Commons Sitting of 2 April 1913

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Liverpool Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
London County Council (Lambeth Bridge) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Bishop's Waltham Water Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Great Western Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Coventry Corporation Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Report of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland in 1912–13 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EMIGRATION STATISTICS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Emigration Statistics of Ireland for the year 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
Copy presented of Return of Advances under the Irish Land Purchase Acts during the month of April, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (IRELAND).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 16th January, 1913; Captain O'Neill]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 49.]
SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 17th March, 1913, granting a Retired Allowance to Mr. John Sutherland, Superintendent, Watford, Post Office [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PUTUMAYO DISTRICT CONSULAR TOUR (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 6, 1913).
Copy presented of Report by His Majesty's Consul at Iquitos on his Tour in the Putumayo District [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the borough of Southend-on-Sea under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
COAL MINES ACT, 1911.
Copy presented of General Regulations, dated 1st April, 1913, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under The Coal Mines Act, 1911, as to the Hours of Employment of winding enginemen; and Order of the Secretary of State, dated 1st April, 1913, prescribing the date after which a winding engineman may not be employed for more than eight hours in any one day except as provided by the General Regulations [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MARRIAGES, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Copy presented of General Abstract of Marriages, Births, and Deaths registered in England and Wales in the year 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EAST INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN ENGLAND).
Copy presented of Return of all Loans raised in England, chargeable on the Revenues of India, outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ending on the 31st March, 1913, etc. [by Act]: to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 50.]
NATIONAL GALLERY (REPORT).
Copy ordered "of Report of the Director of the National Gallery for the year 1912, with Appendices."—[Mr. Masterman.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY.

    PERSIAN GULF.
    Mr. WHELERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is proposed to grant a medal for general services in the operations carried out by His Majesty's Navy in the Persian Gulf in the years 1909–12 and, if so, what is the cause of the delay in granting the medal?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The question is at present under discussion with the other Departments of State concerned.

    CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.
    Sir W. BYLESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, seeing that the caning of boys in the Royal Navy is henceforth to be restricted to serious offences, such as theft, drunkenness, and insubordination, and in view of the importance of knowing the yearly increase or decrease in such offences, will he give instructions that the quarterly punishment Returns shall in future be made in such a form as to render the desired information accessible?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The punishment is classified under the head of minor punishments, as it is not permanently recorded against the offender and has no effect upon his prospects. The work involved in extracting the information as to the number of canings in each quarter would be great, and the object to be gained does not seem to justify the expenditure of labour involved. I will, however, consider
    358
    whether it would be practicable to enlarge the Statistical Return, which is now rendered by each Fleet yearly, so as to show the number of canings of boys with a view to their being shown separately in the Annual Returns of Courts Martial and Summary Punishments inflicted. But I must not be understood definitely to promise that this can be done.
    Sir W. BYLES: Has it not been stated that this method of punishment is only used in serious cases? Is it not possible to say how many there have been, without much trouble?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, it is used only in serious cases. But the question is whether the information is of such value as to justify the labour of getting it.
    Sir W. BYLES: Do you want to keep the information back?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No.

    SLAVE TRADE (H.M.S. "DWARF").
    Mr. FERENSasked if any reports had been received from the commander of His Majesty's ship "Dwarf" as to slave-trading practices in West Africa; if so, whether any Paper will be laid at an early date?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): I have received through the Admiralty some reports from the Commander of the "Dwarf," which indicate that slave-trading has been attempted off the West Coast of Africa. Measures have been taken to prevent such practices, and I expect further reports from His Majesty's Vice-Consul, who is now visiting the islands off that coast. I do not propose to lay Papers, at any rate until I have fuller information on the subject.

    INTERNATIONAL EUCHARISTIC CONGRESS.
    Mr. KINGasked whether, on the occasion of the International Eucharistic Congress to take place in Malta from 24th to 27th April, a British naval guard is to line the route in honour of the procession; and whether, in order to prevent an insincere religious observance, he will give orders that no non-Catholic sailor need form part of the guard, and that it is in no case incumbent upon any sailor to salute any person or symbol in the procession?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on the

    359
    17th March by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to a similar question by the hon. Member for Wandsworth.
    Mr. KINGasked whether instructions have been given for a vessel of His Majesty's Navy to carry the Papal Legate to Malta for the approaching Eucharistic Congress; if so, what will be the cost of this voyage; whether the Papal Nuncio will also return on a warship; and whether it is intended that ecclesiastics of other faiths will be similarly honoured on ceremonial occasions?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; to the second part, there will be a small expenditure of coal; to the third part, no arrangement for the return has yet been made; and to the fourth part, certainly, if the circumstances are similar.
    Mr. KING: Before arrangements are made for the return voyage, will the Italian Government be approached to see whether they will co-operate by arranging that one of their vessels shall take this gentleman home?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is simply an act of courtesy to a distinguished visitor.
    Mr. KING: Would they not like to do it?

    OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT (SIR PERCY SCOTT'S ARTICLE).
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to an article in the "British Review," written by Admiral Sir Percy Scott, Baronet; whether the signals published in the articles were confidential; and, if so, having regard to the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, and in view of the injury likely to be sustained by naval discipline by such publication, whether he proposes to take steps in the matter?
    Mr. KINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to an article in a current review, written by Sir Percy Scott, recalling an incident long since closed in which a difference of opinion between two high naval officers was paraded before the Fleet; and whether, having regard to the effect of such occurrences on the discipline of the Navy and on public confidence in our naval
    360
    defences, he has taken any steps to reprimand the parties mainly concerned and to prevent the recurrence of such incidents?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: On behalf of my right hon. Friend, I will answer these questions. He must repeat what he said on the 19th of last month in reply to this sort of question, that he has no intention whatever of reviving or taking any part in the naval controversies of five years ago, and that it is not in the interests of the Service that they should be advertised.
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: Did the Admiralty at the time of the incident point out that the publication of such signals was contrary to the King's Regulations and to Admiralty instructions, and were steps taken to find out who was responsible for the publication of the signals?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to give notice of that question.
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any information as to who supplied detailed information to the new Director firing apparatus to the "Sphere" newspaper; and whether that information was formerly regarded as confidential?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Admiralty have no information as to how the particulars in question were supplied to the "Sphere" newspaper. Undoubtedly particulars of such inventions in the naval service are treated as confidential, and their unauthorised publication is to be deprecated. In this case, however, the pictures were of no military value, were clearly not authentic, and would teach experts nothing.
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: Is that the opinion of the naval experts in the Service. Have the Admiralty taken any trouble to find out who was responsible for publishing the information?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As to the first part of the question I have expressed the view of the Admiralty in my answer. As to the second I cannot say whether steps will be taken, but, generally speaking, the Press conform to our regulation.
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: Will the Admiralty take steps to find out who supplied the information?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will look into the matter. SO far as I know no such steps have been taken.

    OIL FUEL SUPPLY.
    Mr. HORNERasked whether, having regard to the amount of foreign capital now invested in British Colonies in exploiting and developing the oil industry and to the increasing number of foreigners yearly employed by British-owned oil companies in British Colonies, and to the possibility of powerful trusts being able to corner the oil market and control the output, and to the vast importance of oil fuel for naval purposes, His Majesty's Government will consider the question of endeavouring to get the different British Colonial Governments to reserve to themselves all or substantial portions of the oil-bearing lands within their respective territories and otherwise keep control of and assist this industry?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir. It has for a long time received attention.

    DESTROYERS.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether five of the German destroyers of the 1912–13 programme had been completed by the end of 1912, and that the last of the British destroyers of the corresponding programme was not laid down until December, 1912; and whether, in view of the fact that we have since 1905 completed only eighty-one destroyers to Germany's eighty-six, he will take steps to ensure that in future our destroyers shall be laid down early and completed as quickly as those of the Germans?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The figures are as stated. My right hon. Friend does not wish to add anything at the present time to the statement he made when he introduced the Navy Estimates last week.
    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard the figures I have given as satisfactory?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not wish to add to the statement made on the Estimates.

    ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMANDERS AND LIEUTENANTS.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked when the establishment of commanders was fixed at its present figure, and what addition has been made to the establishment of lieutenants since that date?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The authorised establishment of commanders was fixed
    362
    at 373 by Order in Council of 12th November, 1900, but at the present time 388 are borne. The authorised establishment of lieutenants has been increased from 1,550 to 2,000 since the above date, but at present 1,872 are borne. The whole question of the numbers of officers in the various ranks required is now engaging the attention of the Admiralty.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked whether the Board has considered the advisability of creating a new rank intermediate between lieutenants and commanders with the object of retaining on the active list for a further period officers who would otherwise retire on reaching the age limit, or voluntarily because of the limited prospects of advancement open to them?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am advised that the creation of such a rank would not have the effect suggested.
    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Do the Admiralty propose to do anything to meet the glut of lieutenants, which is becoming a serious matter?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I must ask for notice of that. I am advised that the suggestion would not have the effect the hon. Member anticipates.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS.
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked the right hon. Gentleman whether drillers employed in His Majesty's dockyard, Portsmouth, are checked 4 per cent. from their piecework earnings on account of their drills being ground for them; whether the practice of grinding these tools has been discontinued; if so, whether the men are still checked 4 per cent.; whether this practice of checking men is carried out in other dockyards or is only a local order; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be held with a view to the money deducted being refunded to the men?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is the case that drillers who are not required to grind their own drills are paid for piece-work drilling at rates 4 per cent. lower than men who have to leave their drilling work to grind their tools. The practice in this matter is in accord with Admiralty instructions issued to all dockyards. Any cases in which the men may consider that the 4 per cent. abatement from rates may have been made improperly would be fully investigated if represented to the local officers by the workmen affected. It is

    363
    worth noting that the earnings during the past twelve weeks in Portsmouth Yard of men using pneumatic drills averaged 46 per cent. above day-pay wages, compared with an average of 42 per cent. by hand drillers who grind their own tools.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Will the right hon. Gentleman let the men know that they can apply to him, so that the question can be gone into?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: There is no need whatever to do that. The men know that they can apply to the Admiral Superintendent in any case where they think they have a grievance.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked whether it is the custom at Portsmouth Dockyard to promote skilled labourers to the position of chargemen; and, if so, how many have been promoted during the last three years?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir. Sixteen have been so promoted during the last three years.

    DAMAGE TO FISHING GEAR.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the right hon. Gentleman what compensation is due to the crews of the fishing boats BK 213, BK 220, BK 247, and BK 183, whose gear was damaged months ago during the naval manœuvres; and if, in view of the fact that the delay in payment has caused considerable hardship, he will give instructions that the matter shall be settled with the least possible delay?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Extended inquiries have been necessary with regard to these particular claims, but they have now been completed, and payment of compensation is being made in each case. The sums awarded are as follows: BK 213, £18 10s.; BK 220, £10; BK 247, £6; RK 183, £17 17s. 6d.

    ARTILLERY AND AMMUNITION (GREAT BRITAIN AND GERMANY).
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked what is the comparative expenditure on Naval Artillery and ammunition in Great Britain and Germany from 1904–5 to 1912–13?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Owing to the form in which this information in the German Estimates comprises expenditure both for ships and for coast defences, it is impossible to separate the portion which is comparable with British figures from that which is not.

    MEDITERRANEAN DESTROYER FLOTILLA.
    Mr. FALLEasked the right hon. Gentleman if the men now serving in the Mediterranean Destroyer Flotilla have served two years in these waters and expected to be relieved in May, but that these reliefs have been cancelled and are not to take effect till September; and if he can give any reason for this change of plans and keeping men three summers in these waters?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The men serving in the Mediterranean Destroyer Flotilla have been on the station for varying lengths of time. So far as possible men are relieved at the expiration of two years, but as the destroyers have to recommission by groups, the length of service in certain cases may exceed that amount. One group will recommission next month, and another in the autumn. Some of the men belonging to the latter, about one-third, will have served on the station for about two years and four months. There has been no change of plan.

    Congo.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a memorandum has been addressed to him by the Congo Reform Association which imputes oppression on the part of Belgium and recommends intervention on the part of Great Britain in the administration of a friendly Power; and, if so, what answer he has returned to this communication?
    Mr. ACLAND: A memorandum has been received, but the hon. Member must refer for its substance to those who sent it. The answer to be returned is under consideration.
    Sir J. D. REES: Does the hon. Gentleman dispute the description I have given that the memorandum does impute oppression to a friendly Power?
    Mr. ACLAND: Yes. The description is not quite correct in my opinion.
    Mr. EUGENE WASON: Is it the intention of His Majesty's Government to recognise the annexation of the Congo?
    Mr. ACLAND: It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to recognise the annexation of the Congo, but, as the House will remember, a promise was given that the House would be consulted before that was done. I hope an opportunity may be found soon for that dis-

    365
    cussion, but it will not be before the first week in May.

    Albania (Great Powers).
    Mr. ALDENasked the right hon. Gentleman the number of days allowed by the Powers for the evacuation of territory occupied by Servia and Montenegro in Albania; whether any step has yet been taken by those two Allies in compliance with the request of the Powers; and if he can make any statement with regard to the bombardment of Scutari?
    Mr. ACLAND: No limit of days has been named. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. The attack on Scutari has been resumed with the object of annexing to Montenegro a population of some 40,000 inhabitants contrary to their own wishes and to the decision of the Powers. The Powers have all agreed to a naval demonstration to make their decision respected and have stated that they will either participate or acquiesce in it. Two British ships are at Corfu in readiness to proceed to participate in the naval demonstration when other Powers are also ready.

    Northern Nigeria (Murder of Mr. Campbell).
    Sir W. BYLESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he will lay Papers with regard to the punitive expedition arising out of the murder of Mr. Campbell before the Colonial Office Vote is taken; and (2) whether he is yet in a position to state that no women or children were killed during the punitive expedition in Northern Nigeria arising out of the murder of Mr. Campbell?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The punitive measures necessitated by the murder of Mr. Campbell involved the use of ninety men, rather more than half a company of native troops, and were completed within Sixteen days. It is an exaggeration to call this an expedition, and I do not consider that the operations—the necessity for which I greatly regret—present any features which necessitate laying the Papers before Parliament. In reply to my hon. Friend's other question, I have nothing to add to my reply of 3rd February. There is nothing in any of the reports received to justify the supposition that any women or children were killed or wounded.
    Sir W. BYLES: Are we to have no means of getting to know about this punitive expedition?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I will, of course, give the hon. Member and any other hon. Members any information for which they wish. I do not think the expedition was of such a character to necessitate the laying of Papers before Parliament. We have no desire to conceal any of the facts.
    Sir W. BYLES: Was not this thing done in oar name, and ought we not to know what happened?

    Gold Coast (Arrest of British Subject).
    Mr. FERENSasked whether a British subject, named Spencer, has been arrested on the Gold Coast upon a charge of slave trading for the supply of labourers to the island of Fernando Po; and, if so, whether the man has been condemned, and to what punishment?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have no information on the subject, but will make inquiries.

    Sierra Leone.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he can publish any report upon the proceedings taken under the amended ordinance for the suppression of crimes committed in connection with the secret societies of Sierra Leone?
    Mr. HARCOURT: When the Special Commission Court appointed for the trial of these crimes has completed its labours, I will consider whether any account of the proceedings can properly be published.

    Rhodesia (Settlers).
    Mr. JOWETTasked the right hon. Gentleman if serious complaints are being made by persons who have been induced to settle in Rhodesia concerning statements published by the British South Africa Company in pamphlets advertising for settlers on the ground that labour which in the pamphlets referred to is said to be plentiful is, on the contrary, very scarce; and whether he will have the statements made by the British South Africa Company in their advertisements, on which persons are being induced to settle in Rhodesia, examined and compared with the facts?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am not aware of the serious complaints to which the hon. Member refers, and perhaps he would supply one with the information upon which his question is based, in the absence of which it is not possible for me to deal with the matter.

    Trinidad.
    Mr. POINTERasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any official information to the effect that the trigonometrical survey of Trinidad is incorrect; and, if so, in consideration of the importance of accuracy in surveying for oil, will he cause inquiry to be made?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The Governor has made inquiries into an allegation that there were material errors in the trigonometrical survey of Trinidad. He satisfied himself that the allegation was not well founded, and did not consider it necessary to take any further action in the matter.
    Mr. POINTERasked the right hon. Gentleman whether his predecessor promised to increase the Excise Duty on rum in Trinidad from 8s. 6d. to 9s. in order to balance the Import Duty on rum of 9s.; and, if so, what steps have been taken to given effect to it?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am not aware that any promise was made except that the proposal to increase the Excise Duty would be considered. It was considered by the Legislative Council in 1911, but was rejected.
    Mr. POINTERasked the number of commissioned officers in the Trinidad military establishment; the number of the rank and file outside the constabulary; what is the collective pay of officers and of men; whether they possess any guns other than those used for ceremonial purposes; and, if so, how many?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Two officers and four non-commissioned officers of the Trinidad Light Infantry and Trinidad Light Horse receive pay amounting to £085 a year; the remainder are unpaid. It would be contrary to the established practice to make any public statement as regards the strength and armament of these forces.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for War (1) how many of his eighty efficient machines are biplanes and how many are monoplanes, how many are more than six months old; and how many have been bought second-hand since the 1st January, 1913; (2) to which squadrons of the Royal Army Flying Corps the eighty efficient machines are attached, and how long they
    368
    have been in the possession of each of such squadrons; (3) how many aeroplanes were ordered by the Army Wing of the Royal Flying Corps from English manufacturers between Michaelmas Day and Christmas Day, 1912, and whether his new and perfect machine is to be made at the Royal Aircraft Factory or elsewhere; and (4) whether, on the 24th March, 1913, the only efficient aeroplanes belonging to the Royal Flying Corps, apart from the machines in the factory, were seventeen at Upavon, three at Lark Hill, fourteen at Farnborough, and five at Montrose?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): These questions raise points on which I made in my speech on the introduction of Army Estimates the fullest statement that can be made at present consistently with public interests.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does the public interest really prevent us from knowing the nature of the aeroplanes we have?
    Colonel SEELY: Certainly.
    Mr. JOYNSON HICKSasked the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the statement by General Henderson, Director of Military Training, at the meeting of the Aeronautical Society on the 26th instant, that the reason why orders for aeroplanes last year were spasmodic was that the money came spasmodically, and that when orders were not given it was due to lack of money; and whether such statements enunciates the views of his Department?
    Colonel SEELY: My attention had been called to this matter. The statement made by the general officer at the meeting referred to, of which a brief report appeared in the Press, was accurate in every particular, and conflicted in no way with my public acknowledgment of the liberal way in which my demands on the Exchequer for aviation had been met by the Chancellor. There are many other things besides aeroplanes to be provided out of aviation funds, and it was necessary for me personally to decide from time to time in what proportion sums should be allotted to the various services.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Do I gather from that that the spasmodic orders were owing to lack of funds?
    Colonel SEELY: No, Sir, certainly not. If my hon. Friend will read my reply he will see they were owing to decisions I

    369
    had to give myself as to the directions in which we should spend the money available for the various aviation services.

    TIME-EXPIRED SOLDIERS (EMIGRATION).
    Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for War whether time-expired soldiers leaving India can go straight from India to New South Wales; if not, what are the regulations about this, and what amount of money are they required to possess before being allowed to go straight from India to New South Wales; and do these same regulations apply to other parts of Australia and to other parts of our Overseas Empire?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to answer this question. In reply to the first and third parts, Army Regulations provide that soldiers leaving India on final discharge may, subject to the Commander-in-Chief's approval, proceed direct to any part of the Empire. In reply to the second part, there are no regulations restricting the immigration of discharged soldiers into New South Wales; but the New South Wales Government has hitherto refused assistance or encouragement to such immigrants unless they are men of approved health, character, and vigour, are not over forty years of age, are entitled to pension, and have £200 either in savings or in the form of commuted pension. I may add that I have seen a statement in the Australian Press that these conditions are now no longer to he insisted upon; but I have no official information to that effect, and am making inquiry.

    RIFLE RANGE (CALBOURNE, ISLE or WIGHT).
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that neither the Hampshire Territorial Association nor the War Office make any contribution to the parish of Calbourne, Isle of Wight, in lieu of the loss of rates which this parish has sustained owing to the Government having acquired many hundreds of acres of land in the parish for the purpose of a rifle range; and if the War Office can see their way to make some contribution to relieve the parishioners in respect of this loss?
    Colonel SEELY: I have received a letter on this subject, but am not at present in a position to make any statement.

    EUROPEAN TROOPS (INDIA).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can assure the House that no proposal for reducing the numbers of the European troops serving in India is under consideration?
    Colonel SEELY: No such proposal has been received.
    Sir J. D. REES: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the question? Can he say that no such proposal is under consideration?
    Colonel SEELY: We are not in the habit of considering proposals which we have not yet received.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is it not true that a distinguished officer is now reporting to the Government upon the Indian Army, and is not the right hon. Gentleman's answer not practically an evasion of the question I asked?
    Colonel SEELY: No, most certainly not. Lord Nicholson has a Committee which is inquiring into the whole matter. We have received no representation from him. We have not the least idea whether he will propose an increase or a reduction, or that things shall remain as they are. There is no question of evasion whatever. The question is altogether premature.
    Sir J. D. REES: With apologies to the right hon. Gentleman in that respect, may I ask if the Government is prepared to favourably consider any reduction whatsoever in the European troops?
    Colonel SEELY: It would be impossible to answer a question so obviously hypothetical in its character. We have not the least idea what Lord Nicholson will recommend, whether an increase or a reduction, or that things should remain as they are. It is impossible for me to say more, and I regret that the hon. Gentleman should have used the word "evasion."

    MARRIED OFFICERS.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary of State for War, if he is aware of the expense thrown upon married officers on changing quarters; and if he will take into favourable consideration making an allowance for removal, so that no greater burden will be thrown on married officers and men than on bachelor officers and men?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): I presume my hon. Friend refers to the removal of furniture, etc. Increased allowances are made to married soldiers, warrant officers and quartermasters on this score. I regret that I am unable to extend them to other married officers.
    Colonel YATE: Is there any reason why it should not be extended to married officers?
    Mr. BAKER: I cannot answer that across the floor of the House. The matter has been considered.
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Secretary of State for War whether lodging allowance to married officers is granted only while the quarters for unmarried officers in barracks are all full; and whether he will consider the desirability of granting lodging allowance to all married officers of twelve years' service and upwards while on the active list?
    Mr. BAKER: Lodging money is issued to an officer married or single only when no quarters, on the scale laid down for an officer of his rank, are available.

    RIFLE SUB-DEPOT (TRANSFER To WINCHESTER).
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Secretary of State for War whether the rifle sub-depôt is to be transferred to Winchester; if so, will he state the reason; whether he is aware that, when the rifle sub-depôt was formed at Woolwich a few years ago, about £15,000 was spent in fitting up stores and other accommodation; and what is the estimated cost involved in the transference to Winchester?
    Colonel SEELY: The rifle sub-depôt is to be moved to Winchester for several reasons connected with organisation and training and especially to set free barrack accommodation for an Infantry battalion which is required owing to the withdrawal of two battalions from South Africa. A sum of £15,000 was spent at Woolwich on the construction of married quarters which were urgently required, and which will be all occupied soon after the removal of the sub-depôt.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked whether in the Territorial Army there are still, including untrained recruits, 40,747 non-commissioned officers and men under nineteen years of age?
    Colonel SEELY: There are no figures for ages available for a date later than the 1st October, 1912.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Secretary of State for War how many men in the Territorial Army must be deducted from the number of effectives for casualties, or, if he is unable to give the number approximately, whether 10 per cent. is too small a number to deduct for casualties from the total number of effectives?
    Colonel SEELY: No accurate figures are available, and I am not therefore in a position to give any reply to the points raised in the question.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked whether the number of non-combatants in the Territorial Force is still under 13,000; if so, how many fewer than this number there are; and whether the number of non-effectives in the Territorial Army is 118,079, or fewer or more, and, if either, how many?
    Colonel SEELY: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part of the question, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to a question on this subject put by the hon. Gentleman on 28th January.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked whether the number of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men absent from camp last year was, in the Territorial Army, 6,056; whether the number of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men who failed to pass the standard test for musketry or did not fire was more than 58,000; and, if so, how many more?
    Colonel SEELY: As regards the first part of the question, the numbers absent from camp will be found on page 109 of the Annual Return of the Territorial Force, Cd. No. 6657. As regards the last part of the question, the figures for the musketry course will be found in Command Paper 6616.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether, as 114,621 non-commissioned officers and men are due to become time expired between the 1st of October, 1912, and the 30th of September of this year, and as the wastage has been estimated during the same period from causes other than the expiration of the term of service at 27,600, he is able to give an approximate estimate of

    373
    the number of vacancies for non-commissioned officers and men in the Territorial Army which may be expected to occur by 30th September, 1913, irrespective of the deficit of 27,600 non-commissioned officers and men in the establishment on the 1st of March last?
    Colonel SEELY: I fear that I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to a similar question on this subject yesterday.

    Provincial Settlements (India).
    Sir J. D. REESasked what were the chief difficulties which arose and what was the chief cause of the controversies between the provincial and central governments in India in respect of the framing of provincial settlements?
    Mr. MONTAGU: In framing provincial settlements the object in view is to endow the provinces as liberally as efficiency without extravagance demands. This end is accomplished by research and possibly by consultation and correspondence, not of course, without difficulty, but never, I think, leading to controversy.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether there have been any and, if so, what recent developments in the system of Indian provincial settlements; and what correspondence has passed between the Government of India and the India Office on this subject?
    Mr. MONTAGU: New settlements with the several provinces were introduced in 1911, and their general features are described in the financial statement of the Government of India for 1911–12. The terms were previously the subject of correspondence between the Government of India and the Secretary of State and were approved by him.
    Sir J. D. REESasked what correspondence passed between the Government of India and the Government at Bombay on the last occasion of making a provincial financial settlement; what reasons led the Government of India to abandon the correspondence; and what were the terms of the settlement finally made?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The correspondence to which the hon. Member refers arose out of proposals regarding provincial finance made by the Decentralisation Commission, which were referred by the Government of India to local governments for opinion. The views of the Bombay Government and
    374
    of other Governments were considered by the Government of India, who placed their conclusions before the Secretary of State. His decisions as to the terms of the new provincial settlements were explained and given effect to in the financial statement for 1911–12.

    Public Service (Appointments).
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the attacks made upon the Government in connection with appointments to positions in the public service without competitive examinations and that certain Returns have been made to this House on the subject; and whether any opportunity will be given, either on the Estimates or otherwise, on which the whole question may be adequately discussed by the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The Government will be glad to give an opportunity for the full discussion of this matter if they are requested to do so by the responsible leaders of the Opposition.

    Stafford Rouse (Withdrawal of Offer).
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement about the future of Stafford House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The House will, I am sure, have learned with regret, from the correspondence which has just been published, that Sir William Lever has felt it necessary to withdraw his generous offer which was under the consideration of His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman approach Sir W. Lever, and point out the grave losses which are imposed upon the community and the Empire at large by the action of practically one gentleman?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have written a letter.

    Marconi Companies.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Prime Minister if he will state the date when he first became aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Lord Murray had purchased the additional 3,000 shares in the American Marconi Company?
    The PRIME MINISTER: At the end of December last year or the beginning of January in the present year.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Prime Minister if, in addition to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-

    375
    General, he has knowledge of any other Members of the Government being interested or having had dealings in the shares of the American Marconi Company, or any of the other Marconi companies?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman obtained specific information from each of the Members of the Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, certainly not.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: May the right hon. Gentleman's refusal to answer be taken as an admission that possibly some other Members of the Government have had dealings in the shares?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, it may not.

    University Education (London).
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Prime Minister if he can now say when the Report of the Royal Commission on University Education in London will be in the hands of Members of Parliament?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The Report has been presented and is now in the hands of the printers, and I hope it will be available for distribution shortly.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Is it likely to be available during the present month of April?
    Mr. McKENNA: I hope so, but I should not like to give a definite promise. The matter does not depend on me but on the printers.

    Aerial Warfare.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been directed to the German Army and Navy Estimates, in reference to their proposed increase in the preparations for aerial warfare; and, as our existing Estimates were framed without knowledge of these preparations, what steps he proposes to take to place Great Britian in a position to adequately defend her shores against possible attack?
    The PRIME MINISTER: All new facts arising after the presentation of the Estimates of the year which may affect the naval or military position are considered by the Departments concerned, and any further action which is found necessary can and will be taken without delay.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Having regard to the fact that the First Lord of the Admiralty stated the other day that he had not known of the German Estimates when these were produced, could not the Prime Minister give a day to discuss the whole question of aviation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No; it has been very fully discussed on the Army and Navy Estimates, and there will be many other opportunities on the Estimates.

    Land Valuation.
    Mr. STANIERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many occasional valuations have been made under the provisions of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; and how many of such valuations have resulted in claims being made for Increment Value Duty and substantiated?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): Up to 29th March, 1913, occasional valuations had been made of 539,970 hereditaments in Great Britain and 1,051 claims to Increment Value Duty have been substantiated.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in each of these cases, apart from all other expenses, a cost of one guinea is incurred, making a minimum cost to the public of an additional 500,000 guineas under that head alone?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not want to argue it now, hut, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, it provides a very valuable register which, I hope, one day will be amalgamated with the Land Registry and which will facilitate land transfer and make it much cheaper.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the occasional valuation has nothing to do with the original valuation?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am talking of the record of the transaction.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this particular matter to which I was calling attention, of a guinea in each case, has nothing to do with the original valuation, but the occasional valuation made on the occasion of each sale?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is what I am referring to.
    Mr. BOYTONasked whether the estimate of £630,086 for the expenses of

    377
    the Land Valuation Office for the year 1913–14 includes rent and other office expenses of the district and other official valuers?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The estimate does not include the rent of the offices referred to in the hon. Member's question, which is defrayed from the Vote for Public Works and Buildings, but it does include the expenses of cleaning and taking care of those offices.

    Increment Value Duty.
    Mr. FITZROYasked whether, under the White Paper instructions issued by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, claims for Increment Value Duty can be made on the sale of a house and land where the owner has made no profit or even incurred a loss on the transaction; and whether any such claims have actually been made?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: A claim to duty may arise in circumstances such as those to which the hon. Member refers if the depreciation in the value of the buildings exceeds the diminution of price, or, in other words, if a rise in the site value has wholly or in part neutralised a loss on the buildings. Very few such cases have actually arisen.
    Mr. ROYDSasked whether, on the sale of a house and land at a price which, in the opinion of the Valuation Department, is more than the property is worth, it is the practice of the Department to claim Increment Value Duty on the difference between the sale price and the amount of the official valuation at the time, less the 10 per cent. statutory allowance, although the value of the site has been stationary?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have nothing to add to the full statements made on this subject by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

    Motor Spirit (Excise Duties).
    Mr. KEBTY-FLETCHERasked what is the reason that His Majesty's Government will not allow the sale of home-manufactured petrol and petrol substitutes free of Excise Duties?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: An Excise Duty on motor spirit was imposed simultaneously with the Customs Duty on the imported article.
    Mr. COOPER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, having regard to the
    378
    peculiar conditions of this trade at the present time, he will not consider the remitting of the Excise Duties on the whole manufacture?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman is raising a very wide issue which I understand will be debated to-night.

