CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

HC Deb 12 August 1913 vol 56 cc2381-419

Postponed proceeding resumed on Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time." Question again proposed. Debate resumed.

Sir A. MARKHAM

When I was interrupted, I was dealing with the case of Mr. Lansbury and was expressing the hope that the Home Secretary would not give way to the appeal that special privileges should be accorded to him. My hon. Friend who made this appeal said that Mr. Lansbury had committed no offence and no crime, and that the language he used was rhetorical. I should like to give the House one example of the kind of language Mr. Lansbury had been using. He is reported in the "Times" of 3rd May to have said this:— I am here to say that I think most women who are outlaws ought to break the law on every possible occasion short of taking human life in any way that suggests itself to them. Every window broken, every golf course damaged, every race stand burned down worries the Government one million times more than everyone who goes to prison. The course which Mr. Lansbury has adopted shows that he is in favour of making himself a great worry to the Government, because he refused to obey the law. I am not speaking with any feeling whatever of vindictiveness towards Mr. Lansbury. He has, at all events, brokers down the provisions of the "Cat and Mouse" Act, because under the provisions of that Act he was released from prison. If he was not released, he would not have gone on hunger-strike. The hon. Member has gone in prison merely for the purpose of making a demonstration. I must refer to the manner in which this Bill has been administered, and the contempt into which it has brought the law. Here we have women convicted, and who under this "Cat and Mouse" Act have been released on licence five or six times, going about smashing windows and damaging property during the time that they are supposed to have been resting. This is a hopeless system allowing people out from time to time, and then bringing them back after they have been using their opportunities while they are out to break the law again. Something must be done, as the Act has broken down. I put down an Amendment when the Bill was before the House for the purpose of having those people deported to St. Helena. I think it would be much better to send Mr. Lansbury for a short holiday on one of His Majesty's transports. People must obey the law. I heard Mr. Lansbury, where he was a Member of the House, charge the Government with not having taken proceedings against the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson). I understand it is very doubtful whether the hon. Member for Dublin University has actually broken the law.

Mr. WEDGWOOD

Mr. Lansbury has not broken the. law.

Sir A. MARKHAM

Mr. Lansbury has been convicted under a Statute of Edward III., and he was specially treated, for he ought to have been charged with inciting to crime. The Home Secretary, however, took the more lenient course, because from the language I have read out which was used by Mr. Lansbury, it is clear that he brought himself within the law against incitement to crime. No doubt Mr. Lansbury is an honest believer in the cause he espouses, but people who come into this House to make laws like Mr. Lansbury, must not place themselves above the law, and for hon. Members to come here in order to try to get special privileges for Mr. Lansbury is placing the House in an entirely false position. During the period in question when Mr. Lansbury was bound over, some 8,000 windows were broken, and he has been associated with Miss Kenny and others who were deliberately setting the law at defiance. In my own Constituency these wild women tried to set a building on fire, where there were some thousands of people gathered together, and if people are allowed to set the law at defiance in this manner, some other remedy will have to be found. The Government will not allow these people to die in prison, but if people take the law into their own hands and refuse to eat whilst in prison, it is their own look out if they die. So long as these people can come out of prison and break the law again, so long will the law continue to be brought into contempt. I think it is the duty of the Cabinet to reconsider the whole of this question. The law has been brought into contempt, and the "Cat and Mouse" Act has not had the effect which its authors thought it would have. If the House of Commons is going to allow these outrages to continue rather than say that people who break the law must take the consequences, we may just as well shut the House of Commons up altogether.

Mr. ADAMSON

Before the Home Secretary replies to the numerous questions that have been put to him in the course of the Debate this evening, I desire to ascertain if he intends to institute a special inquiry into the circumstances connected with the recent mining disaster at Cadder, in Lanarkshire, and, particularly, as to the neglect of the owner of that colliery to give effect to the general regulation made to supply and maintain appliances for use in rescue work and the training of rescue brigades. The immediate cause of this disaster seems for the time being to be shrouded in mystery, and there are technical matters to be investigated of such a character as in my mind to demand a more searching inquiry under expert guidance than is provided for through the machinery of our fatal accident inquiries in Scotland. There are a considerable number of mining men who hold the opinion that if the colliery had been provided with safety appliances and with trained men, some at least of the lives that were lost in this lamentable disaster would have been saved. To such an extent is the value of life-saving apparatus recognised by the colliery owners of the country that there has already been compliance on their part with the rescue and aid provisions demanded by the Government in nearly every portion of the British coalfields. I understand that at the present time there are no less than twenty central rescue stations in England. In Wales there are thirteen, and thousands of men have been trained to handle themselves in circumstances such as prevailed in this particular disaster. In that portion of the country which I have the honour to represent the coalowners are so convinced of the value of this life-saving apparatus, that prior to the passing of the Rescue and Aid Act of 1910 they had built a central station, and at the present time there are auxiliary stations being built by some of the companies, and at least sixty teams of men have been trained for use in similar circumstances to those which applied in this particular colliery where the disaster occurred. But in Lanarkshire, the county in which the colliery is situated, and in the adjacent counties where something like 70,000 or 80,000 men are employed the order is a dead letter, and no provision has been made. The fact that no attempt has been made to carry out these rescue and aid provisions cannot be laid to the charge of the miners. During the course of last year a series of meetings were held in the mining districts of Lanarkshire. Demonstrations were given showing the usefulness of the life-saving appliances, and the cost of them was borne by the men themselves. At every one of those meetings resolutions were passed calling upon the coalowners to provide the necessary appliances and to arrange for the training of rescue brigades.

In December last year the vice-president of the Scottish Miners' Federation (Mr. Robertson) wrote to the Chief Inspector of Mines, calling his attention to the fact that in that part of the country no effort had been made to comply with the regulation as to life-saving appliances being provided, and men being trained to use them in the event of such circumstances occurring as unfortunately cccurred at Cadder last week. In the course of his reply to that communication the Chief Inspector stated that at the end of December, on the 31st of that month, in terms of Section 18 of the Coal Mines Act, the coalowners were bound to report certain particulars, including those as to the supply and maintenance of appliances for rescue work and ambulances, and the methods of training men in their use, and in the absence of such particulars action would be taken to see why the requirements of the Order had not been complied with. Notwithstanding the specific statement on the part of the Chief Inspector, eight months had passed without anything apparently having been done by way of compelling owners to carry out the law, except as I gather, from a reply given by the Home Secretary to the hon. Member for North - East Lanark last week, the coalowners have been contending with the Home Office that a smoke helmet supplied with fresh air by means of tube and valve was compliance with the Order, contending evidently that the least costly form of appliance was in compliance with the Order, and thereby putting money before human life and placing the sovereign on a higher plane than the sacred value of human life.

That was the position at the date at which this accident occurred. It is the position still in that part of the country. There are thousands of men going down to work every day under circumstances which, in the opinion of some men, are even more dangerous than those which prevailed at Cadder Colliery, for in the view of the local men Nos. 15 and 17 pits of this colliery were the safest pits in the county. That was the position at the date on which this accident occurred, when twenty men were sent down to work. One of the points which I think requires to be carefully looked into is that after the men had been sent down no one was left ire charge at the bottom. If some one had been left there I am convinced the fire would have been discovered much earlier, and possibly all the men would have been saved. But after it had been discovered the fireman, instead of having these safety appliances, which, in the opinion of the Home Office experts, are of very considerable value, and instead of having men trained in the use of them to assist him in the work of rescue, was faced with the horrible alternative of either saving his own life or going in to meet almost certain death on the off-chance of being able to save the lives of the men under his charge. To his eternal credit, he chose the latter alternative, and went in and perished along with the rest of the miners. After the news had been conveyed to the pithead, rescue parties were organised and sent down, only to be beaten back by the deadly fumes. Then the police authorities in that part of the country took the matter up in several mining centres in Lanarkshire in order to ascertain if safety appliances were to be found in any of the mines, and if men were trained in the use of them only to have the information conveyed to them that, so, far as that part of the country was concerned there were no such appliances and no trained men. They had then to get into telephonic communication with the rescue station at Cowdenbeath, fifty 'miles distant. Their appeal was responded to with the greatest expedition possible, but eight hours had elapsed before they were able to reach the scene of the disaster, and by that time the fire had done its deadly work. One of the redeeming features in this tragedy is the information that the Carron Company are prepared to make ample financial provision for the widows and dependents of the men who lost their lives. As an individual I am prepared to give the company due credit for what they are doing in this direction, but I hold the opinion that it would have been better if they had been prepared, in conjunction with their fellow owners, to spend part of the money prior to the accident rather than after the accident occurred. To my mind no money can com- pensate the homes and hearts that have been bereft in this way of husbands, fathers, and sons. It is the duty of the Government and the duty of the Home Office in particular, to make the most searching inquiry into the circumstances connected with this lamentable disaster. I recognise the difficulties that are in the way of the chief inspector of the Home Office in carrying out the regulations, but if the present legislation is insufficient to enable them to compel the colliery owners to make ample provision for such a contingency occurring in the future, then it is the duty of this House to see that legislation is passed that will give the Home Office power to have its mandates carried out. I hope that the Home Secretary will agree to a special inquiry into all the facts connected with this disaster.

