNA: I must have notice of that question.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that the hon. Gentleman who puts the question took part in a Primrose League gathering in his constituency, and that his speech was sandwiched in between a tightrope performance and a comic song?

  Automatic Fire Alarms.
  Lord CLAUD HAMILTONasked the Home Secretary whether, having regard to the loss of life at the recent fire at Messrs. John Barker and Company, of Kensington, he will consider the expediency of providing by enactment that automatic fire alarms should be installed in all large business houses where a considerable staff is employed?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have communicated with the London County Council, who are the fire authority for London, and am informed that, according to the most recent particulars in their possession, automatic fire alarms have been installed in some 200 premises in London, but that, although a considerable number of calls from these alarms have been received by the fire brigade, in only one case was an outbreak of fire found to have occurred. Under powers obtained in 1908, the council in authorising the erection of large buildings for the use of trade or manufacture require the provision of fire appliances including automatic sprinklers and of direct telephonic communication with the nearest station, but so far have not required the use of automatic fire alarms. On the facts before me, I am not prepared to recom-

  1711
  mend legislation in the direction suggested. The point of supreme importance in large business houses is that there should be adequate means of escape from all parts.
  Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: Having regard to the fact that this affects the community as a whole, will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether he can appoint a small Committee, say one official of the Home Office, one of the county council, and a fire brigade expert, to inquire into the whole subject?
  Mr. McKENNA: I will consider the point suggested by the Noble Lord.

  Croydon County Council (Lunacy Visiting Committee).
  Dr. ADDISONasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Croydon County Council have constituted their whole body of fifty-six members as their Lunacy Visiting Committee; and whether this procedure is in accordance with the advice and opinion of the Lunacy Commissioners?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Croydon Borough Council have proposed to constitute their whole body of fifty-six members as their Lunacy Visiting Committee, entirely contrary to the advice and opinion of the Lunacy Commissioners, and a case is being submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether the proposed action of the council would be legal under the Lunacy Acts.

  Rogues and Vagabonds (Flogging).
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Home Secretary whether Mr. Denman, on the 28th ultimo, at the Marlborough Street Police Court, committed to the Sessions a youth of sixteen, charged with improper conduct, as an incorrigible rogue and vagabond, expressing, with an oath, the hope that the Sessional magistrates would order him to be flogged; whether it is the view of the Home Office that such a punishment is calculated to instil into the boy's mind ideas of purity and virtue; and what is the minimum age at which a boy may become incorrigible within the meaning of the legal term?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have inquired into this case, and have received from the magistrate a report, in which he says: "Having only too often of late been
  1712
  obliged to descant upon the appalling increase in this neighbourhood in crimes of this shocking character, I took this opportunity of pointing out how inadequate at present are the powers of the magistrates to suppress them; and I did (not with an oath as suggested, but with fervent and heartfelt emphasis) express the hope that the Sessions would inflict corporal punishment for second offences, stating it to be my firm conviction, founded on many years' experience at this Court, that the power to inflict and in proper cases the infliction of that form of punishment for this class of crime has become a great necessity in the public interest." In view of the evidence given in this case, I am not surprised that he should express himself strongly. The Vagrancy Act does not fix any age limit for the conviction of an offender as an incorrigible rogue.
  Sir W. BYLES: Is it, or is it not, an oath to say, "I wish to God they would flog him"?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the use of the knout would not be more appropriate than the use of the "cat"?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir.
  Mr. HENDERSONasked if the Home Secretary, for the information of Members of the House, will have exhibited in the Library or the Tea Room the instrument and the frame by which flogging is administered to prisoners?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not think any useful purpose would be served by such an exhibition.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is it not possible to have photographs or pictures of the various forms of torture employed in other countries so that hon. Members may make their selection?
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not think that the Members of the House should have the opportunity of seeing the instrument of flogging before they give a vote?
  Mr. PIRIE: May I ask whether it is not the duty of hon. Members to visit the places and see the details for themselves?
  Mr. McKENNA: If my hon. Friend, or any hon. Member, is anxious to see the instrument I shall be very happy to show him specimens at the Home Office. I may

  1713
  say to my hon. Friend that the birch in use is the ordinary kind in use, and very familiar to schoolboys.

  Motor Omnibus Traffic (Metropolis).
  Captain MURRAYasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that drivers of motor vehicles not infrequently make excessive use of warning instruments; and whether the terms of reference to the Committee which he is about to appoint will include an investigation into this subject?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In regard to the second part it will be open to the Committee to consider the matter so far as it bears on the occurrence of accidents.
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked if the reference to the Committee on London Motor Omnibus Traffic will include the question of the damage done to the road surface and to property adjoining the routes used by the omnibuses?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a widespread feeling amongst local authorities owing to the way the rates are increased by damage to the road surface and will not the reference include the possibility of that matter being considered?
  Mr. McKENNA: This question may be considered later. The hon. Member presses me to lose no time in putting a stop to accidents, and therefore we propose, first of all, to address ourselves to the question of accidents.
  Dr. ADDISON: Will the Inquiry not also include the damage to shopkeepers and others caused by the fixing of routes?
  Mr. McKENNA: That may be a question for later discussion, but at the present time we have to dispose of the question of accidents.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Will the Committee have power to consider the routes in relation to accidents?
  Mr. McKENNA: That will obviously depend upon the routes taken so far as liability to accident is concerned.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not consider it well to discourage these
  1714
  questions by refusing to make answers while the question is sub judice before a Committee of this House?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Committee has not yet been appointed. As soon as it has been appointed I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked how many persons have been killed in the London police area, including the City, since 1st January last by motor omnibuses belonging to the London General Omnibus Company?
  Mr. McKENNA: For the Metropolitan Police district and the City combined the figures are 125, from the 1st January to the end of October.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Has not any director of this company been held responsible in any way for these 125 deaths in ten months?
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Is not that very nearly a man every other day? Surely it is surprising.
  Mr. McKENNA: It must be a question of law as to liability.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman refer to the Law Officers of the Crown the fact that 125 deaths have occurred in the case of this one trust or company alone, and also the evidence given at the inquests that the terms on which the men are paid is an inducement to them to drive furiously?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not think those questions are relevant to the matter. Besides, the mere fact that the trust is so very largo to some extent explains the number of accidents.
  Mr. MORRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Law Officers?
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: On a point of Order. May I ask, Sir, whether the questions that are now being answered by the Home Secretary are not prejudging the matter, which is referred to a Committee of this House?
  Mr. SPEAKER: As long as the Home Secretary confines himself to a statement of facts, I do not see how that can be so.
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked how many persons have been killed in the London police area, including the City, since the 1st January last by each of the following classes of vehicles: Motor omnibuses, taxi-

  1715
  cabs, all other classes of motor vehicles, mechanically propelled trams, and horse-drawn vehicles, respectively?
  Mr. McKENNA: For the period from 1st January to the end of October the figures are as follows:—

  Mechanically propelled trams

  23

  Motor omnibuses

  143

  Taxi-cabs

  29

  Other motor vehicles

  109

  Horse-drawn vehicles

  124

  Sir J. D. REESasked how many persons were killed in London by other than motor-drawn vehicles, e.g., horse-drawn vehicles and non-motor bicycles and tricycles, in London in October; and whether the Home Department compares the mortality arising in both cases?
  Mr. McKENNA: The figures for the Metropolitan Police district are:—

  By carts and vans

  …

  …

  10

  By omnibuses

  …

  …

  1

  By broughams

  …

  …

  1

  By cycles

  …

  …

  1

  The cycle accident which resulted in a person being killed occurred in September, but the death took place in October. The comparative mortality arising from different classes of vehicles is published every year in an appendix to the Report of the Commissioner of Police, and a Return has been issued annually since 1908 from the Home Office showing fatal and non-fatal accidents caused by different classes of motor and horse-drawn vehicles.
  Sir J. D. REES: Has not the motor omnibus service proved of great utility?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of argument.