    Liquor Licences (Revenue).
    Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked whether the total yield from on- and off-Licence Duties in Ireland in 1911–12 as against 1908–9 is only £14,337; and whether the duty for on-licence has risen only 18s. 8d.?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As regards on-licences the figures given by the hon. Member are approximately correct. As I explained in the Debate on the last Finance Bill, the increase in the duty is bearing lightly on Ireland, because the large majority of the licensed houses are of a low annual value.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in his Estimates for 1909–10 he expected to receive from the on and off retail licence an increase of £1,500,000; and whether the actual balance of £442,207 is mainly derived from the taxation of the London licensed houses?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I expected to receive £2,100,000 front the increase in the Liquor Licence Duties under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, and as I explained in debate on the Finance Bill last year, that agrees substantially with the amount I have received in respect of the increase for the year 1911–12. No pledge was given that the increase in respect of the "on" and "off" retail licences should not exceed £1,500,000. I cannot therefore attach any very definite meaning to the expression "the actual balance of £442,207."
    Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked whether the total yield of the retail on-Licence Duties within the city and county of London has increased from £204,581 for the year 1908–9 to £607,750 for the year 1911–12, the total increase being £403,169 and the rate 197 per cent.; whether this increase amounts to one-quarter of the total increase over the United Kingdom; whether, before the Finance Act of 1910, the yield in the London area was only one-ninth of the total yield; whether, if this proportion had been maintained, the increase would have been only £192,000;

    379
    and whether, if the basis of population had been taken, the increased yield would be only £173,000?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The figures given, which appear to be based on provisional figures given in the Return of Liquor Licence Duties (House of Commons Paper No. 217, of 1912), are approximately correct.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Captain FABERasked whether anything is to be done to prevent members of friendly societies of over sixty-five years of age being compelled to pay increased contributions for medical attendance and treatment?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I have nothing to add to the answers I have already given to similar questions on this subject.
    Mr. CROOKS: May I ask whether this subject might be reconsidered in the interest of the old people?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Certainly, the understanding was that these people would receive medical attendance and treatment on the terms which the friendly societies now offer.
    Captain FABER: With whom was the understanding made?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: With representative members.
    Mr. O'GRADY: May I ask whether the statement was based on the assumption that the fees to be paid to the doctors would be less than the amount which was afterwards agreed to be paid?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That is exactly true. They were willing to take these people for 6s. The societies are now offering 6s., which is 2s. more than they used to pay.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is it not intended that the members of friendly societies who are not within the Act should have exactly the same treatment as those who are within the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: At a reasonable figure. The fact that we are giving half-a-crown Government subsidy more than for the others would, I should have thought, have made the doctors more willing to take these patients.

    APPROVED SOCIETIES (TERMS OF CONTRACT).
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether the National Insurance Commissioners have had before them for approval the terms of the contract entered into between the six Prudential approved societies and the Prudential Assurance Company with respect to the administration of the functions of the approved societies; whether it is the duty of the Commissioners to inspect any such contract, or whether it will only come under review at the time of valuation; whether the six approved societies have contracted to pay the Prudential Company a sum of half-a-crown per member per annum in payment for administration; and (2) whether he is aware that by Rule 33 of the Prudential Approved Society for Men a member has the right to inspect the books, subject to an order to that effect from the committee of management, and should such an order be refused the member may then appeal to the Commission; whether he is aware that a member of the society referred to has been refused permission to inspect, that he has since applied to the Commission on several occasions and has only received formal acknowledgments; and whether he is prepared to take action to secure the right of a member to inspect the books of the society?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am aware of the rule referred to in the second question. The Commissioners have received applications from a member to inspect the agreement made by the Prudential approved societies with the Prudential Company with regard to their administrative work under the Act, which was approved by the Commissioners. The Commissioners have had the applications to inspect the agreement under their consideration. They understand, however, from the Prudential approved societies that they intend to publish the full terms of the agreement, showing the conditions and the rate agreed for the first six months.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: When will it be published?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think very shortly.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Will the auditors inquire in detail into the expenditure of the Prudential Company to find out whether the money granted in a lump sum has really been expended on this work?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think that the Prudential Company will have to satisfy us that the money is being expended on charges connected with the insurance work.

    SICKNESS BENEFIT.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that certain delays have been alleged to occur in the receipt of sickness benefit by insured persons; whether any inquiry has been made into such cases; what is the cause of such delays; and whether any warnings or orders can be given to prevent their repetition?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: A certain number of cases of delay in the payment of sickness benefit have been brought to my notice, and inquiries have been made with a view to preventing any recurrence. It could hardly be expected, of course, that 23,500 societies and branches would commence their new work of paying benefits under the Act to members of societies without a few cases of delay occurring in the first few weeks. I believe, however, that such cases are exceptional and temporary, and that approved societies are fully recognising the importance of securing prompt payment.
    Mr. KING: Are not they generally due to men leaving one place and going to another without notifying the society of the change of address?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think that that is very largely the case, and that they are also due to the newness of the Act taken in connection with the large number of persons who have to be dealt with. I do not anticipate that it will last.

    SERVANTS (REMOVAL).
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that many servants insured under the National Insurance Act travelling from place to place with their employers are not enabled to obtain any medical benefit, as they are not allowed to select a new doctor on account of their change of abode more than once a quarter; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this hardship?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Noble Lord is mistaken. An insured servant who moves from one area to another may, by giving notice to the committee of the area to which he moves, obtain the services of a doctor in the latter area, even though he
    382
    moves more than once a quarter. The general question of the best machinery for dealing with these cases has been referred to the Advisory Committee and is at present under consideration.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of cases of insured persons who are ill and who are unable to obtain medical relief?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will bring the cases to my notice I will look into them.

    Private Wireless Installations.
    Captain FABERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take into consideration in his Budget proposals the imposition of a licence to be levied on all owners of private wireless installations for the better protection of this country, with a view to supervision, registration, and control, and to provide that no licence be granted to a foreigner?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The present system of licensing by the Postmaster-General provides for the supervision, registration, and control of all installations, and I understand that it is the practice to refuse licences to foreigners save in very exceptional circumstances. So far, therefore, as the administrative aspect of the, subject is concerned, no change is required; and from a financial point of view it is clear that the revenue which could be obtained would be inconsiderable.

    British Constitution.
    Mr. CASSELasked whether it is proposed by the Revenue Bill which the Government intend to introduce to repeal either wholly or in part any of the provisions of Magna Charta or the Bill of Rights?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I must ask the hon. and learned Member to await the statement I shall make on proposing the necessary Resolution.
    Mr. CASSEL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that in so important a matter, if the repeal of the Bill of Rights or Magna Charta is to be undertaken, the country ought to have fair notice?

    National School Teachers (Ireland).
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, owing to a Treasury rule against which the National Board have on several occasions protested,

    383
    some national teachers in Ireland when promoted after years of efficient work do not get the salary, in some cases for years, attaching to that promotion; and whether, seeing that the amount required is only £1,400 per annum and in view of the injustice done to those men, he will take steps to alter the rule and to grant the amount that will be necessary in future?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have nothing to add to the numerous replies given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on this subject.

    Lunatic Asylums (Ireland).
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that unanimous resolutions have been passed by the committees of management of the district lunatic asylums for the counties of Down, Tipperary, Limerick, Tyrone, Fermanagh, and others, complaining of the heavy burden cast upon the ratepayers by reason of the deficit in the Treasury Capitation Grant towards the maintenance of lunatics; and whether he can see any prospect of relief for the rate-payers in the matter?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This matter must await the general readjustment of the relations between Local and Imperial Taxation.
    Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we will get a report on that subject?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not prepared to answer that question at present.

    Superannuation Bill.
    Mr. CASSELasked whether it is intended to reintroduce in the present Session the Superannuation (No. 2) Bill of last Session?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope that a Bill will be introduced shortly.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS.

    MEMBERS' CORRESPONDENCE.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if the Office of Works could see their way to providing a few sound-proof compartments where Members could dictate letters privately to their secretaries, as, owing to the long-continued sittings of
    384
    Parliament, it is often difficult for Members to get away from the House, and the present arrangements are unsatisfactory?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): As I have already stated, it is hoped later in the year to acquire for the use of Members another room adjoining Westminster Hall. Should hon. Members generally desire it, accommodation could be there provided, as the hon. Member suggests.

    BILLIARDS FOR MEMBERS.
    Mr. WATTasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he can see his way to allocate a room in the parliamentary buildings for the game of billiards for Members, in the event of the authorities not offering any objection to the innovation?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The First Commissioner is not of opinion that there is any general desire for facilities of this kind.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: May I ask the hon. Member whether he could meet the request halfway for the convenience of hon. Members opposite and provide a bagatelle table?
    Mr. WATT: If a general desire is ex-pressed in the House, is the hon. Gentleman prepared to allocate a room for a table?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I have no reason to suppose that a general desire would be expressed.
    Mr. HODGE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in all the Colonial Parliaments billiard tables are provided for the use of Members?

    VENTILATION OF COMMITTEE ROOMS.
    Mr. FELLasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if his attention has been called to the state of the ventilation of the Committee Rooms upstairs; why the ventilating fans in the windows are never set in motion; and if there is any machinery available for the purpose or any other way of extracting the air which has become exhausted?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The running of the fans in the Committee Rooms is under the control of the Chairman of the Committee using the room, and the fans

    385
    can always be run if the Chairman wishes it. Nine of the rooms have fan extracts at ceiling level, and it is intended to extend this system to other rooms as funds become available.
    Mr. FELL: Are these fans in working order?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: They are always in working order and can be run if the Chairmen of Committees desire that to be done.

    Government Contracts (Fair-Wages Clause).
    Mr. HODGEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the written undertaking that is signed by firms invited to tender for contract is to the effect that the Fair-Wages Clause will be observed in its entirety as respects all the workmen employed, or whether it only applies to the workmen who would be employed on the contract; and whether consideration has been given to the fact that to invite an unfair firm to tender, even with such an undertaking, is not in harmony with the spirit of speeches made by the President of the Board of Trade in this House, and that to refuse to invite a firm to tender unless it is already a fair firm is the only way calculated to make the administration of the Fair-Wages Clause a success?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: In these matters the First Commissioner is bound by the terms of the Fair-Wages Resolution, which applies to workmen employed on Government contracts and not to other workmen in the employ of the contractors. The First Commissioner would refer to the statement of his predecessor on this matter made in this House on the 10th of March, 1909, which indicates the practice of the Department. It should, however, be understood that the fact that a firm is a notoriously bad employer would be considered in connection with the question whether it should or should not be admitted to tender.

    Housing and Town Planning (Closing Orders).
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the President of the Local Government Board if the Government will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to alter the terms of the closing orders in the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act so that the demolition order need not compel
    386
    an owner of condemned property to raze the dwelling to the ground without the option of being able to turn it into uses other than that of human habitation?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The matter referred to in the question of the hon. Member has been brought to my notice on several occasions, and I hope, when an opportunity offers, to suggest an Amendment of the Act of 1909, so as to meet the difficulty.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: May I ask when the right hon. Gentleman thinks an opportunity will offer?
    Mr. BURNS: I could not say.

    Royal Sanitary Institute (Expenses of Delegates).
    Mr. SANDERSasked the President of the Local Government Board on what ground the Board have refused to sanction the proposed payment by the Somerset County Council of a subscription and personal expenses in connection with the attendance of the county medical officer of health at the congress of the Royal Sanitary Institute, to be held at Exeter in July next?
    Mr. BURNS: I am not aware of any lawful authority for expenditure of this kind. Moreover, the congress referred to is, I believe, held annually, and I do not consider that I could properly sanction under the Local Authorities (Expenses) Act., 1887, recurring expenditure by local authorities in connection with such conferences.
    Mr. SANDERSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to a circular letter sent to county councils by the National Association for the Prevention of Infant Mortality and for the Welfare of Infancy, in which it is stated that they have reason to state that the expenses of delegates attending this conference will be passed by the Local Government Board; whether this statement was authorised by the Board; and, if so, on what grounds the Board are ready to authorise this expenditure while refusing to sanction the expenses of the attendance of delegates at the Congress of the Royal Sanitary Institute?
    Mr. BURNS: The Local Government Board have expressed their willingness to

    387
    entertain applications from local authorities for sanction under the Local Authorities (Expenses) Act, 1887, to the reasonable expenses of not more than two delegates attending the forthcoming International Conference on Infantile Mortality. It is not the Board's usual practice to sanction proposed expenditure by local authorities on attendance at conferences for which there is no statutory authority. In the instance referred to, however, the subject of the conference being of special importance and interest I have agreed to treat it exceptionally.

    Elementary Education (Transfer of Schools).
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether the instructions as to the transfer of schools have provided for the past forty years that the transfer must provide for a sufficient use of the building to enable the local education authority to carry on a public elementary school subject to Sections 7 and 14 of the Act of 1870, the school being managed in every respect as the local authority see fit, and that any use of the building by the trustees or managers during any reserved times must not be specified in the arrangement for transfer; whether these instructions have been acted upon; whether they have been varied recently; and whether it is proposed to vary them?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): The answers to the first and second questions are in the affirmative, and to the third and fourth in the negative. There has been no departure from principle, but without making a very close search through all the transfers which have taken place it is impossible to say that, in some cases, a small modification may not have been made in the ordinary form of transfer. I believe that in all cases where modifications have been assented to they have been made at the request of both parties to the agreement.

    Telegraphic Communication (Hebrides).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Postmaster-General what is the present intention of the Post Office in respect of telegraphic communication between Rhum, Eigg, and Canna; whether he is aware that proprietors have built large houses and maintain large establishments in these islands in the faith that existing amenities
    388
    will be continued and that civilised administration will not retrograde; that the proprietors have largely subscribed towards telegraphic facilities; that without such the National Insurance Act cannot be worked in often inaccessible Hebridean islands; that telegraphic communication is more needed and used by the inhabitants who occupy these islands all through the year than by the proprietors who are not permanent residents; that if telegraphic communication ceases the salvage of wrecks and the saving of lives will become exceedingly difficult, if not impossible; and whether it is proposed to demand higher contributions from the necessities of the proprietors, who are numerically few?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): My right hon. Friend still hopes that the necessary guarantees for one-third of the loss on the telegraph business of the three islands will be forthcoming, and meanwhile he has refrained from fixing a date for the withdrawal of the facilities.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the Postmaster-General determined to deprive these islands of the advantages of communication unless he can squeeze one-third of the cost out of the proprietors, and, if so, does not he think that a very serious retrogression in administration?
    Captain NORTON: No. The hon. Member need draw no such inference.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the hon. Gentleman or the Postmaster-General acquainted with the circumstances of these islands and how impossible it is to give them civilised administration without telegraphic communication?
    Captain NORTON: The Postmaster-General knows all about it.
    Mr. LYELL: Were the telegraphic facilities originally provided for these islands on a guarantee of the proprietors, and, if so, was the guarantee for a fixed time?
    Captain NORTON: That is so.
    Mr. J. M. HOGGE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these are islands to which the public are not admitted?
    Captain NORTON: I am not aware of the fact that the public are not admitted.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the people of these islands are fishermen?
    Captain NORTON: I am not aware.

    Telephone Service.
    Captain FABERasked whether the funds granted by the Treasury for the experimental provision of rural party telephone lines are exhausted; and what steps are contemplated, if any, to extend them?
    Captain NORTON: It is the case that the funds already authorised for the experimental provision of rural party lines have been allocated, but my right hon. Friend is in communication with the Treasury, and hopes to obtain a further Grant.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Postmaster-General if he will grant an extension of the telephone service between Limerick, Rathkeale, and Newcastle West, the same as is granted to Kilmallock and other towns in the county of Limerick?
    Captain NORTON: The inquiry which my right hon. Friend promised the hon. Member on the 12th February to make is not yet completed. He will, however, expedite the matter and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as he is in a position to give him any definite information.
    Major WHITEasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the constant errors in the telephone service between the figures 5 and 9, and of the loss of time caused to operators and the public by such errors, he will consider substituting for one of those figures some word, foreign designation or other, which will prevent confusion in the future?
    Captain NORTON: Various suggestions have been considered from time to time with a view to overcome the difficulty arising from the similarity of sound in the numbers five and nine, but it has been found that the difficulties likely to be caused by any alternative are greater than those that exist at present. Special care is taken in the training of operators to impress upon them the importance of making a marked distinction in the pronunciation of the two numbers. The same difficulties arise in the telephone service in the United States, and the same conclusion has been arrived at.
    Mr. ALAN SYKES: Has consideration been given to the elimination of the nine?
    Captain NORTON: Everything has been considered, and it is found that the best possible solution is to leave the matter as it stands.
    Mr. SYKES: Am I to understand that we have reached finality in the telephone service?

    Postal Delivery (Limited Companies).
    Mr. HAYDN JONESasked by what authority Post Office officials, in the absence of instructions, deliver letters addressed to a limited company at other than the publicly advertised and registered office?
    Captain NORTON: The duty of a Post Office servant is to deliver a letter as addressed. If, therefore, the registered office of a limited company forms part of the address of a letter, it is delivered there. A letter which is addressed to a limited company, followed by the name of a place without that of any house, street, or road, is insufficiently addressed; but where the Post Office servant concerned knows the premises at which the company appears to him to carry on its business he delivers the letter there.

    Metropolitan Police (Rest-Day).
    Mr. REMNANTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the members of the Metropolitan Police force are now in receipt of one day's rest in every seven?
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer is in the affirmative. The new arrangements came into full operation yesterday.
    Mr. REMNANTasked what police authorities in England and Wales have now given their men one day's rest in every seven?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have no information available to enable me to answer this question. Police authorities are not required to report to the Home Office when they have completed arrangements for the grant of one day's rest in seven
    Mr. REMNANT: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries?
    Mr. McKENNA: I will be very glad to see inquiries made.

    Non-Attendance at School (Andover).
    Captain FABERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Albert Stockwell, of Andover, who was lately fined 1s. and 10s. 6d. costs

    391
    in each case for the non-attendance at school of his two daughters; whether he is aware that Section 8 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, lays it down that if the fine does not exceed 5s. the defendant shall not be ordered to pay costs, and that in a circular by Mr. Gladstone in 1906 it was stated that he was much afraid that in some courts it was a matter of routine for defendants to pay costs; and what steps can be taken to stop this?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have made inquiry in this case and am informed that the magistrates considered it very carefully and came to the conclusion that it was one in which a special order for costs should be made under Section 8 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879. The Section allows this to be done. If the defendant had not been ordered to pay costs, a heavier fine would have been imposed. I have no authority to interfere with the magistrates' discretion in the matter, but I hope shortly to introduce legislation to amend the present law.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he could state what progress has been made with the negotiations for the purchase of the estates of the Knight of Kerry and of Trinity College in Valentia Island?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Congested Districts Board have made an offer for the purchase of the Knight of Kerry's estate on Valentia Island, but the offer has not yet been finally accepted. An offer for the Valentia estate of Trinity College was issued by the Board a few days ago.

    National Defence.
    Captain FABERasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of holding a council of the highest military experts, to include general officers in chief of commands and the commandant of the staff college, in addition to the Army Council, with a view to considering the defences of the country?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Naval and military experts are members of the Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence on Overseas Invasion, and I do not consider the formation of any further body necessary.
    Captain FABERasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of at once forming an aerial department, with a skilled designer and constructor, corresponding in his duties to the Director of Naval Construction at the Admiralty; and whether a third arm of the Service to represent flying can be formed?
    The PRIME MINISTER: For the reasons given by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty in his speech on Monday last I am not prepared to adopt the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion.

    Omnium and London Scottish Insurance Companies.
    Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will cause inquiries to be made into the conduct of the Omnium Insurance Company, Limited, and the London Scottish Insurance Company, Limited, whereby severe losses have been incurred by tradesmen, working men, and other policy holders, who are unable to obtain payment of losses insured against or return of premiums paid; and whether, in the public interest, the Board of Trade can take any steps in the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. M. Robertson): The Omnium Insurance Corporation, Limited, is being wound up voluntarily, and the Board of Trade have no jurisdiction to cause an investigation into the conduct of the business of a company in voluntary liquidation. The affairs of the United London and Scottish Insurance Company, Limited, which is being wound un under an Order of the Court, have been investigated by the Official Receiver, and I am having sent to the hon. Member a print of the observations which were issued to the creditors and shareholders. The Board of Trade are informed by the liquidator of the United London and Scottish Company, Limited, that no payment on account of claims can be made until certain litigation which is pending between the two companies is concluded.

    Export of Pigs (Ireland).
    Mr. CRUMLEYasked whether the Great Southern and Western and Midland Great Western Railways of Ireland have been recently refusing to book pigs through to England; and will the hon. Gentleman, state what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am in communication with the Railway Clearing House on the subject, and I will inform my hon. Friend of the result.

    Butter and Eggs (Freight Charges from Ireland and Denmark).
    Mr. WILLIAM ARCHER REDMONDasked the freight charges on butter and eggs from Ireland and Denmark, respectively, into London and the other principal distributing centres in Great Britain; whether the new railway regulations regarding the method of consignment of packages containing eggs and butter apply to Denmark and other foreign countries as well as to Ireland; and whether these regulations, if insisted upon, will increase the freight on eggs and butter imported from Ireland into this country, and thereby cause serious detriment to Irish producers and English consumers, and gain to the railway companies alone?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The Irish railway companies have now informed me that they have temporarily adopted the regulations of the English companies as to addressing goods, and I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of these regulations. I understand that the regulations do not at present apply to traffic consigned to or from foreign countries and conveyed direct from truck to ship. I am not in possession of the information as to freight charges which my hon. Friend desires.
    Mr. W. A. REDMOND: May I ask the hon. Gentleman why it is that the Irish railway companies are only temporarily adopting the system proposed by the English railway companies?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The matter is not yet entirely settled. I hope it will be later.

    United Kingdom (Passengers Landing and Embarking).
    Mr. FELLasked the number of persons who landed in the United Kingdom from all countries and the number of persons who sailed from the United Kingdom during the year ending 31st December, 1912?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The number of passengers from other countries recorded as landing in the United Kingdom during the year ended 31st December, 1912, was
    394
    1,490,484, and the number recorded as embarking for other countries at ports of the United Kingdom in that year was 1,731,838. These figures relate to passengers of all nationalities, and include the traffic with European countries as well as with countries out of Europe. They are subject to some slight amendment on the completion of the revision of the passenger lists, which is now in progress.

    Building Trade (Unemployed).
    Mr. FELLasked if the estimate of the number of unemployed, as stated in the "Labour Gazette," is a great deal too low; and if the percentage should be over 8 per cent. for the past month for those engaged in the building trade?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am aware that in the case of the building trades there is a considerable difference between the unemployed percentages according to the statistics of insurance and those based on trade union returns. In these trades the trade union records of men out of work relate mainly to carpenters and plumbers. The percentages based on these figures have been found in the past to be a fairly good barometer of the general course of employment in the building trades as a whole, but they have not been used by the Board of Trade as a measure of the total volume of unemployment, and the inclusion of builders' labourers would naturally raise the percentage considerably. It may be remembered that Mr. Ackland, in his actuarial report on the unemployment insurance scheme, made allowance for this by doubling the recorded percentage of unemployed in the building trades for the purpose of his calculations. As soon as the records of the insured trades made it possible to give the percentage out of work based on the whole number employed, the figure was published in the "Board of Trade Labour Gazette," and will continue to be so published.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  NOTICES OF MOTION.

    NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: On behalf of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool (Colonel Chaloner) I beg to give notice—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: I submit, Sir, that it is in order for a Member to give notice on behalf of an hon. Member who is absent.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I was under the impression that the hon. Member had to be present, but I am told by those who think they know better that it is not so. I certainly thought it was otherwise.
    Mr. A. F. WHYTE: Is it not the case that an hon. Member last year attempted to give notice on behalf of another Member in the same way, and was ruled out of order?
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: May I state, Sir, on a point of Order, that on more than one occasion notice has been given by another Member.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I will take the notice now, and look up the authorities. If the notice is in order it will be accepted.
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: I beg to give notice that on this day four weeks my hon. and gallant Friend will call attention to the administration of the Insurance Bill, and move a Resolution.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to give notice that on this day four weeks I will call attention to the fact that many insured persons find it impossible to obtain under the Insurance Act medical attendance provided in accordance with the undertaking given by His Majesty's Ministers, and move a Resolution.

    Mr. COURTHOPE: I beg to give notice on this day fortnight to call attention to the beet-sugar industry.
  BILLS PRESENTED.

    VACCINATION ACTS, 1867 TO 1907 (REPEAL) BILL.
    "To repeal the Vaccination Acts, 1867 to 1907." Presented by Mr. BLACK; supported by Sir John M'Callum, Mr. James
    404
    Parker, Mr. Kellaway, Mr. George Greenwood, Mr. Snowden, Mr. Chancellor, and Mr. Pointer; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 22nd April, and to be printed. [Bill 69.]

    FRESH WATER FISH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    "To provide for the better protection of Fresh Water Fish in Scotland." Presented by Sir JOHN BARRAN; supported by Major Anstruther-Gray, Mr. Barnes, Sir William Beale, Viscount Dalrymple, Mr. Duncan Millar, Mr. Wilkie, and Sir George Younger; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 70.].
    DUCHY OF LANCASTER (MINING LEASES) BILL.
    "To extend the powers of the Chancellor and Council of the Duchy of Lancaster with respect to the granting of Mining Leases." Presented by Mr. HOBHOUSE; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 10th April, and to be printed. [Bill 71.]

  PRISONERS (TEMPORARY DISCHARGE FOR ILL-HEALTH) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I rise for the purpose of moving the Second Reading of this Bill, which the House will have seen is a very short measure, and if I may judge from the tone and temper of the debate on the Home Office Vote I think I shall be justified in assuming that this Bill will receive support on both sides of the House. It is true that two notices of Motion appear on the Paper against the Second Reading of this Bill, but I have the hope that the House will not be unwilling to come to the assistance of a Minister who asks the House for additional powers in order to enable him to carry out his administrative responsibilities in the new set of circumstances which have arisen since the last Act was passed dealing with this matter.
  The general responsibilities of the Home Secretary for the administration of the law relating to prisoners are laid down in the Prison Act of 1877, under which the Home Secretary is made the general prison authority. He is responsible for

  405
  the enforcement of the prison regulations, which are partly contained in various Statutes, and partly consist of statutory rules made by him with the sanction of Parliament. The regulations and rules describe the conditions under which prisoners shall be detained, and, amongst other things, they provide for the care of the prisoners' health and life. Governors and medical officers of prisons, who are appointed by the Home Secretary and may be dismissed by him, are responsible for the due enforcement of the regulations. If a prisoner refuses to take food the officials are not thereby absolved of their responsibility for the care of the prisoner's health and life, as it is their duty, so long as the prisoner remains in prison, to take such effective measures as are in their power to preserve the prisoner's health and life. That is, as briefly as I can state them, a summary of the responsibilities of the Home Secretary and of the officials who act under him and have charge of the prisoners in the various prisons.
  We have to-day to deal with an unprecedented set of circumstances. Our former laws we have found quite adequate in dealing with ordinary prisoners in the course of their imprisonment. But a new set of prisoners have come into prison who have taken up as a policy the practice of hunger striking. I do not wish to, and it would be out of order, to enter at this moment into any digression upon the subject of the propaganda in respect of Women Suffrage, but I may say this, that publicity is the keynote of this propaganda, and as part of publicity the prisoners who have been sent to prison for committing various offences, such as window breaking, attempted arson, and other offences, have adopted the hunger strike in the hopes of enlisting the sympathy of the outside public. Alternately they shock us by the violence of their outrages, and attempt to enlist our sympathy by the tales of their sufferings. I mention this perhaps only by the way in order to warn hon. Members against attaching too much credence to the accounts which are being given as to the terrible tortures which are endured in prison under the system of forcible feeding. Those prisoners have declared war on society, and part of their campaign is to carry on war against the Government, be they Liberal or Conservative, not this or that Government, but against all Governments which are responsible to a House
  406
  of Commons elected by men. It is part of their propaganda to enrage public opinion against the officers of the law, and in executing their purpose they seem to be as neglectful of accuracy of statement as they are disregardful of civil order in their acts. I warn hon. Members against attaching too much credence to statements which are made with a purpose. But it is undeniably true that forcible feeding, whether for those who suffer it or those who administer it, is a most objectionable practice, and means ought to be sought to enable those who are responsible for the administration of the law to take up some alternative methods which would not and could not have the same objections raised against them.
  What is it that I propose under this Bill? I do not want to go over old ground which we discussed at some length last week on the Home Office Vote, but the House will bear with me while I remind them of the three courses which are now open to the prison authorities in dealing with hunger strikes. We can either release the prisoner, that is one course; or we can keep the prisoner in prison and forcibly feed the prisoner, and that is the second course; or we can place food in the prisoner's cell and leave the prisoner to die if the hunger strike is continued, and that is the third course. There are advocates for the third course, but I have never found any one of them who, under pressure, would not always conclude with the statement, "Oh, but the prisoner won't die. The prisoner will, in the long run, take food when the prisoner knows that death is the inevitable alternative." That means really that the third course is not a true alternative at all. What is proposed is that the Home Secretary should take the risk—at whose expense? At his own? Not at all, but that he should take the risk at the expense of somebody else's life. I know that in this respect I have been charged, and am accused, of being lacking in courage, but I am bound to say I have never been able to see what evidence of courage there is in taking a risk at the expense of another person's life. If I took the risk at the expense of my own life, I might be charged with being wanting in courage if I refused to take it. But it is not at my expense the risk would be taken, but at the expense of one of these women, many of whom have been convicted of no graver offence than breaking windows. I do not feel justified in taking that risk, and I am quite sure that if I took it, and if by