Mr. OUTHWAITE

I desire to associate myself with the appeal made by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson), having many thousand miners in my Constituency. Evidently there is great need for some wider and more drastic supervision on the part of the Home Office in regard to the coal mines of the country. Yesterday the Home Secretary furnished me with the figures of the deaths and accidents for the year ending 1912. These are the terrible figures which he gave me. In the United Kingdom during last year there were killed 1,204 men and 71 boys, while in the accidents disabling men for more than seven days there were involved 140,185 men and 10,285 boys. That terrible casualty list shows we need either greater supervision and greater efficacy on the part of the staff that exists, or, as the hon. Member suggested, legislation to provide for these contingencies. I hope the Home Secretary will state that he is going to do something to end this terrible casualty list.

Mr. BOOTH

I want to ask the Home Secretary to make a statement with regard to the proposed inquiry into the treatment of venereal disease. I do not know whether he is prepared to make an announcement to-night or to promise that before the House rises for the prorogation some knowledge will be conveyed to us. I should like to ask whether the form of inquiry has been settled upon and whether it will meet at an early date, whether there will be a substantial number of women asked to serve upon it, and what proportion there will be of medical men. I ask for that because one of the speakers at the recent conference introduced matters which would raise questions quite apart from the purely medical or sanitary treatments of this disease, questions which would interest the general community from the standpoint of personal liberty. The Home Secretary stated on the passing of the Criminal Law Amendment Act in answer to a question of mine that he was still a resolute opponent of any reenactment of the Contagious Diseases Act, and I feel perfectly sure that he will not change from that position, but I should be glad to know what the scope of the inquiry will be, whether it will be what is asked for by some of the leading London newspapers, namely, an investigation from the medical or scientific standpoint, or whether the inquiry will go further afield and involve very large and very controversial questions.

Mr. GEORGE HAMILTON

I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member (Mr. Adamson). Some fourteen years ago I worked down the No. 15 and 17 pits of the Carron Coal Company, and I know them extremely well. As a young engineer I was putting machinery into the pits and I was conversant with the views both of the owners of the colliery and of the men working in it. The impression after these years still left on my mind is that the men who were employed in these collieries, and more especially in the No. 15 pit where this terrible catastrophe has just occurred, felt, as I felt, that the owners did everything reasonable and everything which could be expected to make work there comfortable and safe. At the same time, I join with the hon. Member in appealing to the Home Secretary, as far as he possibly can, under the existing law, and make it compulsory—that such safety apparatus as the hon. Member has referred to should be provided—upon all colliery owners, whether the colliery is considered safe or not. I remember extremely well in those days this colliery was considered—both 17 and 15—one of the safest collieries in Scotland, and now we have this terrible disaster, which only shows that. however safe a colliery may be considered, there is this awful danger of life when you are working underground, and it is the duty of the House and of the Home Department to make sure that the men who go down below to earn their living shall be protected in every possible way, and that it shall not be left only to the good employer—not that I for a moment think the Carron Company is not a good employer. My experience of them, and the experience which I gained from their men, was that they were considered good employers. But if a law is made that every colliery has to have these safety appliances, it is the same for everyone, and the expense is thrown upon the trade generally.

Mr. PRINGLE

I wish to support the appeal which has been made by the hon. Member (Mr. Adamson) for a special inquiry into the Carron disastor. It seems to me that the circumstances which he has detailed establish an unanswerable case for such an inquiry. In this case we seek an inquiry not merely into the cause of the disaster. There is more at issue in this matter. The question arises whether adequate provision has been made for rescue purposes in this particular area and in connection with those particular pits. That question involves another matter which affects the administration of the Home Office. There at once arises the question as to whether the provisions of the existing law have been sufficiently carried out. If the inquiry is to cover that ground something in the nature of a special inquiry is required. An inquiry simply by an official of the Home Office would not be sufficient, because such an official would be inquiring whether the administration of the Home Office was in accordance with the law. In these circumstances it seems to me that the House should demand an inquiry by a judicial authority with an expert as assessor, so that we should have an authoritative finding, not only as to the cause of the disaster, but as to the further and equally, or even more important, question as to whether the provisions of the law were being adequately carried out.

Mr. McKENNA

A large number of questions have been raised, and I wish to reply to them as rapidly and fully as they seem to require. The first speaker was the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) who raised two cases. One of them is that which is known as the Piccadilly flat case. I am not quite sure what was the nature of the charge which the hon. Member wished to bring. I do not at this moment understand whether he wished to suggest that either I, or anybody at the 'Home Office, or anybody in the police, had made any representations either to the magistrate, or to the Deputy- Chairman of Quarter Sessions, or invoked any judicial authority to secure secrecy. I do not know exactly the specific charge he means to bring, but if that were his case, I can assure him categorically that neither I, nor anybody at the Home Office, nor anybody in the police, made any representations either to the magistrate in the Police Court, or to the Deputy-Chairman of Quarter Sessions, or invoked anyone with the wish to secure secrecy with regard to any part of these proceedings. I can make that denial most categorically and most completely, and I am not aware that a tittle of evidence of any kind has been brought to the contrary effect. The hon. Gentleman quotes as evidence of the suppression of the true facts of the case first of all a statement by counsel for the defendant, next a statement by Mr. Travers Humphreys, and third a statement by Mr. Beyfus. With regard to the statement by counsel for the defendant it is quite obvious that I could have no responsibility for anything that might be said by him.

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

I had no intention of quoting counsel for the defendant. My quotation was from counsel who prosecuted for the Crown.

Mr. McKENNA

In the first case he quoted counsel for the defendant when referring to the suppression of facts.

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

Only in regard to the lady he was representing and who reserved her defence.

Mr. McKENNA

I cannot be responsible for any statement by counsel for the defendant, and in so far as the hon. Member's charge rests upon a statement by defendant's counsel, the case must be dismissed. There is the statement of Mr. Travers Humphreys, who is reported to have described the prisoner, Queenie Gerald, as a procuress. But it is perfectly clear to anyone who reads the case that in using that term Mr. Travers Humphreys was merely speaking in a colloquial sense. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Mr. Travers Humphreys had to open the case—I have this on the authority of Mr. Lawrie, whom I have since seen—as a bad case. Mr. Lawrie tells me that no representation of any kind was made to him by Mr. Travers Humphreys, or on the part of the police requesting a lenient view to be taken of the case. Mr. Travers Humphreys said:— It was only fair to say that the accused was not the cause of the downfall of the three girls in question. Then Mr. Travers Humphreys opened the case that Queenie Gerald was not a procuress.

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

Here are the quotations from the "Times" report of what Mr. Travers Humphreys said at the Sessions:— Letters found on the premises made it clear that the accused was carrying on the trade of a procurers.

Mr. McKENNA

Yes; but, as I have said, he could only have been using the term "procuress" in the colloquial sense in which it is used to mean a person who keeps an immoral house, because Mr. Travers Humphreys, in opening the case, opened it that the woman was not a procuress.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

The point, I understand, was raised that the three girls who came into this charge were not procured in the ordinary sense of the word, but there was some evidence by letters and otherwise that other girls were procured.

Mr. McKENNA

I am going to tell the whole story. First, I want to answer each of the hon. Member's charges specifically in order that. it may not be said that I could not answer them.

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

Will the Home Secretary allow me to read a telegram?

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member was listened to with almost complete silence. The least he can do is to listen to the reply.

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

I do not wish to be misquoted.