  Metropolitan Police.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Home Secretary if the lack of any systematic arrangements for providing refreshment for the men of the Metropolitan Police force called away from their own districts for long hours of duty at State functions, special emergencies, and strikes has been the subject of representations; and if he has any information showing that the omission to inaugurate an efficient system of commissariat in charge of a permanent department, and the grounds advanced for not taking steps to prevent the possibility of a recurrence of recent regrettable conditions, are regarded favourably by the police themselves?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Commissioner of Metropolitan Police informs me that he has received no representations on the subject referred to except such as are implied in questions which have recently been put in this House. He is not aware of the recent regrettable conditions to which the hon. Member refers.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Home Secretary if he can say how many days were spent by the Metropolitan Police recruiting staff in Scotland when fifty-eight recruits were obtained; how the recruiting staff is constituted and what is the weekly cost in salaries; did the £150 expended in obtaining fifty-eight recruits include the railway fares of the recruits to London or do recruits pay their own fares; and, as the fifty-eight recruits from Scotland cost £2 10s. per recruit, exclusive of pay of permanent recruiting staff, on what calculation has the sum of 5s. per recruit offered to police pensioners for recruiting been based?
  Mr. McKENNA: Sixteen days were occupied. The recruiting staff consisted of a medical officer, three members of the permanent staff and a constable, and the aggregate weekly salary (exclusive of the medical officer's fees) would be about £24. This expenditure, however, would have been incurred whether a recruiting party had been sent to Scotland or not. Railway fares are not paid for recruits. It is hoped that the fee of 5s. per recruit to pensioners will prove sufficient inducement to the latter to act as recruiting agents.

  Criminal Law Amendment Bill.
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in a Division taken in this House on 1st November last, on an Amendment to Clause 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, the effect of which Amendment was to authorise a Court before which a male person is convicted of an offence under Section 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, to order such person to be flogged for a first offence under such Section, being Division No. 288 of this Session, three Members of this House who had intended to vote against such Amendment voted in the No Lobby by mistake; and whether, in view of the fact that there was actually a majority in this House against such Amendment, the Government will take steps to restore the Clause to its original form?
  Mr. LEE: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask whether he is also aware that a large number of Members on this side of the House who were in favour of the Amendment left the House through a misunderstanding before the Division was called, and that, but for that fact, the majority in favour of the Amendment would have been very much greater than it was?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): As to the question of the hon. Member for the Fareham Division (Mr. Lee), I cannot say. In reply to my hon. Friend (Mr. Greenwood), the Division List is the only official record of Members' votes. This particular Division was left to the unfettered judgment of the House, and I am afraid it is now impossible to go back upon the decision then taken.
  Mr. G. GREENWOOD: May I ask whether, under the old system of taking Divisions in such a case as this, Members who went to the Clerk at the Table and stated the circumstances would not have had the matter rectified in the Division list?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That question should be addressed to the Speaker.
  Mr. G. GREENWOOD: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, under the old system in such a case as this, Members who went to the Table as soon as they found they had voted in the wrong Lobby could not have had the Division list rectified?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Under the old system any hon. Member who said that he had not heard the Question put, could invite the Question to be put to him, and thereupon he was entitled to give his vote "Aye" or "No," but under the recent system it is not necessary that hon. Members should hear the Question put. We cannot now go back on the vote which was given on 1st November. I would also point out that hon. Members have six minutes during which they can make themselves acquainted with the Question that has been put.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this was not a very small majority on which to make such a tremendous change?
  The PRIME MINISTER: There is a similar question on that matter which will come up later.
  Sir W. BYLES: May I ask whether there is any possibility of a Member who votes in a Lobby he did not intend to vote in immediately getting his vote corrected?
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is no means now. Hon. Members must be careful.
  Mr. KING: Is there not an opportunity for putting this right in the House of Lords?

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    IRISH MEMBERS IN IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
    Mr. FELLasked the Prime Minister if it is his intention, if the Irish Members of this House are reduced to forty-two, to keep the numbers of this House at the reduced level or to fill up the vacancies?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The reduction referred to will not create any vacancies.
    Mr. PIRIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how many Members will represent Scotland under the new scheme of devolution?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is rather premature.
    Mr. PIRIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is possible to say what number should come from Ireland unless he can state the number from other parts of the United Kingdom?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is a matter of argument.
    Mr. PIRIE: It is a matter of imagination.

    FINANCE COMMITTEE (REPORT).
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether the evidence given by Sir Steyning Edgerley before the Committee on Irish Finance is in conflict with the financial provisions of the Government of Ireland Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can only refer the hon. Member to the references made to Sir Steyning Edgerley's evidence in the Report of the Committee on Irish Finance.

    MEDICAL EDUCATION.
    Mr. MOOREasked if the General Medical Council will continue to exercise any supervision in Ireland over medical education or professional conduct if the Government of Ireland Bill should become law?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, subject to any future Irish legislation.
    Mr. MOORE: May we have a Nationalist standard for medical education in Ireland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If the Trish Legislature so determine.

    EXCISE AND CUSTOMS.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether he can allot an extra day for the discussion of the Excise and Customs provisions of the Government of Ireland Bill, as Members had no opportunity of representing the injurious effects which will ensue from such provisions to the industries of their constituencies?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not see that there is any necessity to give extra time, as the provisions referred to will be discussed on both Wednesday and Thursday.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Has attention been called to the fact that the hon. Member for Nottingham has already given himself thirty-seven opportunities of telling the House what he thinks will be the effect of the Home Rule Bill?
    Sir J. D. REES: Under this Clause, will not the Irish Government be able to subsidise the lace industry of Ireland as they do the tobacco industry, and may they not thus give a bounty against the British lace trade in Nottingham, as well as others?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That does not arise out of the question.
    Mr. MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman postpone the consideration of this until the two hon. Members below the Gangway have escaped from the Police Court?