  407
  experience we found that in fact several of these prisoners died in prison from starvation, the very Gentlemen who now press me to take this course would be amongst the first to turn round and charge the Government with wanton brutality. There remain the two other courses, namely, to release the prisoner or to feed the prisoner forcibly. To release the prisoner, unless the prisoner is under sentence of penal servitude, means the remission of the sentence. I have no power to release except by remitting the whole of the sentence. Consequently, in those cases where release has to be resorted to, the prisoner escapes the due punishment for the offence committed. I think the House must admit that it is most undesirable that prisoners convicted by due process of law and sent to prison for terms of one month, two months, six months, or a year or longer, should, at the expiration of a few days, be in a position to put an end to their sentence by their own wilful act, by refusing food when in such a condition of health that they cannot be forcibly fed. That appears to me to be inimical to the administration of the law, and I am appealing to the House of Commons to give me power to release a prisoner without remitting the whole of the sentence.
  4.0 P.M.
  The other alternative of forcible feeding is one which, if I had the power to release without remitting the sentence, I should be must reluctant to adopt. In ordinary cases I should abandon the practice of forcible feeding. There are circumstances in which forcible feeding will still have to be resorted to. Take the case of a prisoner whose offence is of such a kind or whose determination to repeat the offence at every opportunity is so pronounced and declared that it is really unsafe in the public interests to have such a person at large at all, I should have no aternative except to resort to forcible feeding. Take, as an illustration, the case of a murderer, who, after conviction and sentence, appeals, so that the sentence cannot be carried out quickly, and during the interval between sentence and the hearing of the appeal starves himself. What should I have to do? Unless I had the power to feed such a prisoner forcibly I should have to release him. One hon. Member says, "Let him die." But the prisoner still has a right of appeal. He may be innocent, and I have to consider that. It is all very well for those who have no responsibility
  408
  to say, "Let him die," but I should have the responsibility of saying that a prisoner was to die who might be innocent. Although it is through his misconduct that he would die, still the misconduct would not be of a very serious kind. I ask the House to give me a much simpler alternative—to leave to me the power of forcible feeding where necessary. I assure the House that it would not be my intention to use that power in the case of ordinary offences such as we have in mind at the present time—window breaking, obstruction, and so forth—but only in the case of repeated offences and real danger to the public.
  I ask the House to give me power to use the alternative of release without remission of sentence. With regard to persons sentenced to penal servitude, I have that power now. There are some differences, however, between the power for which I ask in this Bill and the present power to release on licence in the case of a prisoner sentenced to penal servitude. Such a prisoner earns a licence by good conduct, and, after he is let out on licence, if his conduct remains good—that is to say, if he is not brought up before the Courts on some new offence—the period of time which he would still have to serve runs out whilst he is at liberty. If, on the other hand, he is charged and convicted on some new offence, the licence would be cancelled, and he might have to serve the whole of his remanent in addition to his new sentence. The House will observe, therefore, that the licence is earned by good conduct, and remains in existence only so long as the conduct remains good. The power to grant a licence asked for in this Bill is not to reward misconduct, but to enable me to deal with bad conduct. Consequently it would not be proper in the case of such a licence, when the prisoner was let out of prison through misconduct, that the remaining period of the sentence should run out unless he committed some new offence. I propose that a person licensed out of prison on account of misconduct shall remain liable to serve the rest of his sentence.
  The procedure will be very simple. I do not propose to ask the prisoner to sign any bond or to enter into any undertaking. When the prisoner's state of health becomes such, through starvation or other misconduct, that further detention in prison would be dangerous, he will receive a licence and go out of prison. That licence will be given on certain conditions,

  409
  and as long as those conditions are fulfilled, the prisoner will not be liable to rearrest until the date on which the licence expires. On the expiration of the licence the prisoner may apply for a continuation of the licence, and the licence may be continued. There is no doubt that after a certain length of time a prisoner might apply, as any prisoner can, for a remission of the sentence, and if the conduct remained good I have no doubt that the Secretary of State might be induced to take a lenient view, and recommend the exercise of the prerogative. But it would depend always on the conduct of the prisoner in and out of prison. We should be saved the spectacle that we see at the present time, which is not a proper spectacle, of women defying the law, saying publicly, "I am going to commit this violent crime; I shall be sent to prison, but I shall be out again in a few days, and then I will repeat the offence." That simply means that the prisoner intends to hunger-strike. I ask the House to give me power to meet a case such as that—to enable me to say to the prisoner, "If through misconduct we cannot retain you any longer in prison you shall be licensed out, but on conditions as to reporting and returning laid down in the licence itself. If you do not comply with those conditions, or if you do not resurrender yourself, you may be rearrested without warrant, and you will have to serve the rest of your sentence."
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a definition of the term "misconduct"?
  Mr. McKENNA: Ordinary misconduct can be punished in prison in the ordinary way, but the particular misconduct that we have in mind is hunger-striking—refusing to take food. The whole Bill is directed to that particular practice. I think that if the House will extend the powers of the Home Secretary in this direction we shall be able to cope with our present difficulties. It is not a wide power for which I am asking. On the other hand, if the House refuses, I at least have done my duty. I have stated to the House frankly that my powers at the present moment are not sufficient. If the House thinks the contrary, any failure to preserve order, to preserve decorum, or to preserve public respect in the administration of the law, will not be due to default of mine. I say frankly that I have not the necessary powers at the present time,
  410
  and therefore I ask the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
  Mr. M'CURDY: The object of this Bill is to restrict the liberty of the subject, and to give the Secretary of State power to extend the term of imprisonment imposed upon certain prisoners under his care by the judge who tried them for the offence for which they were sent to prison, and to do so upon any terms or conditions which he in his discretion may think fit, without reference to judge or jury. To put it in another way, the Bill confers upon the Home Secretary the right to try and sentence prisoners for a new offence created by this Bill—the offence of being unwell partly through fault of their own—and to inflict upon them for that offence any punishment which he in his absolute discretion may think fit. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If hon. Members will wait, I think I shall be able to satisfy them that I am not speaking without the book. There is no limit whatever in the Bill to the number of times the Home Secretary may grant these so-called licences. Each of these licences is a fresh imprisonment, subject to conditions which have never been disclosed to Parliament or the country at large, but which are left to the discretion of the Home Secretary. I am, therefore, perfectly right in my statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I can supply hon. Members with the facts, but I cannot supply them with the intelligence to understand them. The class of subject whose liberty it is proposed to affect in this way are unrepresented in this House. Under these circumstances, I think the House will feel that, before passing a measure interfering in a very serious way with their liberties, it should at any rate give a courteous hearing to what may be stated on behalf of the section of the community with whom this Bill proposes to interfere. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman, in opening his case, was not very friendly to me and the part I have to perform, because quite incidentally I was asked to bear in mind, and these women were asked to bear in mind, that whatever they might say must be discounted on the assumption that they were probably liars, that their motives were obviously unworthy, and that they, in fact, had declared war on society and against the Government. He said their intention was to enrage public opinion against the law, and that too much credence must not be attached to statements made by them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not in the

  411
  least know what those cheers mean. If hon. Members really think when you are proposing to the House of Commons a penal Statute to interfere with the liberty of a certain class of subjects that it is either profitable or dignified for us to start by saying that it does not really matter what the people most concerned may say about it, that they are unworthy of credence, and that their statements are obviously made with a motive, then I am sorry for the judicial character of this Assembly.
  I would also point out incidentally one very curious thing which I do not at present quite understand. I thought that this Bill was introduced for the purpose of dealing with woman suffragist prisoners—to make it unnecessary for the right hon. Gentleman to continue to practise forcible feeding in the case of these women. The right hon. Gentleman says there is a class of case in which forcible feeding will still apply. His defence of this is that these prisoners are determined to repeat the offence on every possible occasion. If that be so, it is perfectly idle to suggest to this House that this Bill is going to render it unnecessary to apply forcible feeding. Because there is no doubt whatever, if there is any class of criminal in this country to whom the right hon. Gentleman's definition applies, and who are determined to repeat their offence on every possible occasion, it is this very class of women among the suffragists. I have said that the House would, I think, desire to hear something of the case for the women before deciding on a measure of this kind. If they take no interest in the statements of the women at any rate, for the sake of that decorum of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, it would be well that we should give a superficial appearance of listening to the statements which the women have to make so far as it is relevant to this Bill. I am going to lay before the House in the first place some information in regard to two or three of the most recent cases that have come before the country. I take them just as they come and as they were placed before me—four cases received in a large bundle of cases placed before me to consider. The first of them is the case of Mrs. Leigh, who was sentenced to penal servitude for attempting to set fire to the Dublin Theatre. The next one, taken, as I say, in pure accident of date, was a lady who unlawfully endeavoured to injure letters
  412
  in a letter box at Blackheath. The third case is a similar one; and the last is the case of the burning of the Kew Pavilion.
  The pertinent fact that I desire in all these four cases to exhibit is one which I think ought to be of same interest to the House—that is, that the defence put forward by the women in these cases has never been reported in the Press of this country so far as I have been able to verify it by a reference to the "Times" newspaper. If there is nothing in the "Times" newspaper as to the defence put forward which would enable the public to judge of the character of the offence actually committed, I think I am probably correct in saying that other newspapers, with not such an amplitude of pages as the "Times," would probably not be able at all to give the defence. The Home Secretary's speech rests upon the whole basis that you are here not dealing with ordinary criminals, or rather with worse than ordinary criminals. I am going to ask the House to be patient with me for a little while, and to hear in their own language what was the defence of the women in each of these cases. I am going to ask the House, if they can, to put themselves into a judicial frame of mind for once in regard to this suffrage question. I am going to ask hon. Members to say whether the defence of these women was not in substance and in fact a true defence. I first take the case of Mrs. Leigh, who was tried at the Commission Court, Dublin, on 6th August, 1912. There is no report of what was the nature of the defence or what was said by Mrs. Leigh, although she delivered a very long speech—the whole of which I do not propose to read to the House. I will give the salient passages, so that hon. Members may understand the sort of women who are in these cases. The Home Secretary is asking for these exceptional powers of repression. Mrs. Leigh, in her speech, said:—
  "The one thing that I want to bring forth is that we are not given, on the mere justice of our claim, a really constitutional way of bringing forth snore of those points which we have to bring forward to the public, and through the public to their masters, and through their masters to the Government—the powers that be; and we have not been granted, in making our claim, the constitutional means which is within the grasp of every individual if he belongs to the male sex—it is even given to a criminal, and to a lunatic, and to a pauper, and to an alien if he becomes naturalised. But I, because I am born a woman, which is no fault of mine, and it is no credit; to those who constitute the male sex to be born men, but because I am born a woman, that very fact, from my birth to my grave, if we have not won constitutional means, will be a stigma which I have to fight against, and that stigma has been upon the name of all women since they were disfranchised

  413
  through a legal quibble. My lord, you said that motives were not taken into consideration, but nothing in this world can be done without motive. Your very presence here to-day has a motive behind it—that justice may be done. I want to say as quickly as possible, because I do not want to insult the intelligence of the jury, and to compel many people to go into research upon these matters, but I do want to say that nearly half a century, fifty years—a long time—women have tried by every means in their power to win their way to get within the pale of the Constitution. And they have tried the usual form of petitions, education, propaganda, and all other peaceful means. They have tried by demonstrating, by holding immense meetings, and I might say to some of those people who think that it is only to-day we who are making this stand in the fight; I want to inform them, for many other things may take their interest, and therefore they may lose sight of something that has not troubled them very much."
  I pass over part of the case which is not quite so interesting, because I do not want to burden the House more than is necessary. My object in reading what I have is merely that I may ask at the conclusion: Is this an insane woman? Or an ordinary criminal? Or is she hysterical? She goes sin to deal with the motives which have led her to enter into the campaign, and continues:—
  "Five and a-half million women workers have to work under conditions over which they have no control. They have to work under laws which have been made for them by men who have no conception of the work that they are doing. I will give you one instance. Some girls are working in Manchester for 4s. 8d. a week, turning out every week thousands of men's shirts. All kinds—from the plain butcher's shirt to the daintiest of frilled shirts, which any dainty popinjay may put upon him at night. Frills and tucks, etc., they are making these things, and no matter how hard they work they could not earn more. I have worked in that factory in Manchester. And the money stopped for steam, hot water, and for patting straps on, has gone to swell the funds of a free library. Money was taken from time workers to pay for this library—although more money was added to it—and to-day not one of these people can enter this library. It is one of the particular grievances which women have to point out that in the rates of wages where men have protection behind them, there is no such thing as sweating, no such thing as taking their wages in illegal fines."
  I pass over a great deal more to come to the finish of the speech, which is throughout in the same sustained line of reasoning power evidenced by the passages I have read. She concludes:—
  "I want to end with a little quotation, 'To know all is to understand all,' and if you know all, gentlemen of the jury, then you will know why I am an outlaw, and as an outlaw in my rebellion I come face to face with men whose fathers or their grandfathers cannot show a clean slate in any part of their country. You, gentlemen of the jury, have your votes to-day by the wilful murder which your forefathers did in order to bring you the franchise. If you doubt me, spend some of your leisure time in reading up your own history. We have done no wrong in the eyes of any Irishman, or in the eyes of any other man in this country, when you look at it in the aspect of what has been done. 'To know all is to understand all,' and if you understand in my case, as I hope you will, I hope you will take a strong stand of independence, and let each man of you use his own faculties and draw his own conclusions, and having been convinced of doing what he thinks is right, then let him give forth
  414
  his verdict. If there is any man amongst you that is guiltless of any militant act in his life, let him be the man to say that I shall take my punishment. I put it to you that the whole history of the world has been won by rebellion, and that those people outside the Constitution cannot afford to be constitutional."
  When we are considering a measure for dealing with a particular class of criminals, I do submit with great confidence, Mr. Speaker, to the Members of this House, that it is only reasonable and judicial that we should make some inquiry as to who and what the criminals are, and what is the nature of their defence. I come to the next case, the case of Miss Billinghurst, who was tried at the Central Criminal Court, London, for unlawfully placing in a letter-box a certain deleterious fluid.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: On a point of Order. I have not intervened yet because I did not wish to raise the question; but in connection with the illustration which the hon. Member has given and the speech that he read out, may I ask whether it would be in order for me subsequently in the Debate to go into the question of the defence of any prisoner whom I am interested in who is a prisoner at the present time?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That would certainly be rather what is commonly called "a tall order." I believe the hon. Member has stated his proposal rather too generally. I waited until the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. M'Curdy) had finished his illustration of the particular case that he gave. It seems to me that it was really hardly necessary to go into the whole of it. The hon. Member is entitled to say, and the House may assume, that the persons for whom he is speaking are reasonable people, who are very well able to state their own case in Court, are perfectly well aware of what they are doing, and are persons of ability. If he says that, he has perhaps said all it is necessary to say. It seems to me to be unnecessary to quote large portions of the defence of these women in order to establish his proposition, which is not disputed.
  Mr. M'CURDY: I understand your ruling to be, Mr. Speaker, that for the purpose of showing the House what is the nature of the crime and the class of criminal to which the proposals in this measure are directed, I am in order in giving my illustrations, but you are suggesting that it is not necessary to multiply the illustration in each case?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, that is so; but it is really not necessary to read portions of the speeches they have made. We all know that the women charged have certain sentiments, and that they are well able to defend themselves, and have done so with great skill. But it is not necessary to read all they have said.
  Mr. M'CURDY: I bow to your ruling, Sir, but the reason I read the extract in full was that in all these sensational cases the facts which I am now placing before the House of Commons for the first time are facts which I think were never before placed before the people of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] They have never been placed before the people of this country, except partially in the organs circulating amongst the people at this moment and in these organs alone. All I want to show is that these are not statements of ordinary criminals or of insane or hysterical women. The statement I have read is the statement of a woman who has committed a crime, which comes within any definition conveniently framed of what is known as a political crime. I could multiply examples of this kind. I pass on now to the case of the burning of the Pavilion at Kew Gardens, and for that purpose I will only read the conclusion of the prisoner's statement, because I want to adopt the language of that lady to some extent as my own. After demurring to the jurisdiction of the Court for the trial of women on the ground that if she were tried by her peers there would be women on the jury, whereas all women were excluded from the Court, she raised an objection to being called upon to obey the laws without the opportunity of having any voice in the making of the laws, and she says:—
  "For over forty years women have worked to get the vote in a constitutional way. They held endless meetings and demonstrations all over the country, and at the Albert Hall, and again and again they sent petitions to Parliament bearing thousands of signatures, and it is because constitutional efforts have failed that we have adopted the only means in our power to force the Government to listen to our demands, yet you wonder that the women have revolted. The wonder is that they have been patient so long."
  The plea which is put forward by the women prisoners, if I may summarise it, is this: first, that they are actuated by purely political motives, and that they are neither insane nor hysterical, nor acting, as has been suggested, for the sake of publicity, but in fact they are actuated by political motives, and that they are forced into a very regrettable and illegal propaganda, which they have now adopted by the fact that
  416
  they have found all avenues of constitutional redress closed to them—not all avenues of obtaining the passage of a Franchise Bill—but all avenues of obtaining a fair discussion of a Woman's Franchise Bill upon its merits, and an opportunity of such a Bill taking its chances like any other measure that might come before this House. I heard an hon. Member say that is a perfectly absurd statement on the part of the women; therefore, I would place before the House a short statement of the facts, and when hon. Members see the facts in order and correlated they will see whether the plea put forward on behalf of women is so absurd as the hon. Gentleman opposite suggests—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is treating this Bill in too general a way. The point is, how certain prisoners are to be treated if they do certain things in prison. That is really the point. The hon. Member says the Bill should not pass because he does not approve the proposals suggested by the Home Secretary, but I do not think it is open to him now to go into the general question of Women Suffrage, and to go back and trace the whole of the movement, and what has occurred in the House of Commons. That would really not be relevant to this Bill.
  Mr. M'CURDY: I do not propose to say a single word with regard to the merits of Women Suffrage in any shape or form. What I do desire to say a word upon is this: First of all we have the complaint of the women that the Government have closed to them every avenue of constitutional redress, and, as a corollary from that that this measure is wholly unnecessary if the Government and the House of Commons will only extend fair treatment to the question of Women Suffrage, and to that argument I venture to address myself, and I merely wish to summarise the nature of the steps taken by the women, and the result of those steps. I do not think that on those lines I am transgressing your ruling, and certainly not intentionally.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I understand the argument of the hon. Gentleman to be that if this House would immediately grant Women Suffrage, this Bill would not be necessary.
  Mr. M'CURDY: No.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is what it comes to.
  Mr. M'CURDY: Of course, one cannot, in anticipation and advance, make clear one's point, but no such suggestion would come from me. I neither argue the merits of Women Suffrage nor am I suggesting that the Government should introduce a Women Suffrage Bill. I am merely dealing with the point as to whether the criminal acts of women in these cases are such as ought to be dealt with by making our Penal Code more oppressive, or whether they are crimes which arise from causes easily within the control of the Government, and which, if properly applied, would render this oppressive measure unnecessary. I was merely going to show this. Up to seven or eight years ago there was no question of the peaceful character of the agitation carried on by these women. Up to that time they held public meetings, presented petitions to Parliament, promoted Bills in Parliament, and got pledges from Members. They started some sixty Suffrage societies in this country, the membership of which has doubled and trebled in the last few years. There were societies representing Conservative, Church people, Welsh people, Scotch people, Free Church people, and every conceivable class of the community, as propagandist societies to advocate Women Suffrage in a perfectly orderly and constitutional manner. In 1908 this House passed, as the result of the propaganda, a Bill, introduced by Mr. Stanier, by a substantial majority, and in that year the very largest political demonstration that was ever held in the whole of this country, with the probable exception of a recent demonstration, was held in Hyde Park in support of this movement. The "Times" said of this meeting, held in June, 1908:—
  "Its organisers counted upon an attendance of a quarter of a million. That expectation was certainly fulfilled, and probably it was doubled."
  And the "Daily Chronicle" said, "So vast a tournay had never before been gathered in London." This measure in 1908 passed its Second Reading, and no promise of further facilities was obtained from the Government. One Woman Suffrage Society alone held in that year 20,000 meetings. They filled the Albert Hall three times, the Queen's Hall forty times, and St. James' Hall more than forty times, and these 20,000 meetings were ignored by the responsible authorities in this country, as if they had never been held. They then tried the peaceful and constitutional method of sending deputations to wait upon Ministers of the Crown to petition for the redress of their grievances, and the
  418
  deputations were not received. It was in June, 1909, that one of those ladies wrote on the wall of St. James' Hall:—
  "It is the right of the subject to petition the King, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal."
  She was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The matter subsequently came before the High Court, where the women found that another constitutional avenue was closed to them by the remarkable decision of the High Court, that there was undoubtedly in the Bill of Rights the right of the subject to petition the King, but there was no obligation on the part of a Minister of the Crown to receive the petition. It was only after all these peaceful methods had been persevered in for a number of years that this phenomenon of the hunger strike, with which we are now asked to deal by this Bill, made its appearance. When the lady chalked up the words that it is the right of the subject to petition the King, and then discovered the decision of the High Court, they adopted the hunger strike. In September, 1909, the Home Office started to deal with these women by methods of forcible feeding, and the right hon. Gentleman says, and I was surprised to hear him say it, that the rumours which appeared in the Press as to forcible feeding are probably untrue, and are put forward by these women. But, as a matter of fact the report which appeared in the "Lancet" of 1912, to which hon. Members can refer, is quite sufficient for my purpose, or for anybody else without taking the statement of the women at all. I will quote one passage:—
  "The nasal mucous membrane was frequently lacerated, as evidenced by bleeding of the nose and swallowing of blood front the back of thy nose. Sometimes the tube had to be pushed up the nostrils three to five times before a passage could be forced. In several such cases bleeding continued for some days; in one case it recurred for ten days. In another case an abscess followed, with intense pain over the frontal region, which lasted for weeks after release. The danger of forcible feeding is increased by the accidents liable to accompany the passage of tubes down the nose or throat, In several instances the œsophageal talk was passed into the larynx."
  It is a long report, but I have only read those passages which show the true effect of this process which was adopted in September, 1909. It was adopted for the purpose of keeping these women longer in prison, but it has been an utter failure. We now know that they do not remain so long in prison under this operation of forcible feeding as they would if they were allowed to starve. In the year 1909, when the right hon. Gentleman or his predecessor started this method of forcible

  419
  feeding, the result of it was that in one year the members of the Women's Social and Political union raised subscriptions from £26,000 to £60,000. There were 294 arrests and 110 hunger strikes, and thirty-six people were forcibly fed in that year. In 1910 the Conciliation Bill was introduced, and again the women saw a possibility of having their case fairly dealt with on constitutional lines. The result was that there was an immediate truce to militancy. A monster procession was organised, countless meetings were held, and militancy was very much checked, and practically died out for some time. We all remember what happened to the Conciliation Bill. It passed the House of Commons by a handsome majority, and again the women were puzzled and perplexed by the action of the House of Commons, after passing the Second Reading, in refusing to send it to a Grand Committee which destroyed it as effectually as if the Second Reading had not been passed. The result was another agitation—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have been listening to the hon. Member very carefully, but I confess that I cannot see the relevancy of his remarks, and I cannot follow what he is driving at. He wishes to reject the Bill, but what other system does he propose? Here is a difficulty and how does the hon. Member propose to meet it? Does he propose to meet it at all? Those seem to me to be the points to which the hon. Member ought to address himself, and not to a history of the movement.
  Mr. M'CURDY: I propose to direct my observations in a few moments to the question which you put as to what remedy could be adopted, but the relevancy of my observations is two-fold. In the first place, I think I am entitled in reply to the Home Secretary's statement that these women criminals he proposes to deal with are persons unworthy of credence having declared war against the Government, and, generally speaking, are a very undesirable class of the community. I am showing, so far from being of that kind, they are people who, whenever there has been a glimpse of blue in the sky, or a possibility of conducting a peaceful propaganda have never committed any outrages at all. I say that it is relevant before I come to the question of what would be a reasonable remedy for the Home Secretary to adopt, for me to show that these are reasonable people who would accept a reasonable remedy. What
  420
  happened next? In November, 1910, 300 women, including Mrs. Fawcett, formed a deputation to the House of Commons and 115 were arrested. Militancy then broke out again. I will not remind the House in detail at all of the subsequent events in Parliamentary history which are fresh in all our memories, but everybody knows that they constituted a series of grievances and disappointments to the women who have the interests of Women Suffrage at heart. In 1912 their hopes were centred in the Conciliation Bill, but they were dashed to the ground on 19th November. The "Times" said that a Motion had been accepted for the so-called Conciliation Bill, but the Press of this country were telling them the real fact was that the whole thing had been exploded. On this question a leading suffragist, Miss Robbins, says in her book:
  "I am certain the Prime Minister did not realise when he made his manhood suffrage pronouncement that he was acting contrary to the spirit of his pledges."
  I am as sorry as she was, because the effect was that the Conciliation Bill was torpedoed and in three days, on the 21st November, the window smashing occurred in Whitehall, 227 women were arrested and forcible feeding was again resorted to. The Bill came up on the 28th March, and two things happened. The Conciliation Bill was lost by fourteen votes, and £10,000 was subscribed in ten minutes at one meeting towards the funds of the women. I will not say anything in regard to what has happened in this House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I will do hon. Members that favour, at any rate. I only wish to remind them that in March of the following year the Government adopted a new method—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have already given the hon. Member several warnings. I have asked him to come to the point and he declines to do so. I must therefore ask him now to resume his seat.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: Has the hon. Member for Northampton moved anything?
  Mr. SPEAKER: No, he did not reach that point.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out all from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add instead thereof the words—
  "this House declines to proceed with any measure for strengthening the Law against hunger strikers convicted of

  421
  offences connected with the agitation for the enfranchisement of women until the Prime Minister redeems his pledge that the Government will make itself responsible for the further progress of any Women Suffrage measure which passes its Second Reading by a free vote of the House of Commons."
  I am sure no one inside or outside the House will have any complaint whatever to make in regard to the tone and temper of the speech which the Home Secretary has made in introducing this Bill. No one will attempt to minimise the difficulties of the position in which the Home Secretary finds himself in connection with this matter. My Amendment, however, gives a reason for the difficulty in which the right hon. Gentleman finds himself, and it also points a way out. I am not going to discuss the wisdom or the unwisdom of the tactics of what are known as the militant suffragists, but I will make this general remark in passing, that in spite of the sneers of hon. Members behind me, if the same degree of courage, the same devotion to a great cause, was being shown on the field of battle, or under other circumstances, those exhibiting it would be held up as heroes for national admiration. Their tactics may be wrong, and they are certainly against the law; but for anyone to assume that these women are acting as they are in order to get money or to obtain notoriety is to take a most unworthy view of the work in which they are engaged. If hon. Members could see what they suffer and understand the high motives which lie behind their action, I am sure they would think twice before agreeing to a measure of this kind. With regard to the measure itself, I want to emphasise the points raised by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I thought I gathered from the Home Secretary's speech that the orders under which action proposed by the Bill is to he taken are not to be framed on the ipse dixit of the Home Secretary alone, but, after being framed, I understand they are to lie upon the Table of the House of Commons, and in this way will be subject to consideration and to debate. If I am correct in so interpreting the right hon. Gentleman's remarks that would modify my objection to some extent to Clause 1, which states that the Secretary of State may, by Order, authorise the temporary discharge of a prisoner for such period, and subject to such conditions as may be stated in the Order.
  422
  5.0 P.M.
  I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman himself and his office staff are to promulgate this Order and put it into operation without the House of Commons having an opportunity of knowing what the Order is or what conditions are being imposed. If that should be the case, it would be entrusting a very dangerous power to the Home Office. In Section 2 we are told that any person so discharged shall comply with any conditions stated in the Order of temporary discharge. Here we have the weak points of this proposal. The Home Secretary has had experience of the resisting power of these women when fighting against the rules in prison, where they have starved themselves literally to the point of death, and have fought, not only for one or two days, but for four and over five weeks every day and every time the attempt was made to forcibly feed them, with all the strength they had left, against having the indignity of forcible feeding put upon them. I ask the Home Secretary and the House whether women who have carried on a campaign of this kind inside prison are likely to be amenable to any rules or regulations which the Home Secretary may frame for their conduct outside whilst on licence. The Bill is a most futile attempt on the part of the Home Office to deal with what is admitted to be a very serious difficulty, and I, for one, at least refuse to give the Home Secretary a blank cheque in regard to a matter of this kind. The scope of the measure might very easily be extended to apply to others, and a possible danger of this kind is best of all checked in the bud. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down was able to show that the militant tactics are due to a loss of faith on the part of a section of the women suffragists of their Bill receiving any fair treatment at the hands of the Government now in office. For the past forty years, or thereabouts, women have been content to allow their cause to come before the House in the form of a Private Member's Measure. Two years ago the Prime Minister, speaking presumably for the Government, gave an undertaking that, if an Amendment to the Franchise Bill were to pass the House of Commons by a free and non-party vote of the Members, the Government would then take that Amendment, incorporate it in the Bill, and become responsible for carrying it through all the rest of its stages until it became law. The militant section of the women's franchise movement, like every other section, accepted that pledge in good faith,

  423
  and said, "Here at last is a chance for us ending this long, weary struggle for enfranchisement by the Government of the day, following the lead of the House of Commons, taking up our question and making it law."
  A few weeks ago circumstances arose which led the Government to drop the Franchise Bill, and certain of us who had accepted the Prime Minister's statement in good faith, and who had advised the women outside to do the same, were a good deal nonplussed when the Government intimated that pledge was to be abandoned, that time was to be given to a private Member to bring forward a Women Suffrage Bill, and that, if it passed its Second Reading, further time would be given for the remaining stages of the Bill, but at no point in its passage through the House of Commons were the Government able to become responsible for it. We have there the real cause for this renewed outbreak of militancy. It is a further betrayal of the cause of Women Suffrage. It is no use saying the pledge was given in regard to an amendment to another Bill. It is a mere matter of detail whether the pledge applied to an amendment or to a Bill. The central point to be kept in mind is that it was the enfranchisement of women for which the Government agreed to make itself responsible under certain conditions, and if even now the Government, instead of trying to pass this futile bit of legislation which is going to add to the horrors of the situation, would revert to its original pledge and give the women outside, not only the militant section, but tens of thousands who belong to the non-militant section, an assurance that they intend to keep faith with them as they keep faith with enfranchised men, the need for this Bill would largely disappear. The change in the situation is not one for which the women are responsible. The Government itself must take the entire responsibility. It is most unjust and unfair that the women who are conducting the agitation should be made to suffer for an act for which the Government itself must accept the responsibility. I hope that Members of the House, whether they are for Women Suffrage or against Women Suffrage, and whether they agree or disagree with the militant tactics, will vote for this Amendment as a protest against the breach of faith committed by the Government in regard to the movement, for the enfranchisement of
  424
  women. If that be done and this Bill be thereby rejected, the House will have taken a long step forward towards securing peace so far as this agitation is concerned and towards restoring the faith of women of all shades of opinion in the good faith of the Government.
  Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I am afraid I do not take the same view of this Bill as that expressed by either of the two last speakers. If I took the view as expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. M'Curdy) my attitude towards the Bill would be a very different one. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) spoke as if the Bill only applied to a particular class of prisoners, namely, the suffragists. That is not the case at all.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: It is the reason for the Bill.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: It may be, and probably is the case, that the difficulties in connection with the Women Suffrage movement have brought the necessity for a Bill of this kind to the front, but there is no proposal in the Bill of any kind which is specially applicable to the Suffragists. It is applicable to every prisoner, and it is introduced, as I understand, as a reasonable measure of prison discipline. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton is really under a misapprehension. He spoke as if it were a Bill under which you might indefinitely prolong a sentence passed upon a prisoner, and he went on to say that you might in fact prolong a sentence, although the prisoner had not been properly tried either before a jury or a competent judge and had not been properly sentenced. That is a complete misapprehension of the Bill. I ask the Home Secretary to correct me if I am wrong. The sentence, so far as this Bill is concerned, will not be altered one iota either one way or the other. If it were true that you could increase a sentence apart from going through the ordinary legal procedure, and apart from a sentence given by a competent judge, I should oppose the Bill to the utmost, because I should think it was a gross case of interference with the liberty of the subject of the worst kind, but, as a matter of fact, there is not a word in the Bill which gives any ground for a suggestion of that sort