Mr. McKENNA

The third statement was with regard to the statement made by Mr. Lawrie in the course of the case. Mr. Lawrie stated, in summing up, that there was some evidence that she had acted as procuress. I think that Mr. Lawrie, in making that statement., was in-correct on the facts of the case. It is quite necessary, in view of the misrepresentations that have been circulated with regard to this ease, that this House should know what the facts are. The first information that came to the police was a statement made by a young woman who had frequented this establishment. The police had suspected the establishment, but this House knows that they have no power to enter a house of this kind unless they obtained a warrant, and the magistrate will not issue a warrant except upon evidence. The police were now placed by this young woman in possession of definite evidence. On the faith of that evidence the police obtained the warrant to enter the premises. They searched the premises, and as was publicly stated in the course of the evidence—there is no concealment upon the point—they found on the premises, not as a matter of gossip but as a matter of sworn evidence, a whip, a cane and a birch, and a considerable quantity of correspondence and literature. The police had now to consider what action should be taken against the woman who kept this flat. At this stage the case was mentioned to me as a prosecution which could be undertaken under the new Act. My instructions were that the prosecution should be pressed to the full. A charge was then brought, the charge on which the warrant was obtained for the arrest of Gerald, that of "living, wholly or in part, on the earnings of prostitution."

It has been said that there was an original charge of a somewhat severe kind brought against the woman, but that, owing to the danger of the exposure of names, part of the charge was dropped, and only minor proceedings of a less severe character were taken against the woman at the Sessions. As a matter of fact, in the first instance the charge was a smaller charge than was ultimately brought against her. [An HON. MEMBER: "What was the charge?"] I have read it—"Knowingly living, wholly or in part, on the earnings of prostitution," the original charge. Now it is asked, "If there were letters, and apparently evidence of this woman acting as a procuress in the true sense of the term, why was not the charge brought against her at once of procuring?" The evidence which the police had upon that fact was this: I understand that all the girls who were questioned, and who would have to be police witnesses in the case, stated—and I believe it to be the fact—that when each one of them -was first admitted to this flat, Gerald invariably asked whether !hey were already on the streets, because if they were not they were no good to her. All the three witnesses were known to be, or were proved subsequently to have been on the streets before they went to the fiat. It was perfectly impossible on the face of that evidence to bring a charge against the woman of procuring. Then it was said, "Oh, but there were the letters. The letters show that she was employed by others to procure." With the single exception of one name, not one of these letters is signed. The only name that appears in the handwriting of the writer of the letter was the name which was mentioned in Court. That was why only one name was mentioned, because it was the only name in the handwriting of the writer of the letters. But all the other letters no doubt indicated a desire on the part of persons unknown, that Gerald should procure innocent girls for them, but Gerald never did procure such girls; but such girls as were at her flat were all street walkers. How, in the face of evidence such as that was it possible to proceed against this woman as a procuress?

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

If the right hon. Gentleman will read the Report in the "Daily Telegraph"—I have quoted the "Times" already—he will see this:— There was a large number of letters, repeated counsel (Mr. Tracers Humphreys), which made it quite clear that, apart from the prisoner's earnings herself, and apart from what she received through the girls, she was carrying on the trade of a procuress.

11.0 P.m.

Mr. McKENNA

I can only say Mr. Travers Humphreys, if he is correctly reported, did not in that statement correctly represent the facts. My own impression is Mr. Travers Humphreys was not correctly reported, and in the very full Report I have here I can find no such language. I have got here the Report in the "News of the World," which was a far longer and fuller Report than any other newspaper, and no such statement as that appears from Mr. Travers Humphreys, and in any event it would not be evidence. That statement, if it be correctly reported is not a true statement.

Mr. MACPHERSON

There was no evidence of that?

Mr. McKENNA

Even if it were correctly reported. There is no evidence that it was a true statment because there is no evidence, and on the contrary the whole of the evidence goes to show that this woman never acted as a procuress. The evidence leads to the impression that certain people, whose names are not known, believed that she was acting as a procuress and gave her considerable sums of money in that belief, but she never procured for them any other girl than the girl who was a street walker, and in her flat. Those are the facts. Under those circumstances it was not possible to proceed against Queenie Gerald on the ground of procuring. But, the hon. Member says, we had something to suppress. At what stage had we something to suppress. Why proceed at all if we had anything to suppress. We had raided the flat before we took proceedings, and if we wanted to suppress anything then was the time to suppress it. Why take the case into Court and at the same time propose to suppress the names; what was the point in doing it? What was the reason for it? It was the action of the police that brought the case into Court. The police, under my direct instructions, were most anxious to press this case as far as it could go. I have stated what was the original charge before the magistrate, and at the Police Court the magistrate committed her, not on the charge which we had originally brought, but on the charge Of— unlawfully, for the purposes of gain, exercising influence over the movements of certain prostitutes in such a manner as to show she was aiding their prostitution. In the indictment preferred at Quarter Sessions she was charged with both those offences, the original offence with which we charged her before the magistrate and with the offence on which the magistrate committed her for trial, and she was also, on the advice of counsel, charged with the further offence of keeping a disorderly house, so that she was charged on the trial at Quarter Sessions with three separate offences. At Quarter Sessions the woman pleaded guilty to all the charges.. I know the hon. Member is not learned in the law and possibly does not particularly distinguish between the functions of the executive and the functions of the judiciary, but when a prisoner has pleaded guilty under circumstances such as those that prisoner, no matter what the offence, is entitled to be proceeded against in accordance with the ordinary law. One of the jurymen has been quoted stating the jury had not been sworn. No evidence was taken. She had pleaded guilty to all the charges, Mr. Lawrie had got the case fully before him, and the sentence which he gave was absolutely in his discretion. Many hon. Members in this House may think that Mr. Lawrie did not give an adequate sentence, others may think that he was right. But that is purely a question for the judge, and no Government Department has the slightest responsibility for any sentence that a judge may give. I spoke to Mr. Lawrie on this particular point. I was perfectly aware that no representation had gone from the Home Office, but one cannot always be aware whether something may not have been said without authority. I wished to make absolutely sure, and I asked Mr. Lawrie whether any representation of any kind was made to him to take a lenient view of the case. He answered, "By the prosecution, none. The prosecution opened the case as a bad one. Counsel for the defendant asked me to take a lenient view, but it was his business to do so." These are the salient facts of the case.

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

The right hon. Gentleman says that the "News of the World" has a full report; it does not contain that statement. In the issue of 13th July, it says:— Other things were found there. All sorts of practices had been carried on. A number of letters were seized which made it quite clear that, apart from prisoner's earnings, and apart from the three girls, she had been carrying on the trade of a procuress. Further, there was a copy of a letter which the woman herself had written which made it abundantly clear that she was guilty of procuration.

Mr. McKENNA

All I can say is that the correspondence seized by the police, coupled with the evidence of the girls themselves, disclosed no possible case for proceeding against this woman as a procuress. We come to the question of names. It is said that it was in order not to disclose names. There are no names. With the exception of the name Morris, there is no name signed to any one of these letters. There are names which appear, as I have already stated, in a diary kept by the woman and in a sort of ledger kept by her. In her ledger she has scores and hundreds of entries of sums of money paid, and against some few of these sums of money there is a name—in quite a few cases. That name is in the handwriting of the woman, and whether or not it represents the person it purports to represent it is absolutely impossible to say. The same is true of the names in the woman's diary. There are a number of names. Inasmuch as political capital was sought to be made out of this case, and charges were made that at the trial—although it was under my instructions proceedings were brought—I had suppressed names in order to conceal the fact that the names of some of my colleagues were included in the diary, I was able to reply that not a single name appeared in the diary or ledger, not only of any Member of the Government, but by good fortune and happy coincidence—[Interruption]—allow me to finish, because it is quite conceivable that two persons might have the same name—that not a single one of the 670 hon. Members of this House was included. I only make that statement in order to repudiate the shameless calumnies that a certain newspaper—

Mr. J. WARD

The "Globe" said it.

Mr. McKENNA

Which I will not name, but to which I referred was and is, as to-the major part of it, owned by two hon. Members of this House. [HON. MEMBERS "Name" and Interruption.] I wish to repudiate [HON. MEMBERS "Name"] An effort is now made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil to press me to disclose other names. Does the hon. Member persist in that pressure; in spite of the fact that not one of those names is in the handwriting of the writer of the letter, and that the bearer of every one of those names may be as innocent as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil himself. By disclosing them I might be bringing the grossest charge, and causing the greatest misery to perfectly innocent men? Does the hon. Member really still persist?

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

I do, Mr. Speaker, in the interests of the men who have been accused.

Mr. McKENNA

Every man, so far as I am concerned, may rest at ease that I would not disclose his name, unless I had better evidence that he was the person charged, than a mere entry in the handwriting of a brothel-keeper.

Mr. J. WARD

What does the,hon. Member for Wandsworth say on the subject? His paper first demanded the names.

Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I am a shareholder in the "Globe" newspaper. I have never been in the office of that paper. I know absolutely nothing as to what is written in that paper until I sometimes see it in the evening. I take no responsibility —{Interruption.]—of any sort or kind whatever for what appears in the paper. I have shares in the paper

Mr. JOHN DILLON

How many shares have you; it is a most disgraceful transaction?