    WALES.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether Wales will be a unit in the contemplated federation of Great Britain; if the answer be in the affirmative, whether he is aware that there is no racial, commercial, or sentimental solidarity or community of interest between North and South Wales; whether two Parliaments and Constitutions will be granted to the Principality; and whether Monmouthshire and Glamorganshire will form a separate and third unit?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It would be premature at present to make any statement on these matters.

    Members of Parliament (Government Contracts).
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the hon. Baronet the Member for the Tower Hamlets is a partner in the firm of Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company; whether he is aware that His Majesty's Government have been purchasing large amounts of silver through, or of, that firm; whether he is aware that, when the Government purchased two ships through Messrs. Antony Gibbs and Sons in 1904, Lord Aldenham and Mr. Vicary Gibbs, then Members of this House and partners in the firm, resigned their seats under the Statute 22, George III., c. 45; and when it is proposed to move the writ for the Tower Hamlets Division?
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: May I ask whether this is not a matter which involves the construction of Acts of Parliament, and whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider the propriety, as in the Rothschild case, of appointing a Select Committee to deal with the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am advised by the Law Officers that the question whether in this case the seat has been vacated under the Statute referred to is one of difficulty and doubt. In accordance with the precedents, I shall propose that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the matter.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why, in the Indian Government contract, which I hold in my hand, this Clause is inserted?
    "By the Act 22 George III., chapter 45, no person who is a Member of the House of Commons is competent, either alone or jointly with any other person, to enter into a contract which is made on the condition that no such Member is to be admitted to any part or share thereof, nor to any benefit or advantage derived therefrom. This will not, however, extend to any incorporated trading company, tendering in its corporate capacity for the benefit of such company."
    This was the form of contract for the India Office in 1907.
    The PRIME MINISTER: That does not in any way affect the answer I have given. I am advised by the Law Officers of the Crown that this is a matter of doubt, and, therefore, this being a highly penal Statute it was in accordance with all precedent that we should appoint a Select Committee to consider whether the Statute has been broken or not.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that the person who decides whether a Statute has been broken or not is one of His Majesty's judges and not a Committee of the House of Commons, and whether in the event of a Committee of the House of Commons coming to a decision, that decision would in any way over-rule or over-ride a decision that may be arrived at by one of His Majesty's judges, if anyone being able to sue took action in a Court of Law?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The question, I imagine, which the judge would have to decide is whether the penalty has been incurred. The question which the House has to consider is whether the seat has been vacated. That is a question for this House, and this House alone, and, in accordance with precedent, it has always been considered by reference to a Select Committee.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked whether, seeing that the Statute 22, George III., c. 45, was devised to exclude from the proceedings of this House any person having a pecuniary interest in a Government contract; that owing to the wide extension of the joint stock principle the Statute in question has been rendered null and void in the larger number of cases in which it ought to operate, the gross assessment of profit to Income Tax under persons and firms being £188,000,000, whereas the assessment of public companies is £302,000,000; and whether, in view of these circumstances, the Prime Minister proposes to introduce immediate legislation to amend the Statute in question to render it effective by preventing directors and shareholders who draw profits from Government contracts from sitting in this House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Owing to the circumstances referred to, the law at present appears to me to operate unevenly, and should, I think, form the subject of inquiry.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the late Administration twenty-five Gentlemen held forty-one directorships in public companies and ten were railway directors?
    Mr. MOORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two hon. Members below the Gangway hold three farms from the Estates Commissioners under the Evicted Tenants Act?
    Sir F. BANBURY: Does not the Statute say that the seat is vacated in certain circumstances, and is it not the vacation of the seat which entails the penalty?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The question for the Committee to consider is whether in the circumstances, having regard to the terms of the Statute, the seat has been vacated.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to move for this Committee?
    The PRIME MINISTER: At once; that is to say, to-morrow or very soon.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is it not a fact that the position of the hon. Baronet (Sir P. Banbury) in regard to railway companies is entirely the same?
    Mr. MOORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the last time the Law Officers reported that the matter was one of doubt in 1902, when Dr. Rentoul was given a position in the City of London, the Government of the day at once said that it was a matter of doubt, and that they would not oppose the vacation of the seat?
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: Is there any doubt that the Member for Tower Hamlets (Sir Stuart Samuel) is a member of this firm, and is there any doubt about the fact that this firm have become contractors to the Government of India? If so, what question of doubt then can arise?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who is a lawyer, should put a question of that sort. I am advised by the Law Officers of the Crown that there is a doubt as to the proper construction of this Statute.
    Several HON. MEMBERSrose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members can resume the discussion on the Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee.

    Education (Provision of Meals) Amendment Bill.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Prime Minister if he will give facilities on one or two days, after the ordinary Government business has been disposed of for the day. for passing the Education (Provision of Meals) Amendment Bill before the Christmas school holidays, or, as an alternative if he so prefers, if he will arrange for a Saturday sitting?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that, unless I am assured that this measure will be passed without opposition, I cannot promise it facilities, though, as the hon. Member is aware, the Government sympathise with the objects of the Bill.

    Land Values Committee.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Prime Minister whether, and to what extent, the private Land Inquiry now being conducted on agricultural estates has the official recognition of himself or of the Government; whether it is with his sanction that it is being conducted in certain districts and in respect of certain estates only; whether the Report of the Inquiry Committee will eventually be presented to him; and whether it is proposed to found future legislation upon it?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Inquiry referred to is conducted by an unofficial body which determines its own procedure. It has, of course, no coercive or inquisitional powers, and no one who is not so minded is under any obligation to give it information. I understand that the Committee will, in due time, publish a Report. The Government are not in any way bound by the Committee's findings, and-all relevant material will be considered in framing any proposals which may ultimately be made
    Mr. WALTER LONG: Is the Inquiry which is being conducted, and to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, conducted with the knowledge and approval of His Majesty's Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, in a sense that is perfectly true. As I have said, it is an unofficial inquiry. None of its expenses are being borne by public funds, and we are in no way whatever bound by any conclusions at which it may arrive.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Are public officials allowed to give evidence before this Committee during their working time?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not believe that any such case has arisen.
    Mr. LONG: It is not in regard to the conclusions that we are anxious to know the views of the right hon. Gentleman. He is aware, surely, that there is a very strong feeling about this Inquiry in the country, and what the country desires to know is whether the people who are prosecuting
    1724
    these investigations are authorised to say that they have the approval if not the official sanction of His Majesty's Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The approval of the Government in a sense that they may make the inquiries which they deem themselves to be necessary; in no other sense.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will the evidence be published?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should not like to give an undertaking to that effect. I really do not know.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Is the Report of any value without the evidence on which it is founded?
    Mr. RAFFAN: Does this Inquiry differ in any material respect from the Inquiry conducted by the Rural League, of which the official leaders of the Opposition are vice-presidents, with a view to the formulation of a Conservative land policy?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have no official knowledge of that. I am told that the lines of the Inquiry are very similar.