  425
  This Bill, so far from giving what the hon. and learned Member calls "exceptional powers of repression," really gives exceptional powers of relief in cases where certain matters of prison discipline cause difficulty. No one is more strongly against forcible feeding than I am, but the object, and the right object of this Bill is to prevent the horrors of forcible feeding, and every word that the hon. Member said upon that point appeared to me to be, not an argument against the Bill, but a strong argument in its favour. This is not a party matter. We are dealing with a question of criminal law and of prison regulations, and I believe the whole House would be glad if possible to adopt a Bill of this kind if they thought, as I do, that one of the great objects of it was not to put exceptional repression upon these prisoners, but to assist them, and, above all things, to avoid what to my mind is the horror of forcible feeding. I am strongly in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill and intend myself to support it, but there are certain portions to which I want to call the Home Secretary's attention. I think he himself very clearly shows one difficulty, and I want to know how he is going to deal with it. Suppose you have a person in prison who desires to promote a hunger strike, and that person is offered release on conditions but refuses to accept those conditions, what is the position of the Home Secretary? That, to my mind, is an important point. I do not raise it as a difficulty in one sense but as a matter with which we have got to deal, because, according to my view, if we have a Bill of this kind dealing with a most difficult problem, and which may perhaps become more difficult, we want to see that we make it as complete as possible. I want, therefore, to ask the Home Secretary, in no unfriendly spirit, whether, supposing you offer release to any prisoners in order to prevent a hunger strike and they say, "No, we will not accept your conditions; we will stop in prison," you will not have just the same difficulty as you have now? That is a matter on which I want the Home Secretary's opinion, because it seems to me one of the points in reference to which the Bill is defective. There is another matter in the Bill to which I am bound to admit I am entirely opposed. I think it gives too much power to the Home Secretary in the exercise of his discretion. No one is more opposed than I am to giving undue power to anyone in the posi-
  426
  tion of Home Secretary in such a matter as this. We want our criminal law laid down by Parliament, and its execution carried out by judges by the ordinary judicial procedure. When we were discussing this question the other day I suggested the licensing principle, and the Home Secretary asked if he could not have, as regarded prisoners sentenced to ordinary imprisonment, powers like those he had in the case of penal servitude prisoners. But let me show that that is not what is done in this Bill. I want the right hon. Gentleman to alter the measure so as bring it into conformity with existing conditions in dealing with persons under sentences of penal servitude. If that is done the Bill may be very much improved.
  The principle of licence was started in 1853. In that year the Home Secretary was given a discretion as regards licences very much the same as is contained in this Bill. But it did not operate well, and the consequence was that in 1864 the power was taken away in this form, and the conditions which were attached to licences were made statutory. They are still statutory, and are attached to the Act of 1864. That is a very important protection, both for the prisoner and for the ordinary administration of criminal jurisdiction and justice in this country. We ought to lay down the conditions to be attached to licences when we give privileges of this kind to a prisoner, and it ought not to be left to the discretion or order of the Home Secretary for the time being. I think that is necessary from two points of view: first, to protect the prisoner. It would be a very harsh thing if the advantages of this Bill were given by one Home Secretary and withdrawn by another. Whoever may be Home Secretary for the time being, whatever party may be in power, all prisoners should be treated exactly the same, and should have exactly the same privileges and advantages, quite irrespective of political conditions or of any question of party Government. In order to do that, you must make the conditions statutory. It has been done as regards penal servitude prisoners in the Act of 1864. Surely anyone who understands the ordinary administration of justice realises the importance of not having discrimination and of treating everyone with exact equality. We ought, therefore, to lay down the conditions under which licences should be granted, and we ought to make them statutory conditions applicable to everyone, without any discriminating

  427
  power so far as the Home Secretary is concerned.
  I do not think that any Home Secretary ought to be subject to having to exercise individual discretion in that way. We know that he has not the time to attend to cases of that sort. He may or may not be a man of a harsh tendency or less harsh tendency, but he ought not to be in a position of having to exercise discretion in this matter. No Executive officer ought to have to deal with matters like this merely on his own discretion. It is an important matter as regards our criminal procedure, and as regards the safeguarding of the interests of the prisoners themselves. In dealing with questions of this kind in old days the Home Secretary had great powers with regard to the prerogative of the Crown, but that was a prerogative of mercy. Under this Bill, he is not exercising a prerogative of that kind at all. He is exercising a very disagreeable duty, and he is entitled to the protection of the conditions under which he is going to exercise it by having those conditions laid down by the Legislature itself. That would prevent the discussion in this House of matters with which it is peculiarly unadapted to deal, namely, the particular treatment of some particular prisoners. When matters of that kind come before the House he should be in a position to say that they have been dealt with under the ordinary regime and by the ordinary discipline, and that, therefore, there is no ground for interference. That is the proper way of dealing with matters of this kind. If I may appeal to the Home Secretary, I would say take what has been happening lately, and there you will find one of the reasons for the necessity for this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman told us the other day he had acted unconstitutionally in a certain matter, but he added that he was obliged to do it, for the necessity was such that there was no alternative. We do not want to put the Home Secretary in that position. He ought to have adequate powers laid down by this House under adequate regulations, and he should be free from any suspicion as to the treatment of particular prisoners, either in one direction or the other. That is the modern view of dealing with matters of this kind, and we shall never put ourselves on a sound footing unless we adopt it; we shall be subject to question from time to time why particular prisoners have not been dealt with either more or less
  428
  leniency because the Home Secretary has full power to so deal with them. I submit he ought not to have it. We should determine how he should exercise this discretion, except in cases of an exceptional character.
  There is one other point, and that is that as to the powers of the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take while prisoners are under remand. Is it necessary for him to take the same powers for them as for prisoners under sentence? A prisoner under remand is primâ facic an innocent person, and is entitled to be regarded as innocent in this country until he has been convicted by a competent Court. Consequently, a person under remand is dealt with in a different way from a convicted person. It appears to me that, so far as criminals under remand are concerned, they should be dealt with in a different way under this Bill. I am only throwing out that suggestion at the present moment. It is not necessary to bring this special treatment into force as regards that particular class of prisoner. I approve generally of this Bill. My view is that it is intended to be an advantage to prisoners; it is intended to prevent the horrors of forcible feeding, and to improve prison discipline. Will the Home Secretary take the existing licences in cases of penal servitude, on which this Bill has been framed, and apply them here—making them statutory? Is not the working out of these licences in the hands of the Prison Commissioners? It is not a matter which comes before the right hon. Gentleman personally. They are dealt with on the lines of prison discipline, and are carried out by routine. I want to have exactly the same thing here. I want to eliminate the personal fear of an Executive officer interfering in these matters. Let it be done in the ordinary routine. That is the proper way of dealing with these extremely difficult cases.
  Mr. McKENNA: The matter of the revocation of a licence always comes before me. The grant of a licence is a matter of ordinary routine.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: Revocation is a different matter. I was dealing with the granting of licences. Under certain conditions a prisoner really gets his licence as a right, and I want it to be so in this case. I agree it is a concession to good behaviour, while we are really dealing with cases of bad behaviour. At the same time, if you

  429
  are going to allow the principle of the licence, if it is to be temporary, and not to include the time of the sentence, then I think in matters such as forcible feeding you ought to have regulations which substantially bring into force the powers you are asking here in all cases. It ought not to be possible for the Home Secretary to be asked whether, in a particular case, this Bill is going to operate. It should be operative in every case, and it should come into operation substantially as a matter of routine, so that all prisoners may have the benefit of it. Having regard to the extreme difficulty of this case, I think the Home Secretary is to be congratulated upon the main principles of the Bill. I criticise its application, and in Committee I shall carry my criticism further. But do not let it be thought for one moment I should support this Bill if I believed what the hon. and learned Member for Northampton said was his idea of the purport of it. In my opinion he is wholly and absolutely wrong. It is not an increase of sentences; it is a matter of discipline, and it is to prevent the horrors of forcible feeding, against which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil and the hon. Member for Northampton have so strongly protested. I certainly shall not support the Amendment.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: In the very few observations I intend to make upon this Bill I shall deal with it from a point of view entirely apart from its immediate object. I am not at all sure but that a measure of this kind, directed against the class of persons against whom it is directed, will be absolutely futile. Although it may succeed, I give my right hon. Friend credit for the object he has in view. But although it may relieve the present position from the odious task of compulsory feeding, still it must necessarily be associated with a great deal of pain and suffering to the prisoner before the provisions of this Bill are put into operation. I am not going to deal with it from a suffragist point of view. I have had some experience of criminal law, and I welcome what fell from the last speaker upon certain points of this Bill. I regret that he gave it general approval. I believe that the Bill, in its general principle, is entirely contrary to the principle of our criminal administration. If there is one characteristic of criminal jurisprudence more marked than another, it is, I think the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Bucks (Sir A.
  430
  Cripps) will agree, the recognised established principle that punishment should be certain. It is also a recognised principle that punishment should be the result of judicial proceeding and not of proceeding by the Executive, and if there is one point of view which has been more than any other continuously impressed upon the spirit of our criminal jurisprudence, it is that there should be no interference by the Executive in the limitation of punishments which are meted out to people, except in the direction of mercy. My hon. and learned Friend opposite was perfectly right in pointing out that, in the routine of our prison administration, probably one of the most successful of our penological methods is the letting out of prisoners upon licence. What does this Bill do? It is an entirely new departure. There is no precedent for it, either in the penology of this country or the penology of any European country, so far as I know, and I have taken some care to ascertain the facts. It proposes to indefinitely prolong the imprisonment.
  Mr. McKENNA: No, no.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: It is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend opposite said, that the continuity of confinement is not prolonged. The prisoner has his six months or nine months or twelve months of imprisonment, and he cannot be kept in gaol for more than six months or nine months or twelve months, but he will be a potential prisoner.
  Mr. McKENNA: No.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: He will be a prisoner who is let out at intervals.
  Mr. McKENNA: Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will allow me to say that the prisoner will be let out upon licence for a defined period, and the prisoner will return to prison. The option of returning and serving the sentence will remain with the prisoner and not with me. The Home Secretary will not be able to extend the total period, but the prisoner will.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: With all due respect to my right hon. Friend, that is somewhat of a quibble. What takes place is that the prisoner is contumacious and injures his health, wisely or unwisely from his point of view, and the Home Secretary then releases him from prison, subject to conditions which may be of a punitive character.
  Mr. McKENNA: No.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: I suppose they will be conditions which will impose some restraint on his freedom of action?
  Mr. McKENNAassented.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: Therefore I am perfectly right in saying that this prisoner's term of imprisonment, not the continuity of confinement, is indefinitely prolonged. I need not elaborate that. It is a thing which is an absolute violation of a cardinal principle of our law. Next—and again giving the Home Secretary all due credit for the merciful object he has in view—it opens the door—and any lawyer will agree with me, it does not require a prison official to understand that—to intrigue. I have great respect for the prison officials. It is not the Home Secretary who is going to do this, but the Prison Commissioners, and it is going to be the governor of the gaol and the medical officer. Those are the people who are going to administer this Bill. I can conceive nothing worse than that it should be in the power of these humble administrative officers to be able to contrive that a prisoner should be let out from prison if his health suffers, to which suffering he has made some slight contribution. That is a very dangerous principle, and although we have the very highest faith, as we all have, in the integrity of our prison or police officials, at the same time, in these days of security we ought to be most cautious to guard against days of less security. I can quite conceive the Home Secretary being exposed to the very grave reproach of having connived, through his officials, at the release of a prisoner who ought to remain in prison, as a result of a connivance or intrigue between him and the prison officials. Those are my two cardinal objections to the Bill, and they are serious, although I cannot repeat too often that I recognise the purpose the Home Secretary has in view.
  My hon. and learned Friend opposite expressed, in the courteous and guarded language which is characteristic of him, his amazement at what I think is the most novel and extraordinary proposition that has ever been placed upon a criminal or penological Statute, again without precedent, that is to say, that the Home Secretary shall be able to interfere with the liberty of the subject in any way that he pleases. So far as I can see, he can impose any conditions he likes. The Home
  432
  Secretary says that he will lay the rules on the Table of the House. Some young Members of the House may think that a very solemn proceeding, which will enable us to exercise effective control, but the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the laying of Orders of that kind on the Table amounts to nothing more than a mediæval ceremony. I have never known—and I have looked through the precedents—any instance under any Statute, penological or otherwise, where the Home Secretary has had power to frame rules which curtail the liberty of the subject. I shall be quite content, if the Home Secretary will give an assurance that that will be omitted from the Bill in Committee, to waive any further objections on that score, but unless that is done I shall certainly at all its stages meet this Bill with the most stern opposition. The Home Secretary has not even condescended—it is a most extraordinary thing—to inform the House of the nature, quality, or character of the conditions, even in the most general terms. While I quite appreciate the lofty and good purpose the Home Secretary has in view, these are my grounds for opposing this measure. I think that to put people in prison, then to let them out, and then to bring them in again is cruel, not only to them but to their relatives, and the House ought to think once or twice before it consents to that extraordinarily capricious method of dealing with prisoners. My attitude towards this Bill is not influenced by sympathy with the suffragists. I dismiss that consideration altogether; I regard it as a constitutional lawyer. It is a novel departure and a dangerous innovation, and, with all respect to my hon. and learned Friend opposite, I regard it as establishing a very dangerous precedent by giving to the Executive powers which may be, and history informs us too often are, and are too often likely to be used.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I have listened to this Debate and waited in vain to hear any defence put forward for this Bill except that put forward by the Home Secretary. I am not altogether surprised, because the principle of the Bill is of a very surprising character. I understand the idea that when a prisoner has behaved well he or she may be let out of prison, but this Bill establishes the principle that when a prisoner has behaved ill he or she should be let out. That is rather a startling proposition. Then there are the objections put forward by the last speaker, who referred, I thought with extreme

  433
  felicity of phrase, to the mediæval ceremony of laying rules upon the Table. I quite agree with him that that is no security at all, under the existing conditions of this House, that the rules will ever be examined, debated, or considered by this House. Even that security is not provided in the Bill. The conditions of release are to be enacted by the Home Secretary later on, as he pleases, and all that is said about them is that they are to be such as will depend upon the conduct of the prisoner in and out of prison. That, again, seems to be rather curious. Apparently the idea is that these prisoners are to be let out of prison but are to be put in the same position as the subjects of King Louis XVI., namely, that they can be consigned to the Bastille, or its modern equivalent, at any time by an administrative order of the Home Secretary, or, as I am informed by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), who is well-read in these matters, by lettres de cachet. All these seem to be rather strange provisions to be in a Bill which is presented to the House of Commons. They seem the stranger coming from a Liberal Government. I have a sort of dim recollection of eloquent speeches delivered by the late Mr. Bright and the late Mr. Gladstone. I remember a very celebrated phrase used by Mr. Bright that
  "force is no remedy."
  He said that in opposing what is ordinarily called the Coercion Bill. This is a Coercion Bill, and I shall look with great interest to see what action the Irish Nationalist Members take upon it. I have no doubt they will vote for a Coercion Bill or anything else to keep the present Government in office, hut, if they vote for this, they are voting for an extraordinary Coercion Bill.
  Mr. FITZGIBBON: It is very different from your Coercion Bill.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I shall have a word to say about that in a moment. Liberals have constantly made themselves responsible for coercion Bills, as history points out, and they have been very incompetent and inadequate Bills for the purposes they had in view. That I think will be the fate of this Bill also. I look forward to hearing from the Under-Secretary his view on this matter. I confess I do not envy the Under-Secretary the speech he will have to make, for he is one of the few Members of this House who has openly advocated and approved of mili-
  434
  tancy, if I remember aright. I shall await with very great interest his eloquent peroration in which he explains that the law must be enforced and that these un-happy, misguided women must be coerced if they will not obey the law without coercion. So much for the general character of the Bill and its authors. The difficulty in which I am personally placed is a considerable one, partly because of the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie), which lays down this proposition: That no Bill of this kind should be passed
  "until the Prime Minister redeems his pledge that the Government will make itself responsible for the further progress of any Women Suffrage measure which passes its Second Reading by a free vote of the House of Commons."
  I can have no kind of dealing with a proposition of that kind. That is really adopting the position, which I was very sorry to hear the hon. Member also adopt, taken up by the militant suffragettes. I cannot adopt that, and I reject it altogether. I concede to the Home Secretary most fully that some strengthening of the law is required. I agree that you cannot go on with the present system whereby under certain conditions prisoners can put an end to their sentence. I am fully of the Home Secretary's opinion. I think this is a great scandal and is likely to produce very great evils.
  I also agree with what the Home Secretary says, that the offence of these women is a very serious offence. It is really and truly anarchism. It is quite true it is modified anarchism. It is subject to certain limitations which they themselves declare they have set to their agitation, but those limitations appear to me to rest on no logical foundation whatever, and it appears to me that if the objects which they have in view are not attained by their present crimes there is no security that they will not proceed to very much more serious crimes in the future. It is anarchism, the object being to hold up the whole machinery of government and to bring the whole of the Government into contempt and into ineffectiveness until some particular political reform is carried. I am quite sure this is an intolerable claim and one which everybody in every quarter of the House must resist, and if that were the question involved—and it does seem to me to be involved—in the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Keir

  435
  Hardie) I certainly should have to vote against him and in favour of this Bill, but I must say I do not think that is the question involved when we come to this Bill. I could not possibly support this Bill, and, as at present advised, I shall have to vote against the Second Reading. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Alfred Cripps) says that he regards this Bill as merely a reasonable measure of prison discipline, the object of which is to get rid of forcible feeding. If I thought it was a measure of prison discipline and that it would have the effect of getting rid of forcible feeding, that would be a very desirable thing to do, and I should support it. But I notice, and the Home Secretary made it quite clear in his speech, that it is not to get rid of forcible feeding altogether. I regret that he made that clear because, though I do not think this Bill will do it, I think there ought to be an abandonment of forcible feeding, and that some other method must be found for dealing with these prisoners, and I observe that in Clause 2, Sub-Section (2) apparently there is an express reservation of the power of forcible feeding, and therefore there is something in the nature of a threat that forcible feeding is to go on and is to be resorted to whenever the Home Secretary thinks right, rather than the procedure under the powers of this Bill.
  That being so, I ask the House rather carefully to consider what will actually happen under the Bill. Do not let us decide this on the Second Reading merely on the general principle which I have tried to lay down that we must enforce the law, or on the converse general principlpe that we must not do anything hasty to interfere with people's liberty. Let us try and consider what will be the actual practical results of the working of this method. If those actual practical results are likely to be good, let us vote for the Second Reading. Otherwise, let us vote against it. What will be the result? Let us take the case of an ordinary militant prisoner arrested, let us say, for window breaking. She is sent to prison and she refuses food. The Home Secretary says that in such a ease as that, he does not propose to resort to forcible feeding. We have to let her out again in three or four days at the outside. I feel quite sure that no one can go totally without food without some risk to their health for more than three or four days at a time. She will go out.
  436
  She will take a week to recover, and will break another window. Back she comes. What are you going to do then? Let her out again after four days or resort to forcible feeding? If you resort to forcible feeding, you are just where you are now and the Bill is useless. If you let her out again you reduce the criminal law to the most complete and abject contempt. I do not see any answer to that difficulty. I do not see how the Bill is really going to do any good. It must only increase the contempt into which the criminal law has fallen. It can only result in a series of arresting prisoners, keeping them for a ridiculously short time in prison, letting them out again and, when they have recovered their health, capturing them again, and putting them back and letting them out again. The thing is ridiculous.
  HON. MEMBERS: What is your remedy?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: My remedy is deportation.
  HON. MEMBERS: Where?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: If the Home Secretary will resign and His Majesty will appoint me Home Secretary, I shall be very glad to introduce a Bill expressing exactly my views for the deportation of these women. I do not think it would be in order to go into details on my proposal. It is that power should be given to the Courts to sentence women to deportation.
  Mr. PRINGLE: What if the women hunger strike on the voyage?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not know how far I should be allowed—
  Mr. SPEAKER: We had better wait till the Noble Lord brings in his Bill.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I think that would be a more convenient course. I have received several very ferocious letters from suffragettes since I made the suggestion, one concluding with an objurgation which I scarcely like to repeat—that I was "just as bad as McKenna." It is no use hon. Members asking me what is my proposal. They have to consider whether this proposal is going to do any good. It is no use voting for this proposal because there is no other. You have to deal with this question—it is a difficult one, I agree—but it is no use making a change in the law and solemnly passing an Act of Parliament if the effect of that Act of Parliament will

  437
  be to do harm rather than do good, and my submission, and I feel it very strongly, is that this actual proposal will be represented with great truth as what is commonly called a cat-and-mouse proposal, namely, catching the women, then letting them go again; then catching them again and treating them in a way which is certainly exceptional and will be represented as being very unfair. It will therefore create a great deal of indignation and a great deal of sympathy for those against whom it is directed, and it will do no good. It will produce greater contempt for the criminal law, and it will merely aggravate and increase the present difficulties in the administration of the law, and under these circumstances I earnestly hope the House will not give it a Second Reading.
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I approach the examination of this Bill in very much the same spirit as the Noble Lord, and I think I have arrived at a different conclusion. I am not, of course, competent to discuss this Bill on the high grounds of criminology, but I notice that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Atherley-Jones) seemed to advance against the Bill two arguments which are mutually destructive. His two objections were, first, that the Bill extended the period of imprisonment in the sense that it extended the period during which imprisonment might be hanging over the mind of the victim, and, secondly, that by means of it the Home Secretary might connive in future at letting out prisoners who ought to be kept in prison. If you put these two things together they seem to be mutually destructive. They cannot both be true. It cannot be a Bill under which the Home Secretary can shorten the imprisonment at his discretion and at the same time extend the period of imprisonment. It seems to me that so far as that criticism goes the position which the hon. and learned Gentleman, who, of course, is a great authority on the point, took up is quite untenable, and I dismiss that argument as really being founded on two misconceptions, both of them untrue. But to return to the immediate object for which the Bill is proposed, I agree with the Noble Lord in wishing profoundly to dissociate those of us who are in favour of the cause of Women Suffrage from any sympathy with, defence, or palliation of these suffragette outrages, and I should have risen only for the purpose of doing that. I regret very much that some hon. Members on this side
  438
  of the House think themselves bound to palliate these offences, which are not excusable, and in that palliation to object to this Bill. The motives of the suffragettes may be admirable; they may be heroic; but nothing can excuse these offences, and the Amendment which is being moved by the hon. Member (Mr. Keir Hardie) makes obedience to the law conditional on some points in Parliamentary procedure, because he objects to the Parliamentary facilities which have been accorded to this movement by the Prime Minister. Do you really claim a right to permit arson, and do you defend or palliate arson when it is committed? I think those of us who are in favour of the cause of Women Suffrage are bound to protest against any association with that kind of conduct. We object to it, not merely because these actions, whatever may be the motives, are abominable in themselves, but because they are fatal and destructive to any chance of carrying Women Suffrage. So, on very much lower ground, the mere motive of self-interest and the desire to advance our cause, we have to protest again and again that, if the cause of Women Suffrage does not come to the success which it deserves to have, in my opinion, on its merits, it is just due to the hysterical, wrong-headed action of these women who have lost their chance by losing their heads.
  An HON. MEMBER: They have not lost it.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I do not say they have, but if they have lost it, it is due to these actions. I think some responsibility for these actions also does rest upon the Opposition. You cannot preach disobedience to the law in one part of the United Kingdom without at the same time arousing the forces of disorder in other parts. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about passive resistance?"] I was never a passive resister, and, at all events, the Noble Lord opposite is always very anxious to distinguish the case of Ulster from other cases. I am sure there are distinctions, but I am bound to say that there is a distinction in my mind between passive resistance and arson. I think the Noble Lord's dialectical ingenuity is quite capable of drawing that distinction for himself, and it is not necessary for me to point it out. I do not believe it is true that constitutional methods have failed, and that there is no further chance along constitutional lines to carry through the

  439
  cause of Women Suffrage, but even if it were true, I would say that the action which has been taken is not excusable, and I hope none of those who favour Women Suffrage will think that their advocacy of that cause need lead them to protest against this Bill. Protest against the Bill on its merits, if you like, but not on that ground. The Noble Lord, with whom I to that extent agree very largely, went on to complain about this Bill that it was a coercion Bill. He says it is a lettre de cachet. I thought the object of a lettre de cachet was to put people into prison without accusation or trial, but the object of this Bill is to let them out.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I did not say that. What I said was that prisoners who were let out were at the mercy of a lettre de cachet, and could be reimprisoned.
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: Their sentences have already been imposed upon them, and if what is proposed is a strengthening of the law to some extent, it is right. I think the Noble Lord does not object to the strengthening of the law. He is in favour of the coercive act of deportation. If the Home Secretary were to introduce a Bill for deporting the prisoners, would not that be a coercion Act? It is only the method of coercion the Noble Lord objects to, and not to further coercive measures. I agree that the law requires strengthening and should be strengthened. The Home Secretary asks for extra power to deal with this very difficult problem. The real question we have to ask ourselves is Will this Bill succeed? I think that in a very limited sphere it may. I am not very hopeful about it. It may succeed in some cases, that is to say, it may avoid the necessity either of imposing forcible feeding or of letting out a prisoner before the full term has been served. Forcible feeding remains at the back of the matter, and I am quite certain that when dealing with a fanatical state of feeling in the minds of the militants you will get some persons who will defy this law, and I do not suppose that the Home Secretary is very sanguine about the success of it in all cases. It may succeed in certain cases, and for that reason I am glad to support it. I do not see how you can give up forcible feeding in all cases, otherwise the doors of the prisons stand open for anyone with certain strength of mind, and you might as well abolish criminal procedure altogether. You talk about the conditions attending forcible feeding. It is called degrading.
  440
  It is said to be degrading to the doctors, warders, and nurses. What are you going to do with forcible feeding in lunatic asylums? There is certainly occasional resistance by patients in these institutions. If it is torture, and if it is degrading to those who administer forcible feeding, ought you to allow it in lunatic asylums? Have you a right to torture persons because they are lunatics? Have you a right to brutalise the insane, and does the hon. Member advocate torture of the insane?
  Mr. DAVID MASON: The hon. Member has appealed to me. Obviously you must treat insane people by methods other than those you apply to people who are sane.
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: But if forcible feeding is a thing which decent-minded people cannot contemplate without horror, you ought not to allow those who administer it in the case of lunatics to be degraded in a similar way. I object to it. It is very unpleasant to think that women should come into contact with the police, that they should be put in prison, and that they should be forcibly fed. The whole thing is detestable. But there are crimes which must be punished. Within narrow limits I think this Bill may do some good. I once more get into agreement with the Noble Lord in thinking that if this Bill fails—and it will not succeed altogether—you might try deportation with advantage. The Home Secretary seems to shrink from that, thinking that perhaps the House would not give him power to deal with the matter in that way. It is easy in this question to say what you should not do. It is extremely difficult to say what you should do. It is easy to say that you should not let prisoners out before the sentences are completed and that you should certainly not let them die in prison, but I really do not see what else you can do except try some such experiment as that now proposed. If it fails, there might be some unsuspected place in the far-off seas to which you might deport these women. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Isle of Man."] On the other hand, what I feel is that we had better try to continue the patient administration of the law without hysterical violence, and without any sensational measures, such as the proclamation of meetings which has been suggested. You have got to isolate this strange phenomenon of militant crime. You cannot perhaps exterminate it altogether. You cannot suppress it by due process of law.