Mr. WEDGWOOD

What about Marconis now?

Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL

I was asked to take shares in the paper with a view to preventing it being taken up by hon. Members on the side of the Government. I refused to become a director. I refused to have anything to do in any shape or kind with it otherwise, as I know absolutely nothing about journalism. I have nothing to do with the conduct of the paper. If I took any part in editing or writing the paper, I would accept full responsibility for whatever might appear.

Mr. McKENNA

I am sure the whole House will be glad to hear the statement of the hon. Member, which I entirely accept. I am only too pleased to know that no Member of this House could be responsible for the scurrilous stories. I assure the hon. Member that he has been quite successful in his efforts to prevent any Member of the Government having anything to do with that particular paper. With regard to the questions raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Keir Hardie) as to the release after four days of Mrs. Pethwick Lawrence, Lady Sybil Smith, and Miss Evelyn Sharp. I think we are at issue on a question of fact. I can assure the hon. Member that the fact that these ladies were not now militants was not known to the magistrate who tried the case. It. was communicated at my request to Mr. Muskett, who acted as solicitor for the prosecution. Mr. Muskett himself was also of opinion, and spontaneously of opinion, that that fact was not known to the magistrate, and that in consequence the sentence was too severe. Mr. Muskett saw the magistrate and reported to him this fact, and upon that representation, the magistrate himself reduced the sentence, I think quite reasonably and properly, and if the hon. Member wants any precedent for a similar exercise of what I regard as a principle of justice by the Home Office, I shall with due notice furnish him with abundance of precedents. It is an entire mistake to put it that special representations were made on their account. On the contrary they were treated as any other prisoners would be treated, in whose case we were told the magistrate was not fully apprised of the facts. He passed a sentence because he believed they had committed militant acts, and there is no doubt, but at one time one or all of them had been militants, but they had abandoned militant action for a considerable period, and upon that ground the sentence was reduced.

I now come to a far more difficult case that of Mr. Lansbury. I do not wish to follow my hon. Friend into the technicalities of the Statute of Edward III. 1 only say this as I understand the case, Mr. Lansbury was bound over not under that Statute, but he was bound over under the general powers of the magistrate under the common law to prevent a breach of the peace, and when he had reason to believe that a breach of the peace was about to be committed. I quite admit Mr. Lansbury ought not to be treated on a different footing, whatever his case may be. Speaking for myself, Mr. Lansbury was a man with whom I differed, but a man I held in the highest regard. I frequently had dealings with Mr. Lansbury, and I always found his slightest word could be accepted with complete confidence. He never went back on anything he said. He was brave, if I may say so, almost to foolishness; he was honest, enthusiastic, and extreme to the last degree. But when we come to a question of the exorcise of the prerogative of mercy, I do not think I should be justified in distinguishing between a case merely because I think well of one prisoner and less of another prisoner. I understood my hon. Friend, if I heard him correctly, to say that Mr. Lansbury has declared that he has no intention to break the law in. future. I have publicly stated in this House more than once, and I repeated it on several occasions, that any of these prisoners who will give me an assurance that they will not break the law in future shall have their cases immediately considered with a view: to advising the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. I would not stand upon a mere point of form. When dealing with a question of mercy I do not think we ought to squabble about the form of words. If it is Mr. Lansbury's intention not to break the law in future I should regard that as an assurance that he will not break it.

Mr. WEDGWOOD

Will the right hon. Gentleman take the words of the petition upon that

Mr. McKENNA

I have only seen this petition for a few minutes—there the statement is exceptional—if he will tell me he has no intention to break the law I should feel myself fully justified in advising the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. I hope that will be generally accepted on both sides of the House, because I am sure I speak for everybody when I say with regard to these prisoners, misguided as most of us believe them to be, we should all be only too glad if by the exercise of mercy an end could be put to a situation in which people are punished for doing a wrong from motives which do not usually lead to crime. I am sure I shall have the whole House with me in any exercise of the clemency of the Crown with regard to Mr. Lansbury, provided he will make the statement that he has no intention to break the law.

Sir A. MARKHAM

In writing?

Mr. McKENNA

I could certainly accept his word. One word upon what has been said about torturing prisoners under what is called the "Cat and Mouse" Act. There is no torture, and that is a gross and a most improper description of it. The Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health) Act can be put an end to to-morrow by the voluntary act of the prisoners themselves if they will take their food. If they do that the Act dies itself, and if, instead of talking about torture, the hon. Member who made that charge would use his influence with these women to persuade them to obey the law, and not be so foolish as to injure their health by refusing food and drink, he would be doing them a better service than coming down to this House misrepresenting the facts of the case. The hon. Member for Fife referred to the lamentable disaster at the Cadder mine. I may say that a Government inquiry will be held at once, and Sir Henry Cunynghame has been appointed to hold an inquiry into all the circumstances. Meanwhile, the divisional inspectors are inspecting the conditions at the mine. I know the hon. Member for North-West Lanark thinks that a judicial inquiry ought to be held because the conduct of the Home Office is in question, but I do not think he is quite right in that statement. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Lanark has taken a lively interest in the question of the provision of rescue appliances, and has elicited by question and answer all the facts of the case. It is common ground between us that some of the Scottish collery owners and the Home Office have been at issue as to what should be the proper appliances. The Home Office have done their best to induce the owners to supply self-contained apparatus, but, on the other hand, the owners considered that smoke helmets were sufficient. As a matter of fact, they have not provided the apparatus which the Home Office thought necessary, nor the smoke helmets which, according to their view, they thought were sufficient. Neither were provided. That undoubtedly was a breach of the Act of 1910, but we are in course of taking action on that point, and, although the matter has been brought to a head in consequence of this accident, it must not be supposed for a moment that the Home Office were not using every effort in their power in order to induce and, if necessary, ultimately to compel owners to comply with the Order.

Mr. PRINGLE

The facts as to the dispute are clear, but we really want to know who is responsible for the delay, and it seems to me that can only be determined by a judicial inquiry.

Mr. McKENNA

If the facts are as my hon. Friend represents them to be, there is no doubt the owners are responsible for the delay.

Sir A. MARKHAM

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Dr. Haldane, the greatest living physiologist, has condemned all these appliances as dangerous to the people wearing them I read Dr. Haldane's report only last week. I have adopted these appliances myself, and they have had to be scrapped. Why do not the Home Office do something in the matter?

Mr. McKENNA

I am going to appoint a Committee on that very point.

Sir A. MARKHAM

It is rather late in the day.

Mr. McKENNA

I will do my best to meet my hon. Friend's point. Dr. Haldane's statement is not quite as sweeping as my hon. Friend says. He distinguishes between different kinds of appliances.

Mr. ADAMSON

Does not that add point to the request for an expert inquiry into all the circumstances connected with this accident?

Mr. McKENNA

I agree, and I have already taken steps to appoint an expert inquiry. The only question now is as to the responsibility for the delay at this particular mine in carrying out the order. There has been a dispute as to whether a smoke helmet satisfies the Order or not. We have been urging the self-contained apparatus. Although the dispute existed, it did not justify the owners in doing nothing. I quite agree that if the Home Office were in every case the moment an Order is passed to bring an action against all the employers for not carrying it out, no doubt Orders would be more rapidly enforced, but they would be enforced at the expense of trade. Inasmuch as a very full inquiry into all the circumstances of the case is to be held, and inasmuch as there can be no dispute as to the fact that the owners were at fault, and not the Home Office, I hope that my hon. Friend will be satisfied with the statement I have made. With regard to the last point raised by my hon. Friend behind me, I will consult with the Prime Minister as to the proposal whch he made on the subject of an inquiry into venereal diseases, and I will report to him the result.

Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE

During the Debate last week upon the Colonial Office Vote the Colonial Secretary took exception to the nature and tone of certain questions which had been put to him (luring the last few months in regard to -the concessions he had made or was,arranging to make with Messrs. Lever Brothers. He said that with an unnecessary indiscretion he would answer his critics in advance. But the right hon. Gentleman was not so indiscreet as he -would have us believe, because no opportunity was given to me after his statement was made to reply to it before the Debate closed. I know he told the House that after he had made. his speech I went out and did not return until towards the end of the evening, but he seems to have forgotten that the Standing Committee on the National Insurance Act Amendment Bill was sitting upstairs at the moment, and having listened to what he had to say I continued my work on that Committee rather than stay and hear the discussion between himself and hon. Members on his own side With regard to the South African disturbances. During that Debate the right hon. Gentleman asked me if I could answer three specific questions, and it is for that reason I ask permission of the House to reply to them now.