    Factory and Workshop (No. 2) Bill.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the Prime Minister if he can promise to give an early day for the discussion of the Factory and Workshop (No. 2) Bill brought from the Lords?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I fear that I cannot promise facilities for the discussion of this Bill.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: As there is practically no opposition to this Motion, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could arrange to have it taken after half-past ten?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the hon. Member will communicate with me.

    House of Commons (Railway Directors).
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that railway directors frequently speak and vote in this House on behalf of railway Bills in which they have a direct pecuniary interest; and whether he can see his way by suitable legislation to stop this practice?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It has always been the practice to leave this and kindred

    1725
    matters to the judgment of the individual Member. The difficulties of dealing with it in any other way have been often pointed out, and I do not see my way to promise legislation.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a paragraph in the Report of the Committee on personal interest to the effect suggested by the question was moved by the present Lord Chancellor and supported by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Lord Courtney?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think that that is so.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman grant the Return in the name of the hon. Member for East North Hants, which will give us some light on the subject?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider it.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is it not very anomalous that a question should arise in the case of the hon. Member for Tower Hamlets, while the custom obtains in this House of railway directors getting up and not speaking on behalf of their constituents?

    Royal Mint (Gold Coinage).
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the steadily increasing influx of gold into this country and the progressive issue of gold coinage from the Royal Mint, from fourteen millions in 1909, to twenty-four millions in 1910 and thirty-three millions in 1911, since the Budget of 1909 was introduced; and whether, in view of the increase of this country's cash and credit since the new financial methods were inaugurated, he can include in the policy of the Government a further development of the principles of the Budget in order to strengthen still further the resources of this country?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I am aware that the figures quoted by my hon. Friend are quite accurate, and indicate general prosperity. I will bear in mind the suggestion contained in the last part of the question.

    Emigration.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that, tested
    1726
    by the new emigration statistics, the net emigration of persons previously resident in the United Kingdom, whether British, or alien, amounted to 209,331 in the six months ended September, 1912, and that, tested by the old method of estimating emigration, namely, by the balance outwards of passengers to places out of Europe, emigration for the nine months ended 30th September, 1912, amounted to 269,130; if these facts are somewhat at variance with the estimate of am emigration of 270,000 in the past twelve months, given to the House on 28th October; and whether, seeing that the facts for the last nine months, and especially the facts for the last six months, show a great acceleration of emigration to a point approximating to the natural increase of population, and that the birth-rate is still rapidly falling, and that the recent fall in the death-rate cannot proceed beyond a certain point, he will, in view of the seriousness of the question, promise that no further encouragement shall be given to public or private emigration agencies?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): My hon. Friend has not correctly stated the result of applying the old method of estimating emigration from the United Kingdom, which was to take the balance outward to countries out of Europe of passengers of British nationality. For the nine months ended 30th September, 1912, this number was 223,150—a figure which is-not at variance with the estimate of emigration in the answer by the Prime-Minister to my hon. Friend's question ort 28th October. I cannot agree that the figures available prove that emigration this year has increased greatly as compared with last year.
    Colonel YATE: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of those emigrants are men and how many women, and will he take any steps to facilitate the emigration of women?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The question of facilities does not arise out of this.

    Railways Bill.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked when the-text of the revised One-Clause Railways Bill will be made known to this House; and whether, in the absence of provisions relating to owners' risk rates or any other quid pro quo to agriculturists and traders, the House will be asked to treat it as a non-contentious measure?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade hopes to introduce the new Bill very shortly, and that it may be treated as a non-contentious measure.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the hon. Gentleman regard this contract between the Government and the railway companies as binding on third parties who have not been consulted, but who are expected to pay the bill?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Obviously, it rests with the House to back the Government up or not.

    Foreign Nations (Internal Controversies).
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether it is permissible for His Majesty's Ministers to express in public their opinions upon the internal controversies of friendly nations?
    Mr. OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether the Prime Minister's attention has been drawn to a speech by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in regard to the recent Presidential election in America; and what steps he will take to prevent a Minister of the Crown from taking sides in the politics of a friendly Power?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, I think that references to matters of controversy in foreign countries are better avoided, for fear of leading to misunderstandings, and I have so informed my hon. Friend, who, I am sure, had no intention of departing from a well-established practice.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    TURKISH WARSHIPS UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
    Mr. YERBURGHasked whether at the present moment two large armoured ships are in process of construction at Newcastle and Barrow, respectively, for the Turkish Government; and whether, in the event of an opportunity arising for the purchase of these ships, His Majesty's Government, in view of its expressed determination to maintain our position in the Mediterranean, both on land and sea, to as full an extent as it has ever done in the past without dependence on any alliance or understanding, actual or implied, but with own forces, intend to secure them as an addition to the Baltic Fleet of this country?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): One ship is under construction at Barrow and the other is reported to have been ordered provisionally from Elswick, but, so far as I am aware, has not been laid down. On the general question of naval strength I can only refer the hon. Member to the full statements I made to the House in March and July last.
    Mr. YERBURGH: Is it not the fact that in the early part of the year it was the intention of the Government to withdraw our battleships from the Mediterranean, and whether a programme of further construction was not based on the policy then put forward?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The whole of these matters were very fully discussed in April of this year, and I cannot attempt to enter upon them at Question Time.
    Colonel YATE: In view of the expressed determination of the Government to maintain our position in the Mediterranean will the right hon. Gentleman take immediate steps to provide a fresh Fleet to take the place of the ships sent to the Mediterranean?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot attempt to discuss these matters at Question Time. I am quite ready at the proper time to go into them fully and at length. They are very important matters, and it would be ridiculous to attempt to discuss them by means of question and answer across the floor of the House.
    Mr. YERBURGH: Will we have an opportunity of discussing the subject at an early date?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The House will have the regular opportunities of Parliamentary discussion provided by Parliamentary procedure.

    Roller Skating in Public Streets.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will say what local authorities in London have made by-laws during the last two years regulating or restricting roller skating on footpaths and streets, and to how many of these has his sanction or that of his predecessor in office been refused; and is it now intended to leave the regulation of the practice to the discretion of the borough councils and allow such by-laws as in their discretion they may consider desirable for the safety of the public and the skaters?
    Mr. McKENNA: Seven Metropolitan boroughs, namely, Camberwell, Hammersmith, Islington, Lambeth, Southwark, Stoke Newington and Woolwich have made by-laws on this subject. In two cases, namely, Islington and Stoke Newington, the by-laws were in such terms that it was found necessary to disallow them. In three cases the bylaws were allowed to come into force, and in Stoke Newington a second by-law was submitted, part of which was allowed. In two cases the by-laws are awaiting the expiration of the period which, according to Statute, must elapse before they come into force. In an eighth case a draft by-law is under consideration. I am quite ready to consider any representations on this matter from borough councils, but roller skating is a healthy recreation for those who are too poor to afford other and more expensive amusements, and I am not prepared to allow any by-law which goes beyond what is necessary in the interest of public safety.