  441
  There are, after all, a considerable number of crimes which continue, despite all the efforts of the police and of treatment in prisons. We may have to put up with them. I regret it. The fact that it is there should make us separate it and treat it quite apart from the question of the advocacy of the political reform with which it is unfortunately connected. The two things have to be kept in separate compartments altogether. I do not for a moment say that, because of these crimes, which emanate from a very small section of the advocates of Women Suffrage, you are to desert your advocacy or turn your back upon your principles, but I say that, without turning back, the law has to be administered and crime has to be punished in this country. I support this Bill as an attempt to suppress these crimes, and I hope it may have some little measure of success, though I do not think it will do very much to that end.
  Mr. A. F. WHYTE: I think anyone who has been in the House this afternoon, and anyone who reads the Debate to-morrow morning, will claim our proceedings as a symbol of the triumph of the methods of the suffragists. This House has over and over again been forced to take undue notice of certain events, and the consequence of that repeated notice is the measure we are now discussing. I find it very difficult to agree with any speaker in respect of the whole of the speech he has made, and I think that a frank confession on the part of Members this afternoon would probably reveal the fact that they are in considerable doubt as to what the measure really means. I confess I am in that position too, and, therefore, I should like to ask my hon. Friends on the Front Bench one or two questions about it. It is claimed in the main, I believe, that it is a measure for the removal of forcible feeding in most cases, but forcible feeding will remain, possibly in the background and sometimes in the foreground. Must it not necessarily remain in every case where a prisoner does not comply exactly with the conditions of Sub-section (2)? Does Sub-section (3) not bear out the contention of the hon. and learned Member for North-West Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones)—that is to say, does it not mean that any prisoner sentenced, let us say, to two months' imprisonment, and who is let out at the end of the first week, is let out in a kind of durance which is only not imprisonment because it is not within the four walls of a prison? That prisoner will be let out for
  442
  a few days and will be brought back, and then, if he or she takes food, the rest of the sentence will be served; but what is more likely than that the prisoner will resort again to the hunger strike? Therefore the Noble Lord opposite was justified in calling this a "cat-and-mouse" measure.
  I know that it is the Home Office contention that the number of those who will resolutely stand out and will not give up the method of the hunger strike is very small. I certainly should not be a party to the passing of the measure on that assumption. I do not know that the spirit of those who have endured what they have endured in this matter for some years past is so weak as that. I know it is the fashion to cast doubt upon that, but, as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) reminded the House, some personal knowledge of those women and their character is quite sufficient to convince any open-minded man in this House that these women do mean business. Surely we must all admit that these women call themselves outlaws, and not only call themselves so, but are so. They really believe they are so. The consequence is that this law, like any other, will simply be disregarded by them, and it will be only one more confession of the failure that waits upon all such attempts until finally the demand which they make is granted. I think it quite natural that the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil) should say that he dissociates himself entirely from the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie), but I was very much surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. C. Roberts) join in that and endorsing the remark of the Noble Lord. After all, in the whole of recent history, no reforming party has been deterred by the excesses which have been committed by its own friends, and at the time, when some of the agrarian outrages were at their very height in Ireland, and when measures of coercion no doubt were passed with great regularity, those in that day who believed in reform were not deterred from pressing them forward, not only from the national but from the British point of view—
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: I said most emphatically that this should not deter us from pressing forward reform, but that these outrages ought to be suppressed, and looking back on history, these outrages always have been suppressed, and the sensible reforming party finally carried the reforms.
  Mr. WHYTE: I subscribe the statement of the hon. Member. Then I suppose he will agree that the alternative offered by the Prime Minister is a satisfactory alternative.
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: I think that it is a good offer.
  Mr. WHYTE: I think that it is a good offer, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) says, it is not in the Bill, but it is a matter for discussion. Three measures have been proposed as alternatives for dealing with the situation with which the Bill proposes to deal. The first is proposed by the strong minded school, the let-them-die school. That school have this advantage, that they have logic on their side, and probably in the end it will be the easiest policy to carry out. But I do not think that, looking all round, it is a possible or a justifiable policy for a Home Secretary in a civilised country. It would bring very much worse evils in its train, and I dismiss it as a possible alternative. The Noble Lord proposes deportation. That is simply acting on the old adage, "Out of sight, out of mind." It is the most cowardly proposal which I have heard in the whole course of these Debates on Women Suffrage. I was very much surprised that the Noble Lord of all people should have suggested it. I see an hon. and learned Member smile at the word "cowardly." Is not it cowardly to remove them from your sight in order to put them out of your mind? For that is the only meaning. You cannot prevent a hunger strike among the deported women. It would simply mean that, for the time being at all events, you would be allowed to forget them. I shall be very much interested to hear what argument the hon. and learned Member has to bring forward en this point. The third and fourth alternative is this method which the Home Secretary proposes. I must say this Bill bears the mark of the particular emergency which has called it forth. That is really the worst criticism that has been brought against it. I believe that, with the probable failure of the authorities to enforce Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, the Bill will be in general futile, but it will remain on the Statute Book to be applied to persons entirely different from those for whom it was intended.
  Therefore I support very strongly that part of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for South Bucks (Sir A. Cripps)
  444
  in thinking that ad hoc legislation of this character should be very closely scrutinised, not only from the point of view of the emergency, which created it, but from the point of view of its general effect on the general law. I believe that this Bill must necessarily fail, because it is an inadequate weapon to deal with the spirit of those for whom it is passed. But I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, if he was going to take an opportunity of this kind, did not have the opportunity of making the proposal which has found its way into more than one official Department, and which I know has found its way into last year's Report of the Scottish Prisons Commission, that a power equivalent to that which is in his hands over the convict should be given to him in the case of minor offences, and that here, for instance, a workman has been convicted of a certain offence, who perhaps has received an excessive sentence, or when during the course of his imprisonment the knowledge has come to the prison authorities that employment can be found for him, and that so far he has served his term with satisfaction to the prison authorities, that it should then be in their power to release him on licence on the understanding that employment could be found. The details of that proposal will be found in last year's Report of the Scottish Prison Commission, and I should have thought that if the opportunity had been taken for the right hon. Gentleman to introduce some reform into the penal code of this country he might have used it to adopt more general powers rather than to devote, as I think he has been doing, a mistaken ingenuity, and an ingenuity which cannot succeed in dealing with the particular instance at the moment.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: If and when I am eighty years of age I am asked by my grandchildren to give them the best political advice that could be given I should warn them to be always against emergency legislation, legislation which is inspired by the panic of the moment, legislation which is based upon expediency and not upon any sound principle, legislation which history tells us always fails in the long run. Anyone who has studied the history of this country during the last hundred years will call to mind countless occasions when this House, just as it is at the present day, inspired by the dread of some particular immediate emergency, passed a particular law. Fortunately, most of them do not

  445
  survive for five years, but others do survive and are continually creating difficulties. On the whole, most people will agree with me that it wants a very strong case indeed to justify emergency legislation. This piece of law-making which we have before us to-day, this "cat-and-mouse" Bill, is essentially a piece of emergency legislation. It is drafted and going to be pressed through this House in order to deal with one particular form of crime which happens to have occurred at this particular moment? It is not a piece of legislation which is generally applicable or generally necessary for prison discipline, and therefore I think that it is incumbent upon the Government or anybody who supports this Bill to make it a very strong case for the absolute necessity of some such measure being passed.
  On the whole, I think that with certain Amendments it might be possible to justify even this piece of exceptional legislation if we can get rid for all time in prison discipline of the forcible feeding of prisoners, which is, in effect, the torture of prisoners, because, when they resist effectively, it is torture. The removal of that blot would be worth a piece of exceptional legislation such as this is. But I do not see in the Bill, nor understand from the speech of the Home Secretary, that we are going to get this useful change in our prison discipline which would make it worth while for us to swallow this measure. I do not know whether, when the Bill is before the Committee, it will not be possible so to amend it as to make forcible feeding impossible. If hon. Members refer to the Bill they will see that there is a Clause which directs that the duties of medical officers of prisons shall not be altered by the passage of this Bill. Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 provides that nothing in this Act shall affect the duties of the medical officer of the prison in respect of prisoners whom the Secretary of State does not think fit to discharge under this Act. It does seem to me that if that Sub-section (2) were excised or modified we might automatically remove from the duties of the medical officer the supervising of these horrible scenes of forcible feeding which they have to carry out at the present time.
  I think that it is obviously possible and within the scope of this Bill to lay down definitely that in passing this we get a valuable quid pro quo in the cessation of forcible feeding of women. But I want,
  446
  first, to make it quite clear, as it is to me, what the passing of this Bill will really do. It does seem to me that it is taking away from the judiciary the power of deciding what the punishment for crime is going to be and imposing that duty upon the Secretary of State. Now I am all against giving additional powers to the bureaucracy. We must rely, for what it is worth, on the Courts of Justice as at present constituted, and I should deprecate the extension of a principle such as this. It is not a question merely of women. This Act when passed might be applied to any political offender who had sufficient strength of mind to undergo the terrible punishment of self-starvation. It may be applied, it is being applied at the present time, to reform of many other kinds. We should be very careful that we are not laying up for ourselves dangers and sufferings by giving additional powers, not to the judiciary of the country, but to the Executive. It means at the present time that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to let out a prisoner after a week's starvation, then he will impose upon that prisoner who is let out certain conditions, the principal among which will be that of residence in a particular locality. Then, so long as that prisoner adheres to those conditions, there will be no rearrest. It may be twenty years afterwards that prisoners changes his or her residence, or may break some of the conditions, but for the whole of the rest of his or her life that prisoner will be liable to be rearrested without warrant and confined again on an old charge long since forgotten, at the whim of the Secretary of State for the time being.
  I cannot be quite certain of my facts, but I think that some of the old Members of this House will remember that during the Land League agitation in the early eighties, Michael Davit, who was on ticket of leave as an ex-convict, was rearrested and again sent to prison because he took part in the Land League agitation. That seems to me to be a danger which we are incurring in passing this measure. Any reformer who will stand such starvation, and is liberated, is liable for the rest of his life, if he does anything which is disapproved by the Government, to be rearrested in respect of an offence long since forgotten. I do not know whether hon. Members feel as I do, but I believe that our sympathies are naturally always with the man who is trying to escape from justice. Certainly mine are. I remember

  447
  years ago reading a book called "Les Miserables." All the way through, as I read it, my sympathies were with the convict who was trying to escape from the police. All through he was being chased by a gendarme, and, at the close, the old charge was still brought against him, and the hand of the police was still on his shoulder, ready to arrest him. There are those of us, I think, who like to see a man given every chance to get away from the law; there are those of us who perhaps feel that, after all, in the position of the prisoner, his crime might have been committed by one of us—who feel that we are not above suspicion ourselves, and that we ought to be the last to throw stones. We like to see a prisoner, whether he comes before an English Court of Justice or before any other form of Court of Law, given the very best possible chance, and not hampered as he will be, I am afraid, if this Bill is passed. If the prisoner gets out through self-starvation, he will be under an indeterminate sentence, just as was Jean Valjean, for the rest of his life. If you got rid of forcible feeding you might have this law which is proposed, but unless we get that quid pro quo it should not be passed; nor should it be passed in any other form except it be purchased by the abolition of forcible feeding.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: If I understood the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) rightly, he said that this Bill confers power on the Executive to alter the sentence of the Court. The hon. Member went further, and said that under the Bill the sentence of the Court need not be carried out; that is to say, that for an unlimited period the prisoner is released—the Bill says to be temporarily released—and that he may be liable to arrest over a very long period of time. That I believe not to be the Bill as it stands. As I understand it, the Bill provides that the prisoner who commits an offence in prison which offence prevents the carrying out of the sentence, will still be made subject to the sentence, and all things falling out as the Home Secretary expects, the sentence will be carried out. The hon. Member has said that under the Bill as proposed, the sentence will be extended indefinitely, and the Home Secretary will have power to rearrest a man as he pleases. On the contrary, the Bill, as I understand it, says that the discharge is temporary and within a period fixed by the Home Secretary, and that when that
  448
  period is fulfilled, the prisoner shall return and the sentence shall be carried out. Surely the House sees that the position is this: The prisoner receives a penalty; the prisoner, by attempting to commit a fresh crime, that is to say, the crime of suicide, seeks to evade the penalty imposed by the law. As I read this Bill, it is an enabling Bill. It enables the Home Secretary to carry out the sentence provided by the Court originally, a sentence of which the prisoner, by misconduct in prison, as the Home Secretary calls it, by attempting to commit a fresh crime, seeks to prevent the fulfilment.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: The Bill says that the Home Secretary may extend the period—"such extended period as may be fixed by any subsequent Order."
  Sir G. PARKER: But surely the hon. Member must be aware that this is only put in by the Home Secretary in order to give himself a certain freedom, because the prisoner may not be sufficiently restored to return.
  Mr. McKENNA: Hear, hear.
  Sir G. PARKER: The prisoner may not be sufficiently restored to return to prison, and it is in view of that circumstance that the Home Secretary gives himself the power to extend the period. But the conditions which the Home Secretary will lay down are those which he assures me now, across the floor of the House, are the conditions which I have already undertaken. Surely the House must see that the position which I take up in this matter is one of reason. I condemned the Home Secretary in the past for what I thought was weakness. Many of us on this side of the House and on the other side of the House felt strongly that his action was inadequate. The right hon. Gentleman says to the House, "My action was inadequate, unless I preferred to let these people die. My action was inadequate because the law has not given me power." I am supporting this Bill on the ground that I want to see the sentence of the Court carried out; I want to see the law fulfilled; I want to see sufficient power given to the Home Secretary to make this experiment. I agree that it would be a grievous thing to allow these women to die. Some of them, in a condition of exaltation, might choose to die, and you might call it fanaticism or hysteria or anything you like, but that some of them would do it I am certain. My Noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil)

  449
  proposed deportation. Deportation seems to me to present unexampled difficulties, quite apart from the intrinsic merits of the proposal itself. Deportation where? We have no penal settlements outside this country. Is it proposed to deport them to some penal settlement belonging to Great Britain or to any of the Oversea Dominions—to some tropical settlement like British West Africa or Fiji? Is it proposed to send them from one prison to another? The right hon. Gentleman would have no power, even in Fiji; he would have no control over these prisoners once they were out of this country. They have their own rights in the West Indian Islands and in the outermost islands of the sea, and the proposal of deportation, from my point of view, is fantastic to a degree.
  Deportation to some other country might be suggested, but already the United States have put a stop to that. It seems to me that such an alternative must be absolutely ruled out by those who want to see the law fulfilled. I do not see how it is going to be fulfilled unless some fresh enabling power is given to the Home Secretary. If this does not prove successful, then it will be the duty of the Home Secretary to provide something stronger still to meet the demand of the country and of this House, that no prisoner shall be allowed to commit a fresh crime in prison, the crime of felo de se, in order to escape the fulfilment of the sentence originally imposed upon him by the Court. If I am right in my interpretation of the Debate, and if I have proposed what I believe to be the horns of the dilemma on which we are placed, I see no other course to take than to support the Bill brought in by the Home Secretary. The hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones) made a very able speech, in which he said that the penalty of the Court ought to be certain and continuous. I agree. I think the Home Secretary agrees that the penalty of the Court ought to be certain and continuous. And this Bill, as I read it, is an attempt to make the penalty of the Court certain, and it will be as near continuous as possible in the circumstances—circumstances which involve the commission of another crime by the prisoner to escape the penalty originally imposed by the Court. I hope I have clearly put the point, which has influenced me very much in coming to a conclusion as to the course I shall pursue, and I am quite certain that, so far, I have
  450
  heard nothing to convince me that the course I intend to pursue in supporting the right hon. Gentleman is not the best in the circumstances.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: I rise to oppose this Bill, for I have heard no real reason given in the speeches which have been made this afternoon why it should bring about the result which is expected of it. I do not think it has been shown by any speaker that the object in view, namely, to get rid of disorder and to get the law respected, will be brought about by this measure. Everyone has pointed out that there is doubt about the result, and, in view of that fact, surely the Government might reconsider their position as to proceeding with the Bill. The Home Secretary, in his opening speech, referred to the Prisons Act of 1877, which provides that it was the duty of the officials under that Act to preserve the health and life of prisoners. If that be so, is there any necessity for this Bill, because if the Home Secretary has the power under that Act, if he has discretion in regard to the discharge of prisoners, why ask this House to grant further powers? It seems to me, on that one point, that this Bill is unnecessary, and that the Home Secretary has already sufficient power.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): Sufficient power to do what?
  Mr. D. MASON: I understand, according to what the right hon. Gentleman said, that under the Prisons Act of 1877 it is the duty of officials of the prison to preserve the health and life of the prisoners. This Bill is to enable the right hon. Gentleman, if in his discretion he thinks it necessary, to temporarily liberate a prisoner in the interests of his or her health. If the Home Secretary has those powers under the Act of 1877, I think that shows that this Bill is unnecessary. Clause 1 provides that the Home Secretary is to have power to release and that the release shall be temporary and conditional. To my mind, letting the prisoners out and bringing them back again is not going to attain the object which the right hon. Gentleman has at heart. His object in this measure is, as I understood from his speech, to crush out and bring to an end this propaganda. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I think that is what he stated. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] He certainly spoke at considerable length with regard

  451
  to women prisoners, and that, I understand, was the object of the Bill. What, surely, is the object of the Bill. Is it not to bring to an end these foolish proceedings, as he thinks, on their part? I fail to see how letting out the women and bringing them back again will affect the propaganda or the question of disorder. If we oppose this Bill the House is entitled to know, as you, Sir, ruled, what is our remedy and what alternative do we suggest for bringing to an end these deplorable events and all this disorder which is at present in our midst. I propose to address myself to that question. On a former occasion I did express considerable sympathy with the attitude of mind outlined from the other side, that the Home Secretary should provide the prisoners with food and should not engage in forcible feeding, to which I am very much opposed, in sympathy with many Members on this side.
  I said on that occasion I sympathised with the attitude that the Home Secretary or the officials should provide the prisoners with food and that his responsibility did end if he did provide them with that food. I was of opinion that those prisoners would not go to extremity of starving themselves to death. I could not conceive of any sane person really going to that extremity. I have been assured since that the doctors of the prison refuse to certify those prisoners as being insane. We must of course assume that the authorities call in mental specialists. Thus, if the prisoners are not held to be mentally deranged and cannot be removed to an institution for people of that kind, I can quite see the dilemma in which the right hon. Gentleman is placed. He has then to deal with sane persons who apparently, through their devotion to a cause, are determined to starve themselves to death or to commit suicide, as the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) suggests. We, as a House, have then surely to consider what is the cause that creates those persons who are undoubtedly determined to starve themselves to death if they are in prison for creating disorder. I think that brings one to the natural conclusion that we must go to the root of the evil. It is no use beating about the bush and thinking that this Bill, or any other Bill, or any number of Bills, will get rid of the trouble. A Noble Lord opposite thought we would get rid of the difficulty by deporting them, but I agree with the hon. Member on this side
  452
  who interrupted him with the remark that they might hunger strike on the voyage out.
  You do not get rid of the trouble by getting rid of the people temporarily. I submit you should go to the root of the cause which creates these martyrs. I think it is self-evident that the cause is that there is a denial of justice to those women, and that until you face that manfully and straightforwardly, and look into the cause of their injustice and of their distrust and of their distress, you will never be able to remedy the situation. Therefore I say that there is and can be only one remedy, and that is to grant the franchise to them. [Laughter.] Some hon. Members may laugh, but if those who laugh so lightly can show any other method we will be very glad to listen to them. I do not think there is any other remedy than by going to the root of the evil, and I think the speeches have shown that you do not get rid of it by letting out on licence the people who are still determined when they get their opportunity to go back into prison, and to engage in further breaking of the law by acts of arson or other damage. You do not destroy the underlying principle which is the motive power behind this movement by a Bill such as this. I contend if we are really fair and consistent in our beliefs in this matter that we must logically be driven to the conclusion that a Bill such as this is futile for the purpose at which it is aimed, and that the only solution is to do justice by these women and to give them the Parliamentary franchise.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I understand from the speech of the hon. Member who has just addressed the House that he admits that short of giving the vote this is the best way to meet the situation.
  Mr. D. MASON: On the contrary, I do not believe that this Bill or any number of similar Bills can affect the real question.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: That is to say, there is no remedy, and that this Bill takes its place amongst the other no remedies, and that the only remedy is to give the vote. In the meantime does the hon. Member think before the vote has been given that justice ought to be enforced and sentences carried out?
  Mr. D. MASON: If the hon. Gentleman appeals to me I can only refer him to my remarks in which I ventured to point out that if food was provided for these women

  453
  and if they purposely refused to take that food, then of course under the Act of 1877 it became the duty of the Home Secretary before they got into an extreme state to discharge them.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: We know where we stand. If a prisoner starves herself or himself long enough and puts him or herself in a dangerous state of health, then the process must be ended, and the prisoner turned out of prison.
  Mr. D. MASON: There is no other remedy.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: This Bill is one remedy, and let me say one further word to the hon. Member. If he thinks the aim of this Bill is to have any effect on propagandism or any form he is very much mistaken. We do not think it will have that effect, and no Bill proposed ought to have that effect. As the hon. Member for South Bucks (Sir A. Cripps) said, this Bill is simply a matter of prison discipline. A great many objections have been taken to the Bill by the hon. Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood). He said that it is an emergency Bill, and that all emergency legislation is wrong. I am rather surprised to hear an argument of that kind from him because of his views. What does emergency mean? Emergency is simply a long word for a condition of urgent necessity. You bring in a Bill because it is necessary, and the more urgent the necessity the more you require the Bill. I should have thought that emergency, so far from being an argument against the Bill, is its best justification. Let me deal with some of the points that have been made against this Bill this afternoon. It has been said that this Bill indefinitely postpones the punishment. Nothing could be really more removed from the facts of the case than that statement. Assume that the prisoner has been sentenced to twenty-four days' imprisonment, and that the prisoner on account of conduct, wilful conduct, on his or her part, is unable, without danger to health, to stay in prison more than three days, and that the prisoner is then released upon conditions. May I say here in reply to the hon. and learned Member that the conditions will not be of a punitive character, and there will no doubt be an opportunity in the Committee stage of going further into this question of conditions. The prisoner is released upon conditions, and the time for which the prisoner is allowed to be at
  454
  liberty is set down. That time may be extended if the prisoner is not in a fit state of health to go back. In time the twenty-four days' imprisonment will be worked out in either separate instalments of three days each. It is quite true that the sentence has not been extended by a moment as far as the period in prison is concerned, and although it is quite true that it is a hardship upon the prisoner that the sentence is divided into eight portions, still that is not a sentence inflicted by the judge upon the prisoner, but a sentence inflicted by the prisoner on herself or himself.
  An HON. MEMBER: That is not in the Bill.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I think that the hon. Member is so busy with other matters contemplating legislation of the future that he cannot devote the attention that is desirable to the legislation of the present.
  Mr. BUTCHER: What are the conditions under which a prisoner may be discharged or released?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: If the hon. Member had been here earlier, this matter was discussed at length by the hon. and learned Member for South Bucks (Sir A. Cripps).
  Mr. BUTCHER: I want to know what the Government say?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I have said that the conditions will not be of a punitive character, and that the matter can be discussed more properly on the Committee stage. At any rate, it is not a Second Reading matter, and what we have got to discuss now is the principle of the Bill. I think we are entitled to say this, that after a pretty long debate, no other remedy has been suggested except deportation. The remedy of letting them die has been practically given up by the House of Commons. The Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) almost stands alone, except he has the support of my hon. Friend, with regard to deportation. Deportation involves forcible feeding ex hypothesi, unless you have got, after the trial takes place, a steamer in the Thames to remove the prisoner, because he or she is going to resist food, since that is the very essence of the problem with which we are dealing.
  Mr. D. MASON: I do not support deportation.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Then the Noble Lord stands alone. But not only are there difficulties inherent in deportation, but it involves all the difficulties with which we are faced at the present time. The only really new element introduced into the Debate was contributed by the hon. Member for Perth, who referred to the convict system in Scotland, where a prisoner is released on condition that employment is found for him. I never heard a less analogous case put forward. To suggest that suffragist prisoners, who have repeatedly refused food, should be dealt with on the Scottish system of employment being found for them is really very far removed from the practical issues of the case. Therefore, as far as practical politics are concerned, we must really come back to the Bill before the House. The Noble Lord confronted us with the paradox that whereas generally if you behave ill you are imprisoned, under this Bill if you behave ill you are let out of prison. That is very ingenious. He also referred to the measure as a Coercion Bill. All repressive measures may be described as Coercion Bills. The position with which we are confronted is admittedly a difficult one. We are dealing with a set of people who are prepared to undergo the process of starvation. As my right hon. Friend said on a previous occasion, these people have shown great courage and heroism. That is admitted by all parties. The question is, what is to be done?
  What are the courses open to us? At present we can either let them die, as the phrase goes, or we can let them out of prison before they have completed their sentence, or we can forcibly feed them. This Bill is not concerned with how a person gets into prison. I do not think that anyone here is enamoured of any one of those three courses. We do not want to let these people die in prison; we do not want to feed them forcibly; and there are very few Members, not more than two or three, who think that when a sentence of six months has been imposed, the prisoner should be able in three or four days to put an end to his or her imprisonment. So far as our present powers are concerned, they are admittedly quite inadequate. Whether we shall solve the difficulty by this Bill I am not in a position to say. This, however, is the only practical measure that has come before the House. We believe that at any rate, it will be a step in the right direction. It will enable us to liberate prisoners from
  456
  prison after a certain number of days, according to the advice of the doctor; it will enable us to rearrest them and to vindicate the law by compelling them to serve the sentences which have been passed upon them. Whatever our views may be on the subject of Women Suffrage, they are quite irrelevant to this discussion. We are most of us anxious to vindicate the law, and to see that the sentence served by a prisoner shall be the sentence imposed by the judge, and that it shall not be remitted by the prisoner himself. Under these circumstances I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Viscount WOLMER: I should like to explain why I for one cannot vote for this Bill. It is not because I desire in any way to defend or to minimise the suffragist outrages. Indeed, I think they are very serious and should be stopped by whatever means we can find to secure that end. I think that the most serious of the outrages are not those committed upon the ordinary public, but the personal attacks to which Ministers have been subjected. It seems to me that Parliament ought certainly to take every step necessary to enable Ministers of the Crown to carry out their duties as they think best, without being molested by any aggrieved section of the community. It is only because I feel that this Bill cannot put an end to suffrage militancy, or really do anything to secure the object for which it is designed, that I am unable to vote for it. Supporters of the Bill seem to think that the spirit of the suffragettes can be broken by a sort of bullying process. The process proposed is to my mind revolting. The Under-Secretary instanced the case of a suffragette sentenced to a short term of imprisonment—twenty-four days. But what is to happen in the case of a woman sentenced to five or ten years' penal servitude? The Home Secretary says that he has the power in regard to those prisoners at the present time. But, at any rate, the power has never been exercised in the manner proposed by this Bill. According to the description given by the Under-Secretary, directly a woman hunger strikes and reduces herself to such a delicate state of health that her life is endangered, she is to be released; then, as soon as she is well enough, she is to be taken back to prison. Then she is to be let out and taken back again, and so on. I do not

  457
  think that the Home Secretary has this power in the case of a prisoner sent to penal servitude. If he has it, he has not exercised it.
  Mr. McKENNA: I have the power to release on licence prisoners sent to penal servitude.
  Viscount WOLMER: I ask the House to consider the case of a suffragette sentenced to a long term of imprisonment, who hunger strikes, and is brought backwards and forwards to the prison doors in a state of perpetual collapse. It appears to me to be a most disgusting idea. It means that during the whole of the five or ten years of the sentence—and probably much longer, because the time during which a prisoner is out of prison would prolong the period of agony—the woman would be in a state of physical torture; she would be in the position of being tortured by the State. The supporters of the Bill seem to think that treatment of that sort will break the spirit of the suffragettes. I do not believe that it will. If I thought that it would, I do not think that even then I could support the Bill. It seems to me that the spirit of the suffragettes is a sort of religious fanaticism, and, although I utterly disapprove of their actions, I do not think that they can be suppressed by force in the manner proposed by this Bill. The hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir G. Parker) said that if this Bill fails—and the Government themselves do not seem very sanguine as to its success—he will look to the Government to bring forward something stronger. What is to come next? What more hideous torture could be devised by any Government than that of keeping women at the point of starvation until the period of their sentence has expired?
  Mr. McKENNA: We do not.
  Viscount WOLMER: We must look facts in the face. That will be the result of the Bill. These women would be kept in a state of physical torture—for which they would be asking themselves; they want to be martyrs—for a very long period. My hon. Friend says that if this Bill does not succeed something stronger must be tried.
  Sir G. PARKER: When I used the word "stronger" I think the House understood me to mean something more effective for the carrying out of the law. It had no reference whatever to forcible feeding.
  Viscount WOLMER: If my hon. Friend only asks for something more effective I am heartily with him. I should like something more effective at once. [HON. MEMBERS "What?"] I am not in the least ashamed, in spite of the strictures of the Under-Secretary, to confess myself a deportationist. There was a grave misconception on the part of the hon. Member for Gravesend. He says that you cannot deport these people, because it would be unfair to impose a penal settlement on any Crown Colony, and no self-governing Colony would stand one. That surely misses the point. We are not proposing the establishment of a penal settlement, because suffragettes are not criminals in the ordinary sense of the term. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] They are criminals in the technical sense of having committed acts against the law, and therefore crimes; but they are not criminals in the ordinary sense—that is to say, people who commit crimes for their own personal gain. They are only criminals for the sake of what they believe to be a just cause. I do not defend them, but I say that apart from the question of Women Suffrage these women are like any other ordinary people. They are not criminals; they are simply politicians who are prepared to go all lengths to enforce their principles. I would remind those who want to punish suffragettes that, when punishment ceases to be a deterrent, it is no use. There is no virtue in punishing anybody. You only punish a person if you think the punishment will stop him or her from breaking the law—
  Mr. BOOTH: Or will stop others?
  Viscount WOLMER: Or will stop others. The punishment has been quite unable to suppress militancy. I believe it will be quite unable to suppress militancy. I do not associate myself with the hon. Member opposite who advocated putting an end to militancy by giving votes to women. Although a strong woman suffragist, I think that would be a very wrong action indeed.
  Mr. D. MASON: I said the conclusion that one was driven to logically was that if you want to put an end to this disorder and evil was to do justice to women by giving them the vote.
  Viscount WOLMER: I submit that is another question altogether. I do think we must put an end to these crimes. It would not be right to do so by acceding to the demands of those who are committing

  459
  them. I believe the way to put an end to these crimes would be by removing the people who are committing them out of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I would deport them to some place like St. Kilda or St. Helena, or other similar place which would be willing to receive them. When they got to St. Kilda I cannot conceive that they would do any damage there, because they would have no grievance against the inhabitants of that island. There are plenty of precedents for deportation. It is the old system of ostracism. When citizens refuse to abide by the Constitution of the country in which they are they must be taken out of the community and either shut up in prison or else taken out of the country altogether. The hon. Member opposite said that deportation really did not get rid of the difficulty of hunger striking. He said they would hunger strike on board ship. That might be so, but I personally say that if women are determined to starve you cannot help them. I think that forcible feeding is disgusting and degrading. It is really torture. But if these women are determined to commit suicide it seems to me impossible to prevent them doing so. You are quite as likely to kill them by forcible feeding as by allowing them to starve. If you have got a set of lunatics who are determined to starve themselves to death you really have no remedy within human power. For these reasons I cannot support this Bill. I do not believe it will check the spirit of the militant suffragists. I do not believe it will be a remedy for the evils with which we are faced.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I confess myself quite unable to understand the real attitude of the Noble Lord who has just spoken. He protests against the inhuman action of the Home Secretary, and calls this a bullying Bill. It seems to me the solution which he himself advocates is an aggravation, by leading to an increase of bullying, of that inhumanity. Let us just look at this question of deportation and see what it means. The Noble Lord has no solution whatever for the problem of these women who refuse to eat. All he says is: "Remove them from our sight, take them away to some desert island, and let them be starved to death there; let them either be forcibly fed or commit suicide there—anywhere except in one of our prisons here." Let it be in some desert island removed from our sight. His policy is practically identical with that of the
  460
  Home Secretary, save that he would perpetrate it in some desert island, where he would not be subject to further criticism, or public notice or observation. His only qualification of the Home Secretary's policy, that I see, is when he says: "Let them starve." If he were Home Secretary, and if he were to adopt that policy, then we might well apply to him the criticism which some persons have applied to this Bill, when they state that this Bill gives the Home Secretary power to aggravate the sentences and to increase them indeterminately. But this Home Secretary would let the women starve! He would have power, and would exercise that power—to transmute this sentence of imprisonment into the death penalty—for his policy is the death penalty; it is an enormous increase upon the sentences which the courts of law have imposed upon these women.
  I do not regard, and I am sure that there are few people in this House who can regard, this Bill as a very satisfactory one. I am sure the Home Secretary does not regard it as a satisfactory Bill. We are dealing with an absolutely abnormal situation, a situation so abnormal that we cannot have any satisfactory solution for this particular aspect of it with which we are dealing. I do not suppose anybody would call lunatic asylums satisfactory institutions. But they are necessary because of the existence of lunacy. It is necessary to find some way of dealing with these abnormal persons, and this adnormal situation. Any system which you may suggest for dealing with it will be open to objection and will be unsatisfactory. The only thing we can do as practical persons is to adopt that policy least objectionable and least hostile to public sense and public sentiment. The present state of affairs is one which we cannot contemplate with satisfaction. It is horrible. I can use no word to describe the horror which I at present feel, horror amounting to revulsion, at the present state of affairs. These women are forcibly fed. They violently resist being forcibly fed. That is not a penalty imposed upon them by the Home Secretary; that is an increase of punishment and of penalty which they impose upon themselves. It is painful. It is horrible. It is revolting to them. But it is not less revolting to the instincts and feelings of the prison officials, who have to prevent them committing suicide, to the Home Secretary, whose duty it is to