The first question was: "Is it suggested that the concession made to Messrs. Lever is bad in itself, because it is detrimental to the natives or to the Colony?" My answer to that must necessarily- be qualified by this fact—that my information is based mainly on scanty in—formation I have been able to get from the right hon. Gentleman and from the Blue Book. But so far as I am concerned, from the information I have gleaned, I do think that the concession made to Messrs. Lever is bad, both as regards the natives and the Colony. As to the natives, the right hon. Gentleman no doubt admits it is his wish to look after their interests to the full, and he also said in the course of his speech that the palm-oil industry was of great importance, and he hoped it would largely remain in the hands and for the profit of the natives, but how can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile those expressions with the correspondence, which states that the natives are prohibited from using machinery, and if the Colonial Office allowed them to operate it in the assigned area it would destroy the whole effect of the concession? The right hon. Gentleman said last week, as regards mineral oil, he had kept steadily in view the exclusion, as far as possible, of the great combines, which might strangle production and inflate prices. But why has he not been equally careful with regard to vegetable oil? If the great. combines are injurious in one part of the Colonies, are they not equally injurious in the other? In handing over this large monopoly to a great firm like Messrs. Lever he is excluding small men.

The right hon. Gentleman the other day took exception to our referring to this concession as a monopoly. I would remind. him that over and over again in the correspondence the word "monopoly" is used by those writing on his behalf, and it is to be found in the letters which he himself has signed. I think the argument that this concession is not a monopoly because it does not give exclusive rights of extracting palm oil, but only rights as regards the use of the pericarp, is unsound, for surely any concession which gives exclusive rights to a firm over a part of a certain article must afford an enormous preference to that firm over the rest Take our own country here and assume for a moment that one particular firm is given exclusive rights of threshing wheat by machine over a large area and nobody else can use the straw at all or thresh unless by hand. Surely it would give that firm an enormous advantage over other firms which were not allowed to make use of the straw or of any machinery for threshing purposes! As far as the natives are concerned, I contend that this monopoly leaves it entirely in the hands. of Messrs. Lever Brothers to fix their own prices. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, if the concession is really so admirable and so great an advantage, why he himself wrote, on 24th February, 1911, in these terms to Lever Brothers? In view, however, of the fact that the facilities which you desire are so unusual in character, and that, even if they were granted only in respect of a very few machines, so large a proportion of the palm-bearing area of the Protectorate would he affected, Mr. Harcourt regrets that he is unable to meet your wishes except to a limited extent. If, however, you so wish, Mr. Harcourt would be prepared to authorise the Governor to grant you the desired facilities for a period of twenty years in respect of one area of five miles radius. There the right hon. Gentleman himself admits that it would be extremely injurious to grant more than one area of five miles radius. We find that in the following year the Colonial Office write to Messrs. Lever Brothers as follows:— I am to inform yon that Mr. Harcourt is prepared to approve the grant of the selected area at a rent of £100 per annum. I am, however, to observe that the area, instead of being, as intended, a roughly circular area twenty miles in diameter, is a rectangle, eleven and a-quarter miles by twenty-eight miles, an alteration which goes far beyond the adjustment of details contemplated in the letter from this Department of the 23rd December. No doubt the shape of the area has been adjusted to the actual extent of the palm-belt, and, in this way. more than twice as much palm-bearing land has been secured in comparison with what would be included in a twenty-mile circle, however described. The right hon. Gentleman clearly said in one letter that it would be undesirable to grant an area of more than five miles radius, yet he finally agrees to grant twice as much as would be included in a twenty-mile circle, however described. As regards the natives, I contend I have proved from his own words that this is not a desirable concession. As regards the Colonies, I have only to quote the words of the Governor himself. I imagine the right hon. Gentleman will not dispute that the Governor of a Colony ought to know something about it. The Governor writes:— while I fully recognise the great impetus which the enterprise of a firm of the standing of Messrs. Lever Brothers would, no doubt give to the palm-oil industry while I earnestly desire to see that industry developed in order that the agricultural prosperity of the Colony should nut be so dependent on cocoa as it is at present, and while I admit that if the economic methods of obtaining oil, which Messrs. Lever Brothers propose to introduce, were adopted elsewhere, the local method of preparation of palm oil would probably become unremunerative, I view with some apprehension, as a matter of principle, the introduction of an Ordinance which in effect enables the Government to grant a monopoly, and this view has been endorsed by the members of my Executive Council. The reply of the right hon. Gentleman to that was to send out a draft Ordinance, which he says is to be passed, and which gives this monopoly. The result is that even after the draft Ordinance which he passed was considerably amended, when it was put to the Legislative Council out there it was carried only by one vote, and that the vote of an official member of the Council. Therefore, so far as the Colony is concerned, it may be assumed that those out there do not think this concession has been made for their benefit. As regards the traders in the district, we may take as a fair sample of their feelings what was said by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, which writes— The proposed concession, if completed, would create. a virtual monopoly over a considerable area. Its object is to prevent the installation of oil-crushing machinery by any other firm; this, notwithstanding the fact that mechanical appliances are constantly developing arid improvements made which may render the present methods and processes hopelessly out of date. Thus the assigned district could not avail itself of later improvements, and the progress of the Colony might be seriously handicapped. This instead of being: in economic advantage, would prove a positive drawback. … It is manifestly unfair that private trailers. should have it in their power to interfere with the immemorial rights of the native. … The President is strongly of opinion that Messrs. Lever should be prepared to face the risks of competition that Inv be involved in starting a new branch of business, as other firms are now obliged to do in West Africa and elsewhere. As regards the second question, it was this: "Is the concession proper in itself, but improper to Messrs. Lever, because in the opinion and knowledge of hon. Members opposite, Messrs. Lever are by experience a firm who are not to be trusted with the treatment of subject races?" Not one question was nut from this side suggesting that Messrs. Lever did not treat the natives or those under them fairly. I make no observation of that sort. Indeed, the only complaint of the right hon. Gentleman himself the other day was that the questions suggested undue advantage to a particular firm, and as regards that I think the information we have shows that there was an undue advantage given.

Messrs, Lever, instead of sending out in the ordinary way and approaching the Governor, came here while Sir William Lever was a Member of the House and made his arrangements behind the Speaker's chair with the Colonial Secretary at that time. That, I think, was undesirable, at any rate. He then sent out a Mr. Alldridge, a former Government official in that very Colony, to make his arrangements. That is a thing which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not approve of now. The right hon. Gentleman said soap boilers were tumbling over one another to acquire the raw material. If that was the case, why was this conces- sion given to Messrs. Lever only, because, after all, the Colonial Office wrote both in November and December, 1911; that there were other applicants for similar concessions whose claims must be considered at the same time? Were those claims considered, and, if so, why do they not appear in the Blue Book which purports to give the whole correspondence on this subject? And who were the others? There is no proof in the Blue Book that any other claims were considered. I saw a letter in the papers the day the Colonial Vote came on from a Colonel Patterson, who says clearly that he applied for a grant out there in November, 1911, and was told by the Governor that no monopoly was to be granted at all, and yet, in that very month, monopolies were being granted by the Colonial Secretary to,Sir William Lever.

The third question was: "Is it contended that a commercial firm making a new proposal which is regarded by the Colonial Office as of service to the Colony is to be deprived of facilities because its principal was once a Member of Parliament and sat on this side of the House?" That is rather a foolish question, because there was no suggestion from this side of the House that that was so. But I do not think Secretaries of State can be too careful nowadays in granting privileges to Members of Parliament, over anyone else, without due consideration, and at the time these negotiations were started Sir William Lever was a Member of the House, and he should have gone in the ordinary way out to the Colony to make his arrangements as other people were asked to do. I think it is quite clear, moreover, that Messrs. Lever were somewhat greedy, because they put in three applications in the three different Colonies, and before they were granted they put in more in their own name and then put in more in the name of McIver and Company, who were associated with them, so that they wanted to get a monopoly of the whole area as far as we can see. I am asked whether I think a new proposal should be stopped because a Member of Parliament is interested in it. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to show me in the correspondence what proof there is that this was a new proposal. He has told us that the palm-oil industry in these Colonies has increased its exports from £2,400,000 to £5,300,00 in the last few years, and he knows perfectly well that the palm-oil industry is fully well developed there.