    Mental Deficiency Bill.
    Mr. BOOTHasked if the Home Secretary is considering names for the selection to be appointed to the Board of Control set up by the Mental Deficiency Bill; whether their salary will commence at £1,000 per annum, rising to £1,500; and whether he has been approached by the occupants of either Front Bench in this House on behalf of well-known politicians?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have received several applications, but I do not propose to consider them until the Bill has been passed. As to the second part of the question, the matter is one on which the Treasury will have to be consulted. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is the House to understand that these lucrative posts will not be given to active politicians?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir; I could not make any statement upon the subject as I have not yet considered it.

    Metropolitan Police (Royal Commission, 1908).
    Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked whether the Home Secretary has given consideration to the recommendation made by the Royal Commission upon the Duties of the Metropolitan Police, in 1908, that an officer duly qualified by a knowledge of the law and experience in legal
    1730
    proceedings, acting under the direct superintendence of the Chief Commissioner, should be appointed for the purpose of dealing with complaints against the police by private persons and conducting inquiries into such complaints; and whether he proposes to give effect to such recommendation?
    Mr. McKENNA: The appointment referred to by my hon. Friend was made in 1910.

    Shops Act.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether the Home Secretary has received any, and, if so, what protests against the Shops Act; and what action he proposes to take to mitigate its effect?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have received a certain number of suggestions for the amendment of the Act on points of detail, but no general protests against the main principles of the measure, except in the case of the refreshment houses. An amending Bill to meet the difficulty in that case is now before the House.

    Suffragists (Window Smashing).
    Mr. KINGasked how many shops and other premises suffered from window-smashing by suffragettes on the night of the 5th November; and what was the total amount of the damage?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am informed that nineteen premises suffered damage estimated at £400.

    Letters to Public Offices (Ireland).
    Mr. LARDNERasked the Post master-General if he will give a list of those public offices and departments in Ireland to whom the members of the general public may forward their letters on official business through the post without affixing postage stamps?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Postage should be prepaid upon any letter addressed to a Government office in Ireland, unless it is strictly upon the business of that office and addressed to a chief official at its Dublin headquarters. Any instructions issued upon this subject are for the guidance of Post Office servants only.

    Telephone Service.
    Mr. LARDNERasked when it is expected to have the telephone exchange

    1731
    opened at Clones; and whether any decision has yet been arrived at as to the continuance of the telephone to Ballybay and Castleblayney?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I hope that it will be possible to open the new telephone exchange at Clones by Christmas. The inquiries regarding an extension of the telephone system to Ballybay and Castleblayney are not yet completed but they are being expedited.

    Parcels Post (Insurance).
    Mr. FFRENCHasked the Postmaster-General if he will consider the advisability of establishing a system of insurance in connection with the Post Office whereby small parcels, such as parcels of Irish lace or poplin, could be sent free from risk to the Oversea Dominions?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: A system of insurance is in operation in connection with the Parcel Post between the United Kingdom and practically the whole of the British Empire, with the exception of Canada and South Africa. I am renewing the endeavours which have previously been made to arrange for the extension of the system to these two Dominions.

    Post Office Railway Contracts.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the value of the contracts entered into by the Post Office with railway companies in connection with the postal service?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The aggregate annual payment to railway companies under letter mail contracts is £1,366,812. In addition, a payment, which at present amounts to about £1,130,000 a year, is made in respect of conveyance of parcel mails by railway.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he will state whether in connection with those contracts any applications have been received for the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am not aware of it.

    Wilts and Berks Canal.
    Mr. RICHARD LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether Major-General C. T. Hutchinson, who conducted an inquiry at Swindon on 27th February, 1900, as to the abandonment of
    1732
    the Wilts and Berks Canal, ever reported to the Board of Trade; whether he can state the reasons why the Inquiry was suddenly adjourned and why it has not been resumed; and whether, considering the risk to health that must arise from a derelict and stagnant canal passing through a densely populated area like Swindon, he will order that the Inquiry shall be resumed at an early date?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The Inquiry was abandoned owing to the raising of a technical objection to the proceedings and no Report was made to the Board of Trade by General Hutchinson. In the absence of a renewed application for a warrant of abandonment under Section 45 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, the Board are unable to order a resumption of the Inquiry.
    Mr. R. LAMBERT: If a fresh application is made in due form will the Board consent to a fresh Inquiry being opened?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: It will depend on the nature of the application, but the question will be considered. I cannot answer it in advance.

    Deck Loads.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will issue a Return giving particulars of all those cases of British merchant vessels sustaining damage by reason of carrying deck loads of timber and otherwise during the year ended 30th June, 1912?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: A Return could be given so far as deck loads of timber are concerned, but to include other kinds of deck cargo would involve a great amount of labour. Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to communicate with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on the subject.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what proportion of vessels registered in the United Kingdom were reported to the Board of Trade as having sustained casualties while carrying deck loads of timber during the year ending 30th June, 1912, to the total number of vessels carrying deck loads of timber during that period; what is the number of British vessels which carried deck loads of timber to continental ports during the last winter season—that is, from the last day of October, 1911, to the 16th day of April,

    1733
    1912; and what number of casualties attributable to these deck cargoes was reported as happening during this period to the Board of Trade?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I regret that the Board of Trade have no figures available which would give the information required by the hon. Member, nor do I think it possible to obtain such figures.
    Mr. PETO: Has the Board considered seriously the question of obtaining these figures as in answer to other questions I put in the House. I have had replies which would infer that there is very little risk to life at sea in consequence of the carrying of deck cargoes?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member's question was as to the proportion of loss in such cases. We have been able to give an exact statement of the loss for one period because research had been independently made on the subject. We have no figures as to the number of cargoes, and therefore cannot state the proportion.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    INSURANCE COMMITTEES (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is now able to afford any assistance to those counties which, considering the importance of all classes and remote districts being represented on the insurance committee, are desirous of paying the travelling expenses of their members and are without any funds to enable them to do so?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am in communication with the Scottish Commission on the subject, but I have nothing to add at present to the answers given to my hon. Friend on 28th October and 4th November.

    OUTWORKERS (IRELAND).
    Mr. LARDNERasked what orders have been issued by the Irish Commissioners or the Joint Committees in respect of outworkers in Ireland under the National Insurance Act; and whether any report has as yet been received from the Committee on Outworkers in Ireland?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No orders have been issued by the Joint Committee and the Irish Commissioners with regard to Irish outworkers, the Irish Outworkers' Committee not having yet presented its report.

    SOLDIERS, SAILORS, AND MARINES.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the representations made on behalf of the friendly societies which have formed approved societies for soldiers, sailors, and marines, that the sum allowed for administration expenses is totally inadequate to remunerate officers for the work that has to be performed under the National Insurance Act; and whether, in view thereof, some special allowance can be made?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have only been able to trace one representation of the kind referred to in the question, and that is from a society which accepts soldiers and sailors as members of the society itself. As at present advised, therefore, I see no reason for amending the Regulations.