  461
  administer the law, and to this House and the public, who know that these things are done.
  Having called attention to the horrible nature of the existing state of affairs I would beg to point out that this Bill is a mitigation of their horror. It enables the Home Secretary in some measure—I do not think in a large measure; I think the scope of the measure is very narrow and very limited—but it does enable the Home Secretary in a number of cases to avoid some part of the horror which is attendant upon forcible feeding. Does this Bill give to the Home Secretary, as has been said, power to increase the sentence of the Courts and to increase that sentence indeterminately? I will put the thing on another level. Does it give the Home Secretary power to increase the sentence at all? I suggest that it does not. The real increase in the penalty and in the sentence which we cannot avoid has been imposed by these women upon themselves. They have by their hunger striking and by their resistance imposed upon themselves an enormous increase of their penalty. They are adopting a kind of political hari-kari. This increase in their sentence was not imposed by the Home Secretary; was not imposed by this House. It was imposed by themselves, and this Bill gives the Home Secretary power, if they are willing, to lessen that increase which they have made. It gives him power to reduces it to some extent; not to increase it. The increase has already been mane before this Act is applied. By the application of this Act the horror that the women have brought upon themselves will be diminshed. The scope of the Bill will, I think, be very narrow. I think the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin put his finger on one of the difficulties. He said: "Supposing a woman is released, and after a few days or weeks, recovers her health and then starts up again, breaks more windows, and is taken back to prison, you have the present state of affairs over again." I think the Noble Lord was wrong in his conclusion, although I think he was right in the point put; for this might arise in many cases—I do not think in all, judging from what we have seen in the past—it might occur in a considerable number of cases. The Home Secretary dealt with that in his speech. He said most distinctly he did not propose to apply this Bill to persons who showed themselves determined to repeat the offence.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: What is your remedy then?
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: We are left with the present system and the present state of affairs. If a prisoner after being released, shows an absolute determination to continue repeating the offence, then I take it that that person would be taken back to prison, and the Bill will cease to apply to that particular prisoner. That emphasises what I was saying, that the Bill is very narrow and limited in its scope in regard to many, in fact, most persons, and that the present state of affairs would practically continue. Again, it has been pointed out that this Bill leaves much at the discretion of the Home Secretary. That I regard as inevitable. We are dealing with an abnormal state of affairs, a state of affairs for which you cannot lay down any formula which would apply to every case. You are bound to rely upon the individual judgment of some one man. This Bill imposes responsibility of exercising that individual judgment, not on some obscure official far removed from our knowledge, if not from our criticism, but upon the Home Secretary himself, who is directly responsible to this House, who is here to be questioned and to answer any criticism of his exercise of that discretion. Every case must be brought before him personally, and every case must be acted upon as a result of his own personal judgment on the facts. He will be answerable to this House every day the House is sitting. I am not much impressed by the criticism as to the discretion of the Home Secretary. Reference has been made to emergency legislation. Well, we are dealing with an emergency, and with abnormal features. When an emergency arises, are you going to refuse to deal with it and simply say, "This is an emergency, and we will take time to consider it; we will appoint a Royal Commission, and perhaps next Session we will bring in a Bill; we will consider the matter at our leisure and at length"? That might be the policy to adopt if we were dealing with some permanent, settled feature in our social organisation. We are not dealing with that; we are dealing with a perfectly abnormal situation, and in a situation of that kind we are justified in dealing with it by an emergency measure.
  Some points have been raised in this Debate which are more suitable for Committee discussion. I myself feel that the Bill will have to be amended to some

  463
  extent in Committee. I do not propose to discuss any suggestions in detail, but perhaps I might be allowed to indicate two aspects of the Bill on which amendment might be made. Perhaps the Home Secretary would take into account the question that the conditions to be attached to the licence might with advantage be more fully defined in the Bill. I would welcome some amendment of that kind if the Home Secretary could think of any. I think also it would be reasonable to impose some limit of time as to the total period over which this process might be extended. Somebody pointed out the theoretical possibility that the Bill as it stands might enable the Home Secretary and the Government, in the case of some prisoners to whom they were very hostile, to keep the sentence of imprisonment hanging over their heads for years—I think a period of twenty years was mentioned—that, I am sure, is not the intention of the Bill. But it is theoretically possible under the Bill as it stands, and therefore I suggest some amendment might be made. I think a time limit bearing some proportion to the length of the original sentence might be laid down. If the period was twice the length, or three times the length of the original sentence, and if a prisoner had not served the whole of the sentence, the sentence should determine at the end of that time. I hope many of those who criticise the Bill in detail in these respects will support the Second Reading, and will find the Committee stage a more suitable time for giving effect to their views and criticisms.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I am sorry I cannot follow the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin in the suggestions he made for dealing with these prisoners. I suppose I am not sufficiently severe or strict, but I think the idea of torturing any unfortunate people by sending them to Scotland to a island where the sole political pabulum would be the discourses of the Scottish Member for that district would be too severe. To add insult to injury, I am told, on most reliable information, that in the island of St. Kilda no one has a vote because no one pays rates, and that the only occasion on which a rate collector went to the island for rates he was given a number of pebbles in lieu of rates, which were so heavy that he was unable to carry them away. Seriously, I am going to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, and I am anxious to tell the House why. The
  464
  position is very serious now. People are breaking the law. I do not care what their motives are; they are sentenced by competent tribunals to terms of imprisonment. Nobody is more in favour of liberty than I am—indeed, it is only the Tories who are in favour of liberty nowadays—but when once persons are sentenced to imprisonment, it is the duty of the State to see that the imprisonment is enforced and carried out. It is the duty of the Home Secretary to see that it is carried out. I have freely criticised the Home Secretary on other occasions in connection with these matters. I went so far as to vote for the reduction of his salary, and anyone who failed to do likewise on that occasion cannot vote against this Bill, and many, who, like myself, voted for a reduction of his salary on that occasion ought to-day to vote in favour of this Bill. I said at that time that the Home Secretary had power enough to carry out the law. I do not want to go back now upon that controversy. I still think there was then some defective management. The instances he gave of a woman who was in the habit of having a warm bath and lying down afterwards, without having anything on, in the hope of catching cold, seemed to me to point to defective prison management. It was quite useless for the Home Secretary to come here and say, "What was I to do?" I say that points to defective prison management. The Under-Secretary told us that there were only three courses open, either to let them die or to forcibly feed them, or to release them. There are more than three courses open, and it is no answer merely to indicate the number of courses. Here we are in this position: The Home Secretary and the Government at the present time are in control of the country, and the duty of enforcing the law is the first duty of any Government in any civilised State, and the Home Secretary, with full knowledge and responsibility, comes down to this House and says, "I want this extra power," and in his optimism he says, "If you give it to me, I think I can get over the difficulty, but if you do not I cannot be responsible." When the Home Secretary says that, then anybody who votes against the Second Reading of this Bill is taking a heavy responsibility. We are told that this is emergency legislation. I am pretty careful about emergency legislation, and I quite agree that this emergency legislation ought to be very carefully scrutinised. The hon. and learned Member for North-West Durham,

  465
  who is a constitutional lawyer, as we all know, told us the difficulties that are in the way. I really do not think there was anything in his point. His point was that if you give this power to the Home Secretary to interfere with the prisoners, he can release prisoners when he likes; but he can do that now. He can release anybody permanently, and if there is a danger of intrigue, it is fifty times greater at the present time, and so I really do not think there is much in that point.
  As regards the constitutional question, all you do is merely to give power to carry out the sentence of the Court. As to the questions of conditions attaching to the licence, I reserve to myself the right to deal with that in Committee. I think the right thing would be to strike out the conditions altogether. You could release the prisoners for a week or a fortnight, and they come back at the end of that time. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin declines to vote for this Bill, on the ground that it will do no good at all. I am not so sure about that. The hon. Member for Merthyr agreed with that, and spoke of the stuff the suffragists were made of, and that they are likely to come back more determined than ever. I think that is not quite certain. It is a very different thing to come back on various separate occasions from being let out and having your sentence hanging over you. I do not know whether imprisonment is likely to end this movement or not. I do not think that consideration is relevant for the moment, but if you look at past movements, and I think it is also true of this movement, you will find that the leaders are not so very anxious to remain for any protracted periods in goal. The people who stay for protracted periods in prison are the rank and file, people of eighteen and nineteen years of age, who are carried away by enthusiam, and who are, for the time being, willing to become martyrs to the cause. I might give an illustration of the movement, which is now doing most excellent work, that is the Salvation Army. We remember how in its early days people used to come to the Courts and ask to be sent to gaol, and we remember what difficulties the Home Secretary of the day was confronted with, but after a time, when it came to going for the people having positions in the offices of the society
  and for the heads of the society, then it was found that it was a much heavier price when these people were detained in gaol. If you take down the leaders of a movement, you are doing serious injury to that movement, and there is not the same anxiety to remain in gaol as there is amongst the rank and file.
  Mr. BOOTH: The Salvation Army people fought for the right of free speech and won.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That is what we are fighting for in this House.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I do not quite see the relevance of the interruption of the hon. Member opposite. I am not in the least saying that the Salvation Army were not doing good work.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: They fought for the right to hold their meetings, and they won.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I am afraid the hon. Member's recollection is not quite accurate. I was in most of the fights we then made to prevent certain persons being sent to gaol, and there was no desire on the part of the leaders of the movement to go to gaol, and I think you would find it the same to-day. It is just conceivable that there may be use for these powers in this particular case. I am not altogether a pessimist in this matter, but even if I did not hold the views I do I should vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. The Home Secretary has a very heavy responsibility, and, in the exercise of that responsibility, when he comes down to the House and asks for further powers, unless there is something exceedingly objectionable in what is asked for, I think we are bound to give him those powers. I have not heard anything in this Debate which satisfies me that it is right to allow a person sentenced to a month's imprisonment to be discharged after a short detention owing to ill-health caused by misconduct in prison.
  Mr. McKENNArose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 253; Noes, 108.

  Division No. 17.]

  AYES.

  [7.46 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Allen, Arthur A, (Dumbarton)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Adamson, William

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

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Arnold, Sydney

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. F.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Shee, James John

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

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

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Higham, John Sharp

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hinds, John

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Bean, W. W. (T. Hamlets, S. George)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Hodge, John

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Boland, John Pius

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

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

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Brady, P. J.

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hudson, Walter

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hughes, S. L.

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

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  John, Edward Thomas

  Radford, G. H.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

  Rattan, Peter Wilson

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Jones, Haydn (Merioneth)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Reddy, M.

  Clough, William

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Roshcliffe)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Joyce, Michael

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Keating, Matthew

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Kelly, Edward

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Kilbride, Denis

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Crooks, William

  King, J.

  Robinson, Sidney

  Crumley, Patrick

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

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Rowlands, James

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

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

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Leach, Charles

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Delany, William

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Sheehy, David

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Shortt, Edward

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Doris, W.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  McGhee, Richard

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

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

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Sutton, John E.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary N.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Falconer, J.

  Manfield, Harry

  Thomas, J. H.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Ffrench, Peter

  Meagher, Michael

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Field, William

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Middlebrook, William

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Millar, James Duncan

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Furness, Stephen

  Molloy, M.

  Wardle, George J.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Waring, Walter

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Mooney, J. J.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Gill, A. H.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Ginnell, L.

  Morrell, Philip

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Morison, Hector

  Watt, Henry A.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Muldoon, John

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Munro, R.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Wilkie, Alexander

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

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

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

  Neilson Francis

  Williams, Penny (Middlesbrough)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Hackett, J.

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

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

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Nuttall, Harry

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Donnell Thomas

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

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

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Malley, William

  Hazleton, Richard

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

  468

  469

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fell, Arthur

  Norton-Griffiths, John

  Baird, J. L.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  O'Grady, James

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

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

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

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Barnes, G. N.

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Barrie, H. T.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Grant, J. A.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bigland, Alfred

  Greene, W. R.

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Blair, Reginald

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

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

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

  Boyton, James

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Bull, Sir William James

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berke, Abingdon)

  Snowden, Philip

  Butcher, J. G.

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Stonier, Beville

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

  Hickman, Colonel T. E.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Campion, W. R.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Cassel, Felix

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Houston, Robert Paterson

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

  Cantley, H. S.

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

  Cave, George

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

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

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

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

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Mason James F. (Windsor)

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  Eyres-Monsell, D. M.

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

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Booth and Mr. Keir Hardie.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Nield, Herbert

  Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 335; Noes, 8.

  Division No. 18.]

  AYES.

  [7.56 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Delany, William

  Adamson, William

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Butcher, J. G.

  Donelan, Captain A.

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

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Doris, W.

  Arnold, Sydney

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Duffy, William J.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Campbell, Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Baird, J. L.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Cautley, H. S.

  Elverston, Sir Harold

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

  Cave, George

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Clancy, John Joseph

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

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Clough, William

  Falconer, J.

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Barrie, H. T.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Fell, Arthur

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Cotton, William Francis

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

  Cowan, W. H.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Bentham, G. J.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Field, William

  Bigland, Alfred

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Black, Arthur W.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Boland, John Pius

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Crooks, William

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Crumley, Patrick

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Furness, Stephen

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Boyton, James

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Brady, P. J.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

  Ginnell, L.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lynch, A. A.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Goldstone, Frank

  McGhee, Richard

  Reddy, M.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Greene, W. R.

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

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

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

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

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

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Manfield, Harry

  Robinson, Sidney

  Hackett, J.

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Roch, Walter F.

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Rowlands, James

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

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

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Meagher, Michael

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Middlebrook, William

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Millar, James Duncan

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

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Molloy, M.

  Sheehy, David

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Shortt, Edward

  Hayward, Evan

  Money, L. G. Chlozza

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Hazleton, Richard

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

  Morgan, George Hay

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Henry, Sir Charles

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

  Stanler, Seville

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

  Morison, Hector

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Hickman, Colonel T. E.

  Muldoon, John

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Munro, R.

  Sutton, John E.

  Hinds, John

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Hodge, John

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hogue, James Myles

  Neilson, Francis

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Nield, Herbert

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Hughes, S. L.

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

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

  Waring, Walter

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Malley, William

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

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

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

  O'Shee, James John

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

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

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Jones, Leif Stratton (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

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

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Joyce, Michael

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph (Rotherham)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Keating, Matthew

  Perkins, Walter

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Kelly, Edward

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pirie, Duncan V.

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

  King, J.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Pollard, Sir George H.

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

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Yale, Colonel Charles Edward

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk E.)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

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

  Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Leach, Charles

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Radford, G. H.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Lundon, Thomas

  NOES.

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Snowden, Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. T. Richardson and Mr. O'Grady.

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Thomas, J. H.

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

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Question put, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 296; Noes, 43.

  Division No. 19.]

  AYES.

  [8.9 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Leach, Charles

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Ffrench, Peter

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Adamson, William

  Field, William

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  London, Thomas

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lynch, A. A.

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

  France, G. A.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Furness, Stephen

  McGhee, Richard

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Macnamara, Rt Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

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

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  MacVeagh, Jeremlah

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

  Ginnell, L.

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Manfield, Harry

  Barnes, G. N.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

  Greene, W. R.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

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

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

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

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

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Bentham, George Jackson

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

  Middlebrook, William

  Bigland, Alfred

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Black, Arthur W.

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Molloy, M.

  Boland, John Pius

  Hackett, J.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, North)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Brady. P. J.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Bryce, J, Annan

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

  Burke, E, Haviland-

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Morison, Hector

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Mount, William Arthur

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hayward, Evan

  Muldoon, John

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Munro, R.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Murphy, Martin J.

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

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

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

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

  Neilson, Francis

  Cautley, H. S.

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Cave, George

  Higham, John Sharp

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hinds, John

  Nuttall, Harry

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Clough, William

  Hodge, John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Comptom-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Hogge, James Myles

  O'Connor, J. P. (Liverpool)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Cotton, William Francis

  Holt, Richard Durning

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

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  O'Malley, William

  Cowan, W. H.

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

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

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Shee, James John

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Crooks, William

  Hughes, S. L.

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

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

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Delany, William

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Doris, W.

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

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Duffy, William J.

  Joyce, Michael

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Keating, Matthew

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

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Kelly, Edward

  Radford, G. H.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  King, J.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

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

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Reddy, M.

  Falconer, J.

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Ceckerm'th)

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Welgall, Capt. A. G.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Stanier, Beville

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Sutton, John E.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Roch, Walter F.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Roche, Augustine (Louth, N.)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Rowlands, James

  Verney, Sir Harry

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

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

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

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Yate, Col. Charles Edward

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

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

  Waring, Walter

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Sheehy, David

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Shortt, Edward

  Wason, Rt. Hon E. (Clackmannan)

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

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Watt, Henry A.

  NOES.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Snowden, Philip

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hickman, Col. T. E.

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Cassel, Felix

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

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

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Locker-Lampoon, O. (Ramsey)

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Craig, E. (Ches., Crewe)

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Thomas, James Henry

  Dalrymple, Viscount

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

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

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

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Fell, Arthur

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. T. Richardson and Mr. O'Grady.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

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

  Goldstone, Frank

  Bill read a second time, and committed to Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow (Thursday).

  The Clerk at the Table (Sir Courtenay P. Ilbert) informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker from the remainder of the Sitting.
  Whereupon Mr. Whitley, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

  TARIFF REFORM.
  Sir F. LOW: I rise to move, "That this House, without modifying its often-expressed views upon the policy called Tariff Reform, is of opinion that to levy Import Duties on manufactured goods and at the same time to admit agricultural products free would be from every point of view indefensible."
  This Resolution has been spoken of as a Blocking Motion, and one right hon. Gentleman, the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), whom I do not see in his place at present, told his
  476
  constituents that it was a mean subterfuge and that notice was given of it for the purpose of burking discussion on Tariff Reform. That was said on the 14th March. The best answer to a charge of that sort is that we are here on the 2nd April discussing the question of this Motion on Tariff Reform concerning which these expressions were used. I desire in what I have to say to be as brief as possible, because this Motion is honestly made in order that those who are opposed to us on this question of tariffs may have, even in the short time at our disposal this evening, ample opportunity for stating the views which they now hold upon this matter, views which are not always the same but have changed from time to time, and as the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. John Ward) interjects, from day to day. We are anxious on this side of the House to be informed as to what may be exactly the latest and most up-to-date version of Tariff Reform. There is another matter I want to say, which must be taken as qualifying my observations on this subject. It is no one supposes that, even in the changes that have been made, it is intended by those who have advocated taxes

  477
  upon food absolutely and for always to abandon that idea. Nobody supposes that, but as we shall see presently they are to be at all events temporarily abandoned, and it is upon that part of the Tariff Reform question that my Motion is chiefly based. I represent a constituency which is, to a large extent, an industrial constituency. But at the same time it is the centre of a very large agricultural district, and, for its prosperity and well being, it depends very largely upon that agricultural district. I do not raise this question in any way as a matter of competition between, on the one hand, the inhabitants of towns and on the other hand, the inhabitants of the country, because we on this side of the House believe that whether you regard tariffs on imported goods for any other purpose than that of revenue, whether you look at them from the point of view of the townsman or from that of the countryman, they are equally bad. There is a quotation from Burke which very frequently, at all events I have seen it in two or three reports, occurs in the speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. He tells us that we come to Parliament for two purposes—to do good and to prevent evil.
  I will not at this moment excite the Opposition by alluding to all the good that we on this side come here to do, but there is one good that we come to do and that is to maintain the principles of Free Trade. There is another thing that we come here to do—that is, as far as lies in our power—to prevent the evils of Protection. Let us for a few minutes discuss the genesis of this matter. In the limited time at my disposal I am not going to weary the House with the statistics that have been put forward by both sides with regard to this question. The matter began, as the House knows, some ten years ago in an agitation commenced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). He advocated the policy as entirely one of Colonial preference. The basis of his argument at that time was that, if you want to give a preference to the Colonies, you must tax food. That is true and incontrovertible. The course of trade between this country and the great self-governing Dominions is, with trifling exceptions, practically an interchange of food and raw material for manufactured goods. For some time the matter was continued on that footing. Ultimately there was a change of leaders. Then, as
  478
  the House knows, the notion of a Referendum was abandoned, and of late, by a circuitous route—a road, I think, beginning at Ashton-under-Lyne, then going through Bolton, then to Edinburgh, and then again into Lancashire, at Manchester—a brand new notion of Tariff Reform has been imparted to a wondering country. What is it? should not be in order at the present moment in discussing the Amendments that are on the Paper in regard to this Motion, but there is an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton (Captain Tryon) which, I think, will be admitted on all sides is a formulation of the doctrine of Edinburgh. It is that we are to
  "adopt Imperial preference (in so far as it can be carried out without imposing fresh duties upon imported foodstuffs) by admitting imports from the British Dominions at lower rates of duty than those levied on imports from foreign countries."
  I may say in passing that there is one curious omission from that. We see nothing about raw materials. I do not know whether it is by intention or whether it is a slip. It may well be that in this new edition of Tariff Reform it is intended at last to advocate the taxation of raw materials. For myself I have never been able to see why a man who was so unwise as to endeavour to tax the importation of a dead sheep should not also want to tax the importation of its wool. It may well be that that is the intention, and that we shall in the course of the Debate hear more about this part of the scheme. The Amendment goes on—
  "impose a moderate duty, not exceeding an average of 10 per cent. ad valorem—"
  Why exactions from the foreigner are to be limited to 10 per cent. I do not know, but no doubt we shall receive an explanation of that also—
  "on foreign manufactured goods in order (a) to safeguard the stability of British productive industries against the attacks of artificially stimulated foreign competition; and (b) to increase the national revenue and so make funds available for the assistance of agriculture and purposes of social reform."
  The last three lines appear to be somewhat argumentative, but there is the scheme. The scheme is to tax manufactured goods and to admit agricultural products free. I might again say, in passing, that in the second part of the scheme we see nothing about partially manufactured goods. There is no exception for that enormous mass of products which comes into the country, no doubt in one sense as manufactured goods, but which is practically the raw material of huge industries in this country. I raise this

  479
  question because my Constituency is very much interested in the question of leather. The House will remember that not so very long ago there was considerable controversy about the question of leather. At first it centred round Bermondsey—we know with what result, and I think it had a good deal of effect upon the majority which I was able to obtain in the city of Norwich. No doubt that matter will also be dealt with when the supporters of this scheme come to detail to us the scheme itself and the reasons they have for putting it forward. That is the scheme which has now become, at all events for the present, the policy of Tariff Reformers. It is the latest, but I think I might safely say that it is not the last—and I say it with all respect—wriggle in what the most eloquent among the editors of Unionist newspapers has so aptly described as "the shuffle." There is one thing and one thing only clear from it—that is why I raise the question in the House to-night—it is clear that as long as this scheme is in operation, and supposing it were to come into operation, of course nobody could tell how long it would endure—so long as it is in operation the farmers of this country would be in this position: They will have to pay more for the stuff upon which they want to feed their cattle—their oil cake and so on—they will have to pay more on the implements which they have to use—I think those familiar with agricultural matters will know that the farmers use implements to a greater extent than was supposed by the right hon. Gentleman at Edinburgh, and they will have to pay more for their clothes and all that they use. Apparently they are to be left for consolation to the very vague statement at the end of the scheme with regard to funds being available for the assistance of agriculture. Of all the unsatisfactory positions in which to put the greatest industry of the country, this would be the most unfair. I take it for the moment, on the assurance of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that Tariff Reform is a good thing. I do not believe it of course, and none of us on this side do. But of all the astonishing propositions which have ever been put before this country, the notion that the industrial classes are to be given this so-called benefit and that it is to be withheld from the agricultural classes, is one of the most extraordinary propositions which was ever put before any country in which agricultural interests are as great as they are in
  480
  this country. I should like to make a suggestion, especially as I see the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) in his place, to that section of the Tory party in which for many years the farmers of this country have placed considerable trust and reliance, whether the time has not come to drop this notion of Conservative constructive policy? As far as one can see, it involves either some such scheme as Tariff Reform, which I would submit with the greatest respect to be a very rotten plank to be the first plank in any platform, or there is involved some notion of going one better upon the schemes of no doubt perfectly earnest Radicals. There is one other thing I would say to the agricultural interests of this country as represented by the section to which I refer: Do not put your trust in business men. It was a business man from Birmingham who ten years ago brought about all the trouble from which you are now suffering. It was a business man from Glasgow who formulated this scheme, with the hopeless intention of conciliating the town classes and securing if possible their votes, which now in all probability will alienate from them the sympathies of the countryside.
  Mr. SHORTT: I beg to second the Motion.
  I attach the greatest possible importance to the words of the proviso, "without modifying its often-expressed views upon the policy called Tariff Reform." In my view the position is this: That the country is under a grave danger of being persuaded to adopt as an experiment some measure of Tariff Reform, forgetful of the fact that you cannot adopt a measure of Tariff Reform and make it effective without eventually being driven to a tax upon foodstuffs, and a tax upon foodstuffs, I am as convinced as ever I was, would be disastrous to the best interests of this country. What is the position of this new procedure in the Tariff Reform movement? I do not for a moment suggest that there is any difference in the Tariff Reform movement except one of procedure. They are, as I understand it, as completely pledged to-day to a system of food taxes eventually as ever they were from the start of the movement. All they have said is "we will not impose taxes upon foodstuffs at present without giving the country an opportunity of deciding upon it."
  Mr. HUNT: Fresh food taxes. There are taxes upon food now.
  Mr. SHORTT: I accept the correction. No fresh food taxes unless the country has been consulted. We are, as I understand the position, to have—I take it from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bonar Law) at Edinburgh, which I have read with great care—a moderate tax upon manufactured goods, and we are to have such Colonial preference as that moderate tax will allow, but we are to have no food taxes for the present. Not only is there no mention of raw material in the Amendment, but there was, so far as I read the right hon. Gentleman's speech at Edinburgh, no mention of raw material by him. Whether that was deliberate or whether it is merely that their position on raw material is unchanged, I do not know, but it will be very interesting for us to know. It is perfectly clear, at any rate, so far as the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. E. Smith) could make it, that what I think I can properly call the new party position in no way prevents those who are in favour of food taxes doing their best to persuade the country to adopt them. It still remains part of their policy. If that is so, and food taxes are not to be a part of their programme if they should be returned to power, we are entitled to ask what are they going to tax? What is the tax going to be upon? We cannot get an answer, and I do not complain of that. If I were in Opposition promoting such constructive scheme as a tariff, I should feel very loth to give prematurely any details, because details, I should imagine, spell destruction more to the Tariff Reform movement than any other movement. But we can approximately estimate what the tariff will be from an investigation of what hon. Members opposite declare to be the objects of the tariff, and what they anticipate as its results. The first thing they want is Colonial preference. They want also, I understand, to secure for ourselves to a greater extent than at present our home markets, and by that means, as they say, to increase our power of production and purchase, and so extend our trade not only with the Colonies, but with foreign countries also. But I understand that the first reason for this tariff is to unite the Empire by means of Colonial preference.
  What are they going to tax? Here I do ask, are they going to tax raw materials or not? It is most material for every class of the community that they should know if the tariff is to be confined to that heading
  482
  which we find in all our records—articles which are mainly or wholly manufactured. We ought to know, and we are entitled to know that. Supposing it is to be confined to that, again we are entitled to know, are they going to discriminate in the articles included under that head as to what are raw materials, and what are manufactured? Those who make an investigation of the articles included under that head will see that a very large majority are really raw materials, and nothing else. There are brass, bronze, and copper, iron and steel products, castings, forgings, nails, pipes, and all descriptions of things which are purely raw materials. The same is true in regard to yarns, cottons, and wools. All those items included under that head are purely raw materials. Are they or are they not to be taxed? We have always been told from the commencement of this movement that raw materials are to be free. Are they going to stand by that declaration or not? It was declared by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) at the very start that raw materials are to be free, and I think I am entitled to say in all fairness that that declaration must have been based upon this, that a tax upon raw materials is an undesirable and injurious tax. If they are not going to impose that tax, what is left which can possibly give anything in the form of a substantial preference to any of our Colonies? If we simply rely upon those things which are manufactured we shall find that the Colonies to-day export to us substantially nothing of any one of the items included under that head, and therefore, if you confine your Colonial preference to that, it would either be absolutely ineffective or else they would start in the Colonies a number of new industries to compete with British manufactures. Are they going to tax raw materials? Are they going to impose a tax which they have admitted from the start of the movement was undesirable and injurious? Are they going to swallow that tax for the purpose of Colonial preference, which they know to be bad and injurious, or are they going to confine themselves to taxes which would make Colonial preference a farce, and the open door, which they talk so much about, a sham and a mockery? They must either tax raw materials in place of foodstuffs or get no Colonial preference worthy of the name. It does not matter which they

  483
  do. The moment they put taxes upon any kind of manufactured goods those taxes will increase and spread and grow.
  It is the experience of all protected countries that from the moment you impose a tariff it grows and extends, and that it is with the greatest possible difficulty it can be lessened, to say nothing of removed. Once you have got your tariff imposed, you have a burden you cannot get rid of without the greatest possible difficulty. It is, further, the experience of almost every protected country, with the exception of Belgium and Denmark, that the moment you tax manufactures you are eventually driven to tax foodstuffs. If the country allowed the Opposition to come back to power and impose a tariff, the country would then be faced by this position. They have to get a tariff imposed which cannot be removed without great difficulty. Experience shows that you inevitably must extend your tariff from ordinary manufactures to foodstuffs and agricultural produce. The reason is very simple. If you do not do that, you crush almost to ruin the greatest industry any country possesses, namely, the agricultural industry. I have not time at my disposal to-night to enter into details, and, therefore, I speak in generalities. The country would be faced with this position. If the Opposition were once allowed to commence a tariff they would be inevitably driven to impose food taxes, not only for Colonial preference—and without food taxes you cannot have effective Colonial preference—but also for the protection of the greatest industry this country possesses—the agricultural industry. It comes to this, that either you have a tariff which does not protect the agricultural industry, and which in consequence crushes that industry, and is therefore indefensible, or you must have a protective tax on agricultural produce, and therefore cause great suffering and throw a burden upon the country.
  I am as strongly opposed to any tax on foodstuffs as ever I was, for this reason, among others: We depend for our food supplies upon the markets of the world. Without the market of the world we could not obtain the foodstuffs we require. Colonial supplies are not sufficient, and they are not sufficiently secure and steady to enable us to rely upon them always. Take the year 1908 as an example, and compare the corn imported into this country in that
  484
  year with the average of the years 1907 to 1911. We had in that year a shortage from Russia of 13,000,000 cwts. upon the ordinary average that country sends here; from British India we received 14,000,000 cwts. below the average usually sent; and from Australia, 5,500,000 cwts. of wheat below the average sent. Where did we go to make up that shortage? We did not make it up entirely in that year, but I do not think that was due to the fact that there were not available markets. It was partially duo to the fact that in 1908 our purchasing power was less. We had to go somewhere to make up the shortage. We did not go to Canada. It was no use to go there. We had to get 10,000,000 cwts. extra on the ordinary supplies from the United States of America, 12,000,000 cwts. extra from the Argentine, and 1,000,000 cwts. extra from Chili. Therefore, when that shortage occurred, we had to go into foreign markets to obtain the food required in this country. If you are going to have such Colonial preference as will force us largely to rely upon Colonial markets, and there comes a period of bad harvests and bad times when we cannot get the food from them, then, unless we have the foreign market to go to, we shall starve.
  Another reason why we cannot always obtain food from Canada is this. I have the figures here in the report on the trade and commerce of the Dominion of Canada in reference to grain and cereals. Taking the five years 1907–1911 over 50 per cent. of the corn which Canada exports—the larger proportion coming to this country—was exported through the United States ports. Owing to ice and other hampering reasons, Canada cannot export from her own ports all the corn she does export, and the result is that over 50 per cent. has to come through United States ports. That is all very well as long as Canada and America and ourselves are on good terms, but if we start a cut-throat fight of tariffs, and if, as part of that cut-throat fight, America said, "We are going to tax any corn which comes from Canada for you to do away with your Preference," where then would be your Preference? The result is we cannot rely upon the Colonies to supply us with our food. For that reason we cannot in this country tolerate for one moment a tax upon foodstuffs. We cannot have a tariff upon other things, except for the purposes of revenue, without being driven eventually to a tax upon foodstuffs. It is essential that the country should appreciate

  485
  that danger in which it stands from this—I do not use the word, I hope, at all offensively—insidious new procedure in the Tariff Reform movement, this attempt to get in the thin end of the wedge, which must eventually be driven to food taxes, by a tax upon manufactured articles. I consider it a grave danger, and we are entitled to know from those who promote this movement, are they going to tax raw material? Have they departed from the old plan that raw material was to be free? Are they going to let their tariff tax be so tentative that it can be immediately removed, if found to be unworkable without the imposition of food taxes, and if they do propose that how are they going to do it? As many other hon. Members wish to speak I will simply conclude by seconding the Resolution which has been moved by my hon. Friend.
  Captain TRYONmoved, as an Amendment to leave out from the word "House," to the end of the Question, and to add, instead thereof the words "approves a reform of our tariff which would—

  (1) Adopt imperial preference (in so far as it can be carried out without imposing fresh duties upon imported food-stuffs) by admitting imports from the British Dominions at lower rates of duty than those levied on imports from Foreign countries; and

  (2) Impose a moderate duty, not exceeding an average of 10 per cent. ad valorem, on Foreign manufactured goods in order (a) to safeguard the stability of British productive industries against the attacks of artificially-stimulated Foreign competition; and (b) to increase the national revenue and so make funds available for the assistance of agriculture and purposes of social reform."