The only new proposal was the crushing of the pericarp. What was there in the correspondence or in the Ordinance or the concessions given to Sir William Lever to show that there was anything new or that any particular machinery should be used I Did the right hon. Gentleman appoint any experts to inquire whether the machinery was new? There is no proof that the machinery was a novelty. After all, if they had merely sonic new machinery it ought to have been allowed to take its protection in the ordinary way by patents, and no monoply should have been given. I contend that this concession, for which they were only paying £100 a year, must have been of great value if Messrs. Lever considered it necessary to spend millions in its development, as Sir William Lever stated he would do if necessary. I say that this concession was given as protection not against foreigners, but against natives. I know that the whole burden of the right hon. Gentleman's argument is that since he has been at the Colonial Office he has limited these concessions, and that now he is only giving a concession for the treatment of the pericarp of the nut. As to the Blue Book which the right hon. Gentleman published, I wish to know why the whole of the correspondence was not included. I think it is a dangerous thing to enter upon a practice of publishing Blue Books which purport to give the complete correspondence from which most important letters and documents are omitted. I will point out a most important omission. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not give an exclusive right, but merely a right to extract oil from the pericarp. Last week I was able to extract from the Colonial Secretary a letter which was written on 11th October last to Messrs. Lever Brothers' solicitors stating that he was prepared to amend the draft Ordinance so as to confer an exclusive right to erect power mills and machinery for the extraction of oil from the palm fruit. There was nothing about the pericarp or any limitations in that letter. Why is no mention of that. letter made in the Blue Book?

I say that is a most material part of the correspondence which ought not to have been omitted from the Blue Book. I could give other instances to show that the Blue Book was misleading, and some explanation is needed from the right. hon. Gentleman. One thing which appears to be quite clear is that the right hon. Gentle- man had an interview with Sir William Lever in November, 1912, and that eventually he made up his mind to grant the whole concession. He wrote to the Governor that he had granted Messrs. Lever Brothers the whole concession. He also wrote to Messrs. Lever Brothers' solicitors: "I will give them the whole concession." Yet nothing of this appears in the Blue Book, but we find it stated that only a limited concession will be given. What is the reason for giving a limited concession? Not for the benefit of the natives, but apparently because some other friends of the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that the concession would be injurious to them. We find that Messrs. Brunner, Mond and Company, under the alias of Apol and Company, write a few days after exclusive rights have been promised to Levers, saying that they were acquiring rights from the natives which could be of no use to them if anybody under the Palm. Oil Ordinance could prevent them from working the fruit on the areas of the leases. Which way is the right hon. Gentleman going to take this? If his argument is that the palm-oil concession to Messrs. Lever did no harm to the natives,why did he admit it would be harmful to Messrs. Brunner, Mond where they acquired the rights of the natives and say that he would exclude the districts acquired by them, and then write to the Governor to exclude those districts? The right hon. Gentleman was in the position of the man with two lovers— How happy could I be with either Were t'other dear charmer away. He wanted to do something for Messrs. Lever and then when Messrs. Brunner, Mond turned up he had to cut down tip.) concession. That is the virtue that he is claiming now—that he is giving a. limited concession. But it is not for the benefit of the native. He found himself in a difficulty and at the last moment repented after he had promised to give the whole concession and so edited the Blue Book that his change of policy did not appear.

Mr. T. E. HARVEY

Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, I wish to ask a few moments' consideration for two urgent matters. The first is the need for more adequate medical service in Jamaica, especially with regard to the supply of cottage hospitals. Only within the last three weeks there has appeared a letter in one of our weekly papers from a member of the Legislative Council of Jamaica pointing out that 4,000 patients in Kingston alone have been unable to obtain admission to hospital. When that takes place in the capital, in up-country districts the need is far more acute, and the conditions urgently call for a remedy. Patients suffering acutely have to be brought long distances, and when they arrive at the hospital the doors have to be closed against them simply because there are not beds enough. There is one case of a hospital equipped with beds and appliances which cannot be opened because the Government has not enough money for the nurses. The reason for this state of affairs is found in the unfortunate condition of the finances of the island at the present moment, but public health should be put first, and a matter like this should be attended to even before such an important matter as the roads system. The Creoles have to give place to a comparatively small number of coolies who by their indentures have first claim on the hospital accommodation. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to find some remedy for this condition of affairs.

The other matter to which I would refer is the recent judgment of the High Court of British East Africa with regard to the action brought by the Masai tribe against the Attorney-General of British East Africa and others. I would remind the House that up to about ten years ago the Masai occupied the valuable Rift valley in British East Africa. In 1904 they were removed from that possession of theirs and -were given two territories, the northern reserve in Laikipia being one; and one of the conditions of their removal was that the land should be inalienably theirs. The most solemn engagement was entered into by His Majesty's representative with the Masai on that point. In 1911 that agreement was given up and another agreement was made with the representatives of the Masai, and the matter was debated in Parliament then, and my right hon. Friend expressed the opinion that the Masai had unanimously, even gladly, come to a decision to give up the northern reserve in exchange for this new enlarged southern reserve, and he was convinced that it was for their good. Since then the course of events has proved that that action of theirs was neither unanimous nor entirely voluntary.

It has taken two years to move the Masai from the northern reserve to the new extended reserve, and the removal has been accompanied by constant difficulties and by great loss of life to their cattle, their one source of livelihood. Hundreds of thousands of sheep and cattle have perished during the removal, and, after the removal, on the badly watered land to which the Masai have gone. Since then a number of young Masai have brought this action to test the legality of the transfer signed by the chiefs, who had no right to sign it. The judgment to which I refer is of vital importance to these people, and it is important that some action should be taken by the Colonial Secretary in consequence of it. The judgment is simply this, that the Masai are foreigners, that this matter is not a legal agreement made between subjects of the King and representatives of the Secretary for the Colonies; but it is in the nature of a treaty, and therefore it is not possible for the Court to enter into a question of right or wrong. The whole thing is summed up in the conclusion of the judges:— The Crown. acting through its Commissioners first made one treaty with the Masai, and subsequently aiding through the Governor. modified that Treaty by another, and T cannot do better; than adopt with the present case the concluding words of Lord Kingsdown in giving judgment in the Privy Council in the case of the Secretary of State for India v. K. B. Sahaba (XIII Moore 22). It may have been just or unjust, politic or impolitic. beneficial or injurious. taken as a whole, to those whose interests are affected. These are considerations into which this Court cannot enter. ft is sufficient to say that even if a wrong had been clone, it is a wrong for which no Municipal Court of Justice can afford a remedy. It is quite clear in the view of the Court that a wrong has been done, but the Court says that it cannot apply a remedy. I appeal to the Secretary for the Colonies to see that these men are not put outside the law in this way. The law says that they are not British citizens, and that they are foreigners. We know that, in fact, they are under the protection of the Crown, and surely it is the duty of Parliament to see that they have some opportunity of bringing their grievance before some Court, if not a Court of Law, a Court of Equity ! I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, if that judgment is maintained, to see, if the law is not open to them, that some tribunal is set up to which they may bring their case to be heard. The whole case for the transfer was that it rested on its being the voluntary act of the tribe, and that is now contested by the members of the tribe. They say that they did not voluntarily enter into this transfer, and, therefore, I think it only right that they should have an opportunity of bringing before some commission or other body the whole of the facts of the case, with a view to a fair adjustment. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider their appeal, not in the spirit of technical legality, but in the spirit of equity, which is of far greater consequence even than the letter of the law.

12.0 M.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt)

I will endeavour to keep the House as short a time as possible in answer to the rather wide field covered by the two hon. Members who have just spoken. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gwynne)and his friends have been in labour over the matter of the West African concessions for a long time. We are now able to see, when at last the labour has come to an end, how absurd is the mouse which has been produced. The charges made were rather discounted by the observations made on the Colonial Office Vote by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that he had read the correspondence, and saw nothing objectionable.

Mr. GWYNNE

Will the right hon. Gentleman quote exactly?

Mr. HARCOURT

The right hon. Gentleman said:— I did look over the correspondence and, without expressing any opinion which hinds anyone else, I saw nothing in it objectionable. So far as I can judge it was an honest effort to develop the Colony and in the best interests of the Colony.

Mr. GWYNNE

Will the right hon. Gentleman read the beginning of the sentence?

Mr. HARCOURT

It is— I do not profess to have examined that closely, but I did look over the correspondence. I believe, indeed, he was well justified in coming to that conclusion. I have stated the whole of the circumstances which led up to this matter on the Colonial Office Vote. Messrs. Lever's so-called concession should not be called a concession, but facilities, very different from ordinary concessions. There was given to Messrs. Lever no grant of any land whatever, or palm trees, or any rights over the natives, or any exclusive ruling powers over them, as was at one time suggested. The natives are absolutely free to continue their present methods of oil extraction or to use any of their present machines or any other new machines for crushing the nut or cracking the kernel. The only facility given to Messrs. Lever is that no one for twenty-one years shall put down their special depericarping machinery within a circle of a ten miles radius. The hon. Member suggested, and I think he took his suggestion from a Chamber of Commerce, that nut-crushing machines were not permitted. That is not the fact.. No nut-crushing or oil-pressing machines are prohibited in any way

Mr. GWYNNE

Does the right hon. Gentleman dispute the letter he wrote saying he was granting the exclusive right and that that was withdrawn without any explanation?