    NUMBERS INSURED.
    Mr. FELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can now give an estimate of the number of persons insured under the National Insurance Act from the cards sent in, distinguishing the men from women, those in approved societies, and those in the Post Office?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The first quarter's cards are now being scheduled. It will be several weeks, however, before it will be possible to give the information desired by the hon. Member.
    Mr. FELL: Did the extended time expire on 31st October, and have they now all been received?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Speaking from memory, I think the 28th October, but, of course, it is serious work to schedule and classify some millions of cards.

    ALLOWANCE FOR DRUGS.
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked what processes of diagnosis of blood, sputa, etc., will be included in the list of those for which payment is to be covered by the allowance for drugs?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Such methods of diagnosis as are presumably referred to in the question will, so far as employed, come under the heading of medical treatment and not of drugs. It is not possible to state in advance what particular methods will be employed by different practitioners, but, as already stated, practitioners on the panel will not be required

    1735
    themselves to undertake work demanding skill and experience beyond that which the ordinary general practitioner can properly be expected to possess.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked by what arrangement an insured person, temporarily resident in another county than that in which he ordinarily resides or in another part of the same county, and taken suddenly ill, would be able to secure medical benefit under the National Insurance Act; and whether a qualified medical practitioner not on any panel would be recognised as able to give a certificate?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The arrangements referred to in the first paragraph of the question will be found in the Provisional Regulations relating to medical benefit, especially paragraphs 44 and 45. I am not clear as to what certificates the hon. Member is referring to in the second paragraph of his question.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Is that in the Regulations?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Regulations, paragraphs 44 and 45. They are laid before the House at present.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked whether a medical practitioner, accepting service under the National Insurance Act, is permitted to have a qualified assistant who is not a partner, and to employ such an assistant in visiting some of the cases of illness that may arise within the thirty mile area over which his contract practice, under Section 3 of Part I. of conditions of service for practitioners, is required to extend?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes, Sir, in the circumstances, but only in the circumstances, described in paragraph 6 of Part I. of the First Schedule to the Regulations recently issued relating to the administration of medical benefit under the Act.

    CLERKS (ADDITIONAL REMUNERATION).
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked whether a clerk receiving, as salary, less than £160 a year, who supplements it by other remunerative work so that his total income from all sources exceeds £160 a year, must become insured; and, if so, whether he can claim exemption from payment of Income Tax on the understanding that his income is under £160 a year?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: A clerk employed in whole-time service at a rate of remuneration not exceeding £160 a year will be insured as an employed contributor in virtue of that employment irrespective of the amount of any private income or of any remuneration that he may receive for other work. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. As I stated on the 25th October in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ossory, the liability to be insured does not affect and is not affected by the liability to pay Income Tax.

    IMPORTS FROM NORWAY.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, when a cargo of boards arrives from Norway half planed and half rough, the planed boards are free from, and the rough boards obnoxious to, the National Insurance Act; and whether, seeing that the insurance paid by British employers in respect of employés who plane the rough boards, is practically a bounty in favour of the foreigner, he will say what steps will be taken to place British and foreign labour in this behalf on an equal footing?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am afraid I cannot add to the reply given by me on 16th October last to a similar question asked by the hon. Member.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Lord BALCARRES: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury what business is to be taken to-morrow (Tuesday) night?
  The PRIME MINISTER: After Half-past Ten o'clock we propose to resume the discussion on the Criminal Law Amendment Bill.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  [MONEY].—[Sixteenth Allotted Day.]

  FINANCIAL RESOLUTION.
  Resolution [7th November] reported, "That it is expedient for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the provision for the Government of Ireland (a) to authorise the payment in each year out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of any sums for the payment of which into the Irish Exchequer, or to any body or person in the stead of the Irish Exchequer, provision may be made under that Act; and (b) to authorise such Customs Duties to be charged on articles brought into Great Britain from Ireland or into Ireland from Great Britain, and such alterations of drawbacks or allowances to be made in respect of those articles, as may be provided for by that Act, in cases where any Customs or Excise Duty levied in Great Britain is levied at a different rate from that at which the Duty is levied in Ireland, or where any Customs or Excise Duty is levied in Great Britain and not levied in Ireland, or levied in Ireland and not levied in Great Britain; and (c) to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund or out of moneys provided by Parliament of any salaries, pensions, superannuation allowances, gratuities, or compensation, for the payment of which to or on behalf of any judges or existing Irish officers, or officers of constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary or of the Dublin Metropolitan Police force, provision may be made in pursuance of that Act."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Resolution be read a second time."
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I beg to move at the end of Paragraph (a) to insert the words—
  "provided that the total payments shall not exceed in any one year the sum of £2,500,000, exclusive of the pro-
  1766
  ceeds in that year of Irish taxes and of the saving to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom in respect of any reserved services transferred to the Government of Ireland after the appointed day."
  The object of this Amendment is very clear. It is to prevent the taxpayers of England being called upon by the Government to provide money for a country in whose Government they shall have no share. As the Resolution stands, if the House agrees with the Committee in that Resolution the Government will have power to devote and to appropriate any sums of money they may choose from the revenues of the United Kingdom, and having taken those revenues to hand them over to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond). I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General, who, I presume, is going to reply to me will say; "Oh, we do not intend to do anything which is detrimental to the taxpayers of England. You must put your trust in the Government to see that no very large extra sum is to be transferred out of their pockets into the pockets of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford and his Friends. My answer is that I do not trust the Government. I do not desire to give the Government a blank cheque which would enable them, on any pressure put by the hon. Member for Waterford or by the forty-two Members who will take his place if this Bill becomes law, to use the funds of the taxpayers of this country for bolstering up the Government in Ireland. It may be said that it is not usual for any limiting words to be put into a Money Resolution. I have moved limiting words I do not know how many times, but certainly a considerable number. They have never been carried, I admit; but that is because the Government of the day, having put on their Whips, have compelled Members to support them in the Division Lobby. I do not remember any real or valid argument having been adduced against the proposition I am making now, and which I have made on previous occasions in regard to similar Resolutions, that the power of the Government to deal with the purse of the country should be limited.
  In this case it is particularly necessary to limit this power, because I do not believe that the majority of the people of this country thoroughly realise that unless my Amendment is carried they are certain