  I wish that not only the House but the country could have listened to the two speeches which we have just heard, not because of any criticism which I wish to make of the way in which the two hon. Members put their case, but because of the funereal silence with which the Liberal party received their remarks. We are told that we have changed our policy. I am glad to accept this definite Motion, put forward, I am sure, in all sincerity by the Liberal party, because it is one which commits the Liberal party, should they ever put a tax on manufactured goods, to tax all food of every kind coming into this country. But I think there is some change also,
  486
  because now we have the Liberal party saying that in common justice these duties should be put on agricultural produce. When they were first proposed by the Member for West Birmingham, the Liberal party did not tell the agricultural districts that they were a good thing. I remember that it was said in 1903 by Lord Rosebery that the effect of this 2s. duty, which was not likely to be increased, was, first, inadequate to benefit the British farmer, and that in the second place it would only "stimulate the illimitable area of competition." That was not the story they told in the towns. In the towns it was not the "illimitable competition," but it was black bread and offal. We have not heard from the opposite benches all the enthusiastic description which I expected of the condition of trade. I wonder whether it was the shadow of the coming Budget. But we have heard it in other ways. We have heard on the platforms from very wealthy Liberals, "Why change our policy when we are doing so well?" I ask to whom does the "we" refer? Because we find in the "Daily News" that "labour is not sharing in the general prosperity of the country," so that when the Liberal party rejoice at the general prosperity they deliberately leave out of their rejoicings all consideration for the working classes of this country.
  9.0 P.M.
  I know a number of wealthy Liberals who are doing well under Free Trade. I am making no personal attack whatever, but we know that one of the most interesting features of the present controversy is that we have these wealthy Liberals organising their own businesses on Protectionist lines and then making speeches in favour of Free Trade on the platform. We have Gentlemen who go down to their business offices in the morning and organise trusts, and then go to Nottingham to a Liberal Conference and support resolutions against trusts. In the matter of trusts the Liberal party can speak with considerable authority. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us, that even in Great Britain there are millions of people who are not earning enough to sustain their strength adequately to discharge their daily tasks, and then with that statistical accuracy to which we are accustomed he says, "millions, millions." That was at Aberdeen on 29th November, but it will be interesting to know that by the time he got to Kirkcaldy next day he said that

  487
  we had never had in the whole history of this country a more prosperous time than we were passing through now. I do not suggest that there is anything incompatible in these two statements. I think that we get from these two statements that under Free Trade even in the best years the condition of the working classes is deplorable in the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe that there are many on the other side of the House who have looked forward to this Debate because they think that Tariff Reformers will be in a difficulty, because it is supposed to be a good year of trade. We, at all events, are all agreed on one point, that is that we want to find out what the best fiscal system is for the country. Therefore it is some advantage to examine our condition, not merely in the years of depression, but also in those years when Free Trade may be said to be doing the best it ever will do.
  So I feel that this is a moment when we welcome a Tariff debate, and we welcome it also because it gives us the opportunity of seeing how the one Free Trade country is sharing in the general prosperity compared with other nations. It is an obvious point that, if we have the best system, we ought to have the lion's share of the general good trade throughout the world. I have a number of statistics here, though I do not propose to read them to the House, but I would say that, comparing this country with our neighbour, Germany, I find that, if you take the imports of raw material, Germany has increased her imports far more rapidly than have we; that if you take the last ten years, or if you take the last twenty years, Germany's increase in imports and in exports is far greater than our own, whether you measure in proportion or percentages, or whether you measure, which I think is better, in actual amount. That does not seem to me to show that we are keeping our place in the race among the nations. If I continue that, and compare not merely the totals of trade, but also the condition of the working classes, and the change which has taken place, I find this: There was a lecture given at Newcastle by Professor Hallsworth, who holds the Chair of Economics there, and he compared the condition of the working classes and the question of wages and of prices with the conditions in other countries, and he said, with this present development in France, it would appear that wages had risen to a
  488
  greater extent than prices. In Germany and the United States the increase has moved very closely indeed—that means they have gone up together, I believe. But he said that in Great Britain, from 1903, the year when our movement began in this country, up to the present time, prices had risen rapidly and wages had kept down.
  I do not say that wages have not risen here a little, but they have not risen in the way prices have risen. The Professor said that wages have been kept down here, and that the workers have been losing. There is one point on which I believe the working classes are better off at the moment, and that is the question of unemployment. With all respect, I would commend to the attention of hon. Members on the other side of the House the figures, in this connection, as to emigration. Last year over 260,000 people left these shores. The year before over 260,000 people left these shores. Of that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:—
  "They are leaving their native land as if it was stricken with pestilence."
  It is, of course, open to him or to any hon. Member on the other side of the House to suggest that it is perhaps rather the People's Budget than Free Trade which has caused this exodus. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer can be held responsible for the whole of the emigration, because, after all, these people cannot all be builders, fleeing from the latest tax upon their industry. With regard to his description of our people fleeing from a pestilence, it is a description which is obviously applied to them under Free Trade. I should like to allude to a statement of a well-known authority upon this question, the Member for East Northamptonshire (Mr. Chiozza Money), who said that if wages have fallen it ought to be the first business of a nation, not merely to restore them to their old level, but to increase them above that level. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite say, "Hear, hear." But the programme for this Session is not for the working classes; it is for the Plural Voting Bill. There are suggestions as to what can be done in this matter. There is no question that the condition of the working classes is not satisfactory. What can be done? I turn first to the suggestion, made I know in all sincerity by the Labour party, of the minimum wage. I will not discuss it—for it would not be in order to do so—at length. I will only mention it so far as

  489
  it affects the question of tariffs. First, the proposal of a minimum wage is a confession that Free Trade is a failure—a confession that under Free Trade the working classes cannot even get a decent living.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: What about Australia?
  Captain TYRON: Yes, but you have Protection in Australia. I am much obliged to the hon. Member.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: Under Protection they are to set up Wage Boards.
  Captain TRYON: I would only remind the Labour party that they practice both Protection and Preference in Australia. The minimum wage proposal is, of course, a frank abandonment, not only of Free Trade—because that acknowledges its failure—but it is an abandonment of the whole principle of Free Trade. I would put an hypothetical case. I would put it to the Labour party in this way: Supposing, for the sake of argument, that an industry is carried on by a firm which has works both here and in Holland. I take Holland because hon. Members opposite generally describe that country, though not quite accurately, as a Free Trade country. But we will assume it to be a Free Trade country. This firm has works both here and in Holland, and I put it that the wages in both sets of works are 25s. a week. Supposing the Labour party came into power and fixed a minimum wage of 30s. in this country, what are they going to do when that firm supplies British orders from the Dutch works? If they exclude the Dutch goods they have no right to come here and talk any more about Free Trade, I would suggest that they change the title of their Bill into "The Unemployment Creation Bill." What of the remedies? We believe that the Liberal party have no suggestion of any value to remedy the state of things which has been described as unsatisfactory. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer had some vague idea of settling people on Scottish deer forests. I hope that anybody who believes in that remedy will go and try it. What has happened to us lately in this House? We have been challenged by the Prime Minister to put forward clearly what we propose to do. I think this Amendment which I propose is an answer to the right hon. Gentleman's challenge. I might say that I have had great difficulty in trying to see exactly what sort of answer the
  490
  Prime Minister would like in response to his question. I tried to look up what sort of form I ought to put my answer in, and I have examined speeches which the right hon. Gentleman has made himself. I find that he was questioned in Scotland as to what his policy was, and his answer was one which is in contrast to the clearness of our proposal. The Prime Minister said, in reply to the question:—
  "I cannot at this moment disclose what the provisions of our land legislation will be."
  I am not going into the question of land legislation, but I do ask the House to notice the difference between what the Prime Minister said, when he flatly refused to say what his own Government are going to do, and our position as put forward in our Amendment. I think perhaps, in justice to the right hon. Gentleman, I ought to mention that in further response to this heckler, in Scotland, he did say:—
  "I cannot add anything to what I have already said."
  That is a stirring war cry for the Government to go to the country on. I believe that this is a most serious problem, and I will put it to the House in this way: From the point of view of the working classes it is a question of wages and also a question of prices. When we propose to deal with the question of wages and to encourage people to employ our own workmen here, we are met by certain charges. We are told it is just as good to import from abroad as to make the things here. We are told that the profits would go to the manufacturer under tariff. We are told that an industry should be carried on in any part of the country or of the world which is best suited to the carrying on of the industry. Why did not the Government apply that to the Patents Act by which every one of these contentions has been falsified. I say that there is only one thing I know of which the Government has done which creates additional employment in this country, and that is their Protectionist measure, the Patents Act, which made the foreigner put up his works here, and by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said hundreds and thousands of people were getting employment. We propose to extend that principle. Before I leave the question of wages and prices, and the question of supply and demand, I would like to call the attention of the House to what the Government is doing to deal with the question of prices. There is only

  491
  one thing they are doing in connection with prices, to try and lower them, and that is they are proposing to pledge the whole credit of the country and to devote £3,000,000 for the encouragement of cotton growing in the Soudan. I cannot help feeling, with all respect to him, that if the hon. Member for Norwich is so anxious that agriculture should not be left behind when manufacturers are benefiting, that it is almost a pity he did not call attention the beet-sugar industry which works around Norwich, and suggest that what was good for Lancashire might be good for his own district, and that cotton growing is not the only industry which would be benefited by the lightening of the heavy burdens now upon them. I suggest if this financial encouragement for the development of cotton growing in the Soudan is going to give a better supply of raw material, would it not be a good thing to help the agriculture of this country by lightening the burdens upon it? I notice there is also a change in the Liberal policy. We used to be encouraged to get our food supplies from America, but they do not seem to apply that with regard to cotton. I do suggest, since this is the second time within a year that the Government has intervened to help the supply of cotton for Lancashire by State action, that I think we ought not to hear much more about Lancashire being in favour of Free Trade. I, for one, from the South of England, welcome this encouragement and development of raw material, but I do not see why it should be applied to one particular industry.
  Granting that we make this change, what advantages come from it? Firstly, there is the advantage of the negotiation. We believe that at the present moment we suffer under many injustices which could be removed. I find, for instance, if you sent the chassis of a motor car to Portugal that it is subject to duty. If it comes from Germany or France it is subject to £4 9s. 9d. duty, but if you can show that it comes from Free Trade England, which has thrown open its market for two generations, then, through the advantages which we get from Free Trade, you have to pay £15 10s. 6d. I do not think a disadvantage of that sort from which our workmen suffer would very long survive the application of a tariff in connection with Portugal. I have not time to deal at length with the question of negotiations, but we have seen in the case of Japan that
  492
  concessions have been offered to us on the strength of the tariff which is coming in this country, a mortgage in Tariff Reform already. We saw that in the case of Canada the United States gave concessions to Canada and offered concessions in connection with reciprocity which she did not give to us here. We all know that the last occasion on which we successfully negotiated with another country was when Cobden, armed with a tariff, went over to France and got large reductions in the French tariff, and great development in the trade between the two countries followed. But if we negotiate we must remember this, that our own people come first. I Myself heard the Prime Minister say in this House:—
  "I am not aware of any demand put forward from any of these Dominions"
  —that is all our Dominions—
  "to make any change in our present arrangement."
  With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman that statement is not accurate, because at the conference which he himself attended in 1907 this resolution was passed:—
  "The Prime Ministers of the Colonies respectfully urge on His Majesty's Government the expediency of granting in the United Kingdom preferential terms to the products and manufactures of the Colonies either by exemption from or reduction of duties now or hereafter to be imposed."
  That is what we propose to do, but when we make these proposals the Prime Minister suggests that on examining them in detail he finds, for instance, that in the ease of tobacco and drink, the imports into this country in a year from our Colonies only amount to the worth of £200,000, and therefore, he argues, that it is no good to give preference on those things, and the Liberal paper which reported him, I see headed our proposal, as "Ridiculous." In view of that criticism by the Prime Minister, I have a very good parallel case. In the year 1899 the West Indies had just been granted preference by Canada on sugar. In that year the exports from the West Indies to Canada of sugar amounted to £65,000. According to the Prime Minister's argument it would be a ridiculous thing to grant preference on a mere £65,000 worth; but what happened? The Canadians knew more about tariffs, and they granted the preference, and in the year 1911 that trade had risen from £65,000 to approximately £2,000,000. Our point is this: that the value of preference cannot be judged by the amount of the trade before the preference is put on. It

  493
  should be judged by the demand with the power to supply that demand. We hold that it is no test to take the trade at the moment that the £65,000 is the total, but that is the test the Prime Minister takes. The advantage can only be measured by comparing the £65,000 with the £2,000,000 which the trade reached. There are many other points I should like to go into, but I cannot help, while on the subject of America, alluding to the recent Presidential election in the United States. There was in that case a split vote and three candidates for the position of President, but not one of them advocated Free Trade. I know that the contention of the Liberal party is that the Republicans are the Protectionist party and the Democrats are the Free Trade party. I have not much faith in some Free Trade arithmetic, but if hon. Members opposite see what the Republican vote and Protectionist vote was in that election, then they will see, if that is the right test, that Free Trade was beaten by a million and a half of votes. I know that some Members of the Government have gone so far as to hail the election of President Wilson as a victory for Free Trade. I do not think President Wilson would have thanked them for that. That is the charge his opponents brought against him to try and stop him from being elected. He had to deny it, and he rightly denied it. He said:—
  "Neither I, nor the Democratic party, stand for Free Trade."
  That is the point in regard to which the Liberal party have been rejoicing so much. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I wish the country could realise how completely out of touch Liberal Free Trade sentiment is with the opinion of all the young democracies of the Empire. Whenever you have granted self-government, Free Trade has always, in the long run, been abandoned. We know what a movement there was in the Liberal party during the proceedings on the Home Rule Bill to prevent Nationalist Members from having any chance of starting any form of Protection. That shows how little confidence the Liberal Government have in the support of Free Trade which Nationalist Members gave in the last Session. We believe that this Government, kept in office, as it is, by the votes of hon. Members below the Gangway, will be unable to maintain our present system. At any rate, we hope so. Our cause is making progress in other parts of the Empire. I do not say that there is not danger. We
  494
  know what danger there was in connection with reciprocity a little time ago. But our cause is progressing. The people of Canada, who, from the first, have led the way in this matter, have recently had the pleasure of finding their preferential views endorsed by the action of a number of small legislatures in the West Indies, which have passed arrangements for preference between themselves and Canada. Negotiations are at this moment going on between Canada and Australia for the completion of preference. Not only that, but within the last few months Canada has granted preference to no less than twenty-six other portions of the British Empire. So that our cause is progressing throughout the whole Empire. I will not allude to India, as I believe the hon. Member who will follow me desires to touch upon that question. We know that throughout the Empire this cause is going on. It has been treated, as it ought never to have been treated, as a party question by the Liberal party. They forget that it was a Liberal who in Canada introduced preference with this country. Hon. Members below the Gangway seem to forget that it is a Labour party in Australia which is now giving us a preference. We know that in South Africa Dutch and English are united in favour of this policy. We trust that very soon the Mother Country will come into line with the rest of the Empire, and that it will not be long before the circle is complete, and the Empire starts on its great work of mutual co-operation for the development of our trade.
  Mr. HEWINS: I rise to second the Amendment. In doing so I shall confine myself to the practical aspects of the original Motion moved by the hon. Member for Norwich and the alternative Policy put forward by the Amendment of my hon. Friend. When I first saw the Motion on the Paper the opinion I formed was that the party opposite thought that they had found a good thing. They thought that they had put the party on this side of the House in a serious difficulty with regard to their agricultural policy. I am afraid that that view has not remained very long on the benches opposite, because, since I have been in the House, I have never seen so many uneasy faces as when the hon. Member for Norwich was moving, but not speaking upon, this particular Motion. I thought that hon. Members opposite were simply playing a game. I have changed my mind about that, and

  495
  I think we must take the Motion seriously in view of the record of the Government and the known difficulties in which they are placed. Treating this proposition as a serious contribution to the deliberations of this House, I am going to assume that the hon. Member for Norwich is really inviting his Friends to vote for this extra ordinary Motion. It is perfectly true that there are certain qualifying words. Hon. Members are not modifying the opinions which have been expressed on the policy called Tariff Reform. We all know these forms. There are several economists on the other side who know perfectly well that it is the easiest thing in the world to give a Free Trade justification for the introduction of duties. And when they are up against a difficulty, such as hon. Members opposite now have to face, why should they not do it? They have shown no Free Trade qualms in the financial provisions of the Home Rule Bill. They have voted for, and responsible Ministers on that side have pledged themselves to, the principle of bounties. Their own Free Trade papers told them that that was the supreme test, and that if they voted for bounties it proved that the Liberal party had abandoned Free Trade. They have, in their capacity as trustees for different parts of the Empire, given their approval to schemes of preference. At the present moment, as I shall show in a moment, there is a very remarkable change going on in the case of India. Responsible Ministers there, who, I presume, represent the Government here, are going straight for a policy of preference.
  In these circumstances, am I to be told that I am not to treat seriously a proposition of this kind which adumbrates, at any rate, the possibility of some changes in tariffs? We are also perfectly aware that there is strong pressure being put on the Government from the other side of the House to relieve working-class consumers of the very heavy burden of the existing food taxes. Hon. Members know very well that there is not the slightest chance, apart from a system of preference, of that being done. They have been refused by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and they know perfectly well that when the Budget is introduced it will be quite impossible for any relief to be given in regard to what I my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) has called "these preposterous taxes." Therefore, I think I am justified in treating this Motion with perfect seriousness. Let us
  496
  look at the proposition. Hon. Members opposite think that it places Members on this side in a difficulty in regard to agriculture. I am perfectly certain that everybody on this side regards agriculture as the greatest of our national industries, the basis of our efficiency, the guarantee of Empire, and an absolutely necessary condition of Defence, and that the one thing this party is never likely to do is in any degree to abandon agriculture. I will comment, first of all, upon the extraordinary restrictive effect of this Motion. Supposing it were carried, I fail to see how you could carry out a reform of our indirect system of taxation. That reform has been recommended by the most eminent Free Trade financiers. I may take, for example, the late Sir Robert Giffen. It has been pressed upon the country by everybody at all acquainted with the subject that our present system of indirect taxation is really indefensible. This restricted Motion would practically prevent any move in the direction of reform, because you cannot reform without bringing in some other indirect taxes, and the effect of this Motion would be to put food taxes on. Take another case. Look at the way, let me say the extraordinarily foolish way, in which this Motion links together duties upon manufactures and duties upon agricultural products. Are we seriously to ask the House of Commons to sanction a Motion, the upshot of which is that we are not to put a tax upon the motor cars of the rich unless we are to balance it by taxing the food of the people? This Motion says you are not to levy Import Duties upon manufactured goods unless you put duties upon agricultural products! The motion does not say what manufactured goods or what agricultural products. I am bound to point out that this Motion, if carried, at once binds the House either to remove the existing duties upon manufactures—of which we have several—or else to balance them by duties upon agricultural products. Is that a proposition that this House is seriously to consider? It seems to me ridiculously childish. I am not personally in favour of any restrictions of that kind, but really, if you are going to propose restrictions, propose those that can be carried out, and not restrictions that will make you the laughing-stock of the constituencies.
  Let me take another imputation of this remarkable Motion. It implies that the proper tariff system of the United Kingdom is what tariff experts call a single

  497
  general tariff. The best example we have in the world, or had till quite recently, on the single general tariff was the American tariff. We are asked to sanction a proposition which throws to one side the experience of the most civilised, the most advanced country in the world—and which it has abandoned—and to fall back upon the advocacy of a single general tax! We shall make all these points perfectly clear in the constituencies, whatever hon. Members on the other side may say to-night. Take another imputation of this amazing product of Free Trade finance. In this Motion all the subsidiary agencies which are available if you once have tariff machinery in operation are neglected. A tariff country does not carry on its tariff merely for the collection of its duties. No country does that. Take our own Colonies. They have machinery against dumping. This Resolution takes no account of what you can do by negotiations. If you are going to obtain tariff advantages by negotiating upon a basis of your tariff you do not necessarily negotiate duty for duty. If I am going to obtain advantages for the export of Irish produce in the American markets I do not require an agricultural tariff; what I require is a manufacturing tariff. This Motion takes no account of that. It invites hon. Members from Ireland to vote against the method which is easily available, and which is in fact the only method by which they can get advantages in foreign markets for their goods, and for the potential export of their agricultural products. I think it is really a most remarkable proposition to place before representatives from Ireland, that they should be asked to throw to one side this tried and proved method of obtaining advantages for Irish produce in the American markets.
  Let me comment finally in regard to this Motion upon the entire neglect in it of the question of preference. My hon. Friend quoted the terms of the resolutions passed at the Imperial Conference. Those resolutions required, or rather, I should say, asked this country merely to give preference in respect to the duties now in operation or hereafter to be imposed; and here you have an hon. Member proposing a general tariff, proposing agricultural duties, proposing all this machinery, and ruling out the one thing which most of us on this side really care about, that is preference within the Empire. Could you have a more striking illustration of anti-Imperialism? Really I think the most
  498
  interesting thing of all about this Motion is that which binds, or would bind the party opposite. There is no escape from it. Unless hon. Members opposite are prepared to say that no change is ever to be made in our present indirect system of taxation they cannot move from the present system without putting on a food tax. I think I have shown very sufficient reasons why it is absolutely essential to propose some alternative course of procedure to the House of Commons, considering the extreme gravity of the questions involved in this fiscal discussion. I do not think anybody would dispute that fiscal questions in the world at present are probably amongst the most complicated, most difficult, and most dangerous, as we saw in the case of the attempt of the United States to foist reciprocity upon Canada. The matter is most important. I cannot refrain from commenting upon the levity with which hon. Members opposite treat this question. After all, let us take the Amendment of my hon. Friend. Let us look at it in a practical spirit. What could you do supposing this Amendment were carried? You could at once fall into line with the rest of the British Empire by adopting mutual preferential trade within the Empire. Why should you not do it?
  Ten years ago Canada was the only part of the British Empire which gave preference to the other parts. In the last six years, while the present Government had been in office, pledged against preference, every part of the Empire has been brought into "that great fellowship" as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out. I have always regretted the expression the Prime Minister used about preference in one of the debates in this House, when he described it as "a great imposture." I have always regretted that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom should express an opinion so antipathetic to the deliberate opinion entertained by every other part of the Empire. Preference has made great advances, and this very Government have had to give its sanction to a scheme of preference between the West Indies and Canada. Every portion of the Empire, every party, without respect to politics, in the Colonies have developed no other kind of fiscal system. They are all united, at any rate, on the principle of the application of Empire co-partnership in trade as well as in other matters, and in these circum-

  499
  stances I very much regret that the Prime Minister should take a purely partisan and prejudiced view of this great question, which appeals to so large a proportion of the peoples of the Empire, and which, as a matter of fact, is accepted by such great States as the United States, France, Germany, and other countries.
  This Amendment of my hon. Friend does, at any rate, enable us to fall into line With the Empire movement. Then the second part of the Amendment of my hon. Friend suggests a way in which any deficiency of revenue that might accrue through the granting of preference upon existing duties could be found. What I would like to know from hon. Gentlemen opposite is where they find any basis of objection to selecting a number of manufactured luxuries enjoyed by the rich and putting a tax upon them. Now supposing you can do that, the objection raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite that preference upon existing duties only, benefits a certain part of the Empire really falls to the ground, because if you can do that there can be no doubt whatever that a general economic development will follow—in fact, it follows in the terms of the Resolution that that preference should be an advantage to other parts of the Empire. We therefore earnestly hope, in view of our financial difficulty, and in view of the claim made by other parts of the Empire, and in view of the advance this question has made, and in view of the claim of Liberals for some reduction of the existing food taxes, that the Government will consider the proposition contained in the Amendment of my hon. Friend. But there is one question, and a very definite and a very important question, which I wish to put to the Government at the present time, and upon which it is extremely important we should have an answer.
  I want to know from the Government what they are going to do about India. The representative Councils they have granted to India have not had precisely the effect that the Government anticipated, and these Councils, and I think very properly, take advantage of their positions to give expression to their economic aspirations. The strongest pressure was brought to bear upon the Government last year that they should consent to India having a protection for her tobacco industry. That pressure has become greater and greater every year,
  500
  and as we have seen from a telegram in the papers, the Finance Minister in India has indicated what is, I think, most important, that the great difficulty you have to face is, the known strength of the purely protective movement. And Sir Guy Fleetwood Wilson, drawing a proper distinction between pure Protection and preferential policy, declared that India aimed at the adoption of an immediate system of preference and falling into line with the rest of the British Empire. Now I want to know what the Government's attitude is to that. We in this Amendment brought forward a practical scheme which will enable the Government at once to deal with it. Are they going to deny all advances in that direction, and are they going to force India back into a pure Protectionist propaganda, with all the great consequences to the trade of Lancashire and other parts of the Empire? I do not ask them for one moment to make any definite proposals or promises or to go so far as that, but I ask them to go so far as to treat this as a serious question and to give it very serious consideration. That is all we ask for. It is an extremely important matter, the future of India depends upon it and the future of Lancashire depends upon it.
  I am not putting this forward in any party sense, because it is well known I have throughout my career advocated preference upon non-party lines. I have never seen any reason why it should be a party question, because it is not a party question in any part of the Empire. I only ask the Government to give the matter their most serious consideration. India cannot remain as she is. It is extremely likely that in view of the conditions prevailing in the Far East it is impossible that the Government can remain in its present condition maintaining Indian tariff system precisely upon the same lines. That being so, India can only move in one or two directions. India has got to be protectionist or else she has got to fall into line With the preferential movement. If India adopts a protectionist policy and you gave India the power to exercise the greatest pressure upon the Government, if she is forced into a purely protectionist policy I ask, What are you going to say to Lancashire? On the other hand, all you have to do at the present time is to promise to give careful consideration to the alternative method embodied in the Amendment of my hon. Friend.