Mr. HARCOURT

I was talking of what was the actual lease given to them. It is no use discussing as if they were in the agreement suggestions that were made earlier in this transaction, and either withdrawn or cancelled. What surely is worth discussing, if it is worth discussing at all, is what has been done, and not what they wished at one time or what at one time I was weak enough to believe should be given. The fact was that there had been great fear of competition from the Cameroons and the Congo with our own Crown Colonies. It is stated I believe that probably Messrs. Lever have acquired three thousand square miles in the Congo alone, and under conditions much easier than in our Colonies, and I did not see why we should not have an arrangement which gave a new market to our natives for their produce if they wished to avail themselves of it, and which brings improved machinery into our Crown Colonies as well as into the Congo.

The natives may continue to sell the fruit, kernel, or oil to anybody. The hon. Member spoke of the alteration which was made to a rectangular area instead of a circular, but it is not true that the rectangle contained double the area of land, because I think that the area. of the land was about the same, but it was, I expect, true to say that it contained more palm trees. The whole of the rearrangement of the area was made by Messrs. Lever's agent and the Governor out there without any directions from me and without any knowledge on my part. It was really a matter of convenience for the Colony and Messrs. Lever. But in consequence of my realisation that it would include more palm trees I told Messrs. Lever, in a letter which the hon. Member did not think it, worth while to quote, that I should not give them the other area in the Sierra Leone Protectorate for which they were applying. The hon. Member mentioned a letter in the "Morning Post" from Colonel Patterson, in which he complained that he had been refused a concession in Sierra Leone. That concession was never sent home for my consideration, but was, no doubt, refused off-hand by the Governor of the Colony, probably because it asked for a large monopoly over palm trees which were the property and product of the natives.

Mr. GWYNNE

Colonel Patterson was told that it was no use making application because no concessions would be granted, but at the same time they were being granted to Messrs. Lever.

Mr. HARCOURT

No monopoly over palm trees or fruit has been granted. The hon. Member went on to discuss the opinion of members of the Legislative Council of the Gold Coast on the subject. The Colonial Secretary, on the Second Reading of the Palm Oil Bill, said that he hoped that by the establishment of such machinery perennial markets within palm- bearing areas would be afforded to natives, who would not have to travel so far afield as at present to sell their produce:— The Bill does not restrict or interfere in any way with existing native rights with respect to local product. Cultivators of the soil will be lice to sell when and where they like. No interest, right, or property in land or products of soil is taken. Not an acre of land can change hands under the Bill. If natives wish not to sell palm fruits to Messrs. Lever they need not do so if they wish to revert to previous primitive methods there is nothing to prevent their doing so. Now, as to the objection of the unofficial members. On the Second Reading three out of four voted against the Bill, but on points which were misunderstood or which have since been amended, such as the railway monopoly, which was not given, or the idea that the consent of the tribal authorities of the Colony would not be obtained. That is now a definite condition of the grant, and I always assumed that it would be. Mr. Giles Hunt, one of the leading unofficial members, last September, wrote to the "Times" a strong letter against the Lever concession, but. on the Second Reading he said in the Legislature: I desire to withdraw what 1 wrote to the Times, and repeat that I think there is every possibility of a large industry being established, and I see nothing objectionable in the experiment. Rules are now being made under the Ordinance by the Governor, with the approval of the Legislative Council. That was especially pressed for by the unofficial members; it was referred by the Governor to me, and I agreed to this provision, which I believe largely satisfied unofficial feeling. On the Third Reading of this Bill, two unofficial members absented themselves altogether from the debate. Two voted against it, one without stating any reason, and the other in spite of the fact that his previous objections had been met by my acceptance of his suggested amendments. The consent of the tribal authorities had been obtained. The Governor of the Gold Coast on the Third Reading said that the Bill introduced in its final and amended form was no longer open to the criticism to which it had been subjected. No rights in property could be alienated under it. Its adoption in his opinion was desirable in the interests of the palm-oil industry. The Governor, in forwarding the Ordinance to me, said that he trusted that it would not be disallowed. The hon. Member seemed to think there was no anxiety about the palm-oil industry on the Gold Coast, but the figures which I have quoted were nearly all concerned with Nigeria. The Colonial Secretary of the Gold Coast said in Committee that within the last decade the export of palm oil from the Gold Coast had decreased in quantity by a million gallons and in value by £100,000. Mr. Giles Hunt, the same unofficial member, admitted that 90 per cent. of the crops were allowed to rot on the ground because they could not be got to the coast. The Colonial Secretary said that "the natives were a people whose methods of cultivation were most crude, most primitive, and wasteful of all known lands, and that they required the example of better methods afforded by private enterprise." He further said "that the Colony could not look to its present traders for improvement of products and methods." He said "that the Governor of the Gold Coast would be careless of the best interests of its subjects if he allowed the indigenous industry to decay by not taking boldly the only measures which appeared possible for its resuscitation. A large proportion of the potential yield of the palm was wasted and was brought to market imperfectly prepared."

I put it to the House that you cannot get commercial enterprise without offering sonic trading advantages If something of this sort is not done the Gold Coast will find itself left in the mercantile backwater to the danger of the natives. One other point the hon. Member made was very unfair to me in relation to the case of Messrs. Apol. I heard of this concession on the Gold Coast quite accidentally. It was a concession not by Government, not by me, but by the natives—from the chiefs. It is not the practice to send home these concessions. My consent is not required. These concessions were to be validated by a local Court set up for the purpose. I heard of this accidentally from a friend. I obtained particulars of the concession, which had not yet come before the Court. I found that it contained provisions for the removal of villages, the right to collect palm fruit, to destroy trees, the use of all water, to divert streams; the native right to till farms was to continue only so far as it did not interrupt the operations of the lessees. The natives were to be deprived by this concession altogether of the right of taking palm fruit.

I thought that these were outrageous conditions. The moment I had read them I telegraphed to the Governor to pass an Ordinance immediately which would prevent the Court validating any concessions of the right to collect palm fruit to the exclusion of the natives, or to remove the natives from the lands granted. Messrs. Apol objected to the Ordinance, and asked for an interview. They asked, "What did the Ordinance mean?" They said it would invalidate the concessions that they had obtained. I replied that that precisely was the object of it: that was why I sent it out. They said that they might go back to the chiefs and negotiate again, but that I might again deprive them of their concessions. They asked if I would draft an approved concession. I replied that I would do no such thing: they ought to know what were the points objected to. But if they chose to draw up a further concession, and met the points, and let me see it, if I passed it then they could send it out if they liked. The chiefs would probably accept it because it would be more favourable to them. The new form was submitted, and it omitted all these points about the removal of the villages, the power to make regulations for the sanitation of villages; and the power of taking water was specially reserved to the natives for domestic purposes. The restriction of the native rights to collect palm fruit was also omitted. All the objectionable provisions were gone. I said I would not validate that concession in advance, but I would not put any obstacle in the way of its validation, but Messrs. Apol must go to the local Court and I warned them that the local Government would appear against them if they chose. It is also provided that concessions under this Ordinance must be with the consent of the tribal authorities or owners.

Mr. WEDGWOOD

Would the right. hon. Gentleman say whether there is anything to preserve the rights of the land for cultivation to the natives?

Mr. HARCOURT

Yes; the whole thing was altered at my suggestion.

Mr. GWYNNE

I only said that Messrs. Apol did correspond with the right hon. Gentleman, and he wrote back and said the Palm Oil Ordinance should not have effect in their district, and I ask if the Palm Oil Ordinance should not have effect, why should it affect native rights?