  1767
  to be called upon to contribute £2,000,000 or £2,500,000 out of their own pockets to the Government of Ireland. In suggesting £2,500,000 I have endeavoured to arrive at a reasonable sum. The Postmaster-General may perhaps like to know how I have arrived at that figure. I have taken the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman, £10,850,000; I have deducted the reserved services and what are called the prior charges, namely, the expenses of those charges which are reserved by the Government in addition to the reserved services. I have so worded my Amendment that if later on any reserved services are transferred to the Irish Government the English taxpayer shall not derive any advantage from that, but that the money, which in the ordinary course would have remained in the pockets of the English taxpayer, shall be transferred to the Irish Parliament. I think I have framed my Resolution so as to meet all reasonable objections. I may explain that I have put in the words "exclusive of the proceeds in that year of Irish taxes" because I am informed that Ireland is to be allowed to increase certain taxes; those taxes will be Irish taxes, and, being raised in Ireland, should go to the Irish Parliament. Therefore I have put in words to make that clear. I have endeavoured by my Amendment to ensure that the sum of money raised in Ireland out of Irish pockets shall be devoted to those services which deal exclusively with Ireland and Irish affairs, and that the British people will not be allowed to contribute to the maintenance of what I believe the majority of them dislike, namely, Home Rule in Ireland.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. LOUGH: Will the effect of moving this Amendment be to limit the general nature of the discussion, or can the whole Resolution as put from the Chair be discussed on the Amendment?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The effect will be to limit the discussion until this matter is disposed of.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The hon. Member has made it an invariable rule, whenever a Money Resolution is put down in connection with any Bill, to propose some specific limitation upon its scope, no matter how inapplicable such a limitation might be to the particular case. Such having been his
  1768
  invariable rule, and since he was well aware that a Money Resolution would be required for this Bill, it would have been more for the convenience of the House if he had put his Amendment on the Paper, seeing that the Money Resolution has been down for a week or ten days. The fact that the Amendment is not on the Paper would have made the discussion somewhat difficult, if indeed it was not perfectly obvious from the outset that the Amendment could not conceivably be accepted. Let me make sure that I have not misunderstood the Amendment, because it appears to me so utterly unreasonable that I can hardly believe that the hon. Baronet with his ingenuity would really have even proposed such an Amendment for the consideration of the House. I understand him to say that the sum which is to be paid over to the Irish Exchequer under his Amendment is to be limited to £2,500,000 in any one year, not including any sums which may be raised by the Irish Parliament itself from new or additional taxes, or any saving that may be made through economies in the services reserved to the Imperial Parliament. Let the House clearly understand what that means. We are to collect the whole of the taxes of Ireland, and into our Exchequer there will flow a sum which, on the basis of this year, will amount to £9,400,000. We shall receive into our Exchequer £9,400,000 from Ireland year by year.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: True revenue?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Cash, into our Exchequer, year by year. The hon. Baronet puts it forward as a reasonable suggestion that to help the Irish Government to carry on the services which will cost them £6,000,000 a year, out of the £9,000,000 which we receive we are to-hand them back £2,500,000, thereby making by the transaction a profit to ourselves of £6,500,000 a year.
  Sir F. BANBURY: No, no.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is undoubtedly the effect of the hon. Baronet's Amendment.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman has made no mention of the cost of the reserved services which is to be defrayed by this country, or of the prior charges, amounting to about £1,500,000, or a total of about £8,000,000.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Not the prior charges. With regard to the reserved services, the amount will be about £5,000,000. The total Irish revenue which we receive is £9,000,000; therefore the balance we shall be receiving, apart from the reserved services, is altogether £4,000,000. The hon. Baronet seriously suggests that we should pay over to the Irish people in no year more than £2,500,000. The effect of the Amendment will be that after the passing of Home Rule, while at the present time we contribute for Irish local purposes £1,500,000 per year, in future, under the hon. Baronet's proposal, Ireland, contributing to us £1,500,000 per year, would have a deficit of £3,000,000 upon her annual balance.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That is not my proposal. My proposal is that it shall be squared; that Ireland shall receive her money and we ours.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No. With all due deference to the hon. Baronet that is not the effect which would follow from the acceptance of the Amendment. What would follow would be that under no circumstance could we pay out to the Irish Exchequer more than £2,500,000 a year. As the plan of the Bill is, the whole Irish revenue, amounting to £9,000,000, will go into the Imperial Exchequer. It is therefore obvious to the House, without the necessity for further argument, that the proposal is one that cannot conceivably be accepted. The hon. Baronet has also said that if his Amendment is not accepted the Government, under this Bill, will be enabled—to use his own term—to use the funds of the country to bolster up the Irish Government. The whole of the expenditure from the Imperial Exchequer, under the conditions that will prevail when this Bill is passed, is set out distinctly and clearly in the Bill. There is no possibility for the Government to pay over to Ireland larger sums than distinctly provided for in the various Clauses of the Bill, which specify what the expenditure shall be without having—
  Sir E. CARSON: There are no figures in this Bill.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Of course not. It is utterly impossible, as anyone who is at all acquainted with the subject knows, because, as all the world knows, there are no accurate figures in existence—
  Sir E. CARSON: Hear, hear.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Of Irish expenditure, nor are there accurate figures in existence of Irish revenue so far as Customs revenue is concerned, because there are no Customs Houses, and there is no opportunity of obtaining statistics. It is impossible, and has been impossible from the outset, to present to the House accurate figures because they do not and cannot exist. The Bill provides that an authority of repute and weight shall be established consisting of two representatives of the Treasury, two representatives of the Irish Treasury, with a chairman appointed by the King, who shall ascertain these questions of fact—not deal with questions of policy—upon a basis of the fuller returns which will be in our hands under the powers of this Bill. The hon. Baronet in the course of his remarks said he had on very many occasions proposed resolutions of this character. On no occasion has his resolution been carried. The House has always decided against them hitherto, and I trust that on this occasion also the House will follow the same course.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think the right hon. Gentleman has done less than justice to the effect of the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. He has complained that it was not put on the Paper, but under the conditions in which we are working in these days that course is somewhat difficult. There is a further reason. The right hon. Gentleman said that his finance is largely based upon hypothetical figures. I prefer to say that it is based on guess work. We have endeavoured to get some figures, some actual estimates from the Government, and if the right hon. Gentleman and the Government had seen their way to give figures that I asked for, and in reply to a question which I put on the Paper last Friday, I dare say then, perhaps, my right hon. Friend would have been able to put his Amendment on the Paper. The question that I asked and the form in which I put it on the Paper was this: What is the estimated amount of the prior charges to be deducted from the Transferred Sum before it is paid over in cash? The House will see that the purpose of my right hon. Friend in his Amendment is not to limit the amount placed to the credit of the Irish Government by way of book-keeping, but it is to limit the amount of the Consolidated Fund payment in cash. It is quite a different thing from the Transferred Sum.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Oh, no.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The right hon. Gentleman says, "Oh, no." Perhaps I put it wrongly. Let me say it is quite a different thing from the transferred cash. It is quite a different thing from the cash which the Irish Government are going to get, because from the Transferred Sum which is to be given to the Irish Government, before it is ever paid over to the Irish Exchequer or the Irish Chancellor gets a penny of it, there are a whole host of deductions to be made. About these deductions we have never had a single figure from the Government. I do not want to discuss the general question in detail on this Amendment. I therefore confine myself to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that when we reach the broader stage of the discussion the right hon. Gentleman should give us some particulars of the estimates of these charges. I will give the House, roughly speaking, the heads of the amounts that I asked for: Imperial revenue, any reduction, or discontinuance of Imperial taxes in Ireland, that under Clause 17, Sub-section (2), is to be deducted from the Transferred Sum. I agree that is a thing you cannot estimate beforehand; therefore I do not press the Government, for an estimate of that. The Surplus Interest and Sinking Fund management under the Irish Debt and under Irish Loans contributed by the new Irish Government; that, again, I agree, you cannot estimate with accuracy beforehand, and I do not press the Government very strongly for an estimate under that head. But there are some other points of these prior charges on which there is really a strong case and in connection with which the Government really ought to have accurate estimates. There is, for instance, charges under the Land Purchase Acts (Clause 18); charges under the Irish Church Temporalities Fund (Clause 20); £5,000 for the Lord Lieutenant's salary (Clause 31); salaries and pensions of the existing judges, of Irish Established Civil Servants (Clause 32); superannuation and other allowances for the existing Irish and non-established Civil servants after the passing of the Act (Clause 33); pensions for the constabulary (Clause 35 and Clause 37, Sub-section (4)).
  Seeing, that at the moment I understand the pensions of the constabulary are estimated to amount to something like £400,000, the House will readily see when that one item alone, that one prior charge, is deducted from the Transferred Sum, it will make a very considerable hole in the Transferred Sum.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL dissented.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The right hon. Gentleman says "No." He will find that my words will be borne out.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member is really quite wrong on that point, if I may say so. It is true that after six years the Irish Government will have to pay the pensions of the constabulary, but so long as the constabulary is under Imperial control the Irish Government will have nothing whatever to pay to the constabulary save in regard to the few pensions there are—nothing else.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I agree, but surely the right hon. Gentleman does not think that I am looking at only the first six years after the passing of the Act. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the Act is only going to continue for six years.
  An HON. MEMBER: Six minutes!
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Six minutes! But I will not press that point. Let me refer to my last point. I do press him on this: I put a question on the Paper, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for the financial provisions of the Bill ought to have given me an answer. I suppose the Government will have estimates of these prior charges. What we want to get at is this: What is the sum in cash which will pass from the British Exchequer to the Irish Exchequer? What is the amount that the Irish Exchequer will have to handle when it comes to balance? We have never had an answer to that question.
  Mr. LOUGH: I would like to take your opinion, Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order. It seems to me that this Amendment cannot be in order. I do not think, in the first place, it expresses the view that the hon. Baronet has and which he desires to bring before the House; and, in the second place, it will make nonsense of the Bill, The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down devoted his whole argument to that part of the Resolution which is embodied under head (c). The Amendment does not come there at all.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, no.
  Mr. LOUGH: The hon. Member is labouring under great difficulties; but this Amendment is moved at the end of paragraph (a). It is a very wide paragraph. It raises the payment, as my right hon.