  501
  If hon. Gentlemen opposite will believe me, I do insist upon this not in any party spirit, but because I am very much alive to the dangers of the present situation in certain parts of the British Empire. I am most anxious that this question should be faced in an impartial and unbiassed spirit. I do not think the Government ought to shut their ears to what we have to say, or ought to refuse to consider quietly and considerately a proposition which after all is to be found in existence in all parts of the British Empire. After all is said and done, they are considering the principle of Empire co-partnership in regard to our defences and they have themselves promised to consider it in regard to numerous other questions. Is it unreasonable to ask them to consider it this far. I am not asking them to put on additional duties in order to give preference. What I am asking them is to consider in an impartial spirit the principle of Empire co-partner-ship. Having duties as you have at the present time, they ought to be willing to say that they accept the principle of Empire co-partnership and that they are willing to treat the British Empire better than the foreigner. That is all I ask. I do venture to say to the Government I am not asking them to adopt the full programme that we produce. Let us leave that on one side, and let us consider if you like in the future any future methods appropriate to the nature of Tariff Reform in a national sense. I beg them to do what they can do, and what, if they do not do, will deserve the greatest blame. All I ask them now is to adopt a principle of universal application and universal acceptance, wherever there is a British race in regard to the tariffs which we have at present If they do that, they will at once meet many of the difficulties felt by hon. Gentlemen on their own side with regard to the incidence of the present food taxes. Those taxes are quite indefensible. What you can do is to give material advantages to the consumers in this country by removing those duties or modifying them, so far as imports from the Colonies are concerned. If hon. Gentlemen will only help this Empire movement and realise that what is actuating us is not merely any material advantage, but we do it, believing that there is some great power behind the British Empire driving it along, and that this vast human aggregation is not the result of chance, and we are trustees for it. If they will only realise that, fall into line with the rest of the Empire, and co-operate with us in that
  502
  way, I feel certain their action would receive approval throughout the Empire.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): The Resolution which was so ably moved and seconded by my two hon. Friends, behind me deals—as indeed, the Amendment also deals—with one portion only of the vast field of tariff controversy. The Mover, as it seems to me, acted wisely in selecting his ground, for not only is it necessary, if we are to address our arguments to the same points, that there should be some limits within which those arguments range; but the exact ground which he chose is, as we all know, the ground on which Tariff Reformers have recently been conducting what I may call their autumn manœuvres. What is very extraordinary is that both the hon. Gentleman who moved and the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment—whose speeches have been interesting and weighty—are perfectly aware of the fact, and yet they have contrived to occupy their portion of the evening without once referring to the change which was announced by the Leader of the Opposition at Edinburgh. Is that a small matter? The right hon. Gentleman at Edinburgh explained that he had seriously considered whether he must not resign over it, and yet the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, being a very great authority and speaking with knowledge on this matter, has not a word to say on the subject. If anything could add to the strangeness of the way he has dealt with this matter, it would be found in an Amendment on the Order Paper. Although you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, called upon the hon. Member for Brighton (Captain Tryon) to move this Amendment, that is not the first Amendment on the Paper. The first Amendment stands in the name of the hon. Member who spoke last (Mr. Hewins), and if our Parliamentary forms have any meaning at all, his Amendment means this, that if my hon. Friend? the mover of the Resolution would be so good as to remove from his Resolution the words referring to the oft-expressed views of the House on Tariff Reform, there is nothing in the present Resolution to which the hon. Member objects.
  Mr. HEWINS: No, Sir, I very fully dealt with my objection to the Resolution.
  10.0 P.M.
  Sir J. SIMON: I understood the hon. Gentleman did indicate that that was his view, and I quite agree with him. So far

  503
  as anybody can gather his intention from the proposal he puts on the Paper—I do not say now, because there are changes of method—at any rate that was his view when he put it on the Paper. Within the short time I propose to address the House, I will limit myself within the ground which is marked out both by the Resolution and the Amendment. Let me say first, in order to avoid any possible misapprehension—and I am surprised that so acute and well-informed a student on this subject should be under any misapprehension—that Free Traders are prepared, at all times, to express their reasoned and determined opposition to Tariff Reform, whatever be the guise in which, from time to time, it is proposed. It may be recommended to us as a sacrifice, which patriotic, but long-suffering citizens will make in the cause of Empire; it may be recommended to us as a matter of personal profit, which every good business man would be anxious to secure; it may be recommended to audiences in towns on the ground that it would secure more abundant supplies of the first necessaries of life; it may be recommended to audiences in rural districts on the ground that it would protect agriculture from the evils of unrestricted competition, but whatever may be the form it may assume from time to time in the mouths of those who put it forward, we Free Traders at all times, and in all places, are prepared to show our unalterable opposition to it. In the same way, let me say a word as to the view which Free Traders take of the position which Tariff Reformers are occupying. I heard what the Seconder of the Resolution said, and I think the House will agree with him in this. He said he entirely accepted the sincerity of the declarations made by hon. Gentlemen opposite that, whatever may have happened during the last few months to their tariff proposals, it was only an adjustment of detail, and it did not betoken the least in the world the abandonment of any portion of their fiscal faith, and they still were, what they always had been, convinced believers in the whole Tariff Reform policy as expounded by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. Let me say, and I say it without any affectation, that I quite accept and understand so far as I am concerned the declarations which they make, and I hope I shall say nothing which seems to suggest that I do not accept them in all complete good faith. The right hon.
  504
  Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain)—I am sorry not at the moment to see him in his place, because I wanted to ask him to permit me to express our congratulations on his attainment of his Parliamentary majority—put the matter very clearly a short time back. He said with a directness and a fearlessness which is some argument for the hereditary principle:—

  "I am a food-taxer,"
  meaning thereby that he was convinced it was in the interests of this country, and it was for the benefit of the Empire as a whole that we should place an import duty upon food stuffs which now come into this country free of any duty at all—[An HON. MEMBER: "From foreign countries."] I meant it in that sense, from foreign countries. That is what he said, and that is what he meant. It is in that sense that we have been in the habit from time to time of calling hon. Gentlemen opposite "food taxers," and, change of method or no change of method, of course we shall continue to do so. They have not changed in the slightest degree, as they themselves have been most anxious to show, anything of real importance. They have changed their leader, and they have changed their method, but so far as their fiscal principles are concerned they continue to be exactly what they always were, and it is in that spirit I can assure them that Free Traders will continue to deal with them. While there is no room for misunderstanding there, it is a little difficult for us to understand—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bonar Law), who, I believe, is going to speak later, will allow me to submit the matter to him—and we think there may be others not of our party who also find it difficult to understand exactly what is the justification for the change of method itself. Free Traders do not believe that a system of tariffs confers these advantages which the votaries of Tariff Reform honestly believe it does confer but take it from their own point or view, and take two or three contentions most commonly put forward by Tariff Reformers to justify their own proposal. They tell us that a scientific tariff applied to a British industry will raise the wages of those who are employed in that industry. If that be true, what is the class of labour in this country whose wages stand most urgently in need of being raised? Precisely that very class of labour in regard

  505
  to which the right hon. Gentleman does not, indeed, permanently deny the advantages of this lever for a rise in wages, but, at any rate, says he feels obliged to postpone and delay its beneficent operation.
  Take another constant assertion in the mouths of Tariff Reformers of all and every school. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighton (Captain Tryon) made an incidental reference to it in his interesting speech. We do not agree with them, but they say, and no doubt believe it fully, that a scientific tariff applied to an industry will create more employment in that industry. In which department of our industrial life here at home is there the most obvious room for more employment? Hon. Gentlemen who swallow without so much as wincing the Edinburgh proposal, though they believe that the application of the tariff is going to increase the number of jobs for people looking for work, obstinately refuse to confer that advantage upon our sparsely populated countryside. They are actually going to create more jobs in the town in order that the agricultural labourer may desert the countryside, and this though all the time they have within their grasp the method which is capable of producing this beneficent change. Let me take a third illustration of the same difficulty we feel. Hon. Gentlemen opposite take the view that a system of tariffs applied to an industry means greater prosperity in that industry. Consider what is involved, then, in saying that you will at the earliest possible moment apply this specific to the great urban industries of Lancashire and Yorkshire, and refusing to apply it to the farming industry of the country! I do not know what is the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin), whose sincerity as a Tariff Reformer no one questions, but, for ourselves, speaking in the spirit of an anxious inquirer, we want to know, and we are entitled to know—if indeed, there be an answer—what the answer is when we inquire why this special boon should be refused to the agricultural industry of this country at a time when it is going to be conferred upon everybody else.
  Let the House observe what is the situation at this moment when this modification is proposed. Last year, by common consent, was a boom year in the great urban industries of this country. Last year, as compared with ten years ago, we had the iron trade, which was thought to be going, with exports increased by
  506
  £19,000,000; we had wool, which was believed to be threatened, with exports which had risen from £10,000,000 to £28,000,000; and we had cotton, which we were assured would go, increased from £72,000,000 to £122,000,000. That was the condition in the industries which are going to have the immediate application of this specific, but what was the situation last year in the industry of agriculture? There were floods in the Eastern Counties, and it was a trying year, by common consent, from many points of view. There was severe disappointment in more than one of our staple crops. Yet these people are to be selected for the special insult, not only of being refused the benefit—which it is to be in your power to confer at the same time as the benefit you confer on the towns—but of actually running the risk of paying more for the things they buy from those who manufacture them. I respectfully submit those difficulties to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, because, after all, the change of method is a thing which he himself has expounded. It is a difficulty which we should like to have a little more fully explained. Take, for a moment, a wider range, and consider the subject which the hon. Gentleman who spoke last — we all recognise the devotion with which he spoke of it — feels so supremely important—the whole case of Imperial preference. Is it disputed by hon. Gentlemen opposite that if you defer taxes on those foodstuffs at present untaxed, you defer Imperial preference? Is it denied by any hon. Gentleman opposite that if you postpone your once proposed taxes on imported foreign corn, you are postponing a thing which is indispensable if you are to have reciprocal commercial relations with the Dominions across the sea? It cannot be disputed, for the best of all reasons; first, because hon. Gentlemen have repeatedly said that must be the result, and, secondly, because it is true.
  So recently as last December—on 4th December—Lord Lansdowne, dealing with this very subject, asked this question at a great meeting of Unionists in London: "Why is it that we are so tenacious upon this subject of the 2s. duty on wheat?" Having asked the question he answered it, and his answer was, "Because we believe it to be indispensable if we are to have reciprocal commercial relations between this country and the great Dominion of Canada." Then Lord Lansdowne went on to inquire of his enthusiastic audience

  507
  whether they were going to run away. If 4th December in last year is too distant a date to which it is fair to go back, let me take the Ashton speech on 17th December. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition went there and said it was wholly untrue to suggest that he and his friends were abandoning the food duties, and he gave two reasons. One of his reasons—I will not refer to that now—had something to do with the flag. The other reason proves out of the right hon. Gentleman's own mouth that those who now move this Amendment so far from promoting Imperial preference are, if they share his opinion, knowingly deserting it. His further reason why they certainly could not abandon food taxes, was that he and his friends regarded them as essential to secure and further promote those reciprocal trade relations they desired to see. Nobody can doubt the sincerity of those declarations last December. But the point is, if they were sincerely made then, why are they not with equal sincerity made now? In point of fact, nobody who examines the facts and figures here can doubt that those who postpone taxes upon imported foodstuffs are postponing Imperial preference. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment made some reference to figures. Let me remind him of the essential figures. He proposes to adopt Imperial preference, in so far as it can be carried out, without imposing fresh duties upon imported goods, and I assume he also means without imposing fresh duties upon raw material. Why, Sir, you might just as well solemnly come forward and suggest that you should make omelettes, in so far as they could be made, without breaking eggs.
  Take the undisputed figures of the last available year. Our net imports from the great Dominions, from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa were £69,000,000. Of what do those £69,000,000 consist? They consist, in the first instance, of £41,250,000 of food. They consist, in the second place, of £24,000,000 of raw materials. Add together your £41,250,000 of food and your £24,000,000 of raw materials, and you have got rid of £65,250,000 out of the £69,000,000 before you can so much as start a preference. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, argued that, after all, every little helps. Of what does the little consist? There is left, after the £65,250,000
  508
  has been taken out, the amount of £3,750,000. Of this £3,750,000, £3,000,000 is under the class of goods which, though partially manufactured, are not immediately available for use or consumption. They consist of copper and lead coming from Australia—the two things together amounting to £1,000,000—they consist of leather, chemicals, and wood-pulp coming from Canada. Once you have removed them also, as I presume you intend to do, from the category of possible preferential treatment, you are actually left, those of you who propose Imperial preference in so far as it can be carried out without imposing duties on food stuffs or raw materials, with a matter of £200,000 or £300,000, by operation upon which you propose to cement the Empire. Let me take the other half of the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend have recommended to the House. In the second place they propose to impose an import duty not exceeding an average of 10 per cent. ad valorem on foreign manufactured goods imported into this country. Have they formed any sort of estimate of the sum of money that is going to produce?
  Sir F. BANBURY: As much as the Land Taxes.
  Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Baronet sets us a high standard. There is this distinction between the two cases: Increment Duty tends to increase as time goes on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!" and an HON MEMBER: "That is why they do not like it."] After all, taxes on foreign manufactured goods are, among other things, designed to reduce the amount that is imported. Here, again, the only figure it is necessary to bear in mind to judge of the business good sense of what the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Hewins) called their practical scheme, is the figure with which you start, and the heads under which it has to be discounted before you arrive at your revenue. The figure with which you start seems at first quite a big one. The figure for the last available year of imported manufactured goods, foreign and Colonial together, is something like £163,000,000. But, first of all, some £27,000,000 of these are re-exported again in the same state. You are not going to got any revenue out of these, and when you have done that two-thirds of what are left are not goods which are used in the condition in which they come in, but are goods which are

  509
  themselves the material for further processes in this country. And when, in addition to that, you have allowed for rebate, which I presume is to be admitted in the case of goods which contain any elements which have paid duty as they came into this country, when you have allowed for exclusion, such as it is, of this not very large amount of Colonial manufactured goods, when you have allowed for the effect of your tariff in restricting the amount which you will import, and when you have allowed for the expense of collecting it, I do not think there is any hon. Gentleman opposite who could produce any calculation which would show that you could pay for two "Dreadnoughts" out of the sum of money which would be left.
  This is what is recommended to us first of all, because it is to safeguard the stability of British productive industry; and, secondly, it is to increase our national revenue. Safeguard the stability of British productive industry! Hon. Gentlemen who have examined the figures will know that the census of production shows that completely manufactured goods are produced in this country to the amount of £735,000,000 worth every year, and the total amount of completely manufactured goods which are brought into this country from foreign countries is £50,000,000. Are we really to be told that the import of £50,000,000 worth of manufactured goods has got to be dealt with by the method of this Amendment in order that we may secure the stability of an industry which produces £735,000,000.
  The precise form in which the policy of tariffs is from time to time presented may change, but I entirely recognise and acknowledge that the substance behind it is the same and the only proposition I make about the present proposal is that it is, of all the different Protean shapes which tariffs from time to time take, the one which is the most obviously indefensible. What will it do? So far as the Dominions beyond the seas are concerned it would pretend to grant the Colonies a preference which would have no real substance. It would select certain very small classes in the Dominions for a favour which it denies to the bulk of our fellow subjects beyond the seas. As regards our conditions at home, it would benefit certain employers in the United Kingdom who need assistance least without helping in the least those agriculturists who may be supposed to need help most, and, finally, it would disorganise the
  510
  basis of British industry without raising any proportionate amount of revenue. In conclusion, I will put one question which the right hon. Gentleman will deal with or not as he thinks fit. The change of method is admitted and understood. Why was it adopted? It is not due to any change in the fiscal principles which the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends hold. It cannot be tactics. The right hon. Gentleman the other day spoke in very strong terms of His Majesty's Government because he said they never seemed to frame any proposal except with the idea of winning the next General Election. It cannot be that, and therefore with great respect I conclude by asking the question, "Why did you do it?"
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I should like, if I may at the beginning, to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the speech he has just delivered. He has changed an atmosphere of gloom and sadness into one of jubilation for the moment, and it is entirely the result of Parliamentary gifts which have never been better displayed. The right hon. Gentleman has taken advantage of both worlds in a way which I never saw equalled by any previous speaker. He told us, for instance, at the beginning of his speech, that he and his friends would treat our policy as if there had been no change. I believe they will, and they will not be very scrupulous in the way they do it. He told us that there had been no change, and then he proceeded to spend more than half of his speech in showing what tremendous hardships we were inflicting because of our change of procedure. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with a great many points which, if I had time, I should like to deal with. I will deal with one. He said, "You say it is going to raise wages. Why did you not raise agricultural wages?" The right hon. Gentleman forgot his most recent speech on the fiscal question, which was immediately after what he called our change of procedure. He had not then adapted his guns to the new situation. This is what the right hon. Gentleman said, "The price of bread in America is dearer, not because of a tariff on food, but because of a tariff on manufactured goods." It is the tariff on manufactured goods that has raised the price of food. What does that mean? It means one thing, and one thing only, namely, that an industrial tariff raises wages, and by raising wages all round, it raises the price of bread.
  Sir J. SIMON: Will your present proposals raise the price of bread?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that I was putting something in his mouth which he did not say. What else can it mean? What can raise the price of bread unless it is the rise in the wages of the people who consume it? My answer is simple. It is this: In our belief, and it is the experience of every other country, an industrial tariff does tend to raise the whole level of wages, not in one industry, but in all industries, and the agricultural industry benefits by that. The right hon. Gentleman, like everybody who has spoken, has dealt a great deal with our change of procedure. I have never denied that there has been a change, and I have never minimised it. I think I am entitled to say, and I can say with accuracy, that if at any time since this controversy began we had been told that we should get with certainty what our policy is, and that we could not get the other, we would gladly have accepted it on the terms of our present policy. The right hon. Gentleman talked about our change of procedure in his inimitable manner. I remember listening to a speech of his in which his heart was opened to us all. He told us that ever since he had been a Member of this House he and the whole Liberal party had been burning to carry Home Rule. Then why did they postpone it after the Election of 1906? Perhaps the next time he speaks the right hon. Gentleman will explain his motives with respect to that procedure. I do not deny that there has been a change with us, but has there been no change by the party opposite, for instance, with regard to this question? I think there has. I have listened, I think, to every debate on this subject, or almost every one, while I have been a Member of the House, and I have taken part in a good many. And I am sure that everyone with the same experience will bear me out when I say that the main ground of attack upon our proposal was that we proposed to put a tax upon food, and now the Government, having had and taken ample time to consider the best method of attacking us, bring in a Resolution which condemns us because we do not propose to put a tax upon food.
  I have no doubt that in both cases they chose what they thought was the strongest ground, and this, after careful deliberation and consideration, is the best alternative they had for their old cry. I think
  512
  that if anything could give satisfaction to those of us who do not like the change, it must be the substitution for "dear bread, the hungry forties, black bread, offal," and all the rest of it, of this charge that "you wretched people are not going to tax the food of the people." My hon. Friend dealt with the particular Motion. I shall not take up much time with it, but I do venture to say that it is something entirely new, both to political parties and to economists. No economist who ever lived would make himself responsible for such a Resolution as this Government are going to vote for. I quite admit that if the proposal of this Resolution was a general expression of opinion, that if there is an industrial tariff, it is also advisable to have an agricultural tariff, everybody I think would be willing to vote for it. But that is not what it means. It has no qualifications. It says quite definitely that if you put any duty on manufactured goods at all, however small it is, and whatever the purport, even though it is entirely for revenue, then you are bound to put a corresponding duty upon agricultural produce. Just consider where that carries you. It is certainly intended to condemn our policy, but it condemns something else. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the fiscal system, which is definitely condemned in this Motion, is the fiscal system which prevails in India at this moment, where there are duties on manufactured goods, and practically no duties on agricultural produce?
  An HON. MEMBER: There are no imports of agricultural produce into India.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that the hon. Member will find he is mistaken. Here is this Government, which is going to vote for a Motion, which condemns the fiscal system of India, for which it is responsible. Yet I venture to say that not one of its Members has the smallest intention of acting up to the spirit of the Resolution for which they are going to vote. The object of the Motion, and the object of our Amendment, from another point of view, are the same. The Motion is to condemn, and our Amendment is to support our proposal. From that point of view, are the same. The Motion is to the question. Our proposal has been attacked on two main grounds. The first is that our proposal is in itself absurd, and that to impose an industrial tariff without an agricultural tariff is unprecedented and unfair to agriculture. Let me examine those propositions. Whether it is absurd

  513
  or not must always be a question of argument, and we might go on for a long time without arriving at any conclusion. I do not think so, and for this reason. I have always, since this controversy began, believed that there is in reality no conflict between Free Trade and Protection, and I am not alone in holding that belief. A great economist, who is described by Lord Haldane as the greatest living economist, said many years ago that among scientific men there is no conflict between Free Trade and Protection. He did not mean that either had won the victory; he meant simply that science had established the fact that there is no fiscal system which is suitable to all countries at all times, that the system must vary to suit the varying conditions not only of the country where it is imposed, but the rest of the world with which that country trades. That is my belief. I say at once that if it is necessary or even desirable to have a tariff at all, you have got to take into account the special conditions of the country where the tariff is imposed. I do not think it is absurd to say, in a country like ours, where industry so largely predominates over agriculture, that it is not reasonable to suggest that we should have the same kind of tariff as the tariff that exists, for example, in the United States, or France, or even Germany, where agriculture occupies so large a proportion of the population. I do not think it is absurd. But now I put this question to hon. Gentlemen opposite: What is the country in the world to-day which, economically and industrially, most nearly resembles the United Kingdom? It is Belgium, which has the very system which is now condemned as absurd and indefensible. It is precisely the system which has been in force in Belgium, and which has worked well there. But I shall read what is said about it by our own Consul-General. He said:—
  "Belgium is supposed to be a protected country, but the truth in regard to the Belgian tariff is that it is imposed with a view to protecting certain manufacturing and other industries, while admitting the free importation of practically all the necessaries of life."
  That very system, which you declare to be absolutely absurd, is a system which exists to-day in a country which most nearly resembles our own. The next proposition I wish to deal with is that our proposal is unfair to agriculture. Let us consider in what way it is unfair. There is a distinction which I would like hon. Gentlemen to make. It is one thing to say that if there is a tariff at all a tariff on agriculture
  514
  will also be beneficial. That is one thing, and I largely agree with it. But it is another and a very different thing to say that if you put on an industrial tariff you will actually injure agriculture. The two things are quite distinct. In all the arguments I use to-night I shall deal only with the proposals which we will be enabled to carry if, supposing what hon. Gentlemen opposite regard as impossible happens, that we obtain power as the result of the next election. I say it would be no answer to people engaged in agriculture to say that later on something would be done which would give them benefit. I say at once that if our proposals meant an injury to agriculture at the time they are put on, then they would be justified and right in doing their best to prevent those proposals from being carried out. I am not going to deal with the effect of the rise in prices. That is a question we could argue until Doomsday. But probably hon. Gentlemen opposite will admit it is slightly exaggerated. Let us just consider this fact in connection with this. Any rise in prices due to an industrial tariff can only keep out goods which come from a country which is more protective, has a higher tariff, than is proposed to be imposed in this country. If, therefore, those goods can come, in spite of that tariff, at lower prices than they are produced here, what reason have you to suppose that with free competition at home there will not be some possibility of producing cheaply at home, and that there will be very little or no rise in prices as a consequence. But that is not the only point I wish to put from this point of view. Agriculture has only in this country one market, that is the home market. Of course, hon. Gentlemen who say that a tariff will not improve general conditions in this country and will not increase production, are quite entitled to say that agriculture will get no benefit, but I am not appealing to them. If anyone believes that will be the effect; that it will mean greater production, then it must mean a better market in the only place where agriculture can have its market, and that is the home market.
  I venture to say, therefore, in my belief, agriculture would not be injured even by the adoption of our proposal, but I think it is entitled to something more than that. It is a fact that Belgium, in spite of having hardly any duties on food, and almost none on the necessaries of life, has a most prosperous agriculture, and it

  515
  has increased in prosperity since they adopted a tariff. Why? She has no advantages over us in climate and soil. She has one great advantage which I hope to see established in this country, that a good deal of the agricultural land is owned by smallholders who till the soil. But there is more than that. The Belgian Government, like other Governments, like the Danish Government, and as has been done in Ireland by the Agricultural Organisation Society, the Belgian Government has done a great deal to help agriculture in such things as the fostering of beetroot sugar and many other ways. But it has another and far greater advantage. The burdens upon agriculture in Belgium are extremely low, and have been deliberately kept low. What is the position of agriculture here. It is not merely that the State has neglected it—that is the least of it. Parliament, Session after Session, has deliberately imposed new and heavy burdens upon agriculture, and what is the result? The result is, in my belief, that at this moment agriculture suffers more from local taxation than any other industry in this country. I say that that ought to be remedied. I know that is a big question. We all know that local rating on land is not on a fair basis. The present Government four or five years ago promised to remedy it. They have not done so. They have done something much simpler. It is far easier to destroy than to construct. They have not done it. We may find it a big question also. But I want to make this perfectly clear and definite, that the question of the burdens upon agriculture is regarded by us as something quite apart from this general question of local rating, and I say distinctly this, that simultaneously with the adoption of an industrial tariff, if we are ever in a position to impose it, simultaneously we shall use part of the revenue derived from that tariff in order to lower the heavy burdens on agriculture. We have seen the best card the Government can play in regard to this question. They are going to try to win in the agricultural constituencies. I am sure they will try, but I am not afraid of the result. In this respect they are a lady with a past. What have they done for agriculture? From beginning to end they have never done anything except add new burdens and resist proposals to lower existing burdens. They resisted to the utmost the Relief of Agricultural
  516
  Rates Act. I suppose the majority of them are hostile to it to-day, but they have not the courage to take it off. In judging between them and us, I am not in the least afraid of what the decision of the farmers of Great Britian will be.
  The other main charge against our proposals has reference to preference. I wish I had longer time to deal with that, but I will make the best use I can of the few minutes that remain. I am, and have always been, in favour of Imperial preference, for two reasons. In the first place, because I believe that it will tend to consolidate the union of the Empire. One of my main reasons for believing that is that for a full generation every one of our self-governing Dominions—whatever Government was in power—Liberal, Conservative, or Labour—has taken the view that it would tend to have that result. I have all the resolutions here, but I have not time to read them. From the conference at Ottawa down to the most recent conference, they have all expressed the same view. I am sure that we all, or at any rate most of us, desire to see greater union throughout the Empire. I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister, last year I think, when discussing this question from the point of view of the Navy, say that he desired greater co-operation in peace as well as in war. I think he is right, for if you do not get the co-operation in peace you never will get it in war. Here is the fact: for all these years Government after Government has urged it upon us. Surely the simple fact that they have done so should make any Government very slow in refusing to consider the request which is made. The other reason why I am in favour of preference is that I believe it is vital to the trade of this country. I cannot go into the figures, but I doubt whether hon. Members really realise how much we are dependent upon the Colonies for the sale of our manufactured goods. At this moment they take something like 40 per cent. of our exports. Nobody doubts that preference at present is an enormous advantage in keeping and increasing our trade. That was admitted in the fullest way by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said it was an enormous advantage to us. Surely it is worth our while to try to keep that advantage if we can do it without injury to ourselves.
  But the argument used against us is that we have by our proposals absolutely done away with any chance of preference. That

  517
  is the argument. I have two things to say with regard to it. First of all, ought not the Colonies to be as good judges of that as right hon. Gentlemen opposite? What have they asked from us? In Conference after Conference the same words have been used. The words were read by my hon. Friend. They
  "urge His Majesty's Government to give a preference to the products and manufactures of the Colonies either by exemption from or reduction of duties now or hereafter imposed."
  What we propose to do is to give the Colonies at once precisely what they have asked for in these resolutions. We are going to give them a reduction of or exemption from duties now imposed or hereafter to be imposed. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, thinks he knows what is good for the Colonies far better than the Colonies themselves. The request surely is not to be treated as if it were not of any value, if the Colonies think, rightly or wrongly, that it is of value! In reality the difference in this matter is a difference of principle. At the Colonial Conference of 1907 the Prime Minister was urged—and he knows it, in his presence—by one of the Colonial Prime Ministers to do what we say we will do. What was his answer? It was this: "It means that we are to consider the question of whether we are to treat foreigners and our Colonists as if they were different; and that we consider we are not able to do." That the right hon. Gentleman considers they are not able to do. We are able to do it, and we will do it! That is the difference between us. I was really amazed to hear the Solicitor-General repeat the kind of argument which was used by the Prime Minister. He takes existing statistics, and judges of the value of preference by them. He did that after the illustration given by my hon. Friend.
  What was it? The Prime Minister did not hear it. Canada gave a preference on sugar. At the time it was given the imports to Canada were £60,000. In a few years, as the result of preference, they had risen to £2,000,000. Is it not therefore utterly absurd to judge of what the trade will be after preference by statistics for the earlier period? I would put this question really seriously to the House: All these years the Colonies have desired to do this; up till now there has never been a Government in this country which was prepared to consider their proposals. Suppose that is changed? Suppose a conference meets where not only the representatives of every Colony, but the representatives of the United Kingdom also desire to make such arrangements, are not going out of their way to find difficulties and to criticise, but are taking the best method they can to secure the desired result. Does anybody doubt that in those circumstances it will be possible to produce a system that will benefit not only the Empire, for this is also essential, which will be of advantage to the United Kingdom as well, and for which—what is equally important—it will be possible to get the support of the people of the United Kingdom to carry into effect?
  Captain TRYONrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. DEPUTY-SPEARER withheld his assent, as it appeared to him that the House was prepared to come to a decision without that Motion.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 279; Noes, 196.

  Division No. 20.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Black, Arthur W.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Adamson, William

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Crooks, William

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Alden, Percy

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Brady, P. J.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Burns, Flt. Hon. John

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

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Burt, Rt. Hon, Thomas

  Dawes, J. A.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Delany, William

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Doris, William

  Barton, William

  Clough, William

  Duffy, William J.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Cotton, William Francis

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  King, J.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Elverston, Sir Harold

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

  Radford, G. H.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Falconer, J.

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

  Reddy, M.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lundon, T.

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Field, William

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Lynch, A. A.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  France, G. A.

  McGhee, Richard

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Furness, Stephen

  Maclean, Donald

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

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

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Gill, A. H.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Robinson, Sidney

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Glanville, H. J.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Goldstone, Frank

  Manfield, Harry

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Rowlands, James

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Griffith, Ellis J.

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

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

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

  Meagher, Michael

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

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

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

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

  Gulland, John William

  Middlebrook, William

  Sheehy, David

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Hackett, J.

  Molloy, Michael

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Hail, Frederick (Normanton)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Montagu, Hon, E. S.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Mooney, John J.

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W.)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Morrell, Philip

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morison, Hector

  Sutton, John E.

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

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  Muldoon, John

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Munro, Robert

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Thomas, James Henry

  Hayward, Evan

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Toulmin, Sir George

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

  Neilson, Francis

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Verney, Sir Harry

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

  Norton, Captain C. W.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Hinds, John

  Nuttall, Harry

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Hogge, James Myles

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Waring, Walter

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Grady, James

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Malley, William

  Watt, Henry A.

  Hughes, S. L.

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

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)

  O'Shee, James John

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Whyte, A. F.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea

  Outhwalte, R. L.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

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

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Phillpps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

  Joyce, Michael

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Keating, Matthew

  Pointer, Joseph

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Kelly, Edward

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir F. Low and Mr. Shortt.

  Kilbride, Denis

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

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

  Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Barnston, Harry

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Baird, J. L.

  Barrie, H. T.

  Bigland, Alfred

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

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Bird. A.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Blair, Reginald

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  520

  521

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Boyton, James

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Burgoyne, A. H.

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

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Butcher, John George

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Randles, Sir John S.

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

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

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

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Campion, W. R.

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Cassel, Felix

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Cator, John

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Royds, Edmund

  Cautley, H. S.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

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

  Cave, George

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sanderson, Lancelot

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

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Ingleby, Holcombe

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

  Clyde, James Avon

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Stanier, Beville

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Keswick, Henry

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Stewart, Gershom

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Dalzlel, Davison (Brixton)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

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

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

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

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

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

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Valentia, Viscount

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

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

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Fell, Arthur

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Macmaster, Donald

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

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Fleming, Valentine

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Forster, Henry William

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

  Gilmour, Captain John

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

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Younger, Sir George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Grant, J. A.

  Nield, Herbert

  Greene, W. R.

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Pike Pease.

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

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G A.

  Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  It being after Eleven of the clock, and objection being taken to further proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
  The Orders for the remaining business were read and postponed.
  Motion made, and Question postponed, "That this House do now Adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Mr. KING: I think it is extremely unfortunate when an hon. Member is here in his place and very anxious to get his Bill through that he should find, owing to the noise and disturbance of Members leaving
  522
  the Chamber, that the Order has been called and he does not even know for what day it has been put down.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): Is the hon. Gentleman putting that to me as a point of Order?
  Mr. KING: No, Sir.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I suggested to him that he should do so, and that is why I called upon him. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward) has a prior claim on the Motion for the Adjournment. I understand the hon. Member's point. I recommend him on occasions when a large

  523
  number of Members are leaving the House to come nearer to the Chair. If there is no response when an Order is called, it is postponed by the Clerk at the table.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: There is a subject to which I wish to draw the attention of the House, but I am not sure whether I have half an hour from now or only until half-past eleven. [An HON. MEMBER: "Half-past eleven."] Then it is a moral certainty that the time at my disposal will render it scarcely possible for the Financial Secretary to be able to reply and, indeed, almost impossible for me to make the full statement I proposed to make. I gave notice three or four evenings ago of my intention to raise the question, but somehow someone has on each evening
  524
  managed to get before me, and as I do not intend to make half the statement I desire to lay before the House or to get the reply postponed I now give notice that to-morrow I will introduce my subject, and I hope no one will forestall me.
  Mr. REMNANT: I am sorry to see that the Patronage Secretary has gone out. I wish to call attention once more to the question of this system of obstruction and objection to the Police Weekly Rest Day (Scotland) Bill.
  Notice taken that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members not being present—
  The House was adjourned at Twenty minutes after Eleven o'clock.