Mr. HARCOURT

. I know exactly why the hon. Gentleman brought in the name of Apol. It was because he wanted to drag in the name of Messrs. Brunner, Mond and Company. In my opinion, European capital and enterprise is of advantage to the natives as well as to Europeans. It creates new markets, as I am convinced will be the case in the so-called Lever concession. It teaches new methods of agriculture to the natives and introduces new crops, such as the cocoa industry. If the hon. Member is really interested I refer him to the report of Mr. Belfield's on land tenure on the West Coast, published as Command Paper number 6,278, for his information upon this matter. But this I feel bound to say, that where there is a conflict of interest between the natives and European concessionaires the interests of the natives, so far as I can make it so, shall prevail. The great difficulty at the present time is to protect the chiefs and people against themselves in making improvident concessions for very small and transient gain, and I do not want, if I can help it, to see a landless people on the West Coast of Africa, and that is indeed the object with which the Concessions Court is set up. I hope I have dealt. fully with that. In reply to my hon. Friend behind me, with regard to doctors in Jamaica, I can only tell him that in 1910 Sir Sydney Olivier stated that the allotment of beds in the hospitals was as liberal as was called for, having regard to financial considerations and facilities for the treatment of outpatients. With regard to the complaint of the want of nurses, I will make inquiries to see if nurses can be provided. There are twenty-one hospitals and 1,500 beds. The cost of medical assistance, hospitals, and asylums in 1908 was £54,000; it was raised in 1912–13 to £74,000, and it is estimated that in the current year it will be £79,000. I think that is a very liberal proportion out of a revenue from the whole island of £1,000,000 sterling, and especially in a year when the island has suffered so severely from hurricane losses. I now come for a moment to Masai. I think it is necessary and advisable that there should be only one reserve and not two divided ones. I was convinced by the inquiries I made in 1911 that the tribe and the chiefs were willing and wished for a junction of the two reserves. A formal agreement was drawn up and signed by the chiefs Segi Legabishu and Ugaroya and the regents who represented the Northern Masai. The first move was made in the summer of 1911 and it was a failure. Undoubtedly it was mismanaged and too many were moved at once. The grass was eaten up by the first comers, the weather was bad and they suffered a great deal and many of them were allowed to return to the northern reserve. I should like, however, to state that the reports as to the losses of life and stock have been very greatly exaggerated. I had the ground inspected very shortly afterwards and very few bones were found—only one human skeleton—which shows that the loss of life could not have been very great, because the Masai never bury their dead.

A new move was made last winter and it was conducted with very great care. It was a complete success and was finally completed on the 10th of April. They took 462 warriors, 1,820 other males, 4,031 women, and 3,751 Children, making a total in all of 10,064. They had 200,000 cattle and 1,500,000 sheep. The problem set us by the pax Britannica is a very difficult one, because our government of the East Africa Protectorate has decreased both the stock and human diseases, and it has led to a constant increase in the tribe and flocks. The Masai are not labourers or dealers in stock. They do not eat their flocks but board them. They drink the blood from living animals but they never sell them. Therefore as inhabitants they are useless to their neighbours or themselves, and they present a problem of human development of the utmost difficulty. But admitting that the junction of the two reserves was necessary because more space was wanted, it was impossible to extend the northern reserve, which was entirely surrounded by a European settlement. The old northern reserve amounts to 3,052,800 acres and the old southern reserve to 2,752.000 acres, making a total of 5,804,800 acres for the two reserves. But the new southern reserve, east, is 1,984,000 acres, and west 3,584,000 acres, and the Garden of Eden 870,000 acres, making a new southern reserve of 6,444,000 acres, and this is given in exchange for the old northern reserve, which was 3,000,000 acres. Therefore the new southern reserve is more than double the old northern reserve for which it is substituted.

Mr. T. E. HARVEY

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind what was written by Commissioner Jackson in 1904, when these reserves were first contemplated: "No sane European would accept a free gift of 500,000 acres in such a place. Why, then, try to force such a place on the Masai?"

Mr. HARCOURT

Since then European settlers have occupied the land and we are told that it is called "the Garden of Eden"—

Mr. T. E. HARVEY

In irony.

Mr. HARCOURT

No, not in irony. The total southern reserve, old and new, is now 9,200,000 acres, and the total of the two old reserves were only 5,800,000 acres. The quality of the land is as good as, if not better than, the old. The water is sufficient; and dams are being made to provide against times of drought. There is the Tetse fly glossina in both the northern and southern reserves, but I am informed that it is only in small districts in the new

southern reserve. It is an unavoidable evil. The injunction against the move, about which my hon. Friend has spoken, was obtained two days after the move had been completed. The movement had been in progress many months before the action was commenced. It is quite true the Court decided that they had no jurisdiction, because it was an act of State, but I understand that it is possible the matter may be made the subject of an appeal to the Privy Council, and, therefore, I must treat it as sub judice. There has been no disposal of Laikipia lands in the northern reserve, but we must accommodate the settlers that are being displaced from the new southern reserve, and the claims of settlers removed from Laikipia when first. made a reserve must also be considered. I have exercised throughout in this. matter the greatest care to satisfy myself that the move is to the advantage of the tribe and that everything is done with their free consent. The chiefs were sent from the northern reserve to inspect the southern reserve, and they expressed their satisfaction with it. The Governor, Mr. Belfield, visited the Masai there on the spot, and he was satisfied that they were content. I am glad to say that he is at this moment making a tour amongst them throughout the whole of the southern reserve. You cannot reverse constantly big policies every time one or two natives change their minds, possibly at the instigation of some interested parties, but I believe that these new arrangements will tend to the happiness and prosperity of this tribe, and the next problem is to try and make them less savage, and their customs and morals more suited to modern ideas of native development, organisation and progress.

Colonel CRAIG

rose 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, 159; Noes, 37.

Division No. 276.]	AYES.	[12.30 a.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)	Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Burns, Rt. Hon. John
Acland, Francis Dyke	Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)	Carr-Gomm, H. W.
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)	Boland, John Pius	Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)
Arnold, Sydney	Booth. Frederick Handel	Chancellor, Henry George
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)	Bowerman, Charles W.	Clan[...]cy, John Joseph
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)	Brady, Patrick Joseph	Clough, William
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)	Burke, E. Haviland-	Condon, Thomas Joseph
Cory, Sir Clifford John	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Cotton, William Francis	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	O'Doherty, Philip
Crumley, Patrick	Hudson, Walter	O'Dowd, John
Cullinan, John	Hughes, Spencer Leigh	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)	John, Edward Thomas	O'Malley, William
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
De Forest, Baron	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	O'Shee, James John
Delany, William	Jowett, Frederick William	O'Sullivan, Timothy
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas	Joyce, Michael	Palmer, Godfrey Mark
Devlin, Joseph	Keating, Matthew	Parker, James (Halifax)
Dillon, John	Kelly, Edward	Parry, Thomas H.
Doris, William	Kilbride, Denis	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Duffy, William J.	King, Joseph	Raffan, Peter Wilson
Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)	Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	Reddy, Michael
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)	Lardner. James C. R.	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Essex, Sir Richard Walter	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)	Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Falconer, James	Leach, Charles	Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson	Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Ffrench. Peter	London, Thomas	Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Field, William	Lyell, Charles Henry	Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Lynch, Arthur Alfred	Robinson, Sidney
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd	Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)	Royds, Edmund
Gill, Alfred Henry	Maclean, Donald	Scanlan, Thomas
Gladstone, W. G. C.	Macnamara. Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.	Sheehy, David
Goldstone, Frank	MacNeill. J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Greig, Colonel J. W.	Macpherson, James Ian	Smyth. Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Griffith, Ellis Jones	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	M'Callum, Sir John M.	Sutton, John E.
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	McGhee, Richard	Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)
Hackett, John	Markham, Sir Arthur Basil	Tennant, Harold John
Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)	Marshall, Arthur Harold	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Ra[...]ssendale)	Mas[...]terman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.	Toulmin. Sir George
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Meagher, Michael	Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)	Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.
Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)	Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)	Webb, H.
Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)	Molloy, Michael	Wheler, Granville, C. H.
Hayden, John Patrick	Money, L. G. Chiozza	White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Hayward, Evan	Morgan, George Hay	White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)
Hazleton Richard	Mount, William Arthur	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Hemmerde, Edward George	Muldoon, John	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Nolan, Joseph	Wood, Rt Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
Henry. Sir Charles	Norton, Captain Cecil W.
Higham, John Sharp	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
NOES.
Adamson, William	Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)	Sanders, Robert Arthur
Baird, John Lawrence	Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)	Scott. A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Boyton. James	Hardie, J. Keir	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Bryce, J. Annan	Henderson, Major H. (Berks. Abingdon)	Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)
Cassel, Felix	Hunt, Rowland	Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)
Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.	Munro, Robert	Thynne, Lord Alexander
Clive, Captain Percy Archer	Munro-Ferguson. Rt. Hon. R. C.	Waring, Walter
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott	Neilson, Francis	Watt, Henry Anderson
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.	Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.	Wolmer, Viscount
Gilmour, Captain John	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Goldsmith, Frank	Ronaldshay, Earl of	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. James Hogge and Mr. Pringle.
Grant, James Augustus	Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)
Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Wednesday).—[Mr. Gulland.]