  1773
  Friend says, of vast sums of money, and it is moved that this Amendment shall be limited to £2,500,000. The right hon. Baronet explains he did not, by his Amendment, mean to touch these moneys dealt with under paragraph (a). He was aiming at the balance.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I just explain?
  Mr. LOUGH: Wait, please. I will be done in a moment. With great respect I put it that, in the first place, the Amendment would not read in where it is put in; and, in the second place, it does not express the views of the hon. Baronet.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not quite follow the right hon. Gentleman. It is perfectly true that this Amendment applies only to paragraph (a), and it is of a limiting character. It says that the money to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund in any one year is not to exceed £2,500,000. I do not express any opinion as to whether or not on its merits this is a suitable Amendment to move or to accept, but I do not see anything from the point of view of Order to deal with.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 206.

  Division No. 306.]

  AYES.

  [4.15 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Croft, H. P.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Astor, Waldorf

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Baird, J. L.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Kerry, Earl of

  Baker, Sir Randoll L. (Dorset, N.)

  Dixon, C. H.

  Keswick, Henry

  Balcarres, Lord

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Knight, Captain E. A.

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond)

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

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

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Lane-Fox, G. B.

  Barnstan, H.

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Barrie, H. T.

  Falle, B. G.

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

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

  Fell, Arthur

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

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Beckett, Hon, Gervase

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Fleming, Valentine

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Forster, Henry William

  Lockwood, Bt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Bigland, Alfred

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Bird, A.

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Gibbs, G. A.

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

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Boyton, James

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Goldman, C. S.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  M'Mordie, Robert James

  Bull, Sir William James

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Burgoyne, A. H.

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Malcolm, Ian

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Gretton, John

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Butcher, John George

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

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Campion, W. R.

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Moore, William

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

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

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

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

  Cassel, Felix

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Cator, John

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Cautley, H. S.

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Newman, John R. P.

  Cave, George

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Nield, Herbert

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

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

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

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

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

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

  Chambers, J.

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

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

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hills, John Waller

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Collings, Bt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Peel, Capt. B. F. (Woodbridge)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hope, Major J. A, (Midlothian)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Hunter, Sir C. R.

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Rawlinson, Peel John Frederick

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

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

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

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

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Stewart, Gershom

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

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

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Winterton, Earl of

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Yate, Col. C. E.

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

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Yerburgh, Robert A.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Valentia, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

  Stanier, Beville

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Frederick Banbury and Mr. Mitchell-

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

  Thomson.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Goldstone, Frank

  Manfield, Harry

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Meagher, Michael

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Gulland, John W.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Molloy, M.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hackett, J.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Rossendale)

  Mooney, John J.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Morrell, Philip

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morison, Hector

  Boland, John Pius

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Muldoon, John

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Munro, R.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Brady, P. J.

  Hayward, Evan

  Neilson, Francis

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Henderson, J M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Hinds, John

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Dowd, John

  Clough, William

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow)

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Malley, William

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Crawshay-William, Eliot

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Crooks, William

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

  Philipps, Col. Sir Ivor (Southampton)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Joyce, Michael

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

  Keating, Matthew

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Kelly, Edward

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Delany, William

  Kilbride, Denis

  Radford, George Heynes

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  King, J.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Reddy, Michael

  Dillon, John

  Leach, Charles

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Doris, W.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Falconer, James

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Rowlands, James

  Farrell, James Patrick

  McGhee, Richard

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Maclean, Donald

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

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Bridgeton)

  Ginnell, L.

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

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

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Sheehy, David

  Glanville, H. J.

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

  Simon, Sir John Alisebrook

  1776

  1777

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Whyte A. F. (Perth)

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Webb, H.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Illingworth and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  The PRIME MINISTER and Mr. BONAR LAW The PRIME MINISTER and Mr. BONAR LAW rose together—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Prime Minister.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move, "That further consideration of the Resolution, as now amended, be now adjourned."
  Question put, and agreed to. Resolution, as amended, to be further considered to-morrow (Tuesday).
  The Orders for the remaining Government business were read and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House I do now adjourn."
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight minutes after Four o'clock.